The following comes from a July 27 Homiletic and Pastoral Review Magazine article by Father James Mason:
This is an article that I wrote during my years of seminary formation, but I was advised to wait to have it published until after my priestly ordination.
Sioux Falls is a rural farming diocese that is having great success in vocations with both numbers and quality. In the past, a consistent complaint or difficulty our new seminarians have had in adjusting to seminary life is the issue of effeminacy. The fact of the matter is that they are not used to, and are uncomfortable with, living in an environment that is often effeminate. I remember when one of our seminarians from a farm family was embarrassed to say that he would not want his brother to visit his dorm because of the way the men acted on his floor. While not, perhaps, stating it in the most precise manner it was understood by all when he said that many seminarians on his floor, “acted like a bunch of women.”
St. Thomas includes effeminacy under the vices opposed to perseverance. It is from the Latin mollities, which literally means “softness.” Mollities is the verb used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 which deals with the sexual sin of sodomy. It involves being inordinately passive or receptive. What St. Thomas means by persevering is when “a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance or difficulties and toils.”
Thomas states that this effeminacy is caused in two ways. First, by custom, where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures and it is, therefore, more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. Second, by natural disposition, less persevering through frailty of temperament, and this is where Thomas compares men with women, and also mentions the homosexual act of sodomy, and the receiver in this act as being effeminate or like a woman. The vice of delicacy for Thomas considers those who cannot endure toils, or anything that diminishes pleasure, and thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy.
I have five sisters, and all are feminine, but I would describe none of them as effeminate or soft. They are women; yet, they do not exhibit this particular vice. So, it must be understood, I am not putting down women or speaking on homosexuality, (though effeminacy is often a sign of this sexual disorder) but rather on acting in an inappropriate manner that is often prevalent in seminaries.
St. Thomas also speaks on modesty concerning the outward movements of the body. Here, he quotes Saint Ambrose in stating that, “Beauty of conduct consists in becoming behavior towards others, according to their sex and person.” Thomas states that, “Outward movements are a sign of the inward disposition” and quotes Ecclesiastics 19:29-30, “You can tell a person by his appearance … the way a person dresses, the way he laughs, the way he walks, tell you what he is.” St. Ambrose adds that, “The habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the body,” and that “the body’s movement is an index of the soul.” Ambrose goes on to say, “Let nature guide the movement: if nature fail in any respect, surely effort will supply the defect.” This effort is lacking in most seminary formation. Such things should be noticed and discussed by seminary faculty in both external and internal formation, as they can often be signs of deeper issues.
St. Thomas, moreover, asserts the truth that it is often from our outward movements that other men form their judgment about us. Thomas encourages us to study our outward movements so that if they are inordinate in any way, they may be corrected. Such things need to be addressed in formation because they have a definite effect on our ability to be, and to bring, Christ to others.
Does the seminary deal with a seminarian that sways when he walks, who has limp wrists, who acts like a drama queen, or who lisps? It must. This is not about a witch hunt, but about being honest enough to admit that such external behavior affects our ability to share Christ. I knew a seminarian that spoke in a very effeminate manner, and to his credit he recognized this impediment to his future preaching the Gospel, and on his own sought help from a speech instructor. However, the seminary did not see this glaring problem, nor move this man to get assistance. That is the problem.
When we are at the altar, or preaching the Gospel, we are Jesus Christ, and must do our best to image him to our people. Anything we do that takes people’s attention away from this reality must be addressed. Over dramatic movements, purposeful lisps, swaying—in short, effeminate behavior— removes attention from Christ and his word, and puts it on the priest. This is not just distracting to other men, but I know my sisters will roll their eyes when the Liberace-like priest celebrates himself while celebrating the Mass.
In the book, The Church Impotent, Leon Podles asks why men in the Christian West are so little interested in religion, and that men who are interested often do not follow the general pattern of masculinity. Fr. Tom Forrest, a priest active in international evangelization, points out that only 25 percent of the participants in Catholic gatherings he has attended are men. The fact is that women dominate daily Masses, church staff and volunteers, and church groups. Why are we not attracting men when the Orthodox seem to have a balance, and Islam and Judaism have predominately male membership? The author goes on to state that something seems to be creating a barrier between Western Christianity and men.
Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose masculinity is somewhat doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included. Rather, religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life and, therefore, attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculinity.
I am not a psychologist, and I cannot speak on an over-attachment to the feminine, but there is a truth that masculinity, as a needed virtue in the seminary, is something that is generally ignored in formation. This may be one of the problems with why the church has a difficult time attracting men to Mass, and serving the Church.
What is it that draws soft or effeminate men to the seminary, and why is this not dealt with in formation? Podles offers the prior explanation for the former question, but the latter can only be understood if it is admitted that there are many bishops, faculty, and priests, who suffer under this vice and are, therefore, unwilling or unable to recognize it, or address it. All seminaries are not equal: some relish in their softness, others have select faculty that will privately admit to the problem, but for fear of offending colleagues and bishops, refuse to speak out on it. In my years of seminary formation, the most controversial conference was given by my former Bishop, Robert Carlson, on the vice of effeminacy. Some faculty and students were offended—the truth always stings—and felt my bishop either somehow lacked compassion, or was mean-spirited in discussing such an issue. This must end, and as with all problems, its solution begins only with admitting its existence, and the reality that many seminaries breed an effeminate culture.
In a study by Lewis Terman and Catherine Cox, involving a masculinity-femininity test, Catholic seminarians scored at a point far less masculine than any other male group of their age. Right next to them, though, were the Protestant male seminarians, which the authors of the study stated ruled out celibacy, or sexual deviance, as a cause for connection to this lack of masculinity.
In a parish, it will be helpful if you can talk on sports in order to relate to men. If you have an easier time, or even prefer interacting with women to the exclusion of men, this will cause problems in your parish, and affect your ministry to men. I remember a seminarian from my dorm who, even though he was not athletically gifted, used to go out and practice basketball and softball with one of his classmates. He did this not so much for the exercise, but because he felt it would help him minister to the kids in the grade schools and high schools where he would serve as a priest. This man recognized the importance of sports in our culture, and the fact that it could be used to draw the young, especially boys, to the Church, and to Christ.
The question, then, is what can be done in helping form and ordain more manly priests? First, seminaries and bishops must recognize effeminacy as a formation issue. In choosing faculty to teach and form our future priests, the question must be asked: Does the candidate exhibit manly or effeminate qualities? Also, bishops need to realize that just because a priest requests an assignment, this does not automatically make him the right man for the job. This is especially true if the priest desires to work in liturgy, campus ministry, teaching, or seminary work where a manly model of priesthood is most needed and, unfortunately, often most often missing. Bishops need to take an active role in knowing and forming their priestly candidates. It is, perhaps, not only his most important decision, but also the decision for which he will be held most accountable. Bishop Carlson is one of the few, if not only, bishops in our country who has every seminarian live at least a summer in his residence. He knows the men he will ordain. He recounts a story of a seminarian he inherited who had already been through five years of formation, and was extremely effeminate. In working with this seminarian, he asked him about his sexual orientation. The seminarian responded he did not know. At that time, he was two years away from being ordained, and neither the rector, nor seminary faculty, saw this as a problem. This is the problem.
Around 2002 or 2003, there was a supposed “crack down” by the Vatican on admitting gay candidates for the priesthood into Catholic seminaries. While the already existing rules were reiterated, nothing came of the “crackdown”–likely because of strong resistance within the priesthood itself. It’s probably natural that existing priests want the newly ordained to have the same dispositions and proclivities that they do, so I really don’t see how this “old boyz club” is ever going to change unless the Church decides to expel gay priests from the priesthood and start from scratch with new standards. That’s never ever going to happen.
I disagree. If you have a good bishop who takes an active interest in his seminary, he can clean-up shop. A classic case is Archbishop Vlazny of the Archdiocese of Portland who turned around Mount Angel Seminary. But it does require a good bishop who is actively aware of the problem.
That is true :”Steve Seitz” but rare. The problem with effeminacy and homosexuality in seminaries is that it is tolerated, if not encouraged. By numerous stories, it is clear that the gate-keeper function often serves to keep out the strongly masculine, the man exhibiting his true masculine nature, in favor of the effeminate, the homosexual. The story above, that the seminarian that is about to graduate had no idea of his sexual orientation is beyond sad. How much time does one figure it will take before he finds out his true calling, with perhaps disastrous results.
Better to actively prohibit, and aggressively “fire”, the effeminate seminarian, or priest for that matter. HomoFascists will scream, but too bad; there is too…
I’m not denying what you’re saying, but I’d be curious to find out how you know whether or not Abp. Vlazny has “cleaned up shop.” Their enrollment has declined by 26% over the past decade–but that may be a good thing if the new candidates are of better quality. I believe Abp. Flazny has been there since the late 1990s.
Well, during Archbishop Levada’s tenure, I heard a consistent pattern of negativity about the seminary from both seminarians and priests. Michael Rose, in his book “Goodby, Good Men”, also wrote of the negative effect that Levada had on the seminary. Vlazny was bishop from 1997 to 2013. Circa 2003, I asked questions about Mt. Angel from two different, highly orthodox seminarians on two separate occasions. Both gave it very glowing reports. Also, I had read that attendance was up: not down.
My statement didn’t speak to the effeminate nature of the seminarians. But it does speak to the fact that a good bishop who is aware of the problem can change things.
Mt. Angel’s attendance has indeed declined, along with most Catholic seminaries, as can be see in their ATS reports here: https://www.ats.edu/resources/institutional-data/annual-data-tables
Also, Mt. Angel is not a diocesean seminary but rather an order seminary (Benedictine) not directly accountable to the local bishop. It’s possible that a local bishop could exert some influence over an order seminary, but probably not enough to “clean house.”
Thank you for the web link although I didn’t see anything about prior attendance. While Mt. Angel might form Benedictine priests, I wouldn’t categorize it as an order seminary: Its primary function is to form diocesan priests.
Canonically speaking, I don’t know the precise relationship between Mt. Angel and the local bishop. However, I do know that the local bishop does have a certain amount of control over the seminaries in his jurisdiction, especially if his own seminarians attend the seminary. Michael Rose seems to think that Levada had significant control. Also, there appears to have been a wide swing in the teaching of moral theology between the tenures of Levada and Vlazny. Does anyone know what is happening at St…
I forgot to add. The two seminarians that I questioned were students at Mount Angel.
Yes, Diocese Bishops can (and should) know and monitor what is being taught and what is being done in the Seminary(s) that they send young men to. It is their responsibility.
Any Seminary that does not use the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997 as a REQUIRED student text should not be considered.
Men are ordained without knowing accurately and completely the “Doctrine of the Faith”, and therefore can not teach others, or properly advise others in Confession.
Dave N. …… This sounds like a really great way to solve the vocations crisis. What if the “macho men” you envision arn’t numerous enough to replace the “gay” priests you fantisize are out there. Without supposed “gay” priests, there wouldn’t be enough priests to provide the sacraments to most of us.
C&H only a fool and liar would deny the infestation of gay priests in the Church.
What we desperately need– is Real Men, in Western civilization! They have all “gone missing,” since the mid-1960’s!! None left! And we need MALE LEADERSHIP in society! Men to take up the men’s role, in boyhood, and women to take up the women’s role, in girlhood! Both roles are different, yet equal– and with EQUAL RESPECT!! These ancient roles are a BIG RESPONSIBILITY!! A girl must grow up proudly, to be just like her Mom’s role! And a boy must grow up proudly, to be exactly like his Dad’s role– no more “hippie teen-ager” sub-culture! Everyone, in ONE CULTURE, as when I was young!! NO MORE RADICAL “HIPPIE GARBAGE!!”
I think what we need in western civilization are more CAPITAL LETTERS and more EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!! Especially when used to punctuate the UTTERLY INANE!!!
I SHALL NOT add to this post!!!!
I will say one more thing, about roles. Everyone knows, we all must assume roles of responsibility, in the family, and in society. These are roles, yes! Your role as a Mother, as a Father, as an Aunt, Uncle, sister, brother, etc.– and your role, as a professional in a field– doctor, lawyer, priest, etc. And seek to be really GOOD at it! When we die, our souls go to God. But on earth, we have roles– and that means, a big responsibility! Everyone used to be VERY HAPPY, a long time ago, when we all were ONE CULTURE, with no “teen rock and roll rebel misfit” youth culture, which later turned into a horrendous “hippie disaster!” We need ONE CULTURE, WITH THE FAMILY AT THE CENTER OF IT!!
One more thing, about roles. A role is NOT for irresponsible misfits!! As for the screaming “hippie radicals,” who claim they are “misfits,” and unable to “fit” certain roles… have you at least tried to be RESPONSIBLE?? That’s all it takes! Everyone’s personality is different! JUST ACCEPT YOURSELF, “AS IS!!” I know of some gays, a long time ago, who did not marry, had good careers, contributed a lot to society, never discussed their sex feelings– (they had good manners!)– and never acted on their sex feelings, as it is IMMORAL!! They were also TOO BUSY, with a full life! In that day, people accepted hardships of life (the Depression, WWII, etc.), and were MATURE, from childhood!!
The Church needs to TAKE BACK HER STRONG LEADERSHIP ROLE, and no more “hippie freedom garbage,” from Vatican II!! It is a HORRIBLE THING, to see an Archbishop forbidden to run his archdiocese, and a priest forbidden to run his parish church! SICKENING!! EMASCULATING!! NO MORE ANTI-CLERICALISM, IN OUR CHURCH!! STARTING WITH THE POPE!!
I LOVE GOOD, STRONG, MALE LEADERSHIP!! The husband and father in a family, and the clergy, of our Church!! I LOVE good, strong, male leadership, too– in ALL areas, of our society!! And I LOVE the role of women, in the home, in the schools, at church, and in charitable work! This makes for a HAPPY, HEALTHY HOME, CHUCH, and SOCIETY!! NO MORE “MODERN GARBAGE!!”
Dear Lady, this blog (I thought) is supposed to be about DISCUSSION!!!!! NOT speech-making!!!! It is not clear that your numerous posts above are REPLYING to anybody! Perhaps you should write a newspaper editorial instead. What say you?
In many older Catholic Bibles, (including in the Protestant King James Version) –
“effeminacy” is used in place of the word “homosexual”.
Theses are the Bible verses: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10;
1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7.
All Seminaries must adhere to the following. Save this link and print it out – handing printouts to as many Seminaries and Diocese Bishops as you deem appropriate.
” Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders ” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Thank you for the official Church documentation.
Thank you for the official documentation of the Church – for not allowing homosexuals to become Priests.
Those with “disordered personalities” can not conduct themselves appropriately.
That’s a ridiculous statement. Every single one of us harbors disorders of one kind or another. If “those with disordered personalities” were eliminated from the priesthood, we would have no priests.
False. All those who support, promote or act upon MORTAL SINS of any kind should not be Priests.
(We would not want those who support adultery or fornication as Priests either.)
Whether you like it or nor, YFC, your support of homosexual acts is a serious disorder of your own.
You support Mortal Sin. Admit it.
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7
“Your Fellow Catholic”: Far too many homosexuals were permitted to become priests, to the great harm of the Church. It is a completely different internal demon for a seminarian to have a normal attraction to women, than for a seminarian to have had homosexual sexual experiences and a continuing “urge” to do so.
Except to “seamless garment” types like Abp. Cupich, all sins are not the same. Reasonably certain that Christ has the same view (although all can be, and are, forgiven). A homosexually-inclined seminarian should self-withdraw.
Christopher, I don’t think that “seamless garment” advocates would say that all sins are equal. Rather, this is Cupich’s unique idea.
Cupich did not say that.
YES – The SEAMLESS GARMENT push was from Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in a speech at FORDHAM University, Dec 6, 1983.
He gave Pro-Abortion Democratic political candidates cover by equating (making equal) the intrinsic evil of TORTURE & MURDER of innocent human beings – ABORTION – with “specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care”.
This is the SEAMLESS GARMENT theory.
Ted B. that is not correct.
AB Cupich directly inferred it.
Steve, thanks for your reply. If you are talking about the op-ed, he did not say that. I think you are reading something into it.
Sorry, Anonymous, but +Cupich and the reviving of the +Bernadin seamless garment theory is real.
Ann Malley, since the seamless garment theory does not equate intrinsic evils like abortion with social issues, what would be wrong with having human life and its dignity be the ciriteria by which we measure things?
I read the AB Cupich editorial and I didn’t read anything into his words. He said that our outrage about commerce in the blood of the innocent should be no less than for those with insufficient health insurance, joblessness, et al. Since degrees of morality are differentiated by degrees of outrage, it would follow that murder is no worse than having insufficient health insurance. Therefore, I was being generous when I said that he equated all these issue of the same moral weight since he advocates for the same level of outrage.
The best case that one can make is that he didn’t actually mean what he said [or directly inferred].
Thank you, Steve Seitz, but you are making it into something he did not say. Degrees of morality are not differentiated by degrees of outrage. They are differentiated by how offensive they are to God. Cupich did not make a moral statement. He did not say they all had the same moral weight. And he talked about people dying because they had no health insurance. Is that OK with you? Is the death of a born person less offensive to you than the death of an unborn person?
On the one hand, there is basic truth to your statement that it is God [and his offense] who is judge of the measure of gradations of evil. But, its also true that the human level of outrage over an evil act should reflect the offense that is taken by God. Therefore, our outrage should not be the same for all evil actions since God’s “outrage” is not the same.
Regarding your point about people dying prematurely due to lack of money versus people dying due to murder, there is a sharp philosophical and theological distinction between such deaths. Yes, they both represent some level of evil. And, yes, murder is much more offensive to me and God [as it should be].
Anonymous, I forgot to mention. AB Culpich did not directly state that all evil acts have the same moral weight, but he directly inferred it by saying that our outrage should be the same.
….the engagement of common sense wouldn’t place those with particular disorders in the obvious occasion of sin, YFC. As usual, your logic is discolored by your pet issue. Why not have mercy and get on board with the reality that putting those with homosexual sexual inclinations in an all male environment is rather cruel – to them.
….or would you advocate promoting raving alcoholics with serious liver disease in charge of all of the liquor establishments and common sense be damned?
My brother attended a seminary, and he was scandalized at what he found there. Practically all the men who attended the minor seminary were wild, sex crazed animals. Those who came from regular high schools could not believe the terrible and immature behavior that was going on. When he knew that several of the seminarians were involved in sodomy, he informed the rector who replied:” No one is perfect.”. My brother, and many others who would have made fine priests, quit the seminary rather than have their faith and morals destroyed.
FYI – CC Campers
The Counterfeit Christian
Over a decade ago, I went to Yale University to give a speech at the law school. While I was there, my host took me on a tour of the campus. When we visited the divinity school, he commented on the fact that atheists often sought their divinity degrees at Yale. We both agreed that it made sense. If you really hated Christianity, it would only be wise to try to destroy it from within.
The concept of destroying Christianity from within was not unfamiliar to me when I visited Yale. I had already seen it before on my own campus. On one memorable occasion, a campus gay activist sponsored an event…
Destroy the priesthood and you destroy the Church, this has been going on for over 40 years and was intensified by Vatican II. The seminaries of the S.S.P.X. F.S.S.P. and Institute of Christ the King are packed and there are waiting lists to get in, why? Because they teach the Roman Catholic Faith and offer the Mass of All Times, the young men there are all manly and offer themselves to Christ which is a huge and very hard thing to do, giving up all worldly ambitions such as marriage, children, a good job instead they give their lives to Christ and His Church pray for all of these good and holy young men that they may become the future priests who will save Holy Mother Church from the destruction that Vatican II did to it.
In regard to FSSP, I love ’em: Keep up the good work. In regard to SSPX (assuming that it’s true that they teach the Catholic faith) they are doing so outside the Church. Or, at best, they do so in an indeterminate way. This is the way of Martin Luther who decided that the best way to reform the Church was to bolt from her. The true reform of the Church, of course, happened from inside at the Council of Trent — not from outside. The Church desperately needs the SSPX in the Church to make the Body of Christ stronger.
The scars of Martin Luther continue with us to this very day. SSPX, regretfully, has chosen the same path.
Steve, I agree with you but you miss the most important point supporting your POV: Martin Luther believed that the church was invisible: It consisted in those baptized members who believed the true faith. Luther disclaimed the Visible Church…the Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff. For Luther, if you believed the right faith, you were Church, regardless of your relationship with Rome. This is EXACTLY the position of SSPX.
Anonymous, I don’t think that it is the position of the SSPX. There is a person who writes here who promotes that heresy and they attend SSPX chapels. That person is one who just makes things up so I wouldn’t go by anything they said. If you have heard that heresy from an SSPX priest or bishop please post back and correct me.
Anonymous, the ordain their own bishops in open defiance of the Roman Pontiff, therefore they do not believe in the Visible Church.
Anonymous, there is one who posts here – that is you – who negates any attempt at education over what the Society actually teaches. If you truly wishes to know, you would visit their website. Pretty easy to get the straight dope.
As to your difficulties in understanding what constitutes being in union with the Church and/or being Catholic, you should try sticking to the determinations of those with the capacity to make said assessments – not the conflation of those who have their own agenda or ax to grind.
Why you are so afraid of looking to examine the true doctrinal difficulties is amazing to me. Are you that lacking in Faith? Or rather that uncharitable to your brothers and sisters?
Excuse me, Ann Malley, but I HAVE been to the SSPX website, and with all due respect, it does NOT answer why your founder illegally ordained bishops and priests without the permission of Rome, and continues to treat Vatican II as though it is some optional add-on. You come on here and treat faithful catholics uncharitably and then turn around and accuse us of treating heretical bishops uncharitably. Please get real.
Ann malley, I am the second anonymous poster and I have looked at what the SSPX considers difficulties and it is on them. Just like St. John Paul II said-they misunderstand the documents.
Anonymous, you are the only one who promotes the heresy you mention.
As to what is on the website of those you calumniate, you may want to deter others from investigating what they truly believe, but your predicating it on your own inability to understand is no obstacle.
You reject even the most basic logic on a regular basis.
That is why you are attempting to distract from the reality that Seminaries have been, and for a long time, beset by an invasion of VICE. Why would you want to detract from getting that message out, Anonymous? Why wouldn’t you want the Vatican to be crystal clear in all it’s pronouncements?
Janek is correct. SSPX and FSSP seminaries are grown to near bursting. Why? Because the true Faith is…
Then why not petition the Holy Father to clarify the documents that are so easily misinterpreted? The CCC was swiftly revised from version 1 to version 2 to correct that which was grossly misleading.
After all, faithful Catholics are even now petitioning Francis for clarity on marriage, Anonymous. Or is that a wasted effort what with all the novel interpretations floating around – even within Catholic circles. The Holy Father, a single and highly visible authoritative source, could clear up all the nonsense. He could even state that there is no need to acknowledge all of V2 as integral to tradition, since it was a pastoral council that only sought to extrapolate on existing doctrine.
This is why, Anonymous, the onus of clarity is…
on the author, or, in this case, the body with the necessary credentials to clarify. Otherwise responsibility for the myriad misinterpretations can be placed squarely on the ones who refuse to clarify their meaning.
There are so many anonymous posters now that it is getting confusing. who you are responding to but. But…
This website is about the Catholic Church and things of interest to Catholics. Can we just stick to that instead of bringing up boring stuff from other religions.
Steve, contrary to what you’ve been indoctrinated with the SSPX has not taken the same path as Martin Luther. That is absurd. For if this were the truth, then your statement that you need the Society to help strengthen the Body of the Church would be ridiculous. Luther was a heretic who changed doctrine.
What we need are Faithful Catholics to build up the Body of the Church. That is why the Society is where it is, keeping Faith with the truth despite the slings and arrows of comments such as yours and just being consistent in their position – unlike Voris at CMTV who dodges and weaves and has taken to throwing superiority stones despite his own record:
Ann, truth be known, I don’t know a lot about SSPX nor have I received indoctrination against them. The important parallel with Luther that I spoke of is the following.
Both Martin Luther and SSPX bishops had been excommunicated and both eventually had the excommunication lifted. But, despite the lifting of the excommunication, neither the Lutherans nor SSPX have returned to communion with the Holy See.
These fractures continue and I, personally, don’t think that SSPX will ever return to full communion with the Catholic Church.
Steve, while I appreciate your zeal, it is precisely because you, personally, do not have the understanding required to assess the situation that you make the Luther comparison.
These ‘fractures’ with what the Church actually teaches and has always taught is precisely why we’re having articles like this one on CCD.
Steve understands the situation a whole lot better than AM.
I think you may have misunderstood some of what I was saying. The fractures that I was speaking of where those of schism or of a lack of full communion with the Holy See. While my Lutheran comparison is not perfectly identical (obviously), it’s similar in that SSPX and the Lutherans have not returned to full communion. My personal opinion was only in regard to my sad prediction that the SSPX will not return to full Communion with the Church.
What exactly are the issues that SSPX is having with the Vatican?
Steve, what you fail to see is the “official” distancing of practice from doctrine in the aftermath of VII. That’s at the root of the issue. As for details of positions, you’ll have to do your own searching. But again, your comparison to the Lutherans is not accurate.
My statement regarding SSPX and the Lutherans was a simple one. Is your argument because you think that SSPX is in full communion with the Holy See?
In regard to a distancing of practice from doctrine, this is a bit vague to me. Is the complaint primarily about ecclesiology or is it with Canon Law?
Simple and incorrect, Steve. The Lutheran ‘faith’ is not the Catholic Faith. The Society is Catholic, that is one may find the Catholic Faith there, whole and entire. No novelties, additions, or modern play on ‘Catholic’ doctrine. This is why there is no declaration of schism or heresy. Because there is none. (Refer to Bishop Schneider’s prudential statements.)
As to particulars, again, you will have to and can very easily do your own research outside a Cal-Catholic blog post. To venture forth in such discussions without this background, however, is to expound on vagaries.
I think I now understand your point. At issue is the definition of Catholic. The ancient definition which is the same definition today is the following: A bishop is Catholic if he is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It follows, therefore, that a person is Catholic if their bishop is Catholic. Catholic is not strictly defined by a set of doctrines or liturgy but by communion with the Holy See. So, if you call SSPX Catholic, you’ll have to prove that they are in full communion with the Holy See. They weren’t after their bishops were excommunicated and, from what I can tell, they aren’t today.
A person is Catholic if they are baptized Catholic and are not in apostasy, heresy or schism.
Steve, God love you, but you rather need to prove that the Society isn’t Catholic. And that you cannot do, friend. That is why there is no schism and no charge of heresy. There is no basis.
What you should do, however, since you find the subject matter something upon which you’d like to comment, is educate yourself thoroughly. And not by going to scare sites or making sweeping statements.
That is why I am not listening to ‘what you can tell.’
Here’s the proof that SSPX is not Catholic. Bishop Lefebvre and company excommunicated themselves per Canon Law when he ordained bishops without Vatican permission. It’s not possible to be simultaneously excommunicated from the Bishop of Rome and be in communion with him? Thus, SSPX is in schism. Although the excommunications have been lifted, SSPX [and the Lutherans] have not returned to full communion with the Holy See.
Regarding my education, I’ve never been to any sort of scare website on this issue. But I have received an education in Church history, theology, and, to a lesser degree, Canon Law. And so I know basic things. It’s out of truth that I post on this issue: not because of an agenda. But if I have a…
I also noticed something. Once we got down to your actual complaints, you started to falsely attack me rather than my argument, and you had difficulty offering a specific counter argument to my argument. This suggests that you’re not arguing from truth but from other motivations. Or, it means that your knowledge is insufficient for this subject.
But your statement, “I am not listening to ‘what you can tell'”, tells me that you’re afraid something.
Ann, what is your fear of learning the truth about SSPX?
Ann Malley, it is really time for you to stop promoting your own personal belief system here. It is very obvious from your writings that you do not accept the Faith or the Truth. I cannot imagine any SSPX priest would support your ideas.
And stop picking on Michael Voris.
Steve Seitz is probably right. The SSPX does not want communion with the Church. Why should it? They don’t have to obey anybody, they can do whatever they want without asking anyone’s permisssion and people are giving them lots of money because they tell them what they want to hear. Like you don’t have to go to Mass on Sunday if you don’t like it.
Anonymous, you need a rest. As to the MV and SSPX distraction:
Time to wake up, friend. Articles such as this one should serve as a reminder to look to what the Church has always taught and ponder the root causes of why we’re experiencing such grave scandal in our present day.
As to ‘lots of money’ what a joke.
You should get your religion from the Bible, Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium (CCC) , NOT the internet.
I enjoyed the linked material. I have to remind you that MV is what he has always been. He has always supported our Popes. I think maybe some of his followers thought he was something he was not and are now disappointed
What grave scandal are you referring to? Promoting schism?.
The cause of issues in the Church is multifaceted. But the root cause of the contemporary issues is that there was a dramatic shift in society that started shortly after the Council ended. The impact of society on the Church is not a new concept: it’s been around since the beginning. This is why we need SSPX back in the Church so that we can fight these forces together rather than spending time fighting each other.
There are other issue but they are minor and ancillary compared to the root cause.
Janek, – Do not compare the SSPX which holds NO ministry within the Catholic Church versus – the FAITHFUL FSSP, or Institute of Christ the King.
Official Church Documentation regarding SSPX by Pope Benedict:
Fr. Z regarding sacraments of the SSPX (including Code of Canon Law) – invalid absolution of sins – https://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/08/ask-father-i-went-to-confession-at-a-sspx-parish-for-several-years/
Ted – stop ignoring the valid doctrinal difficulties that are even now being worked through by those with the proper authority and grace of state.
The issue at hand is the grave problem of those with homosexual sexual inclinations being admitted to Holy Orders and now, by way of ‘official’ Synod’s, attempting to assert perversions of practice to circumvent Catholic doctrine.
Let’s stay on point, please.
Ann, the SSPX teaching video on their own web site states that it is sinful to attend an OF Mass.
They completely ignore that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday as well. Based on their own teaching – they are heretics.
Look at the SSPX video embedded in the written statement. (See video here).
The Video can be found on the SSPX web site as well.
Ted, I am well aware. I am also aware of the muck raking going on at CMTV. Voris is now using and dismissing His Excellency Bishop Schneider.
….and, Ted, based on their own teaching they are not heretics. Rather you have been hyperinflated by CMTV to believe as much. Again, understand that those in Rome and Bishop Schneider et all are well aware of the position of the group you would disparage.
Oh, and Ted, you may want to take a gander at:
Perhaps you should be accusing others of heresy.
The “valid doctrinal difficulties that are now being worked through” are the valid complaints that the Vatican has with SSPX’s dissmissal of Vatican II. FYI. You have said all along on the one hand that SSPX has no doctrinal disuptes with Rome and therefore should enjoy full communion, and on the other hand you say that Rome herself has left true doctrine behind. This is the problem with SSPX. It can’t make up its own mind about its own doctrinal issues with Rome! How can we affect a reunification if you can’t make up your own mind about whether you have a doctrinal dispute with Vatican II and therefore with the Roman Pontiff?
…when have I stated there were no doctrinal issues? Yet again we have Anonymous disputing with himself.
As to what is at issue, chatter on at will, distract as much as you’d like, but the fruits of V2 ambiguities are there for all to see. And grave crisis is its name.
If you have a call to learn something about an organization go to them and ask what is their position. Pretty simple, Anonymous. But again, something you refuse to do, just like giving yourself the accountability of a unique moniker.
But better to distract that way. And that is precisely how lurid and grotesque vice has taken such root at seminaries. Be careful, Anonymous, your true loyalties are showing.
If you watch the video at onpeterfive, you will see that Michael Voris does not commit the sins of the SSPX of telling people there is not an obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. Not only does the SSPX advise people to commit Mortal Sin, now there is a hate campaign against Michael Voris for pointing out their error and sin.
No, instead Michael facilitates the sin by sensationalizing everything he can lay his hands upon only to fall short, out of cowardice or a lack of true conviction and principle, to follow his own salacious reporting to its logical conclusion.
In other words: He supplies the wood, the matches, buys the hot dogs and buns, hauls in the kegs, gets the people riled, and then winks commenting on how cold it is only to cry fire and fire bug when others do what comes next. (The golly, gee, folks, “I” never said that is disingenuous. And why I am so entirely grateful to Bishop Schneider for being very clear in telling CM how they should conduct themselves with fellow Catholics, despite Voris’s ignoring him not once, but twice. If I were…
…His Excellency, I’d never do another spot for CM again. They’re ingrates as well as hypocrites.)
Sadder still is Voris being on the outs with his own Bishop, who demanded Voris drop “Catholic” from his organization. So the tag line of, “We’re obedient in faith and morals,” from Voris is nothing but the same reasoning CM decries as unfaithful in other organizations.
Voris is compromised and cowardly. He doesn’t want to be “that” guy, but he’ll be there to put it on film and call it out as bad so that he can make a story of it and build a cult following.
The term accessory comes to mind for Voris, but so long as he convinces himself (and his groupies) that overstepping his authority – which is zero – to calumniate…
… others for something he takes the liberty of defining as good is okay. All naysayers will be black balled or edited (…like Bishop Schneider and even Bishop Morlino. Voris even paraphrases for the Pope. That’s not filial submission, but playing the eager understudy.)
As for the hate campaign, Voris has started that with himself when he chose to disengage reason at the cost of a new warehouse and ready funding from deep pockets. This latest bit of pretending that the Society has some new, heretofore unknown position is nothing but shoddy click bait. Especially with his own CMTV video decrying the evils of the Novus Ordo Missae. If it weren’t so sad it would really, really funny.
Ann Malley, do you realize that you never respond appropriately? I used to think you were just a poor debater or that you knew your arguments were unsound so you always used ad hominem attacks. I am now starting to wonder if you just don’t really know how to debate at all. Maybe you are not interested in debate, you might just want whatever you say to be accepted and if it is not it enrages you so you become pugnacious. Or you are retaliating for the affront of someone not agreeing with you? I’m sorry to get personal, but since you do, would you mind telling us why you behave this way?
Bishop Kenneth Untener showed lewd and pornographic films to his seminarians. This is a well documented fact. Prelates such as this have been a scandal, and a source of many of the problems dealing with abusive priests. Everything these unworthy bishops have come into contact with has turned into garbage and waste. They are the cause of the disappearing church.
I agree that priest who behave in an effeminate manner can be distracting and off putting.
However, I ALSO find it annoying to encounter priests who seem to think they are jocks on the football field, with all the bravado, loud voices, and macho nonsense that makes me roll MY eyes.
It seems to me that a man, comfortable with his own skin & soul, needs neither effeminate nor macho behavior, but just needs to be real with others, God, and himself.
I can understand how a normal confident heterosexual male would be threat to a lesbians and feminists who expect men to broken and under their thumbs..Being a priest requires the ultimate in masculinity…. complete self sacrifice so a little extra testosterone may offend the certain types of women but it is necessary for the job.. Sorry ladies that we are no all neutered at birth as want us to be.
Canisius, we KNOW how you were abused by the women in your life, including your mother, and that’s sad – tragic.
However, it does not mean the rest of us have to bow before ueber-macho types who think they are impressing someone.
Of course not Stefanie, but it does mean and prove to me that certain woman cannot handle healthy, heterosexual strong men…
And it also doesn’t mean, Stefanie, that there is something wrong with a man, even a priest (and thank God for those who are) who is overtly masculine in his demeanor. WE need that. Men need that.
Some of the most overtly masculine men I’ve ever met are, by nature, the most sensitive and uber protective. And they’re priests. Go figure!
“comfortable in their own skin” that is also to say “true to themselves” that is also to say “authentic” is for me, the mark of a true Minister of the Gospel. If you are, for example, a jock pretending not to walk like a jock —- then you come off as inauthentic and you are not bringing your person to the altar. If you are effeminate – and I have to say I have actually seen very few effeminite priests although I know one deacon who is extremely effeminiate— and you try to butch it up, you come off as also inauthentic, and you too are not bringing your person to the altar.
But the Vatican’s idea that just because you are gay you cannot relate to either men or women is just utterly absurd. And we ALL know that that is absurd.
YFC, ever the sodomite partisan, gays have ZERO business in the priesthood ever.
YFC: You just bludgeoned a straw man by misrepresenting the Vatican position on ordaining homosexual seminarians. The issue that the Vatican has is that there are few homosexuals that have a sexuality that is mature enough to withstand the dynamics and stress of priesthood. Thus, the general ban on the practice of ordaining homosexuals. To my knowledge, the ban has nothing to do with anything else.
With all due respect, Steve Seitz, I don’t think the Vatican is a very good judge of who is sexually mature. Its own track record is pretty horrendous on that count. If it was a good judge of who is sexually mature, it could simply judge each candidate on a case by case basis and forget proclmations about the “suitability” of gay people en mass for ordinations, and it would apply those same criteria of sexual maturation universally – to both gay and straight seminarians. Having said that, there is nothing in the document that resembles anything like what you wrote.
YFC: I have to apologize for accusing you of bludgeoning a straw man. While I don’t retract my argument, I noticed that my accusation was unjust since the web link did, indeed, make such statements. Ordinarily, I might agree that a strict ban would be overzealous. But, in practice, homosexual priests have caused grave harm to the Church since most allegations of child molestation have involved altar boys who are in puberty or at the cusp of puberty. This is more akin to homosexuality than pedophilia. Also, most priests can testify to the gay subculture that has existed in American seminaries and they can also testify that a heterosexual, womanizing subculture has not existed.
[Continued on Next]
This gay subculture among celibates-in-training and the dearth of a heterosexual counterpart suggests that homosexuality is generally incompatible with the priesthood.
Sorry YFC – homosexuals should never be Priests,
nor should they be allowed to marry each other.
If they do not like it, find another Church.
Newsflash: The priesthood has almost always been a gay-oriented profession for the better part of 2 thousand years. We are bishops and popes and saints. And we are a better church because of it.
One of the reasons the Church sees declining attendance at mass is because of bigotted people like you, and even straight people are tired of your attitude.
Wrong YFC the priesthood is Christ oriented profession, but you are so blinded by sodomy you cannot see it.. What you call bigoted we call Truth.
YFC, you can not prove that most Priests are homosexuals right now, yet alone for the last 2000 years.
But for the last 2000 years the Church has taught Sacred Scripture – that those who commit homosexual acts – without repentance will go to HELL. And this we can prove.
SACRED SCRIPTURE – Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7.
All the Priests who abused MALE children were homosexuals. And the vast majority of cases were against MALE children.
This is precisely why, Ted, there are those who have been fighting for the integrity of doctrine that only comes by way of clarity. This is also why your assertions against fellow Catholics who have the Faith is so misplaced.
YFC is a product of post conciliar rhetoric, ushered in by that which should be clear, but has for decades remained obfuscated under the auspices of being pastoral.
…what we all know is the absurdity of your claims regarding homosexual marriage and marriage laws and now the priesthood as compared to what the Catholic Church teaches, YFC.
That is why all, including the Vatican, need to cleave to Catholic doctrine when it comes to making appropriate determinations.
The Church has a disciple about “people with deep seated homosexual tendancies”. That is different than a “teaching”, and it might actually be different than homosexuals. But then again, you are always confused about what the Church teaches, so what does it matter?
YFC you don’t even know or understand what the Church teaches as you are coming from a defective point of view .
….and your stating that the priesthood has always been a homosexual profession is further demonstration of the blind attempting to lead the blind. Go forth and sow confusion, YFC, but the Truth will always rise to refute you and yours.
Please tell me where in the catechism that homosexuals are defective? I can’t find it. Please tell me where in the Catchism it teaches that homosexuals are sinners. I can’t find it. Please tell me where in the catechism it teaches that homosexuals are unfit for the priesthood. I can’t find that either!
YFC: Did you just say that the Catholic Church does not teach that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered?
YFC: The CCC is an incredible reference document and it has great value in presenting Church teaching. However, the issue of the suitability of homosexuals for the priesthood is beyond the scope of the CCC. Also, the CCC does not say that homosexuals are sinners. But it clearly states that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to natural law, and closed to new life. This is found in CCC, paragraphs 2357 – 2359.
Steve, once again, the CCC contains all that we need to believe as Catholics. And although I have that wonderful resource in my hand I can’t find: Where again does it say that gay people are sinners or are unfit for the priesthood? Or for that matter that sinners are unfit for the priesthood? Can you please post that CCC paragraph again?
YFC sodomy ie homosexuality cries out to heaven for vengeance, what makes you think that they should be in the priesthood
YFC: The CCC is a teaching document that reflects the magisterial teachings of the Church. It doesn’t broach all subjects. If it did, it would also include Canon Law, liturgical rubrics, and other such documents. In regard to homosexuals and admission to Holy Orders, you’ll have to read the Vatican policy that governs this (I think someone posted the web link in this thread.)
The CCC doesn’t use the word “sin” much because sin requires more than just an evil act. It also requires knowledge and intent (e.g. culpability). Therefore, the CCC uses other words such as disordered, grave, depraved, etc. since culpability needs to be judged after an evil act to determine if sin has been committed.
[1 of 2, Continued]
In regard to homosexuals committing gay acts, CCC 2357 states “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
CCC 2359 states, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”
[2 of 2, End]
No Steive Seitz you know perfectly well that is NOT what I just said. You can read English, yet you chose to put words into my mouth. Not charitable my friend, not charitable.
The Church does NOT teach that homosexuals are defective.
YFC: What are you talking about? I didn’t put words in your mouth because I didn’t quote you. Are you replying to the right person?
Homosexual sex acts are intrinsically disordered, that is defective, YFC. That’s what Steve posted. And that is what the Church teaches.
You make a good point. The reason why macho is distracting is that it isn’t authentically masculine. Thus, you correctly sensed a distracting discordance.
Depends on whether or not the term macho is properly applied, Steve.
And Suzanne seems to have tagged typical male behavior – like that associated with competitive sports – as bad. That is bad, Steve. For there is nothing unnatural or out of place in a man who enjoys competitive sports. That’s rather normal.
Perhaps your expectation of what is real is not realistic, Suzanne.
A woman who is put off by that may likely have other issues with men being men.
I went back and re-read her post and she wasn’t referring to the mere playing of sports but of a type of macho pretense regarding sports. It comes down to nuance and definitions, but I would define macho as contrived masculinity, typically due to insecurity, in general, or insecurity about being masculine. It tends to be loud, boasting, and “puffed up.” A man who has a very strong, deep authentic masculinity, on the other hand, is fairly rare. But such masculinity is often understated, relaxed, unpretentious, and sound — quite different from macho.
….sometimes it comes down to being hard wired that way. Some men are, in fact, sports jocks, have been since age 9-10. They’ve been following sports teams and been rough and tumble their entire life. The idea that a man who has a very strong, deep authentic masculinity must fit a certain mold is also a matter of who is doing the observing. (A filter with a bias is no true filter.)
Too often being encouraged to think that one has it right in their perception is the greatest danger to getting to know the person beneath ‘what you think’ you see/sense. Often, going up to Father and saying, “Hey, you related to Howard Cosell or something? What’s up with that?” might be all that it takes to ‘get’ that person – IN…
Personality type, family background, current pastoral task – all of these play a role in behavior. That is why sweeping statements, to me, should be avoided. Women surely don’t like being tagged – she’s the bossy feminine type. You know, the one who doesn’t say anything, but gives you that reproving look like some hyper vigilant schoolmarm who has never actually experienced anything.
I try not to, but it’s almost a visceral reaction to act the blow hard whenever she flashes that quizzing glass.
After all, true femininity is not judgmental, but compassionate and charitable. Seeking to find the good so as to nurture it and bring it to the fore. But that too is equally RARE.
I would certainly agree with you that there are men who are macho AND who are authentically masculine. However, it would still be my opinion that most men who are “macho” actually are using this as a veneer for being insecure or immature (i.e. a boy in a man’s body). If you still maintain that most macho men are authentically masculine, we’ll just have to disagree on this point. From a Catholic perspective, the “macho” versus “masculine” issue is a minor issue.
Steve, from a Catholic perspective, that is from the rationale of logic, men are men. Let them behave as such. In this decaying age of feminism much of what has always been authentically ‘male’ is being called out as somehow inappropriate, unwanted, and/or subject to such feminine scrutiny as to become a red light for unwarranted rebuke.
This is not a minor issue, Steve. For if the lens through which one observes is dirty, the object being observed may not have all of the filthy attributes ascribed by the viewer.
That is also why I take issue with the erroneous branding of faithful, serious minded Catholics as somehow evil by other news sources. Such talk dirties the lens on purpose, and the resulting obfuscation renders no…
Regarding the attempt by society to rid it of anything masculine, we are in complete agreement.
The authentic masculine is powerful (not effeminate) and I have seen women swoon in its presence. Macho, on the other hand, often covers up psychological flaws and, thereby, is often associated with an array of dysfunctional behaviors, including spousal abuse. For this reason, while macho is not always associated with psychological dysfunction, it more typically is. Therefore, I tend to view macho in a negative way.
Steve Steitz you are correct Macho in hispanic culture is a negative thing, its a man with an ego totally opposite of what Jesus asks of men from Holy scriptures.
Ann, by the way, we agree on the main point about the cultural assault on masculinity. However, I have a feeling that we probably won’t agree on our views of masculine versus macho. Since this is a minor issue, I think we should just agree to disagree on this point.
….truth, save that of the desire to perpetuate bias. That is not Christlike, nor what the Catholic Church teaches.
Suzanne i dont know how to take your comments. Im just shaking in disbelieve. Spend an hour at adoration. There Jesus will tell you.
Anti-Clericalism comes directly from Rome who would ever have thought that would happen, but hey Vatican II did that and the current Pope only adds to it!!!!
Janek, since you attack Rome, the Ecumenical Council, and the Holy Father, what is left for you?
Perhaps you should send in $19.95 and get “ordained” and start your own Jesus Likes Me Best sect, like so many other know-it-alls throughout the ages have done.
As for me and my house, we will stay with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with all her virtues and problems.
Yay Susanne an hour at adoration showing through. Thank you for that. Janek sorry you pretty much have asked for that one.
Perhaps Suzanne Janek refuses to be blinded by the nonsense spewing from this pontificate, when the Pope is wrong he is wrong.. the coming Synod will probably lead to a schism as the liberals desire to openly defy the words of Christ Himself.
Purging society of authentic masculinity was a major goal of the Frankfurt School started around 1923 in Germany. The Frankfurt School intellectuals sought the complete destruction of Western Civilization via the ‘long march through the institutions’ to achieve the ‘social revolution’ of Marxist Communinsm
Read more link here: https://www.whale.to/c/frankfurt_school1.html
Quote from link cited above:
The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by…
I’m old enough to remember Bishop Fulton Sheen’s weekly televised sermons. He was an accomplished theologian and excellent speaker. But given the subject at hand, I can’t help recalling his flourishing of that dang cape. He gave his contemporary Loretta Young a run for her money in the sashaying department.
The (Frankfurt) School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family – an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written (“Communist Manifesto”) disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’
Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.
They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory.
Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.
The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.
More about the Frankfurt School found in recently published (August 2015) “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace” by Michael Walsh. Subtitle: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West.
This commentary has certainly opened my eyes. I suppose that I have been so used to the woman-dominant church that I have been immersed in, that I failed to realize it. One thing I know as a woman, I am very uncomfortable with the Catholic Churches that seem to be dominated by women staff. I simply don’t relate to them. As for the “effeminate” nature of many in our seminaries/parishes, I would tend to call it the “L’il Abner’ syndrome.” I don’t like it. I gravitate toward the stronger male model of the priesthood. Is there a cross with Christ crucified prominent in the parish? Or is it the Risen Christ? That says a lot about the focus of the parish.(In my opinion).
the people who design the Church picked the Crucifix. In my Church, those people are dead. It tells you nothing about what it going on in the parish now. go to your assigned parish.
Jesus picked the Crucifix.
Spoken like a true leftist totalitarian..
I am neither.
Father James Mason has it exactly right! He nails it!
Yes, we need MEN to serve as priests, and also as politicians. Without godly politicians the priests, if any, are confined to closets or prisons.
Remember the Iron Curtain? Which is rearing it ugly head again? Here? Today?
The leadership of the left is well aware of this, which is why they have almost succeeded in totally decimating masculinity. Notice the reactions to Donald Trump! They are outraged not by his political positions, but by his MASCULINITY! This is the real reason for their shock! And their desperate attempts to bring him down. So far, the more they try, the more popular he becomes!
Which is also true for the few good MASCULINE priests remaining today!
I attended St Patricks Seminary in Menlo Park,California,from 1978 to 1982. While I don’t claim to remember everything and everyone from those years,I do
remember my classmates.One had been a coal miner in Utah.Another had been a varsity sports star in high school.Another had been a whitewater river guide in Idaho.Another had been an Army captain.These were some tough guys.I don’t remember anyone being effeminate
As a matter of scientific fact, we are each born with hormones associated with both genders. Socialization impacts each of us heavily in ways we are mostly unaware of. If females were encouraged to act like Amazons, it seems likely that more would do so. I would prefer a society in which each of us was delighted with, or at least gracefully accepted, the gender God assigned to us before birth, and a culture in which each gender was considered equally valuable, as well as free to take up whatever hobbies, interests, careers and responsibilities are most appealing or most necessary. For the survival of a family, each parent should be able to fulfill both parents’ role, in case of the absence of the opposite parent. All people should be…
I remember when Fr. Francis Mary Stone from EWTN was held up as a model of masculinity. Video clips would often show him playing basketball, like that picture that is shown above. Sadly, he was living a double life and ended up getting a woman pregnant. He was using his overt masculinity to hide much deeper problems that he had. Now he and the woman are going through a very nasty divorce, with all sorts of allegations like child abuse. Very sad story https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/03_04/2015_03_25_Greg_com_Catholic_abuse.htm
….or, John, Fr. Francis may have just liked to play basketball.
Why is it that this article against “feminine” priests and seminarians shows boys playing basketball in long black skirts?
If seminarians are going to jog, or swim, or play football, should they not have the good sense to dress appropriately?
We had a newly ordained priest here in our San Francisco parish, very over-weight (never a good sign in a young man who is to lead God’s people), who chose to jog wearing shots and a Roman collar.
Report any Priest who is dressed inappropriately to the Diocese Bishop.
(The Priests in the picture are not wearing long black skirts they are CASSOCKS, just as Jesus and His apostles did not wear dresses.
Learn your Church history.)
Ted B., I’m sure the bishop is just DYING to get calls about his priests who are out jogging, or swimming laps, or playing soccer, or hiking, and “dressed inappropriately.”
You should volunteer in your chancery office and field all these calls, then you’d learn what kooky feels like on the receiving end.
Anonymous, if you work in a Chancery Office, YOU are an enormous part of the problem.
You lie – no one said anything about playing sports, and then you probably hide things from the Bishop to suit your own personal beliefs. Then the Bishop gets blamed for not doing his job.
An Anonymous poster who works at the chancery office – that explains a lot. A stint at volunteering there would be very educational.
Thanks for the heads up.
Toseanne, look back through Church history and I believe you will find there are worthy men indeed, priests and saints, who were overweight even before all of our labor saving devices and terribly unhealthy American eating habits. We need to be supportive of young priests, tall or short, skinny or fat, handsome or unfortunate in appearance, and grateful to God for them, and the same for nuns as well, of course. When you come to realize how challenging it is to become a priest, you may feel a bit humbled by having negatively judged a newly ordained priest on such a superficial matter.
Hmm…being mordibly obese (as this young priest was before being sent away for retooling) is not a “superficial matter,” Maryanna Leonard, any more than a preist falling down drunk is “superficial.”
It makes a statement about the person’s well-being, his balance, and whether he is indeed a good role model for his flock.
I believe I’m from the same parish as the original poster, because I think I know this same young man and he, thanks be to God!, has turned his life around, losts lots of weight, and is no longer a scandal to his parish.
This is what we need to know regarding homosexuality:
SACRED SCRIPTURE: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7. DOCTRINE of the FAITH: CCC # 2357, 2358, 2359, 2396.
” Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Everyone should adhere to these or leave the Catholic Church. PERIOD !
TED B. All posters have an opinion. They do not matter.
No homosexuals should be Priests, and should not apply – or be approved.
Thanks for the link to the Vatican requirements for the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies – so we can all know the TRUTH.
Accuracy is important. Opinions are not. I will save the link for future use.
“I remember when Fr. Francis Mary Stone from EWTN was held up as a model of masculinity…”
Oh, just terrific – another model of masculinity.
Just like the infamous Father Corapi.
Priests don’t need to act macho any more than nuns need to act dainty: they can just be themselves, authentic.
If it’s good enough for God, it should be good enough for us.
I want to thank the author for this article. I was a novice monk at a monastery and a number of seminarians came to stay with us for retreats. They recounted the deplorable conditions in the seminaries as described here, and worse. This was in the early 80s. But, the article did not address the root of this problem is fatherlessness. It is also the root of the general social crisis in general. We are born male and female but we do not know how to be male or female from genetics like other animals. As part of our human freedom, we have to learn how, and the family is the normal place to learn. But, without models and without nature and reason as reference, everything is confused. In confusion you cannot decide or maintain decisions. I know…