Here Is A Thread Noone Who Isn't A Mediator Of Meh Can Comment On

[4588686]

 

 

Problem solved.

[PhuturePriest]

I have revitalized what was a dead phorum with its one and only known adrenaline shot: Drama.

 

You're welcome, everyone.

[4588686]

I really don't quite understand you, or why your profanity is tolerated here. You mock and belittle Catholicism to no ends yet you're treated like a beloved pet by so many. If I had a parrot that perpetually blasphemed the Blesses Virgin I would not keep it in my house, but even the condescension of those I do know to be observant Catholics gives you far too much credit. Your posts are disgusting, your views and opinions do not have any right to exist and God speed the day when you abandon them.

Please stop posting on this forum. You will only serve to lower the tone of conversation, and your profanity is an occasion of sin for myself and I do not doubt for others.

 

 

 

 

 

[4588686]

[Lilllabettt]

 

 

thats no fun

[Amppax]

Definitely. I think Priests can have a lot of things to say that are of value about life. If a Franciscan Friar of the Renewal wanted to talked about poverty and community I'd listen quite intently. I know Priests who can make Catholic proposals based on their experiences without having Burke's obnoxious, in my opinion, tone. What really annoyed me about his comments were things like this

 

"All those things are good in themselves, but there has been a loss of balance. The home life in which children spend adequate time with parents has been lost for many families. Families have stopped enjoying meals together. I remember how my father gave us lessons and taught us manners at the dinner table. To spend time talking with my parents was very important to my growing up. When I was a young priest, I was saddened that parents and children told me that fathers and children rarely talked and, when they did, it was only briefly.

Families should have at least one meal together each week where the whole family is together. A boy or young man is unlikely to build proper manly identity and the manly virtues unless he lives with a father and mother, where he can witness that unique and complementary interaction between the male and the female in a home life in which human life can be welcomed, nurtured and developed."

 

I think it's obnoxious for some guy who has never had a grinding job that he really doesn't like and is more or less completely isolated from the market and the everyday anxieties and stresses that normal people face and has lived his whole life being supported by other people feels like he has a right to complain that people aren't having enough family meals. Most people who I know who don't eat together as a family do so because the parents are working 70 hour weeks or pulling third shift at some awful job they hate so they can give their kids a college education or whatever. 

 

That's fair. I can't imagine that he doesn't understand that he's selling an ideal. I guess a lot of the problem is that he's talking about his ideal without ever acknowledging the norm, and I suppose coming off in a way that denigrates it. I suppose I'm just assuming that he realizes this, and just left all that out. 

 

I mostly agree with Franciscanheart.  Most of the time I like Burke, I appreciate his experience and try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Lots of what he's saying here is good, but he also falls into a lot of tired old stereotypes and excuses.

 

Like, the Church focusing on women automatically means it's not focusing on men. That's like saying we can't come out with a new translation of the mass while also dealing with the sex abuse crisis. Men make up the vast majority of people in theological academia, and the entirety of the Church's hierarchy. Women even being involved in theology on a significant scale is a very, VERY recent phenomenon in the Church. Women theologians were the exceptions, not the rule.  If there's a problem with a lack of theology of masculinity or a lack of focus on men, well, sorry boys, you only have your selves to blame, and it's rather Adam-like to try to pass the buck off to women trying to get their problems heard. 

 

He also mentions how fathers have more distant relationships with their children, because that's "natural" or whatever. I don't buy it. It's just playing into the stereotype of the perfect Catholic family where the Mom stays home and is emotional and squishy and says "wait til your Father comes home" if you do something wrong and "I'll talk to your Father" if you want something and think he'll say no, while the Dad goes to work all day and comes home and makes all the decisions, is cold and distant, and drinks scotch by the fireplace before leading the family in their nightly prayers. It doesn't resonate with actual lived experience, except maybe the experiences of a select minority. 
 

I like that he's trying to talk about the problems of figuring out what it means to be a man in today's world, because that's a huge issue that tackles a number of problems, and quite important.  But I'm not going to let you sit there and blame the "radical feminists" when it's been a supermajority of men doing theology and populating the hierarchy. Men are the ones with power to actually set the agenda, so... set the beaver dam agenda. 

 

I didn't read it as him blaming women for the state of theology, although I can see how you could get that. I think, rather, that he's blaming the general trajectory of the culture and a fairly weak theology in the post VII period. You can make the case that he's blaming the 1st part on women (with his comments on radical feminism), which in that case I agree that his analysis is very much lacking, but I don't think he's blaming the second part on women. I think, rather, that he's saying that theologians and clergy have dropped the ball. 

 

Also, I think you're missing the point when you put the focus on theological academia. I think Card. Burke is thinking more about average parish life, which, in my observation, is dominated primarily by women. In my limited experience, women are much more involved in their parish and their faith in general than men. I wouldn't blame this on women, but on a failure (by the Church) to evangelize men. I think he does have a point, if he's trying to say something along those lines. 

 

I'm not going to touch the whole liturgy thing with a ten foot pole. I don't know what to think about his comments on that. I know that I hate going to shoddy masses, and that my girlfriend is much more relaxed about that, but I would blame that on my personality, not gender. Other than that, avoiding that part like the plague. No need for a liturgical flame war. though now that I say that, I'm sure there will be. Sigh. 

 

Also, I think you're correct to criticize the "leave it to Beaver" life he's describing. :like:

Edited January 7, 2015 by Amppax

[superblue]

:blink:

What I read:
Women don't mind when things are easy so they haven't lost much in the Church.

Women have ruined our worship.

Women don't mind a trite Mass.

Women, unlike men, were not really turned off by the "loss of the sacred".

It's just a fact that boys don't like girls, so when girls serve in the Church, boys won't.

Girls were too good at serving, so boys went to find other things to do.

Women might understand the brokenness of our culture, but men understand better. Because they're men.

Women receive far too much attention in the Church; back to men, please!

:blink:

 

 

Yeah when I saw the title of this, I kind of figured this was going to be another bs article,  I hate topics in regards to Masculinity and Feminity ( can spell check that one sorry )  because it always some other man or woman with their idea of how masculine or feminine a person of such gender should be.

 

And then if things are not bad enough trying to prove how women are so important in the Catholic Church, Starting with the Blessed Mother all the way down to Joan of Arc and points in between and beyond , now you have come across this article and that is what you took from it.

 

It is all a balancing act, don't go too far on grunting and farting, don't be afraid to pray, don't always react on ones aggression, don't be afraid to express ones emotions. But of course society tells us the opposite of that, men have to be dominate, they can never show any emotion, or if they do it better be very little or else you need to have your head examined and you might be borderline homosexual.

 

That is just on the side of men,

 

What ever, someone gets a title in front of their name and all of a sudden that means they know better than the rest of the peons. And since the peons are peons and are unscholarly and do not have a couple of degrees under ones belt, obviously means they can not possibly be as intelligent as one who does.

[superblue]

I have revitalized what was a dead phorum with its one and only known adrenaline shot: Drama.

 

You're welcome, everyone.

 

 

SMH, you didn't have to go this far to start drama, all you really had to do was say hello.

[superblue]

I am not challenged by his views. This gives him more credit than he's due. His posts are riddled with profanity in that he continually mocks our faith. He's not a worthwhile contributor to this forum. He is not a serious opponent, a genuine enquirer or even just a benevolent onlooker.

He's a cretin and a profaner and if he ever at any time brought forward a serious and worthy contribution to this forum then those days are long gone.

If he is the type of poster this community values then I'll simply say goodbye now. This forum will be a poison to the spiritual advancement of Catholics as long as this troll is glorified, both by those like yourself and others that tolerate him even in their opposition to him.

Well, Cheerio. God bless.

 

 

 

I could of summed all this up by just saying, I think he is a A hole,  and look who is a quitter, someone who has labeled another as a poison to spiritual blah blah blah, instead of working on being smarter than the fox and working to bridge the gap instead of just throwing your hands up an go I quit.

 

Lots of non-catholics may never understand but we don't write em off as hopeless and damn them self righteously to hell, what the beans kind of attitude is that ?

 

maybe he just likes to troll around an yank peoples chains, who knows.

[PhuturePriest]

SMH, you didn't have to go this far to start drama, all you really had to do was say hello.

 

I didn't do this to start drama. I agree with every word of the article. I simply new drama was going to be the only cause posting it on Phatmass would have.

[Not The Philosopher]

I didn't do this to start drama. I agree with every word of the article. I simply new drama was going to be the only cause posting it on Phatmass would have.

 

So....with the knowledge that the only effect the OP would have is drama, you made this thread simply for the sake of being able to say, "I agree"?

[PhuturePriest]

So....with the knowledge that the only effect the OP would have is drama, you made this thread simply for the sake of being able to say, "I agree"?

 

There are those who agree with it and appreciate what was said. This is for those people. But I of course knew their voices would be far outweighed by those who find Burke's words to be ridiculous and/or offensive. I've been on this site for three years, and I know its people and patterns. Just because I know what will happen doesn't mean I will stop doing what I want or even should, really. It simply means I have to accept the inevitable outcome in the hopes that some enjoy what was said, even if they are a minority.

[Lilllabettt]

Just because I know what will happen doesn't mean I will stop doing what I want or even should, really. It simply means I have to accept the inevitable outcome in the hopes that some enjoy what was said, even if they are a minority.

 

 

I enjoy what was said, but mostly because of the drama it has caused.

Post on, drama alpaca, post on.

[PhuturePriest]

I enjoy what was said, but mostly because of the drama it has caused.

Post on, drama alpaca, post on.

 

The Spirit of Phatmass (Far greater and preferable to the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II", mind you) has never ceased to be an inspiration to me and my efforts. May I never stop finding incendiary articles I agree with.

[Winchester]

I have started reading the article, but I've run into a problem.

"constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men".

I'd say after a couple thousand years, the question of whether or not to have sex with something has been thoroughly addressed. I am fine with the church addressing needlepoint, cooking, and the best facial hair bleach.