"Why men don't like to go to church"

[Justin86]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416090' date='Nov 8 2007, 08:11 PM']the Mass doesn't need to sell anything. in many protestant churches, they will easily change if it will attract more followers, especially youth. the Mass doesn't need to sell, doesn't need to change anything.
Jesus was passive, weak, "non-threatening", meek, mild, submissive. there is more strength and masculinity in those than in today's standard.
this wishy-washy, lubby-dubby sentiment is one of the things that God asks of our hearts. no, i'm not saying to sing kum-bah-yah and hold hands, but God wants you to fall in love with Him in this way. the same way we fall puppy-dog in love with a girl, God wants the same, only more, profoundly more, and it is possible for anyone.

unfortunately many people simply aren't familiar and can't comprehend this notion. they are usually those who have a disdain for the "charismatic" movement and anything that resembles their actions, including the typical evangelical or pentecostal protestants. i think this is one of those things that one can never understand until they actually live it.

if you don't believe me, look to the writings of the greatest mystics we have, St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross. they talk of a mystical love, a mystical union with God that transcends anything you can ever imagine. also related would be St. Francis of Assisi, considered the closest to Jesus in heaven right now. plainly said, this ewy, sissy, lubby-dubby, feminine kind of love is what they all have in common.
=======================
i think i'm blessed with having experience at both ends of the spectrum, and go to daily Mass as well as take part in many daytime activities, church groups, and communities. most of them are, surprise, middle aged women. there was a time when i would be having the sentiment you guys are having, and sometimes i still do (especially when i first arrive), but the love of God, the Mass, and God's people soon overshadows any worry that masculinity may seed in my thoughts.

plainly said, i don't think it's God that needs to change to attract men of our day, it's the hearts of men that need to change.[/quote]
It's not the personal relationship with Jesus part that needs to change so much as it is this obsession with "ew, sissy, lubby-dubby", or "puppy-dog" kind of affection the Church seems to be using for evangelization ever since Vatican II as if its going to attract anyone except little old ladies.

"Puppy-dog" love is not real love. It is nothing more than an emotion. To sum it up in one word: [i]infatuation[/i] is all this is. Really, its lame and our love of God is called to be so much more real and legit then the love shared by Middle schoolers. Real, Christian love for God calls for [i]commitment[/i]. It calls for self-discipline, penance and self-sacrifice. These aren't things that are very warm and fuzzy and are severely under-talked about in todays Church because of it. That's what is meant by "femmization".

[MissScripture]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416090' date='Nov 8 2007, 05:11 AM']Jesus was passive, weak, "non-threatening", meek, mild, submissive. there is more strength and masculinity in those than in today's standard.
this wishy-washy, lubby-dubby sentiment is one of the things that God asks of our hearts. no, i'm not saying to sing kum-bah-yah and hold hands, but God wants you to fall in love with Him in this way. the same way we fall puppy-dog in love with a girl, God wants the same, only more, profoundly more, and it is possible for anyone.[/quote]

Um, Jesus was not passive. Look at the whole thing with the money changers in the Temple. He just knew when to act and when to accept things. And how is it weak to accept the weight of all the sins in the world and go to your death out of love. That is NOT weakness! And non-threatening? If Jesus was non-threatening, He would not have been put to death! You don't put to death a guy preching puppy-dog love! He was submissive only to God, accepting what God required of him and not what others did. He was mild, yes, but only when the situation called for it.

And the love that God wants from us is NOT wishy-washy. I KNOW wishy-washy. I went to the Capital of Wishy-Washy for high school! What God wants is a committed love! A complete trust and faith in Him. That is hardly wishy-washy. It's standing firm, it's being strong, it's courageous. And this isn't meant in an offensive manner, but if all you feel for a girl is puppy dog love, you're not going to have a long relationship.

Maybe the words got in the way of what you were trying to say, but I really don't see any of this. I would not even be attracted to a Church that taught this, and I'm a girl!

[cathoholic_anonymous]

One thing that disturbs me is that people are automatically associating the dissipation of a strong and passionate Catholic culture with femininity. The hymns are 'sissy' - that means that they must be aimed at women, primarily women with names like Mavis and Maud and Ethel who like to knit tea cosies and put together pink glass rosaries over a nice cuppa tea. The male congregants are apathetic - that must be because unlike Meek Mavis and Passive Prudence, they have hearts on fire for a radical presentation of the Gospel and just can't stomach this wishy-washy woman's nonsense.

But being feminine is not the same as being a passive drip. One of Our Lady's more startling titles, taken from the Litany of Loreto, is 'Sword of Justice'. She's the epitome of feminity - but she isn't sissy. She should be the first person we look to when we want to see feminity in action. Not a Mass with tinkly piano hymns and an overabundance of lush pink roses in the pulpit. It's unfair to ascribe feminine traits to such a Mass or to say that it only looks like that because it's been designed specifically for female congregants.

The quality of liturgy and the way the Faith is expounded during Mass declines with the quality of an individual's theology. If your grasp of Catholicism is sound enough you should be able to attend any Mass, no matter how awful it is liturgically, purely for the sake of Jesus in the Eucharist. For the Bible readings, which will always give you [i]something[/i] intellectually. For the sake of the communion of saints. Last Sunday I was at a Mass featuring a CD player and supposedly 'atmospheric' music, which distracted me and irritated me in equal measure - especially when the score from 'Schindler's List' was played during Communion - but I was able to pray nonetheless, because I was there for God and nothing else. If men stop going to church because they think the style of worship as too 'feminine', I wouldn't immediately start decrying the way their particular church is doing things. I would be more concerned with the state of their theology and their private prayer lives. Zeal is not a suitably manly emotion that you should 'get' from Mass; it is a divine gift that you should attempt to nurture no matter what the quality of the service is like. It is a gift that should carry you through hundreds of 'sissy' Masses. If a man stops attending church on grounds that the service is too passive, his own behaviour presents us with a paradox: he is acting passively himself.

There are many possible reasons why women tend to be more devout churchgoers than men. It could be that they themselves are no fan of watered-down religion, but they continue to attend Mass anyway because they're prepared to be patient with its deficiencies. (I think it's reasonable to say that women are generally more patient than men, although this rule is obviously not universally applicable.) It could be that women don't mind as much if their emotions aren't satisfied during Mass, as their thoughts are with the community rather than what they can 'get' from the service as individuals. Or the reason could be something else entirely. While it's crucial that we try to make our liturgy worthy of God, labelling churches with dwindling male attendance as too 'feminine' and seeking to make them more 'masculine' is no way to go about doing that. The problem goes much deeper than gender.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[MissyP89]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1416123' date='Nov 8 2007, 10:38 AM']Um, Jesus was not passive. Look at the whole thing with the money changers in the Temple. He just knew when to act and when to accept things. And how is it weak to accept the weight of all the sins in the world and go to your death out of love. That is NOT weakness! And non-threatening? If Jesus was non-threatening, He would not have been put to death! You don't put to death a guy preching puppy-dog love! He was submissive only to God, accepting what God required of him and not what others did. He was mild, yes, but only when the situation called for it.[/quote]

Beautiful post, MS. He was angered and frustrated at times, yet steadfast in His teaching and wouldn't back down from the Father's instructions, even at the cost of His human life. What's sissy about [i]that[/i]? Truth is hard to swallow, and to stand with it in the midst of temptation is one of the most valiant things I can ask for in a man.

[quote]And the love that God wants from us is NOT wishy-washy. I KNOW wishy-washy. I went to the Capital of Wishy-Washy for high school! What God wants is a committed love! A complete trust and faith in Him. That is hardly wishy-washy. It's standing firm, it's being strong, it's courageous. And this isn't meant in an offensive manner, but if all you feel for a girl is puppy dog love, you're not going to have a long relationship.[/quote]

Love, any love, is a struggle. It's not always going to be happy and light and easy...you have toi fight through the hard times and ride it out. You took a commitment--in theological ways, at our Confirmation-- and it's your responsibility to stick with it. If a guy is dating a girl, is he going to dump her at the first sign of conflict? That doesn't sound like a real man, if you ask me. The same applies in faith--you can;t go running away every time something happens you don't like.

And whoever said Mary was a wonderful example of femininity (sp?) was so right. Her inner strength and courage was absolutely incredible, and far from sissy. It's why I admire her. Also, look at our female saints and martyrs, and the lives they lived. There is so much room for strength in the Church for both men and women, if we know where to seek it out.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1416183' date='Nov 9 2007, 03:29 AM']The quality of liturgy and the way the Faith is expounded during Mass declines with the quality of an individual's theology. If your grasp of Catholicism is sound enough you should be able to attend any Mass, no matter how awful it is liturgically, purely for the sake of Jesus in the Eucharist.[/quote]
Yes you should, but its hard to get that anyone actually believes in the Eucharist when the Novus Ordo Mass tends to lower the respect for it to zero.

We're not trying to excuse anyone's behavior, we're just pointing out that people, especially men, don't generally make that much effort into their religion aside from maybe Sunday Mass attendance. If this doesn't convey respect for the Eucharist alot of people aren't going to believe it.

[avemaria40]

Yes, I have a problem with the whole "wishy washy" thing being associated with femininity. I'm a woman and I know a lot of Catholic women on campus who are extremely devout and passionate. Passivity is "feminine"?????? Is it passive to stand outside of Planned Parenthood clinics in the freezing cold rainy weather when no one else is there and clinic workers are hostile to pray for the babies and their mothers? Is it passive to be the only one in your biology class defending life (when most of the other kids are also premed and should know better!!!) or the only one in your nondenominational Bible study defending priests and nuns, celibacy, etc.?

Besides, I also don't like the assumption that the guys going to today's Masses are "effeminate" or gay or w/e. I know a guy who is extremely sensitive, kind, affectionate, warm hearted, and very emotionally expressive about his faith. These traits are seen as womanly traits but he is one of the manliest guys I know. He defends the poor, protects women, and stands up for what he believes in. He's also in K of C and they actually helped him go to a Third World country for a semester to help others. He's very Catholic and holds a lot of traits that many would associate with women but is in no way "effeminate", "wishy washy", etc.

Passivity is wimpy but it sure as heck is not a "feminine" quality. Our Catholic girls on campus kick some serious demon butt and our Catholic guys are extremely manly and do the same! The problem is that people aren't passionate about their faith and THAT'S what needs to change, not whether it's "masculine" or "feminine".

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='scardella' post='1007148' date='Jun 16 2006, 11:14 PM']Answer in short: If Catholics as a community get out of the wishy-washy business and into the kick-butt holy business, we'll attract everyone like bees to honey.[/quote]

Oooooh! I like the sound of that! But then again I am a twenty something male too

[XIX]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' post='1415916' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:27 PM']And don't even get started on the church ministries. Thank goodness for KofC or else there really wouldn't be much for men to do.[/quote]
I agree...

Have you ever been to a prayer vigil outside of an abortion mill? It isn't an exclusively masculine thing, in fact you'd almost rather have women there than men, cause the women going in for abortions can relate better. But if you are looking for something that isn't so wishy washy, then that's definitely something to consider.

[quote]Yes, I have a problem with the whole "wishy washy" thing being associated with femininity. I'm a woman and I know a lot of Catholic women on campus who are extremely devout and passionate. Passivity is "feminine"?????? Is it passive to stand outside of Planned Parenthood clinics in the freezing cold rainy weather when no one else is there and clinic workers are hostile to pray for the babies and their mothers? Is it passive to be the only one in your biology class defending life (when most of the other kids are also premed and should know better!!!) or the only one in your nondenominational Bible study defending priests and nuns, celibacy, etc.?[/quote]

Edited November 8, 2007 by XIX

[Socrates]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416090' date='Nov 8 2007, 06:11 AM']Jesus was passive, weak, "non-threatening", meek, mild, submissive. there is more strength and masculinity in those than in today's standard.[/quote]
It honestly makes me want to vomit every time I read such drivel.
Your "passive, weak, 'non-threatening', meek, mild, submissive" Jesus may be found in the sappy platitudes of "liberal Christianity" or those sickly effeminate-looking holy-card images so oddly beloved of some in "trad" circles, but that sure as heck isn't the Jesus found in the Gospels!

Christ was so weak that he could fast for forty days and forty nights in the desert.
He was so meek and mild that He could call evildoers and hypocrites "a brood of vipers, "whited sepulchers," and "sons of the devil" to their faces.
He was so passive and weak that He physically drove the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip.
He was so submissive that He spoke with authority over the demons and they obey Him.
Christ and His message were so non-threatening, that the authorities had Him arrested and sentenced to death!

At a purely human level, the thing that most strikes the reader about Christ in the Gospels is the strength and authority by which He speaks and acts. The people were astounded for he taught as one with authority, and not like their scribes. (Matt. 7:28-29).

Yes, Christ was gentle and and forgiving to the repentent sinner, but He was certainly no passive, non-threatening weakling.

And Christ's Passion and Death were not the result of weakness, but the ultimate act of heroic sacrifice.

"We have declawed the Lion of Judah and made him a housecat for pale priests and pious old ladies." ~ C.S. Lewis

Edited November 9, 2007 by Socrates

[theophane]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416479' date='Nov 8 2007, 11:44 PM']"We have declawed the Lion of Judah and made him a housecat for pale priests and pious old ladies." ~ C.S. Lewis[/quote]


Nice quote, Soc!

Only to repeat it in another way: Jesus was indeed passive, but only to the Father's will. He was meek, only when his anger would have been unmerciful. He was active, continually [i]active[/i] against evil, and allowed his righteous anger to move him to speak out against evil, and counteract it.

Good thread, everyone.

Edited November 9, 2007 by theophane

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1416183' date='Nov 8 2007, 10:29 AM']If your grasp of Catholicism is sound enough you should be able to attend any Mass, no matter how awful it is liturgically, purely for the sake of Jesus in the Eucharist.[/quote]

amen.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1416265' date='Nov 8 2007, 02:02 PM']Yes you should, but its hard to get that anyone actually believes in the Eucharist when the Novus Ordo Mass tends to lower the respect for it to zero.

We're not trying to excuse anyone's behavior, we're just pointing out that people, especially men, don't generally make that much effort into their religion aside from maybe Sunday Mass attendance. If this doesn't convey respect for the Eucharist alot of people aren't going to believe it.[/quote]

we are suggesting that it isn't because the Church is too feminine for men. perhaps there is something wrong with the typical man's perspective on faith today?

we are suggesting that it isn't because of the Novus Ordo. perhaps it's the people that can make it reverent?

in Theology of the Body, as well as in the school of psychology, we see that there has always been this difference in the sexes. it's biological.

[johnnydigit]

MissScripture, yes we can cite evidence for all of those adjectives. he was as masculine as a man needs to be, yet also as feminine as a man needs to be also.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1416092' date='Nov 8 2007, 05:32 AM']It's not the personal relationship with Jesus part that needs to change so much as it is this obsession with "ew, sissy, lubby-dubby", or "puppy-dog" kind of affection the Church seems to be using for evangelization ever since Vatican II as if its going to attract anyone except little old ladies.[/quote]

or perhaps it's the not the Church that seems to have changed, but society?
was it Vatican II, or was it society since Vatican II?

i listened to a speaker who talked about the decline of the male father figure in society since the "Golden Age", which includes Vatican II but certainly is not a result of it. back then the male figure was masculine, a leader, a role model. he cited the tv shows back then and the male characters in them. they were solid fathers. since the hippie era and feminine revolution, our father figures have since turned into Homer Simpson, Al Bundy, Seinfeld, etc. lazy, dumb, pitiful male role models. any masculinity taught to us is over exaggerated and not the mature and true masculinity we need.


[quote name='Justin86' post='1416092' date='Nov 8 2007, 05:32 AM']"Puppy-dog" love is not real love. It is nothing more than an emotion. To sum it up in one word: [i]infatuation[/i] is all this is. Really, its lame and our love of God is called to be so much more real and legit then the love shared by Middle schoolers. Real, Christian love for God calls for [i]commitment[/i]. It calls for self-discipline, penance and self-sacrifice. These aren't things that are very warm and fuzzy and are severely under-talked about in todays Church because of it. That's what is meant by "femmization".[/quote]

St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Bonaventure, and the mystics do not describe infatuation. that would be an insult to the theology of the doctors of our Church as you are looking at the surface of what you have no comprehension of. this theology goes so deep you have no idea the kinds of worlds it goes into. so is the extraordinary depth and deposit of our Catholic faith. it's lame to you because you don't understand it, i'm sorry. i'm not touting to know a mystery that is far beyond you, because i am still in the baby stages of what they describe. just know that what you seem to see is merely a grain of sand on the beach.

many people just aren't called to understand this kind of spirituality. i'd tell you to read them, but you'd probably get bored once you hit a section that is totally foreign to you, just as i would get bored reading experts in scripture and church history.

i'm not here to argue about what is masculine or not, so i'm done. i just wanted to give you a glimpse of the "pearl" that we would "sell everything we own to buy".. a glimpse of St. Paul's extraordinary conversion.. "ecstasy".. Eucharistic miracles.. apparition miracles.. that which words fail to describe.. that which no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart can fully know.

that or i'm just talking dribble that our Church so firmly believes in and you can just ignore me and move on. God bless.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416479' date='Nov 8 2007, 10:44 PM']It honestly makes me want to vomit every time I read such drivel.
Your "passive, weak, 'non-threatening', meek, mild, submissive" Jesus may be found in the sappy platitudes of "liberal Christianity" or those sickly effeminate-looking holy-card images so oddly beloved of some in "trad" circles, but that sure as heck isn't the Jesus found in the Gospels![/quote]

your "charitable" comment shows that you favor one personality of Jesus that appeals to you and that other's are inferior. i guess that attitude is a "masculine" attribute that the Church needs to adopt..

[Justin86]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416520' date='Nov 9 2007, 08:11 PM']i listened to a speaker who talked about the decline of the male father figure in society since the "Golden Age", which includes Vatican II but certainly is not a result of it. back then the male figure was masculine, a leader, a role model. he cited the tv shows back then and the male characters in them. they were solid fathers. since the hippie era and feminine revolution, our father figures have since turned into Homer Simpson, Al Bundy, Seinfeld, etc. lazy, dumb, pitiful male role models. any masculinity taught to us is over exaggerated and not the mature and true masculinity we need.[/quote]
Agreed. Now how exactly does "puppy-dog" love cure this? Because as I see it, its precisely the problem...


[quote]St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Bonaventure, and the mystics do not describe infatuation. that would be an insult to the theology of the doctors of our Church as you are looking at the surface of what you have no comprehension of. this theology goes so deep you have no idea the kinds of worlds it goes into. so is the extraordinary depth and deposit of our Catholic faith. it's lame to you because you don't understand it, i'm sorry. i'm not touting to know a mystery that is far beyond you, because i am still in the baby stages of what they describe. just know that what you seem to see is merely a grain of sand on the beach.

many people just aren't called to understand this kind of spirituality. i'd tell you to read them, but you'd probably get bored once you hit a section that is totally foreign to you, just as i would get bored reading experts in scripture and church history.[/quote]
No, the love the mystics describe is not infatuation. The dark night of the soul that they describe is in fact the complete opposite of "puppy-dog" love. How is not felling the presence of God "puppy-dog" love? Where's the warm and fuzziness there? There isn't any. It is complete and total commitment to God even though you don't feel His presence. Read some of what Mother Teresa wrote and come back to me still using the word "puppy-dog" to describe her love for God. I guarantee that you won't.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Justin86

[Justin86]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416522' date='Nov 9 2007, 08:20 PM']your "charitable" comment shows that you favor one personality of Jesus that appeals to you and that other's are inferior. i guess that attitude is a "masculine" attribute that the Church needs to adopt..[/quote]
No not all. All Soc did was point out the aggressive traits in Jesus, and then His passive traits. We're the ones claiming He had both. You're the one with the problem of "favoring one personality of Jesus that appeals to you and that others are inferior." You're doing this mostly by denying there were any bold or daring moments in Christ's life.

Please, please, try reading up on Scripture and its traditional interpretations before you fall into the Protestant trap of "personal interpretation" of Scripture. Anyone who wishes to interpret Scripture, and refuses to read up on traditional interpretations is clearly heading down this road.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Justin86

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1416523' date='Nov 9 2007, 03:36 AM']Agreed. Now how exactly does "puppy-dog" love cure this?[/quote]

it doesn't cure it, because it was always there. the distorted masculinity taught to us rejects this sentiment. (Homer rejecting Ned Flanders, Al Bundy rejecting well, everything decent).

[quote name='Justin86' post='1416523' date='Nov 9 2007, 03:36 AM']No, the love the mystics describe is not infatuation. The dark night of the soul that they describe is in fact the complete opposite of "puppy-dog" love. How is not felling the presence of God "puppy-dog" love? Where's the warm and fuzziness there? There isn't any. It is complete and total commitment to God even though you don't feel His presence. Read some of what Mother Teresa wrote and come back to me still using the word "puppy-dog" to describe her love for God. I guarantee that you won't.[/quote]

i don't think the dark night is the opposite, but rather the lack of it.
How is not felling the presence of God "puppy-dog" love? -no, it isn't.
yes, there isn't any fuzziness.
not feeling His presence but continuing, that would be fortitude, faith, and yes, LOVE.
her love without "puppy-dog love" is from her faith. first, "puppy-dog love" is too superficial a word. second, you cannot guarantee she did not have it because you aren't seeing what "it" is as i am trying to describe it to you. the LOVE that kept her commitment is part of "it". you may have read Dark Night of the Soul but you didn't see what i'm talking about. i can't make you see that here. don't be angered, have faith and be content with what God allowed you to see. (i'm talking more about Interior Castle)

"guaranteeing" me is using the same superlative that you assumed i used when describing Jesus. i didn't use any superlatives, i was merely showing that the negatives you guys mentioned to describe the Church were in fact positives that Jesus had. didn't know i needed to defend that..

if you want to win this conversation, let me say that i don't know scripture well. i don't know traditional versus personal interpretation regarding this topic. i guess i refuse to read traditional scripture because you imply it. if you want to continue this, please PM me outside of this thread instead.

i gave my perspective from a man who does like to go to church daily, who used to be one who didn't like to go to church weekly, and who has spoken about the topic with the same kind of people, in many church communities and study groups over the past few years.. and yes, i am usually the only male from this generation present.

[johnnydigit]

looking back at the posts in this thread, i can see the demeanor of the posters who are understanding the false masculinity that this topic is asking of.

[quote name='ColinAH' post='1415878' date='Nov 7 2007, 05:55 PM']The problem is not with the church alienating men, it is the society that alienates manhood from the values of the Church.[/quote]

i saw your St. Kolbe avatar and that reminded me of how "feminine" he may have been viewed as at Auschwitz, but he is actually a model of masculinity as Jesus was. basically he was like a lamb from the moment he set foot on the camp all the way up until his lethal injection.

i also noticed that i repeated what you just said but in different words.. it's not the church guys, it's you!

[Jaime]

Three things

1. David Murrow (while being well intentioned) is a moron

B. Laudate I think you were totally out of line with your post. I'm not a big fan of the Haugen Haas music but I would never take such a cheap shot at liturgists that do like it.

And finally. it sickens me to see people suggest that we need to "stop the feminization of the Church" . When you say that, you are saying that masculine traits are in fact more sacred and virtuous than feminine traits. That is an appalling and misogynistic point of view.

Christ is meek and humble.
Christ is a warrior.

One thing he ain't is a misogynist

Any real man would know that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1416612' date='Nov 9 2007, 02:12 PM']B. Laudate I think you were totally out of line with your post. I'm not a big fan of the Haugen Haas music but I would never take such a cheap shot at liturgists that do like it.[/quote]
You may be right, but it wasn't intended as a statement against liturgists in general, it was a description of a particular Mass t[mod]Lame - L_D[/mod]. Trust me, I realize that not all Masses that employ the Haugen-Haas style are the same. The Mass I was referring to included tinkly fairy music and cheesey synth beats built into the keyboard (there were other factors besides the music that strengthened the emasculating flavor of the celebration as well). It was a recent experience that came to mind in reference to the post I was responding to which presented the hypothesis that there is a popular way of celebrating the Mass that may not attract men and in particular young men (or rather may repel them). I tend to think there is something to this idea in light of certain parishes I've attended.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1416612' date='Nov 9 2007, 02:12 PM']And finally. it sickens me to see people suggest that we need to "stop the feminization of the Church" . When you say that, you are saying that masculine traits are in fact more sacred and virtuous than feminine traits. That is an appalling and misogynistic point of view.[/quote]
I do believe you have a very valid point (namely that framing the issues in terms of feminine-masculine is ultimately inadequate), but I suspect that part of the reason this tends to happen is that there are radical feminist agendas that are operative on the Church in many quarters which may set the stage for looking at it in this way. Plus many perceive an attack on the priesthood which is feminist in nature. I know a priest from Africa who started celebrating Mass at a certain parish in which the parish council (a group of middle-aged women in this case) decided that his homilies were too orthodox and told him that he must submit his homilies to them and they would screen them before he could preach. My point is that many people (including priests) experience hen pecking and attempted emasculation and this is a real problem. To write off any complaints of this sort as misogynistic in hardly fair since the issues may be real.