The following comes from a Jan. 8 story by Carl Olson on Catholic World Report.
Kaya Oakes, a revert to Catholicism after spending time as a self-described pro-choice liberal, has penned a little screed—a veritable bundle of befuddlement!—aimed at the recent New Emangelization interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke (which I posted about on Monday). I’ve not read Oakes’ book about her spiritual, uh, arc, which is titled, Radical Reinvention: An Unlikely Return to the Catholic Church, but my impression is that she has some—nay, numerous—issues with orthodoxy, or what she apparently calls “Catholic conservatism”, which is in keeping with the usual practice at Religion News (where her piece is posted) of describing orthodox Catholics as “conservative” and dissenting, or bad, Catholics as, well, “Catholic”. Oakes’ analysis, if you will, of Cardinal Burke’s interview is that the distinguished American prelate is “paranoid,” “bewildered,” and probably hates women. I’m guessing that Oakes was a star on her high school debate team. Perhaps she still is. What is sad, however, is that she gets everything wrong and seems to believe that smirking is the equivalent of an intelligent riposte. For instance:
“In an online interview this week, Cardinal Raymond Burke said the ‘radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized.’
“But many women will head to Mass this weekend and note that the priest, bishop and pope have something in common: They are all men, and the power they hold in institutional church structures hardly looks like marginalization.”
Ooh, how clever—if we were still in high school. Of course, it ignores the fact that the interviewer, Matthew Christoff, and Cardinal Burke are clearly talking about lay men. For example, Cardinal Burke says, at the start:
“I think there has been a great confusion with regard to the specific vocation of men in marriage and of men in general in the Church during the past 50 years or so. It’s due to a number of factors, but the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized [emphasis added].”
Oakes continually misrepresents Cardinal Burke, despite the fact that he is very clear about who and what he is talking about. So, for instance, she snidely writes:
“Yet Burke is bewildered by women’s ‘self-focused attitudes’ and ‘constant and insistent demanding of rights.’ Women, he said, ‘respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church.’ And yet, when the sanctuary becomes ‘full of women,’ and the parish activities and liturgy are influenced by them, these become ‘so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.’”
This badly misconstrues the prelate’s remarks via creative editing (Oakes teaches “creative writing,” but creative editing seems to be her lone talent). Cardinal Burke first describes the situation during the turbulent ’60s and ’70s:
“I recall in the mid-1970s, young men telling me that they were, in a certain way, frightened by marriage because of the radicalizing and self-focused attitudes of women that were emerging at that time. These young men were concerned that entering a marriage would simply not work because of a constant and insistent demanding of rights for women. These divisions between women and men have gotten worse since then.”
That is a fair assessment, in general terms, and it hardly goes contrary to anecdotal evidence or studies of male/female relations over the past few decades. Quite the contrary. Then, later, Cardinal Burke is asked about what those attitudes have resulted in today:
“Matthew: Your Eminence, what has been the impact of this Catholic ‘man-crisis’ on the Church?
“Cardinal Burke: The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.
“Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out.”
Is he wrong? I don’t think so. In fact, I’ve seen this at work in many parishes, and I’ve heard many, many men—good men and devoted, loving husbands—make frustrated remarks about the same. Of course, they are “conservative,” so they are probably paranoid to boot….
To read the entire article, click here.
As a revert myself, if Oakes did not read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” prior to making the decision to come back to the Church, shame on her.
Who would join something they did not agree with but an idiot.
This has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. It has to do with the ‘Doctrine of the Faith’ and what is expected of all those who choose to be Catholic.
As a woman, I fully support the Bible, CCC,
and everything written by Cardinal Burke that I have seen.
* * * * * Men (and Boys) need to start volunteering as Altar servers and in other capacities in their Parishes.
Most of us women like men to be leaders, men to be men not doormats. We do not respect doormats. Men, do not be lazy.
Oakes needs to grow up and quit trying one-upsmanship.
Did she come back to the Church to worship God, or push her political beliefs which have no place in the Church ?
Some of the best Catholics are reverts or converts. Oakes gives the rest of us a bad name, and I object.
What about Altar Girls? … Cardinal Arinze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY
CCC # 1577 regarding Priests (also see footnotes).
This is not true at my Church at all.
Definite glass ceiling.
Ms. Oakes is a convert to . . . what? Catholicism? How? And, why? Her “befuddlement” is only confusion over Catholic doctrine and Tradition. It is likely, from what she says and questions, that her introduction and initiation into the Catholic Church was poorly done. We must pity poor Ms. Oakes for thinking that Cardinal Burke is somehow outside the mainstream of what the Faith means.
Now, Ms. Oakes might very well be applauded by Pope Francis, by Cardinal Dolan, by Abp. Cupich and many other Catholics. However, what she seems to question, such as women empowerment, has long ago been answered by the Church. And, Mr. Oakes will not like the answers.
You all know that what she is talking about the issue of women in “power” — that is, in the priesthood. She and her feminist allies want to be in the Sanctuary. It must drive her crazy that the estrogen parade in the Episcopalian Church is continuously denied entrance into the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Burke is certainly right about altar boys, about the TLM, about the proper role of the laity and the like. Unfortunately, many Catholics in power will listen to Ms. Oakes, just like they listen to HomoFascists. And, who knows, perhaps these people in power will make changes and complete the split of the institutional church. Of course, as St. Athanasius said (paraphrasing): “they have the buildings, we have the Faith”. The Zombie-Liberals will pretty much die-off, and Traditional orders will one day again rule the Church.
Oakes final comment in her article: “It is ironic that women who do the majority of catechesis at parishes, who educate priests, who write landmark works of theology and give birth to cardinals, bishops and popes are still not able to be leaders in the church. Because, according to Cardinal Burke, we’re just girls. And everyone knows girls are icky.”
Oakes is a smart but very jaded lady with an ugly animus toward the institutional church. She seems to argue quite childishly her article. I wonder if she has reverted , or shall we say, converted back to Catholicism –except perhaps to the most liberal, and one wonders, pro-choice(?) variety. Has the leopard really changed her spots? It’s hard to know wading through all her bile.
Dan, most us women have enough work all ready with our families, outside jobs or volunteer work to be in competition for the priesthood. This woman seems to have too much time on her hands. (Lots of laughs.)
His Eminence, Cardinal Burke is totally correct! The radical feminists are taking over the Church as they are responsible for much of the lunacy which is present, especially in the liturgy. Example, Christmas carols. GOD REST YE MERRY GGENTLEMEN is now God Rest Ye Merry PEOPLE. Even the secular singers who record Christmas carols DO NOT tamper with the words. You do not believe me, just look at the Christmas missalettes and most of the hymns have been butchered, and made politically correct. God made them MALE and FEMALE, and both sexes are equal in value and worth, but they are complimentary, NOT the same. Hurray for Cardinal Burke, and shame on the Marxist feminists who contradict Catholic moral teaching and doctrine.
I have to agree with you Fr. Karl about “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen”. I was shocked the first time I heard it in a church. in my younger years I knew that “All men were created equal” meant me as a woman too. Fighting about whether to use “mankind” or “human” or “humankind”, as some have, is utterly futile too I often use both “man and woman” now because we had to do so at my job, but I find it all so silly, and it make the English language much more cumbersome,
This messing with hymns etc only promotes the notion of sexism….and bad, disjointed music. I thank the Lord I’ve never heard that mutilation sung in Church.
Actually, it was not God rest ye marry gentlemen that I heard changed, Fr. Karl, but the hymn with “Peace on earth good will to men” changed to “Peace on earth good will to people.” I much prefer to sing it the old way — far more poetic.
Fr., men and boys have to stop being lazy and step up and volunteer at their own parishes.
Sally perhaps if it weren’t for legions of clipped hair, pant suited ghouls who put the kibosh on anything that smacks of masculinity. However this does not happen in my parish the clipped hairs were shown the door and kicked out years ago, and the women support their men
Canisius, don’t make excuses for LAZY (Slothful) men and boys who do not volunteer to be Altar Servers, etc., in their own Parish.
Men contact your Parish office, and volunteer today.
They will train you (at no cost).
There are no excuses.
Don’t look root causes (that is a gift horse) in the mouth, Ted. So, yes, absolutely, put out the call for men to do what men should do. But arm them with something to understand why they might, quite naturally, feel an aversion – understanding possible objections up front is often what can lend the strength necessary to persevere and take back that which should not have been lost.
Do you mean that the men carry footballs in one arm when they bring up the gifts in the other? What does “masculinity” have anything to do with anything? If you are so upset over “the clipped hairs” it seems to me you should be complaining about a lack of femininity. You think putting Roses in the arms of a statue of our Lady is masculine? We do much less of that now, and we have much less lace and ornate vestments. These are feminine things, not masculine things. So what are you talking about? It is the feminine that has been removed from our Churches. Unless you think the mere presence of women near the Altar makes you feel emasculated. Poor you.
…we have much less lace and ornate vestments and flowers for Our Lady because everyone is in competition with one another (man vs woman, laity vs priest, etc) instead of taking up proper order and getting on with life. The ‘what about me’ syndrome has overridden the Church so that women don’t ‘feel’ validated unless they increasingly approach the altar with the mindset of being the same because being women makes them ‘feel’ inferior. Having to compete with a man for validation is a manufactured means to level the hierarchy of the Church.
So not just poor you, Anonymous, but poor deluded generations of unhappy infighters. (Lace and ornate vestments are not feminine, they are giving the finest quality of textiles to Our Lord via His alter Christus. Or are you of the mindset that kings of old must be feminine because of their rich garb? Not very enlightened.)
Beautiful vestments are to honor God – giving him our very best.
They are masculine.
All people should wear their BEST for Mass, rather than look like they are going to the beach or a football game or golfing.
No shorts, no jeans, no T shirts, nothing immodest, or meant to distract others. So that all attention is given to God.
Remember the parable where the person who was not dressed appropriately for the wedding feast was thrown out ? – Mt 22
Men need to ignore women who may be bossy, and volunteer at their own Parish as an Altar Server, Lector, Greeter, Usher, or Catechism teacher for ages 5 through adult.
Call your Parish office today.
They will train.
MAC, if you really believe that, perhaps you should dress in your Sunday best after you shower, say your morning prayers, then change into your work clothes before you leave for work, every day. Unfortunately, what happens in practice is that people dress their best not to impress God but to impress the other people at Mass.
When you go apurpose to God’s house, you should dress for the occasion, Anonymous. Or do you go to work naked when it’s warm outside? Or in your pajama pants because it makes you feel more productive?
Too often people offer the excuse of not caring about impressing other people for being sloppy, ill mannered, and loutish. And that doesn’t impress anyone, least of all God who is able to see the real reason behind not bothering.
Malley I have no problem with people who genuinely want to give their best to the Lord. I just think most people who do dress for Church do it for the wrong reasons. And I’m just pointing out that people who want to give their best to the Lord ought to give him their best when they pray quietly alone as well. That to me is a better test than someone who dresses in a public show when it is expected of them by their peers. A wise man once said “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.…”
…you have no problem playing devil’s advocate when it suits you, mous. That’s what you’re about. And that’s why you came out like you did after, MAC, undercutting his very logical post as if dressing properly were tantamount to hypocrisy.
That said, giving one’s best to the Lord when one is at home and praying before bedtime would by virtue of the time and place make being in one’s nightclothes appropriate. Being in one’s nightclothes or beach attire when specifically going to God’s house, however, would not be. Sleepwalkers and beach bather’s seeking sanctuary in a time of crisis notwithstanding.
So much for your ‘better test’ excuse for wanton disrespect…. toward God, that is, not those allies you determine to be good for a day’s sport in undermining the Faith. The latter you cater to on nearly every thread.
I agree with Father Karl. But even more– I do not like the Vatican II concept, of the false equalization of laymens’ illiterate views, with the views of the trained clergy! The Pope needs to close the doors of the illiterate secular world! The secular world does not know, nor understand, nor follow, Christ! Only Christ, and His views count– in His Church! Church leaders should all be very firm, about that! They should all ignore the silly, secular world, which Christ would love to save, from sin and ignorance! And these silly publications of ignorant, secular laymen, who are NOT Christ’s followers— should all be ignored, and laughed at! As for silly, radical, 1960’s “anti-society,” “hippie” movements, subversive and undermining of America and of American homes and families– why were these ignorant movements allowed in the first place, to subvert and destroy our great country?? Why was there not perhaps a Congressional investigation, and outlawing, of such activities, and their subversive leaders, in the 1960’s?? America is too naïve! Next, will it be the radical Muslims, that finally subvert and destroy America??
Linda Marie,
You asked some good questions: “why were these ignorant movements allowed in the first place, to subvert and destroy our great country?? Why was there not perhaps a Congressional investigation, and outlawing, of such activities, and their subversive leaders, in the 1960’s??
The answer can be found in the fact that the American people allowed subversives infiltrators into our Congress such as Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Waxman, Dymally, Willie Brown, The Burtons, etc. etc., and they succeeded in abolishing the House Committee on Un-American Activities!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Kenneth, Willie Brown was not a member of Congress. The House Committee on Un-American Activities was the handy work of Senator McCarthy and did everything in its power to trample the free speech of Americans, bring down freedom of the press and generally raise havoc with our country. It was Senator Flanders of Vermont who finally brought him down, because he was the one who was un-American. This country is built on the notion of free speech. When you take that away you take away what it means to be American. Now that I know your views on this issue I’m glad you didn’t get elected to Congress.
I appreciated the post of Kenneth Fisher, in response to my post! Yes, I do know, that the House Committee on Un-American Activities was abolished, and many liberals and atheists (as well as liberal Communist sympathizers!) were against it. Also, the McCarthy era was troubling, for many people. However– I strongly feel, that to secure a viable future for our great country– there needs to be certain limits, on “liberal kooks” and their views– although America is a democracy, of course! The “liberal kooks,” atheists, and many others, who are intellectually and morally weak and unstable– and too immature (or too corrupt!) cannot be allowed to constantly subvert and destroy our American family values, way of life, and our Judeo-Christian foundations! Our Church is likewise! Wish we had a Pope like Cardinal Burke! I was only stating my views emotionally, in my above post– because I get so sick of this whole problem! Bless you, for reading my post!
Click on the blue link “the recent New Emangelization interview” to see the interview with Cardinal Burke. You can see that it is not as “anti-woman” as this author makes it out to be. And it is not anti-men.
It is actually a very good assessment of what has gone wrong with men.
Kaya Oakes is spreading confusion. Confusion is the work of the devil.
I have made this complaint about over feminization for 25 years myself. Jesus himself is more often than not presented in an over feminized way in the Church to the point that it turns many men off yet the real human Jesus was quite brave and heroic, a leader of men as Scripture describes. He stood up to the pagan and religious powers of that day thus encouraging men to follow Him. But these heroic manly qualities are never emphasized in Church.. Altar boys have frequently been replaced by girls and if you check out various diocese websites you will find them to be for whatever reason overwhelmingly staffed by female employees in both high and low positions which I feel contributes largely to this feminization in the Church which needs strong male input.
Many “politically-correct,” “brainwashed” Americans, have forgotten the tremendous fulfillment, that the traditional, mature roles of MAN and WOMAN, HUSBAND/FATHER and WIFE/MOTHER, bring into their lives! These traditional roles, should be the main roles, for any society– and only a few people, will then do something else, due to an abnormality. Civilization desperately needs these stable, traditional roles! And most self-seeking, ends up nowhere, except for being lonely, immature, and selfish, and unfulfilled! Plus—- others in the family, and elsewhere in society, will suffer greatly! Self-seeking should always be done unselfishly, always in proportion to one’s responsibilities! And all good, successful marriages, must begin with two mature, responsible people— one man and one woman, with equal rights, equal respect, and equal responsibilities! All men and women should seek simply: MATURITY, NOT BABYISH “FEMINISM!!”
I always admired the great opera star, Beverly Sills, who died not too long ago. LOVED her beautiful voice! She was a devout Jew, who gave much to her family, synagogue, and community! At age 50, at the height of a successful opera career, she retired, because her husband and family needed her so much! She had a retarded daughter and a deaf son, bless her! She was an excellent role model, for good women with special talents! Service to God and family, and to all of one’s responsibilities, always must come first! Everything else must wait, or be totally sacrificed, and declined! That is the reality, of a mature woman’s (or mature man’s) life! Man and Woman also have different life roles, but the contributions of each one, are BOTH of EQUAL VALUE, and EQUAL RESPECT!!
Ah, Beverly Sills, a cultured, beautiful voice and a cultured, beautiful lady (in the truest sense of the word). Thank you, Linda Maria, for reminding us of the breadth of what is being lost or rather thrown away in the present day. Beauty, dignity, Truth, honor, morality, and the sense of right order.
Pray God the few who retain such qualities will fight to keep them… and promote them!
I have always wished that Cardinal Burke could be our Pope! I saw this interview several times, and it was very good! Regarding men— I think men need to have the courage to simply GROW UP and be proud to all be MATURE MEN! I think our Church’s leaders, especially, need to have the COURAGE to GROW UP, and be excellent, fearless leaders, for Christ! Make adult decisions, objectively, and stick by them!! And everyone in this world, must PAY THE PRICE– and ACCEPT THE CORRECT CONSEQUENCES– for their SINS!! Accept it OBJECTIVELY, the DEBT, out of JUSTICE— that you owe God, and your fellow man– and PAY UP!! You’re NOT a BIG BABY ANYMORE!!
The real problem with a Creative Writer…is that they Create whatever they write….it is Never the Truth…it is the way they want to see things and the way they are attempting make others see things in the Creative Writers view.
The only Reporters that should ever be considered believing are those that are Truly Reporters…those that report the Facts on all that the see and hear…following the Tried and True…Who, What, Why, When and Where!
These are the only True Reporters not those that are graduates of Journalism (write what you wish others to believe even if it is not what actually happened) Schools.
This is one of the prime reasons that Daily Newspapers are losing so many subscribers, and TV and Radio Stations are losing viewers and listeners to the News because of the frivoulous ways that they are reporting (actually Journalizing) the News.
Many stated when computers were in the early stages of introduction…”Garbage In — Garbage Out”…this has now crept into todays Media, and the public are fed up with the nonsense that is being reported in the fashion that it is.
LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN. Get rid ot the Trash Journalism!
I’m not sure that Cardinal is all wrong, but I know he is not all right either, on this subject. Back in the 30,40,and 50s, there were priests galore and nuns to do the work. In a small town of eight thousand people where I grew up there were five priests in two parishes and about 20-30 nuns. Today there are no nuns and two priest for three parishes. If we look at it from a practical view, the nuns basically made no money and the priest made very little. Today, school teachers are paid employees, replacing the nuns who worked for nothing. The few priests can’t do all the work so they must hire qualified people to help run the parish. In most parishes, the “workers” are well trained women with masters degrees. Women teach faith formation. Etc. So maybe their approach is becoming the norm.