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

[4588686]

This is going to get good. 

[4588686]

Anal sex is morally licit so long as the 'act' ends in a way that is open to life. 

[Lil Red]

You are very easily provoked into major emotional drama by little more than a zygote. You might want to get that checked.

 

ruh-roh shaggy. 

[4588686]

Female cardinals are compatible with orthodox Catholicism and Pope Francis should make some to fight back against sexism in the Church.

[4588686]

God is no more a man than a woman. Nether can truly ascribed to the Almighty and we should understand that describing God as 'The Father' is only true in a metaphorical sense. 

[4588686]

Like anal sex, oral sex is also morally licit so long as the act ends in a way that is open to life

[4588686]

As Vatican II observes, Muslims join Catholics in worshiping the God of Abraham. 

[4588686]

Although the Church must uphold the sacrament of marriage, there's no reason for Catholics to fight a secular state instituting civil unions between adults, even if they happen to also be a same-sex couple. 

[franciscanheart]

I think you're reading what you're inclined to read. Granted, I could be doing the same, but I in no way saw him blame women for this. He says the Liturgy has become too feminized, but that doesn't mean women did it, it means men feminized it in the hopes of making it more accessible to everyone. You can disagree with that, but that's what he said. He doesn't blame women, and he doesn't say they are the problem.

Either your reading comprehension is reprehensible or you're purposefully obtuse. Either way: it's unbecoming.

Burke sites feminism time and time again for being the primary reason the Church finds itself in crisis today. He constantly emphasizes that men have been forsaken in favor of women and that is why the Church is in ruin. He constantly points to the feelings and faith of men as lacking because of a focus on women.

And as someone has already pointed out, why are we assigning the Mass a gender? It's been said at least oncee (and propped at least thrice) that PEOPLE are more attracted to a REVERENT Mass -- not a "masculine" or "feminine" Mass. Hearts ablaze with love of the Lord and a profound outward respect and reverence for Him is what draws souls in, not chest hair and musk.

Perhaps men feel threatened / lack interest / have fallen away over time because we refer to the Church with a female pronoun. Sounds ridiculous, right? That's because it is.

If men are falling away because something isn't degrading and detrimental to women, that's ridiculous. Ultimately it's their choice to leave the Holy Mother Church or not, but that culpability does not fall squarely in the laps of women -- who, as it's been pointed out, have not / do not / will not be the hierarchy of the Church.

The PRIMARY problem in our Church today (or the problem which led to the state of our Church today -- including men AND women) is poor or total lack of catechesis. END OF STORY.

This is not Eve's fault. But nice try, Adam.

[Anomaly]

Although the Church must uphold the sacrament of marriage, there's no reason for Catholics to fight a secular state instituting civil unions between adults, even if they happen to also be a same-sex couple.

I usually find your posts grating, obtuse, and uninteresting. Certainly not this one. Congrats on you current sobriety. Is it intentional?

Now stahp. I might get mushy.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

I think you're reading what you're inclined to read. Granted, I could be doing the same, but I in no way saw him blame women for this. He says the Liturgy has become too feminized, but that doesn't mean women did it, it means men feminized it in the hopes of making it more accessible to everyone. You can disagree with that, but that's what he said. He doesn't blame women, and he doesn't say they are the problem.

 

I'm reading what's written, which is what I assume he said. He talks about the influence of 'radical feminists' being the reason why there's a crisis of masculinity in the Church. Next he talks about the problem of "feminization." Then he blames the "feminization" of priests for the sex abuse crisis. Pardon me if blaming what the Church defines as an essential quality of my person as the cause of some of the worst problems the Church has seen in its history is offensive to me, particularly because he doesn't clarify exactly what he means by "feminization," and because he doesn't clarify, I'm left to assume he means becoming more feminine in general. He could have easily said a "lack of masculinity." But he doesn't. He assigns the problem a positive trait, not a negative one, which in turn implies that the positive trait is fundamentally corrupt. Am I taking things further than Burke would like them? Of course I am, but that is a perfectly logical conclusion to the line of reasoning that he employs.  A man who was the Church's top lawyer needs to be able to make better arguments when discussing important and sensitive issues. 

 

But none of that changes the fact that he puts the focus of his argument on the idea that radical feminists caused the crisis of masculinity in the Church by being... what, too loud and convincing? And somehow they forced the people with real power to get things done on a large scale in the Church (who are all men, by the way) to cater to their agenda. All he does is describe the problem and what he thinks caused it, but he doesn't put the responsibility on the people in the Church who could actually do something about it, he doesn't adequately define what the problem actually is (instead resorting to general statements based on his feelings and no reference to reality or studies or numbers or even anecdotal experiences), and he doesn't have any real answers for what to do about the problem other than, again, his general feelings.  

[Lil Red]

Either your reading comprehension is reprehensible or you're purposefully obtuse. Either way: it's unbecoming.

Burke sites feminism time and time again for being the primary reason the Church finds itself in crisis today. He constantly emphasizes that men have been forsaken in favor of women and that is why the Church is in ruin. He constantly points to the feelings and faith of men as lacking because of a focus on women.

And as someone has already pointed out, why are we assigning the Mass a gender? It's been said at least oncee (and propped at least thrice) that PEOPLE are more attracted to a REVERENT Mass -- not a "masculine" or "feminine" Mass. Hearts ablaze with love of the Lord and a profound outward respect and reverence for Him is what draws souls in, not chest hair and musk.

Perhaps men feel threatened / lack interest / have fallen away over time because we refer to the Church with a female pronoun. Sounds ridiculous, right? That's because it is.

If men are falling away because something isn't degrading and detrimental to women, that's ridiculous. Ultimately it's their choice to leave the Holy Mother Church or not, but that culpability does not fall squarely in the laps of women -- who, as it's been pointed out, have not / do not / will not be the hierarchy of the Church.

The PRIMARY problem in our Church today (or the problem which led to the state of our Church today -- including men AND women) is poor or total lack of catechesis. END OF STORY.

This is not Eve's fault. But nice try, Adam.

 

I luff you too. 

[Lil Red]

I usually find your posts grating, obtuse, and uninteresting. Certainly not this one. Congrats on you current sobriety. Is it intentional?

Now stahp. I might get mushy.

 

I miss you. 

 

(talk about mushy)

[Lil Red]

I'm reading what's written, which is what I assume he said. He talks about the influence of 'radical feminists' being the reason why there's a crisis of masculinity in the Church. Next he talks about the problem of "feminization." Then he blames the "feminization" of priests for the sex abuse crisis. Pardon me if blaming what the Church defines as an essential quality of my person as the cause of some of the worst problems the Church has seen in its history is offensive to me, particularly because he doesn't clarify exactly what he means by "feminization," and because he doesn't clarify, I'm left to assume he means becoming more feminine in general. He could have easily said a "lack of masculinity." But he doesn't. He assigns the problem a positive trait, not a negative one, which in turn implies that the positive trait is fundamentally corrupt. Am I taking things further than Burke would like them? Of course I am, but that is a perfectly logical conclusion to the line of reasoning that he employs.  A man who was the Church's top lawyer needs to be able to make better arguments when discussing important and sensitive issues. 

 

But none of that changes the fact that he puts the focus of his argument on the idea that radical feminists caused the crisis of masculinity in the Church by being... what, too loud and convincing? And somehow they forced the people with real power to get things done on a large scale in the Church (who are all men, by the way) to cater to their agenda. All he does is describe the problem and what he thinks caused it, but he doesn't put the responsibility on the people in the Church who could actually do something about it, he doesn't adequately define what the problem actually is (instead resorting to general statements based on his feelings and no reference to reality or studies or numbers or even anecdotal experiences), and he doesn't have any real answers for what to do about the problem other than, again, his general feelings.  

 

[Winchester]

Franny is the third revelation.