PGA started this thread with this quotation:

In the interview, Burke also blamed gay clergy for the church's sexual abuse crisis, saying priests "who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity" were the ones who molested children.

But why present the Cardinal's words in such a small quantity when the interview is readily available?

Here is a more complete quotation, from the source:

We can also see that our seminaries are beginning to attract many strong young men who desire to serve God as priests. The new crop of young men are manly and confident about their identity. This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.

So the larger context here is the character of seminarians as men, and in particular their affective maturity. The Church has a definite policy about the discernment of priestly vocations which calls for that maturity in men who are to take on the role of spiritual fathers.

The Cardinal recalls the wave of abuse cases in the postwar era, and he attributes at least some of it to the lack of such affective maturity. There is considerable dudgeon being directed at the Cardinal today over these words, but anyone who read the John Jay College report about sexual abuse cases among the U.S. clergy knows that the vast majority of the abuse was same-sex abuse, directed at males; directed at post-pubescents (page 68 of the report). So the Cardinal has reason to consider same-sex orientation a component of the abuse cases during the peak period studied in the John Jay report.

As it happens, down in the comment box on that interview web page, a non-believer made that very point: Burke dared to present an unwelcome truth:

As an atheist, these church issues could not interest me in the slightest; however, as a clinical psychologist, I cannot help but wonder if Burke is being demonized by the press precisely because he refuses to run with the politically correct pack.... All these intramural, "tempest in a teapot" and, frankly, boring Catholic issues apart, Burke is 100% correct in his assertion about the sexual orientation of the predators. [emphasis added]

Have you noticed? Very little of the Cardinal's actual words are being quoted above by his critics in this thread. Maybe a more thorough engagement with the sources is needed.

Charles,

I'm sorry I misunderstood you on the subject of Cardinal Burke.
On the subject of Abp Wenski, I'll do further digging. I've more important things to follow, right now, but I will get to it as soon as I can.

Cheers,

Chris

Well, it's certainly as deep into economics as you'll ever see me tread. But I think that this particular phenomenon is true. Ability to pay more for real estate pushes the price up. Many families could afford to pay more for real estate at a certain historical moment for certain sociological reasons. And now we are stuck with the problem.

I was in the ladies room at an office I worked in once, and the lady next to me in the mirror was doing her hair in preparation for her evening class, which would prepare her for a new and more lucrative (and pretty boring) career. She was married. In addition to her home responsibilities and work, she had school. We shared a rueful laugh about the wonderful gains of the liberation movement.

By the way, I saw the funniest thing on Facebook the other day. It said every family should have one child named "Gotham." That way, if the babies needed attention in the night, the mom would just have to roll over and whisper in her husband's ear, "Gotham needs you." Hahaha.

Responding to Chonak's comments above, I wonder if there is any similar contextualization/ softening that is possible regarding the third quote, on parish life and the liturgy. I made it clear above that in my comments at least, I was responding only to that particular part of the interview.

I heard Rand Paul speak on economics recently. He noted that there hasn't been a fixed value for our currency for some time. It is, essentially worth whatever those in charge want it to be worth. Our government - say Fed - seems to think wealth is what happens on Wall Street. Wall Street is speculation, not the creation of wealth, or so I think, even though I make and have made money on that speculation. Wealth is the production of things of measurable value which seems to be forgotten among many of the current crop of economists. So we do have problems with monetary policies. How much that affects other components is also ... speculation.

Burke never gets a fair press. He's a good man who wants the best for the Church. He doesn't back down and upholds truth, whether anyone else likes it or not. I think he would make a great pope capable of reforming the Church, but the smiling empty shells and whitewashed sepulchers who prevail in Church governance will never let that happen.

The thing I like most about Rand Paul is the way he is not afraid to offer new paradigms and solutions. His ideas may not always be 100% viable, but he does present them well and encourages folks to think outside the box.

The thing I like most about Cardinal Burke is measured but charitable way of speaking. He leaves no doubt as to what he believes and is very careful to present the teaching of the Church with precision, which is an act of charity in itself. In his recent interview with The New Emangelization blog (that is not a typo) he was asked to address specifically "the state of Catholic men in the United States and how we might draw more men into the New Evangelization."

Cardinal Burke reminds me so much of the old-school priests and nuns in the Midwest that I grew up with. They were no-nonsense, disciplined thinkers, but besides the staunch backbone they had kind hearts.

Well, PGA, I guess I'm older than you think I am. As a little girl growing up in Denver, I was fortunate to know some priests and nuns in my parish and school who were very old-fashioned and could have walked straight out of a Baltimore Catechism.

Re: Cardinal Burke, I would like to make my own the thoughts of our beloved pope emeritus, Benedict XVI. To the Latin Mass Pilgrimage in Rome in November he praised Cardinals Pell and Burke as "great cardinals" which indeed I believe they are.

Cardinal Burke, an eminent canonist and jurist, has always been to me a model of the hermeneutic of continuity so ardently championed by Pope Benedict XVI as the only reliable means of interpreting all that has gone on in the Church for the last 50 years.

I've always been struck by Cardinal Burke's carefully measured words and his willingness to put himself on the line in taking positions that are currently out of favor. Cardinal Burke's words need to be interpreted in the light of the culture and lived experience of the Extraordinary Form. In the EF, there is a distinct emphasis and "accent" on the masculinity of Christ, the High Priest, which is something that, rightly or wrongly, is not part of the OF.

In this liturgical culture of the old rite, the ministers on the altar, are exclusively male. This is not in any way to diminish the radical equality of men and women but rather to highlight the fact seen in all liturgical traditions of the Church (except the OF) dating back to Old Testament praxis that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not only the representation, but also the iconographic expression of the fact that Christ, in the ancient Judaeo-Christian tradition, is indeed a male High Priest.

For those used to the culture of the OF, I can well understand how Cardinal Burke's sentiments and sensibilities are foreign to them as it clashes dreadfully with everything that Archbishop Bugnini's reform is known for. That does not belie the fact that Arbp. Bugnini's reform carries with it significant problems as it is from beginning to end his attempt to, in his own words (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, March, 1965) "to strip away from the liturgy everything that is an obstacle to Protestants."

So, Cardinal Burke's remarks are perfectly understandable in the culture of the EF, and are incomprehensible in the culture of the OF, but that leads to one final question: Does the problem lie with Cardinal Burke, or rather, does it lie with Archbishop Bugnini's work, and is this one of the many reasons why our beloved pope emeritus (with whom Cardinal Burke is closely identified) wanted so much to effect "a liturgical reconciliation", or "reform of the reform"?

Julie,

Our beloved Pope Emeritus has never once, to my memory, spoken like this.

Women are not put on the earth to make men comfortable with their masculinity. Certainly our ecclesial roles should not be defined by male insecurities about manhood and fears about the presence of women.

If we're talking about 9-12 year olds wanting to be in a boys-only group, about altar servers, ok. I don't think these feelings are necessary, but I accept that there's a window of opportunity that should not be missed.

If we're talking about potential candidates for the priesthood, that is another story. They should get beyond their insecurities on this level before applying to seminary. I'm not in favor of "gate-keeping" at the seminary door for meaningless reasons, but collaborating with people who are markedly different from yourself is a major part of being a priest. It has to be an ability of priestly candidates.

I'm going to make my own opinion regarding "emangelization" with two short points-
*All the males represented in this forum, in other ecclesial blogs, in parish RE, Youth, Recovery, Philanthropic etc. programs, not to mention who do occupy the pews daily and on Sundays are proof plenty of neither a feminization nor emasculation of the OTHCAChurch.
*Let God sort this out. Whether one listens to Sr. Chichester or Cdl. Burke is of no lasting consequence to the deposit of faith and our own personal testimonies.

I still say that all feminists need to enroll in the hair club for men if they truly are for equalization of all things.

I agree. Put the toilet seat up permanently, for a start.

j/k

Why do you consider being a traditional wife and mother to be of lower status, value, place in the world?

Jani,

Sorry, I agree, that part of your comment was not about being lower.

TCJ,

I think (and the last two Popes, with Pope Francis, have said) that women have contributions to make to the life of the Church and the world that are not being realized. That is my concern here: the sheer waste of half of the talent of the Church. And why? Because of immaturity and fear.

Francis,

I agree with you that relativism is not the way forward.

I think that one way to begin moving forward well is to recognize that what St. Pope John Paul called "the feminine genius" is a gold mine waiting to be tapped.

To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes, and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.

I don't see why women need to try to be men to be "fulfilled" ?

This thread is not about women wanting to be priests.

We actually aren't supposed to talk about that. It is also a red herring.

Re: Cardinal Burke, I would like to make my own the thoughts of our beloved pope emeritus, Benedict XVI. To the Latin Mass Pilgrimage in Rome in November he praised Cardinals Pell and Burke as "great cardinals" which indeed I believe they are.

One of those cardinals is still a rising star, even as he approaches retirement age. The other has been banished to a non-position long before retirement age. I wonder why that is. It might have something to do with the fact that every time I turn around, I don't read a news article about the former shooting off his mouth.

Really, I love the argument made by public figures that the press takes their comments out of context to get sound bytes; perhaps such figures should stop making lightening rod statements in public that lend themselves to becoming sound bytes.

Actually, that's just dodging the question. I pointed out that women already do in the Church everything that men do aside from being priests. How are their contributions not being realized?

By the continuing conversations and remarks such as those that were the original focus of this thread.

I pointed out that women already do in the Church everything that men do aside from being priests.

They don't, actually.

Pope Benedict mentioned that some jobs in the Church are always going to be held by men, because part of the requirement of the job is that the person be a priest. And that makes perfect sense.

But, among those high level jobs that do not require that the person be a priest, women are underrepresented.

That's what I tend to think about a certain other prominent churchman.

Do you mean Francis Biden? LOL.

Do you mean Francis Biden? LOL.

Shhhh! You might let out the secret!

Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.

What? Why?

Something else http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_praises_the_dignity_of_women/

When one stands for nothing one falls for everything.

Other similar quotes:

There may have been a time when people found it easy to believe in anything. But we are finding it vastly easier to disbelieve anything. [Illustrated London News, March 21, 1914]

The nineteenth century decided to have no religious authority. The twentieth century seems disposed to have any religious authority. [Illustrated London News, April 26, 1924]

But, among those high level jobs that do not require that the person be a priest, women are underrepresented.

Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.

Knowing Kathy, I don't think she is advocating for gender-based quotas.

Ultimately, the point here is for each person to discover and realize his or her vocation by the grace of God. Part of that is making known to everyone the possibile avenues that are open. In some places, no men are entering the priesthood simply because no one is inviting them to investigate it. If there are positions in the church that are open to women are not made known to them, perhaps it is a similar problem. (Personally I have no opinion about whether women should be in certain church positions apart from what has been defined by the Church as true; namely that the priesthood is not a vocation open to women)

I do not take lightly the question of "spiritual prerequisites" for church positions, particularly in "high level jobs," whatever they may be (to be honest, I'm not completely sure what all falls in this category). Men and women alike must have a humble submission to all church teaching and discipline, have a spirituality grounded in seeking and doing the will of God. Devotion to the Eucharist and to the Blessed Mother are good signs. Expertise in Buddhist meditation or the enneagram are not. But there may be many wonderful, holy, humble, spiritually grounded women who are blocked off from certain positions simply because they believe their feminity prevents them.

It's usually pretty simple to spot power-hungry people who are trying to carry out their own grand schemes and designs for the Church; such people should not be permitted in church positions, whatever their gender.

Finally, one thing to keep in mind is that at every time, in every age, God is in charge. There is never ever ever any reason to freak out about anything at all. What God does not ordain in his Wisdom, he permits by the same Wisdom, even if it seems incomprehensible. Trust in God, thank him for all blessings and crosses alike, seek his will for yourself, let his grace overflow to others, and you can be at peace with the world, regardless of what anyone else says or does.

Thanks, Jon, for your reasonable voice.

I don't mean quotas, but I do mean representation. If none of the many qualified women in the entire Church are ever in particular senior-level positions, without a good reason (such as the need for a cleric to be in that role), then I do think it's time to ask why.

For example, this past summer the very first woman Rector of a Roman seminary was nominated, Sr. Mary Melone. The first ever. In history. She is extraordinarily well educated and accomplished, and has a balanced view of the mysteries of providence and vocation and identity, much as Jon voiced above. But I find it hard to believe that she is the first ever woman who has been the most qualified in her university to fill that role.

So, why was she the first ever woman Rector Magnificus of a Roman seminary in history?

Edit: Above should read "Roman Pontifical University" for "Roman seminary."

In other news, the International Theological Commission, an advisory commission that works on various theological topics in depth for the Pope, had their reappointments in September. A decade or so ago limbo was in the news, for example, and that had been one of the Commission's projects.

Anyways, now the Commission is up to 16% women. Sixteen! Out of a group that is fifty percent of the world! And--this is considered a breakthrough.

Furthermore, there is a notable increase in the contribution of female theologians. In the two previous terms, the Commission benefited from the presence of two renowned theologians, Sister Sara Butler, M.S.B.T., (U.S.A.), and Professor Barbara Hallensleben (Switzerland, of German nationality). Five other female theologians have been appointed for the new term: Sister Prudence Allen, R.S.M., (U.S.A.), Sister Alenka Arko, Com. Loyola (Slovenia-Russia), Moira Mary McQuenn (G.B. – Canada), Tracey Rowland (Australia), Marianne Schlosser (Germany – Austria). Women now constitute 16% of the Commission’s members, a sign of growing female involvement in theological research.