It’s another hot season for high-ranking church officials making comments to the media. You may have heard about Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke’s recent assignment to patron of the Order of Malta. I will refrain from commenting on that because I don’t really know the story. I do know how to read an interview, though, so when a friend invited me to read the interview the cardinal gave to the New Emangelization blog, I approached it with an open yet discerning mind.
Having read the full interview, I think many readers’ instant reactions of shock and anger clouded them to the good that is there.
I actually think the cardinal makes a reasonable point in saying that women’s issues have been addressed to the detriment of men’s. That’s not to say that women’s issues don’t need addressing. They absolutely do. However, it is a consequence of the Fall that men have wielded power over women in order to cause them great suffering. Our fallen state is not a goal. Sin is not our ideal. On the other hand, there’s no need to force out or degrade men for the sake of women; that’s disordered, too. When I read Captivating and then turned to Wild at Heart hoping for more, I could sense a deep need in both gender-specific Christian spiritualities for a fuller understanding of man and woman together. That is the goal. The Theology of the Body is about man and woman in relationship. Neither makes sense without the other, so women’s issues ought to be important to men, and men’s issues ought to be important to women. The cardinal’s image of children learning about the complementarity of man and woman around the family dinner table has been lost to history. The sad state of family life today shows that something went terribly wrong.
It is also important to note that the Church is traditionally considered female (e.g. receiving female pronouns and being called “the Bride of Christ”). She’s not “feminized”; she is feminine. This tradition is making a slow return, even among those who might blame radical feminism for problems within the Church. Feminism should not be a scapegoat.
Men’s behaviors and dress matter, for it affects how they relate to the world and it affects the culture.
Perhaps some of what rubbed so many people the wrong way about Cardinal Burke’s comments is that much of what he says is unfortunately applicable to both men and women. We’re coming out of a generation of poor catechesis for boys and girls alike, but old devotions and styles of liturgy are slowly returning. Many people my age didn’t understand the beauty of the Mass before, but we sure do now. Addictions to pornography and a disordered view of love, sex, and marriage plague both men and women, but the genius of the Theology of the Body has been unpacked and joyously disseminated as an antidote. Much of my generation grew up with divorced and remarried parents, but we’re opening our hearts to believe in lifelong love and see children as a gift, even if we have to visit four houses at Christmas to cover all the grandparents. So many people and so many priests are afraid to call a sin a sin, but opening wide our souls and throwing them upon the unending mercy of God is the way to true freedom. Men and women alike need a new evangelization. Maybe we can work toward a brighter future together.
Learning that it is not manly to be vulgar or blasphemous and that a man is welcoming and courteous to others; these might seem like little things but they form a man’s character. Much of this has been lost.
Cardinal Burke highlights some specific characteristics of men’s spirituality: desiring a challenge, being attracted to mystery and the sacred, and sacrificing to benefit others. That sounds reasonable to me, but being a woman, I’m never quite going to be able to identify men’s spirituality as well as an actual man could. So I issue a call to male readers: Do you agree? Do those sound like things that specifically attract men to God? And female readers: Is that what draws you to God? What would you name as an important characteristic of female spirituality?
If you think Cardinal Burke was so wrong, what do you think is right?
The cardinal may have said that a true understanding of sexuality, equality between men and women, and rich family life are the “most treasured gifts” today’s adults didn’t receive from our parents, but I think there is much more hope for the future than he indicates. Women and men deserve respect, freedom, and love. That knows no gender divide.
Some thoughts:
(1) I agree that “feminization” is perhaps not the right word choice, since the relevant consideration is primarily the loss of a traditionally masculine sensibility about the faith rather than the introduction of a novel feminine one. Moreover, women don’t seem to find the faith much more appealing than men do nowadays: both are leaving the faith in large numbers; women are just leaving in slightly less large numbers.
(2) The Church is certainly “feminine” but not in the sense of “exhibiting feminine sensibilities.” Rather she is feminine by virtue of the fact that she is receptive to God’s life-giving activity, in much the same way that a woman is receptive to the life-giving activity of a man (hence why St. Paul admonishes women to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ). This is the same relation which the Son plays to the Father, yet no one imagines the Son is “feminine” in the colloquial sense.
(3) So the relevant issue is that the Church in its practical, lived reality has been de-masculinized. We see this in endless, mindlessly affirmational homilies about how much God loves us (we get it already!); in syrupy and un-challenging music produced by tambourine-and-acoustic-guitar “choirs”; in the reluctance to go on the offensive in the culture wars; in the perceived need to appease the Church’s enemies, who bully her relentlessly; etc. We see it too in clerical sexual degeneracy, which is why Muslims and evangelical Protestants have made inroads into Catholic populations by painting us as “the gay Church.”
This stuff is unappealing to men precisely because it is unchallenging — because the task for men is to separate themselves from the feminine sphere in which they were raised in order to acquire confidence and achievement so that, when they return to it by taking a wife (or a sort of husbandly role as a priest), they can do so from a position of strength and self-giving rather than weakness and neediness. A man needs a challenge to become truly a man, hence the historical need for coming-of-age rituals that always involved overcoming some great difficulty. (Women have a similar impulse to contribute to the common good in a substantive way, but they have an in-built means of achieving it: by becoming mothers, which is both very good and necessary and also challenging and dangerous). It’s hard to find challenge in modern Catholicism, which is why there is a significant outflow to Orthodoxy: it’s a tough religion, with rigorous rules of fasting, a cluttered and complex liturgical calendar, and a difficult spirituality to master.
A little anecdote. My own conversion was the fruit of reading books, not of interacting with the Church in any material way. Years before I even had contemplation on my mind, a (girl)friend took me to Mass in our college town. It was a pretty standard-fair type Mass for many American parishes, but I was immediately repulsed and annoyed by the cloying banality of it all. I could (in my ignorance) see no reason why any self-respecting man would desire to be a part of it. Had it been a higher affair, what with chant and incense and bells and (God forbid!) Latin, I might’ve considered conversion a lot more carefully than I then had.
Thanks, Sean! That’s an awesome response. Your first and second points are right in line with what I was thinking (and what I hope I actually wrote). I didn’t touch on the father relationship as one that teaches us to love and be loved from a distance (as opposed to a mother’s “closer” love), but Cardinal Burke did, actually. Thank you for adding your perspective.
The time worn pessimist in me figures you’ll just dismiss anything I say you don’t agree with as the opinion of “no true scottsman” but its an interesting questions so sure I give a few thoughts on “male spirituality
1) Do men desire a challenge:
Oh hell yes. If you look at it this is evident in every other aspect of masculinity. Our Carrear choices. Our hobbies. The fictional characters we celebrate. Wouldn’t it be shocking if this wasn’t an aspect of our spirituality. At a core level men feel this need to prove themselves. This can be destructive at times, but it really is a powerful God designed way to motivate Men. If you raise the bar and act like they can reach it. Men will try to reach for it.
2) Attraction to mystery:
I think allot of the Cardinals ideas would work but not for the reason he claims. In a way I think its backwards. Any soul will be inherently drawn to the mystical power of Christ. A genuine encounter with that power will have a strong effect on anyone Male and Female alike. But by and large I think Women are the real mystics of the church. Because I think Women have are far more in touch with that force. They have an easier time reaching that encounter. Men have to overcome a innate tendency towards rational concrete either or thinking and a learned (partly) tendency to repress their own core feelings. I think Burke is probably right though a higher church atmosphere can be one effective tool in piercing those blocks. If you can get through the walls Men are no different than Women in their attraction to Christ. Interestingly when I though over some of my most profound mystical experiences many of them where in more formal prayer experiences and …lead by Women… If Women really want to attract Men to church I think they might have a natural tool their. Take the places you find most mystically drawn to. Use whatever tools you have to highlight that mystical presence and then invite Men in. What? You think its Blasphemous to point out Women’s spiritual gifts maybe important to Male spirituality. Sigh,,, Also I think the all Male ministers thing would attract some more Men. But it would have other consequences. I wouldn’t recommend it.
3) sacrificing to benefit others:
Huh? You can’t have any authentic Christian spirituality without sacrificing for the other. I don’t see how this could be considered exclusive to Men.
Hmmm, On the other hand one of the negative off shoots of the many philosophies sometimes loosely called “feminism” is a attack on the self sacrificing Male. Think about it, how often have you heard it claimed that any time a Man does something for a Women he shouldn’t be encouraged but held in suspicion. It seems like any time Men do the right thing and are generally “nice guys” someone is looking around for our secret agenda. I’m not trying to prescribe this to all women who identify with one of the philosophies sometimes referred to as “feminism” but this is something that exists now in our culture. Its something the Church could do more to work against. The stereotype that Men are innately more self centered than Women and that Men who act more altruistically where somehow weak or tricked into doing so.
Hmm….
4) I can think of one difference between Male and Female spirituality I don’t think he touched on. The way Men react to other Men is very different than the way Women react with other Women. Specifically their is much more an since of hierarchy and team work among Men than their is in Women.
In a way this should make it easier for Men to fit into the church than Women. I mean the idea of a common goal, with clear leadership and obedience. It just sounds like more of a masculine environment doesn’t it. But the trend these days on spiritual work is to just take a bunch of people of the same gender put them in the same room together and have them you know “relate” to each other. I don’t think this is the way Men operate. Men don’t need to “relate” to other Men so much as they need role models to fallow. Structure and clear goals make more since than random dialogues. And it helps Men to understand their role and the roles of others to form a team. I sometimes find it kind of Patronizing when the Church tries to “relate” to men. Like my struggles are the same as every other males struggles. I don’t want to “go it alone” but recognize my path is unique and I have a unique place within the church. You better get to know *me* before you start giving me to much advice.
:Shrug: that’s just my random conjecture anyway. Do with it as you will…
I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.
I’m with you on the challenge part. I work with mostly men, so I’ve gotten up close and personal with that. I don’t think it’s blasphemous to say that women might attract men into the mysteries of the Church. Any man will go after a woman if she’s what he wants, and if she’s headed toward Christ, he’ll probably go there, too. And I agree that sacrifice is demanded of both sexes.
“A common goal, with clear leadership and obedience” describes most military organizations, come to think of it. It makes sense that the Church Militant would operate in the same way. You might be on to something there.
As I said, since you *are* a man, your opinion about male spirituality is going to come from a much stronger place than anything I could say. Thank you for commenting!
Burke’s statements: blames women for men not attending Church, women are responsible for the Clergy’s pedophilia, Men don’t like being with women. It seems to me Burke has been influenced by the MGTOW movement and like them thinks women should not have the vote, not have access to education, not own property or have assets, have no control over their bodies. Essentially, he is a Muslim.
I think women should leave the Catholic Church, join other Christian sects (I don’t suggest Mormonism), and leave the boys to their boys club.
A retired FEMALE Pastor