Its. Another. Religion. (article on Fr. Z.'s website... go read it)

Yes, that’s how it ends.

Just a shrug of the shoulders.

It’s. Another. Religion.

If it’s a religion at all.

Plain and simple, Burke is holding to the truth. I pray and hope he stays there. The men still true to being men of the faith think the same.

(Apodictically speaking, that is.)

Agree with Kathy and Adam.

I'm fairly certain that if you look at the thousands of idiotic liturgical decisions that have been made in the last 50 years, 99.99% of them have been made not by women, but by clerics.

Of one persuasion or another.

Many blessings and best wishes for the new baby, PGA!

I read Cardinal Burke's candid remarks yesterday and so did most of my family, including some of our young adult boys. The consensus here was a feeling of gratitude to His Eminence for his candour and thoughtfulness. Of course, these are obviously his personal reflections and not de fide definitions, but we greatly appreciate his perspective.

All things considered, and I'm speaking for my family members here, we would be happy to see a return to a traditional understanding of gender relations and traditional roles for men and women. From all that I've seen over the years, the net positive effect of radical feminization has been negligible.

Actually, where all the growth, good news and building for the future is in the traditional orders: their seminaries and convents are full; lots of families with lots of children attend their Masses, and most of them are there because they want traditional Catholicism.

So, while it might seem easy to dismiss Cardinal Burke now, the fact of the matter is that those places where radical feminism has been embraced are empty and barren, but those places which embrace traditional practices, including that of "the differentiated equality of the sexes," (cf. Cardinal Burke), that complementarity so well articulated by St. John Paul II are flourishing and have a wonderful future ahead of them.

I think a far more serious discussion would be to analyze why the one is thriving and the other is dying.

Thanks, Francis.

I think we ought to try to offer the conversation more than just exasperation, though. Put your thinking cap on. What can we do next?

Sorry for the third comment in a row. But this is important.

We can either adopt an easy-solution fell-swoop attitude towards the problems of the Church, or we can deal with reality.

Besides the ridiculous sideswipe against women that the quoted remarks are, they do not reflect the reality of the situation.

I, for one, am happy to see that His Eminence has the courage to speak his mind on this. Many clergy do not, and that has had a deleterious effect on the Church as a whole. The infantilization/feminization discussion was also included in a previous post on this, so for further discourse, one could look up that other thread. It's more than that, of course, and part of the larger "anything goes" attitude in the Church nowadays: there is no apparent standard for what is right and what is wrong; you can go to one church and see something, but see something completely different at the one in the next town over, and both are considered correct.

I agree, Julie.

I remember when property values basically doubled or tripled with the women's back-to-work phenomenon, making staying at home nearly impossible.

Kathy, thanks for bringing up the prodigious accomplishments of women religious in academia before the Council. They developed some wonderful pedagogical materials and were on the brink of making an enormous impact on local churches.

I often marvel at the extensive network of churches, schools, hospitals, colleges, and motherhouses here on Long Island, now mostly defunct and some barely used before the winds of change swept so much away.

I truly believe that praying the rosary is one of our greatest weapons. Ave Maria.

Agreed!

(Just so everyone is aware, the Blessed Mother is a woman.)

I remember when property values basically doubled or tripled with the women's back-to-work phenomenon, making staying at home nearly impossible.

It wasn't the property that changed value, but the money.

Congratulations PGA and family!

I'm in an OF parish. My daughters serve. They are not the only girls and there are boys/young men as well. Our last pastor did not have one young man, during his time as pastor enter the priesthood. He was a lovely man. He was holy and kind, but he had a laissez faire, anything goes attitude at Mass. Our new pastor, who is in favour of Latin, wonderful vestments, good sacred music etc. has quite a few young men going to "come and see" weekends at the seminary and contemplating a vocation to the priesthood.

On another note, to ask women to go back to homemaking after getting a long involved education is probably unlikely. In Canada, there is a huge push for females in elected government positions. Full-time daycare and a need for double incomes are the norm and I constantly hear the phrase, "I'm a better mom if I'm working than if I'm at home with the kids all day."

Why? And why precisely then?

Kathy - for the reason you enunciated: Women -- by default -- working. (Or, to put it in more neutral terms: the assumption that a two-adult household would have two full-time employed people working in it.)

More money, evenly dispersed, meant people could spend more for the same resources, meaning prices went up, meaning the value of money went down.*

And who suffered from that most? The poor.
When one middle-class salary could pay for a middle-class life:
- Poor and lower-class families could get ahead, and into the middle class, if both parents worked. Though neither one had enough earning potential on their own, they could sacrifice a bit (both of them working, which was a sacrifice) and get by.
- Single mothers could work and, even without reaching a man's income level, get close (70%, 80% ?) enough to get by. (Whereas now --- a single parent has AT BEST 50% earning potential, and often much lower).


*Easy credit does this too. Credit cards, home loans. AND DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE PRICE OF COLLEGE TUITION

What in heavens name gives ANYONE the impetus to pay 50k for a piece of paper saying you are a certified expert (in your field of study), and then spend 50 years working in SOME OTHER FIELD than the one you studied paying it back? Ludicrous.

This whole thread saddens me, and diminishes the fecundity that is at the nexus of the Church. Does anyone acknowledge what St. Paul meant (pardon the association with Dr. Wills.)? Between the ill-timed screed of the good cardinal, and the incredibly stupid decision and subsequent coverage of Abp. Wenski's caveat, I have to wonder if we're all on some other planet, we're behaving like machines who've suddenly been gifted with consciousness but not an ounce of common sense, or what?- we're just tools in the grand plan to exacerbate the advent of the remnant church?
PGA, I'm sympathetic, but you erred in judgment by buying into popular culture's (Yahoo/Huffpost/et al) debasement of the cardinal's intent. And yeah, he said it. So what?

It's hard to soar like an eagle when you are always hanging out with the turkeys.

Just so everyone is aware, the Blessed Mother is a woman.

True, true.
And, one hastens to add: just so everyone is aware: the Son of God is a man.
The feminists, alas, have of late aggressively played down and gendered out our Lord's manhood; but, true to themselves, they make much of our Lady's womanhood. One can't be blamed for noticing that multitudes of women have but one interest: women.
Somehow they don't seem to like the fact that, absent men to conceive them, there would be no women.

One can't be blamed for noticing that multitudes of women have but one interest: women.

That sounds awfully boring.

Melo (so as not to confuse with Charles W) and PGA,

While all the stuff about the Federal Reserve is interesting and all that, and heaps of scorn make for interesting rhetoric, you both assert that the Cardinal is crazy, without offering reasons why those of us who don't think he's crazy should agree with you. In the interest of having a discussion, the intelligent exchange of ideas... could you pinpoint what particularly makes you sure that he's crazy?

And, since I've obviously missed a headline, what did Abp Wenski say which so has your dander up?

One can't be blamed for noticing that multitudes of women have but one interest: women.

That sounds awfully boring.

Keeps me entertained enough.

I must say that I never had of Fr Krisman the impression that he was either snotty or disdainful. His insight and knowledge are an asset to this forum; not that, due to his frequent defense of a certain publisher's policies and standards, I always agree with him.

or confirmation bias.

The cut and paste way this was reported isn't too impressive. But it served a typical purpose- to cause division. Who knows all the cardinal said, though the way it's laid out leaves me scratching my head. Kinda like Francis...

I think the point about distinguishing between feminization vs. infantilization of Church life is spot on. To confuse the two is insulting and unhelpful.

Certainly a large portion of feminism has brought destruction to family life. Who can deny its murderous fruits? But it doesn't have the force to ruin everything. So to blame women alone- or even mostly- for the vocation crisis is odd and most unchivalrous.

Stop the blame game and start building up the Church.

It was the monetary policies of the USA’s Federal Reserve that led to currency devaluation, which led to more married women entering the labor force, which led to Gloria Stienem and the call for equal pay for the same jobs

No, it was not the FRB. It was "Equal Opportunity" legislation from LBJ and the (D) Congress at the time, combined with the widespread use of The Pill and the "liberation" fantasy: that women were far better off in careers than as home-makers.

Another commenter already mentioned that more-or-less doubling the available workforce reduced the value of money--and the value of workers--which then led to the need, not want, for dual-income homes. It's Econ 101.

Remember that and you'll "have it straight", Father.