NO SHAVE NOVEMBER

It’s no shave November and a number of priests (I am among them) are letting our faces go a little rogue.  If you are a guy, I recommend it to you too.

Not everybody is happy about it.  Some are adamantly opposed to the idea.  My sister is among them.  We have reached an agreement not to harp on it too much.  (It will grow one inch longer than agreed for every comment.)

Growing a beard is one of the last socially acceptable purely masculine things that a man may do.  By and large, men’s private organizations & associations (except for sleazy ones - which by the way is NOT truly masculine) have been deemed inappropriate, often legally so.  The BOY scouts for goodness sake is now becoming gender neutral!  In some states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) even the distinctions between male and female restrooms are starting to become blurred (depending on your point of view.)  Increasingly the portrayed role of men in movies and shows portrays men’s roles as silly and useless.

There is a fundamental need for men in society - and more importantly a need for men to be men.  (Whatever is said here about men is echoed equally for women.)  Men need a time and a place to hang out with men.  In general, men have a role and way of being that, taken over a whole populace, tends to differ from women.  Except where it is dangerous or damaging (in which case it would not be truly masculine or Christian) men need the freedom to be who they are without being slapped on the knuckles with a ruler.

I know.  “Oh poor brave, strong men.”  But the male psyche is more fragile than one might initially imagine.  And it is in the suppression of the masculine that the very abuses some are trying to squash start appearing (like militant beard growth.)

Many police and firefighters are having facial growing contests during November to help raise funds for charities.  I HAVE NO DOUBT that sooner rather than later, somebody will sue to have this gender inequality practice brought to a halt.  I would not be terribly surprised that one day in the future this will be a matter of national concern.  If trends continue as they are today, it will not be the case that all women will have to have shots in order to have the ability to grow beards, it will be that all men will have to have shots to kill theirs off.

To be a balanced society, we need men to be men and women to be women.  That there is, and always has been, and always will be those who don’t fit well into those categories does not negate the need for them (and the need to accept those who don’t fit well into them.)  But the solution is not to suppress the sexes (when has it EVER solved a problem by forcing people to not be who they are) but to celebrate them and make them healthy expressions.

That’s why I grow my beard (plus it is less of a pain AND I have a sensitive chin) and recommend it to other men.  In a similar way, I tell a young that he needs to at least seriously consider once the possibility of the priesthood.  They don’t have to do it, but they have to ask the question once as a legitimate option.  It is the same with a beard.  All men should try it once to fully experience what they are capable of.

There is a person I know in New York.  They have a road on their property that people use as a public right of way but is really owned by that person.  The city recommends that they close down the street once a year in order that the locals know and remember that it is a privilege and not a right for them to use that road.  Likewise, No Shave November is that once a year time for us to remember that, no matter how much society may want to believe otherwise, there is a difference between the genders and a beard is just a friendly, though not always appreciated, reminder of that.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHO HAS TO BE TOLERANT AND WHY?

Cleveland is being asked to pass a law that would force everybody except churches to allow transgender persons to use whatever bathroom they wish.  Of course, in the age of Tolerance, those who think this might not be such a good idea are labeled Intolerant and even to debate the issue in the name of Tolerance is deemed Intolerable.

 

On the one hand I understand the concern.  (Deep in taking of breath from the collective audience reading this.)  I remember my first experience with a transgender person.  My Aunties would take me to the double header Indians games and Municipal stadium (gads I miss that place) when I was in grade school.  We generally got the mid range seats and so there were never many people around us – neither those going for the really cheap seats nor those who could afford really good ones.  So people around us stood out.  One day there was what appeared to be a woman in a lime green miniskirt.  I knew something was different here even as a kid.  I had no idea that there was such a thing as transgender people and so what I was seeing didn’t compute.

 

He was a slender African American person having some of the attributes of woman, (to my little boy’s brain: “Okay, there are those.  Check.  Makeup.  Check.  Long hair.  Check.”)  But other things that didn’t fit.  (Adam’s apple.  “?”  Big hands.  “?”  Deep voice.  “?”  Stubble.  “?”) 

 

Now, here is where my understanding would kick in.  What if this person suddenly realized that the need of bathroom was desperate?  How would I feel being this person going into the men’s room with a bunch of testosterone rich, drunk, men?  So we are asked to be compassionate and, by law, make this person feel comfortable with the bathroom he or she chooses to use except at a church.

 

POR OTRA PARTE:  Tolerance is a one way street here.  What about the people who would feel uncomfortable having a person who appears to be of the opposite sex in their bathroom?  How safe would a woman feel with a man, even if he is identifying himself as woman, in the bathroom with her at a downtown bar or any other number of scenarios?  What if of one hundred women, only 3 felt uncomfortable?  Are they Intolerable wretches that need to be sent to a counselor to get over their prejudice?  Why should they be sent to counseling and not the man who identifies himself as a woman?  He could dress like a man and go to the bathroom but women have no such option to end up in a place in which they feel comfortable carrying out their sensitive business. 

 

Anyway, the argument could go on and on about on whom the duty falls to be the one to have to be tolerant of the other.  They can’t both be accommodated without building owners constructing numerous bathrooms from which people could choose.  “Women’s bathroom for those born and who remain female.”  “Women’s bathroom for life long females and those born male but who identify as female but have not yet had an operation.”  “Women’s bathroom for those who identify as female but beyond that don’t really care who else is in here.”  THERE is true but very expensive tolerance.

 

What is happening here is a defining of what is “normal” beyond a setting on a dryer and exactly who must be tolerant of the sensitivities of whom.  Opening this door does not make Clevelanders more Tolerant, it only defines of what they will be Tolerant and of what they won’t be Tolerant.  At the core of all wars on Tolerance, there is the determination to eliminate the voice and rights of all who are not Tolerant of my Tolerance.   And in this and similar cases it will be enforced by law.

NUN FOR THE FUTURE?

Continuing yesterday’s post . . .

 

What about the women?  What is happening to the religious orders around us?  Though worldwide numbers are growing just as worldwide vocations to the priesthood are soaring, in the west the numbers are pretty abysmal.  The median age for the orders that served as the backbone of dioceses is skyrocketing.  The Los Angeles Times reported in 1994 that only 3% of nuns were under the age of 40.  But what is more astonishing about this number is that the vast majority of the nuns under 40 are in a limited number of orders.

 

In the same article was this, “Sister Eleace King, a research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University in Washington, concurred.  "It tells me that the majority of religious congregations of women in this country will not survive. Most are dying," King said.”

 

A 2012 story in the NCR reported however, “One of the most striking findings regarding new entrants," say the writers," is that almost equal numbers of women have been attracted to institutes in both conferences of women religious in the U.S. in recent years. As of 2009, L.C.W.R. institutes reported 73 candidates/postulants, 117 novices and 317 sisters in temporary vows/commitment. C.M.S.W.R. institutes reported 73 candidates/postulants, 158 novices and 304 sisters in temporary vows/commitment." 

 

But this is a little misleading.  As Fr. John Larson wrote, “It seems that a recent article in America has used some statistics that appear to show that LCWR and CMSWR communities had about equal numbers of postulants, novices, and temporary professed according to the 2009 CARA survey, and thus things were somewhat equal in terms of vocations. However, the LCWR represents over 3 times as many communities as the CMSWR. This is definitely not a fair use of stats. The article wants to be “devoid of distortions.” I am not convinced.

 

“Another thing that the article points out is: “The vast majority of both L.C.W.R. and C.M.S.W.R. institutes do not have large numbers of new entrants.” This is true, but of the few that do have large numbers, it should be noted that they are all CMSWR communities. It may be “unfair” to put the media spotlight on them, but having lots of vocations attracts attention, does it not?”

 

So the issues are varied, confusing, and controversial.

 

Recently, there was an altar call at a local young adult retreat.  There are always at least a few young men who will step forward and declare that they are considering the priesthood.  It is particularly to see this down at the youth retreats at Steubenville.  But more exciting is seeing how many young women step forward to say that they are considering religious life.  At the local retreat mentioned above, TWENTY TWO young women stepped forward.

 

Twenty two.  At this one retreat.

 

It is a nasty little secret however that most of these that follow through leave our diocese.  Women from Cleveland have joined the Sisters of Life, Nashville Dominicans, TORs, and a host of other orders that seem to be supplying that for which these young women are looking.  Cleveland has women’s religious vocations.  The nuns in our area have such great institutions, amazing histories, outstanding achievements, monstrous support, huge hearts, great potential, and I wish we were feeding them.  We need them.  We love them. 

 

That being said all this comes together to make it more difficult for a woman to discern a religious vocation.  If you know of a woman in this position, offer her all the prayer and support you can muster.  It is going to be a long and arduous journey.

THE SLAP THAT COST $250,000

Bluecoats is an organization that strives to take care of our emergency first responders who are injured in the line of duty.  I am lucky enough to be one of their chaplains.  Last night they had their annual banquet and yearly meeting.  They always have a great speaker and last night was no exception.

 

The speaker Mr. Joseph D. Pistone who served in the FBI for 27 years, 6 of which were spent undercover as a member of the Mafia.  His work led to hundreds of convictions the story of which is told in the critically acclaimed major motion picture, "Donnie Brasco" featuring Al Pacino and Johnny Depp.  Below is some outtakes from that movie.  You need not watch it but I wanted to make a comment about something that happens about 28 seconds into the clip.  He is shown slapping his wife.

 

During his talk last night he called special attention to this moment in the movie.  He desired to make absolutely clear that at no time in his life did he ever lay a hand on his wife.  The slap was completely fictional.  This was stressed in the most earnest of ways.

 

A little later someone asked how much of the movie did he have control over.  He responded that he was pretty lucky and that he had a bit of say so over the movie.  Joe was gone, however, the day that they shot the slap.  Becoming rather upset he shut down production for half a day.  "Eventually the director won out.  He was the "captain" of the ship as it were.  But I cost them about a quarter of a million shutting down the film for half a day."

 

Now as you can imagine, spending six years with the Mafia, Mr. Pistone probably did not lead a saintly life.  But what is it that led him to say, "This far and no further."  The attack on marriage, on his manhood, on his role as husband was more than he was willing to let go without challenge.  There is a lesson in there somewhere for all of our men.  How far are we willing to go.  I would personally be very flattered if anyone would want to make a movie of my life, pay me lots of money, and have Johnny Depp play me.  Would that trump my beliefs enough that I would bow easily to something that went against my core beliefs?  I desperately hope not.

THE PROBLEM WITH MEN

There is a definite problem with “men” in the Church and there does not seem to be a great solution. This will be most clearly seen in the new translation of the Mass as well as being one of the reasons we need a new translation of the Mass.

“Man” has changed over the past 40 some years; that is, the meaning of man, of men, of brethren. In the new translation if one were to see the priest’s parts at times it will read like this;

“Pray brethren (brothers and sisters) that . . .”

The reason for this is that we no longer have a single word that unites the congregation into a single, familial, covenantal entity. “Brethren” forty some odd years ago meant the entire Church, united together, equal heirs in the kingdom of God. That is no longer the case. As the word “gay” seems to mean something other than a state of happiness in today’s vernacular, “brethren,” for far too many people, means only male gender people.

The biggest problem is that we do not have a new word to take its place.

“People” and similar words do not work for they do not have the connotation of connectedness that brethren had. The word “siblings” comes about as close to what was formally meant by brethren as we have but it also does not quite fit the bill.

“Pray siblings that . . .”

“All translators are betrayers” says the Italian proverb. It is so in this case because we do not have a word to translate “fratres” well into English. Saying, “Pray brothers and sisters that . . .” or “Pray sisters and brothers that . . .” does not fix the problem either. First there is the problem of sensitivity as to who is mentioned first: the men or the women? That there is an order is already a problem. Then there is the obvious of being divided into to two groups of people: one of men and women. “Pray women and men that . . .” This is particularly evident when saying Mass in certain situations in which there just happens to be one man or one woman present amoungst others in the congregation. This may happen at a nursing home Mass, or a small daily Mass or a retreat for women or men etc. “Pray my brothers and sister that . . .” or visa versa. There was someone just completely singled out because of their gender. (There was the case when there a person who would have made up the solitary person of the opposite gender if there were such and for the life of me I could not tell if the person was male or female. THERE was a dice roll . . .)

The argument could be made that we are using much more formal language now and the use of male pronouns and such to denote entire groups of people regardless of sex may be used. But as anyone will tell you that is not always wise. Yet the lack of depth of meaning in saying “sisters AND brothers” is also a loss.

So . . . we are thrown under the buss to decide and the Sacramentary will read, “Pray brethren (brothers and sisters) that . . .”

With challenges like these on the board I'm glad I did not have to be on the committee trying to sort all this out!

MONDAY DIARY: BOXERS VS BRIEFS

I am afraid there is not too much intriguing to report from last week. Most of Easter Week I was as sick as can be. I got up tried to work for an hour or so and then would be so tired that I would have to lay down for a spell. It was supposed to be a catch up week and now I find I am further behind than ever.

One thing I did not miss however was getting together with priest friends to do an Easter report. We talk about what went right and (mostly) what went wrong at our respective parishes. Of course I told the story that I told you last week about getting to baptisms and suddenly discovering that we had forgotten to prepare for this most important moment.

One of the topics we discussed I almost hesitate to mention now because it is so charged with emotion. But it happened. One of my best priest friends asked, “What did people most complain about?” That was easy. On Maundy Thursday the celebrant had washed only men’s feet. That brought about an equal amount of mail both pro and con but the cons were defiantly more passionate. With a grin he reported that he had received equally heated letters because he had decided to wash women’s feet this year.

If you want to have a discussion about rubrics and symbols versus social justice please feel free to carry that on among yourselves. I will not get involved. If we were truly equal it wouldn’t matter a jot if it were all men, or 50/50, or what have you, it would be “people had their feet washed.” But it shows we have a long way to go that it matters so much. Such is life.

But what gave me a heart attack was the Easter Vigil. We are in the sacristy and I am giving last minute instructions when I stop in mid sentence. “Where are the girls?” Out of 12 servers there was only one girl. This was not planned. A sheet is posted on the wall and people sign up first come first serve. It just happened to be mostly boys that signed up. A certain dread fell over me. “This isn’t good,” I thought, “this is going to come back in a bad way.”

Then the readers stepped forward. Man heavy. Oh! We shouldn’t care! But we do! And I felt a trickle of sweat go down my back. It was like a dream where you are at a party and think everything is Okay and then suddenly realize you don’t have pants on and you pray nobody notices. So every day of Easter Week I approached my phone, mailbox, and Emails with trepidation. Fortunately there were no more angry letters concerning any observances of my boxers though I am sure there are those who noticed and for one reason or another decided not to mention them.

So . . . if your pastor seems to have done something (anything) that you find offensive might I suggest to you that you call, write, Email him a polite letter of inquiry to make sure if he woke in this dream discovering he had only boxers on or if he in fact purposefully came to the party sans trousers and what his motivation might have been in appearing so. The motivation may have been noble or innocent even if it does not appear to be so at first. More offense is brought into the world by people taking it than by it actually being offered.

SOMETHING TO "MULLEN" OVER

The Catholic Church can be seen by many, including members from within her walls, as being antiquated and discriminatory in its view that the ordained priesthood should be reserved to men. I wonder how many people have left their home in the Catholic Church for another denomination based in large part on this topic.

Sunday night St. Mary Seminary and Graduate School of Theology in the Diocese of Cleveland held their annual Mullen Lecture in which Missionary of the Blessed Sacrament Sister Sara Butler, a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, discussed “The Ordination of Women and the Witness of Tradition.” Formally a strong believer in the ordination of women, Sr. Butler has come not only to accept but also to believe in the Church’s teaching that the ordained priesthood should be reserved to men and that the Church has no authority to do otherwise. There is not enough room here to report everything that she said, but allow me to give the basic argument.

In the Old Testament there is no evidence of women offering sacrifices as a mandate from God. There is a similar lack in the New Testament. Even Mary was not chosen for the priesthood for whom it would have been most fitting. Of course, priesthood is not a reward, and so we take this a step further in noting that Jesus had among his personal companions and disciples many women and he did not pick from them either. In His freedom to choose as He desired He reserved this parituclar office to men and it was not from lack of candidates who were female, worthy, and capable. So the question becomes if the quality of being male in representing Christ is essential to state of the priesthood (as opposed to looking at the mere function of the priesthood.) Is it an indispensable factor such a water being necessary for baptism or bread and wine being needed for the Eucharist? It is the constant and universal Tradition of the Church that this is so. No women were chosen to replace the apostles as bishops or priests and neither has it occurred in the history of the Church that such a thing has happened and been sanctioned. When it did happen it was immediately and universally condemned as was with the case of the two women who were “ordained to the Catholic priesthood” this past Sunday. We actually do not recognize anything as actually having taken place. The two retain the same status they had as before the ordination.

Now, the talk did not touch on the “why” of the question, just the “that”. And it is the case that the Church has consistently believed and taught that it has no authority to do differently in this regard and the strongest argument comes from that Tradition. Scripture alone cannot completely support a male only priesthood (which might show why there is such a difference in the Protestant theology.) Sacred Tradition, which testifies to the unyielding witness to this belief, plays a fundamental role and cannot be ignored in Catholic theology. All arguments to the contrary, and there are some very good arguments, will ultimately come to rest up against this obstacle and it would be dangerous to ignore the importance of Tradition for Catholics as it is one of the fundamental pillars of the Church. Destroying the pillar in this instance risks destroying it in all instances.

In the end we see the male priesthood as being instituted by Christ and that we have maintained His will from Apostolic times on, which has been testified to by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church, by Scripture, and upheld consistently by the magisterium.

If you would like to read more on the topic, you might want to pick up Sr. Butler’s book, “The Catholic Priesthood and the Ordination of Women.”

FEMINISM - RISING FROM THE ASHES

fem'i-nism, 1 fem'i-nizm; 2 fem'i-nism, n. 1.

Beyond that I do not feel confident to write. Just as we watch the ground break open between factions within the Anglican Church threatening to cause the two movements to part company and go in their respective directions, so does it seem that there will be inevitable breaks in the common ground in feminism.

A woman was telling me of a conversation that she was having with her grandmother earlier this week (if you are reading this, I hope this is a fair reporting of that conversation) in which she stated her rejection of the modern feminist movement. The grandmother was aghast and emphasized how much life was better for women and indeed people in general now because of the work of the feminist movement. But that was countered with the notion that the feminist movement of today bears little resemblance to the movement of her grandmother's day which also focused on and protected the family.

Indeed there has been a shift. For example, consider what an early pioneer of the feminist movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, had to say about abortion, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Compare that to NOW's (the National Organization of Women) statement. "NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment."

So where does that leave the faithful Catholic who also believes in the advocacy of the political and socioeconomic equality of men and women, the hallmark of the feminist movement? It causes a deepening abyss within feminism leaving many to redefine for themselves what feminism is. Whatever this new definition is, it will grow out of the ashes that we wear today. It begins, to borrow from Sheldon Vanauken, with the realization that this God who made the universe came to live in the world and was killed by the world and the proof of this is His resurrection. And that if this is true, this is simply the only really important truth. For all other supposed truths will come to an end. This one lasts for eternity. And we need to conform our lives to it. In the end what is truly good about feminism will reflect what is good about faith and the meaning of the human person in relation to and relationship with God.

I still will not pretend to know how to finish the above dictionary entry, but Colleen Caroll Cambell is willing to start the ball rolling. She is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former White House speechwriter, and author of The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy. (Perhaps next time she could get Dawn Eden to help her with a snazzier title.) She has an international television talk show, "Faith and Culture," on EWTN, writes for a number of publications and speaks to audiences across the Unites States.

This Sunday, February 25th, she will be speaking at St. Mary Church in Hudson at 7:15 on The New Feminism: An Authentic Catholic Vision of Woman. I hope to get there myself if parish duties permit. Perhaps a tectonic shift is taking place and instead of feeling left apart, here will be discovered a new place to stand with feminism.

MEN BEHAVING CHASTELY

"Is it even possible to write a book for men on how to live chastely?" This discussion was held after Dawn Eden spoke at the diocesan seminaries here in Cleveland. Dawn admitted that a large portion of her audience tends to be men who are genuinely interested in living chaste lives. And so the question is inevitably, "Why isn't there something like this out there for men?" Well, of course there is not the least of which is Christopher West's "Winning the Battle for Sexual Purity." I highly recommend this resource. But while believing that it is helpful, even greatly so, and that it is coming from a man who struggled, gained control, and written to men to help follow him (in much the same way that Dawn Eden's book "The Thrill of the Chaste" was written for women) perhaps it is not the most effective of means.

Maybe the reason that Dawn's talk draws so much male attention is that besides a strong, older, male role model that can take you down a peg if necessary (read: DAD, older brother, father figure who is present and morally fit) the other strong influence for men is women who demand to be treated with respect, integrity, and who desire to love chastely until marriage. No, men are not beasts who are always on the prowl and will take it whenever and wherever it is offered, and it is not woman's fault if a man should end up being unchaste with her, BUT I do think - IN VERY GENERAL TERMS - that men will rise to the level that is expected of them. And, if in general women think that they must be unchaste with a man in order to be loved, then men will in general oblige the experiment.

A challenge to some women out there: Write! Perhaps what we need is for you to write a book or an article to men about protecting the integrity, chastity, and virtue of the woman he says he loves: treating with honor, respect, and deference the one who may not only be his life partner, but whom he chooses to be the mother of his children.