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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.]

Kathy just enunciated my response quite well.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Chonak, I think he said both things. Didn't he?

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.

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.

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.

Cross post on the subject at the Chant Café. http://www.chantcafe.com/2015/01/women-in-liturgy-women-in-church.html