Female Altar Servers Part 2 - Burke is at it Again
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,006
    So, why was she the first ever woman Rector Magnificus of a Roman seminary in history?
    Could it possibly be because ALL the seminarians are MEN?

    This begs questions:

    First, what is the role, purpose and job description of a woman rector of a seminary? I would like to see that!

    Then,

    What seminarian would want a woman as a rector?
    What seminarian would attend a seminary where the rector was a woman?
    What woman can relate (especially by experience alone) to the role, psyche, issues, spirituality, emotions, etc., etc., etc., of a seminarian?

    Other questions:

    How long has she been in that position?
    How long will she last in that position?
    Which seminary is it? (location and name)
    Thanked by 2TCJ irishtenor
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Thanks for your challenge, Francis.

    I misspoke. Sr. Melone is the Rector Magnificus of a Pontifical University. She is not the rector of a seminary as we think of seminaries. She is an academic officer.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 726
    It's interesting to me that when discussed pejoratively, the phenomenon is usually described as "altar girls", not altar women.

    Personally, I think the perception of there being a problem would dissipate if the use of clerical or ministerial clothing by laypeople at liturgical functions was restricted to persons of the male sex.

    The 1994 repeal of the timeless discipline restricting service at the altar to males has been a source of scandal and disunity. I know a couple of women who left the Church for Eastern Orthodoxy, citing this. Not to mention the various Latin rite "traditionalist" sects, and the quiet schism of parish shopping. In the last two dioceses I've lived in, the parish responsible for the most seminarians has banned altar girls. I also know several Protestant ministers who trace their vocations to service as altar girls in Catholic parishes. This remains an important issue, even if it may seem trivial.

  • TCJ
    Posts: 705
    I misspoke. Sr. Melone is the Rector Magnificus of a Pontifical University. She is not the rector of a seminary as we think of seminaries. She is an academic officer.


    Darn. You could have made that correction before I made the last post! LOL

    [It's all right; I took it out, since it was just outrage pr0n.--admin]
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Francis,

    Bishops are the superiors of some communities of women religious. In other words, the officer above the prioress of some institutes of women religious is a man.

    Often the visitation teams (another form of supervision) of women religious are priests. Some of them may be of different orders than the women religious.

    Can a bishop engaged in the active life sympathize with the inner life of cloistered nuns in order to minister to them in a position of authority? I would have said yes--but maybe you are arguing above that they cannot?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    My point, if I can state it briefly again, is that it is self destructive to simply dismiss half of the possible candidate pool for positions requiring really excellent skills. We need the best possible people doing every single job.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,659
    Personal opinion coming...fair warning. LOL. I have thought that the elimination of the minor orders in the west opened the way for female altar servers, readers, etc. Previously, those jobs went to those in the minor orders first, then to other men if the "ordained" were not available.

    I witnessed a number of boys quit serving when the girls were allowed, but the reasons are not so simple as would seem. The boys were at that age where they wanted nothing to do with girls and wanted to be with other boys. Those younger guys still go through that time period in their lives. When they aged out of that, some of them came back.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,006
    My point, if I can state it briefly again, is that it is self destructive to simply dismiss half of the possible candidate pool for positions requiring really excellent skills. We need the best possible people doing every single job.

    Deceptive sentence above. You claim that it is self destructive to dismiss women (even if they qualify as equally (50%) based on 'skill' alone. Well, that washes great for a lot of secular jobs and they work quite well in that capacity. But we are talking about the church here, which is the priesthood of men (in "employment" capacity). No comparison.

    Being a man - critical for a seminary rector position
    Skillset is considered ONLY after first requirement is met.
    All others need not apply. And that should include gender confused men.

  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,442
    Shouldn't Sister Melone's title be Rectrix Magnifica----or maybe it's sexist to use feminine endings? I don't really know, not being a radical feminist myself. : )
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,252
    Chonak, thanks for drawing us to the full text. I find it misleading to use a selective quotation and summary. Naturally, NCR would have picked the bits sure to most bug readers.

    As to His Eminence’s remarks… I don’t have this well thought-out yet, but there is a serious problem in the church today, at least in America. Men are driven away, and yes, women leave too. But the cultural changes seem to be directed at the place of women and more feminine sensibility. It takes authentic masculinity and femininity together. Not one or the other, which tends to distort them (I would hardly call the feminine attitudes in parishes very feminine) but both. Otherwise, witness the last 45 years of American Catholicism.

    As to sexual orientation, priests ought to be heterosexual, for that is the natural way. “Goodbye, Good Men” and its revelations show why it is a bad idea for men who are homosexual to be ordained. Anyone abusing a minor, whether the child be male or female or pre-pubescent or in puberty or older, has a warped sexuality. I don’t think he said they were actually homosexual, though that is certainly implied.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that female theologians, at least those who studied the 1970s amd 1980s, tend to be heterodox or at least push lines of inquiry and method that lean that way.

    I also agree that minor orders being replaced contributes to this problem, though not in the way we would think ( though I think they are a better idea). Bishops do not use them regularly because only men can be instituted.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    The current GIRM has special duties (for example, the purification of vessels), that are reserved to an instituted acolyte, along with ordained clerics.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    we are talking about the church here, which is the priesthood of men (in "employment" capacity).

    No. It isn't. Except in certain relatively rare instances. An all-male priesthood, yes. An all-priest workforce, no.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    KLS, yes about "circular firing squads."
    Though Ms. Pluth has more than adequately and charitably addressed this-
    Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.

    I can't but be reminded of Tweety Bird's rejoinder "He don't know me vewy well, do he?"
    TCJ certainly is a distinguished voice on the forum, but the above retort has to rank among the most prejudicial and ill-informed statements ever submitted herein. Lord knows Kathy and I have had our moments, but as to a reasoned intellect, combined with life's experience and "in the midst and heart" of ecclesiastical goings on, she is and will always be the real deal.
    I'm sure both she and TCJ have chalked that one up to "hit enter before reviewing." There is is no more reasoned voice on this forum I've encountered, tho' KLS makes me chuckle more.
    Thanked by 2Gavin JonLaird
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,382
    PGA repeatedly mentions Cdl. Burke's loss of his previous offices as though this were lock-tight evidence of some defect on his part.

    First of all: non sequitur.

    Moreover, such an interpretation does not square with the Holy Father's statements when interviewed.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 726
    So, why was she the first ever woman Rector Magnificus of a Roman [Pontifical University] in history?

    I don't know, but I think I like her:

    What would you tell other women who wish to advance in the Vatican or the Church?

    Sr. Mary: I do not think women should nourish a mentality of conquest in matters of the Church and of governing roles. This must not be our attitude: we women have always contributed to building the Church in a unique, precious and irreplaceable way, even if it is often unknown.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Oh, I totally agree. "Conquest" is not the right word.

    An all-male world has certain weaknesses. Women can help. For whatever reason, men don't always know they need help. (Perhaps especially young men?)

    What troubles me about the excellent Cardinal's comments in this area is that he almost seems to be giving a stamp of approval to attitudes that may be rather immature and uncollaborative, rather than being healthy, secure, and virile.

    Speaking of which, in the interview you quote, Chrism, doesn't she go on to speak about collaboration?
  • The statement of Cardinal Burke's which causes me consternation, is the one regarding men who have been turned off by a feminized Church, because they "respond to rigor and precision and excellence."
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Because everyone knows that women are sloppy and vague and mediocre...
    Thanked by 2expeditus1 Adam Wood
  • PGA repeatedly mentions Cdl. Burke's loss of his previous offices as though this were lock-tight evidence of some defect on his part.

    First of all: non sequitur.

    Moreover, such an interpretation does not square with the Holy Father's statements when interviewed.


    Non-sequitur? That states your case too strongly.

    However, you are correct that it is not actually EVIDENCE of anything, but more like one of those things that make you go "hmm."

    As for the Holy Father's interview, yeah, I read that long time ago too.

    It is possible that he is stating his opinion with 100% accuracy and candidness. But it's equally possible - and perhaps even more probable - that he's not. If he did want Burke out of the way, what exactly do you expect him to say to the interviewer? "Frankly, yes, I moved him to an obscure position out of the public eye because he's a damn bafoon - I mean, come on, you've covered stories on him before, right?" I think not.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,382
    I get the impression that you don't quite have the same understanding of the meaning of "non sequitur" that I have. It means "it does not follow": that is, you have not presented a logically sound argument. You seem to have acknowledged that, so I'm glad we have some common ground.

    As for your snide insinuations -- precisely the sort of gossip which the Holy Father warns against -- and your misspelled insults ("bafoon"), I will give them all the response they deserve, in this box.
  • Again, although it is not some sort of scientific evidence for anything, it states it too strongly to say "it does not follow."

    When someone is let go from any job, it does not NECESSARILY follow that they did anything wrong or made anyone unhappy - but it certainly COULD be true - even likely - and most people would reasonably believe that it is.

    And gee, sorry that I didn't Google "buffoon" before I typed it. I'll avoid such careless misspellings in the future.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,917
    @PGA:

    A four-page section of the report is titled, "Special Issues Relating to Sexual Orientation."

    "That 81 percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior," the board said.

    In light of that, it said, "the current crisis cannot be addressed without consideration of issues related to homosexuality."

    The report drew the 81 percent figure from the John Jay study on the nature and scope of clerical sexual abuse of minors, which was released at the same time as the report.


    Yah, right. Homosexuality had NOTHING to do with it.

    That report is from USCC and draws on John Jay Institute's study of the problem.

    See: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm


  • TCJ
    Posts: 705
    I can't but be reminded of Tweety Bird's rejoinder "He don't know me vewy well, do he?" TCJ certainly is a distinguished voice on the forum, but the above retort has to rank among the most prejudicial and ill-informed statements ever submitted herein.


    That statement was made based on how Kathy's words were coming off. She has since distanced herself (partially) from that statement. While it's evident we still vigorously disagree, apparently she's not so leftist as she sounded. Better clarification of posts would help.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Oh gosh, don't blame my words for your tone. This was the (quite clear) post you responded to, not some flaky lefty thing.
    "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.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • TCJ
    Posts: 705
    Um. No. That last sentence is something that's bandied about by leftists everywhere. Yes, there's the bowing to the priest bit, but aside from that? It sure has the ring to it about women requiring representation based on what they are. Again, you claimed you didn't mean it that way, but it wasn't evident in that post.
  • I recently had an experience with this vaunted male "rigor, precision, and excellence" referred to in the Cardinal Burke interview, that left me empty. In preparation for a Pontifical Mass, I faithfully drove 25 minutes each way to attend practices - this, while my husband was fighting for his life for 20 days in the intensive care unit, unconscious and intubated. On the vigil of the feast day for which I was to sing, my son called to tell me that my first grandchild was being born. I drove from my husband's hospital to the other hospital, and spent the night there to be present for the birth. After the birth of a new granddaughter, I returned home at 5:30AM, took a quick snooze, and then returned to both hospitals before the Pontifical Mass. A male member of the schola who had been charged with doing the pre-Mass warm-ups, was assisting the females who were to be singing the Propers, by simply warming up with them (he was not singing them with the women during Mass). Meanwhile, the priest in the sacristy (not the Bishop or my own parish priest) was "blowing a corker" because women were singing with the men. What impression did that leave with all of the altar servers, laymen, and however many priests were also there in that sacristy? While I have chosen to throw my efforts behind the EF, there are some attitudes I would prefer remain hidden in the dustbin.

  • Chrism
    Posts: 726
    "Conquest" is not the right word. Ireland has certain weaknesses. Britain can help. For whatever reason, the Irish don't always know they need help. (Perhaps especially young Irish?)

    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The big problem here is simply the rhetoric of a few Irish agitators who have made their people unnecessarily suspicious and defensive. Good British men and women have no need for any introspection whatsoever as to the universal beneficence both of their actions and the actions taken on their behalf by the Crown.

    doesn't she go on to speak about collaboration?

    Yes, in fact, she does. And I don't quite remember what she said or meant, but I think it had something to do with women working together as a formation to make themselves irreplaceable, gain control of Church buildings and ensure ever more the space that women merit, is that right? You know, my mind is terrible. I really should go back and read the whole interview.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,252
    It does not necessarily follow that Cardinal Burke meant that everything women do is sloppy, vague, and mediocre (and I don't think it was meant to be that way). But the life of the church has lost this rigor, precision, and excellence of which the cardinal speaks, and that is no help to keeping men in the church.

    I also think that Cardinal Burke has in mind, firstly a more robust diocesan priesthood in terms of numbers, slow as vocations may be in coming, and secondly, a more robust priesthood in terms of life and work. The diocesan priesthood gets lonely, since many priest live alone for long stretches of time in contrast to members of a community, who would need permission to live alone. Also, diocesan priests have a lot to do, yes, but it seems that if priests and also permanent deacons can take on tasks of administration and other duties in the church, then they ought to do so.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,382
    Some of the imbalance in Catholic life that appears to be "anti-male" can be described instead in terms of personality traits and temperament types.

    It's realistic to observe that some personality traits, temperament types, communication styles, modes of learning, etc., are generally (but not universally) *more common and more predominant* among women and some are *more common and more predominant* among men.

    If the activities in a parish are all designed to appeal to gregarious social activists, or if they're all aimed at introverted contemplative people, or some other particular segment, then somebody is going to be left out and feel left out. Some of these differences in personal style probably also influence people's preferences in church music ( hey - we should talk about church music some time! )

    And if the "styles" that dominate a parish's life happen to be the ones less common among men, then it's no wonder that some people read that situation as neglecting men's needs.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    TCJ,

    I don't have the slightest idea why you are upset by what I said. They seem like regular words made into a normal sentence as a reasonable argument. I haven't been quoting the pamphlets of sone feminist cabal or anything.

    Chrism,

    Women are the Irish in this story. How is that not evident?

    expeditus1,

    Yes. That attitude is definitely present among some priests. That's what concerns me about Cardinal Burke's expressions. For his courage and his customary excellent discernment, he is a hero among young conservative clergy. Rightly so. He is also a hero among the conservative energetic women I know, including me, by the way. So when he voluntarily uses a word like "feminize," as a negative, that is going to help bolster an anti-woman bias among some of the very people who already have it for reasons that they should be working to overcome.

    Congratulations on the birth of your granddaughter!

    Chonak,

    I think your argument is accurate re: personality traits. But I think your description of women as the annoying ones is inaccurate. If you would like to say that liturgists and ecumenists and cursillists and charismatics tend to share certain personality characteristics that have dominated parish life since the Council, I would agree.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,382
    Kathy, I'm not sure how you quite got that expression about "women as the annoying ones" out of my comment above, but the rest seems reasonable.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    Thanks.

    Things need fixing, but an inaccurate naming of the problem (feminization!) doesn't help.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,006
    Here is a piece that explains why the importance of Mothers in the home are the seed of the faith in families and then the community. Many mothers have totally lost this perspective and it is one of the main reasons why our world is now in a crisis of faith.

    It would be helpful to read the entire article, but the part that I am referring to begins at paragraph five.

    http://romancatholicsacredmusic.com/thePowerOfPrayer.html
  • Kathy,

    I've summarized the problem in American education this way: it wants to make women more like men, and men less like men. I think the same thing can be said about the state of Holy Mother Church in our day. There is nothing I can think of which is inherently evil in womanhood, but just as there is nothing inherently evil in electrical current, it still has the ability to kill when it is free of proper constraints. That Cdl Ratzinger could issue Dominus Jesus and be pilloried; that Cdl Burke can say that there is much amiss in the Church which can be traced to the blurring of the differences between men and women and the destruction of the priesthood and the liturgy.... and be accused of being crazy, out of touch and whatever else ... is an indication of the rightness of his analysis, not evidence of the wrongness of the two Cardinalatial statements.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,442
    I think it's fair to say that while one may encounter radical feminism in certain sectors of the Church as Cardinal Burke has rightly pointed out, Expeditus has also correctly pointed out that one may encounter a needless and just as destructive male chauvinism in other sectors of the Church.

    I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I think it's fair to generalize in the broad sense that the OF is where one is most likely to encounter radical feminism, and the EF is where one is most likely to encounter male chauvinism to the extent that both exist.

    I cannot offer a solution for the OF, as it really is not my tradition anymore, and one day the systemic break in the organic development of the liturgy (cf. Cardinal Ratzinger) which the OF is in whole and in part (cf. Cardinal Ottaviani) will have to be faced and dealt with by the Church someday.

    However, I know for certain that the EF can be celebrated in such a way that reflects Pope St. John Paul II's great teaching on the complementarity of the sexes as well as on the fact that each person, male and female, is called to participate in the liturgy in a way that is proper to each, and that each of us has a role in this magnificent tapestry which is the Eucharistic celebration, the Supper of the Lamb.

    In the EF, while it is true that there is a bimillenial tradition of the ministers in the sanctuary being all-male to reflect the manhood of Christ the High Priest offering Himself for our salvation, it is also true that this tradition, if properly implemented according to the mind and heart of the Church, in no way excludes women from also fully participating in the Holy Sacrifice in a way that is proper to their genius and gifts. I can think of the French traditional liturgical culture as the example par excellence of laymen and laywomen working together in love and solidarity to build the Kingdom of God.

    The video below is I think a liturgical expression of the EF at its very best (even though this is SSPX France, whose extra-ecclesial attitude I in no way endorse, but whose liturgies are the most au courant examples of the Second Vatican Council's call for the faithful to be taught to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them).

    I believe with all my heart and soul (because I've seen it with my own eyes in our weekly Missa Cantata week after week) that if this liturgical model could be more widely implemented where you see the congregation intensely engaged in the celebration and making all the responses and a schola composed of men and women, you would find that the lay people would work willingly together in inclusivity, complementarity and harmony---a scene which reminds me of a phrase in Divini cultus: "It was in the churches . . . where the whole city formed a great joint choir."

    This very pastoral celebration is the liturgical expression of that marvelous phrase repeated so often by Pope St. John Paul II: "Love is stronger."

    It is in the correct celebration of the Catholic Mass (I'm only talking about the EF Mass since I'm not qualified to comment on the OF) where we are able to find the liturgical expression of a properly ordered society, modeled on the Heavenly Jerusalem. That's what Pope Benedict told us. He said the Mass is supposed to be a foretaste of the Heavenly Jerusalem. For the EF, this is it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KluSH42j_M

    (Mass begins at the 2:34 mark.)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,006
    I cannot offer a solution for the OF, as it really is not my tradition anymore, and one day the systemic break in the organic development of the liturgy (cf. Cardinal Ratzinger) which the OF is in whole and in part (cf. Cardinal Ottaviani) will have to be faced and dealt with by the Church someday.
    Hopefully sooner than later I pray.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    That Cdl Ratzinger could issue Dominus Jesus and be pilloried; that Cdl Burke can say that there is much amiss in the Church which can be traced to the blurring of the differences between men and women and the destruction of the priesthood and the liturgy.... and be accused of being crazy, out of touch and whatever else ... is an indication of the rightness of his analysis, not evidence of the wrongness of the two Cardinalatial statements.

    Chris, I don't believe that being called names or whatever is necessarily a sign of the rightness of one's cause.

    I've been called names on this thread, and you still disagree with me, for example. Both Cardinal Burke and I are being called names, and we both can't be right, since I am disagreeing with him.
  • Conquest" is not the right word. Ireland has certain weaknesses. Britain can help. For whatever reason, the Irish don't always know they need help. (Perhaps especially young Irish?)


    you had to go and drag the irish into it, have we not suffered enough to be left alone for a while? There I was, quietly lurking along, not really making head nor tail of this rather odd exchange of views, and wham! you have to drag us into it.

    So to clarify:
    The Irish have had the experience of women at the head of the church (Elizabeth 1)
    It didn't got that well for us.
    In fact it went so poorly that we declined wholesale entry into that particular ladies brand of church.
    From this deep reflection on history you can see clearly why altar boys should continue to be boys, though even I can see that there is a big clue in the name 'altar boy'.

    As for cardinals, I would merely point out that historically, Irish diocese's geographical boundaries were drawn up in such a way to ensure every bishop could get to the coast ( and thence to Rome) without having to enter another bishops territory. Seems like a little argument at the Synod is not so new after all.
    This leads me to the logical conclusion that having men lead the church is bound to cause great problems also.
    So finally to summarise : women taking over the church = bad.
    Bishops running the church = problematic.

    There are times when I am glad I am not the Holy Spirit.

    But enough said.

    Is minic a bhris béal duine a shron
    Thanked by 1Chrism
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,917
    Meanwhile, the priest in the sacristy (not the Bishop or my own parish priest) was "blowing a corker" because women were singing with the men. What impression did that leave with all of the altar servers, laymen, and however many priests were also there in that sacristy?


    Yes, well. That particular priest is well-known for his total ignorance of choral exigencies, and has established a very bad reputation with other priests who ARE of your Diocese. Didn't take him very long to accomplish that, either.

    Meantime felicitations on your new grand-child, and prayers for the complete recovery of your spouse.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,917
    Expeditus has also correctly pointed out that one may encounter a needless and just as destructive male chauvinism in other sectors of the Church.


    No, she didn't. She mentioned ONE rather troublesome priest.

    That said, your point about chauvinism (both ways) is correct.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    That said, your point about chauvinism (both ways) is correct.

    If this is true, is the third quotation by Cardinal Burke helpful?
    "Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women," he said. "The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved."

    Burke, a liturgical traditionalist and a doctrinal conservative, also said that "men need to dress and act like men in a way that is respectful to themselves, to women and to children."
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    Is minic a bhris béal duine a shron

    Best.Comment.Yet. (I Googled it :) )
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,917
    @ Jani:

    Define "chauvinism" as you understand it.

    The Cdl. made an observation of facts on the ground. 'Full of women', check. 'Influenced by women', check. '[feminized]' conditional check, b/c I don't know exactly what he means by that.

    His observations correspond with mine in my last 2 parish assignments covering the last 5 years-to-date.

    Now look at his criticism of men's dress, which is also dead-on. The blue jeans or shorts stuff, the pro-football team shirts/jackets--what in heaven's name is the matter with these "men"-who-wanna-be-slobs in the domus Dei?

    So. He made several factual observations and reserved his most significant criticism for the "men" who would be slobs.

    Is that "chauvinism"?

    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    Dad29, I don't recall using the word chauvinism in this discussion! Maybe someone else? Or was it another of my blatherings you are referring to?

    I don't know if I understand you correctly, but I didn't and will never criticize Cardinal Burke.
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    My post about the best comment yet was in reply to bonniebede's delightful little Irish proverb which translates, according to Google, "it's often a person's mouth broke their nose."
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    As just one (liturgical, Chonak!) example of the way things are not yet feminine enough, we currently have 4 women Doctors of the Church. Yet the Common of Doctors is based on the Common of Pastors. In other words, the liturgy itself assumes that its most authoritative saintly teachers will be clerics, and therefore male. But in 4 cases that is not in fact true.

    I'm more than willing to allow that this is simply a blind spot. But as long as such blind spots exist, it makes no sense to say the liturgy has been "feminized." (Whatever that means beyond lady lectors.)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,659
    The cardinal has touched on something of interest that I have observed - dress. It amazes me what some wear.

    Men:
    Shirts should not be open low enough to reveal chest hair.
    Socks are a good thing to wear.
    Baseball caps are not appropriate for liturgical occasions.
    Earbuds are tacky. At least pretend you are listening to the mass.
    Shorts and sandals are also tacky and out of place at mass.

    Women:
    Beyond a certain age, excess makeup looks suspiciously like Bozo the Clown applied it.
    Stretch fabrics are poor choices for those more than thirty pounds overweight.
    Again, the shorts and sandals - a problem afflicting both genders.
    All that glitters is not gold - especially if the quantity worn puts the K-Mart jewelry counter to shame.
    Your husband may like your midriff - I don't want to see it.

    Dress, sometimes the lack of it, is a definite problem in church.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,382
    @Kathy, it's not surprising that the liturgical observance of the Doctors of the Church is based on the Pastors. The Doctors were all originally a subset of the Fathers of the Church. The concept has broadened quite a bit since the title was instituted, and the possibility of non-ordained Doctors has only been around 44 years. Would you like to perhaps petition the Holy See to make a change at the 50th anniversary of the naming of SS Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila as Doctors? I'm sure they'd be open to it.

    Fr. Robert Bradley wrote a piece in '92 about the development of the title Doctor ecclesiae, occasioned by the naming of St. Therese of Lisieux among them.

    The first Doctors were Latin Fathers of the Church whose teaching could serve as a precis for all of them collectively:
    It all began in 1295 when Boniface VIII decided to single out from among the scores of “Fathers of the Church” the names of just four men, whom the Church would henceforth honor as her “Doctors,” i.e., her teachers par excellence: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great.


    Later Popes extended the honor beyond the Latins, to include the Greeks; beyond the "Fathers", to include Scholastics; beyond the Scholastics, to include saints of the Catholic Reformation and later; and even to include virtual contemporaries, when Pius IX named St. Alphonsus Liguori a Doctor only 84 after years after his death.

    Fr. Bradley writes:
    With St. Catherine and St. Teresa on the list of Doctors, we finally have a clarification which until then was only implicit. To be a “Doctor of the Church,” one does not have to be in sacred orders. ... [A]nyone of the faithful can be endowed by the Holy Spirit—who breathes where He wills—with the gifts of prophecy or teaching.

  • dad29
    Posts: 1,917
    Sorry Jani. Shoulda been Kathy
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,263
    dad29,

    It's chauvinism to totally flip out because men are singing chants with women.

    Given that this kind of weird discomfort of some clerics regarding women exists, is it a good idea for a senior cleric whom they (and I) rightly trust to blame women for the silliness that has totally invaded the liturgy?

    That's a rhetorical question. No, much as I esteem His Eminence, this was a false and unhelpful step on his part.

    The off-putting juvenilization of the Liturgy does not attract grade school children past the 4th grade, much less men or women generally. And--this juvenilization was a work accomplished by priests more than by any other group.