Female Altar Servers Part 2 - Burke is at it Again
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    Thanks for the helpful background, Chonak.
  • 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.


    I might be wrong as far as his intentions, and I might be reading too much into it.

    But when he talked about men "dressing like men," I don't think he was talking about basic standards of dress for going to mass. I think his meaning was much darker, more homophobic.

    The fact is, in terms of STYLE, there HAS been a certain "femininization" over the years. Men now wear skinny jeans and skinny tapered pants, bracelets, and more designers are designing bags for men to wear and carry. All of this is "in style."

    It seems exactly like the Archie Bunker, culture warrior type to deplore these modern styles because they aren't "traditional." (Nah, wait, meathead, dat ain't no men's carry bag, God, let's just call it what it is - A PURSE!)

    Again - I'm taking a GUESS here. Maybe the Cardinal was actually just talking about proper dress for mass. But if he were, why the talk about "men dressing like men?" Why not just references to "people wearing things more appropriate for the beach into church?"

    "And you knew where you were then.
    Girls were girls and men were men.
    Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again..."

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    Again - I'm taking a GUESS here. Maybe the Cardinal was actually just talking about proper dress for mass


    I hope that is what he was talking about. I don't know why anyone would get so much into style and fashion, since they both constantly change. Those bellbottoms we loved so much in the 1970s were pretty close to what my grandfather was wearing in the late 19th- early 20th centuries. Those dreadful horn-rimmed glasses I wore in high school (mid 60s) are back and the kids think they are cool. I told some of them we used to call them "nerd glasses." LOL. The skinny jeans I remember as being very uncomfortable - don't try to kneel or sit in them.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    Not to get even more off-topic, but I caught an All in the Family rerun not long ago, and I found its progressive bias shocking. Just as a caveat regarding the authorities we might want to cite!
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • Not to get even more off-topic, but I caught an All in the Family rerun not long ago, and I found its progressive bias shocking. Just as a caveat regarding the authorities we might want to cite!


    You must have not remembered it well until you saw that re-run then! That show had a definite position on things, just like Fox news and MSNBC.
  • No, you're both wrong; well, at least not totally right: we need to add to that -
    He was talking about priests who wear prissy gauze and fish net and droopy lace vestments.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar Adam Wood
  • JonLaird
    Posts: 209
    prissy gauze and fish net and droopy lace vestments

    Is it possible that when he said "feminine" (a positive term), he meant "effeminate" or "effete" (both pejorative terms)?
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • Whatever he meant, the tenor of it is -
    Men should dress like gentlemen.
    Women should dress like ladies.

    Street clothes and ultra-casual wear are only appropriate for the very poor, who may not have a choice (and who, likely, would dress more appropriately if they did have a choice). A poor person's best rags are superior to anyone else's ultra-casual street clothes or sports wear.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Kathy, did you ever catch Norman Lear's fascinating memories of working with Carroll O'Connor during the filming of All in the Family? From what I remember, Norman Lear recalled that Carroll was a "gentle Irish intellectual" who underwent great internal conflict and emotional distress over his role as Archie Bunker.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,647
    Whenever I watch a rerun of CHEERS I solemnly wish I could find a bar with such well dressed people to drink at. Even the nice places of Scottsdale are not as delightful as the attire worn by the attendees of CHEERS.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,353
    Whatever he meant, the tenor of it is -
    Men should dress like gentlemen.
    Women should dress like ladies.


    Such rhythm in this statement. A mini-poem.
    Was this on purpose, or a happy accident?
  • Um, perhaps half purposeful. I am congenitally conscious of rhythm in language and strive for a rather musical cadence, a sensitivity which was, no doubt, inculcated by having been reared on Cranmer. Too, I think that it is an accident of being musical. Anyway: thanks. (And, um, you don't do too badly yourself!)
  • Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread, but there's a very good commentary on Cdl. Burke's interview here, which argues (surprise, surprise) that what cardinal said and what the media reported are not quite the same. (But it's probably too late to fix that now . . . )
  • A week old isn't "old." There's a big difference between posting in a week-old thread vs. one that is 3 or 5 years old.

    Frankly, I read the original interview. And I now read the piece you just posted. While I DO agree that often the secular media lacks the understanding and nuance to get it right when covering Church issues, in this particular case, having the whole context of Burke's remarks really does nothing to temper them. They're still lacking in intelligent content.

    If anything, giving them context just makes one say "Oh, it looked like he was saying this bone-headed thing; in reality, he was saying THIS, more involved, still bone-headed thing."

    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.


    This is bone-headed; giving us the whole paragraph as opposed to one or two sentences of it doesn't make it less bone-headed.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    This is bone-headed; giving us the whole paragraph as opposed to one or two sentences of it doesn't make it less bone-headed.


    Hmm. It's quite possible that some could say the same thing about another interview that just popped into circulation which will no doubt be used for decades to mock and harass Catholic families with lots of baby bunnies. : )

    ()___()
    (='.'=)
    ()___()
  • I think you're too sensitive. I didn't read anything "mocking" about his remarks. Actually, he affirmed the ban on birth control; He extolled NFP, which is a hallmark of "traditionalist Catholics" around here. I thought the illustration was particularly apt (both his verbal illustration and your literal one.)

    - PaixGioiaAmor, parent of a colony of bunnies
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Yes, I was thinking basically the same thing as you last night until I read the full transcript here.

    Granted, it's possible that his remarks were unduly influenced by having just waded through six million admirers and seeing destitute children living in the street. I'm not sure, though, that his remarks have equal value for Catholics in "first world" countries who are healthy, able, have access to excellent health care and are reasonably affluent, etc. In other words, I believe his remarks could/should have been qualified more carefully. In the transcript above, it sure sounds like to me that he is advocating, along with the "experts", that a three-child family is the ideal for Catholic families.

    I think it's debatable that as it stands this (informal, to be sure) recommendation is 100% consistent with the "hermeutic of continuity." After all, Pope St. John Paul II called on Catholic families to be "generous" and reminded them that "the greatest gift" you can give to your child is another brother and sister.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    After all, Pope St. John Paul II called on Catholic families to be "generous" and reminded them that "the greatest gift" you can give to your child is another brother and sister.


    He couldn't be more wrong. I have TWO sisters and am sure God just couldn't stand seeing a happy kid.

    Perhaps the pope was getting at something I have noticed among home-school, back-to-nature, withdraw-from-the-world Catholics. They take the instruction to be fruitful and populate the earth to mean no self control or restraint whatsoever. In effect, it is no different than the hippie "do it till you puke" attitude. Even the desert fathers and saints have said that sex is something to fast from as well as food. All people, myself included, have difficulty learning restraint, self-control, and personal responsibility. It is the difference between discipline and license. Now that so little remains of fasting in the Latin church, a priceless education opportunity has been lost - to the detriment of all, I think.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Julie, your avatar rocks!
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Thanks, Melo! Did you see Rorate Caeli's banner today? Some subliminal messaging going on there.

    Dear Charles, I "get" the phenomenon of which you speak, and while you may think a family with ten children demonstrates to all the world the pathetic lack of control and restraint of the parents, just what does the phenomenon of a perfectly healthy and wealthy but childless married couple of twenty-five years represent?

    P.S. I don't think it necessarily means that said couple has been living like celibate monks during their married life. And, if, according to what you said above, hypothetically speaking, said couple has been contracepting by unapproved means for 25 years, does that mean they are models of self-control and restraint in contrast to the hippie green homeschooling couple with ten children?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Yeah, Julie, I chuckled at that. Normally stuff at RC doesn't make me smile.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    There is one sure fire way for "home-school, back-to-nature, withdraw-from-the-world Catholics" to take the world BACK from the culture of death; while the rest of the globe is contracepting and aborting their children (and the guarantee that their philosophy will not be handed down), we are happily "being fruitful and multiplying" (gosh, where is THAT phrase written?) and insuring that our progeny will be handing on the tradition.

    In scientific terms, it's called natural selection.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    Dear Charles, I "get" the phenomenon of which you speak, and while you may think a family with ten children demonstrates to all the world the pathetic lack of control and restraint of the parents, just what does the phenomenon of a perfectly healthy and wealthy but childless married couple of twenty-five years represent?


    Who knows? There are extremes of behaviors on both sides. Now if people would just all do what they are supposed to do...It will never happen. LOL. I know a couple with two sons who were never able to have more children. The trad rads look down their noses at them and imply they use contraception. They don't. I also know another couple who limited their children, thinking they could provide much better for fewer children. I didn't follow their logic or reasoning, but it was what it was and wasn't my business.

    we are happily "being fruitful and multiplying" (gosh, where is THAT phrase written?) and insuring that our progeny will be handing on the tradition.


    I have seen many of those properly instructed children decide their parents were nuts, then go their own way. Those traditions can expire with the parents. Kids have a way of doing as they please and going in directions no one anticipated. They have a frustrating habit of not doing what the parents expected. Exceptions? Sure, both ways.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    Apparently Pope Francis thinks the Chair of Peter can be occupied by a Johnny Carson wannabee. PGA's cool with that.

    OTOH, a serious criticism of abuse-of-the-Mass, rendered by a serious Cardinal......well, that's not cool.

    Hmmm.
  • Oh please. As though every other pope in history hasn't had some good quips.

    Remember "How many people work in the Vatican?"

    John XXIII: "About half!"

    Oh. That's right. He called the Second Vatican Council together. He was bad.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,222
    Juile Coll, Allow me to say that that was an awesome post! Nail on the head.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    Esolen on How to Feminize the Church:

    "Dilute the faith. Fighters want something to fight for. Make sure there is nothing to fight for. Do not preach the full doctrine of the Church. Never speak about the terrible sins of our age. Be more sensitive about offending a couple of the people who still show up for Mass, than about offending God. Cut the sixth commandment out of the ten. While you are at it, cut out the second, the third, and the ninth too...."

    "Equate Christian “charity” with rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, God’s, your own, your children’s, and your community’s...."

    "Get rid of every single hymn that has anything to do with Christian soldiership. Castrate the rest of the hymns. Or, better, favor hymns that make Jesus into a kind of safe sweet Boyfriend, with whom you can make out on the couch now and in heaven later. Let the music be led by women, especially women who like to be seen and heard performing it. Put the hand-raising cantor up front, to upstage the priest and Christ. Let girls do silly dance routines up and down the aisles. If you can, have five or six girls do that, in the company of one boy whose mother has obviously compelled his attendance, and who stands there gritting his teeth and fuming. Favor any musical instrument except the organ. Let the piano player tickle the keys like a hired performer at a bar, so that the communicants can, as they return to their pews, slip a fiver into the hat, right next to the long-stemmed champagne glass. Use as many altar girls as possible. Discourage the boys from joining. Give them nothing important to do. Use as many women lectors as possible. In fact, once Mass has become too bland for girls themselves, use the old ladies as acolytes, busying about the altar as if they were laying out the tablecloth and silverware for a party...."

    "Make “man” into an obscenity. Never suggest that fathers and mothers play complementary roles in the family. Never suggest that Jesus had something important in mind when He chose twelve men as his brothers. Suggest instead that to be a genuine Christian, a man has to stop being a man. Buy the silly feminist notion that Christian women have been “oppressed” for nearly two thousand years...."


    I've seen every one of these and my Diocese has very few vocations. In the Diocese immediately west of mine, which is producing LOTS of vocations, and where the Bishop is reviled by Lefties, almost none of this goes on.

    Esolen refers to Lincoln Diocese; the recently-retired Bishop of Lincoln is a friend. He, too, brooked no silliness and eventually built his own Seminary because he had so many vocations.

    We need not discuss the ephebophilia matter, do we? My Diocese had lots of those problems (and I knew quite a few of the priest-perps.)

    One can have their own opinions, but cannot have their own facts.

  • I have to scratch my head at the "problem" posed by all those irresponsible "home-school, back-to-nature, withdraw-from-the-world Catholics" - besides the fact that they represent a infinitesimally small fraction of the Catholic population.

    I come from a family of ten and my siblings have nine, twelve, seven (soon to be eight) and nine kids. (Don't worry, they've all been "responsible": last I checked, none were on the dole, had kids in prison, or left their children at the nearest orphanage. Most are going to college and contributing to the financial health of the nation. And just for the record, if they really believed that the instruction to be fruitful and populate the earth meant "no self control or restraint whatsoever"(?) they would have had many more kids than they already have!)

    With the Western world going into a demographic nose-dive, contraception rampant among Catholics, and a pervasive anti-life "are-you-done-yet?" mentality, you would think the last "problem" on the radar would be people having "too many" kids. It's like warning starving people about the dangers of too many calories.
    Thanked by 2canadash bonniebede
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    I have to scratch my head at the "problem" posed by all those irresponsible "home-school, back-to-nature, withdraw-from-the-world Catholics" - besides the fact that they represent a infinitesimally small fraction of the Catholic population.


    These folks are a small tail that sometimes wants to wag the dog. I think I was pointing out extremes of behavior, not trends affecting major parts of the population.

    With the Western world going into a demographic nose-dive, contraception rampant among Catholics, and a pervasive anti-life "are-you-done-yet?" mentality


    More trad Catholic doom and gloom? Not a criticism, just asking. I heard Mother Angelica speak in 1989 or so. She indicated that many conservative or traditional Catholics are far too negative and are some of the world's unhappiest people. I don't find things nearly as bad as some indicate. There are still plenty of good people doing good things in the world. The bad are still there, too, and always will be. The world is not all bad, just parts of it.
  • These folks are a small tail that sometimes wants to wag the dog.

    If that's the case, they are failing miserably ;)

    More trad Catholic doom and gloom?

    I wouldn't call myself a traditional Catholic; my siblings are a mixed bag at best. Sorry for the negative tone. I didn't intend it to be complete picture by any means, just a piece of the pie that I think is relevant to the discussion at hand.

    I couldn't agree more with Mother Angelica, and count my own extended family as among those doing good in the world - or at least giving it their best shot. At any rate, they, like my parents before them, are just too darn busy raising their kids to indulge in much D 'n' G! If anything, their children are their best testimony of hope in the future.
  • Esolen on How to Feminize the Church:


    I just read that last night after coming across it on facebook.

    I found it to be profoundly offensive and lacking in intelligent analysis.
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • PGA,

    Have you noticed that any position you disagree with is "offensive" or "bone-headed". Cardinal Burke and Anthony Esolen give reasoned, temperate answers, and - solely on the grounds that you disagree, so far as I can tell - you label them dismissively. That's called an ad hominem attack. (This, you knew.) I'm going to ask one more time: what precisely is wrong with what these men say? I find nothing they have written here offensive or bone-headed in the least.

  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    They aren't reasoned, temperate answers. They demonize half (at least) of the Catholics in the world.

    Two of the Church's best thinkers, they can do much, much better. (purple bold) Even if they are men. (end purple bold)
  • Not to mention that they sanction homophobia.

    Get rid of every single hymn that has anything to do with Christian soldiership. Castrate the rest of the hymns. Or, better, favor hymns that make Jesus into a kind of safe sweet Boyfriend, with whom you can make out on the couch now and in heaven later. Let the music be led by women, especially women who like to be seen and heard performing it. Put the hand-raising cantor up front, to upstage the priest and Christ. Let girls do silly dance routines up and down the aisles. If you can, have five or six girls do that, in the company of one boy whose mother has obviously compelled his attendance, and who stands there gritting his teeth and fuming.


    This is just IGNORANT.

    I'm going to ask one more time: what precisely is wrong with what these men say?


    Almost everything.

    I favor good hymnody that expresses good theology, and I don't condone liturgical dancing.

    But this author is against bad hymnody and liturgical dancing for all the wrong reasons. I couldn't care less about singing testosterone laden hymns with fighting imagery. And neither should any other man. And if one's biggest objection to liturgical dance is that it's feminine, that person needs to grow up. The assistant dean of my conservatory, who is married with two children, and is outwardly masculine in many ways, holds an undergraduate degree in dance and teaches dance regularly.

    The presence of women is not a threat; the presence of feminine ideas and expressions is not a threat - except to those still living with a high school jock mentality.

    Give me a break.

    This whole "God, Guns, and Gin - GIT ER DONE" brand of Christianity needs to die off, and the sooner the better.

    - PaixGioiaAmor, whose screen name means "Peace, Joy, Love," decidedly feminine imagery, but who is a man married with three children and actually has nothing against God, Guns, OR Gin individually, but doesn't prefer them together, but who would NEVER utter the words "Git er done" seriously.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    I'm going to say this one more time, because it needs to be said.

    The only way decisions are made in the Church, about Liturgy or anything, on every level, is with clerical approval. And ordinarily by clerical initiative.

    There is no such thing as women's ordination in the Catholic Church.

    Therefore...
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen expeditus1
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    Homophobia? Fear of the genus of hominids? Sheesh!!!

    Yeah, I know what it means as currently used in our culture. We spend way too much time on that subject, IMO.
  • It's a bad word choice. I saw a meme once that said "Why do you call it 'homophobia?' You aren't actually SCARED of gay people, you're just an @**h***." I had to agree.
  • If over involvement in good things on the part of girls and women is a problem, then don't insult and shove them out. Build up the men and boys without resorting to putting down the women and girls.

    If the quality of activities is silly or embarrassing, change that. Don't knee jerk blame it on women and girls. Faithful women detest a lame and/or unorthodox hymn like anyone else. We don't hear or see heterodox things and blame it on men or women, but perhaps bad catechesis, or just plain undeveloped taste.

    Yes, some women in the Church are and have been frothing sort of feminists for several decades. But what we are now seeing is an anti-female backlash. The problem is not femininity. Faithful women are not to blame for men not signing up for the priesthood, for example.

    Regrettably, diatribes like Esolen's lose credibility when faithful women are not distinguished from women who are in error. This is offensive.

    For example, Esolen puts women leading the music (like many of us here) in between "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs and liturgical dance. That's ignorant. And it's profoundly disrespectful, even uncharitable, to the women like me who have worked long and hard to serve the Church faithfully. I'm the one teaching Catholic children like Esolen's children their heritage in Gregorian chant. What kind of beef would any faithful Catholic have with that?

    This kind of half-baked analysis risks being mere reactionary trash. The real problems pointed out need better solutions or we are just left with, forgive me, a guys' bitching session. Pun intended.

  • Kathy, don't say it one more time. Sounds like we need reminding at least once a week!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • PGA,

    Branding something "homophobic" is accusing it of unforgiveable sin. At the same time, it asserts something which illustrates (to borrow a lawyer's term) "facts not in evidence".
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,383
    I'm going to say this one more time, because it needs to be said.

    The only way decisions are made in the Church, about Liturgy or anything, on every level, is with clerical approval. And ordinarily by clerical initiative.

    There is no such thing as women's ordination in the Catholic Church.

    AMEN, Kathy.
    Kathy, don't say it one more time. Sounds like we need reminding at least once a week!
    And thank you, MaryAnn.
  • At the same time, it asserts something which illustrates (to borrow a lawyer's term) "facts not in evidence".


    That's a cop out.

    And all of the talk about men "acting like men," while simultaneously complaining about the presence of dance in liturgy because of it being feminine is almost a text book definition of homophobia.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    Looks like there might be some real authentic feminization on the Vatican horizon, though: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-curial-reform-sending-bishops-home-to-dioceses-26532/
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,192
    "The news should be that each secretariat will not be necessarily led by a bishop, but also by nuns and even by lay people or families, while the prefect of the Congregation will necessarily be a cardinal."
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    Too bad all of the nuns from my younger days are not around. If they only had Sr. Mary Overbite, Sr. Mary Godzilla, and Sr. Mary Mucous (she had a sinus condition) in charge, things would get straightened out in Rome in a hurry.

    Popes, like craziness, come and go. Who knows what the next one will do? I wouldn't get too fixated on what any pope does, since in most instances, a successor can change it.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,353
    Popes, like craziness, come and go.


    When exactly does craziness go?
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,331
    "Bone-headed" is not an analysis or a critique. It is name-calling.

    I'm sinking the thread.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen rich_enough
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    When exactly does craziness go?


    Maybe when the next pope is elected? Maybe later than that. Who knows?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    "Bone-headed" is not an analysis or a critique. It is name-calling.

    I'm sinking the thread.


    OK, who is the (*(( $&&*& ##*& that said bone-headed? LOL.
  • Oh, so all ideas are equally valid?

    By the way, no PERSON was called any names, a public figure's ideas were.

    Glad to know all ideas must be treated with equal sensitivity.