Effeminate Priests

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

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.

See above.

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

You and others who share your opinion appeared to when the gifts of the priest are devalued when the priest does not display all the behaviors you think a priest should display, or displays others that do not mesh with your ideas of priestly behavior.

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

You acknowledge that there are different cultural expressions of similar ideas (recognizing to an extent cultural relativity), but then claim that Western cultural dictates are most representative of natural moral law? This is exactly the conflation of custom and moral law to which I referred previously (and above), and in which you denied participating! My conjecture is not so silly after all, it seems.

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”?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt here in trying to position your argument as part of a greater cultural concern (which while I see it as misplaced, is nonetheless a wider cultural concern). It seems that you do not share this broader concern, which is puzzling to me as it appears, then, that gender identification, culture, and identity broadly are all interchangeable to you, which I suppose makes some sense as a Freudian theory of socialization and individuation, but less sense when applied to the complexity of culture and cultural conditioning.

How compatible is Freudianism with Christianity? And in the intellectual struggle between the two, which one winds up being defined by the other’s terms?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

LittleDeb, like setter, I thank you for another insightful post. Just a few comments.

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.

I think a symbol is very different than a sign. A symbol points to something greater than itself, and classically, is more real than ordinary things. This is why in the East the Eucharist is sometimes seen as symbolic–not because the consecrated bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ and merely point to it (far from it!), but because in symbolizing the Body and Blood of Christ, they share in the Reality of the Body and Blood–they are therefore more real in every sense than your breakfast, for instance, or any other thing you will encounter that day or any other day of your life. In other words, the symbol is understood to make present a larger Reality by participating in the substance of that Reality. A sign is never more than itself. A symbol is always more than it appears to be. Therefore, acne scars are a sign (not a symbol) of previous acne. Or they may be a sign (depending on one’s frame of mind) of an inner deformity. Just as a mannerism is, in much of this discussion, seen to be a sign of internal vice.

What is refreshing about your post is that you refuse to play this game. You do not take this or that behavior or gesture as a sign. You identify an attitudinal disposition, reflected in the presence or absence of a spiritual praxis, as the sign. I find that very interesting, and much more in keeping with the religious/symbolic/traditional sense of masculine/feminine than it does with the culture sense as it does not confuse it’s terms–it does not mis-apply the religious value to the cultural expression but applies the religious value to religious dispositions.

I find that refreshing. Particularly in this discussion.

Thanks!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
This seems to be your mantra in this post.

In our culture, “well-adjusted” is a rarity …My argument is that the truly well-adjusted parishioner will not see it as worthy of his or her thought.

(CONTINUED…)

You acknowledge that there are different cultural expressions of similar ideas (recognizing to an extent cultural relativity), but then claim that Western cultural dictates are most representative of natural moral law?

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

You continue to discount and attempt to render erroneous and
idiosyncratic the common sense, collective experience (“mantra”) of most Catholics who sit in the pew each week, as I have attempted to fairly present. I note your play on the common usage meaning of “average” and “well-adjusted” and incorrect attribution of Freudian theory to this end.

This does not change the natural law based reality at hand which does not conveniently (and “comfortably”) conform to the qualification of your “cultural relativity” construct. In fact, upon further reflection, I can see how your cultural relativity is but a parallel companion to the philosophy of Relativism, i.e., all is relative to the cultural context (the primacy of subjective experience) at hand and there are no universal truths, axioms, …that are independent of one’s personal culture (personal subjective experience).

 

[Melanie01]

Why is it there are never any threads about good priests who are cranky, masculine, irritating, hardworkers, compassionate, kindly, stern, upholders of the Faith, educators,untidy, loud, and devout.

 

[jbuck919]

Why is it there are never any threads about good priests who are cranky, masculine, irritating, hardworkers, compassionate, kindly, stern, upholders of the Faith, educators,untidy, loud, and devout.

Sounds like my grandfather. Darn, but he was married.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You continue to discount and attempt to render erroneous and
idiosyncratic the common sense, collective experience (“mantra”) of most Catholics who sit in the pew each week, as I have attempted to fairly present.

Setter, I question it because it asks to be questioned. A slavish adherence to prevailing fashion (what you attempt to label “collective experience”) does not make it right or true. It makes it merely comfortable.

Furthermore, I would question your “fair representation” based (as it is) on your own adherence to various social proclivities.

I note your play on the common usage meaning of “average” and “well-adjusted” and incorrect attribution of Freudian theory to this end.

If I have mis-labeled your position as Freudian, point out to me in what ways it is not. Compare and contrast. Show me. Otherwise, your position regarding individuation appears very Freudian. And I’m not sure how compatible that is with the gospel. But if you think they’re compatible, show me how.

This does not change the natural law based reality at hand…

This is entirely my point and my contention–you are conflating custom with moral law by stating (as you do here and elsewhere) that the social dictates of your culture are universal enough to be representative of natural moral law, with the necessary result that an infraction of the culture’s dictates are de facto sin, or evidence of an inclination to sin because they are infractions of moral law.

I can see how your cultural relativity is but a parallel companion to the philosophy of Relativism, i.e., all is relative to the cultural context (the primacy of subjective experience) at hand and there are no universal truths, axioms, …that are independent of one’s personal culture (personal subjective experience).

If you read my response to LittleDeb, you would realize my position here. No, I do not believe in this philosophy of Relativism. I was afraid you’d pull that particular chestnut out of your bag of arguments. I believe, as I stated to LittleDeb, that male and female are symbols of the masculine and feminine as they are found in and given by God–that is, male/female are physical manifestations of (among other things) the active/passive poles of experience. I do not deny the objective existence of these divine qualities, masculine and feminine. I deny that they look like what our culture thinks they look like: the masculine idea of the Nietzschean super man, the absurdly hyper-“masculine” cultural archetypes of the cowboy, the plumber, the police man, the comic book heor, the list goes on and on. I deny that they look like what other cultures believe they look like, either. All these things are learned cultural behaviors, all these things are things that one learns to desire as models of behavior. Because other cultures have different notions of what “masculine” means. And this fact alone should give us pause when we endeavor to label what we find works culturally as universal truth.

Clearly there is a truth in masculinity. Clearly there is a truth in femininity. And these truths are objective. If anything, what a culture finds to be masculine or feminine should lead us to what is truly masculine and truly feminine --in other words, they should lead us (insofar as they are able) to qualities in and of the Divine. But to stop at the image, to stop at the construct as if the construct were the reality (as you seem to be doing), and to allow that construct to obstruct the ministry of one’s priest because he doesn’t act like your plumber, James Bond, the archetypal movie-star mercenary, cop, or killer is, to me, ridiculous. Ridiculous, sad, and unChristian.

I would argue (in a sort of reversal of things) that the worst form of relativism is not to believe that there is no objective truth–it is to recognize the diversity of human experience and to believe that our little bit of that experience is the whole of that truth, that we possesses it all, rather than that the truth possesses us, individually and corporately.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Setter, I just had a thought re: how to express my point–if you want true examples of masculine behavior on which you or your priest or your family members can model their behavior, why not look to the Saints rather than the gestures and mannerisms that our culture defines as socially acceptable masculine behavior?

Why not learn to be pierced and inflamed by love like St. Francis?
Why not learn the virtue of giving from St. Martin of Tours?
Why not learn endurance of hardship from St. Patrick?
Why not learn rigor of intellect from Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great (the list here is endless)?
Why not learn brotherly love from Sts. Serge and Bacchus?
Why not learn the way of the Via Negativa from St. John of the Cross?
Why not learn true heroism from St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. Polycarp?

The list of masculine examples is truly endless. And I would guess that none of their legends enumerate the mere gestures or mannerisms of masculinity. They may describe rhetorical skill, they may describe a lot of things, but an inventory of masculine gestures you can check off a list would probably be hard to come be. But what you will find are qualities which reveal the masculine in God. This is where we will found our examples of true masculinity, as opposed to the gestures of a secular masculinity which often get confused with truth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[DavidGonzalez]

Manhood in general is under attack it affects every facet of our society. Just look at our sitcoms and commericals (bear with me here). What is the most common theme? Good looking smart wife, married to a worthless, dumb, inconsiderate, alcoholic, fat oaf of a husband. Every commerical has a man too dumb to change a tire and some powerful woman comes to his rescue. Or the wife “wears the pants” and the man is protrayed as nothing more than an additional child. I may seem a bit nuts, I probably am, but I’m not imagining this I see it everyday. The priesthood and feminization of the Church is just one facet of our Church being influenced by our society in its attack on masculinity.

How true! That deserves a second read!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Setter, I question it because it asks to be questioned. A slavish adherence to prevailing fashion (what you attempt to label “collective experience”) does not make it right or true. It makes it merely comfortable.

Furthermore, I would question your “fair representation” based (as it is) on your own adherence to various social proclivities.

You are in the habit of ignoring the internal natural [moral] law as providing guidance to those open to guidance as to what social/cultural norms reflect proper ordering and expression of masculinity/femininity.

This is entirely my point and my contention–you are conflating custom with moral law by stating (as you do here and elsewhere) that the **social dictates **of your culture are universal enough to be representative of natural moral law, with the necessary result that an infraction of the culture’s dictates are de facto sin, or evidence of an inclination to sin because they are infractions of moral law.

Christians are never under the “social dictates” of the prevailing culture. Disciples of Christ are never socially defined, but rather are “aliens and exiles” (1 Peter 2: 11) in word and deed from the prevailing cultural ethos.

If you read my response to LittleDeb, you would realize my position here. No, I do not believe in this philosophy of Relativism. I was afraid you’d pull that particular chestnut out of your bag of arguments. I believe, as I stated to LittleDeb, that male and female are symbols of the masculine and feminine as they are found in and given by God–that is, male/female are physical manifestations of (among other things) the active/passive poles of experience. I do not deny the objective existence of these divine qualities, masculine and feminine. I deny that they look like what our culture thinks they look like: the masculine idea of the Nietzschean super man, the absurdly hyper-“masculine” cultural archetypes of the cowboy, the plumber, the police man, the comic book heor, the list goes on and on. I deny that they look like what other cultures believe they look like, either. All these things are learned cultural behaviors, all these things are things that one learns to desire as models of behavior. Because other cultures have different notions of what “masculine” means. And this fact alone should give us pause when we endeavor to label what we find works culturally as universal truth.

So you do not believe in an internal derivative for how one manifests their masculinity/femininity and that natural moral law is exclusive of exerting a determining influence thereof?

How is your sail in the prevailing cultural wind without a natural law rudder for discernment and guidance any different that relativism?

Clearly there is a truth in masculinity. Clearly there is a truth in femininity. And these truths are objective. If anything, what a culture finds to be masculine or feminine should lead us to what is truly masculine and truly feminine --in other words, they should lead us (insofar as they are able) to qualities in and of the Divine.

You are putting alot of stock in the “this world” culture that is unredeemed from the Fall and which St. Paul cautions the believers of his day “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12: 2).

But to stop at the image, to stop at the construct as if the construct were the reality (as you seem to be doing), and to allow that construct to obstruct the ministry of one’s priest because he doesn’t act like your plumber, James Bond, the archetypal movie-star mercenary, cop, or killer is, to me, ridiculous. Ridiculous, sad, and unChristian.

I would argue (in a sort of reversal of things) that the worst form of relativism is not to believe that there is no objective truth–it is to recognize the diversity of human experience and to believe that our little bit of that experience is the whole of that truth, that we possesses it all, rather than that the truth possesses us, individually and corporately

.
Where does discernment and selectivity with an enlightened and transformed mind fall into your “reality” construct for one taken possession of by Jesus Christ?

 

[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.

With respect, I must say you start your defense with a faulty premise. Effeminacy is often a vice. That was my point. It may be partially a product of cultural maldevelopment, but no matter the cause it is often a vice and as a vice people would be put off as they would if one were greedy or racist or superficial.

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”.

Nope. They understand how a priest is to present themselves and there are boundaries as there for all of us in life. It is not simply a matter of cultural preference. It causes stir as the mannerisms often are a manifestation of a deeper problem or because the mannerisms are counter to what people grasp as masculine. It would be a contradiction to what is expected as good and normal and that expectation is just and reasonable.

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.

It seems you make the usual case where bad conduct is to be accepted as long as one speaks against poverty? Am I understanding you here?

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Setter, I just had a thought re: how to express my point–if you want true examples of masculine behavior on which you or your priest or your family members can model their behavior, why not look to the Saints rather than the gestures and mannerisms that our culture defines as socially acceptable masculine behavior?

Why not learn to be pierced and inflamed by love like St. Francis?
Why not learn the virtue of giving from St. Martin of Tours?
Why not learn endurance of hardship from St. Patrick?
Why not learn rigor of intellect from Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great (the list here is endless)?
Why not learn brotherly love from Sts. Serge and Bacchus?
Why not learn the way of the Via Negativa from St. John of the Cross?
Why not learn true heroism from St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. Polycarp?

The list of masculine examples is truly endless. And I would guess that none of their legends enumerate the mere gestures or mannerisms of masculinity. They may describe rhetorical skill, they may describe a lot of things, but an inventory of masculine gestures you can check off a list would probably be hard to come be. But what you will find are qualities which reveal the masculine in God. This is where we will found our examples of true masculinity, as opposed to the gestures of a secular masculinity which often get confused with truth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

These “qualities” that you list are simply and certaintly the heroic virtues found in saints, whether men or women. The male saints that you exampled simply dress up these virtues in authentic masculinity.

 

[Julianna]

This is much-a-do- about nothing. So if the priest speaks with “s” sounds or is effeminate…(stereotypical)…big deal. I’m not there to comment on his mannerisms.

And to assume an effeminate priest is either homosexual or could “possibly” prey on children is painting with a broad brush. Are you saying there were no effeminate priests in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s? Are you saying pedophiles didn’t exist during those era’s?

Come on, snap out it. Most of you use stereotypical markers to discern who is homosexual and who is straight. You have no clue, only what you have seen the media portray…

I am not so shallow that I would think my faith was challenged because a majority in the parish “think” he “may be” or “could be”. Geez louise…go to church, receive the Eucharist and go home and behave.

 

[dapper]

This is much-a-do- about nothing. So if the priest speaks with “s” sounds or is effeminate…(stereotypical)…big deal. I’m not there to comment on his mannerisms.

And to assume an effeminate priest is either homosexual or could “possibly” prey on children is painting with a broad brush. Are you saying there were no effeminate priests in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s? Are you saying pedophiles didn’t exist during those era’s?

Come on, snap out it. Most of you use stereotypical markers to discern who is homosexual and who is straight. You have no clue, only what you have seen the media portray…

I am not so shallow that I would think my faith was challenged because a majority in the parish “think” he “may be” or “could be”. Geez louise…go to church, receive the Eucharist and go home and behave.

Ah. Sweet voice of reason. It’s as if there is nothing better to do but blame effeminacy on the lack of male parishoners. Gimme a break! Correlation without causation to the max here. Homosexuality is the scape goat of so many Catholic epidemics though it has been around since the dawn of man.

 

[Melchior]

Ah. Sweet voice of reason. It’s as if there is nothing better to do but blame effeminacy on the lack of male parishoners. Gimme a break! Correlation without causation to the max here. Homosexuality is the scape goat of so many Catholic epidemics though it has been around since the dawn of man.

I am guessing neither of you grew up in the Archdiocese of Boston. I did. Some anecdotal evidence is extremely powerful. The archdiocese, it molestation and homosexual priest problem naturally makes one suspect effeminate priests. It is only natural for a boy or man to be uncomfortable with such. It’s common sense. It’s reality. It’s a huge problem. Women don’t seek out girly husbands and men don’t seek out girly priests. You cannot use sophistry to argue effectively against nature and common sense.

Mel

 

[Julianna]

I am guessing neither of you grew up in the Archdiocese of Boston. I did. Some anecdotal evidence is extremely powerful. The archdiocese, it molestation and homosexual priest problem naturally makes one suspect effeminate priests. It is only natural for a boy or man to be uncomfortable with such. It’s common sense. It’s reality. It’s a huge problem. Women don’t seek out girly husbands and men don’t seek out girly priests. You cannot use sophistry to argue effectively against nature and common sense.

Mel

I grew up in the Diocese of Springfield, MA. There was an effeminate priest at our parish. He never once touched a child and was kind and compassionate. I will never forget him. He never screamed or scolded us like the sisters or Mnsgr. He didn’t jerk us in and out of line while we were practicing for first communion. If we were out of line, he would come over and smile and say “let’s get into line, ok”. Eight year olds responded to that. The ones that were jerked around spent 10 minutes crying hysterically in the pews, holding up the entire rehearsal.

A kind word turns away wrath.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You are in the habit of ignoring the internal natural [moral] law as providing guidance to those open to guidance as to what social/cultural norms reflect proper ordering and expression of masculinity/femininity.

Again I state that you are confusing the promptings of natural law with the guidance of social dictate. And while you state below that…

Christians are never under the “social dictates” of the prevailing culture. Disciples of Christ are never socially defined, but rather are “aliens and exiles” (1 Peter 2: 11) in word and deed from the prevailing cultural ethos.

…I wonder if you’ve been reading what I’ve been writing because my point has been that you have elevated social dictate to the level of natural moral law–you have internalized the social dictate to such an extent that it hgas assumed an authority on par with moral law. Your statement here indicates that you’ve not quite gotten this point as you don’t address it, but simply skirt around it.

So I will state it as clearly as possible: whether or not you are conscious of doing it, and whether or not it something you want to do, you have interpreted social dictate as being as authoritative as moral law. In other words, like it or not, you conflate custom with morality. And stating the ideal, the goal, as you do above, does not mean that in your behavior, your attitudes, your opinions that you have attained the goal.

So you do not believe in an internal derivative for how one manifests their masculinity/femininity and that natural moral law is exclusive of exerting a determining influence thereof?

I believe that the biological fact of gender and all of the hormones attendant on that fact give us an inkling as to how masculine and feminine act in the world. Moreover, they give us an inkling as to what the masculine and the feminine mean on a more symbolic level (i.e. on a more metaphysical level, the level from which the facts of gender receive their meaning). But culture elaborates on these inklings, obscuring some at times, prejudicing others, and while a culture’s behavioral dictates can be indicative of an idea of masculinity, it does not necessarily follow that that idea is universal, though the material upon which it is based is universal. Moreover, I am unconvinced that the masculine/feminine can be adequately encapsulated in a certain series of culturally specific gestures, believing as I do that the masculine/feminine are an internal quality of being in the world which is not neccessarily or completely represented by the gestures we make as the gestures we make are a combination of cultural conditioning and external representation of the inner person.

You would have us believe that the external gesture is solely representative of the internal person, but my argument is that the external gesture is not only culturally conditioned, but the interpretation of that gesture is culturally conditioned as well. It remains for us to tease apart the conditioned gesture from the gesture indicative of the person’s quality of being-in-the-world. And this process is not accomplished through mere observation, but through an evaluation of individual character, in which evaluation external gesture provides some evidence, but perhaps not the most reliable, and, in the end, perhaps not the most important. Your argument states that the external gesture is the sine qua non of character evaluation. I argue that it is not, because our performance and interpretation of the gesture relies on too too many conditioned and conditioning cultural impulses.

How is your sail in the prevailing cultural wind without a natural law rudder for discernment and guidance any different that relativism?

I hope my two paragraphs above will give some indication as to my position here.

I try, I will not say I always succeed(!), but I try not confuse a sign with the thing it signifies.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED)
"setter:

You are putting alot of stock in the “this world” culture that is unredeemed from the Fall and which St. Paul cautions the believers of his day “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12: 2).

My whole point has been that you have put a lot of stock in the “this world” culture, conflating as you have social dictate with moral law.

My whole point has been that social dictate/culture is tool, and as such, our evaluation of it’s value must be according to the degree to which it is useful, and a cultural value is useful only insofar as it reveals reality as it is. Unfortunately, culture is a blunt instrument and is not entirely accurate. Religion, however, is not a tool but a revelation–it purports to reveal the Real. And I believe with all of my heart that Christianity does this by showing us Jesus Christ who is the Real. Therefore, in interpreting such things as masculine and feminine, I am more inclined to believe that the truth of what masculine and feminine really mean is more to be found in their religious sense (from which they derive their meaning) than in their cultural sense which can only be a shadow of the truth. And when the prevailing culture denounces Christianity as weak and emasculating (as it does) because of the gospel of peace, because of the centrality of sacrifice to the nature of the Real, then I question that culture’s notions of strength and masculinity seeing as they have nothing to do with the Reality which defines the strong and the masculine.

And I question the opinions of those who seem to side with the prevailing culture on these and other matters. Which is why I am engaging in this conversation with you.

Where does discernment and selectivity with an enlightened and transformed mind fall into your “reality” construct for one taken possession of by Jesus Christ?

I discern between the possession in potentiality and possession in actuality. That we are called to be one with Jesus Christ, that Jesus has himself accomplished this oneness in his person is a truth that is abiding. That Reality is what we really are. But if we are not living that truth (and insofar as we sin, we are not living that truth), when we turn away from what we really are, or if we identify ourselves with other things, with systems and laws and codes of behavior, then the Reality of Christ in us remains a present Reality that we have not fully realized.

fix:

With respect, I must say you start your defense with a faulty premise. Effeminacy is often a vice.

Fix, my point is that often is the operative word here. And when often is confused with always, there is a problem, and the problem is with the confusion.

fix:

It would be a contradiction to what is expected as good and normal and that expectation is just and reasonable.

That expectation is largely conditioned, not always just, and not always reasonable.

fix:

It seems you make the usual case where bad conduct is to be accepted as long as one speaks against poverty?

My point here was regarding priorities. It seems that it is a priority that a priest conform to a congregation’s conditioned notions of masculinity, otherwise, his congregation cannot receive his gifts. My point is that it is better to receive the gifts and worry about things worth worrying about. Granted, though, we have different notions of “bad conduct.” For you, the priest displays bad conduct in the controversial gesture, for me, the congregation displays bad conduct in their championing of their conditioning over the gifts of their priest. My argument is that the congregation’s attitude is worse than the priest’s gesture–and that sometimes it seems like we (and I include myself here) are more interested in indulging our attitudes and our feelings of being offended or right than we are uninterested in feeding the poor. Or receiving Eucharist.

setter:

These “qualities” that you list are simply and certaintly the heroic virtues found in saints, whether men or women. The male saints that you exampled simply dress up these virtues in authentic masculinity.

Are you admitting here that masculinity as it is culturally defined is performed more than it is existential? If you are saying that Francis’ love (for instance) was dressed up in a masculine gesture, what then is the use of the masculine gesture if not as a vessel for the love which exceeds it in value? What then is the use of masculinity or femininity if not as vessels for one thing or another, one virtue, one grace or another? And if vessels, is not what they contain the more (name removed by moderator)ortant? And if what they contain is more important, does it not behoove us to judge the quality of the gesture by the virtue it is meant to convey? And if this is the case, are we not beling called to look beyond the gesture entirely, seeing as it is merely performance, not substance?

I hope you’re all having a wonderful Christmas.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[CathCentrist]

Deo,

I commend you on your efforts in explaining! You are btw, 100% correct!

 

[Melchior]

I grew up in the Diocese of Springfield, MA. There was an effeminate priest at our parish. He never once touched a child and was kind and compassionate. I will never forget him. He never screamed or scolded us like the sisters or Mnsgr. He didn’t jerk us in and out of line while we were practicing for first communion. If we were out of line, he would come over and smile and say “let’s get into line, ok”. Eight year olds responded to that. The ones that were jerked around spent 10 minutes crying hysterically in the pews, holding up the entire rehearsal.

A kind word turns away wrath.

I am glad he was a nice priest, but I take exception to the common cultural idea that gay or effeminate men are more senstive and nice to children or in general. I worked with a wonderul, effeminate priest, in the Por-life movement too. But that’s not really the point is it? Boys will not be attracted to a priesthood dominated by the effeminate. That is just the reality. Boys are attracted to masculine role models. I am not saying a priest who is lady-like is a bad person or not a good priest. But I am saying is that he will not be a model of something for a normal boy to aspire too. The assumption, in a childs mind, is that to a be a priest is to be effeminate.

If most firemen sashayed, adopted a lisp without a speech impediment causing it, and spoke in high pitched tones and acted like a 16 year old girl, there would alot less fire fighters. That is the only point here. No little boys want to grow up to be a cop if they watch CHiPs as a kid and Ponch and John were played by Andy Dick and Nathan Lane. This really is just a matter of appropriate role modeling if you give it some honest thought.

Mel

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Again I state that you are confusing the promptings of natural law with the guidance of social dictate. And while you state below that…

…I wonder if you’ve been reading what I’ve been writing because my point has been that you have elevated social dictate to the level of natural moral law–you have internalized the social dictate to such an extent that it hgas assumed an authority on par with moral law. Your statement here indicates that you’ve not quite gotten this point as you don’t address it, but simply skirt around it.

The clearly teaches that the cultural expressions of a society are to be submisive to the “Reign of God” of which natural [moral] law is the interior knowledge placed in each person to know what is good and right, what is properly ordered to the good and dignity of man. Any manifestation contrary or opposed thereof is an aberration and deviation. You are guilty of attempting to emancipate “the guidance of social dictate”, i.e., the prevailing cultural norms, apart from the “interior and spiritual” values which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions’ of society.

2820 By a discernment according to the Spirit, Christians have to distinguish between the growth of the Reign of God and the progress of the culture and society in which they are involved. This distinction is not a separation. Man’s vocation to eternal life does not suppress, but actually reinforces, his duty to put into action in this world the energies and means received from the Creator to serve justice and peace. (CCC)

1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:”

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (CCC)

So I will state it as clearly as possible: whether or not you are conscious of doing it, and whether or not it something you want to do, you have interpreted social dictate as being as authoritative as moral law. In other words, like it or not, you conflate custom with morality. And stating the ideal, the goal, as you do above, does not mean that in your behavior, your attitudes, your opinions that you have attained the goal.

You have arrived yourself at an erroneous interpretation and extrapolation of my position.

I believe that the biological fact of gender and all of the hormones attendant on that fact give us an inkling as to how masculine and feminine act in the world. Moreover, they give us an inkling as to what the masculine and the feminine mean on a more symbolic level (i.e. on a more metaphysical level, the level from which the facts of gender receive their meaning). But culture elaborates on these inklings, obscuring some at times, prejudicing others, and while a culture’s behavioral dictates can be indicative of an idea of masculinity, it does not necessarily follow that that idea is universal, though the material upon which it is based is universal.

Okay …

Moreover, I am unconvinced that the masculine/feminine can be adequately encapsulated in a certain series of culturally specific gestures, believing as I do that the masculine/feminine are an internal quality of being in the world which is not neccessarily or completely represented by the gestures we make as the gestures we make are a combination of cultural conditioning and external representation of the inner person.

Are suggesting that the norm for human behavior is a radical disconnect between the internal experience of a person and the external gestures displayed in any given cultural context?