A Brave Article

[phatcatholic]

read this on [url="http://www.fathertodd.com/blog/archives/2005/06/the_forgotten_v.html"]The Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation[/url]. i'm interested to know what you all think.

[Ash Wednesday]

I always thought "effeminite" was how people described gays in the past -- I didn't know it was a separate trait... (?)

I'm still getting over the fact that the article features someone discussing male masculinity traits and his last name is "Poodles."

[iggy]

this makes me think of all that stuff about "metrosexual" men. To be honest, it weirds me out when I meet a man who has had more manicures or pedicures than I have (and I have never had either), and I agree that you need preists to act male, because for some guys, the preist is going to be the sole definition of Catholic masculinity, but there should also be a line.
point in case: up until recently my parish had two preists (the director and assistant vocational director guys) one of them is going to Iraq next month. he wrestles with the guys and built a pond for our Marian garden. The other would never wrestle with anybody, but I have learned points of masulinity from both. One shows the physical, active part of a man, but the other is very polished. if you want to know how a lady acts around a gentleman, he is your guy. he is the guy who keeps our church running, and is to many of us (myself included) very much a father figure. he is the one you are afraid of disappointing, he is the one who holds you to the standard.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jun 25 2005, 02:17 AM']I always thought "effeminite" was how people described gays in the past -- I didn't know it was a separate trait...  (?) [/quote]i'm sure alot of people fail to make the distinction, but its an important one. not all men w/ same-sex attraction (SSA) exhibit effeminite qualities. not all men who exhibit effeminite qualities have a SSA. the stance the author takes is a unique one b/c its not even actually about SSA, which is what i think most people are inclined to turn this into. its about embracing your male identity, and exhibiting true masculine traits (not necessarily the stereotypical ones) to those that you interact with. its also about recognizing that how you carry yourself has an effect on your ministry.

all excellent points. i say its brave b/c i think most people tend to be secretive about it, or look the other way, or try to ignore it, when they see a priest exhibit effeminite qualities. its espcially brave for a priest to speak out on what he sees amongst his brethren, to support the stance of his bishop, even tho it is controversial, and to confront the seminaries in his archdiocese.

[quote]I'm still getting over the fact that the article features someone discussing male masculinity traits and his last name is "Poodles."[right][snapback]622686[/snapback][/right][/quote]hehe, yea, i noticed that too. kinda funny isn't it.....................................

[picchick]

I am confused that he is stating that women can be effeminite. How does that work? Aren't we women? Or his he saying that we would try to act like men?

I agree with the way of dress that he states.

[iggy]

i think the author is talking about the women who are sooo weak and delicate it is a vice, you know what I mean?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='iggy' date='Jun 25 2005, 12:12 PM']i think the author is talking about the women who are sooo weak and delicate it is a vice, you know what I mean?
[right][snapback]622972[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yea, that's what he means. like, when you have women who use their femininity as a crutch b/c they're really just too lazy to do anything remotely discomforting. "oh, my bag is just too heavy, will you carry it for me?" believe it or not, there are women like that.

[Carnanc]

I thought this was a very good article, for he makes a good point though a controversial one.I wish though I could have gotten a better idea about how you would define masculinity in this context, for I am entering minor seminary formation in a couple months and so I hope to be aware of this.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]i'm sure alot of people fail to make the distinction, but its an important one. not all men w/ same-sex attraction (SSA) exhibit effeminite qualities. not all men who exhibit effeminite qualities have a SSA.[/quote]

Oh yes, you're definitely correct. But it is my impression that in the past, people glossed "effeminacy" all together, as old english has used the word "effeminite" rather than homosexual.

I don't know whether or not I agree with him, because I think the matter seems almost like a grey area and would need more study -- especially considering different cultures around the world might have different ideas of what is "sufficiently masculine." But I'm the last person anyone would consider an expert in seminarian formation. I certainly think he has brought up an idea worth considering. I find from reading Ratzinger, it would seem that his biggest bone to pick with seminarians and priestly qualities is the need for sound, loyal theology and a strong personal commitment to the Lord. This to me seems more important than concerns about whether or not the priest is wearing too garish of a robe or may or may not be "effeminite"

I will admit that it in a way, the whole "quit acting like a woman" attitude has a kneejerk way of rubbing me the wrong way, because I grew up in a house of men and everything "masculine" was considered "good" and "positive" and everything "feminine" was not.

[Socrates]

This is a huge problem in the Church, and we are now reaping its fruits (no pun intended) with the recent homosexual scandals. Time to get rid of the "Pink Palaces"!
No more limp-wristed seminarians!

The effeminate shall not merit eternal life, according to St. Paul, and they certainly have no place in the seminaries or priesthood!

The priesthood needs good a few good MEN.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:35 PM']Oh yes, you're definitely correct. But it is my impression that in the past, people glossed "effeminacy" all together, as old english has used the word "effeminite" rather than homosexual.

I don't know whether or not I agree with him, because I think the matter seems almost like a grey area and would need more study -- especially considering different cultures around the world might have different ideas of what is "sufficiently masculine." But I'm the last person anyone would consider an expert in seminarian formation. I certainly think he has brought up an idea worth considering.  I find from reading Ratzinger, it would seem that his biggest bone to pick with seminarians and priestly qualities is the need for sound, loyal theology and a strong personal commitment to the Lord. This to me seems more important than concerns about whether or not the priest is wearing too garish of a robe or may or may not be "effeminite"

I will admit that it in a way, the whole "quit acting like a woman" attitude has a kneejerk way of rubbing me the wrong way, because I grew up in a house of men and everything "masculine" was considered "good" and "positive" and everything "feminine" was not.
[right][snapback]623807[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Feminine behavior is delightful in a woman, and disgusting and shameful in a man.

[Catholictothecore]

What is the source of this again?

I think that it has to do with...level of appropriateness. Wearing a necklace? I'd think it depends on what the necklace is; is it a cross, I wouldn't worry, but just a gold necklace, yeah, I can see the problem with that.

I also think that VERY definite lines need to be staked. Not ever male is a big tough guy, or isn't strong-willed by nature. Maybe I didn't read the article right, but it sounded to me like the author was trying to say that any male who is not muscular and stubborn is naturally a sexual pervert. That is wrong and offensive.

Is it a positiave part of one discerning the priesthood? I think that's where the line is. No, I don't believe so, but they shouldn't, by any means, be labeld homosexuals.

Guys should always act like guys, yes, definitaly. There are certain actions that are not....natural. But, I'd be very, very careful about saying it the way I think the author said this. Perhaps I read it wrong. Hmm...that's just my take.

[Ash Wednesday]

I agree with you about levels of appropriateness and clear definitions, catholictothecore.

It's a really touchy area that can only be expressed, affirmed and resolved with solid, definitive theological ground, and there has to be a definite understanding of what is appropriate behavior and what is not in formulation of a priest. Otherwise it's going to be very much distorted and misunderstood.

As a woman, I believe in the traditional vocations and roles of men and women -- because of the theology behind it and the consequences of when these roles are not honored, not out of mysogyny or chauvinism.

The goal of a good priest is to be a model of Christ -- so that would mean not being "drama queens" of course, but that also includes not being "macho men."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Catholictothecore' date='Jun 25 2005, 10:05 PM']What is the source of this again?

I think that it has to do with...level of appropriateness. Wearing a necklace? I'd think it depends on what the necklace is; is it a cross, I wouldn't worry, but just a gold necklace, yeah, I can see the problem with that.

I also think that VERY definite lines need to be staked. Not ever male is a big tough guy, or isn't strong-willed by nature. Maybe I didn't read the article right, but it sounded to me like the author was trying to say that any male who is not muscular and stubborn is naturally a sexual pervert. That is wrong and offensive.

Is it a positiave part of one discerning the priesthood? I think that's where the line is. No, I don't believe so, but they shouldn't, by any means, be labeld homosexuals.

Guys should always act like guys, yes, definitaly. There are certain actions that are not....natural. But, I'd be very, very careful about saying it the way I think the author said this. Perhaps I read it wrong. Hmm...that's just my take.
[right][snapback]623829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Read the article again - you obviously haven't read it carefully. No one is saying that priests must be ultra-macho or that every priest should act like a Navy SEAL or a football coach. I don't think he even said anything about muscles or stubborness.

What he's talking about is blatantly effeminate behavior (that stereotypical of homosexuals) - effeminate sway in the walk, lisping talk, effiminacy of dress, limp-wristed mannerisms, womanish "drama-queen" behavior.

One can tell when behavior is manly or unmanly. If the article is accurate, what is described is shameful, whether or not any blatantly homosexual acts are taking place.

The issue goes beyond the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood. How can a priest be a positive, strong role-model in the Church if his manner is effeminate? A priest is called to lead men and represent Christ in the Church. I for one, would have a lot of trouble respecting a pastor who acts like a queen. Is that the sort of man I could call "Father"?

Edited June 26, 2005 by Socrates

[Norseman82]

[quote name='iggy' date='Jun 25 2005, 02:19 AM']point in case: up until recently my parish had two preists (the director and assistant vocational director guys) one of them is going to Iraq next month.  he wrestles with the guys and built a pond for our Marian garden.  [right][snapback]622692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Interesting bit of trivia: In the alumni newsletter for the HS seminary I attended, there was an "alumni remembers" type of story that recalled the days when seminarians were required to learn and practice wrestling, the rationale being that the Church did not want passive priests.