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)

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.

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?

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.

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. : )

The current GIRM has special duties (for example, the purification of vessels), that are reserved to an instituted acolyte, along with ordained clerics.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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, 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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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:

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"?

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."

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.

Sorry Jani. Shoulda been Kathy