Where are the men?

[rpp]

I’m sorry, but this sounds like a cop out to me. I guess I live in a fantasy world where the husband is the *head *of the household and the wife is the heart and this translates into roles not only in the family but also in society. But I guess that since many men won’t step up and take control within the family and society in general, they won’t do so within the Church. I guess the Church is just a reflection of society in general…

While I would not say you live in a fantasy world, it does sound like you are much more fortunate than most. You and your husband seem to understand the gender roles as defined in Scripture and the by the Church.

It may even be that your parish, with the help, apparently of your husband, encourages this as well.

In this you are more than fortunate.

Unfortunately, this is not true in every home, or even every parish. Sometimes, not even by some priests.

The difficulties we are discussing seem to be far from your experience. I think that may lead you to think the problem is exaggerated.

It certainly is not. There are many parishes where the opinions and needs of men and boys are overtly squashed and ignored. This is motivated by the feminist mantra “men should not dominate”, but has lead to the opposite extreme. Even to the emasculation of the priest. I have observed this myself and been insulted, yes **personally **insulted, for nothing more than lacking an XX 23rd chromosome.

This not only drives men away, it keeps them from coming in the first place.

That this problem is an epidemic cannot be denied. That there are some exceptionally fortunate parishes and families like yours gives me hope.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am coming into this thread very late. Another thread was started and this thread was referenced. I agree with many posters here with the addition of one important word.

In the whole thread, I have seen the term “feminization” of the roles. As an extremely feminine female, I find that the Mass is not feminine at all. I would use a much stronger word. The roles of men and women have been neutered. The women holding certain positions are not doing them in a feminine manner. To paraphrase a mid-eighties movie, they are not doing the job as women, they are doing the job the way they think a man would do it if he were a woman.

It is not only men who are being asked to check their manly parts at the door of Mass. Women must turn in ours too. I have gotten flamed every time I have said this in a thread, but I think here it is so important to this topic that I will risk it again. Men are generally more in tune with the physical (and sexual) nature of humans, and women are more in tune with the spiritual (and emotional) nature of humans. (As I’ve said before: this does fall on a spectrum.)

The Mass is about both the physical and the spiritual. Men NEED to be in charge of the physical. They are better at the physical. The sheer importance of Consecration, for me, qualifies the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament as ‘heavy lifting.’ Those hours and hours of the rosary? Best led by wonderful ‘old ladies.’ They have spent their lives praying and waiting for their husbands and sons to return from war, or even just safely home from work.

I totally agree that the emasculinization of men is a HUGE problem. But true emasculinization involves a neutering of the roles of both men and women.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am coming into this thread very late. Another thread was started and this thread was referenced. I agree with many posters here with the addition of one important word.

In the whole thread, I have seen the term “feminization” of the roles. As an extremely feminine female, I find that the Mass is not feminine at all. I would use a much stronger word. The roles of men and women have been neutered. The women holding certain positions are not doing them in a feminine manner. To paraphrase a mid-eighties movie, they are not doing the job as women, they are doing the job the way they think a man would do it if he were a woman.

It is not only men who are being asked to check their manly parts at the door of Mass. Women must turn in ours too. I have gotten flamed every time I have said this in a thread, but I think here it is so important to this topic that I will risk it again. Men are generally more in tune with the physical (and sexual) nature of humans, and women are more in tune with the spiritual (and emotional) nature of humans. (As I’ve said before: this does fall on a spectrum.)

The Mass is about both the physical and the spiritual. Men NEED to be in charge of the physical. They are better at the physical. The sheer importance of Consecration, for me, qualifies the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament as ‘heavy lifting.’ Those hours and hours of the rosary? Best led by wonderful ‘old ladies.’ They have spent their lives praying and waiting for their husbands and sons to return from war, or even just safely home from work.

I totally agree that the emasculinization of men is a HUGE problem. But true emasculinization involves a neutering of the roles of both men and women.

This is a good and important distinction you make concerning feminine and neutered. I agree wholeheartedly that the new liturgy as it is celebrated today is not feminine. It is more accurate to say (as you do) that it is neutered, or one could use the word effeminate as opposed to feminine. Perhaps it being neutered is one reason why the new liturgy seems to not be much of a factor in attracting or producing vocations.

One thing I like about the old liturgy is that it not only has masculine characteristics such as exact ceremony and strong doctrinal content, there are also feminine aspects as well such as the beauty of the language (whether in Latin or a translation), its sense of mystery, and the beauty of Gregorian chant and polyphony (when sung).

I could say the same thing about a Gothic cathedral. You have masculine strength and stability on the outside, yet it is also quite beautiful which is a feminine characteristic.

I wouldn’t disagree with you about the different natures of men and women. As someone has pointed out before, it is women who end up receiving mystical revelations (such as Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque or Saint Faustina and others) while men tend not to. Rather men are better at helping to define doctrinal issues. Recognizing the differences between men and women is only common sense. And when we have a liturgy that does not appeal to men (and probably not a lot of women either) then it is not a huge mystery as to why Mass attendance has plummeted in the past 40 years.

Good post.

 

[deb1]

LIttle Deb, I think that your observation is rather deep.

Warning: Rant is about to follow

I enjoy reading classic literature, Burney, The Bronte sisters, Austin etc. One thing that strikes me in all these novels, is the strength of the female characters. Yet these women are not trying to be men. They are allowed to be strong in a way that is unique to females.

In our modern times, women are expected to be the same as men. That means that we get to view in the movies some anorexic chick beating up some 200lb man and no one comments on how unlikely this is in real life. To do so would be sexiest.

But where does this neutralizing of the sexes leave us? Surely not with individuals who are stronger and more rational.

Boys are told that they are going to grow up to be neatherthals who only think of women as objects and that is the most that they can respect for themselves. Girls are told that they must be super strong and manlike in order to have self pride.

Neither gender is told to control the worst aspects of their personalities. Boys are not told that they must control their impulses, girls are not told that emotions, too, need to be controlled.

Remember the Titanic? Guys gave up their seats for women because that’s what guys were supposed to do. We’ve lost that. I don’t even know if parents-beyond me- teach their sons not to hit girls anymore.

I think that all this carries through into the members of the church. How we turn this around, I don’t know.

 

[rpp]

I am coming into this thread very late. Another thread was started and this thread was referenced. I agree with many posters here with the addition of one important word.

In the whole thread, I have seen the term “feminization” of the roles. As an extremely feminine female, I find that the Mass is not feminine at all. I would use a much stronger word. The roles of men and women have been neutered. The women holding certain positions are not doing them in a feminine manner. To paraphrase a mid-eighties movie, they are not doing the job as women, they are doing the job the way they think a man would do it if he were a woman.

It is not only men who are being asked to check their manly parts at the door of Mass. Women must turn in ours too. I have gotten flamed every time I have said this in a thread, but I think here it is so important to this topic that I will risk it again. Men are generally more in tune with the physical (and sexual) nature of humans, and women are more in tune with the spiritual (and emotional) nature of humans. (As I’ve said before: this does fall on a spectrum.)

The Mass is about both the physical and the spiritual. Men NEED to be in charge of the physical. They are better at the physical. The sheer importance of Consecration, for me, qualifies the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament as ‘heavy lifting.’ Those hours and hours of the rosary? Best led by wonderful ‘old ladies.’ They have spent their lives praying and waiting for their husbands and sons to return from war, or even just safely home from work.

I totally agree that the emasculinization of men is a HUGE problem. But true emasculinization involves a neutering of the roles of both men and women.

Bravo! Three Cheers! Outstanding! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

You are so correct about this. There is simply nothing there I can disagree with. Thank you for your important insight!

 

[LittleDeb]

Good post.

LIttle Deb, I think that your observation is rather deep.

Bravo! Three Cheers! Outstanding! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

You are so correct about this. There is simply nothing there I can disagree with. Thank you for your important insight!

Thank you to all of you. I was heartened by seeing that there are others who feel the same. We can turn this around! As has been said, the diocese (how do I make that word plural?) that teach men to be men and women to be women are seeing more vocations. We can only wait and see if those other diocese just ‘un-breed’ themselves out of existence.

 

[prv]

LIttle Deb, I think that your observation is rather deep.

Warning: Rant is about to follow

I enjoy reading classic literature, Burney, The Bronte sisters, Austin etc. One thing that strikes me in all these novels, is the strength of the female characters. Yet these women are not trying to be men. They are allowed to be strong in a way that is unique to females.

In our modern times, women are expected to be the same as men. That means that we get to view in the movies some anorexic chick beating up some 200lb man and no one comments on how unlikely this is in real life. To do so would be sexiest.

But where does this neutralizing of the sexes leave us? Surely not with individuals who are stronger and more rational.

Boys are told that they are going to grow up to be neatherthals who only think of women as objects and that is the most that they can respect for themselves. Girls are told that they must be super strong and manlike in order to have self pride.

Neither gender is told to control the worst aspects of their personalities. Boys are not told that they must control their impulses, girls are not told that emotions, too, need to be controlled.

Remember the Titanic? Guys gave up their seats for women because that’s what guys were supposed to do. We’ve lost that. I don’t even know if parents-beyond me- teach their sons not to hit girls anymore.

I think that all this carries through into the members of the church. How we turn this around, I don’t know.

Guys giving up seats for girls? I think there are signs of true manliness, and I don’t think that is one of them. I take great offense that I have to bow down to women and let them go first in line or whatever in order to be considered a man. I give deference to the elderly, yes, and to the disabled, yes. And even deference to other men, older or younger (I am in my early twenties) as well as to women, but not on account of gender, but on account of public decency, not gender. Period. There is no gender association here. Some tradition is good. The key is some.

Finally, what about teaching women not to hit men? In my high school days, if a woman hit a man, she would usually turn around and say, “Don’t hit back” or something of the sort.

If look at modern media, whereas instances of women being strong in their own way is considered true strength, instances of men being emotional is considered “sissiness” or the like.

 

[prv]

Now, time for some more ranting, if you don’t mind one from a younger Catholic. The way I see it, the reason why people, men and women, are not coming to the church is that people are not being appropriately catechized in matter of church doctrine.

 

[deb1]

Guys giving up seats for girls? I think there are signs of true manliness, and I don’t think that is one of them. I take great offense that I have to bow down to women and let them go first in line or whatever in order to be considered a man. I give deference to the elderly, yes, and to the disabled, yes. And even deference to other men, older or younger (I am in my early twenties) as well as to women, but not on account of gender, but on account of public decency, not gender. Period. There is no gender association here. Some tradition is good. The key is some.

Finally, what about teaching women not to hit men? In my high school days, if a woman hit a man, she would usually turn around and say, “Don’t hit back” or something of the sort.

If look at modern media, whereas instances of women being strong in their own way is considered true strength, instances of men being emotional is considered “sissiness” or the like.

Did you know that male bones are heavy then females? Whats the point you may ask? Well, it is not an illusion tht men are stronger then women.

First, girls should never hit guys, that is wrong. I find such behavior from women to be pretty deplorable and it would make me angry too. But the fact remains that you, as a man, will probably be bigger and stronger then a female. So, you will one day be able to do more damage to a female then she could to you. That is why guys are told not to hit females.

I think that it is sad that a young man equates gentlemanly behavior with bowing down to a woman.

Modern media depicts men as neanderthals, not as intelligent individuals capable of any sort of self expression. Men are not depicted as having any depth beyond worrying who they are going to bed. That is unfortunate and wrong. It makes me angry, also.

By the way, men of past eras created the majority of the great artwork, music and culture of their time.(sorry, my fellow females) So, having emotions does not equal sissiness.

 

[deb1]

Now, time for some more ranting, if you don’t mind one from a younger Catholic. The way I see it, the reason why people, men and women, are not coming to the church is that people are not being appropriately catechized in matter of church doctrine.

You are correct, many Catholics are not properly catechized in church doctrine.

 

[rpp]

Guys giving up seats for girls? I think there are signs of true manliness, and I don’t think that is one of them. I take great offense that I have to bow down to women and let them go first in line or whatever in order to be considered a man. I give deference to the elderly, yes, and to the disabled, yes. And even deference to other men, older or younger (I am in my early twenties) as well as to women, but not on account of gender, but on account of public decency, not gender. Period. There is no gender association here. Some tradition is good. The key is some.

Finally, what about teaching women not to hit men? In my high school days, if a woman hit a man, she would usually turn around and say, “Don’t hit back” or something of the sort.

If look at modern media, whereas instances of women being strong in their own way is considered true strength, instances of men being emotional is considered “sissiness” or the like.

You said you are in your early twenties. I am in my mid forties. When I was in school, *public *school mind you, girls were most assuradly taught to never hit other girls or boys. While fighting was always punished, aggressive girls (like overly aggressive boys) certainly got the worst of it. This is in contrast to two boys each of who was just having a bad day.

The issues you discussed are actualy closely related and tightly coupled. When men show deference to women, women feel more feminine and confident and men feel more masculine (“gallant” if you will) and confident.

Confident and masculine men do not generally feel they have to show they are men by beating up other people. Confident and feminine woment do not feel the need to imitate men.

Oh, by the way, if you want to get a girls attention, if you want to get the **right kind **of attention of the right kind of girl, a little genuine deference is the short-cut.

For example, I learned long ago that simply opening and closing a car door for a woman, any woman, makes a subtle but lasting impression. If that behaviour is consistant and part of a pattern of other masculine gestures, it will change both you and the women around you, even if it is your own mother.

Be a man, give up your seat on the bus, open the car door, even in the rain, give them your coat when it is cold or raining, let them have that last piece if pizza, even if you are starving. And yes, give up your seat on the lifeboat and return to the sinking ship.

Treat a woman like a lady, and she will treat you like a gentleman.

Ladies, am I wrong here?

 

[deb1]

Treat a woman like a lady, and she will treat you like a gentleman.

Ladies, am I wrong here?

You’re correct. When I first met my hubby, he gave me his jacket and shivered in the cold. How could I not love such a man?

I would think that acting like a gentleman would install pride in a young man.

 

[DonProfondo]

Everytime I read a thread bemoaning women readers or the use of EMHC’s, especially female ones, I wonder how many of the men whining have stepped up and are doing something about it.

When there are 30 people at most at a weekday morning Mass, there is no need for two EMHCs to “help” the priest distribute. One person (the priest) distirbuting Holy Communion to 30 doesn’t take very long. What are we supposed to do about that?

 

[rpp]

Originally Posted by aurora77

I am one of the people who would prefer women avoid these positions in Church. I am also a lector and I was an EMHC.

I was an EMHC until my conscience lead me to believe that only priests should handle the Body and Blood of our Lord as well as the sacred vessals after consecration and before purification. Personally, I don’t want a lay man as an EMHC either. But this is my own conscience and my own decision. The Church permits lay people to assume this role, but it is supposed to be an “extrodinary” situation, not a scheduled weekly thing. Like just Midnght Mass on Christmas EVE and Easter Masses, these are usually packed to overflowing. I would (probably) resume serving as an EMHC if the bishop in my diocese enforced the GIRM and did not permit this abuse. Of course I also hold my priest accountable for this as well.

This is problem with abuse of this kind, it becomes habitual. People don’t realize it is wrong because they do understand what they are really doing. I include myself in this.

 

[Sheeniac]

Guys giving up seats for girls? I think there are signs of true manliness, and I don’t think that is one of them. I take great offense that I have to bow down to women and let them go first in line or whatever in order to be considered a man.

Perhaps not “manliness”, but manners and chivalry… traits that are very important to women. Perhaps not all women, but typically the ‘good ones’.

 

[Sheeniac]

I am one of the people who would prefer women avoid these positions in Church. I am also a lector and I was an EMHC.

I was an EMHC until my conscience lead me to believe that only priests should handle the Body and Blood of our Lord as well as the sacred vessals after consecration and before purification. Personally, I don’t want a lay man as an EMHC either. But this is my own conscience and my own decision. The Church permits lay people to assume this role, but it is supposed to be an “extrodinary” situation, not a scheduled weekly thing.

I am close to your opinion. But then I look at my parish and see the same lay people distributing both Body and Blood. What is to be done? I am tempted to become one so that I can wear some discreet hair covering while doing so. If the Bishops condone this practice, I’m starting to think that shining some light of orthodoxy might help.

Two weeks ago, the person next to the priest distributing the Body was a woman. I saw a man who was in her line get out of line and received the Blood from a young male who looked like he was still in high school. That was interesting, to say the least.

 

[Sheeniac]

LittleDeb and Deb1,

You two hit it out of the park with your posts on this thread!

 

[mdgspencer]

I generally am not concerned with what others do and so I go on in the Church in spite of its feminization in America and in fact go to daily mass. However, even I have suddered at the thought of going to mass and seeing only females at the alter every mass (imagining that there were women priests.
This reaction is due to what has happened to the Church in North America. I dislike it when the priest always teaches one thing, love, every sermon and in some parishes obligatory hand-holding during the Our Father. These things are foreign to male spirituality, and are a part of the reason why there are only a small proportion of men at mass in some parishes. It is strange that there are so many voices calling for a larger role for women in the Church and insisting that there should be women priests, and no voices over the fact that men are not going to church, unlike the women.

 

[aurora77]

When there are 30 people at most at a weekday morning Mass, there is no need for two EMHCs to “help” the priest distribute. One person (the priest) distirbuting Holy Communion to 30 doesn’t take very long. What are we supposed to do about that?

I don’t know the answer to that, Don. Talk to your priest I guess.

I totally agree that the emasculinization of men is a HUGE problem. But true emasculinization involves a neutering of the roles of both men and women.

I’ve been gone for a few days, but I just had to tell you that this post was brilliant. It’s so true. We really need for the Church to stress the beautiful differences between the two genders and showcase the strengths. You are very insightful.

Guys giving up seats for girls? I think there are signs of true manliness, and I don’t think that is one of them. I take great offense that I have to bow down to women and let them go first in line or whatever in order to be considered a man. I give deference to the elderly, yes, and to the disabled, yes. And even deference to other men, older or younger (I am in my early twenties) as well as to women, but not on account of gender, but on account of public decency, not gender. Period. There is no gender association here. Some tradition is good. The key is some.

I’ve got to disagree here. This sort of tradition is excellent. In fact, I (rightly or wrongly) tend to judge men by whether they do something as simple as hold a door for me. Yes, I’m 29 and perfectly capable of getting that door for myself, but it’s just a way a man can show he was raised properly. It’s not that men need to “bow down” to women, but show respect. That’s a two-way street, too, women need to be properly respectful to men.

 

[tmw]

The whole Church has been sissified. We used to be a manly Church. We’re the Church that gave the world the Crusades and the Inquisition. We used to burn heretics at the stake.

Now all we want to do is hold hands, engage in “dialogue” with people who would just as soon saw our heads off, call heretics “our brothers and sisters in Christ” and weep over unrepentant murderers and rapists being put to death by the state.

It’s no wonder the Church is having trouble attracting men to the priesthood. Why would a real man want to have anything to do with that kind of nonsense?

Bombay’s correct. And honestly, female alter servers are a symptom, not the cause of men not attending Mass. I do oppose the use of femail alter servers, as this represents another step closer to female priests and only facilitates the liberal agenda.