CDNowak
This is not a manly man:
This is:
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he…
I fail to see a contradiction here. A man can be strong, brave, a warrior and yet be imitators of the “Lord of armies”. In fact it is only rather recently that a man could not be capable of defending his loved ones and still adequately provide for them.
I touched on a bit of who your hatted servant is earlier, (Once a person has picked the wrong vocation,…). In that post, which centered around my discernment struggles, I alluded to another major factor in who I am today.
As ugly as my vocation stray has been, it is a picture of absolute serenity compared to my life growing up.
I grew up in an abusive household, it took me nearly thirty years to actual put the name to it, but it was always clear that something wasn’t right.
My mother ruled the house through fear: of her directly, of nebulous forces like the ‘school district’ and ‘DYFS’ (which had no real meaning to us as young children), of the rage she would elicit from our father and then release at us.
I have lost my father, twice. First, as I entered adolescence and a young age when she pit us against each other (threatening to kick one or other of us out). Then, again, when he had a heart attack on the road after another fight.
As a result, I have spent my entire life looking for an example of masculinity. I knew from experience, that uxoriousness was a vice, and a deadly one at that. There were a few figures who stood strong, but no full relationship that could serve as a basis for initiation into manhood.
A large part of me is that 30 year old boy, raised by women that Tyler Durden appeals to. Part of me desires to be the avenging hand of God a la the Boondock Saints, or V. But I know that these inclinations are the last comforts of puerile fantasies. I do not know is how to move forward, to give myself permission to call myself a man.
I do know that I find few examples of Masculinity in the Church. Parish priests have, by the conditioning of the ages become nearly as feminized as the congregations they serve. This in turn leads to a more feminine congregation, etc.
—-
Earlier versions of these posts are at RansomedHeart:
“A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo’s side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.
“I will take the Ring,” he said, “though I do not know the way.”JRRTolkien
In my last post I disclosed the second driving factor, behind this mindset of mine. Now I wish to reveal more of where my path seems to be heading.
Having been walking along the road of discernment for some time, I have observed both the glory and darkness of the process. The few devoted priests, willing to help vocations to any order or diocese, woefully uninformed in variety of spiritual charisms in the many orders. The vocations directors reduced to bribery. Those who regard only a vocation to their own order as a true vocation. (And that is just first impressions from a walk through of the Steubie Vocations Fair in a Stones shirt!)
The vocational process, such as it is and has become, has failed me. I dare say that it fails a majority of those in discernment. This is not something new, the crisis of priests leaving the priesthood was a rather big indicator that something was wrong. The crisis in the seminaries that grew into the sexual abuse crisis afterwards was a sign of mal-correction. The current trend back to the forms and formats of the pre-conciliar era laudable only in that it is an attempt to go back to where we went off the road.
The saints warned discerners not to delay discerning a possible call: “When Christ calls he demands such prompt obedience from us that we must not delay even an instant.” (St John Chrysostom); “when God calls someone to a more perfect state, he who does not want to put his eternal salvation in great danger must obey, and obey at once.” (St Alphonsus de Liguori); “the invitation to a more perfect life ought to be followed without delaying”. Would that their words reach the ears of our present day formators! ”Spend a year working”, “Wait a little while longer”, and in that time the fervor of the vocation falters for want of nourishment.
Or discerners are told to come to the city for guidance. Little good even the best formation at the heart of the city would be to those 60 miles away with no vehicle. Worse yet, the use of dissolute priests, who hold their Divinely Ordained vocation in contempt, as spiritual directors!
Their is a great deal said about vocations, and even a great many prayers offered. But so long as nothing is done to reach discerners where they are (physically, maturity-wise, spiritually), then we are doomed to seeing the entire world become truly mission territory.
—-
So where does that leave your hatted servant? Well-exposed, for sure. ;)
There has been one, ‘temptation’ I can no longer call it, avenue of discernment with me from the time of my Confirmation: founding. The very word fills my head and heart with an astounding mix of joy and abject terror! It is perhaps only this that lets me know the call that I heard in my youth has not passed me entirely by.
I propose to explore an order of priests, serving in parishes, grounded in a (not yet solidified) masculine spirituality. Life in community, a dedication to evangelizing men, to being a masculine presence in the parish. In that I see a myriad of possibilities for the arrangement of particulars: habits, rules for the common life, rules for enclosure, and discipline, austerity, liturgical life. I could, at a moment’s notice lay out 3 or 4 variations of this proposed order, each stirring my courage and strength.
Ok, so I have been using the term Masculine Spirituality rather freely (both in a qualitative and quantitative sense), as in this thread.
It was prudently suggested that I explain it, so here we go.
I admit that I am drawing substantially from the works of Leon Podels (Church Impotent) and John Eldridge (Wild at Heart), Fr. Stefano Manelli, FI (Come & Follow Me), as well as possibly from sources I cannot remember from my own observation and intuition. I intend to, in order to better articulate my position, finish reading John Paul II’s Theology of the Body series.
The Masculine Spirituality I refer to (hereafter MS) is not a well defined concept. It is a reaction to the feminization of the Church*, and to that end I’ll start with a simplistic summation.
Like ChesterBelloc, I do tend to look for a remote root cause of modern ills, and Mr Podles lays out a strong case against Origen for this one (although early records put the issue “mothering monks” at the same time). Origen is, as far as we know, the first to interpret the Song of Songs as a love song between Christ and the individual soul. Rabbinical tradition and other Fathers interpreted the Bride corporately (ie, Israel or the Church). Several 100 years later this interpretation is adopted by one of the most influential saints in the history of the Church: St Bernard of Citeaux. This is the source of the belief that all souls are feminine (in relation to Christ, at least).
St Bernard and the Cistercians, after preaching the crusades, found themselves increasingly occupied with the care of sister houses, and thus the more inclined to the somewhat odd (among men) affectations of being the Bride of Christ became increasingly prevalent. St Dominic apparently attempted to keep his Order of Preachers from the issues arising from having too many members tied to the care of women, but to no avail.
As time passed Asceticism and theology were artificially separated from spirituality. (Podels blames the Scholastics, but I cannot join in that assertion at this time.) The history of Christianity until the period before the Reformation could be well described as a series of battles or contests: Survival & Persecution, Early Heresies & Councils, Monasticism & the Desert, a second round of Heresies and Islamic threat. In that case the third round of heresies was a battle lost, in many ways, before the actual battles of the Reformation. It is important to note that this is the second ‘loss’. (The first would be the Schism).
This gave birth to a new battle, the counter-reformation & renewed persecution. Followed by missionary expansion. followed by politics and the Enlightenment (a second loss). Since then, despite the grand flourishes of Triumphalism, there has been a series of losing battles.
Post-Vatican II we add liturgy to the sundered branches of spirituality, effectively leaving the affective branch as the dominant spirituality of the Church. [/end history]
By promoting MS, I intend not so much as to propose anything new, or even exclusively masculine, but to rediscover what made men (viri) resonate with the Word for over a century. In many ways it seems that the challenge of Catholicism fully lived is the turning point, but that also means Catholicism not owned by many of the pious devotions that have replaced a deeper spirituality.
So the masculine spirituality I would promote is one built on asceticism, the liturgy and theology. Special attention would be given to hierarchical nature of Creation and man’s role within that hierarchy, and the need to defend and proclaim the faith.
Rather than the bridal imagery, I would use that of John protecting Our Blessed Mother, of Paul’s “good fight”, of Bonifice and Francis Xavier (destroyers of idols).
Practically, I believe that reawakening the aspects of spirituality that appeal to the natural virtues of men (and then letting grace build upon nature), must be a gradual process. First we must reclaim traditional masculine roles and spaces (the sanctuary), then reestablish the hierarchical nature of preparation for the priesthood (minor orders).
—
*by the femininzation of the Church, I refer to two trends: the trend of men to adopt traditionally feminine psychological stances in their spirituality and the more recent flight of men from the Church.
Ok, so I have been using the term Masculine Spirituality rather freely (both in a qualitative and quantitative sense), as in this thread.
It was prudently suggested that I explain it, so here we go.The role of all people is passive in relation to Christ and in that sense “feminine” (if femininity is reduced to passivity.) Thus the Church is and described as female, and male religious take on a “feminine” role. “Masculine spirituality” would seem to deny that, and I don’t see how you can without also denying at least some orthodox theology.
It sounds more like you want to re-examine the physical roles of men in the church. For example, you say “By promoting MS, I intend […] to rediscover what made men (viri) resonate with the Word for over a century” and “we must reclaim traditional masculine roles and spaces.” Which, frankly, sounds a bit ominous. What male “traditional roles” in the Church have been lost? And if what you’re proposing isn’t anything “even exclusively masculine” then why masculine spirituality?
Just some thoughts.
Snipped original article for length sanity. Boy that guy is long winded. -.-
I’m challenging the assertion, first made by Origen (who had some issues in the sexual department), that we are individually feminine in relation to Christ. It is often repeated, supported using Platonic categories, but I do no believe that it is in anyway defined doctrine. (I could be wrong..)
While it is the reaction I expected, it is truly strange and saddening that reclaiming the place for men in religion is ominous. Considering the problems plaguing the Church, is it not an essentially homosexual masculine spirituality that we ought to find disturbing?
The physical roles are the most recently compromised, in particular: 1994 (altar girls), 1983 (lay substitutes for instituted ministers not reserved to men), 1972 (suppression of the minor orders), 1970 (new Missal replaced restrictions on who was in the sanctuary, allowed for the previous changes). They are also the easiest restored (any priest can immediately use only altar boys, restriction of the sanctuary could be permitted by any bishop). They are also the entry point to establishing the critical mass necessary to actually explore the re-integration of liturgy and hierarchy into spirituality.
It is the fundamental aspects that were once identified with spirituality (asceticism, hierarchy, theology, liturgy) that are not essentially masculine, but they appeal to men in a way the affective spirituality does not.
I have a sense that there is more in this ‘masculine spirituality’ than I can see (rather I see a fuzzy outline, but not the details). I can only propose a general framework and see what develops. In particular, I would expect a new devotionalism to arise among men, that would be rather different in character than the current devotionalism (the boldness of the Lorica, the combativeness of the Psalms).
One thing I probably have been insufficiently clear on is that I am proposing a complement to the prevailing feminine spirituality, not a replacement for it.
This has been a huge influence, confirming what I found troubling in discernment.
I don’t know for certain if it’s defined doctrine, either, but the “unarguableness” of the idea was definitely implied when the idea was presented to me by an orthodox theologian.
I forgot to thank you for engaging me on this, it is a great help in pushing me to do the due diligence and sort out my precise thoughts.
I have looked a good bit for any official status to the idea of we are all feminine in respect to God, but the closest I have found yet is in reference to the celibate life in Theology of the Body. (Oddly some of the foundational elements of TotB are where I draw a basis of my reasoning, ie the unity of body & soul.)
If saying that there ought to be separation in the roles of the sexes is setting up a conflict, then it is a necessary one. The fact that men have been replaced in their customary roles, roles derived from those of the minor clergy, is not something we should take lightly. The effect is that the sexes, as far as the practice of the faith goes, are no longer seen as complementary, but as irrelevant (except for the priest).
Altar girls are not something that is ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’, but ‘licit’ or ‘illicit’, ‘prudent’ or ‘imprudent’. They are, where permitted by the priest, where permitted by the bishop: licit, but in my mind imprudent. The practice of altar servers is derived from the usage of minor clerics to assist with the Mass. As there were generally not enough minor clerics outside the monasteries, young men and boys were allowed to fulfill this role. Rather quickly it became clear that this served as an apprenticeship to the priesthood, and a great number of priests have come from being able to serve the Mass. This is why, despite the permission to allow altar girls, the building up of a corps of young male servers is enjoined by the CDW (see: Prot N.2451/00/L).
My main preference for the EF comes not from the external, rubrical issues, but in the texts of the various Missals. The hierarchical nature of the EF is largely stripped out of the OF, replaced with a strong communal dimension. The emphasis shifted from Sacrifice (typically a male role) to Meal (more generally a feminine role).
The issue I have is not with the Rabbinical or pre-Bernardine (?) interpretation of Israel (or the Church, the new Israel) as the Bride of Christ, but with the individuation of that allegory to say that each soul is the bride of Christ. I know it is not just Origen, St. Bernard touched off a wave that permeated the Church on this subject matter, not to mention the fact that it is in complete contrast to the modern androgynous ideal.
Psychology has uncovered that, to a large extent, the earlier philosophers were correct in noting the different inclinations of men and women. Traits like aggression is more common among men than women, and empathy more common among women. To say that one is masculine and the other feminine is to merely note that one pertains more universally to one sex than the other. (Hence the non-exclusively masculine…) I don’t believe that the analogy is only applied in terms of passivity, but also in terms of empathy, responsiveness, and a sense of maternity. These traits do tend to be more common among women.
God, while generally not describable as male (Jesus being the exception), is still considered Masculine (hence Our Father, not mother or parent). This is carried into bridal spirituality in an erotically-tinged way: Jesus becoming a lover or spouse (with lengthy contemplation on His touch and kisses). The affective (roughly, emotional) nature of this spirituality creates the conflict with men whose path to agape with Christ is not based on Eros but Philia.
For men to (emotionally, spiritually, mentally) invest in the Church, there has to be some hope of them being fed, and not told that he ought to be more like a woman (we’ve had that in schools enough, thank you). So, in part, the goal is to draw men in, not by any shallow means, but by presenting them with a real option for a spiritual life.
I recommend Leon Podel’s Church Impotent for a more detailed explanation of the issue from a more broad Christian context (although a great deal is necessarily based on the development and trends in Catholicism). Of interest is the fight of male religious orders at the beginning of the crisis to avoid over-fraternity with women, a fight that was quickly lost.
On the Spiritual care and feeding of men, I would recommend Wild at Heart or Way of the Wild at Heart by John Eldridge, who has done yeoman’s work at giving a face to the issue. Along with that there has been a good number of psychological works on the subject of boys and education that sheds light on the formational aspects that we ought to address.
