That’s the New York Times’ housebroken Catholic Conservative Ross Douthat gratuitously groveling before the coven of witches seeking to further feminize the Church. You can spot his knee-jerk effort to preemptively mollify his paymasters by its incoherence. Note to Ross: Nuns and abbesses are laywomen, in that they’re not ordained clergy.
The prominent Catholic commentators bending over backwards to state their support for granting women voting rights at Bishops’ synods are thinking as the world does. Two thousand years of Catholic teaching affirm the existence of two sexes with differing and complementary roles. This manufactured controversy over the recent synod is just a cynical power grab orchestrated by feminist heretics.
NB: Male superiors-general of religious orders have long held voting rights at ecumenical councils while female superiors have not, yet we’re supposed to perceive the continuance of this ancient tradition at a less important synod as a particularly grievous affront. Right.
It’s telling that at a crisis point in Church history when many young people–especially young men–are turning apostate, many in the Catholic hierarchy and press are calling for more of the same bad medicine. The bishops met to address issues concerning the Church’s youth. Funny how for the last few decades, “appealing to young people” has meant appealing to people who were young fifty years ago.
Here’s what no one in the Church or Western society as a whole wants to face: bringing women in is the best way to drive men out. That statement may sound counterintuitive. Based on males’ romantic pursuit of females, you might be tempted to assume that men want to be around women all the time. Wrong. Due to the aforementioned different yet complementary sex roles, apart from romantic interest and reproductive necessity, most men would rather not associate with women.
Still don’t believe me? Pay attention next time you’re at Mass. What’s the ratio of male to female altar servers, lectors, choir members, and extraordinary ministers? There was a time within the living memory of many people reading this blog when most–if not all–of those people would’ve been dudes.
“But women are only filling those roles because men refuse to step up!” I can hear you object. You’ve got it backwards. Men are avoiding participation at Mass because worldly activists pushed women into those roles.
We’ve previously discussed the obscene government funds the USCCB gets in return for aiding and abetting the demographic replacement of Americans with foreign invaders. [By the way, guess which voter demographic disproportionately supports mass immigration.] Building the Wall is a necessary step toward purifying the Church in America. Just as vital is reversing the destructive trend toward feminization by reinvigorating the Church with a dose of salutary masculinity.
Here are some steps American pastors and bishops can take to make the Mass masculine again:
- Impose an indefinite moratorium on female altar servers, lectors, extraordinary ministers, choir directors, etc.
- Relax the discipline of clerical celibacy to allow the ordination of married deacons as priests. A celibate man who never married is at a disadvantage when dealing with female parishioners compared to a man who’s lived and managed a household with a woman for years.
- Hold novenas and litanies to St. Joseph.
- I’d suggest encouraging young men to serve as altar boys, lectors, choir members, etc., but if you implement steps 1-3, step 4 will take care of itself.
Question: When did the tradition of denying marriage to priests start, and why? From what I see it is admittedly non-scriptural, but added on to that. I have the perhaps mistaken thought that it was to prevent church positions from becoming hereditary. (As a side note, I note and am pleased by the fact that Peter had a good enough relationship with his wife and in-laws that his mother-in-law got up to serve everyone right after Jesus cured her of a severe illness.)
Strict celibacy would be required for monastic orders, of course, but what is the rationale for having marriage be a mandatory no, rather than mandatory yes, or optional?
The council of Trent is when the Church really made celibacy the sine quality non of becoming a priest. Jon Huizinga's the Autumn of the Middle Ages points out that many parish priest lived scandalously cohabitation, etc. And thatrequired a return to the old discipline.
Brian,
Great suggestions. I'd add revive the chivialric orders. Cool ritual, snazzy coats of arms and serious male bonding via warrior ethics would attract married and single men. The boys can have a real safe spaces to grow in ther masculinity
xavier
Clerical celibacy goes back to the fourth century, when some bishops started requiring it due to the exemplary Christian witness given by monks. The practice really gained steam in the 1100s in response to corruption among the hierarchy. Xavier is correct that priestly celibacy was codified at Trent, but the decision had a long gestation period. 1 Cor 7: 7 and 32-34 are the Scriptures most often cited in support.
I don't think ANY children should be altar servers until Inquisition 2.0 has burned out pedo priests.
Other than that, good suggestions.
On the Central American invasion, just watch how fast Wetbackalina goes from touting muh conservative family values to demanding on demand abortion of her anchor baby once/if Trump eliminates birthright citizenship.
The Church has a homopriest problem, not a pedopriest problem. Glad you brought it up. That's the main reason we need to allow married priests in conjunction with a new round of inquisitions.
BN: “Funny how for the last few decades, "appealing to young people" has meant appealing to people who were young fifty years ago.”
Bingo. As some commenter on Twitter said, it’s purely coincidental that the youth agree with the 70-80 year old “reformers”. Wouldn’t be surprised if many of the youth speakers are a Soros employees or bed boys of the bishops, etc.
BN: “bringing women in is the best way to drive men out.”
This should be obvious if you have an idea of historical trends. For example, teaching and nursing used to be male professions. Masculine men instinctively seek to avoid anything that can associate them with effeminacy.
As to fixing the clergy, I think we should focus on measures that will scare off gays and sociopaths:
5) Make diocesan priests take vows, not promises, of celibacy and poverty.
6) Require all pastors to learn and offer the older form of the liturgy. There are simply too many problems with the NO Mass that has lead to the apostasy of several generations of Catholics. It’ll also remove the priest getting to be the center of attention and his potential license for personal liturgical dalliances.
7) Full financial transparency by parish and by diocese.
8) Priests must wear clerics in public, and unique versions are prohibited. Cassocks are strongly encouraged.
9) Priests must live with at least two other priests. If a parish has less than three, then the living situation is to be onsolidated between the next closest parish.
As for your action item #2, are you thinking of something like the Eastern Rites? So bishops still have to be celibate? I really think 2 is not necessary if the Church was just re-masculinized. Do permanent deacons tend to be Conservative? It’s true where I live, and said men seem to be more masculine than androgynous, but being married doesn’t necessitate masculine formation. Too many married men in the Church are pussies who could never stand against the homoheretic bishops.
I'll cosign 5-9. Most people think diocesan priests already take vows of poverty. They don't. A local monsignor owned a new Dodge Viper back when I was in high school. Making parish priests live by the evangelical counsels could only be an improvement.
As for relaxing the discipline of clerical celibacy, the only exception would be for currently married deacons, along with the current dispensation for married Anglican and Episcopal priests who want to convert.
As I mentioned to Heian-kyo Dreams, raising married deacons to the altar will water down the homopriest influence. And before someone objects that there are homosexual deacons, too, the train is fine.
Filling the hierarchy with alpha Chads overnight isn't a realistic goal. Except for Coach K the Chosen One, most Chads shun celibacy, and even Justice Dredd finally tied the knot. Back in the feudal era, clerical celibacy meant that the younger but still virile sons the nobility couldn't marry off went into the clergy. Thus the hierarchy had a healthy percentage of virgin Chads–the best of both worlds. Now? The priesthood is a last refuge for men who can't get or keep women, i.e. lambdas and omegas. That's not to say there are no alphas who heed a higher calling, but strong internal and external pressures depress those numbers.
In short, letting at least some priests marry will reduce the lavender mafia's influence in the short term and increase the hierarchy's overall masculinity in the long term.
Good point, Inhad not considered that many in the past went in because the family couldn’t handle splitting the estate, so alphas, betas and deltas got tossed into the seminary.. I saw the omegas and lambdas when I was in sem, and some deltas, betas and very few alphas. The last two where always men who had lived a bit first, had a major conversion, and then came in. In other words, they made up 10-20% of the class at most.
I skipped over the promise of obedience. I think it should be scrapped and replaced by a vow of fidelity to the faith. This way priests don’t get too caught up in defying their homo bishop and wondering if they are breaking their promise.
At the very least, priests who are fighting the good fight could use some clarification to help them navigate that minefield.
The comments on that article are a perfect example of why men leave when women show up: dozens of appeals to Current Year, shaming for daring to disagree, and one appeal to emotion after another. Did you know the only reason for any of this is just sexism? And Pope Francis could and should change it all with the stroke of a pen! That comment section alone is screaming proof that St Paul knew exactly what he was doing and that he was indeed divinely inspired.
Indeed. Our experience of the world continually affirms the inerrancy of Scripture.
Thank you here and in the comments expressing properly why you believe allowing married Priests is a good idea. I've said this for a good while and you've put it better than me.
Glad to be of help. Give the glory to God.
As I get older, I realize that complimentarity is really the best for both sexes, kids and society. Given the experiences I had with female bosses and supervisors, I really don't want to be their suborindate I'm sure other male commentators have had similar experiences.
I really do think that women are better off at home, networking for family betterment via volunteer work, being mompreneurs.
Men do better male leadership; there's none of the emotional drama or histronic browbeating by women leaders.
xavier