February 09, 2010
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The New Catholic Manliness |
| by Todd M. Aglialoro |
| 10/06/09 |
|
The Catholic Church makes men.... Of such she may also someday make soldiers.
Hilaire Belloc
It is a source of no small irony that, even as radical feminists within and without the Church have railed for two generations against patriarchy and phallocentrism, it can be quite plausibly said that the post-conciliar Church in this country has, for all intents and purposes, been run by women.
Consider a Sunday in the life of a typical American parish. Father Reilly, once his mother's darling, says Mass before a congregation disproportionately representative of widows (both the traditional and the football kind), soccer moms flying solo, and budding young liturgistas. At the elevation of the Host, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (80-20 female) and altar servettes gather around the sanctuary to lend him moral support.
After Mass, he enjoys a donut in the church basement while regaling the ladies of the Hospitality Guild before heading back upstairs to sit in as the token male at a meeting of parish CCD teachers. Later that afternoon, Sister Dorothy fills him in on the doings of the confirmation class, peace and justice committee, RCIA candidates, and youth group. At dinner he lingers over the new pastoral letter from his bishop, urging the flock to get more in touch with the God Who Nurtures. Finally, in the evening, he pokes his head into the weekly gathering of the Divorced and Separated Support Group, whose overwhelmingly female members and leaders thank him for his solicitude.
Do I exaggerate? Perhaps. (Father probably wouldn't have checked up on his catechists like that.) But common experience nonetheless bears out the point: We may yet have a male-only clergy and hierarchy, but where the rubber meets the road -- in those mundane areas of church life where laity and institution most commonly interact -- the flavor is feminine. Whether you want to speak in terms of liturgy, ministry (lay and clerical), religious education, or sheer congregational numbers, official ecclesial power may not rest in the hands of women, but considerable unofficial influence clearly does, and has for some time. And we in the Church have been subject to its effects.
Not all these effects, as we shall see, have been bad. But one of the worst has been a subjugation of traditional masculine virtue: the concept of distinctly and properly manly Catholicism repressed, stigmatized, covered up, or otherwise forgotten for lack of practice. And the more "feminized" Catholicism thus became -- the more its pews became recognized as the province of wives, children, and the effete -- the more likely were men and their post-pubescent sons to stay away. All of this is making today's Church, according to Leon Podles, author of The Church Impotent, "essentially a women's club with some male officers."
Men Struggle to Be Brides
A certain feminine spin to Christianity is no modern novelty, of course. To the early pagans, our religion must have reeked of unmanly weakness, with its insistence on monogamy and celibacy, its idealized pacifism, its exaltation of mercy, its preference for the poor and helpless, and its meek-and-mild founder whose humiliation and death were somehow a blessing. Around the high Middle Ages, according to Podles, Aristotle's idea of the "passive" female became enmeshed with the ecclesiology of the Church as Bride of Christ. To be a good Christian from then on, he says, meant to recognize that "God is the father, the groom, active; while we were to be the bride -- passive and receptive."
Msgr. Stuart Swetland, director of Pre-Theology at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, agrees that in Christian spirituality "the default position is always going to be the feminine," because we are fundamentally called "to be receptive to God, to give way to His agenda." But he insists that "there is a way to do this without being 'effeminate' -- a properly masculine way to yield to God's active principle." Unfortunately, he says, in the male's fallen state it is difficult to shake the presumption that to yield to God is to be less than a real man. Throughout all ages and cultures we witness the scene of men gathering for gossip, drink, or shared idleness while their wives bundle the children off to church. These men, like their modern HDTV-ogling counterparts, might darken a church door on Easter Sunday, sweating in their suits, but they'd sooner take up sewing than a regular sacramental life.
The Over-Correction
Despite these handicaps, the Church has undeniably left us a historical legacy of masculine role models: saintly warriors, rugged missionaries, martyr-priests. In fact, just the last century may have seen something of a mini-renaissance of masculinity. Podles theorizes that in the decades immediately preceding Vatican II, many men, "hardened by the horrors of war," became priests and bishops, leading to a stereotype of the rough or aloof cleric, and to a style of catechesis that strenuously emphasized God's fatherhood, strict moral norms, and a hyper-rationalized approach to theological questions. Meanwhile, the lay members of the Greatest Generation fell into a pattern of rigid, narrowly defined gender roles, of which men had uncontested dominance.
Ironically, this brief spike in Catholic manliness may have contributed to its own downfall, for by the 1960s a counter-movement had begun. In families there emerged a widespread rebellion against "paternalistic" authority. Priests and religious strove for softer, more "pastoral" approaches. And according to Ron Bolster, director of the Office of Catechetics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, religious education "began to emphasize methodology over content -- the person being catechized over the object of catechesis." The old regime's stern and systematic approach to the Faith, with its "forced memorization, casuistry, rulers on the knuckles," no longer served.
In many instances, Monsignor Swetland and Bolster both insist, there was a genuine correction in order, a worthy contribution from the "feminine" perspective to be made. But it all went too far, and quickly. (Consider as a parallel how the revolutionary affirmation-based child-rearing philosophy of Dr. Spock morphed into the coddling excesses of the baby boomers.) Suddenly a generation of men -- both lay and clergy -- that not long before had finally been able to admit that it was "okay to cry" became the Phil Donahue Generation: limp caricatures of sensitivity. Fathers -- of families and of souls -- lost their authoritative voice, or abandoned their responsibilities to seek self-fulfillment. Meanwhile, catechists, newly unchained from dry and rote formulas, soon reduced the content of the Faith, as Bolster puts it, to "Jesus loves you, now let's make a collage."
At this time, too, radical feminism stepped out of the universities and muscled in on the pews with its now-familiar list of demands, seeking (with considerable local success) to enforce a new, gender-neutral brand of "God-talk." And also -- let it not go unsaid -- the Goodbye, Good Men generation of clergy entered active ministry, their male psychosexual identities malformed, inflicting on the Church everything from priests with squishy handshakes to the worst crimes of the Lavender Mafia.
But a funny thing happened on the way to a testosterone-free Church, beginning perhaps in the early 1980s: Following a trail blazed first by Evangelical Protestants, in what appears to be part of another historical correction, manly Catholicism -- chastened and wiser -- began to make a modest comeback. Let us look at some examples of Catholic manhood's counter-offensive, how it is manifesting itself in different areas of Church life, and what it may mean for its future.
The Counterattack
"Where did it begin? Right in the bosom of the family," says Tarek Saab, founder of Lionheart Apparel, a line of casual men's clothing featuring Christian symbols and slogans. Saab, who parlayed his 15 minutes of fame as a contestant on the TV show The Apprentice into a platform for promoting masculine Catholic ideals, believes that many children of the 1970s, burdened with their parents' social debt of divorce, fatherlessness, and sexual misery, were determined to do things differently. For Christian men especially, that meant carving out a brave new counterculture in which fathers reclaimed their position as head of the family, planted themselves in the pews alongside their wives and kids, and adopted a "provide and protect" stance in the face of the world's trials and temptations.
Saab sees a parallel phenomenon among younger, unmarried Christian men, to whom his company's products and Web site content are mostly aimed. They actively reject the "cheap version of manhood" that their generation has devised in an attempt to fill the masculinity vacuum: the "lowest-common-denominator" man who worships sports, electronics, and sex (yet who still somehow escapes feminist censure, presumably by agreeing to pay for half the abortion). Conscious of oppression from a world that wants to rob them of their piety, their self-control, and their chastity, they're banding together for fellowship and strength. In a sort of return to the low-profile symbols used by the persecuted early Church, Saab envisions items such as his company's Christ-themed T-shirts (cut to show off muscles) and hats -- as well as papal crucifixes, rosary rings, or Miraculous Medal tattoos -- being worn in health clubs and on college campuses as a way for such men to identify and silently affirm each other.
What Does It Mean to Be a Man?
Shift from the relatively superficial to the sublime and you have "That Man Is You!," a program of Houston-based family ministry Paradisus Dei. Its founder, Steve Bollman, has mapped out an ambitious approach to men's ministry that begins by mining the social and biological sciences in search of a comprehensive vision of gender differences and roles -- of what makes a man a man, and why. In so doing, he has discovered what he thinks is the key to male under-representation in the Church -- in short, the "pastorally sensitive" approach bores them. "Men respond to a challenge," Bollman says. "To offer them a 'soft' program doesn't take into account how men work."
So Bollman set out to provide that challenge -- with early morning prayer groups; with demanding "covenants" that call men to be self-sacrificing leaders in their families; and with an intellectually rigorous 68-week program, spread over three years, that unites science, Scripture, theology, and spirituality in a "thinking-man's quest" for the full truth of what it means to be a man -- and a man of God. To date, more than 5,000 men in Texas, Canada, and satellite programs nationwide have participated.
Bollman sees his ministry as part of a larger wave. "There's definitely something going on here," he says. Throughout the Church, "God is awakening in more men the desire to be real men." This means making sacrifices, being "willing to pay the price to do the right thing." In order to make such a sacrifice a man must "draw on all his masculine strength," Bollman says, and in so doing he steers clear of the two extremes of false manhood that are "deadly to male participation in the Church": the "wimpish Christianity" that presents neither challenge nor reward, and the machismo that keeps proud men off their knees.
Hello, Good Men
In what is certainly a corollary to Christian manhood's renaissance in family life and among young men, we have also begun to witness a discernible return to masculinity in our seminaries and, consequently, our parishes. Both Monsignor Swetland and his confrere Msgr. Steven Rohlfs, rector for the Mount, see promising signs in the men coming through their seminary doors today.
For one, they are carrying themselves differently: "They take pride in their masculine attributes," says Monsignor Swetland. "The last couple generations of priests generally weren't too concerned about taking care of themselves physically," but these days "they work out, they play sports, they want to look and dress and act like men." Also in contrast to their predecessors, they're interested in pursuing "a distinctly masculine spirituality," says Monsignor Rohlfs -- in part, he adds with a laugh, because "there's a sense of relief that it's now acceptable to talk that way."
This didn't happen by accident, of course. Good seminaries are not simply enjoying a serendipitous influx of manlier applicants; they're expressly targeting them. In what ought instantly to become the mantra of every rector and vocations director in the country, Monsignor Rohlfs tells how he seeks candidates who "exude a personality of quiet confidence and strength"; who demonstrate "an ability to relate to men and to fathers of families, as well as to children as a spiritual father"; and finally, "a spirituality that brings together the best qualities of a man."
Those qualities exceed the external trappings of speech and physique. "We're addressing what it means to talk about 'maleness,' beyond just the body," says Monsignor Swetland. Seminarians who, a generation ago, might have been "knocked down for appearing too aggressive" are now confident in showing initiative -- no longer bound by "a false sense of what it means to be pastoral," these men are "not afraid to be Christ-centered men of action," not afraid to preach boldly about "God's ferociousness of heart."
The change has begun to bear evident fruits in the interactions among younger clergy and seminarians, thanks to a reemphasis on the classical sense of friendship, which helps guard against same-sex attraction while building a lifelong foundation for priestly fellowship and mutual help. Among such men there is virtually no evidence of the affectation of feminine traits and roles that has plagued many seminaries. And the conversations at support groups, Monsignor Swetland adds, "aren't all psychobabble like they used to be." Instead, the young men challenge and demand accountability of each other.
Perhaps above all else, this new breed of seminarian has a fundamentally different orientation toward the Church, a posture that is decidedly husbandly. "The priests we're forming now," says Monsignor Swetland, "their mission is to love, cherish, and protect their Bride the Church. Whereas so many priests and seminarians of my generation, they wanted to change the Church." This doesn't mean that these men are blind to the Church's faults and failings; however, they view those troubles in the larger context of a "battle to fight on her behalf." This spirit of spousal fidelity, combined with a healthy accent on God's transcendence (whereas the feminine approach, Monsignor Rohlfs muses, "tends to accentuate His immanence"), has the added effect of sealing these young priests with a deep and trustworthy orthodoxy.
Despite positive signs, this part of the "battle," such as it is, remains far from won. In many seminaries, even those that have cleared their staffs of ideologues, who before would give unabashed preference to effeminate candidates while straining out the masculine ones, there are still future priests with a seriously deficient -- or skewed -- sense of what it means to be a man. Some of these will become deadbeat spiritual fathers; others will have to battle -- or will succumb to -- homosexual urges.
Interestingly, some of these seminarians are the same ones displaying a conspicuously fervent piety or orthodoxy. More than one source mentions the acronym DOT -- "Daughter of Trent," house slang for an effeminate or presumptively gay seminarian who affects (or adopts in a compensatory way) an old-school spirituality or flame-throwing orthodoxy. Nonetheless, there is a definite and promising trend here, the benefits of which we have just begun to reap in parishes nationwide. Toward a Crunchier Catechesis
Partly thanks to the initiative of some of these solid young priests, religious education has also begun to show signs of a renewed emphasis on masculine concepts and methodology. After the perfect storm of feminism, weak spiritual fatherhood, heterodox mischief, and dissatisfaction with rote approaches left Catholic catechesis touchy-feely in method and devoid of content in the 1970s and 1980s, the roots of yet another historical correction began to take hold. The next generation "discovered they were missing something," Bolster says. They weren't burdened by the hang-ups or bad memories of their parents, so when they chanced to hear some small aspect of the Faith "delivered to them in a meaningful way," he says, "they became hungry for more."
This yearning for content in catechesis is not exclusively masculine, of course. Theological curiosity and rigor are not solely male qualities. The mind and the heart, dogma and experience, definition and mystery, truth and love -- both men and women need to receive the Faith from all angles and engage it with all their faculties. But we return to natural gender differences again, to what Bollman calls "percentages and proportions" favoring this or that trait: Not only do they want to be spiritual "providers and protectors," but men will, on average, be drawn more strongly to a religion that provides purchase for their intellects to grasp, distinguish, and, finally, submit to.
In practice, this means a return to teaching hard or "crunchy" doctrine, a return to transcendence, a return to the fullness of Christian mysteries. Not, Bolster stresses, a return to the days of rote catechesis, but rather a new approach that "corrects current imbalances" without being merely reactionary. Thus, for example, in teaching Christology Jesus will still be "our friend" -- as CCD children drew on their felt banners in the Seventies -- but He will also be presented "as our God and Creator and Judge of the universe," with fully divine and human natures united in the Second Person of the Trinity. A lesson on the four marks of the Church will include the translation of "catholic" as "universal," and therefore welcoming of all, but now to be followed by emphasis on evangelization and penance rather than on cheery inclusivism.
As a professor of catechetics, Bolster is on the vanguard of a global movement toward the restoration -- and more than restoration -- of religious education in the Church, a movement in which men will find special benefit. In happy cooperation with the burgeoning spirit of Christian manhood in homes and parishes, it is poised to provide the next generation of faithful with a formation that is intellectual but not dry, warm and personal but not frivolous or compromising, geared to the current situation but rooted in eternal certainties. Such formation, it can be hopefully expected, will in turn produce for the Church more good male teachers, husbands, fathers, and priests.
Onward, Christian Soldiers
As I pursued this investigation of the new Catholic manliness, two common threads emerged. The first was the influence of Pope John Paul II, who by all accounts was the inspiration, motivation, and architect of the whole project. First, as a pastor and spiritual father: In him "the orphans of living parents found their Papa," as Bolster puts it. And second, by laying down a theological and philosophical trail for Catholic priests, ministers, and laymen to follow. The late pope's writings on the theology of the body helped us to understand how gender "gets right to the core of who we are," says Monsignor Swetland. Bollman concurs, adding that John Paul took the "impoverished anthropology" that his era had inherited and replaced it with a "Christian anthropology based on the inherent dignity of man and woman." Only from that foundation, he says, could we begin to rebuild an authentic male spirituality.
The second common thread was the martial metaphor. Every one of my sources spoke of a battle against the temptations and obstacles the modern world puts before men, a war against the false, cheap version of manhood it whispers in our ears. Again and again they made use of military imagery in defining male spirituality: Bolster and Monsignor Swetland -- both former naval lieutenants -- stressed the need to adapt the military virtues of discipline, valor, and self-sacrifice to the work of spiritual combat.
It may one day be recognized that the growing use and acceptance of military language to define manhood within the Church turned out to be not just apt but critical. For there is one religion that has no problem attracting and keeping male followers. Its wholly transcendent God doesn't desire spiritual conjugality with His people. Its leaders don't preach mercy, or celibacy, or strength through weakness; they do not have to contend with the paradox of the Cross. And the zealous adherents of Islam do not turn the other cheek.
Todd M. Aglialoro is the editor-in-chief for St. Benedict Press/TAN Books and a columnist and blogger for InsideCatholic.com. This article originally appeared in the July 2007 issue of Crisis Magazine. Readers have left 75 comments. This otherwise thoughtful (and thought-provoking) article was marred by it's closing: a stereotyping and gratuitous swipe at Muslims. The implication that the Church must embrace a militant "manliness" or be threatened by militant Islam ignores the evidence of a virtual civil war within Islam. It is precisely because of such ungoverned militancy that this extreme version of Islam easily manipulates the alienated men it draws to itself, with violent and tragic results.  Written by Fr. Larry Rice Gretings! That was truly thought-provoking and insightful. It mirrors in some respects my own brand of militant Catholicity! ;) Maybe it's just because I chose my patron saint as Michal the Archangel when I converted 20 years ago, but I have always been a proponent of a more masculine Christianity. Written by Anthony N. Emmel Here I am from 1973 to now yelling out that we have to teach our young men. Women will pick up thy slack and men will get further away... Written by Raymond O'Donnell I always have issues with articles like this. If men don't show up, it's the men's fault. My husband and I went to a Religious Education parents' meeting a few weeks ago to kick off the new year. There were about 3 men out of 50 there. Why? Because they are lazy. I'm sick of hearing that the Church is too feminine for them because they are such manly men and there is a felt banner and a folksy song playing in Mass. Whatever. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Thankfully, mothers are still interested in passing the faith. However, the facts remain that if fathers don't participate, it often doesn't get passed on to future generations. Written by Ann When I was a boy back in he 1950's and early 1960's, there were a lot of priests who were WWII veterans or Chaplains from WWII. They were manly Priests highly respected by the boys and young men of the parish. As time marched on, the Priests became less and less manly, frankly some of them rather feminine. Young men do not want to be led by feminine men, be they Priests or laymen. Written by Austin Whooo-eeee! I can think of all sorts of people whose ire I could arouse with this article. I'll share it selectively for the time being. As far as my perspective, there is a lot of merit to Todd's observations, but he also includes enough sweeping generalities and arguably even cheap shots, that it may take away from the work as a whole. It would be a shame if his good points here get lost within rhetorical flourishes that rub people the wrong way. Written by Steve I always have issues with articles like this. If men don't show up, it's the men's fault. — AnnAnn's words are sensible and economical, and also unimaginable coming from the Good Shepherd. Written by John I hope this trend in manliness leads to more Catholic priests joining the military as chaplains. There is a shortage of chaplains in all faiths, and the men and women in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere need the Sacraments of the Church as much as their families back home do. A military chaplain is a military officer, so he needs to be in good shape and work well in the military system. And he needs to be able to minister to & counsel soldiers of all faiths, including no faith. Sounds like a great mission! So, manly seminarians and priests, why not look into turning your spiritual battle into a way to serve those who are risking their lives in a battle with bullets and bombs? Written by HBanan I am sorry Father Rice, If you read your history, especially regarding Spain and the Islamic invasion, you will realize that the actions of Christians do not cause violent Islam. Islam's basic tenants are violent. It is a Christian heresy from the first millenium. Since God is Greater, as they profess, they have the ability through God to overcome this heresy and do the right thing. www.jihadwatch.org has very good translations of the Koran. It would behoove you to review them. I am happy that our big strong men are taking the role they were designed to take. Onward Christian Soldiers!!! Written by Christine "I always have issues with articles like this. If men don't show up, it's the men's fault. — Ann Ann's words are sensible and economical, and also unimaginable coming from the Good Shepherd." The Good Shepherd said way harsher things than that. People who don't go to Mass are sinning. Some stay away because they have been seriously hurt by other Catholics or even priests. Others, who simply find Mass boring or don't bother to go -- um, isn't that totally on them? I think we should try to get people to go to Mass and take the Sacraments, and that we should have liturgies that are good for everyone's souls, but if an adult makes a decision to not go to Mass, that is his or her decision, and his or her sin. It's a sin the Good Shepherd is happy to forgive. It is a sin he also wants them to stop. He would send disciples to his "lost sheep," and I hope these manly priests will be a part of that. But sadly, sometimes sheep seem to enjoy being lost, which is what Ann was getting at. I think men stay away, not just because they don't like the liturgy, but also because the emphasis on the need for Sunday Mass has dropped, and they have convinced themselves they are not sinning if they don't fulfill this obligation. So, a manly priest would probably tell them they actually do need to go, and might even use words like Ann's to do it! Written by HBanan Islam has attracted young men (and women) turned off by feminized Catholicism. The first muslim elected to the U.S. congress was a former Catholic who converted to Islam. The Washington Post did an article about a year ago about the growing phenomenon of formerly catholic hispanic women who convert to Catholicism. Written by BPS Great article. I do quibble with the use of "gender differences" to describe sex differences (men have sex language has gender)but this was so bracing and refreshing to read in here. Dr. Fr. Rice. Where is this Islamic internecine war happening? It certainly isn't happening at Al-Azhar University or any other place I have ever heard of. Islam has remained unchanged since the 7th Century and our great Pope recognises the truth about Islam: I think that first we must recognize that Islam is not a uniform thing. In fact, there is no single authority for all Muslims, and for this reason, dialogue with Islam is always dialogue with certain groups. No one can speak for Islam as a whole; it has, as it were, no commonly regarded orthodoxy.... There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice. — Pope Benedict XVIAn important point, however, is ... that the interplay of society, politics and religion has a completely different structure in Islam as a whole. Today's discussion in the West about the possibility of Islamic theological faculties, or about the idea of Islam as a legal entity, presupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a Democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations. In itself, however, this necessarily contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere, which Christianity has had from the beginning. The Quran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic.... In the cultural situation of the 19th and early 20th centuries, until the 1960s, the superiority of the Christian countries was industrially, culturally, politically and militarily so great that Islam was really forced into the second rank. Christianity -- at any rate, civilizations with a Christian foundation -- could present themselves as the victorious power in world history. But then the great moral crisis of the Western world, which appears to be the Christian world, broke out. In the face of the deep moral contradictions of the West and of its internal helplessness... the Islamic soul reawakened. We are somebody too; we know who we are; our religion is holding its ground; you don't have one any longer.... So the Muslims now have the consciousness that in reality Islam has remained in the end as the more vigorous religion and that they have something to say to the world, indeed, are the essential religious force of the future Written by I am not Spartacus I gotta agree with Ann here. Who was it that was in charge in the Catholic Hierarchy when all of the "Spirit of Vatican Two" junk was invited into our Sanctuaries and allowed to fester (and appear festooned on Felt Banners)? Males. As I recall, it was a male Pope, a Male Bishopric, and a Male Priesthood who allowed, when they were not encouraging, all of this feminisation (and homosexulisation). It was males who thought they could purchase peace by bartering away the prohibition against Altar Girls; it was males who thought they would be seen as enlightened when they allowed, when they did not initiate, changes in the Liturgy so that God would no longer be referred to as Father. It was a male Prelate, Abp Weakland, who started The Hootenanny Mass. Now, if you have any Orthodox Friends, ask them about their Divine Liturgy and if it has been changed so as to curry favor with the world (which hates it)or the feminists(who hate it). The Orthodox Church is run by men. For too long of a time, the Hierarchy in the West has been run by males. The Orthodox Church has men in the pews. It is laughable to imagine Orthodox men sitting passively by while some barbaric fool destroys a marble High Altar and installs a "Renew Tree" in the Sanctuary. The Catholic Church in America has been run for far too long by males and for far too long males have sat passively in their pews and allowed all manner of mayhem to pollute our sacred spaces consecrated to give Glory to God. We need men in the USCCB, men as Bishops, and men in the pews and men must reassert dominance in the Domestic Church where a duty exists to propagate and educate children in the Catholic Faith; Christians who will go out into the world to give Glory to God. Written by I am not Spartacus It is my belief that Fr. McGivney's organization is the answer to the female-dominated parish. So much so that I currently travel to a different parish for council meetings, in hopes that I can get 20 men to follow me, so that I may one day form a council at my own extremely liberal female-dominated parish. In the parish I travel to, men still have a place. Men run SVDP program. Men give over $10,000/year to charities. Men are available to move the battered women's shelter when it needed remodeling recently. And these men, are Knights. Written by Ted Seeber Hi I am not Spartacus, What is a "Renewal Tree"? Written by Christine Hey--get me to the enlistment center. I wanna join THIS Church!!!! Cheap shots?? What cheap shots?? Written by pete wilson ...but he also includes enough sweeping generalities and arguably even cheap shots, that it may take away from the work as a whole. It would be a shame if his good points here get lost within rhetorical flourishes that rub people the wrong way. Yep. Well said, but my guess is the critiscism of wrting style doesn't bother Todd in the least. With only a few exceptions, there is a strong militaristic sensibility among the male writers and commenters here on IC, and a clear cynicism of any criticism thereof. Todd accuses more nations, leaders, media people -- heck, anyone -- of smugness and arrogance than any other writer here. Methinks he may be projecting. I can certainly admit my own arrogance, perhaps it is why his drives me nuts. I can't believe I read the whole thing. I believe this is much ado about little, and more to do with feelings of inadequacey somewhere. The constant attack on homosexuals on this site speaks volumes to me. But, carry on, military might and maleness talk wont change cardinal's pink hats, nor the priest's "dress" at mass, as many outside the church perceive it. Wands and smoke, and all the frills... It just makes me laugh. Keep talking though. Ann is on to the truth of it...in my opinion. Written by Rich I do quibble with the use of "gender differences" to describe sex differences (men have sex language has gender) — I am not SpartacusGood catch. I fell into the jargon of the opposition there, didn't I? Written by Todd M. Aglialoro "The constant attack on homosexuals on this site speaks volumes to me." - Rich There's an old adage "if you are not liberal by the time you are twenty, you have no heart and if you are not conservative by the time you are thirty, you have no brain" Maybe instead of believing that you are running ahead of everyone else, you should become aware that many only appear to be behind you because you are about to be lapped. As for the "homosexual" thing, the Church has always taught and always will teach that it is intrinsically disordered, exactly how is that an attack? Is stating that adultery is wrong an attack also? One of the reasons that so many young boys were sexually abused was because people were intimidated by the P.C. police such as yourself and didn't have the courage to call a spade a spade. Written by Mark A Renewal Tree was placed in not a few Catholic Churches - such as the one crammed into the Sanctuary of Holy Cross Church in South Portland, Maine. (Maine has been spiritually dead for a LONG time) It was squat, ugly, and the first time I saw it I wanted to hang from it those responsible for placing it there. As the Parish completed various steps in the Renewal Program started by Bishop Gerety (Among the somewhat controversial changes instituted by Bishop Gerety were removal of the ornate marble high altar, the bishop's throne, pulpit, and communion rail. Following the renovation, in 1969, the Cathedral had a less ornate, more modern appearance) it was graced with the ability to paste a green leaf on the Renew Tree and the Congregation would applaud its growth in Faith. (As Dave Barry writes, "I am not making this up"). To me, Renew combined the solipsism of the 60s with the sulphurous odor of modernity. Of course,it proved to be a total failure (except for those who sold the materials to Parish Priests dragooned into submitting to this nonsense) and, eventually, The Renew Tree made a graceless exit. Is there one soul who lived through that rank stupidity who will today admit they were in favor of such crap? Written by I am not Spartacus A note from the management: Feel free to disagree and critique the articles, but leave personal judgments about the authors themselves outside. Written by Administrator Mr. Aglialoro. We all fall into the jargon from time to time. That is no big deal. (It is just that I specalise in quibbles). That aside, I thank you for the article. It is fantastic. And it is good news. If it did not draw the opposition it is drawing then you would have failed. In identifying a major fault you are pricking people's conscience if not piercing their hearts. Written by I am not Spartacus Dr. Fr. Rice. Where is this Islamic internecine war happening? It certainly isn't happening at Al-Azhar University or any other place I have ever heard of. Islam has remained unchanged since the 7th Century Not quite true. One place it's happening is in the Tora Bora Mountain Range, where a new theology of Jihad has taken hold since the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Previous to this, Jihad as a military method needed to, according to the Koran, be declared by a legitimate authority such as a Caliph or Imam. Al Qaida and the Mujahdeen changed that; for them, Jihad is an intensely *PERSONAL* experience. I don't know what they call it, other than Jihad, I call it Sola Jihad, because like the Protestant Reformation's five Solas, this new doctrine cuts any pretense of authority out of the picture. This is a NEW doctrine to Islam that didn't exist before 1970, probably not before 1980. It is believers in this new doctrine that we face in the War on Terror. And it is what makes the War on Terror an intensely unjust war from both sides; without a legitimate authority declaring war and individuals able to use terrorism to attack entire countries and cultures they disagree with, the result is something *extremely* hard to defend against, as Russia discovered in the 1980s and we are discovering now. I will reiterate- this is an external-to-the-Koran doctrine. I can find nothing in the Koran to support it. Most Islamic scholars I know of don't support this doctrine. A few other sects, such as the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia, also support this doctrine, but in reality, like with Protestantism in the beginning, I'd have to say less than 10% of the Islamic world believes in this doctrine. But when one man can kill 100 by giving up his own life, it's quite possible that this new doctrine will win out. Written by Ted Seeber A Renewal Tree was placed in not a few Catholic Churches - such as the one crammed into the Sanctuary of Holy Cross Church in South Portland, Maine. (Maine has been spiritually dead for a LONG time) — I am not SpartacusI snipped the rest of the description, to make a small point: Liturgical growth, as well as liturgical abuse, happens locally. Just because you had one Bishop in Maine who was part of the Charismatic Renewal, who did this, does not mean it was universal. The Church is a meta culture. Within it's approved liturgies, you can find the remnants of all sorts of local tribal cultures. Doesn't mean a thing unless the General Instruction is so violated as to call into question the validity of the sacraments. My own super trendy church has, for the past 8 years, had a war memorial and a peace tree. The War memorial contains a list of all those who have died in service to their country from Oregon since 9-11-2001, both Catholic and non-Catholic (which really touched a Protestant in-law; to see her father's name there after he was killed in Afghanistan). The Peace Tree is immediate family members of our parishioners- I'm sure you'd call it ugly, but those pictures tied to a dead stick remind us of our friends and family serving overseas. Why criticize that which means something to others, just because it means nothing to you? Written by Ted Seeber I am sorry Father Rice, — ChristineIf you read your history, especially regarding Spain and the Islamic invasion, you will realize that the actions of Christians do not cause violent Islam. Islam's basic tenants are violent. It is a Christian heresy from the first millenium. Since God is Greater, as they profess, they have the ability through God to overcome this heresy and do the right thing. www.jihadwatch.org has very good translations of the Koran. It would behoove you to review them. I am happy that our big strong men are taking the role they were designed to take. Onward Christian Soldiers!!! Islam's basic tenents are violent, yes. They always have been. But we face a new form of Islamic violence in the last 30 to 40 years or so. One that constitutes a civil war within Islam itself, one that is MUCH more violent and SIGNIFICANTLY more chaotic and less rational. I speak of a doctrine that I'm not sure even has a name among those who believe in it, but which is a significant difference in the duty of Jihad. Jihad, before now, was either about fighting your own sins internally, or at the behest of a legitimate authority, attacking another legitimate authority. It mirrored our own Just War theory by reliance on those legitimate authorities, despite their not being a single authority for all of Islam. This new doctrine, for lack of a better term, I call Sola Jihad. It seems to have come out of the Wahabbi movement in Saudi Arabia which opposes the legitimate authority of the King. In the 1980s it migrated to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it created the Mujahdeen (Freedom Fighters) to oppose the invasion of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, it morphed into the Taliban and Al Qaida, and started attacking the west. The key to Sola Jihad is this: You are your own legitimate authority. What Allah chooses to teach you is what is real, not what some scholar says the Koran says. Now you see why I mixed Latin and Arabic, and used a term from the Protestant Reformation- Sola Jihadists have cut themselves off from human authority in much the same way the early Protestants used the five solas to cut themselves off from Papal authority. THAT is new. That is a belief of less than 10% that is now tearing the Islamic world apart. And when one suicide bomber can take out 100 lives, 10% may be enough. Written by Ted Seeber This article should be read in conjunction with another—"What Does Woman Want?" by Mary Eberstadt— over on the First Things website. This might be a barely adequate summary of its message. Women insisted on equality with men in their secular marriages. In practice this meant "gender differences" were obnoxious and "socially constructed." So women wanted men to behave much like themselves, and the poor saps acquiesced, becoming domestic versions of earlier wives. Result: “Romance” completely disappeared from the marriages, as the husbands lost sexual interest in their spouses and retreated to their computers to watch pornography. Meanwhile, the wives, eager to "have it all," were carrying on careers while trying to hold down their end at home. They became exhausted as well as sexually unfulfilled. Eberstadt gives a long catalogue of recent feminist authors more anquished than Betty Friedan ever was. Things have steadily gotten worse for them. As a result many feminists are looking for some way back, but are locked into their ideology. The article is written in a lively style and is very convincing. In other words, the situation in the Church mirrors that in secular society. The solution for one may be that for the other. Written by Bob G This was always one of my favorites. Thanks for reprinting it! Written by Jason Negri But sadly, sometimes sheep seem to enjoy being lost, which is what Ann was getting at. — HBananPerhaps we have moved beyond this in the discussion, but I think this is important enough to answer it. Ann's comments got to me because, while she may know in person some men who refrain from attending Mass out of sheer laziness, she really has no idea why most men aren't attending Mass. What came to my mind as a comparison while reading her and others' comments is the understanding we often extend to women who are contemplating, or have had abortions; compared to the lack of understanding we extend toward men in a situation like not attending Mass, or not participating in the liturgical life. We rightly extend understanding toward women by bringing up the fact that, while the woman chooses to have the abortion, she is often facing unbearable pressure from family, our society, or from within to make the choice to terminate the pregnancy. If I were to treat the woman as Ann does the men who are not participating at Mass I would say something like, "If the woman decides to abort her child, it's her fault. Women abort close to 4000 children a day. Why? Because they're selfish. I'm sick of hearing how much pressure there is from boyfriends, family, society. Whatever. Selfish, selfish, selfish." I am sorry if the preceding example seemed crude; I don't intend to be crude. But I think the situation is grave enough to make the comparison. It is not our place to decide upon whom we should place the blame, unless we are going to place it upon ourselves. If it seems like men are missing Mass out of laziness, then what makes my own life so perfect or my vision so keen that gives me the grounds to place the blame at their feet for it? Have I, for example, always been a fortuitous model of vigilance in my attendance at Mass? Has something I have done caused another to stumble, where they might have otherwise risen to the occasion? Very likely so. It makes me want to hide myself in fear when it's time to pass out blame. It is a sin to purposely and willfully miss Mass, and I need to do my utmost to make sure that I and my fellow Christian does not fall prey to this or other sins. Whether a person actually sinned in missing Mass, I generally cannot say, for unless I have been privy to it somehow, I do not know the culpability behind the action. Written by John I am always grateful for the insight you and other men on this site provide about masculinity in the Church. I think this article elaborated nicely on the needs and roles of lay men; it seems that primary among those needs is the need for manly priests. In its assessment of the state of masculinity in the Church, and what direction it should take, I think you are spot-on. However, I don't think feminisation is the right term for what happened at all. The Church in her proper feminine role gained very little; but Christ and the clergy and the men of the Church lost much in their proper masculine role. I think that castration is a more apt description; the masculine in the Church was prevented from being a full adult masculinity and as a result became boyish and immature. It is not womanly to shy away from the sometimes bitter pill of true Christian teaching; that is simply immature. The true womanly approach is found in that knack some mothers have for saying the hard truth without provoking hurt pride and anger. Felt banners are not the decorations of a woman-- what woman of taste wants such things for her home?-- they are childish. And so it is with every flaw you point out in the "feminised" Church. Paradoxically, becoming less masculine also makes Catholicism less feminine. In sum, Genderless Parent Church and its Genderless Life Partner Christ make bad parents for their sons and for their daughters. The sexes are indeed different and complimentary, but we all need a Father God and a Mother Church. And, as your article points out, there are signs that both are returning to their rightful places of honor in Catholic culture and thought. Written by Chrissy G It is my belief that Fr. McGivney's organization is the answer to the female-dominated parish. — Ted Seeber*snip* In the parish I travel to, men still have a place. Men run SVDP program. Men give over $10,000/year to charities. Men are available to move the battered women's shelter when it needed remodeling recently. And these men, are Knights. Amen! Hallelujah! I love the Knights of Columbus. A good friend of mine re-instituted the chapter on our college campus about 2 years ago, and two other close friends are the current Deputy and Grand Knight. Of course, I cannot know much about their inner workings, but the fruits I can see. Truly faithful Catholic men on this campus have a place to come together in prayer, service, and social time with one another and with orthodox, manly priests. As a Catholic young woman who hopes to marry a good Catholic man some day, the Knights (especially the college chapter) gives me great hope. Written by Chrissy G Quote(31) Oct 7 Feast of The Holy Rosary of The BVM + 1571 and The Battle October 07th, 2009 | 6:54am It took the intervention of a woman to help secure victory for brave Christian men on a date every single Christian should remember because it was on this date (and a few others like at The Gates of Vienna, Battle of Tours)that Christian Europe was saved from domination by Islam...http://tinyurl.com/y94ldgg....http://tinyurl.com/yep4m4a Written by I am not Spartacus If you can read this in English, thank a Catholic man. If you do not have to fall on a prayer mat five times a day, thank a Catholic. If you do not have to pay the Jizya, thank a Catholic man. If your wife or daughter does not have to wear a Burqa, thank a Catholic man. If you do not have to make the Hajj, thank a Catholic man. On this date, in 1571, it was Catholic men who saved Christian Europe from being enslaved by Islam. Thanks be to God. Written by I am not Spartacus While agreeing with the non Spartacus that the internal problems of the post Conciliar Church were due to clergy and hierarchy,I would assert that these were not men but all too often (as we have found to our dismay over the past decade), "fruits" of Vatican II ! I would also like to bolster the arguments of Ted and Fr. Rice by pointing out the Shiite-Sunni wars which have been carried out within Islam for centuries and have erupted to a large scale once again over the past twenty five years. A good portion of civilian casualties in Iraq are owed to this sectarian battle Written by Carlist What a relief to hear some good news about men in the Church. And I echo the author's comments about young priests. I heard two young priests speak several months ago, and they were both on fire and very courageous, masculine men. St. Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us! Written by Rebecca Many very good and thought provoking comments to this article. The problem may be more one of emasculating the teachings of the Church by dumbing down both morally and intellectually than in feminizing them. The movie Dogma very hilariously ripped on the "Buddy Christ" approach. When people as far from the Church as Kevin Smith and George Carlin can fire a shot that accurately, it's obviously a big target. Rich, "The constant attack on homosexuals on this site speaks volumes to me." Without accepting your thesis, let me ask; Has there been anyone else inside or outside the Church who has attacked the Church more aggressively or done more harm in recent years. Are we expected to pretend it never happened that a mere handful of unrepentant actively gay priests brought more disgrace to the Church than had been seen in centuries. This isn't a question of forgiveness it is one of knowing who your enemies actually are. Ironically, this Church that has suffered such shame from an excess of tolerance and compassion has been simultaneously attacked by gays outside the Church as intolerant and oppressive. So no, there is no "constant attack on homosexuals" here on this site or generally in the Catholic community. But at the same time we are reminded of the consequences of accepting willful sin. Written by Ronsonic Thanks Mr. Spartacus for that last post of yours. It's going up on my FB page today!! Mr. Ronsonic I think your comment is well put and correct. Written by Pammie To John: Re your comment: If I were to treat the woman as Ann does the men who are not participating at Mass I would say something like, "If the woman decides to abort her child, it's her fault. Women abort close to 4000 children a day. Why? Because they're selfish. I'm sick of hearing how much pressure there is from boyfriends, family, society. Whatever. Selfish, selfish, selfish." — SomeoneI can't speak for anyone else, but I would agree with the bolded part of your statement. Abortion is a selfish decision, it's putting the self ahead of another. I think even a pro-choicer would have to agree with that. Written by Ann I wonder if you are the very-well educated Doctor I crossed swords with back in the day at Taki. If you are, I again apologise for being so confrontational. As to the response by Fr. Rice re the excellent closing paragraph by Mr. Aglialoro, I think there is a bit of confusion. I was not under the impression that Mr. Aglialoro was writing about an actual civil war within Islam (one would have to be living under a rock, or be an NPR journalist, not to know that) but that he was acknowledging the reality of Islamic Doctrine and how it is applied in the world. We Christian men are to imitate Jesus Christ whereas Muslims are called to follow the "perfect man", Muhammed. As Serge Trifkovic memorably observed (paraphrase) Christians are called to follow Jesus, The Prince of Peace, while Muslims are called to follow Muhammed, who was part David Koresh, part John Gotti. Written by I am not Spartacus Well, Ann, thanks for your honest response. At least it appears you are consistent. Written by John the direction the Church is taking on this human dimension as we look at the numbers of men ordained to the priesthood, especially in the USA and Canada. Men will tend to associate where they feel most comfortable. Anyone know what the line graph looks like lately? Written by Deacon Ed In that while doing battle, both sides still accepted legitimate moral authority in building their army. The Wahabbist/Taliban/Al Qaida are different. Their new doctrine of Sola Jihad means a single person can declare war on a whole country, and use modern technology to do as much damage as possible to that country. I find the new Islam Protestants to be far more dangerous. Written by Ted Seeber Chrissy- if you're really looking forward to finding your Knight one day- perhaps a reasonable response to the resurgence of your campus council would be for you to get together a few good Catholic Women to start a Columbettes Lady's Auxiliary Circle, in support of your local council. Written by Ted Seeber As Serge Trifkovic memorably observed (paraphrase) Christians are called to follow Jesus, The Prince of Peace, while Muslims are called to follow Muhammed, who was part David Koresh, part John Gotti. — I am SparticusOr in some circles of Islam, part Simon Boliviar. But that's my point. Our chief enemy in the War on Terror as American Citizens, the people who attacked us on 9-11-2001, aren't Muslim. They are Islamic without being Muslim. Muslims realize that they are nothing but dogs in comparison to Allah and imperfect in comparison to Muhammed. Muhammed was a military general at the end of his life- a liberation fighter conquering the pagans at Mecca. He led a well-trained and well-regulated army. Osama bin Laden, in comparison, in 2001 was also a leader. He got 19 men to give their lives in Sola Jihad for the attacks on America. *But here is the big difference*- Osama is nobody's idea of a legitimate governmental leader. Not even his Shia followers believe he'll be the 12th Imam. Not even his Sunni followers believe he'll bring back the Caiaphate. His people attack out of a misguided sense of justice, and claim their Jihad is a just war- but it fails to follow through on the first principle of any just war theory I've ever heard of, declaration by legitimate authority. That's the thing comparing modern Islamic violence to the invasions of the past falls down on, and it's the one tactical advantage the Sola Jihadists have- it's very hard to stop a man willing to trade his life for the target, and who isn't willing to listen to any human authority. Osama, and the priests who preach the Wahabbi doctrine- are the Martin Luther, the Jean Calvin, the Huldrych Zwingli of Islam. They are very much a break from the "Perfect Man" into chaos. Written by Ted Seeber The conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims, which has existed almost as long as Islam has, has nothing to do with how Muslims are expected to interact with non-Muslims. Consequently, it has never had, and will not have, any direct impact on the current conflict. I think Father Rice was referring to those in the Muslim world who are trying to moderate Islam's views towards the non-Muslim world and, in some instances, how Islam itself functions in Muslim countries. However, I would hardly call that a civil war, since the moderates have virtually no power while the fundamentalists have consistently gained power. Even in the West, where moderating influences should be strongest, fundamentalist views have gained strength due to Saudi money. Finally, this idea that Osama and his band of zealots invented this aggressive and expansionist version of Jihad 30 years ago may be a comforting, but it has no basis in reality. From its beginning, Islam's stated goal has been to spread its authority throughout the world. Non-Muslims would have to either convert to Islam or accept a subservient position. The separation of the world into the Land of Islam and the Land of War existed from the inception of the religion and was never a theoretical distinction. The Islamic generals who followed Mohammed certainly interpreted it literally, which is why Charles Martel ended up fighting Muslims in the center of France in 732. Written by Brian English Thank you for making sense. I think Father Rice was referring to those in the Muslim world who are trying to moderate Islam's views towards the non-Muslim world and, in some instances, how Islam itself functions in Muslim countries. And, as Robert Spencer noted in, "Islam Unveiled," there was an attempt at moderation in the 8th Century, "The Mu'tazilite movement," but it didn't last too long and even those "moderates" were rigid absolutists in applying political power. Mr. Spencer goes on to note; "The marginalizing and discrediting of the Mu'tazilites has cast a long shadow over "moderate Islam,"" for it stands as a historical precedent that literalists can use to dismiss any interpretation of the Qu'ran that doesn't take all its words as face value. Far too many Christians know far too little about Islam and ignorance about Islam is leading us to take rash and dangerous decisions that are imperiling our very lives and liberties. Written by I am not Spartacus Finally, this idea that Osama and his band of zealots invented this aggressive and expansionist version of Jihad 30 years ago may be a comforting, but it has no basis in reality. From its beginning, Islam's stated goal has been to spread its authority throughout the world. Non-Muslims would have to either convert to Islam or accept a subservient position. But that's exactly my point. Osama and his band of zealots *are not* expanding Islam's authority. Their stated goal is to destroy *all* authority, including that within Islam. You may see it as a distinction between "accept a subservient position" and "sorry, no subservient positions available, convert or die". Sola Jihadists see *anybody* different from them as being unworthy of Islam, worthy only of death. They aren't going to be like the old nice Caliph who is willing to accept taxes from Kufar and let them live in his kingdom- their mission is one of outright genocide. Authority? That's for those weak muslims willing to follow some preacher's view of Allah and the Koran, not a Mujahdeen, not a Taliban. They're not looking to conquor the West, they'd settle for merely destroying it, even if it takes making the world unlivable for anybody to do it. And if you find that irrational, well, now you know why Pope Benedict XVI gave that speech at the University of Regensburg. That's why we're finding this war to be so unwinable- because it is. Until we realize the other side is out for genocide, and the destruction of all human authority, we're going to keep doing stupid stuff like the invasion of Afghanistan and trying to shoot only the bad guys. Written by Ted Seeber And so on with the other heresies. But Mohammedanism, though it also contained errors side by side with those great truths, flourished continually, <and as a body of doctrine is flourishing still>, though thirteen hundred years have passed since its first great victories in Syria. The causes of this vitality are very difficult to explore, and perhaps cannot be reached. For myself I should ascribe it in some part to the fact that Mohammedanism being a thing from the outside, a heresy that did not arise from within the body of the Christian community but beyond its frontiers, has always possessed a reservoir of men, newcomers pouring in to revivify its energies. But that cannot be a full explanation; perhaps Mohammedanism would have died but for the successive waves of recruitment from the desert and from Asia; perhaps it would have died if the Caliphate at Baghdad had been left entirely to itself; and if the Moors in the West had not been able to draw upon continual recruitment from the South. Whatever the cause be, Mohammedanism has survived, and vigorously survived. Missionary effort has had no appreciable effect upon it. It still converts pagan savages wholesale. It even attracts from time to time some European eccentric, who joins its body. <But the Mohammedan never becomes a Catholic>. No fragment of Islam ever abandons its sacred book,its code of morals, its organized system of prayer, its simple doctrine. In view of this, anyone with a knowledge of history is bound to ask himself whether we shall not see in the future a revival of Mohammedan political power, and the renewal of the old pressure of Islam upon Christendom. We have seen how the material political power of Islam declined very rapidly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We have just followed the story of that decline. When Suleiman the Magnificent was besieging Vienna he had better artillery, better energies and better everything than his opponents; Islam was still in the field the material superior of Christendom_at least it was the superior in fighting power and fighting instruments. That was within a very few years of the opening of the eighteenth century. Then came the inexplicable decline. The religion did not decay, but its political power and with that its material power declined astonishingly, and in the particular business of arms it declined most of all. When Dr. Johnson's father, the bookseller, was setting up business at Lichfield, the Grand Turk was still dreaded as a potential conqueror of Europe; before Dr. Johnson was dead no Turkish fleet or army could trouble the West. Not a lifetime later, the Mohammedan in North Africa had fallen subject to the French; and those who were then young men lived to see nearly all Mohammedan territory, except for a decaying fragment ruled from Constantinople, firmly subdued by the French and British Governments. These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war? Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an equal part in the modern world? I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic_but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past:_one might say that they are blinded by it Written by I am not Spartacus I've read Belloc myself, but there are two points here that the Wahabbi don't match on: In view of this, anyone with a knowledge of history is bound to ask himself whether we shall not see in the future a revival of Mohammedan political power, and the renewal of the old pressure of Islam upon Christendom. That's where bin Laden's bunch differs. They aren't for a revival of Mohammedan political power- their interpretation of Shariah law in fact would deny the material political power of Islam, in favor of Allah-as-direct-dictator-to-each-human-being Islam. Snipping down I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic_but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past:_one might say that they are blinded by it I'm not disagreeing with that. It is entirely possible that the result of this Reformation within Islam will result in stronger centralized Islamic leaders, just as the Pope gained in power even as Germany became Lutheran. What I am saying is that we're dealing with a new faction as well- King Saud has the same enemy we do, even though he's Islamic, and the intent is a world ruled by priests from Mecca, not a worldly, materialistic Caliphate from Riyadh, or even an Ayatollah Imam of Tehran. And, as a good Catholic who remembers the history of Christendom between 1450 and 1918- that should scare the pants off you completely. Remember the wars between Protestant Democrats and Catholic Monarchs? It's the same civil war now in Islam- only without the respect for human life. Written by Ted Seeber Ted: B16 was not talking about Osama Bin Laden at Regensburg. He was talking about a troubling aspect of Islam itself. I would recommend you read the chapter on Islam in Belloc's The Great Heresies, as well as his book, The Crusades. You will find that militant Islam is not something new, and that writing over 70-years ago, Belloc was sure it was going to return. As far as invading Afghanistan and only shooting the bad guys being a mistake, I am not sure if I want to know what you mean by that. Written by Brian English That's where bin Laden's bunch differs. They aren't for a revival of Mohammedan political power- their interpretation of Shariah law in fact would deny the material political power of Islam, in favor of Allah-as-direct-dictator-to-each-human-being Islam. Oh, Good Grief. There is less of a distance twixt the Sun and Pluto than the difference between what Bin Laden his own self says and what you say he desires. BIN LADEN'S FATWA The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars… The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;… Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,..etc etc Written by I am not Spartacus What I find interesting about the Islamic resurgance is how we have a very good analogy in our corner Christian Churches that have sprung up everywhere in the US during the past 30 years. Islam was created by Mohammed, who had most likely read gnostic heretical texts of Jesus and used these heresies to help fill out the basis of his religion - a religion that evolved itself based upon the lack of a central authority. For several hundred years there was always an authority for schisms within our mother church on the western front (The King of England, Luther, Calvin). It changed, however, when these protestants had schismatic groups form from within their ranks. This has led to groups that believe whatever they want. Because of their clinging to Sola Scriptura, no protestant denomonation holds the same beliefs, because they have no Sacred Tradition or Authority. Now with thousands of Christian denomonations You can go from church to church and learn as the faith, something different at each one. I would probably say that Islam and Jehovas Witnesses have more in common theologically than Catholics and Jehobas Witnesses. The interesting part comes in at the scripture these groups use. When you review the scriptures, one is inspired by God. The other is not. I say this because of the edicts that are set forth in the Koran that are not loving and encourage lying, murder conquest, slavery and child sexual abuse (Mohammed took a child of the age of 9 and had sex with her - this is seen as something to emulate as the life of Mohammed is seen as worthy to follow). These edicts are nothing new. If there ever was a Calif in Europe during the occupation that did not lie to Christians, take slaves and sexually abuse children, it is because of the goodness of God and His ability to write on the souls of men, and the goodness of the Calif. Not because he was following the Islamic faith. Written by Christine As far as invading Afghanistan and only shooting the bad guys being a mistake, I am not sure if I want to know what you mean by that. If I'm right- and this is a form of Islam that will reject any form of kindness to Kufar- well, there are only two tactics ever used to defeat that kind of genocidal terrorism. The first, would require us to use nuclear weapons to create an environmental disaster so large that Afghanistan would be completely uninhabitable for the next 1500 years or so. The second, would require us to establish and maintain a kill zone around Afghanistan and Pakistan that no human being could ever cross. The big mistake is thinking we have the wisdom to separate out the good guys from the bad guys in this. Sola Jihad changes that game to the point where your friend one day, can be your enemy the next, at the behest of Allah. And Sparticus- you need to know the WHOLE story: Oh, Good Grief. There is less of a distance twixt the Sun and Pluto than the difference between what Bin Laden his own self says and what you say he desires. BIN LADEN'S FATWA The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars… The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;… Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,..etc etc And who invited us Americans in? Who suspended Shari'a law? Who is seen as the puppet of the Americans? King Saud himself- what we westerners and most sects of Islam would consider to be the legitimate authority in the "Land of the Two Holy Places". ONLY when the divine Shari'ah law is returned to Mecca and Medina, and being divine that makes it the providence of priests, not secular human lawmakers, will the killing stop. But here's the weird part: Osama Bin Laden, by the Koran, doesn't have the right to issue a fatwa. He isn't a legitimate leader. By issuing this fatwa, he's stepped out from the example of Mohammed's army; he's taken off on an agenda of his own. Written by Ted Seeber How did this all become a discussion about Islam when the issue was Catholic men who feel like their Church left them in the lurch??? When I was a kid, priests were real men. I went off to a Benedictine boys' boarding school at age 13 which was a little like boot camp. The monks were grownups, and quite a few were veterans of WWII or Korea. One had flown a B-26 in combat. For a bunch of 13-18 year old kids, we behaved pretty well. The alternative was a physical reminder. We were set an example, expected to act like gentlemen at least part of the time, and thanks be to God, otherwise left to be boys. We went to Mass every day, and worshipped God with some pretty darned good Gregorian chant. For all intents and purposes we grew up in the 13th century, and it was a good place to be. Academically I was a bust, but the deeper significance of it all went to the bone. Since then I have only met two priests who I could relate to as men. One was a Marine Corps chaplain who flew his own light plane. The other was an elderly Jesuit with great experience and real intellect, who really loved people. Even me. My 30 year old son has great difficulty with the Church because his parish dismisses his concerns as a man, a husband, and a father. I empathize with him because I have the same problem. I remain a Catholic in SPITE of the Church, not because of it. Much more of this and there won't be any more men in church even at Easter and Christmas. Written by Dienekes I do see, in many places, that some Catholics are returning to the manly virtues; I only hope it is not too late. For it is very late in the day now... Unless you think that a couple of felt banners with fat white doves, some squishy catechesis, altar girls, and middle-aged ladies singing "Da-Who-Dor-ays" are going to avail us in the war wherein we find ourselves now. Or perhaps we do not notice that human cloning is here, that scientists are discussing human-animal hybrids, that people are taking seriously the plan to grow human embryos to cannibalize them for parts, and more, and worse -- the whole biotechnocracy about to destroy civilization as we have known it, with genetic engineering almost the least of its evils. If Catholic women think they can continue to make Church nice and comfy, while almost everybody in the pews continues to contracept and to say implicitly by their actions, "My body, my self," and have the least little effect upon the amoral scientists who view the human person as a machine, or upon the new atheists who (though they are stupid and ill-educated) are "converting" readers by the hundreds of thousands, then they are sillier than I have thought. How about, ladies, a little bit of humility here. Face the fact: this is not a war you are going to come close to winning without men. But if you enlist men, you have to take them as men, not as feminist fellow-travelers. You want us to fight, well then, let us train ourselves to be soldiers -- some of which training we must do without your company. That's just the way of it. Written by Tony Esolen There were about 3 men out of 50 there. Why? Because they are lazy. I'm sick of hearing that the Church is too feminine for them because they are such manly men and there is a felt banner and a folksy song playing in Mass. Whatever. Lazy, lazy, lazy. — SomeoneHuff and puff! Women are pushy, pushy, pushy. Women are vapid, vapid, vapid. Women are conceited, conceited, conceited. Ann, do you know what the above comments (including yours) amount to? Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry. The way forward is not a return to stoic, emotionally-unconnected males and "blameless" sanctimonious women. Martin Written by Martin Silvain Hi Todd, Nice article -- I thought it was very solid, informative, and hopeful. It didn't blame church ladies alone for the manliness crisis in faith (or the faithfulness crisis in men), and showed us that there is hope in the new, JPII-inspired generation. I am sure Pope Benedict will inspire even more men to follow suit. Virtuous men earn the respect of women and men alike, and can lead them to virtue through their own example. The manly seminarians I know are great with both sexes because Jesus Christ and his Church come first for them, and because they truly try to serve God, putting his will above their own. Their attitudes are an inspiration, and I hope they will bear great fruit. Written by HBanan Bigotry? That's a pretty strong word. I don't care, whatever. I call it like I see it. They are lazy. Uninterested. Uninvolved. Couldn't care less. Dragged by their pushy, bossy wives perhaps in your book. Why did all those men get their children baptized if they have no intention of being involved with passing the faith down to them? If a man thinks that the church isn't manly enough for him to participate, then that man needs to man up and grow a set. Written by Ann Finally, I did not mean to insult all Catholic men. I'm sorry if my initial comment came off that way, and I can see how it could. There are some very good, holy, and yes, manly men in our church obviously. I was just voicing my frustration with what I see in our parish, This article, and articles like it, while I agree with many of the points in this one, tend to frustrate me. If anything, the whole thing saddens me, because of how important men are. I know how much we need men to be active participants in training our children up in the faith and when I don't see them there, I can predict what is going to happen in many cases. Written by Ann I remember seeing a study about a year ago that concluded that the single most important factor in determining whether children went to Church as adults was whether their fathers went to Church with them when they were children. I think Catholic men have to really think about that. Their decision to not attend Church, regardless of how legitimate they feel their reasons are, has a direct impact on the spiritual lives of their children as adults. If you do not like some aspects of your parish, become active and try to change it. If you experience something at Mass or at a parish event that you do not like, use that experience as a vehicle for discussing with your children what you believe and why you think things should be done differently. It might surprise you, but they actually care what you think about these things. Written by Brian English Chrissy- if you're really looking forward to finding your Knight one day- perhaps a reasonable response to the resurgence of your campus council would be for you to get together a few good Catholic Women to start a Columbettes Lady's Auxiliary Circle, in support of your local council. — Ted SeeberActually a friend and I are working on starting a Ladies Auxiliary! It's just a matter of finding some more like-minded women. Hopefully we'll get things running before I graduate :) Written by Chrissy G ....If Catholic women think they can continue to make Church nice and comfy, while almost everybody in the pews continues to contracept and to say implicitly by their actions, "My body, my self," and have the least little effect upon the amoral scientists who view the human person as a machine, or upon the new atheists who (though they are stupid and ill-educated) are "converting" readers by the hundreds of thousands, then they are sillier than I have thought. How about, ladies, a little bit of humility here..... — Tony EsolenI think you're wrong in pinning this as the work of women in the Church. This is the work of a particular ideology that despises masculine virtue and masculine attributes generally. Women as women don't despise men, they love men. Idealogues who hate men and masculinity come in both sexes-- if there weren't men on board, the problem would never have gotten out of the control of the hierarchy. As I said, felt is not feminine. It's infantile. And so is the broader Church culture that is alienating men. It turns out, women can stand this childishness a little better than men, so more women remain in the pews and social halls of the parishes. But that doesn't mean that Catholic women by-and-large perpetrated or enjoy these changes. Written by Chrissy G How did this all become a discussion about Islam when the issue was Catholic men who feel like their Church left them in the lurch??? — DienekesBecause, in many places in the world, one has caused the other. The feminization (is that even a word?) of the Catholic Church and the rapid decline of fatherhood makes conversion to the more irrational forms of Islam extremely attractive to the young. I certainly think that's how the Catholic Church and Christianity in general has lost Indonesia, for instance. Written by Ted Seeber I remember seeing a study about a year ago that concluded that the single most important factor in determining whether children went to Church as adults was whether their fathers went to Church with them when they were children. I saw that same study, but I'd add two things to it: - A good Catholic Father should model a tradition of service to his parish. I know a good part of why I'm still Catholic is because my father was a Knight and a Eucharistic Minister and a Liturgical Assistant. - A good Catholic Father should model in Mass an attitude of reverence and respect, thus showing his own faith. Written by Ted Seeber "I saw that same study, but I'd add two things to it: - A good Catholic Father should model a tradition of service to his parish. I know a good part of why I'm still Catholic is because my father was a Knight and a Eucharistic Minister and a Liturgical Assistant. - A good Catholic Father should model in Mass an attitude of reverence and respect, thus showing his own faith." Agreed. Written by Brian English . So, a manly priest would probably tell them they actually do need to go, and might even use words like Ann's to do it! [/quote] They do indeed. I had the great pleasure to occasionally attend a latin mass by a Fraternity of St. Peter priest, and he made a point to be scholarly, caring, and not to mince words all at the same time. Men have the role of being able to "tell it like it is" to strangers, while I think for a woman to do the same, to men who are not members of her family, sounds "preachy." Anne is not incorrect. We just don't usually hear women say things like that and if they do, we think they're preachy or whiny. So we need good men to back her up! Written by Sarah Is military language the answer? I doubt it. I find "manly" talk just as repulsive as "feminine" talk when it comes to the male gender spirituality. Do we have to look to violent role models to find real masculine spirituality? What about farmer imagery, the tamer of nature who through the sweat of his brow provides for his family. Dirt on his face and in his fingernails. Cracked skin on his fingers from his labours. A noble and wise mind. The man who is able toil the land and slaughter to calf or catch and kill the fish for a meal or celebtration but doesn't raise his arm in violence against another man. The man who is able to sit as head of the family and be proud of all that he is able to provide to his family and friends and parents, through the bounty of God. The man who is able to suffer for his family through drought and famine. There is sacrifice in this imagery but it is working within the sphere of God and nature. I doubt that military euphemisms do this. To me this is closer to the real masculinity which the Church needs to tap into. Aren't we meant to turn swords into plowshares? Written by Andrew Andrew: I mean the following rejoinder respectfully, not as a throw-down; still, it is something I feel passionately, so I suppose I'd better convey it that way: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus "Let he who does not have a sword, buy one." - Jesus "The LORD is a warrior." - Moses "In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" - St. John, Evangelist, Apostle, describing Jesus I could go on, but it'd take all night, what with all the Old Testament history, and the Davidic verses, and "The LORD has bared His holy arm" in the sight of all the nations, and whatnot. "When He rolls up His sleeves, He ain't just puttin' on the Ritz/There is thunder in His footsteps, and lightning in His fists." - Rich Mullins Our God is an awesome God, and He communicates this to us His children skillfully and without distortion in a manner which allows us to understand it. This requires that we see Him as gentle to the repentant and the poor at heart, not breaking a bruised reed, like a merciful king...but still, like a powerful merciful KING: Bearded, crowned, shining, broad-shouldered, blinding in majesty. His hands don't just reach down to caress. They reach down, with calloused knuckles at the ends of muscled arms, to bend, to break, to mold, to mend, to craft, to shape, and to use. Us. He is not God whom we "seek." We play at seeking Him, in a feel-good and convenient kind of way, only to find, when the time is right, that He's been searching us out, with keen focused eyes, furrowed brow, and firmly set jaw, the whole time. He knows where we are; we have been located. And He is rushing at us, advancing at the speed of light, taking the initiative, an unstoppable force, invading our lives, upsetting applecarts and breaking the fripperies, shoving aside obstacles, coming for His children, coming to pick us up out of our mud-puddles, clean us off, and whirlingly set us atop His shoulders. Our Daddy is our Daddy, our Father in heaven, not a senile Grandfather in heaven. He is big, and He is strong, and He is sometimes LOUD, and He is a warrior, our defender, and a strong one. He coddles us only so long, then He sets us up on our feet and tells us He "has our back." He encourages us to grow likewise into strength, to exercise initiative as we mature, to cast down strongholds of evil and to rescue the defenseless. Our God's hugs feel like bear hugs; His hand on our shoulders when we are wandering astray is heavy. It takes a hammer, and some strength, and some heat, probably in a forge, to beat swords into plowshares. A metrosexual God can't do all that. Written by R.C. i'm not sure what happened to a small comment i tried to add here this morning,...i just wanted to say that i think this is a timely and fruitful discussion for the church to be having,...i'm going to guess that it will involve a process of discovery, going beyond even any preconceived patterns or concepts that we feel are familiar,...we might be able to also learn from cultures that have managed to keep their men more closely connected to the church,...maybe we have a lot to learn from each other,...god bless,... Written by georgie-ann I call on all who read this article to take a moment today and say a prayer for the men who are away from our Catholic family. The devil wants to keep them away because their influence will diminish his influence. Written by Sharon ...and their absence IS a victory (temporarily) FOR the devil,...hey, MEN, in all your earthly competitive (sports/etc.) inclinations and enthusiasms (also destined to be ultimately "temporary")!,...whose side are you really on anyway?,...have you REALLY given this ANY serious thought?,...the time is ripe to do so, believe me!,...we would love to have you back in the church,...together with us, on our side!,...thanks for giving this idea some consideration,...you need to become ACTIVE in this, and we NEED you to do so!,...with much love, from those who miss you,... Written by georgie-ann Points in this article make sweeping generalizations about what is essentially described as an insidious imprint of the feminine on the Church. I am a woman and I do not see what you described as resembling me or real femininity. By the way, what's wrong with sewing -there are tailors and seamstresses-is making a piece of clothing is inherently feminine? Any Italian tailors out there care to respond to the implied conclusion that you are not "real" men? Please, Mr. Aglialoro I beg you to not dole out unnecessary insults which diminish your objectivity. Let's continue. I beg to differ when you describe "softer" pastoral approaches as merely feminine. God is mercy, Jesus showed great mercy, in all of Scripture, I think He only raised his voice once in anger at the money-changers in the Temple. Strength/authority and softness/kindness are not antagonistic. Jesus led, guided, and counseled with strength and authority, and love and mercy. True greatness and power doesn't exult itself, nor make a show of greatness, but hides its power in humility. What you ascribe to "radical feminism" appears to be some undesirable and anecdotal church traditions [small "t"] and parish customs which you dislike and attempt to discredit and dismiss by ascribing them to a "radical feminism." I argue that what you described has no connection to feminism, radical or otherwise. There was an ideological shift in the 70s throughout the nation that was community-oriented, among other things, but it was a social change, not a policy made by women. What does "squishy handshakes" have to do with the feminine? It is a sign of a lack of confidence, perhaps fear or hesitation, or merely old age, but does not reflect anything essentially to women. Please recognize also, when you denounce what you call the feminine in the Church, who exemplifies that most. The feminine is not something that inspires a "wimpish Christianity" and "soft" programs. Joan of Arc did not die at the stake because she was a wimp. Quintessential and real femininity is found in the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, the one who will crush the Infernal One, and who bears, more than any other human being ever has, with the sufferings of Christ. It's great for the Church to have strong men. But please respect, love, and honor the Mother of God and act in obedience to Mother Church. By contemplating the guidance of the Church and of role of our loving Mother Mary, I pray that you may come to a more loving and less hostile view of the truly feminine. I think a proper understanding of masculinity in the Christian man will depend on recognizing what is proper to femininity, and what is not. Your sister in Christ, Rachel S. Written by Rachel Choosing seminary candidates primarliy based on their "masculinity" or demonstrable heterosexuality might not be the best policy. A competent candidate also must have intellectual curiosity and academic ability. I fear that this rush to discourage "effeminate" or homosexual men from entering seminary will result in the admittance of some candidates that are great at "masculine activities" but not capable of completing the rigorous intellectual studies required for successful ministry. What good is ordaining a man who cannot read any Latin, knows nothing of Thomism, or cannot preach? I fear that we are moving towards a selection process that favors subjective criteria over objective criteria such as academic abilities. Written by JZ I always have issues with articles like this. If men don't show up, it's the men's fault. — AnnMy husband and I went to a Religious Education parents' meeting a few weeks ago to kick off the new year. There were about 3 men out of 50 there. Why? Because they are lazy. I'm sick of hearing that the Church is too feminine for them because they are such manly men and there is a felt banner and a folksy song playing in Mass. Whatever. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Men are bad, women are good, blah, blah, blah. That's the kind of thinking that wants to make men "safe", and sterile. We've spent the last 30 years redefining manhood, and removing the parts that are offensive, yet vital. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful." - C.S. Lewis Written by Jim |
|
 |
