Rise Up MEN of God!
#11
i do thibk real men drink tea after mass
Reply
#12
(11-04-2014, 06:26 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: i do thibk real men drink tea after mass

I certainly do.
Reply
#13
What I was taught in history classes (though I was never able to confirm it later) is that in the early Middle Ages the first catechesis the children have come precisely from the mother, whereas the men—the Clergy apart—were not into religion that much. So, the reason for this phenomena in the West might be a bit more complicated than the rise of feminism, as PrairiMom speculated.

Though, of course, having a Liturgy concocted for little girls and effeminate priests just finished the job. As I said somewhere else, I myself would have deep shame if I had to invite an atheist friend to a NO Mass. Really, who can bear all the waving hands, silly songs and whatnot.

The effeminate priests Old Sarum mentioned kinda trouble me a bit too. I've also seen seminarians like that (one seminarian's notebook was all decorated with girly flowers—before seeing him I even thought a girl was sitting on that place; really creepy, if you ask me).

I'm lucky because we are having a sort of response to all this here; and the traditional women are encouraging the men in this respect and not opposing them, which is great. Take that feminism!

Reply
#14
(11-04-2014, 04:09 PM)Old_Sarum Wrote: Tea after mass? It's a pint of mild for me, mate!

Some of us don't drink.  >:(
Reply
#15
Men get discouraged when the after Mass activity is a gossip session filled with whining, complaining, and the barking of superficial orders. Men also get turned off when certain Biblical commands like "submit to your husband" get thrown out the door while they are constantly reminded to "give their lives as Christ did for the Church." Men want a consistent establishment regardless if certain feelings get hurt. That is reality. Sometimes when God tells us "NO!" it hurts because our egos get wounded. You have to deal with that. Doing otherwise is what has led to moral relativism. In a moral relativist system "true good" is defined as "whatever makes you feel good." Do you think Jesus was in pleasure on the cross? Didn't sound like it from what I've heard, but it was the right thing to do because it was the will of God. A man is not going to support a system that by default demands his sacrifice but frees the other half of theirs. If there is a cross for all then all must carry it! Sure, be merciful and forgiving but that doesn't mean abandoning the Truth and serving the self.
Reply
#16
Over the centuries, religious Hasidic Jews developed a view of manliness associated with mastery of scholarship, mystic devotion, and obedience of commandments. There are ways of making this work, and other cultures have done reasonably well from time to time. There is a crisis of manliness in the modern west, but "tough guy" machismo is not the solution, it is a false thing, a mockery of real manhood. It is amazing to read old texts and see how openly some great men wept or otherwise expressed sincere emotions. They were real men, they were fully present in their lives, they could feel and respond authentically. Even their letters seem strange to us, since we confuse openness for sappiness, and sensitivity for weakness.

Quote:When the Lord Bishop of Ostia, who later became Pope Gregory IX, attended the Chapter of the friars at Saint Mary of the Portiuncula, he entered the house with many knights and clergy to see the friars' dormitory. And seeing how the friars lay on the ground and had nothing beneath them but a little straw, and a few poor broken-down pallets, and no pillows, he began to weep freely before them all, saying, "Look how the friars sleep here! But we, wretched creatures, enjoy so many luxuries! What will become of us?" So he and all the others were much edified. He did not even find a table in the place, because the friars used to eat on the ground; for as long as blessed Francis lived, all the friars in that house used to eat on the ground.
Reply
#17
PrairieMom Wrote:But a question: is it maybe a chicken-and-the-egg problem... are those threatening women there because men have shirked their duties, or are men shirking their duties because of the threatening women?

I’ve wondered about the chicken-and-the-egg problem too. There is a notion -- one that has much truth to it -- that men and boys will avoid activities, events and places that involve women and girls. There should be bastions for males alone and females alone. And that will happen naturally, because we are social creatures.

But most social settings, like the workplace, are open to everyone now. Go to any department in any diocese and you will see a significant, even dominant, female staff. Men need to stop feeling intimated by the presence of women in the workplace and the church, because women will not go back to living in the past. And some of these Catholic men need to stop seeing women in active roles in the church as a threat to the traditional family and all-male priesthood.

Renatus Frater Wrote:Though, of course, having a Liturgy concocted for little girls and effeminate priests just finished the job. As I said somewhere else, I myself would have deep shame if I had to invite an atheist friend to a NO Mass. Really, who can bear all the waving hands, silly songs and whatnot.

Yes but why are waving hands and silly songs associated with the feminine? My mother would belt anyone who tried to grab her hand during the Sign of Peace LOL. Plenty of women love the Latin Mass and the quiet dignity and the reverence as much as you do. To me, a much better description for silly songs and novelties and liturgies concocted for little girls would be “childish.”

Likewise, why should lace vestments (or the lack thereof) be regarded as masculine or feminine? Why should a priest practically apologize (as I’ve heard some do) for the color of his vestments on Lataere and Gaudete Sunday, while insisting “IT’S ROSE---NOT PINK!” Some don’t even wear the rose vestments anymore (which are optional anyway).

This is a reaction to feminism and homosexuality in today’s culture. I understand it, but at the same time we’ve got to stop blaming feminism for every crisis in the church. And, as I said before, we've got to stop seeing women in active roles as a threat to the traditional family and the all-male priesthood.

Cyriacus Wrote:There is a crisis of manliness in the modern west, but "tough guy" machismo is not the solution, it is a false thing, a mockery of real manhood. It is amazing to read old texts and see how openly some great men wept or otherwise expressed sincere emotions. They were real men, they were fully present in their lives, they could feel and respond authentically. Even their letters seem strange to us, since we confuse openness for sappiness, and sensitivity for weakness.

Yes! Not only that, but we confuse sensitivity -- and thereby weakness -- with femininity! We are not accustomed to the passion of the medieval and ancient poets, philosophers, kings and clergy of European and Semitic regions. I myself am sometimes taken aback at the emotion of the Fathers in their writings. Our American idea of “tough guy” is pseudo-masculinity and a mockery of real manhood, as you said so well.
Reply
#18
(11-05-2014, 12:25 PM)SCG Wrote: I’ve wondered about the chicken-and-the-egg problem too. There is a notion -- one that has much truth to it -- that men and boys will avoid activities, events and places that involve women and girls. There should be bastions for males alone and females alone. And that will happen naturally, because we are social creatures.

But most social settings, like the workplace, are open to everyone now. Go to any department in any diocese and you will see a significant, even dominant, female staff. Men need to stop feeling intimated by the presence of women in the workplace and the church, because women will not go back to living in the past. And some of these Catholic men need to stop seeing women in active roles in the church as a threat to the traditional family and all-male priesthood.

It has less to do with men seeing women as a threat than it does with most men having a natural inclination to want to avoid conflict with women which is inevitable in a leadership position. When a man's choices are 1) fight with a woman or 2) avoid the woman he is more likely to choose the latter. It's not a matter of intimidation. It's a matter of preserving what little sanity / peace of mind a man has when the weight of the world is on our shoulders.
Reply
#19
(11-04-2014, 05:41 PM)SCG Wrote: What is considered "de-masculinizing" to men like Voris and Msgr Pope, is not just the idea that men have shirked their duties and traditional roles, it is the threatening presence of women in the sanctuary, the church office, and the tribunal. That's a lot different from saying that men just need to "man up." Quite a bit different.

But masculine psychology is a real and true thing, and it's just so that little boys have to push away from the feminine in order to become men. It's a ginormous psychological upheaval, and when things go wrong, you get homosexuality, etc. Boys naturally go through a stage of thinking or feeling that "girls have cooties" and "girls are gross" and all that because they have to in order to make that break from the all-encompassing feminine that's had them under its wraps since they were born. Mamma's body, Mamma's commands, Mamma's limits, Mamma's voice, female teachers' limits, female teachers' commands and expectations -- boys have to psychically work very hard to break out from underneath that and come to identify with the masculine.  Boys need male space and a male place in order to do that. In some cultures, the boys are taken into the jungle and undergo various rituals and hardships, and then return to the village as men. In the West, there are the priesthood, combat, and fraternal organizations that serve that cause.

Having girls in the sanctuary is actually a very serious thing, and men's and traditional women's not wanting girls there is for good cause -- one, ideally, anyway, not rooted in any hatred toward women, but rooted in a respect for the masculine and in the knowledge that men need "man space" -- something men have been pretty much totally deprived of in the West. We want priests to be Fathers, but in order to become Father, they first have to become men. And they cannot become men without having a place, a position, to do so.

I am scared of any backlashy, (truly) misogynist attitudes (as a trad who's run a trad forum for years and years, I've seen PLENTY of it!), and don't condone any sort of thinking that doesn't value the feminine and also female outliers with idiosyncratic (numbers-wise) gifts and talents and dreams -- or needs. Nothing gets me madder than one of those "he-boy rad-trad" types who talk about "men" ruling "women" (as opposed to husbands having headship over their wives -- and don't forget the verses that come just after that!), and who think that every single woman on earth must be either a wife or a religious. It's ridiculous and cruel. I see the value of women's intellects and work in all sorts of areas of Church life! But at the same time, women have to "get" men a lot better than we do and not fight to get into certain traditionally masculine spaces. The liturgy and combat are two things that women need to butt out of.
Reply
#20
(11-05-2014, 12:25 PM)SCG Wrote: Yes but why are waving hands and silly songs associated with the feminine? My mother would belt anyone who tried to grab her hand during the Sign of Peace LOL. Plenty of women love the Latin Mass and the quiet dignity and the reverence as much as you do. To me, a much better description for silly songs and novelties and liturgies concocted for little girls would be “childish.”

Amen to that. I hate it when stupid stuff gets called "feminine" when it's really just babyish nonsense.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)