Thank you for the clarification, though I would think “overly inclusive” would be a better way of putting it to avoid confusion.
perhaps you are right, but effeminate encapsulated the fullest essence of the problem, including the excessive softness and delicacy aspects.
I also respectfully disagree that the practice of standing around the altar represents a feminine perspective. Perhaps in the case of hand holding during the “Our Father”, sure… but not on a couple of other counts. I’ll detail that below:
Not arguing that it is a “feminine” perspective, but rather an effeminate or overly-inclusive movement. It’s not so much the gathering around the altar I have a problem with (I do have a problem with it), as it is the self-communicating that the OP described above - a clear abuse which I believe stems from an over-inclusive movement.
- Women demanding to be priests has very little to do with effiminate worship. Instead it has more to do with the destruction of the feminine by the “feminist” movement… a movement that says unless a woman fulfills the traditional role of a man, she can’t be viewed as “good enough”. It is this anti-feminine movement which asserts that women cannot “respectfully” hold the position of nun, and that they must be priests. That’s not a male attitude, per se, but it is certainly an anti-feminine perspective to have.
Admittedly, I had the intent of squeezing the feminist movement into my use of “effeminate”, inasmuch as effeminate infers a desire for equality. Perhaps unfair to do so, but I agree with you about the origins of this problem.
- Too many EMHCs probably has more to do with expedience than anything else… and perhaps too much. There are a lot of masses scheduled very close together today, and in American culture, taking 15 minutes for communion seems “too long”. Plus there’s an element of “it’s always been done this way”, which prompts priestsand lay organizers to continue the practice even when it’s not needed. It has very little to do with “including everyone” and more to do with America’s materialist perspective keeping people from being able to kneel silently for 15 minutes to have communion with fewer EMHCs.
Suffice it to say I agree with your perspective and my own simultaneously.
- Going up around the altar is the height of masculine mindset. Is it inclusive? Maybe, but it’s also obstinate and rejecting of authority. It’s the mindset that says “I can’t submit myself to the authority of the church and the priest on the altar, I’m just as good as him, therefore I’ll participate too!” The priest may be overly inclusive in inviting people, but the attitude of the laity who advocate such a practice is one of disobedience and throwing off authority for one’s own edification. In other words, while the priest might be taking on a feminine role here, the laypeople are not… it is actually not “overly effiminate”, but rather a reversal of the proper roles, with both masculine and feminine present, but present in the wrong persons! The same is true of the SSPX and others who have refused to submit to authority… these are examples of the masculine attempting to buck authority and serve it’s own interests.
Agreed, but I was focusing on the perspective of the overly-inviting and inclusive priest, as opposed to the accepting and obeying laity. The former is the source of this problem, the latter a manifestation.
- Altar girls: not touching this one with a ten foot pole, since I happen to think it’s a very reasonable practice to have them. After all, Pheobe, in the bible, was an altar girl (though yes, I realize that in the bible she was called a deaconess)
It’s a touchy subject, I know. It certainly is a valid practice. I hesitated even including it in my examples, but it’s origins are similar to (and spawn from) the overly-inclusive onslaught over the last couple decades, which has resulted in an over-utilization of the laity during Mass, IMO. Granted, lay boys were not altar servers either, it was traditionally for boys with Minor Orders (acolytes). But the reality is that, until recently, the Church’s historical position has been to limit the service to males, with reasonable accompanying arguments to support that position. It has been this overly-inclusive mindset that paved the way for this innovation, and it has arguably done some damage to the understanding of the priestly vocation. That’s all I’ll say, which is already perhaps too much. Hard to express this view without coming across as a misogynist.
At any rate, like I said, I would use “overly inclusive” rather than “overly effiminate” in the discussion to avoid the perception that you’re blaming women as well as because (I believe) the problem of inclusivity involves the disobedient masculine as well.
Agreed.
