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

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416090' date='Nov 8 2007, 07:11 AM']...
Jesus was passive, weak, "non-threatening", meek, mild, submissive. there is more strength and masculinity in those than in today's standard.
...[/quote]
Weak? No. He was a carpenter. Who knows how many splinters He took, not to mention all the toiling he did. He didn't just build tools, but some historians speculate Jesus and Joseph worked on framework for buildings. Also, meek doesn't mean passive. Jesus got angry and went bouncer mode in His Father's house when the money changers and vendors set up shop in The Temple. But yes, there is something to be said about meekness. Men need to take that upon themselves. Want to be 100% manly? Look at Christ and what he did.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1416799' date='Nov 9 2007, 10:22 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]
... he says as he eats the remnants of the Hallowe'en candy in front of us.

[quote name='hot stuff']Mmm this is good candy...[/quote]

[Maggyie]

I think instead of calling things like weakness, lack of courage etc "feminine" the proper words is "effeminate." I think I heard Bishop Fulton Sheen make that distinction on his program once, and I remember thinking how spot on he was.

A few years back there was an article in Touchstone magazine about a Swiss study that had been done on men and church-going. Evidently the successful transmission of the faith depends a lot on the practice of the father of the family:
[quote]In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.[/quote]

You can read the full article [url="http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-05-024-v"]here[/url]. It's interesting stuff, although it's just one study, of course.

One thing that the Evangelicals have over us is that when they perceive a "hole" in their ministries, they don't get all angsty about it, they just go [i]do [/i]something about it. And voila, you have things like Promise Keepers. For some reason we tend to think that if men aren't involved in the Church it must be because they are lazy bums who want the women to do all the work, whereas the reality is that maybe they're not being ministered to as effectively as in days of yore. I don't mean catered to, I mean ministered to. The solution to the problem is not to snap at men to get off their rears, it's to reach out to them with the Gospel. Genuine conversion = genuine zeal, regardless of gender.

[Socrates]

It seems impossible to discuss this particular problem in the Church on here without people going into a tizzy, accusing those of us who find a problem with the "feminization of the Church" of somehow denigrating womanhood or feminity.
Believe me, nothing could be further from my intent.
Perhaps a better term than "feminization" would be "emasculation."
The problem is not the presence of true feminity in the Church, but rather a lack of a masculine element that should be present, but is too often missing.
It is like when one criticizes a man for being effeminite or feminine, the point is not to denigrate women, but that this femininity is not proper to a man, who should have a masculinity which is lacking.
(And I think, strictly speaking, the term "feminization of the Church" refers to the fact that churches are becoming increasingly dominated by women and lacking a strong male presence.)

Yeah, it's easy enough to simply put the blame on men fo not showing up and being as "spiritual" as women, and I'm not saying men should be totally let off the hook for their non-involvement.
However, to stop there is to ignore certain very real problems in much of the Church.

Not to rehash the whole P&W/liturgy debate, but there is not alot in your typical contemporary "liberal" liturgy to appeal to men. You get alot of warm-fuzziness and hugging, and the singing of a lot of nauseatingly sappy banal modern Haagen-Haus (sp?) type hymns, the priest gives a politically-correct "non-threatening" warm-fuzzy sermon with little substance about how we all need to be nice and love one another, and the only male around the sanctuary is the priest.
Sorry, but there is nothing in this to attract the "manly man."

Compare this to, say, the sacrifical mystery and awe of a traditional liturgy with Gregorian Chant, and a challenging sermon which deals with the struggle between good and evil, and the need for us to engage this struggle.

Of course, it's easy enough to say that the real Catholic must see past bad liturgy or sermons to the spiritual reality of the mass, and that if more women attend, it must show their spiritual superiority.
However, we humans are effected though the physical senses, and the externals of liturgy does have an effect.

For the Average Joe Catholic, whose only experience of the Mass and Catholicism since childhood has been wishy-washy warm-fuzzy liturgies and limp-wristed priests, and whose catechizing has consisted solely of the same insubstantial wishy-washy warm-fuzziness in CCD from Sister Mary Sweatervest, there is little reason to go to church on Sunday.

However, when religion is reduced to shallow emotional warm-fuzziness, more women than men like to go get their Sunday warm-fuzzies. (Generalization here, of course. I know there are women more sickened by modern liturgy than I am.)

In order to get men back to Church, there needs to be more emphasis on challenge and the spiritual struggle against evil, a return to a sense of mystery, awe, and sacrifice in the liturgy, and a recognition of the place of true manliness in the Church (rather than seeing strong masculine traits as something undesirable to the Christian).

Of course, this is not a problem in all parishes. In my benightedly conservative parish, there is a pretty even balance between the sexes. But "liberal Catholicism" does tend to drive away manly men.

[jeffpugh]

Nice, rant. I've heard somewhere that some chant has been inspired by wartime... I could have missheard, but there is always the intrinsic warrior aesthetic in chant because it is pertaining to one of the most powerful weapons against evil, that is the Holy Mass. It's difficult to explain my point. I prolly have to think it over for a bit.

[Socrates]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1416522' date='Nov 9 2007, 06:20 AM']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]
I take issue at the presentation of Jesus Christ as some sort of feminine sissy or weakling.
That does not paint an accurate picture, and does neither Christians nor Our Lord service.

And being manly includes things like charity, self-sacrifice for others, and forgiveness. These are signs of strength of character, not weakness.

Being manly is not the same as being a bully or a jerk.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Socrates

[Daniel9]

I think a big part of the situation is that men find it more difficult to admit that they need to rely on a higher power. The "I'm an independent man" is such a strong image. It is hard to admit dependence.

[Daniel9]

I think a big part of the situation is that men find it more difficult to admit that they need to rely on a higher power. The "I'm an independent man" is such a strong image. It is hard to admit dependence.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Daniel9' post='1416894' date='Nov 10 2007, 12:54 AM']I think a big part of the situation is that men find it more difficult to admit that they need to rely on a higher power. The "I'm an independent man" is such a strong image. It is hard to admit dependence.[/quote]
I agree with Socrates that the faith is too often presented in a watered down and banal way (seems to be the general rule to be honest). It is like priests are too often afraid to challenge the congregation. We hear very little about asceticism, sin, hell, spiritual combat, etc. The contrast is very disturbing to me since my regular parish is particularly sweet (definitely not the norm).
The Haugen-Haas jingles reinforce the banality too. Quite often when I assist at the [i]forma ordinaria[/i] I will witness teenagers sitting in front of me snickering during the songs because they are just so asinine. Although not everyone thinks so; occasionally I might happen to notice a little kid "getting down" during the more up beat jingles, as though watching an episode of Barney. Well, this assumes all the kids (12 and under) aren't packed into a cry room doing their own thing.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1416814' date='Nov 9 2007, 09:12 PM']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.[/quote]

LD I'm pretty confident in my understanding of misogyny. And when the feminine is portrayed as "less than" then masculine. I'd say it fits to call people out as misogynistic. Let's take a look

[quote]The "feminization of the Church" has been commented on by many Catholic and Christian writers.
In many cases, the Faith has been watered down into something into something weak, passive, and "non-threatening," emphasizing the meekness, mildness, and submissiveness, at the expense of the more challenging or "masculine" elements of Christian spirituality (the "Church Militant")
This is a genuine problem, which has led increasingly to a Church dominated by women and effeminate men.[/quote]

feminization according to Soc is about meekness and submissiveness. And its result is the watering down of the faith into something weak.

All of these are his words. All of them use feminization as a pejorative.

[quote]Take a church service, whether it be Protestant or Catholic, and look at what happens. You sing some wishy washy hymns, listen to a preacher tell you that you're not bad but you could be better, and hold hands and hug each other. It's absolutely directed toward middle aged women[/quote]

How is this not pejorative towards women of any age?

Then we come to your quote

[quote]lol. hehe, haha.. I know what you mean. I was at a tinkly Haugen-Haas Mass not too long ago [i]and it was phat![/i][mod]Yup - L_D[/mod].[/quote]


This is just a sampling of what clearly was sexist commentary.

And let's be clear about something else. I did not introduce heterodox issues into the conversation. You

[quote]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.[/quote]

this is a heterodox action. The issue is not that its women. The issue is that it is not orthodox.


The bottom line is that the general opinion of you and other posters here is that the involvement of women has hurt the liturgy. And I will take exception to that.

[Norseman82]

Wow! One of my threads has been resurrected!

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1416612' date='Nov 9 2007, 01:12 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]

From my observation over the years, the problem is not so much with actual feminine [i]qualities[/i] being introduced as much as many essential masculine [i]qualities[/i] are driven out. Among these qualities are decisiveness and assertiveness. Examples:

1) How many times do we hear the same old mantra "Are you suuuuuure that that is what God has planned for you?" or words to that effect? Whereas we should always try to see things using God's standards, constant second-guessing will eventually lead to indecisiveness. That is not healthy.

2) How many times do we get the message that confrontation is not Christ-like? Yet, "proclaiming the truth with love" will inevitably lead to confrontations - there is no way of avoiding that. It could be the disagreement at Thanksgiving dinner, or it could be actual physical martyrdom that we see in the New Testament or the Lives of the Saints. But if we are conditioned to be non-confrontational, how are we going to take on the world, proclaim the gospel, admonish the sinner, etc.? Or, for that matter, how are we going to simply defend the simple fact that there is objective truth, that right and wrong is not simply what you believe, that there is "black and white"? The bottom line is that we need to stand our ground; in the past, we were told about such things as fortitude that would help us with that and give us the courage to go into dangerous situations like in the video where Kirk Cameron witnesses to gangbangers; instead, we hear more about how when we speak objective truths we are either bigots, non-pastoral, judgmental, not willing to "surrender" to God, etc. or that "all you can do is pray" (ahem, "ora [i]et labora[/i]" anyone)? And if you want another big flashpoint inthe battle: how many times do we hear the criticism that people try to solve problems (a trait stereotypically attributed to males) instead of just leaving it to God?

And I firmly believe this: these masculine qualities are needed [i]not only by males, but females as well[/i]. A prime example that most of us will face will be in dealing with children. If we are conditioned to constantly "give in for the sake of keeping the peace" instead of standing our ground, how are [i]both mothers and fathers[/i] going to be able to stand their ground when it times to say "NO" to their children? The other example will be that women who are widowed will need to double as mother [i]and father[/i] to the children.

EDIT: This is not to say that I "blow off" Mass becasue of this; I still attend every Sunday/Holy Day of Obligation. I figure that what all else may be lacking, the Eucharist more than makes up for. However, I am more selective about other areas of parish life, and remarked that I no longer attend the parish bible study because I had to get out "before I turned into an old lady".

Edited November 10, 2007 by Norseman82

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416884' date='Nov 10 2007, 05:24 AM']Yeah, it's easy enough to simply put the blame on men fo not showing up and being as "spiritual" as women, and I'm not saying men should be totally let off the hook for their non-involvement.
However, to stop there is to ignore certain very real problems in much of the Church.

Not to rehash the whole P&W/liturgy debate, but there is not alot in your typical contemporary "liberal" liturgy to appeal to men. You get alot of warm-fuzziness and hugging, and the singing of a lot of nauseatingly sappy banal modern Haagen-Haus (sp?) type hymns, the priest gives a politically-correct "non-threatening" warm-fuzzy sermon with little substance about how we all need to be nice and love one another, and the only male around the sanctuary is the priest.
Sorry, but there is nothing in this to attract the "manly man."[/quote]

But it [i]would[/i] attract women?

Most women don't want the warm fuzzy-wuzzies generated by lots of hugs and politically correct 'non-threatening' sermons. Devout women want to grow in their faith and be challenged by the Gospel as much as devout men want it. This brand of liturgy has nothing to do with the presence of fewer men in the church or the idea that the priests are catering to middle-aged ladies. This is a question of orthodoxy verus heterodoxy, and that question transcends gender.

If I have to sit through a sloppy and oversentimental liturgy in order to receive Jesus, I will find the strength and the grace to do it, for the sake of my faith in God. If a large number of people (men and women) don't have that strength, I will pray for them to find it. I am quite sure that there is an equally large number of women out there who don't attend church because it lacks appeal for them, and they need prayer as well.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1417024' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:40 PM']LD I'm pretty confident in my understanding of misogyny. And when the feminine is portrayed as "less than" then masculine. I'd say it fits to call people out as misogynistic. Let's take a look
feminization according to Soc is about meekness and submissiveness. And its result is the watering down of the faith into something weak.

All of these are his words. All of them use feminization as a pejorative.
How is this not pejorative towards women of any age?[/quote]
I've given my take on that so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. In any case I knew what Socrates was trying to get at even if I don't think the choice of words was most apposite or if I might disagree to some extent. I don't automatically assume that people are misogynistic haters just because they may not be using certain terms in the most accurate or PC way.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1417024' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:40 PM']Then we come to your quote
This is just a sampling of what clearly was sexist commentary.[/quote]
Ok, now that's just dishonest. It really does appear that you're intent upon insulting people and demonizing those who you apparently disagree with or don't understand and seek to blatantly transform a persons statement into something that it obviously was not is beyond unfair (this is an impression and not an accusation, correct me if I'm wrong).
You start out with a string of juicy quotes from Socrates (which I've already distanced myself from by agreeing that framing the issues in terms of femininizing is inappropriate) and then insert a quote from me thus giving it a totally foreign context and thereby impose a ludicrous interpretation on what I was saying. Bad form hot stuff.

What was my post actually about? It is pretty darn obvious considering that I had quoted a specific statement from a post by 'the 13th papist' (not even Socrates) and it was this statement alone that I was talking about. Maybe you're hoping that readers won't bother going back to page one to discern a little reality but will just gobble up your twisted caricature?

This is the actual statement that I was responding to (as you well know):
[quote name='the 13th papist' post='1007192' date='Jun 17 2006, 01:14 AM']i think pastors and congregations could really learn a few things from steubenville masses, gregorian chants, lifeteen- music with some feeling and passion, something that attempts to be in the same universe as the sacrifice of the mass.[/quote]

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misrepresenting me (and others) in such a blatant and absurd way- this is not constructive discussion.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1417024' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:40 PM']And let's be clear about something else. I did not introduce heterodox issues into the conversation. You this is a heterodox action. The issue is not that its women. The issue is that it is not orthodox.[/quote]
I did? That may be true (I'm not so wrapped up in this thread that I must go back and dig up quotes out of context), but I seem to recall that you introduced the subject of orthodoxy. I don't think it really matters "who started it", the fact is that my little example was an illustration of the kind of things that take place that can be interpreted as the emasculation of the clergy and a loss of the paternal and patriarchal nature of the priesthood and a general loss of respect for fatherly roles. I don't think this is a simply "heresy" within the Church that can only be discussed on doctrinal terms, I think it is a sociological observation that highlights certain challenges that the Church faces today in Western societies (this is the context in which I brought in that example as well; as I recall you're the one who framed it strictly in terms of orthodoxy and for some reason insist that this is the only way in which it can be discussed. What is your real intent with all this?).
I also believe that such subjects are worth discussing and that mudslinging and insulting straw man argumentation are the last thing that this thread needs if it is to be elevated above what you perceive to be its short-comings (which I actually agree with you about to some extent although I give Socrates and others the benefit of the doubt concerning misogyny). It seems as though you're really missing the point of this thread and turning it into a personal attack on people such as Socrates (who has already clarified his meaning for crying out loud!). Of course you've tried to include me in your hostilities, but I am confident that anyone who takes the time to review my posts will realize that you're grasping at thin air. If there are posts of mine that may afford a misogynistic interpretation I can certainly clarify (and I am confident that Socrates could do the same).
Insofar as your response is directed at me, it completely disregards my previous posts. You've made it clear that you disapprove of saying that the Church is being "feminized" and I have stated my position on this point more than once. This is why I find it hard to interpret your meaning here; it appears as though you are insisting that I hold to some sexist position that I obviously have not presented or defended, and you have gone so far as to radically misrepresent a past post of mine to "prove" this point.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1417024' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:40 PM']The bottom line is that the general opinion of you and other posters here is that the involvement of women has hurt the liturgy. And I will take exception to that.[/quote]
Gee, thanks for telling me what my opinion is. This is truly unbelievable hot stuff. None of my posts suggest anything remotely like this claim of yours. I don't even know what you mean by "involvement of women has hurt the liturgy"; seriously, what does that even mean? Maybe there are several discussions going on here at once, but what I have in mind is a cultural and sociological situation that has contributed to an attack on priestly identity and on masculine identity in general and I am willing to entertain the idea that this may have ripple effects in the celebration of the Mass. From personal experience I actually find this to be a difficult thing to deny. I don't assert that this is based on the Mass being [i]tainted[/i] by women who have become more involved. I've read articles by women who discuss these kind of issues and it is common to describe the phenomena according to sociological causes such as the disintegration of the family, deadbeat dads, etc. I really think that we have totally different things in mind in approaching this thread.

The real bottom line as I see it is that if you are unable to actually discuss the subject matter of this thread and insist on turning it into attacks on other people's character, the only thing that will be accomplished is the closing of this thread (I'm surprised it has not been moved to the debate board by now).

[Jaime]

My point isn't to mudsling LD, its simply to call out what I think is sexist. You might have been trying to be flippant in your post about no "heterosexual men" being involved with the liturgy. Soc can come back and say "replace feminized with emasculated". That's all well and good but it misses the point.

And while you may not be a misogynist, your statements were misogynistic.

[quote]None of my posts suggest anything remotely like this claim of yours. I don't even know what you mean by "involvement of women has hurt the liturgy"; seriously, what does that even mean?[/quote]

Again let's take a look at your own examples

[quote]lol. hehe, haha.. I know what you mean. I was at a tinkly Haugen-Haas Mass not too long ago and thinking back on it I tend to wonder if there were any heterosexual men involved in organizing the "celebration".[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

I'm not just pulling stuff out of thin air LD. I'm not on a rant for the sake of ranting. And I'm not saying this to be condescending. But people honestly do not realize when they are making sexist statements.

These are

So yes, you and others come across like the problems with the liturgy are due to the influence of women.

[Apotheoun]

L_D is not saying that "the problems with the liturgy are due to the influence of women"; instead, he is saying that one source of the problems presently affecting the liturgy of the Roman Rite is the influence of a non-Christian ideology, which mistakenly goes by the name of "Feminism."