Female Altar Servers Part 2 - Burke is at it Again
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    I would argue that this thread, though unreasonable at times and definitely heated, is on point regarding this forum.

    The point being made was that the Liturgy has been "feminized" because women are involved in it.

    Take this to logical conclusions and see what happens to female DMs and mixed scholas and (heaven forefend!) lady hymn writers in the near future.
    Thanked by 1expeditus1
  • It is totally on point.

    But it dares to take on one of the heros of "traditional Catholicism." That is an unforgivable sin here.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    But it dares to take on one of the heros of "traditional Catholicism." That is an unforgivable sin here.
    I don't think that's the issue at all. Anytime this sort of thing comes up, it all gets heated. Start a thread about women wearing surplice and cotta and see how that goes.

    My objection here is that while most of us intensely agree that the silliness in Liturgy has gotten out of hand, some of us have chosen to place the blame for that silliness on me and another half a billion Catholics.

    Every pope in my entire lifetime has shown leadership in respect for women. Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict all named women Doctors of the Church.
  • Well frankly it's not even that heated.

    I called someone's publicly expressed ideas "bone headed." Oh, such profanity!

    And everyone here who has addressed each other has done it civilly, including me.

    "Heated" is the comments section of the local newspaper following a story on Ferguson, not this.
  • It's not about disagreeing with some untouchable hero of traditional Catholicism. Reasonable people can disagree about what he said, but calling his ideas "bone-headed" is a non-starter and just shuts down discussion.

    What would help (before disagreeing) is understanding what he did say - and what he didn't. Looks like we're not even in agreement about this.
  • Sorry, but if someone spouts racist ideas or says that people should only marry within their race, I'll call those ideas "bone-headed" any day, for that is what they are.

    The same goes for misogynistic or homophobic ideas, which is what these are.

    I won't apologize for my bluntness and clarity.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    I couldn't care less about singing testosterone laden hymns with fighting imagery.


    Goodie for you!

    And neither should any other man.


    Sorry, but THIS man can make his own decisions. You can ...ahhh.....stuff your directive.
  • Well, we are the Church Militant.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?…


    Can we agree that S.Paul called it right in saecula saeculorum?
    This is not a sola scriptura argument, but if we don't don't get it together it may decline into a very real remnant church. I don't believe that's what I was told, signed up for, nor what B16 meant.
    And
    we are the Church Militant.

    sounds too close to "We are called, we are chosen, we are Christ for one another."
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Lol. Touché.
  • Kathy,

    I think you misconstrue (accidentally) the point of a "feminized" critique. Neither Cardinal Burke, nor any other solidly Catholic man believes that all women are empty-headed. That's not remotely what the Cardinal or Mr. Esolen means when either uses this term as a critique.

    If I may try from a different angle:

    No lady in her right mind feels safe walking into waters infested by Man-eating sharks, because she knows that "man-eating" isn't limited to the males of the species. Nevertheless, for at least 30 years there has been a strong push in academia, in the name of treating women justly, to abolish the generic "man".

    "Who for us men and for our salvation" can't be rendered equally by "Who for us and for our salvation", because the word homines, as translated by the properly generic "man" is necessary to a correct rendering of the theological point at hand. Too many groups populated entirely by men now have "chairpersons" out of some utterly misguided notion that sensitivity is well served by distortion.

    Anyone who endured the 1974 translation of the Missal of Paul VI knows that its language was only tolerable as long as one was ignorant of the text of which it was a translation.

    The purpose of the Mass is to worship God, and only ancillarally to nurture us. When our liturgy nurtures us by being dignified, it serves this purpose well; when it nurtures us (or attempts to do so, anyway) by catering to our lower appetites and our darkened intellect it serves this purpose ill indeed.

    PGA,

    You seem utterly stuck on misogyny and homophobia. It is as if these issues outrank anything else. I'm not willing to concede that the Cardinal or Mr. Esolen displays either misogyny or homophobia, because I will need you to define these terms so that their applicability to the aforementioned statements can be tested, rather than assumed.

    [Self- Restraining lock imposed on this post so as not to drag it into unrelated fields.]
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    Chris,

    If the usual way of referring to all human beings were "woman,"or "womankind," would that be something in society that you might want to consider trying to patiently change?

    The Cardinal mentioned that the reason young men don't wish to become priests is because women are too involved, too visible, too influential. If that is considered a valid reason why a young man would turn his back on his vocation, what kind of courage would we expect of him in his priestly life?
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen melofluent
  • Kathy just enunciated my response quite well.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Now I'm just a silly wabbit, and I hesitate to wade into the fray, but I would like to add this:

    Generally speaking, the one thing that can be said about the traditional model of liturgy and seminary training advocated by His Eminence Cardinal Burke is this: it works, and it has worked for centuries.

    Generally speaking, the same thing cannot be said about the post-conciliar liturgy and seminary training.

    I'm no expert in the male psyche, so I can't tell you why that's so, but I think most administrators of traditional religious orders will confirm all of the above. You might even ask Bishop Fellay of the SSPX (whose extra-ecclesial attitude I do not endorse) what his thoughts are since he has been so successful at drawing priestly vocations that he is building a massive new SSPX seminary in Virginia.

    Being an old-fashioned wabbit, I tend to believe that the pews and the schola are where lay men and women belong in the liturgy,*singing with enthusiasm and devotion* and that women have a limited place at best in seminary training and priestly formation.

    However, that's not to say that maybe as Kathy says, women can find a useful place in the Vatican and the Curia, but I think the attitude ought to be less of "any one of us is better than any one of them," and more that the best qualified candidates are the best choice, regardless of gender.

    That being said, I think that CMAA-oriented women might have had a better chance of serving in the Vatican under the last pope than the current one.

    Thanked by 2bonniebede Jani
  • Generally speaking, the one thing that can be said about the traditional model of liturgy and seminary training advocated by His Eminence Cardinal Burke is this: it works, and it has worked for centuries.


    To a point. Much of the traditional ideas of liturgy should not have been abandoned the way that they were. But these ideas about the place of women and the role of the laity to "pay, pray, and obey?" Those ideas aren't going to engage modern, educated people. Remember that during all those centuries that they seemed to be working, the laity were largely uneducated.

    As early as the 50's and 60's - and people who were around will tell you that this started BEFORE the council - the Church was becoming irrelevant.

    I do think there's a middle ground, and I thank God that we are getting rid of some of the silly excesses that have flourished - in liturgy, in seminary formation, in the Church. But to go back to some 1950's mentality regarding the role of women and what it means to "be a real man?" No thanks.
  • The anti-feminization rhetoric just seems to miss the mark and hit the wrong target at the same time.

    Why is bad music a feminine quality? What is feminine about awkward or silly liturgical dance?

    If the problems of vocation and liturgical identity crisis can be traced to too many women being involved, does that make women the enemy? Or just some tipping point or overload of women? When do the rest of us become suspect? Do we have to put down women to elevate men? Why would that be manly?

    What do faithful women leading music do in response? Stop leading because it's their fault that there aren't enough priests? Are men realizing the implications of this kind of imprecise and uncharitable talk?
  • What is the dividing line between a faithful Catholic woman helping in the Church and a woman getting in the way and causing problems? Who decides?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • I think that Cardinal Burke in his remarks trusted his hearers would understand the context that Kathy so clearly and eloquently delineated - decisions about the liturgy are made by ordained clergy. He draws attention to "feminization", not to fault women but rather to challenge clergy who use women to fulfill their own ideas.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,120
    If I may try from a different angle:
    ….
    Too many groups populated entirely by men now have "chairpersons" out of some utterly misguided notion that sensitivity is well served by …. catering to our lower appetites and our darkened intellect ...
    Oh, sounds like the same old angle to me.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,333
    A helpful commentary appeared at the site "Mountain Catholic":
    http://mtncatholic.com/2015/01/11/enough-bashing-cardinal-burke-heres-what-he-really-said/

    Contra Kathy's suggestion, Cdl. Burke didn't say that the Church had become 'feminized' because women were involved in it. Rather, he said this:

    Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society.


    which is a different thing.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen dad29
  • Yes, that is a different thing, Chonak. Burke sounds like he's talking about the swing of a pendulum in the portion you quote. Understandable.

    Regrettably, some folks glom on to the term "feminization" and then every female helping out in the Church can become suspect to them.

    So I think Kathy has a point about how that term will be understood and used against women. Parts of the Esolen piece serve as a case in point, like the bit about women leading music being a bad thing.

    I say that problematic term is unclear and unhelpful and needs to be ditched.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    How about "neuterization" instead? "Emasculization"?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    the best qualified candidates are the best choice, regardless of gender. 

    This is my position.

    It is not even close to being the normal way decisions are made in the Church.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Speaking of the neuterization of the liturgy, these androgynous creatures in flowing white robes at a Catholic Mass in Germany come to mind:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Yg-aYSVKA
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    Chonak, I think he said both things. Didn't he?
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Neutron Bomb Alert! Don't read further if your sensibilities are either too rigid or fragile.

    For all the nostalgists regarding "the way we were," I have a word:

    Maciel.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    Those ideas aren't going to engage modern, educated people. Remember that during all those centuries that they seemed to be working, the laity were largely uneducated.


    Really? Then, obviously, all those under-40's at EF Masses in the US and abroad are figments of imagination. Or--by your logic--they are uneducated. Choose one.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 827
    We really need to remember that the current ideas of "masculine" and "feminine" behavior is a modern construct. Before WWII, flower arrangement, taking dictation, interior decorating, etc. were all "masculine" occupations. Dancing was a integral part of the culture, and not being able to dance well was considered to be "unmanly".

    Another thing. Most of the priests that were a part of the sexual abuse scandal were trained in the seminaries of the 1950s. Pre-Vatican II. While the Church was in its hey-day here in the U.S. in the 1950s, in Europe the Church was in bad shape, with declining vocations and membership. Vatican II was called primarily to address the issue of a declining Church. Many felt it was no longer relevant. (Does any of this sound familiar?)

    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    LOL, Melo. For a second I thought you said Marcel.

    The interesting thing about Maciel is that his order embraced the Novus Ordo.
    The interesting thing about Marcel is that his did not.

    I think it's indisputable that Marcel's order is very much on the move. Read more about Bishop Fellay's seminary project in Virginia here.

    It behooveth those of us intra ecclesiam to realize that traditional seminary training and priestly formation and the EF attract young men to the priesthood. All things being equal, I'd be happier if Cardinal Burke had an order of priests that was growing faster than the SSPX.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    I think it behooves us all to think about why the EF is so successful, and hopefully dig deeper than "manliness" to find out why.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Yes, indeed. Perhaps concepts like the priest acting as an alter Christus, the priest as both Sacerdos and Hostia, and "the sacrifice of the Mass" might be helpful to emphasize.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    And sheer aesthetics. And silence. And mystery.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    Cross post on the subject at the Chant Café. http://www.chantcafe.com/2015/01/women-in-liturgy-women-in-church.html
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen