For a wonderful example, read the famous letter written to his son by Commander John Shea, who died in action a few weeks later. It is impossible to read with a dry eye.
If the links don't work, here are URLs to cut and paste:
The "Letter to Jackie"
http://www.bc.edu/publications/
b...kie_letter.html
On Commander Shea
http://www.bc.edu/libraries/cent...ts/s-sheaexhib/
It would help if our parishes rejected the style and substance of feminism in every form. Then men would experience parish life as affirming their basic nature.
One small example is the translation of adelphoi as brothers and sisters. The translation is acceptable but I suspect that stylistically St Paul was not addressing the women in his churches directly but addressing the families in his churches through the
theoretically male heads of households - the brothers. This translation is also accurate.
We should bring back the language of spriitual warfare.
If our bishops were not such spineless wimps (or worse), men would understand that the Catholic faith is more than pious sentimentality.
Dale, I think a big part of the problem is the "bunny lullaby" phenomemon. See on fear and the liturgy.
Greg
Here's a big part of the problem --
"The utter devastation that has engulfed the Church since the changes introduced after the Second Vatican Council has spared no one -- men, women or children. All have succumbed in huge numbers and abandoned the practice of their faith. However, it is the impact on men and boys, wherein lie the future priests and leadership of the Church, that has wrought havoc in the short term and unless there is some dramatic about turn, will seriously damage the Church for many decades to come."
So begins an article -- "Men: The Great Casualties of the Liturgical Reform" -- in the Fall 2002 edition of The Latin Mass magazine. The article continues: "When [the liturgical experts] unveiled their 'new' Mass in October 1967 during the Synod Bishops, Cardinal Heenan [of England] was quite obviously appalled at what was proposed....[The Cardinal] went on to say: 'At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel we would soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children.'"
Yes, Heenan the prophet. In my short time as a priest, I have noticed that I nearly always face the stiffest opposition from women to my trying to re-sacralize the Mass. They, by and large, really like the liturgy they have all but taken over. They crave the affective, emotional aspect of it, the "participatory" dimension of it, they who so love meetings and sharing times, etc. The real and courageous exception to this are the women who are happily married and raising a family or those, usually younger professionals, who could easily see themselves happily married.
I have been instrumental in a number of fine young men going to seminary. When asked what it was about me, their mentor priest, that caused them to consider a vocation, they always said the reverent way I offer the Mass and my manly spirituality. There is nothing, per se, about the new Mass that at all atracted them. Most prefer the old Mass. Because they are real men. Simple.
And this is the reason we MUST resist the calls for the ordination of women. Not because we need to "keep women down," but because to allow women ordination would be to say to men, "We don't need you here. At all. For anything. Go away."
Commenting by HaloScan
