Is Catholic spirituality ever too effiminate?

[Madaglan]

THE FOLLOWING POLL IS TO BE ANSWERED BY MEN ONLY, although women are more than welcome to offer their opinions on this thread.

To tell everyone the truth, although in my early twenties, it has only been in the last five years or so that I have really increased in my respect and devotion to my Catholic faith. Beforehand, I was very much turned off by Catholicism, not because I knew a whole lot about it, but because what I thought Catholicism was, through what I was taught in CCD and other media outlets of religion–in addition to some Protestant influences which defined my image of Christianity in general.

Surprisingly, I started attending the sacraments again only after reading the OT. I was really surprised to read really cool stories about God zapping people, Jonathan and his shield carrier ambushing the enemy, the Maccabbean wars, the Davidic wars, etc. I also was really surprised, when I began reading the NT for myself, that Jesus is not some rainbow-aura’ed pacifist, as I had assumed, but is the Almighty and powerful God, King and eternal warrior against Satan. I soon discovered, in reading about the early martyrs and the great Christological battles of the early Church, that traditional Christianity is much more manly and worthy of the male’s attention than I earlier preceived.

Just now, I pulled out one of my first CCD books–“Church: Our Signs.” On the front cover is a picture of children who are laughing as they lay on their backs, with their heads towards a common center. In flipping through the pages, I recognize cartoonish pictures of priests, eucharistic ministers, Biblical figures, etc. Even in the picture for the Last Supper, everyone is smiling. Arggh!

I don’t know about every other guy, but when I was young, I was intrigued with war, battles, sports, competition, kicking butt. I sometimes wonder if CCD programs would profit if they taught Christian theology in a way that is attuned to the competitive and physically active nature of boys and young men.

Unfortunately, I oftentimes see the spiritual representations I experienced in CCD on television shows like EWTN–which, to be noted, is a very good station; I just can’t stand some of the commercial prayers, since they are too mawkish for me.

What do you guys think?

Please don’t think that I’m trying to be chauvinistic. I understand that Christianity needs to appeal to women, too. I just wonder if, especially in the formation years of the Christian (through CCD) there is not enough attention paid to the male nature–and instead of growing in interest of the Catholic Church, the male is put into a pink bunny suit, spiritually speaking.

 

[mhansen]

Wow…can you say Christian jihad?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by mhansen:

Wow…can you say Christian jihad?

No, but I can say Christian crusade

haha…jk.

I don’t see anything jihadish in what I posted.

But really…I think that the movie, The Passion, really brings out for me the Christian spirit. I also like reading the works of the Jesuits and the Catholic apologogists of the first few centuries. They really knew how to fight (in a spiritual way) for the Truth.

I suppose that i just have a lot of energy inside of me, and I need some way to release it, so I tend to like the fighters for Truth more than any other. That’s why I suppose I chose St. George as my patron saint!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think Catholic spirituality is feminine in the archetypal sense–it is about tilling the ground of the soul to make it more receptive to the word of God. It is about being open to grace. It is not for nothing that the Church is called “She” and that she is called the Bride of Christ.

This does not mean that it is emasculating, for all that. It means that archetypal masculinity finds its completion in becoming archetypally feminine. I’m not, by the way, talking about gender here. But this is why the Rebus (or the Androgyne) is one of the primary symbols of completion in the “traditional” science of alchemy.

Consider chivalry, for instance, which can be seen as a certain vigilance maintained for the purity of the soul. Masculine chivalry and vigilance supports the feminine passivity of the soul. This has, of course, certain projections into the phenomenal realm–the way men behave toward women, for instance. But that is merely a sign of the spiritual chivalry which is concerned with the soul and naturally has as its focus devotion to the Blessed Virgin who is, herself, the model of the soul.

Here is a prayer for a New Chivalry that I found at secondspring.co.uk/spirituality/Prayers%20for%20a%20New%20Chivalry.htm. It is very masculine, but has at its heart the feminine through its focus on the Holy God-Bearer.

Behold us at your feet, O Mary, our Lady and Suzerain! Beneath the light of your pure look, we come to seek new strength for the combat.
O faithful Virgin, we have received the heavy and dangerous mission to enlarge the frontiers of God’s Kingdom on earth; we have promised to fight for the triumph of Christ the King, your Son: keep us from perjury!
O Queen enthroned in sweet majesty, obtain for us the humility of children and the magnanimity of heroes; that no pride may sully the great working of divine grace, that no fear may compromise or delay our spiritual Quest.
O immaculate Virgin, the world is far from truth and peace! Everywhere the prince of this world has spread hatred and violence, lies and impurity. Justice and honour are scoffed at, the divine Name is blasphemed, and the Holy Church is sorely tested. In the face of the Powers of darkness, please send to our aid Saint Michael and his sacred legions, which are glorious and without number: that they may shed on us their dazzling light and the burning fire of their charity.
With their help and by your intercession, may we gain a firm heart, a clear judgement, an unswerving determination, and even the love of our enemies, so that we may deserve to fight for God alone, without ever being untrue to the laws of Honour.
We pray that by the working of divine Mercy, force may always be at the service of right, the rich at the service of the poor, the powerful at the service of the weak and disinherited.
Also we pray that the love of money may be held in contempt, and that Holy Poverty be admired, that our Lord God be served first in all things, that his Reign be sought first before all things, and that the promised increase in love be given us.
O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, who crush the head of Satan under your feet, do not allow us ever to fall beneath his blows: grant that, having lived for the honour of God and the service of our brethren, we may know how to die for his Glory.
O Mary, our sweet Suzerain, at the end of the day, after the battle, be pleased to lead us to the heavenly Jerusalem, where you reign, sitting at your Son’s right hand, over all the orders of Angels; you, the purest of God’s creatures and the closest to his Divinity.
[Amen.]

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Fidelis]

I replied that I somewhat agree with this statement. Being involved in men’s groups and speaking to a number of men on this issue, I believe it to be one of the factors that keeps a lot of men from becoming active or involved in any level in the Church. It’s kind of a self-perpetuating cycle: men don’t get involved, so women are forced to pick up the slack in areas like catechesis. Bless their hearts, they can hardly be blamed for not including a masculine perspective in our liturgies, adult education and in how our children are taught the faith. In other words, if we men think the the Church is too effeminate, be part of the solution instead of the problem–get involved and be a male presence in the Church!

Mark Shea had a thought-provoking article on this very subject in This Rock magazine not long ago–here’s the link:

Masculine and Feminine, Evangelical and Catholic
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203fea2.asp

CA Staff Apologist Jimmy Akin did a follow-up article of sorts which is also pertinent:

The Loss of Masculine Spirituality
And Its Need for Renewal
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea1.asp

 

[OhioBob]

Another link to Mark Shea’s material is HERE.

I don’t agree that it is TOO feminine, but Catholicism certainly has a softer, more mystical rhetoric than the Protestants do. It is “feminine” but I don’t consider that to a negative term. It’s just descriptive.

 

[mhansen]

Madaglan,

I was just kiddin’ about the jihad thing. I can see where you’re coming from to a certain degree, but…

OhioBob:

I don’t agree that it is TOO feminine, but Catholicism certainly has a softer, more mystical rhetoric than the Protestants do. It is “feminine” but I don’t consider that to a negative term. It’s just descriptive.

I have to agree with OhioBob here. The descriptions used in the Bible (Bride of Christ, etc) can sound feminine to many people. Song of Songs is another example where our relationship with God is described in the context of a lover and his beloved. It’s hard to get away from that imagery though, and still manage to portray the (ideally) intimate love we share with God. I’m not sure there’s any other way to do it…

Mike

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Deo Volente:

This does not mean that it is emasculating, for all that. It means that archetypal masculinity finds its completion in becoming archetypally feminine. I’m not, by the way, talking about gender here. But this is why the Rebus (or the Androgyne) is one of the primary symbols of completion in the “traditional” science of alchemy.

Consider chivalry, for instance, which can be seen as a certain vigilance maintained for the purity of the soul. Masculine chivalry and vigilance supports the feminine passivity of the soul. This has, of course, certain projections into the phenomenal realm–the way men behave toward women, for instance. But that is merely a sign of the spiritual chivalry which is concerned with the soul and naturally has as its focus devotion to the Blessed Virgin who is, herself, the model of the soul.

I’m not sure if I follow all your logic. Don’t take offense at this, but much of the latter paragraph sounds quite gnostic to me.

For example, I can somewhat see how chivalry can be defined as a certain vigilance maintained for the purity of the soul, but I don’t understand how masculine chivalry *supports *the feminine passivity of the soul, nor do I see why it supports the *feminine *passivity of the soul (how is feminine passivity of the soul different from masculine passivity of the soul?). Why must masculine chivalry have the Virgin Mary as the focus of its devotion? And how does the Virgin Mary become a model herself of (as opposed to for) the soul?

What kind of method of interpretation are you using? You earlier mentioned an alchemical relationship in a way which suggests that you are quite familiar with alchemy. Are you analyzing the situation based on your understanding of alchemy? Kaballah?
I’m not necessarily accusing you. Your explanation is just not traditionally Catholic, and even after reading your post several times, not all the pieces fit together for me.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Qutoed by mhansen:

Madaglan,

I was just kiddin’ about the jihad thing. I can see where you’re coming from to a certain degree, but…

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioBob

I don’t agree that it is TOO feminine, but Catholicism certainly has a softer, more mystical rhetoric than the Protestants do. It is “feminine” but I don’t consider that to a negative term. It’s just descriptive.

I have to agree with OhioBob here. The descriptions used in the Bible (Bride of Christ, etc) can sound feminine to many people. Song of Songs is another example where our relationship with God is described in the context of a lover and his beloved. It’s hard to get away from that imagery though, and still manage to portray the (ideally) intimate love we share with God. I’m not sure there’s any other way to do it…

Mike

Thank you for the clarification. I understand the clear feminine portrayal of the Church through the Song of Songs/Bride of Christ comparison. I guess what really bugs me, however (and honestly less so now than when I was younger), is how the feminine portrayals get reinterpretted into feminine actions on the behavioral level, of the individual male.

I have no problem with the devotion to Mary, Virgin Mother of God, nor do I have any problem whatsoever to devotion paid to any of the female saints. When I was in CCD, however, I felt that the I was being fed an over-sentimentalized version of the faith, one which emphasized certain stories to the exclusion of others, and which did not really speak to the males in the classroom.

To be fair, I do credit the female teachers (all the teachers at my CCD were female) for taking the time they did to teach. And they did give the basics of the Catholic sacraments. I just personally didn’t get really interested in or engaged with Christianity until after reading the OT. It, for some reason or another, really grabbed my attention and interest. And after I read that, I read Ignatius of Antioch and other early Christian works, and after reading them, I found a new-formed love for the Catholic faith.

So, I’m not blaming any one in particular.

 

[JimG]

No, but sometimes catechesis is.

In some RCIA programs it is hard to get past the touchy-feely stuff to find out what Catholics really believe. I can see some men in the program thinking “is this all there is?”

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by JimG:

No, but sometimes catechesis is.

In some RCIA programs it is hard to get past the touchy-feely stuff to find out what Catholics really believe. I can see some men in the program thinking “is this all there is?”

Hmmm…Very interesting. Perhaps throughout much of my early life, as I was exposed primarily to catechesis, I ended up equating what I perceived as effeminate catechesis with effeminite spirituality.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Madaglan:

I’m not sure if I follow all your logic. Don’t take offense at this, but much of the latter paragraph sounds quite gnostic to me.

No offence taken at all, Madaglan! There is a Christian gnosis spoken of by Origen and St. Clement of Alexandria (and many other church fathers), and I’d like to say that I write about that gnosis rather than the “gnosis falsely so called” roundly condemned by Irenaeus and others, but I think my lack of specificity has recalled the latter and not the former. Aack!

Madaglan:

For example, I can somewhat see how chivalry can be defined as a certain vigilance maintained for the purity of the soul, but I don’t understand how masculine chivalry *supports *the feminine passivity of the soul, nor do I see why it supports the *feminine *passivity of the soul (how is feminine passivity of the soul different from masculine passivity of the soul?).

Traditionally, activity has been associated with masculinity and passivity with femininity. So you’re right to ask your questions here–speaking of a feminine passivity is a bit redundant and can be misleading, and there’s no difference between feminine and masculine passivity–it’s all passivity! Let me preface this by saying that in no way am I assuming that women are naturally passive and men naturally active, or that a passive man or an active woman are un-natural. We’re just talking about traditional definitions of these very broad concepts.

For me, then, chivalry is an active path, one that can easily be associated with the masculine and which fits very well with it, it seems. But the whole purpose of chivalry is to guard the passivity of the soul (the soul being considered feminine–even the Latin, anima, is feminine) and allow it to flourish. What this means is that the activity of the soul is geared towards preparing the soul for the grace it receives from God. We till the soil of our soul to recieve the Word which enables us to till better which enables us to receive more etc. It is an action begun and continued through grace. Chivalry, then, is a tool of the will (a faculty of the soul), a way of devotion which, ideally, leads the soul into greater communion with God.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED)

Madaglan:

Why must masculine chivalry have the Virgin Mary as the focus of its devotion? And how does the Virgin Mary become a model herself of (as opposed to for) the soul?

I don’t think that it must, but I think it naturally does. The courtly love tradition (exemplified by Dante) was grafted onto the chivalric ethos. We can see in Dante’s love of Beatrice an example of what we’re talking about here. There are also similar precedents in the Sufi tradition–the story of Layla and Majnun is a popular one. Majnun falls in love with Layla, but Layla is spirited away, leaving Majnun pining. Majnun goes in search for her, still in love. He goes through many various adventures–finally, he finds Layla again, but upon seeing her, he continues his adventures. The point of the story is this–through his love for her, he was able to come to an understanding of the nature of love that enabled him to love others, to love nature, to love the universe, more. He had so idealized her, that he knew that he could never be with her–so he applied the ideal to the world and strove to love it. This is related to the “ladder of love” discussed in Plato’s Symposium–we move from specific loves to an understanding of the principles behind them to an understanding and love of the Principle that informs them all.

So it is that the object of the chaste, chivalric love is (in a Christian context) most naturally the Blessed Virgin who best shows us Jesus who is the ultimate object of all love and devotion. But here, things can get complicated, because the Blessed Virgin is at the nexus of a very complex web of symbol.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not just a historical figure–her legend comprises more elements than that–she represents Virgin Nature, she represents Created Wisdom (is it not the purpose of Nature and Wisdom to bring forth God?), she represents the Church, she represents the soul. The love Christ has for his mother is also the love Christ has for our souls. He wants to bring us into union with him, he wants to crown our souls in majesty–and through the Church we are betrothed to him, through the Church (which becomes an image of redeemed creation) all of creation becomes betrothed to God. All of these images fit the legend and person of the Blessed Virgin because she is Child of God, Mother of God, and Spouse of God. In this way, she is a model of and a model for the soul.

Everything that happened to the Blessed Virgin must happen to us–we must give birth to the Word in our own souls, a sword of contrition must pierce our hearts so we can be crucified with Christ and rise again with him, God must assume us into his presence and crown us too. And in this great marriage of the soul to God, the two truly do become one and we are conformed to the image of Christ, the author of our faith, whose body in the world we are!

Madaglan:

What kind of method of interpretation are you using? You earlier mentioned an alchemical relationship in a way which suggests that you are quite familiar with alchemy. Are you analyzing the situation based on your understanding of alchemy? Kaballah?

I’m not necessarily accusing you. Your explanation is just not traditionally Catholic, and even after reading your post several times, not all the pieces fit together for me.

I don’t mean to be too esoteric here, but the life of the Blessed Virgin can be read in an esoteric way. Origen spoke of scripture as an ocean of mysteries–the litteral reading is only the skin of the sea–there are riches upon riches beneath the surface! This sort of exegetical enterprise is not necessarily Kabbalistic (though a Christian Kabbalah–often spelled Cabala in this context–is not unknown to the world–see Reuchlin, Ficino, della Mirandola, Dante, Blessed Ramon Lull, John of the Cross, the list could go on), and is quite in keeping with the Christian interpretive tradition.

I do know a bit about alchemy and some of the other traditional sciences, but it is mostly book-learning. But there is a Christian alchemical tradition as well–in fact, in the West, you’d be hard-pressed to separate it from Christianity! Titus Burckhardt wrote a great little introduction called “Alchemy” which I highly recommend if the topic interests you–many Christian mystics have found alchemical symbolism to be an effective way to discuss their experiences.

Anyway–it’s not my intention to be or seem heretical! God preserve me from such a thing!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[batteddy]

“I think Catholic spirituality is feminine in the archetypal sense–it is about tilling the ground of the soul to make it more receptive to the word of God. It is about being open to grace. It is not for nothing that the Church is called “She” and that she is called the Bride of Christ.”

True, and the individual soul is theologically considered feminine too. This is not an insult to men, simply a recognition of God.

“how is feminine passivity of the soul different from masculine passivity of the soul?”

There is no such thing as “masculine passivity”. That is a contradiction.

Symbolically speaking: masculine = active force, feminine = passive force.

“Why must masculine chivalry have the Virgin Mary as the focus of its devotion? And how does the Virgin Mary become a model herself of (as opposed to for) the soul?”

Because the Virgin Mary was most perfectly passively receptive of her salvation.

On a physical level we may be men or women, but souls in relation to Christ…and Creation and the Church in relation to God…are all the “feminine” half.

This is no insult to men, at least it shouldn’t be. It simply means that we are the PASSIVE force in our salvation. We cannot give salvation or win it by ourselves. We just have to lie there and let grace be given to us by Jesus. We are the beloved, he is the lover, on a spiritual level.

The Church, and even the individual soul, is spoken of as the Bride of Christ because he is the Active force who won our salvation and gives it to us.

And we are the Passive, or “feminine”, force.

If this turns men off, and I am a male, too bad. Then they are being arrogant to try to make themselves…mere finite creations…the source of their own salvation and love.

Surely there are masculine and feminine roles socially and biologically and symbolically (lie why men only can be priests). But spiritually, only God himself can be called masculine. It’s just the way that our spiritual terminology works.

“I don’t know about every other guy, but when I was young, I was intrigued with war, battles, sports, competition, kicking butt.”

Well, I know what you mean. But this is not a good thing. It is a man’s cross to bare these violent, animal dispositions. Ultimately, though masculinity must be maintained, he must work to overcome things brutish in his nature.

 

[puzzleannie]

I know you said we women were not supposed to chime in, but you know you can’t shut us up for long.

I would suggest first this discussion points up the difference between authentice Catholic Spirituality and Catholicism as it is taught in CCD and RCIA programs, which are often wildly different. Nobody could call St. John of the Cross effeminate, but his poetry speaks of union with God and the path toward it in terms that must be called romantic.

Second, I would remind us all that all souls are feminine (not female) in relationship to God who is masculine (not male). That is why God is revealed as Father, Son and Spirit. That is, God takes the initiative, the soul submits. That is why Paul and other great spiritual writers make the analogy between the marriage relationship and the relationship between Christ and His Church, His Bride. Peter Kreeft, among others, deals extensively with this idea in his writings.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Deo Volente:

Anyway–it’s not my intention to be or seem heretical! God preserve me from such a thing!

Thank you for lucidly explaining your previous post. I can now better see the traditions you utilize in understanding theology. I apologize if I brandished you a Gnostic, in the sense of Basildes, Valentinus, etc. I just didn’t know where you were coming from. Luckily, I have read some Clement of Alexandria, and I can conceive in my mind how he is different from the bad Gnostics.

Originally Quoted by Puzzleannie:

I know you said we women were not supposed to chime in, but you know you can’t shut us up for long.

On the contrary, I freely invited all women to comment (please see initial post)

Originally Quoted by Puzzleannie:

I would suggest first this discussion points up the difference between authentice Catholic Spirituality and Catholicism as it is taught in CCD and RCIA programs, which are often wildly different. Nobody could call St. John of the Cross effeminate, but his poetry speaks of union with God and the path toward it in terms that must be called romantic.

Yes, I think you are on the right track: there is a difference between authentic spirituality and false spirituality. I think what was really bad for me when I was young was a false spirituality which was fostered by the CCD program that I attended.

Originally Quoted by Puzzleannie:

Second, I would remind us all that all souls are feminine (not female) in relationship to God who is masculine (not male). That is why God is revealed as Father, Son and Spirit. That is, God takes the initiative, the soul submits. That is why Paul and other great spiritual writers make the analogy between the marriage relationship and the relationship between Christ and His Church, His Bride. Peter Kreeft, among others, deals extensively with this idea in his writings.

I can definitely see the symbolic relationships with God the Father in calling the soul female. However, I think that by symbolically calling the soul female, we should not forget how the Church Fathers and medieval scholastics distinguished the female soul from the male soul–the former being passive and receptive, the latter active and initiative (as Deo Volenete comments); and while these distinctions may not hold true in a real sense for us today, it is much more likely that they did for earlier generations.

 

[batteddy]

Well, I don’t know what you mean by a difference between a male and female soul.

All souls are niether male nor female. As humans, our souls are all the same regardless of our gender. But they are all feminine in relation to God because he is the active, initiating force. God “impregnates” with grace…active voice. We “are impregnated” with Grace…passive voice.

But I would remember what one of the articles given by another poster said:

“Spiritually, all of us are “feminine” in pursuing union with God (that is, he must take the initiative of grace with regard to us) but “masculine” in our pursuit of apostolate toward others (that is, we take the initiative regarding bringing the message of Christ to them).”

So in relation to God, we should all be feminine and the passive force, but in relation to others we should all be masculine and the active force.

 

[twiztedseraph]

If you mean that at times it can be a bit too contemplative then yes I suppose it can. Maybe if we had a bit more of a masculine approach, you know “mission filled, empowered etc…” rather then merely feeling God’s love, I mean we’re supposed to spread it aren’t we? That isn’t to say any of our doctrines our wrong, in that we’re completely right. We just need to have a more well rounded approach I think…

 

[Dasher]

I feel that Catholic spirituality can be an extrememly masculine thing. I used to consider it a bit effeminate several years ago, but I don’t anymore. I never saw my father pray and perhaps this is what lead me to that conclusion. But Pope John Paul II changed all of that for me. When I first saw this man on his knees praying, it was a moment of epiphany for me. I have never seen someone pray so passionately in my life. I instantly saw that deep prayer and spirituality could be very masculine. In fact, I feel that there is nothing more manly I could do than get on my knees and enter into deep conversation with our Lord.

 

[Zooey]

OK, first, I’m a woman, & second, I’,m not Catholic…which would seem to mean I should go away quietly, but a couple of things came into my mind:

1. The spirituality, or the spiritual art?? Because I see a lot of pictures of Jesus (not always Catholic) where He looks like…Well, He was a carpenter. And He carried a 200 pound cross.
   But I see pictures that look like maybe I should bring in my own groceries, you know?? So I wonder if that causes some kind of mental block.
   2.I think that men in general seem to me to be more “project oriented”, you know what I mean?? Where Christian spirituality is generally more “process oriented”.
   But, it’s good for all of us to stretch ourselves out of our comfort zones…anyhow, my 2 cents…