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

[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.

[God Conquers]

Simple solution to the problem.

"Men, get off your ass."

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1416629' date='Nov 9 2007, 11:48 AM']You may be right, but it wasn't intended as a statement against liturgists in general, it was a description of a particular Mass [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.[/quote]

i've also been in atmospheres that made me a bit queesy, at first (i couldn't ditch friends and tried to make the best of it).

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1416631' date='Nov 9 2007, 11:54 AM']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.[/quote]

these are definitely possible realities. however i think that is another topic and not the main reason "Why men don't like to go to church" on the whole.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416647' date='Nov 9 2007, 03:16 PM']these are definitely possible realities. however i think that is another topic and not the main reason "Why men don't like to go to church" on the whole.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure there are many specific angles to the question that would be interesting to discuss. I did some mission work in Mexico a few years ago and more often than not only the women and children would go to Mass and the men would either stay at home or hang out outside of the church talking and smoking. I'm sure the reasons are different in this culture (perhaps machismo is part of it?) but it may be pertinent.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1416631' date='Nov 9 2007, 01:54 PM']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.[/quote]

People, whether they be men or women, actively promoting heterodox in the Church are wrong. However, to categorize them as "feminizing" the Church does a disservice to all women. Including our women saints and Blessed Mother. So yes I stand by my statement that people who hold the view that the Church is being feminized are being misogynistic .

And the things that you've listed would be on the extreme side of this particular thread.

Let's not forget kids, its Holy Mother Church

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1416799' date='Nov 9 2007, 09:22 PM']People, whether they be men or women, actively promoting heterodox in the Church are wrong. However, to categorize them as "feminizing" the Church does a disservice to all women. Including our women saints and Blessed Mother. So yes I stand by my statement that people who hold the view that the Church is being feminized are being misogynistic .

And the things that you've listed would be on the extreme side of this particular thread.

Let's not forget kids, its Holy Mother Church[/quote]
I believe that popular culture is largely emasculated and that the distinction between the sexes has been under attack for decades. If you think these kinds of perspectives are misogynistic then I wonder if you understand the meaning of that word. Either that or you don't really understand the perspective in the first place. With regards to the Church you've introduced the category of heterodoxy but this doesn't really speak to the issues since there could be heterodoxy of a radical feminist sort which could be described as feminizing. I suspect that what you really have a problem with is using the category of the feminine in a negative way such as describing weakness as feminine. For example I have heard people say that because the bishops tolerate x, y, z (pro-abort politicians, heretical theologians, whatever) they have been "de-balled"; I agree that making femininity a synonym for such things as weakness, lack of courage, fidelity or fortitude certainly has misogynistic connotations and is generally inappropriate. For the record I don't think that in this case "feminization" accurately describes the phenomena within the American church that relates to the alienation of men and the attack on authentic masculinity and fatherhood. I prefer to think of such things in more general terms as secular incursions. For specific discussions the masculine-feminine distinction may be appropriate, but in the more general cases it seems obvious that femininity is under attack just as much as masculinity and framing the issues in terms of feminization sheds no light on anything.