Effeminate Priests

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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

Habit.

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?

Not a new class of folks at all. If anything, the distinction I’m making is this–people who behave socially in ways we like, and people who behave socially in ways we don’t like. The difference between one group and the other is subjective, though cultural conditioning does play its part. To the extent to which external non-sinful behavior is militated against in any way shape form or fashion as if it were an affront to the gospel, I would label it prejudice. It displays an alarming conflation of custom with moral law.

Because it is an aberration display. Period.

In what way is it aberrent? Because you don’t like it? Because it doesn’t mesh with Western (Anglo-American) social behavioral norms which moreover are not objective truths but culturally relative concepts?

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

Not so–a priest secure in his masculinity but who has a mannerism or two that you think is effeminate has a lot to worry about, not least of which this nagging question: “Is the Gospel really that impotent such that a mannerism will prevent my congregation from hearing it? And is the hearing of congregation that stunted and selective?”

I think you are confusing inward disposition with outward display and reasoning that given a certain set of reasonable psychological givens, a certain corollary set of behaviors will necessarily arise. This is not necessarily the case and speaks of a certain behavioral determinism which is contrary to free will. Moreove, it is not necessarily true that all people will share or value the same set of psychological givens even within the same culture. And that does not, for all that, make them aberrent.

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.

I maintain that this is mere conjecture, and unless you can demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct in each individual case of an effeminate priest, that this opinion you hold should be kept privately because it represents an embarassment to what I will assume is otherwise good judgment.

Moreover, the “common” person in the pew is called to be anything but common. We are called to be nothing less than the body of Jesus Christ in the world. The old man is common. The new man is Christ.

I am simp[ly pointing out the limitations of overly effeminate priests.

I am unconvinced that this is either necessary or useful, particularly if it is the result of an act of favoritism (which St. James condemns).

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.

You made a similar point, to which I responded above.

A shared cultural system may allow us to see where someone is not fitting into the culture or some aspect of it. But charity allows us to value the person over the system.

(CONTINUED…)
[/quote]

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Where do you think that one’s masculinity and femininity derive from?

Over time and given the vicissitudes of history, geography, economy, etc., a culture makes assumptions regarding the social possibilities and capabilites of gender. Behaviors are circumscribed, proscribed, prescribed, suggested, demanded. But this is no indication of a universal law. In Africa, the Massai men famously wear make-up and engage in what to the West appears to be overly effeminate behavior in order to win a wife. But in the Massai culture, this behavior is viewed as enhancing the man’s beauty and making them more irresistable to a prospective fiancee–it is the business of the man, hence, it is masculine behavior. In the West, the same behavior would be scorned by many. So where does the Massai man’s masculinity derive? From a different set of cultural assumptions than yours. That’s all.

I’ve a feeling that a lot of the paranoia around this topic revolves not so much around the masculine and the feminine, but around a sense that our culture is being invaded or invalidated by differing sets of cultural values that we do not particularly like. (One thinks of the Greeks and their aversion to the behaviors and fashions of the notoriously “effeminate” Persians.) I imagine this fear is very productive of anxiety, liable to make one see threats from all sorts of places where no threat exists, and inclining one to elevate one’s norms to the level of moral law or imperative in order to preserve or enshrine them. This, however is the paradox: cultural rigidity spells disaster to the culture, but a failure to defend certain cultural boundaries often leads to dissipation and death, too. What to do? Is there not some sort of balance to be achieved?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[dapper]

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.

Distract whom? You? “Mixed signals” are only mixed through the ears of the one that hears them. You want to see and hear the mixed signals. By reducing a priest to their effeminacy, you are filtering out qualities and the standard of which a priest should be judged.

 

[LittleDeb]

Distract whom? You? “Mixed signals” are only mixed through the ears of the one that hears them. You want to see and hear the mixed signals. By reducing a priest to their effeminacy, you are filtering out qualities and the standard of which a priest should be judged.

Actually I thought you might respond to that part. My post had very little to do with what I want, but it seems that it affected what you perceived about me. I wasn’t affected by a priest who others were. He was ministering to engaged couples on a retreat. The retreatants were bothered by his effeminate qualities. I saw that he was not giving them a good example of leadership.

I am personally not bothered because of a very diverse background. I have not struggled with “filters.” Due to my theatre background I am quite familiar with mannerisms and affectations. Many male co-actors are homosexual and are quite convincing in roles of romantic leading men. This isn’t about their sexual orientation.

My point in my post was that mannerisms are not the definition of effeminate. It might be a clue to it, or it might not. The point is effeminate priests are not a good example of what the definition of masculinity is. Their mannerisms are just that, mannerisms. If it really were about “a swish, or a lilt, or a limp wrist,” those things can be overcome through simple theatrical training. Effeminate is a deeper struggle. It is a struggle at their very core to embrace and live a masculine nature.

I am sorry that your perception is that of judgement and filters. Please read Peter Kreeft’s work on innate sexual symbolism. It might help you come to a more peaceful place. peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm Masculine and feminine are defined by God. There is a universal definition across time and culture.

 

[dapper]

Actually I thought you might respond to that part. My post had very little to do with what I want, but it seems that it affected what you perceived about me. I wasn’t affected by a priest who others were. He was ministering to engaged couples on a retreat. The retreatants were bothered by his effeminate qualities. I saw that he was not giving them a good example of leadership.

I am personally not bothered because of a very diverse background. I have not struggled with “filters.” Due to my theatre background I am quite familiar with mannerisms and affectations. Many male co-actors are homosexual and are quite convincing in roles of romantic leading men. This isn’t about their sexual orientation.

My point in my post was that mannerisms are not the definition of effeminate. It might be a clue to it, or it might not. The point is effeminate priests are not a good example of what the definition of masculinity is. Their mannerisms are just that, mannerisms. If it really were about “a swish, or a lilt, or a limp wrist,” those things can be overcome through simple theatrical training. Effeminate is a deeper struggle. It is a struggle at their very core to embrace and live a masculine nature.

I am sorry that your perception is that of judgement and filters. Please read Peter Kreeft’s work on innate sexual symbolism. It might help you come to a more peaceful place. peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm Masculine and feminine are defined by God. There is a universal definition across time and culture.

Thanks for the concern. I am very much at peace with myself though Where you got the idea that I wasn’t I have yet to figure out.

Hmmm. How could you possibly know if a man is “struggling with effeminacy?” You must use these very mannerisms to infer this, correct? But yet, by your own admission, “mannerisms are just that…mannerisms.” So, using these “tell” mannerisms, I suspect you have some magical power that tells you how afflicted with effeminacy a man is? Impressive!

 

[G_S]

Some wise man once said that life was like a football game. *The men are on the field and the clergy are in the stands explaining the game to the women. * Well… I’ve never voluntarily played football and find myself as a deacon often surrounded by women to whom I seem to be explaining the game of life. If their is any truth in the saying, it is really pointing out the tragedy that the clergy often don’t relate well to men – half of the population – and men are often left behind by the church. Lots of exceptions, to be sure, but there’s more than a grain of truth.

 

[LittleDeb]

Thanks for the concern. I am very much at peace with myself though Where you got the idea that I wasn’t I have yet to figure out.

Peace with yourself was nowhere mentioned. Only this particular issue. There seems to be some discord that masculinity is universaly defined. Do you agree that masculinity is defined by God? Do you agree that God is masculine, yet not male?

Hmmm. How could you possibly know if a man is “struggling with effeminacy?” You must use these very mannerisms to infer this, correct? But yet, by your own admission, “mannerisms are just that…mannerisms.” So, using these “tell” mannerisms, I suspect you have some magical power that tells you how afflicted with effeminacy a man is? Impressive!

Ummm how can you not tell? Effeminancy has so many signs. Mannerisms are the least reliable of all the signs. Discernment has never been a viewed by Christians as “magical powers.” Every person I have ever met has at least one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Discernment of spirit happens to be my blessing (or curse when I am mad at God for it )

We are sexual beings. Our current society defines it as “gendered beings.” Nouns are gendered. Animals are sexed. Effeminate men and masculinized women struggle with their own interior complementarity. As a female I have predominantly female hormones. But, in God’s perfect design I have a small amount of testosterone too. I am complementary even in myself. Even without “biological hormones” I still have feminine and masculine qualities. Being female makes my feminine qualities dominant, by design. If those feminine qualities were somehow injured or disordered, the small amount of masculinity in me could possibly become dominant.

Some people have a nearly equal balance of masculine and feminine. Some people are very dominant in the one that matches their sex. It is those whose balance is at odds with their sex who struggle. Those signs transcend cultures. They aren’t that hard to recognize.

Enjoying sports, in our culture, is a manifestation (or mannerism) of masculinity. As we have seen from the many posts here that particular mannerism can be misleading. Some men who enjoy sports struggle greatly with their masculinity, and some women who enjoy sports are very secure in their femininity.

 

[fix]

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.

My point is these mannerisms, no matter the etiology, are a probelm. That many folks find it troubling does not mean we may conclude those rightly troubled folks are prejudiced.

“Beauty of conduct consists in becoming behavior towards others, according to their sex and person.” Thomas states that, “Outward movements are a sign of the inward disposition” and quotes Ecclesiastics 19:29-30, “You can tell a person by his appearance . . . the way a person dresses, the way he laughs, the way he walks, tell you what he is.” Saint Ambrose adds that, “The habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the body,”…

…Saint Thomas, moreover, asserts the truth that it is often from our outward movements that other men form their judgment about us. Thomas encourages us to study our outward movements so that if they are inordinate in any way, they may be corrected…
From the link I provided.

 

[fix]

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. …
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…

Thank you for your good insight and good link. Masculinity is not a solely a cultural construct and effeminacy is not being a mature female.

 

[Melchior]

Effeminate, by definition, means to act more like a woman. This, in scripture, is forbidden. Men are to act like men and women are to act like women. Fathers of all stripes are to model masculinity to their children. This includes spiritual fathers.

People can pretend all they want that they don’t know what we mean in our society by effeminate, but that is just silly and obscuring the issue. You may as well say we cannot objectively tell the difference between classical music and Gregorian chant. Being effeminate is not neccesarily being gay, but it is scandalous precisely because it gives the appearance of being gay or at least socially confused.

You want more vocations, or more young men aspiring to be dads? Then they need examples of manhood in both areas. I have effeminate preists durijng my teen years and it contributed to my running from Catholicism. It was not the only reason, but having to sexually ambiguous priests in my parish did not help me at all.

With all the current scandal that was in fact brought on by a generation of preists that were disproportionately homosexual (yes homosexual, most of the victims were adolescents it was a homosexual issue - most of the time) there is excuse for effeminate priests. Anything that gives the appearance of scandal is sub-Christian and Catholics should be especially aware of it in this day and age.

The only young men who will aspire to the priesthood under the care of effeminate priests are sexually confused young men. And this is probably what happened in the first place.

Men are to act like men and woman are to act like woman. There are standards and norms that we are all aware of, even in 2006.

I don’t suppose those pretending this is about bigotry would notice if Andy Dick was the new James Bond vs. what’s his name. How can we possibly judge which one is masculine?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Melchior;

Effeminate, by definition, means to act more like a woman. This, in scripture, is forbidden. Men are to act like men and women are to act like women. Fathers of all stripes are to model masculinity to their children. This includes spiritual fathers.

Well compare the men of when this was written to the men of today, and we men of today would be seen as effminate by them.

 

[Melchior]

Melchior;

Well compare the men of when this was written to the men of today, and we men of today would be seen as effminate by them.

True enough. But even our girly-man society still has a working definition of masculinity. Unfortuntely we may have to start using thew word “Butch” to describe manly men.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

LittleDeb, being inclined to platonism, I respond very favorably to this line of reasoning (though I found the subtitle of Kreeft’s article cloying and infantilizing). The physical male and female are symbols of the masculine and the feminine in God. Believing that the manifest universe is symbolic in nature, I believe very much Kreeft’s hypothesis here.

The difficulty is making a one-to-one equation on the level of cultural definitions of masculine and feminine–that is, making the mistake that our ideas of masculinity and femininity as defined and enforced by our culture are in fact representative of the divine masculine/feminine of which the genders are a sign. The stereotype of the “manly man” has little to do with divinity and more to do with what we want the face of masculine power to look like. Consider that many people believe that masculinity is proven through sexual conquest. The church teaches us that dwelling on such things is sinful. Is the church therefore emasculating? Certainly not. Displays of power are considered masculine, but Jesus Christ conquered sin and death through willingly assenting to suffer and die on a cross. Long-suffering is no more particularly masculine than feminine (consider the pains of childbirth). Is Jesus therefore less masculine? The Nietzschean super-man is the uber-masculine type, accepted as such by many in our culture. Yet our religion pushes against it. Is our religion feminizing?

These notions of masculine and feminine, as they are culturally defined (in terms of types and socially acceptable behaviors) are not, therefore, pure indicators of what the masculine and the feminine in God are. In a symbolic/traditional/religious sense, masculine and feminine point us to the two poles of activity/passivity: they do not automatically lead us to assume that a man should take off his hat in the presence of a lady. They lead us to an apprehension of the rhythm, the give and take, etc. of God’s good universe. Everything else is cultural programming. What we are talking about is the difference between what masculine and feminine really are (the religious/symbolic/traditional sense) and what masculine and feminine should be expected to do or how they should be expected to appear in a given time and place (the cultural sense).

And my argument is that the cultural sense is sometimes no good indicator of the religious sense and cannot be taken as the standard or criterion or measure of the presence of the religious sense. Otherwise, you might as well conclude a number of dreadful things about people’s souls or psychic dispositions purely based on external appearances.

And this is the problem, as I see it: the penchant for automatically concluding from an external sign the existence of internal corruption. Take it a step farther:
how horribly twisted must be the heart of the person with scoliosis. How the soul of the acne-scarred person must be pockmarked with sin. How morally crippled the man in the wheel-chair. How a little mannerism can hint at the presence of some internal vice.

Fix:

My point is these mannerisms, no matter the etiology, are a probelm. That many folks find it troubling does not mean we may conclude those rightly troubled folks are prejudiced.

Fix, I would argue that they are not, in reality, rightly troubled. Their adherence to a specific culturally intuited code of manners prevents them from accepting the gifts of their priest because a mannerism affronts the cultural code by which they abide–and which, evidently, they value more than the gifts of their priest; otherwise, it wouldn’t be an issue. The “trouble” they encounter is the result of a tension between two perceived goods: the code of manners, and the gifts of the priest. They do not believe that the one is reconcilable with the other, and they secretly value the one over the other–hence the “trouble”. That’s not really trouble, though. That’s merely the sensation of indulging an affronted sensibility: it’s pride, in other words and it has the reality and consistency of smoke. Trouble is homelessness, hunger, abject poverty, lingering illness. If what you are describing really is trouble, however, in any serious sense, then I am the King of Sweden.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Melchior:

I don’t suppose those pretending this is about bigotry would notice if Andy Dick was the new James Bond vs. what’s his name. How can we possibly judge which one is masculine?

This not about bigotry. No one is pretending it is. It’s about clinging to, loving, and cherishing a legion of preconceptions regarding other people’s behavior instead of loving the gifts of a priest.

That’s all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[LittleDeb]

Grace & Peace!
These notions of masculine and feminine, as they are culturally defined (in terms of types and socially acceptable behaviors) are not, therefore, pure indicators of what the masculine and the feminine in God are. In a symbolic/traditional/religious sense, masculine and feminine point us to the two poles of activity/passivity: they do not automatically lead us to assume that a man should take off his hat in the presence of a lady. They lead us to an apprehension of the rhythm, the give and take, etc. of God’s good universe. Everything else is cultural programming. What we are talking about is the difference between what masculine and feminine really are (the religious/symbolic/traditional sense) and what masculine and feminine should be expected to do or how they should be expected to appear in a given time and place (the cultural sense).

And my argument is that the cultural sense is sometimes no good indicator of the religious sense and cannot be taken as the standard or criterion or measure of the presence of the religious sense. Otherwise, you might as well conclude a number of dreadful things about people’s souls or psychic dispositions purely based on external appearances.

And this is the problem, as I see it: the penchant for automatically concluding from an external sign the existence of internal corruption. Take it a step farther:
how horribly twisted must be the heart of the person with scoliosis. How the soul of the acne-scarred person must be pockmarked with sin. How morally crippled the man in the wheel-chair. How a little mannerism can hint at the presence of some internal vice.

I see where you are coming from here. I still disagree on a major point with you on symbolism. Kreeft discusses natural symbols. The mannerisms in discussion are symbols of effeminancy. I think a lot of people here are in agreement that effeminate priests bring scandal to the faithful. What seems to be in disagreement is what might be indicative of effeminate. Acne scars are in this sense, a symbol of previous acne, not a reflection of inner soul.

My question is why are these mannerisms a symbol of effeminancy? As previously discussed, the “tells” of the mannerisms can be misleading. What has developed in our culture and in the nature of effeminancy that has created these symbols? Mannerisms are unreliable tells, but they are still symbols.

For a better example, these are more reliable tells I have discovered:

Effeminate men seem to reject most forms of contemplative prayer. Masculinity, by God’s standard seems to draw us to deep contemplative prayer. Truly masculine men seem more naturally inclined to contemplative prayer. Since contemplative prayer requires one to be completely empty, it would hold that the “giving” inherent to masculinity allows an emptying of self. Women who are good at contemplative prayer seem to have a fairly even (and healthy) balance of masculine and feminine. All of the men I have known who are succesfully overcoming SSA or masculinity struggles reference their frequent rosaries, time in contemplative prayer, and/or in adoration. I find it no coincidence that spending “an hour with Jesus” in adoration is based on the agony in the garden when Christ was calling His apostles to be more masculine (disciplined) in their prayer life.

The other reliable “tell” of effeminancy I have found is a rejection of periodic continence or life-long celibacy. Effeminate men seem to reject the self discipline. Truly masculine men seem to find deep satisfaction in abstinence. They don’t seem to white-knuckle abstinence. Married men I have spoken to who give up sex for lent say they feel more disciplined, more focused, and more at peace. They enjoy their sex life, but seem to enjoy it more after periods of abstinence.

Anyway, those have been two very reliable tells of effeminancy that I have been able to discern.

 

[LittleDeb]

I just realized that I keep putting an extra “n” in the word effeminacy. I think my fingers wanted to spell another word. Sorry

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
Habit.

Where do these “habits” derive from?

Not a new class of folks at all. If anything, the distinction I’m making is this–people who behave socially in ways we like, and people who behave socially in ways we don’t like. The difference between one group and the other is subjective, though cultural conditioning does play its part. To the extent to which external non-sinful behavior is militated against in any way shape form or fashion as if it were an affront to the gospel, I would label it prejudice. It displays an alarming conflation of custom with moral law.

My common sense position based on universal experience has absolutely nothing to do with “liking” someone who is different or not. I have never in the least communicated a disdain for the effeminate priest. Experiencing and reporting the distraction and the limitation of an overly effeminate priest is not prejudice. The fact that the deficit role modeling by the overly effeminate priest posses a limitation to others receiving the credible and plausible gospel message, does not constitute “an affront to the gospel” or display “an alarming conflation of …”. This is silly conjecture on your part.

In what way is it aberrent? Because you don’t like it? Because it doesn’t mesh with Western (Anglo-American) social behavioral norms which moreover are not objective truths but culturally relative concepts?

My common sense position based on universal experience has absolutely nothing to do with “liking” someone who is different or not. I have never in the least communicated a disdain for the effeminate priest. Experiencing and reporting the distraction and the limitation of an overly effeminate priest is not prejudice. The fact that the deficit role modeling by the overly effeminate priest posses a limitation to others receiving the credible and plausible gospel message, does not constitute “an affront to the gospel” or display “an alarming conflation of …”. This is silly conjecture on your part.

Not so–a priest secure in his masculinity but who has a mannerism or two that you think is effeminate has a lot to worry about, not least of which this nagging question: “Is the Gospel really that impotent such that a mannerism will prevent my congregation from hearing it? And is the hearing of congregation that stunted and selective?”

I was referring to the average, well-adjusted laity in response to your attempt to shift the focus from the effect of the overly effeminate priest on the congregation. Again, the primary focus it is not about the personal needs of the priests as first and foremost.

I think you are confusing inward disposition with outward display and reasoning that given a certain set of reasonable psychological givens, a certain corollary set of behaviors will necessarily arise. This is not necessarily the case and speaks of a certain behavioral determinism which is contrary to free will. Moreove, it is not necessarily true that all people will share or value the same set of psychological givens even within the same culture. And that does not, for all that, make them aberrent.

I was referring to the average, well-adjusted laity in response to your attempt to shift the focus from the effect of the overly effeminate priest on the congregation. Again, the primary focus it is not about the personal needs of the priests as first and foremost.

I maintain that this is mere conjecture, and unless you can demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct in each individual case of an effeminate priest, that this opinion you hold should be kept privately because it represents an embarassment to what I will assume is otherwise good judgment.

Moreover, the “common” person in the pew is called to be anything but common. We are called to be nothing less than the body of Jesus Christ in the world. The old man is common. The new man is Christ.

This does not line up with the common sense experience of the average faithful parishioner. Are you suggesting that folks do not talk about the ‘elephant in the room’ display that every well-adjusted parishioner sees and internally reacts to?

I am unconvinced that this is either necessary or useful, particularly if it is the result of an act of favoritism (which St. James condemns).

More duck tape across the mouth. I believe that secrecy and unwilingness to talk about politically incorrect subjects is a big part of the reason that the Church is paying a high price in poor attendance and scandal.

A shared cultural system may allow us to see where someone is not fitting into the culture or some aspect of it. But charity allows us to value the person over the system.

Who has made the suggestion to devalue the intrinsic worth of the person made in the image and likeness of Christ?

 

[setter]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)
Over time and given the vicissitudes of history, geography, economy, etc., a culture makes assumptions regarding the social possibilities and capabilites of gender. Behaviors are circumscribed, proscribed, prescribed, suggested, demanded. But this is no indication of a universal law. In Africa, the Massai men famously wear make-up and engage in what to the West appears to be overly effeminate behavior in order to win a wife. But in the Massai culture, this behavior is viewed as enhancing the man’s beauty and making them more irresistable to a prospective fiancee–it is the business of the man, hence, it is masculine behavior. In the West, the same behavior would be scorned by many. So where does the Massai man’s masculinity derive? From a different set of cultural assumptions than yours. That’s all.

I am only talking about Western culture and the natural moral law well-adjusted gender identity and expression thereof.

I’ve a feeling that a lot of the paranoia around this topic revolves not so much around the masculine and the feminine, but around a sense that our culture is being invaded or invalidated by differing sets of cultural values that we do not particularly like. (One thinks of the Greeks and their aversion to the behaviors and fashions of the notoriously “effeminate” Persians.) I imagine this fear is very productive of anxiety, liable to make one see threats from all sorts of places where no threat exists, and inclining one to elevate one’s norms to the level of moral law or imperative in order to preserve or enshrine them. This, however is the paradox: cultural rigidity spells disaster to the culture, but a failure to defend certain cultural boundaries often leads to dissipation and death, too. What to do? Is there not some sort of balance to be achieved?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
It is interesting and curious that you attribute paranoia, fear and anxiety to the common sense, natural law basis for evaluating masulinity and femininity, in a given cultural context. I have not yet encounted the cultural invasion and infiltration that you allude to. All the overly efeminate priests that i am referring to are at least second generation born and raised in the Western culture that I am referring to. Can you example what you mean by “our culture is being invaded or invalidated by differing sets of cultural values”?

Again, one who is well-adjusted in their gender identity does not feel threatened by the aberrations displayed thereof. Period.

 

[setter]

I see where you are coming from here. I still disagree on a major point with you on symbolism. Kreeft discusses natural symbols. The mannerisms in discussion are symbols of effeminancy. I think a lot of people here are in agreement that effeminate priests bring scandal to the faithful. What seems to be in disagreement is what might be indicative of effeminate. Acne scars are in this sense, a symbol of previous acne, not a reflection of inner soul.

My question is why are these mannerisms a symbol of effeminancy? As previously discussed, the “tells” of the mannerisms can be misleading. What has developed in our culture and in the nature of effeminancy that has created these symbols? Mannerisms are unreliable tells, but they are still symbols.

For a better example, these are more reliable tells I have discovered:

Effeminate men seem to reject most forms of contemplative prayer. Masculinity, by God’s standard seems to draw us to deep contemplative prayer. Truly masculine men seem more naturally inclined to contemplative prayer. Since contemplative prayer requires one to be completely empty, it would hold that the “giving” inherent to masculinity allows an emptying of self. Women who are good at contemplative prayer seem to have a fairly even (and healthy) balance of masculine and feminine. All of the men I have known who are succesfully overcoming SSA or masculinity struggles reference their frequent rosaries, time in contemplative prayer, and/or in adoration. I find it no coincidence that spending “an hour with Jesus” in adoration is based on the agony in the garden when Christ was calling His apostles to be more masculine (disciplined) in their prayer life.

The other reliable “tell” of effeminancy I have found is a rejection of periodic continence or life-long celibacy. Effeminate men seem to reject the self discipline. Truly masculine men seem to find deep satisfaction in abstinence. They don’t seem to white-knuckle abstinence. Married men I have spoken to who give up sex for lent say they feel more disciplined, more focused, and more at peace. They enjoy their sex life, but seem to enjoy it more after periods of abstinence.

Anyway, those have been two very reliable tells of effeminancy that I have been able to discern.

Thank you for another insightful post.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My common sense position based on universal experience…

This seems to be your mantra in this post.

While Emerson certainly believed that genius constitutes believing that what is true for onself is true for all people, I would argue that when one serially mis-identifies truth there is a thin line between genius and mania. Which is just to say that any claims that one may make for one’s ideas or experience to be representative of “universal experience” are de facto suspect in my book. Your experience is not my experience. Your experience is not, simply because it is yours, universal. Neither is your experience universal if you have taken a poll and discover that others agree with and/or concur with your experience. Your experience is common to that group that agrees with your experience or shares it. That does not make it universal.

And given that part of our discussion revolves around a certain level of cultural relativity, claims to universality are a bit thin.

Re: common sense, it is anything but common, and is often just a cover for things we have learned to expect given a certain set of circumstances. More often than not, it is an excuse for avoiding real thought about a given topic or event. It is a category of thought, not a universal value.

The fact that the deficit role modeling by the overly effeminate priest posses a limitation to others receiving the credible and plausible gospel message, does not constitute “an affront to the gospel” or display “an alarming conflation of …”. This is silly conjecture on your part.

It may be conjecture, but it’s not silly, given the posts in this thread. When I mentioned an “affront to the gospel” it was in reference to how people appear to view an effeminate priest–that he is somehow an “affront to the gospel”. And this, to me, represents a conflation of custom with moral law which raises mere custom to the level of divine fiat. This being the case (or at least, this being how I read the evidence), it is indicative to me of a misplacement of values and priorities.

I was referring to the average, well-adjusted laity…

In my experience, “average” and “well-adjusted” are not synonymous or complementary terms. In our culture, “well-adjusted” is a rarity, and those who claim it for themselves and who claim in the same breath to be “average” are merely championing as the norm the pecadillos, complexes, and prejudices of the median, simply because those pecadillos, complexes and prejudices are relatively widespread in comparison to those few saints who are, in fact, “well-adjusted.” The excesses of our current culture fight against being well-adjusted. As such, average and well-adjusted do not refer to the same thing. They cannot–or at any rate, I hope they do not. That would be sad and give us one less thing to hope for.

There is a tendency to project, though, along the following lines: I’m comfortable with who I am, and I don’t think I’m so extraordinary. I must, therefore, represent well-adjusted and average. Such thinking is merely a form of self-comfort.

Again, the primary focus it is not about the personal needs of the priests as first and foremost.

I never suggested it was. You may think that’s what I’m saying, but it isn’t.

Are you suggesting that folks do not talk about the ‘elephant in the room’ display that every well-adjusted parishioner sees and internally reacts to?

My argument is that the truly well-adjusted parishioner will not see it as worthy of his or her thought. This is different from keeping silent about the “elephant in the room.” Is there’s anyone, though, to whom one should be talking about the “elephant” it is not us on this forum, it is the “offending” priest.

(CONTINUED…)