J
JimG
Guest
Wow, maybe you’ve put your finger on it. In RCIA the women are always talking about “the process,” which drives the men up the wall. The men just want to know what we believe and what to do.
- Status
S
space_ghost
Guest
…yes, they called it Crisio…
…marriage encounter…
…engaged encounter…
…renew…
some were pretty worthwhile…
some needed to be nuked…
http://www.usfvideocollectibles.com/Space_Ghost_using_Power_Bands.jpg
IMHO
…marriage encounter…
…engaged encounter…
…renew…
some were pretty worthwhile…
some needed to be nuked…
http://www.usfvideocollectibles.com/Space_Ghost_using_Power_Bands.jpg
IMHO
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I voted to disagree strongly.
Catholic “spirituality” is not “too” anything, much less effeminite. – however you spell that word. People have all different point along the spiritual journey, and they may have to learn to develop “portions” of themselves that are often seen as “feminine” or “masculine” in various theological contexts. Married people get to help each other become one complete unit.
It did occur to me, though, while thinking of the title of this post that we really need to support the efforts to take back the rainbow. If we don’t, then we could be open to ridiculous claims involving purple vestments, like that one purple Teletubby did.
All we need is for our enemies to start celebrating whenever we wear that color. :bigyikes:
Alan
Catholic “spirituality” is not “too” anything, much less effeminite. – however you spell that word. People have all different point along the spiritual journey, and they may have to learn to develop “portions” of themselves that are often seen as “feminine” or “masculine” in various theological contexts. Married people get to help each other become one complete unit.
It did occur to me, though, while thinking of the title of this post that we really need to support the efforts to take back the rainbow. If we don’t, then we could be open to ridiculous claims involving purple vestments, like that one purple Teletubby did.
All we need is for our enemies to start celebrating whenever we wear that color. :bigyikes:
Alan
D
DarinHamel
Guest
I strongly agree! I am sure its a combinations of reasons why it is so. I read St John of the Cross and most of the other mystics and they say things like, “Oh my sweet Jesus”, “Delectable Jesus”. I love Jesus too but when a man writes that its icky to me.
I was talked into a going to a catholic mens group to “reconnect with my manhood” run by a Nun. We sat around a campfire with drums and sang. I spent eight years in the Army. I am a man, what was that Nun trying to do? I thought we were going hunting or something.
When I was a kid I wanted to be a man, just like my Dad. My Dad was an usher in church. When women became ushers too alot of the men quit. I didn’t want to be one anymore either. It was like a club. Men like all men clubs. Men like to gather and be men. I have told that story to women and they get very angry at that. They totally miss the point.
When it comes to spirituality, only the mystics who are the romantic mystics (lovers) have gotten the biggest play. There are others. The philosopher mystics (scholars) get the second most play in the church. The power mystics (warriors) are rarely discussed.
Mystics come from every walk of life and experience God primarily through one of three faculties, the body (feelings), the mind (intellect), or the spirit (will). It all depends on the personal temperament of the individual. One is not higher than another and where one is all are.
Seraphic mystics love a personal God who is like a spouse (I was raptured and felt His indescribable love) and they seek union with God. Seraphic mystics experience God primarily through the feelings and their vice to become complacent. Seraphic mystics commonly use the language of interpersonal relationships (poetry) and the “love” of God.
Cherubic mystics know a transcendent Creator who is like an infinite reality (I was raptured and God revealed unfathomable mysteries to me) and they seek to know God. Cherubic mystics experience God primarily through the intellect and their vice to get caught up in idle speculation. Cherubic Mystics commonly use the language of logic (philosophical treatise) and concentrate on the “knowledge” of God (or lack thereof).
Throne mystics serve an inner Unity that is like a dynamic power (I was raptured into the uncreated light of the Presence) and they seek transcendence unto God. Throne mystics experience God primarily through the will and their vice is hubris. Throne mystics commonly use the language of aphorisms (proverbs) to transmit their teachings and have the “eternal life” of God as their focus.
Sorry this went so long but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one.
I was talked into a going to a catholic mens group to “reconnect with my manhood” run by a Nun. We sat around a campfire with drums and sang. I spent eight years in the Army. I am a man, what was that Nun trying to do? I thought we were going hunting or something.
When I was a kid I wanted to be a man, just like my Dad. My Dad was an usher in church. When women became ushers too alot of the men quit. I didn’t want to be one anymore either. It was like a club. Men like all men clubs. Men like to gather and be men. I have told that story to women and they get very angry at that. They totally miss the point.
When it comes to spirituality, only the mystics who are the romantic mystics (lovers) have gotten the biggest play. There are others. The philosopher mystics (scholars) get the second most play in the church. The power mystics (warriors) are rarely discussed.
Mystics come from every walk of life and experience God primarily through one of three faculties, the body (feelings), the mind (intellect), or the spirit (will). It all depends on the personal temperament of the individual. One is not higher than another and where one is all are.
Seraphic mystics love a personal God who is like a spouse (I was raptured and felt His indescribable love) and they seek union with God. Seraphic mystics experience God primarily through the feelings and their vice to become complacent. Seraphic mystics commonly use the language of interpersonal relationships (poetry) and the “love” of God.
Cherubic mystics know a transcendent Creator who is like an infinite reality (I was raptured and God revealed unfathomable mysteries to me) and they seek to know God. Cherubic mystics experience God primarily through the intellect and their vice to get caught up in idle speculation. Cherubic Mystics commonly use the language of logic (philosophical treatise) and concentrate on the “knowledge” of God (or lack thereof).
Throne mystics serve an inner Unity that is like a dynamic power (I was raptured into the uncreated light of the Presence) and they seek transcendence unto God. Throne mystics experience God primarily through the will and their vice is hubris. Throne mystics commonly use the language of aphorisms (proverbs) to transmit their teachings and have the “eternal life” of God as their focus.
Sorry this went so long but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one.
J
JimG
Guest
Ahhh!! Now you’ve done it! You’ve used that phrase again! Spiritual “journey.”
Maybe there’s nothing really wrong with it, but it seems every RCIA candidate and catechumen must hear the phrase several times a week for a year.
What would happen if we just had classes instead of journeying? Would the world end?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I knew there was a reason I’ve never gone to RCIA.
I suspect you are employing satire, but honestly I’m not sure what point, if any, it’s supposed to make other than that phrase is overused.
In my observations, very few people seem to have a clue what this “spiritual journey” involves other than that we’re supposed to be on it. This applies to converts as well as cradles afa I can tell. It sounds to me like they’re throwing it around superficially.
Classes are great. The spiritual journey is a whole different issue that intersect with teachings such as I suspect RCIA covers, but has its own different outlook, attitude, and even language in some cases. I did notice in the handbook that they use our parish refers to vocal and meditative prayer, but not to contemplative prayer like the CCC clearly states a prayer life “should” lead to. From your reaction, might I suspect it may as well be an empty phrase that tries to pay homage to the Church’s apophatic tradition without actually getting bogged down by delving into it – for the comfort of the intellectual, seemingly better documented, kataphatic teachings?
Alan
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
I would not agree with this statement. God created us as persons, men and women, not just neutered ghosts who happen to inhabit male or female bodies, and our souls are aspects of who we are as persons.
Just as I would not cease to be a man if I were to suffer the loss of the lower half of my body in some terrible accident and somehow survive, I will not cease to be a man when I give up my body in its entirety in death and until I receive it again in the resurrection.
J
Joseph_Bilodeau
Guest
Getting back to the original question, I find nothing effiminate about our Commander-in-Chief’s command to “take up your cross and follow Me.” It is a job and a challenge worthy of a true man (not that many true women do not also worthily discharge this duty.)
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Joseph Bilodeau:
Regarding the gender of souls, we must ask ourselves–what is the use of gender when applied to spiritual things if not as metaphor? And if we are dealing here with metaphor, it is ncessary then for us not to have recourse to biology for the spiritual meaning of masculine and feminine, but to symbol. We cannot, therefore, speak of our souls having a gender as our bodies are gendered. We can speak of them in terms of the masculine or the feminine, however–which are more properly roles, archetypes, or patterns of behavior. In the tradition of the neoplatonic church fathers, one may say that it is the soul or the spiritual that conditions the phenomenal or the physical–that gender and differentiated sexual organs exist in the phenomenal realm does not mean that they exist in the spiritual. Rather, it means that they are expressions of the spiritual. The universe is a great symbol.
It is for this reason that I have a bit of a problem with some of the inclusive language movement. To speak of “men” in a liturgical sense is to speak of humanity, of human-kind–the race of Men. It refers not to biology but to the nature of the creature–the nature of the soul. To introduce through post-modern discourse sexual differentiation into a term that does not countenance it is to acknowledges the difference between the sexes as if it implied a difference between souls–as if the soul of a man or the soul of woman were not fully human in themselves, and only partially so. It is introduce political discourse into Divine Worship–which is why, though I’m a social liberal, I do not believe the Mass is any place for politics and protests (liberal or conservative). Liturgy is a phenomenal expression of spiritual worship. As such, it should take its cue from the spiritual, not the biological or the political.
All this having been said, we must be very wary not to conflate our gender identity, or our primary or secondary sexual characteristics with masculinity or femininity. To do so would be akin to saying that someone with a larger penis or someone with larger breasts is more masculine or feminine (respectively) than others. This is an insulting concept, and you touched on it above when you said that, should your lower half be cut off, you would not be less of a male–you’re right. We cannot, therefore, conflate or equate masculinity with gender. We can come to an understanding of what the masculine is from gendered male behavior. Masculinity and Femininity are culturally intuited and performative–we perform our identities, we perform our masculinity and/or our femininity. Fathers model this behavior for their sons, mothers model it for their daughters. Witness kabuki theater in Japan, in which it was commonly believed that a woman should watch the female characters in order to learn how to be lady-like, even though all roles in kabuki are performed by males. It can be said that we are speaking here of the masculine and the feminine as they are revealed through the “macho” and the “girly”.
Biologically speaking, we can discuss gender giving rise to masculine or feminine expression–but this is to move the discussion entirely into the realm of phenomena and to ignore the cultural (let alone metaphysical or cosmological) meanings of Masculinity and feminity, which, while related to gender and biology, are not identical to it.
(CONTINUED…)
Joseph Bilodeau:
Joseph, I understand your point here, but I think there are many different perspectives from which one can view this issue.
Regarding the gender of souls, we must ask ourselves–what is the use of gender when applied to spiritual things if not as metaphor? And if we are dealing here with metaphor, it is ncessary then for us not to have recourse to biology for the spiritual meaning of masculine and feminine, but to symbol. We cannot, therefore, speak of our souls having a gender as our bodies are gendered. We can speak of them in terms of the masculine or the feminine, however–which are more properly roles, archetypes, or patterns of behavior. In the tradition of the neoplatonic church fathers, one may say that it is the soul or the spiritual that conditions the phenomenal or the physical–that gender and differentiated sexual organs exist in the phenomenal realm does not mean that they exist in the spiritual. Rather, it means that they are expressions of the spiritual. The universe is a great symbol.
It is for this reason that I have a bit of a problem with some of the inclusive language movement. To speak of “men” in a liturgical sense is to speak of humanity, of human-kind–the race of Men. It refers not to biology but to the nature of the creature–the nature of the soul. To introduce through post-modern discourse sexual differentiation into a term that does not countenance it is to acknowledges the difference between the sexes as if it implied a difference between souls–as if the soul of a man or the soul of woman were not fully human in themselves, and only partially so. It is introduce political discourse into Divine Worship–which is why, though I’m a social liberal, I do not believe the Mass is any place for politics and protests (liberal or conservative). Liturgy is a phenomenal expression of spiritual worship. As such, it should take its cue from the spiritual, not the biological or the political.
All this having been said, we must be very wary not to conflate our gender identity, or our primary or secondary sexual characteristics with masculinity or femininity. To do so would be akin to saying that someone with a larger penis or someone with larger breasts is more masculine or feminine (respectively) than others. This is an insulting concept, and you touched on it above when you said that, should your lower half be cut off, you would not be less of a male–you’re right. We cannot, therefore, conflate or equate masculinity with gender. We can come to an understanding of what the masculine is from gendered male behavior. Masculinity and Femininity are culturally intuited and performative–we perform our identities, we perform our masculinity and/or our femininity. Fathers model this behavior for their sons, mothers model it for their daughters. Witness kabuki theater in Japan, in which it was commonly believed that a woman should watch the female characters in order to learn how to be lady-like, even though all roles in kabuki are performed by males. It can be said that we are speaking here of the masculine and the feminine as they are revealed through the “macho” and the “girly”.
Biologically speaking, we can discuss gender giving rise to masculine or feminine expression–but this is to move the discussion entirely into the realm of phenomena and to ignore the cultural (let alone metaphysical or cosmological) meanings of Masculinity and feminity, which, while related to gender and biology, are not identical to it.
(CONTINUED…)
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
(…CONTINUED)
On a more metaphysical level, we are not masculine or feminine because of our gender–we are gendered because of the masculine and the feminine. But before we can be either masculine or feminine, we must first be human. And humanity is not exclusive to the masculine or to the feminine, but encompasses both. Given the neoplatonic ontology of the early church fathers, one can easily say that one is human before masculine, before male, before macho. As such, while the soul may have a masculine character, it is not human because masculine, it is masculine because human. Therefore, the humanity of the soul precedes its masculinity–and the soul is not more or less human for being more or less masculine/feminine. Which is to say–the nature of the human soul is neither masculine or feminine as these things are culturally intuited, but (perhaps) may be said to be both.
However, from a relational perspective, the soul is definitely feminine. If we agree with the tri-partite division of man–body, soul, spirit–the passive (feminine) soul receives the active (masculine) spirit. Mary receives the Word of God. The Bride-Church receives her Groom. In this way of looking at things, the soul is passive/feminine because it receives all it is from God. At this level, to cling to gender-informed cultural notions of masculinity and femininity is an act of ego which stands in the way of identifying with the Bride-Church, the Body of Christ, or even with the Holy God-Bearer Mary–for just as Mary received the Word and gave birth to Christ, we must receive the Word in our souls and give birth to Christ in our lives. To cling to cultural, biological, or gendered masculinity here is to obstruct relationship and to reject the symbol.
On this level, therefore, we cannot speak so much of masculine and feminine souls in each person–but we can speak of masculine and feminine activities of the soul while recognizing the basically feminine nature of the soul. We can agree that the soul’s purpose is to remain actively passive in the presence of God–that is, it chooses to love and receive her Lord. It is this choice which corresponds to an active masculine function in the soul and can be ascribed to the will, not a soul intself, but a faculty of the soul. This faculty of the soul can be said to be masculine, and it is its job to guard the virginal purity of the soul and allow it to receive its Lord–its job is to actively choose to receive God. If the will is perverse, it will sully the soul and fill it with things contrary to its nature and purpose. But if the will is purified, the soul may become virginal once more.
Let us remember, therefore, the three-fold pattern of the mystical way–purification, illumination, union. Each involves aspects of masculine and feminine activity on the part of the soul (some, perhaps, perhaps, involving one more than the other–self-disicpline can be seen as a masculine preparation for purification, but the soul is purified not by its own efforts, but by being receptive to the purifying fire of God’s love), and each unifies the soul in the process of ascent to God (an ascent which is more like an assumption as it is not done by our own power, but through an active “Yes!” to God’s sanctifying grace).
All of which is to say this: devotional life should involve both masculine and feminine elements given the nature of who we are as people, as humans, and in relation to God. To wish for a more masculine spirituality must not be confused with the wish that spirituality be more masculine in the cultural or biological senses–that is, more macho. Macho-ness has nothing to do with the spiritual life–nor does girliness. It is not, nor should it be, to desire a prayer meeting before hunting. A more masculine spirituality will be more ascetically rigorous, perhaps, but not for all that, diminish the feminine passivity of the soul. I mentioned above the example of spiritual chivalry–I think this would be something good to investigate for those looking for a more masculine devotional life.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
On a more metaphysical level, we are not masculine or feminine because of our gender–we are gendered because of the masculine and the feminine. But before we can be either masculine or feminine, we must first be human. And humanity is not exclusive to the masculine or to the feminine, but encompasses both. Given the neoplatonic ontology of the early church fathers, one can easily say that one is human before masculine, before male, before macho. As such, while the soul may have a masculine character, it is not human because masculine, it is masculine because human. Therefore, the humanity of the soul precedes its masculinity–and the soul is not more or less human for being more or less masculine/feminine. Which is to say–the nature of the human soul is neither masculine or feminine as these things are culturally intuited, but (perhaps) may be said to be both.
However, from a relational perspective, the soul is definitely feminine. If we agree with the tri-partite division of man–body, soul, spirit–the passive (feminine) soul receives the active (masculine) spirit. Mary receives the Word of God. The Bride-Church receives her Groom. In this way of looking at things, the soul is passive/feminine because it receives all it is from God. At this level, to cling to gender-informed cultural notions of masculinity and femininity is an act of ego which stands in the way of identifying with the Bride-Church, the Body of Christ, or even with the Holy God-Bearer Mary–for just as Mary received the Word and gave birth to Christ, we must receive the Word in our souls and give birth to Christ in our lives. To cling to cultural, biological, or gendered masculinity here is to obstruct relationship and to reject the symbol.
On this level, therefore, we cannot speak so much of masculine and feminine souls in each person–but we can speak of masculine and feminine activities of the soul while recognizing the basically feminine nature of the soul. We can agree that the soul’s purpose is to remain actively passive in the presence of God–that is, it chooses to love and receive her Lord. It is this choice which corresponds to an active masculine function in the soul and can be ascribed to the will, not a soul intself, but a faculty of the soul. This faculty of the soul can be said to be masculine, and it is its job to guard the virginal purity of the soul and allow it to receive its Lord–its job is to actively choose to receive God. If the will is perverse, it will sully the soul and fill it with things contrary to its nature and purpose. But if the will is purified, the soul may become virginal once more.
Let us remember, therefore, the three-fold pattern of the mystical way–purification, illumination, union. Each involves aspects of masculine and feminine activity on the part of the soul (some, perhaps, perhaps, involving one more than the other–self-disicpline can be seen as a masculine preparation for purification, but the soul is purified not by its own efforts, but by being receptive to the purifying fire of God’s love), and each unifies the soul in the process of ascent to God (an ascent which is more like an assumption as it is not done by our own power, but through an active “Yes!” to God’s sanctifying grace).
All of which is to say this: devotional life should involve both masculine and feminine elements given the nature of who we are as people, as humans, and in relation to God. To wish for a more masculine spirituality must not be confused with the wish that spirituality be more masculine in the cultural or biological senses–that is, more macho. Macho-ness has nothing to do with the spiritual life–nor does girliness. It is not, nor should it be, to desire a prayer meeting before hunting. A more masculine spirituality will be more ascetically rigorous, perhaps, but not for all that, diminish the feminine passivity of the soul. I mentioned above the example of spiritual chivalry–I think this would be something good to investigate for those looking for a more masculine devotional life.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
- Status