« Denominational Outreach | Main | Rumors, rumors.. »
June 10, 2006
Where are the Men?
Religion News Service story about the gender imbalance in Christian churches - not a new story. One thing I liked about the article is that unlike most of this type, it took the relatively long view, reaching back to 19th century concerns on the same matter, "Muscular Christianity" and so on.
Negatives: It's a Protestant-oriented story, with no references to Roman Catholics or the Orthodox - but I thought this quote from an academic was spot-on.
The gender gap is not a distinctly American one but it is a Christian one, according to Murrow. The theology and practices of Judaism, Buddhism and Islam offer "uniquely masculine" experiences for men, he said.
"Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil, and although that was a prevalent teaching in Christianity until about 100 years ago, today it's primarily about having a relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally," Murrow said.
"And if that's the punch line of the Gospel, then you're going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not."
Fascinating. We tend to believe that the way we conceive of religion and spirituality today is the same world-view shared by Christians forever. Just not so. Christianity defined as finding personal fulfillment through that unconditional love and acceptance is a fairly modern emphasis - oh, it's always been there, in the mystics (without the explicit "personal fulfillment" part), and then, painting in broad strokes, with the evangelistic impulses of the late 18th century in England the US, but as a whole, this is an innovative emphasis, borne of a completely different worldview that is personal, not cosmic, individual, not tied into the structure of reality. Interesting.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Funny. It appears that while you were posting this I was busy ranting on my own spot about the gender imbalance in the Church workplace. (I don't mean to turn on my own sex, but I must say I dread the days the priests are out of the office...)
Posted by: Ellyn at Jun 10, 2006 2:13:21 PM
In the U.S. at least, I predict there will be a full reversal of this trend in the next generation. Much responsibility is being laid on young men's shoulders by the Church these days. Ask something of men, and they will respond. They are not asked to protect, nor to lead, nor to serve, but all that seems to be changing. The question is, when it does--and it will--how will womanity respond?
Posted by: MTM at Jun 10, 2006 2:39:31 PM
Men have to fight their natures harder than women in order to be good Christians. Maybe this was the reason that Christ established a male priesthood and episcopate--in order to force the men to take part in the life of the Church. Now if we could just do something about sexually and morally effeminate priests and bishops.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 10, 2006 2:52:04 PM
This is a serious issue, especially in regards to the Mass, the center of the Christian life. It makes me, a male and a priest, cringe at times. Moreover, the reformed liturgy of the Mass is very effeminate. The fact that we have to turn the alters around, bow instead of genuflect, hide the tabernacle, remove rubrics, altar girls, etc, has had a negative and effeminate effect on the way we worship. The music used in the Mass, in the majority of parishes, are very effeminate. I just hope the young bishops realize this.
Posted by: Father Ethan at Jun 10, 2006 3:12:16 PM
The article reminds me of the warning the charismatic leader,Fr.Tom Forrest, gave the bishops at the synod of the laity.He referred to the "feminization of the sanctuary".He predicted that one day the only male in the sanctuary would be the priest.He said the Church has no problem with women-they make up most of the daily mass congregation and the parish associations.The Church has a problem with men.The churchnhe told them ,needs a more masculine face. Was Fr.Forrest,who according to the Wanderer gave the best synod intervention,heard? Judge for yourself.After the synod came the allowance of altar girls.
Posted by: franklyn at Jun 10, 2006 3:36:28 PM
When I go to mass and hear the "gender inclusive" language that is used by the Parishes in my hometown, I look around and and see a large disparity in the numbers of men Vs. the women, I can't help but ask why we're trying so hard to make churchaccessaable and palatable to women when it's the men we are loseing.
I asked my pastor about this and he said he wondered the same thing. Then continued to use the inclusive language that seems to be required in all the local parishes.
Of course, he also tells me I'm a handsom man--maybe there's a connection?
Posted by: wahappi at Jun 10, 2006 3:38:21 PM
Maybe Catholics should be more like Islam to butch up the mass. Have the women sit somewhere else, in full cover, while the men prepare to do battle. Would that be butch enough to turn the tide of the "effeminate" church?
Posted by: Barry at Jun 10, 2006 3:41:05 PM
Interesting, odd little article.
Leaving aside the deformed machismo that is manifested in the name of Islam in various parts of the world, the author mentions "manly" Judaism and Buddhism, but says nothing.
While Judaism, perhaps as manifested in the state of Israel, might be manly and have an army, etc., well, try some of the more liberal Jewish communities in New York or Los Angeles, and get back to us.
And Buddhism? How many women Buddhist priests are there in California? (clue: more than in all of Asia).
Honestly, it is not a matter of this or that religion, but how the religion is adapted to this or that culture. Western Culture has become largely feminine (and there are more women than men in the university, also). Most marketing in the media aims at women (because men don't shop).
Also, apparently the Knights of Columbus did not get the memo.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jun 10, 2006 3:46:24 PM
"... has had a negative and effeminate effect on the way we worship. The music used in the Mass, in the majority of parishes, are very effeminate."
I not think I agree with you Father, I think on the contrary our spirituality is essentially masculine - maybe we might compromise and agree a via media in that it is androgenous.
An effimate liturgy I would think would attract men. Those machismo South American cultures all used to have a great and profound devotion to the Blessed Mother of God, in the UK and the States Marian devotion is almost lost. The notion of Church as Mother seems to be almost unknown. We have lost any sensuality in our liturgy (I don't mean sentimentality) church architecture, vestments, music, texts are brutal. Men don't want that type of thing in women and they don't like it in their religion.
It would be crass of me to suggest that our worship, and possibly our catechesis and therfore our popular theology, has been styled by effeminate men and masculine women. I think that is a product of our age, but our notion of God has certianly lost the vigour and potency of previous ages.
Posted by: Fr Raymond Blake at Jun 10, 2006 4:25:15 PM
Seems the only way to get men and boys to step up to the plate is for women and girls to deliberately hobble themselves. We are supposed to believe that if girls refused altar service and women refused to serve as lectors or EM's including in hospitals, men would rush forward to lead. Didn't men make themselves scarce in religious devotion long before women were allowed in the sanctuary?
Posted by: Caroline Gissler at Jun 10, 2006 4:33:32 PM
" women-they make up most of the daily mass congregation and the parish associations."
At the cathedral in Tulsa, the daily mass crowd is at least half, if not more, male (many of them young males ). Are there any real statistics about mass attendance and sex? ( not gender, which is not the appropriate term )
Posted by: Tim Young at Jun 10, 2006 4:49:52 PM
Here's one sure way to force an engagement of masculine spirituality: cut out some of the co-ed activities, especially among the young.
How many sex-segregated activites are there at a Catholic church? I'm almost positive that my junior high confirmation retreat was co-ed on everything, even when discussing sexual matters. From my few memories of the high school group, it was similarly co-ed. This is a revolutionary phenomenon, and possibly a very harmful one.
At the university level, the very successful Fellowship of Catholic University Students has guys-only and girls-only Bible studies, plus special events where the guys prepare dinner for the women, engaging in all sorts of saccharine yet necessary attempts at chivalry.
I don't believe I attended a single sex-segregated Catholic lecture until the National Catholic Singles' conference earlier this year. The change in the crowd's dynamics was remarkable. The men were less tense and more open, unable to surrender all the duties of conversation to women. For the first time, I heard a speaker addressing men as men.
The same distinct dynamic is at work in the Knights of Columbus, too. Praying the rosary among men takes on a different style that I haven't seen replicated in the regular activities of parish life.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Jun 10, 2006 5:21:14 PM
I'm mystified by how genuflecting is more masculine then bowing.
Posted by: Barry at Jun 10, 2006 5:43:54 PM
When a man loses the faith, he disappears from the mass (unless he works for the church). Women like church stuff. When a woman loses the faith she often stays at the mass and stays active in the parish adopting some congenial form of "progressive" dissenting theology. Women of this sort dominate parish life in America. This is the typical audience for which the mass is celebrated.
Personally, I find the mass as celebrated in the typical American parish an embarrassment. I would never invite a male friend whom I hoped to convert to the faith to join me at mass without very careful preparation.
Posted by: charles R. Williams at Jun 10, 2006 5:50:05 PM
This very point - the correlation of a skewed female sex ratio to the degree of emphasis on the personal relationship element of religion/liturgy - is what strikes me as constituting a major part of the whiplash experience I have when I attend the Novus Ordo after my generally happy immersion in the Traditional Latin Mass.
Get a 1962 Missal and read and compare the prayers with the Novus Ordo. There is a huge difference. In the Novus Ordo, God is exclusively soft, accomodating, loving (with a particular emphasis on the sentimental sense). In the 1962 Missal God has those characteristics but also judges, punishes, vindicates, is angered, and in general has some spine.
In the Novus Ordo we approach God as an intimate, and often are accepted with no particular terms, if only by indirection. In the 1962 Missal we approach the Throne of Grace with supplication, with fear if our spiritual state demands it, and the prayers constantly make our weakness and God's strength the axis of the prayer dialogue.
I have to say it. In the Novus Ordo, even when the congregation is committed, alert, participating actively, when the clergy are following the rubrics, when everything is “being done right”, I sometimes do not quite recognize the God I am praying to. Or more precisely, I don’t recognize all of Him. It’s like hearing somebody go on and on about somebody you know but they are creating a misimpression by what they never say that constitutes an important part of the whole personality.
The debate about the Traditional Latin Mass generally has seemed remarkably shallow to me. It’s as if the biggest offense to those who disregarded the explicit decision of Vatican II to retain Latin in the Roman Rite and who instituted an exclusively vernacular Mass is that it offends the sacred American right not to have to learn another language, and even worse, was old. Only a miniscule amount of the discussion deals with what the prayers SAY in Latin versus in ICEL/American English, as the numerous “American adaptations” have established it.
In general, I do see a more nearly balanced sex ratio in Mass communities using the 1962 Missal. I’ve also seen this language-based difference in perspective of the Divine essence work at the individual level among people I know, many of them men.
Already I can hear the commenters objecting that I am making the unsupportable claim that this means the only reasonable course for the Church is to re-institute the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively. Please don’t. We don’t need another long thread about taste, personal experiences, pseudo-practical issues, essentially about emotions.
What would do the Church a world of good is to think, THINK about these matters, and to pray, PRAY about them. If at first you don’t get it, God will make things obvious eventually. And, if necessary, He can teach with really blunt instruments such as dying congregations, absent men, liturgical crises, wrecked lives. He will let us have our obtuse way as much as we can stand it until we just can’t stand it anymore.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Jun 10, 2006 5:54:34 PM
Effeminate does not = feminine. Manly Christians do not flee the feminine in liturgy and devotion. There is nothing more masculine than to bow before the Virgin.
Why would the effeminate man want the liturgy, church and altar to be bare? Because he does not like it when transcendent pictures, statues and music distract the audience. They'll forget the star of the musical show and the host of the hugathon.
You can't get music more effeminate than the ditties of the Haugen-Haas-Joncas repertoire. 'You hear me singing mom? It's like I'm on Broadway!'
And, trust me, you'll hear them singing. Because, the speakers in the community theatre parish are turned up to 11.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 10, 2006 6:03:42 PM
We are supposed to believe that if girls refused altar service and women refused to serve as lectors or EM's including in hospitals, men would rush forward to lead.
Maybe not, but having a positive male identity in the parish certainly helps. John Paul helped pick up a lot of the slack, with his emphasis on truth and sacrifice. That's probably why we're seeing so many solid young men in the seminary today.
I had to laugh when I saw two Priests on our local Catholic station singing show tunes. It's not that they were outrageously effeminate, but somehow Priests singing show tunes doesn't bring out the best in manliness. And that's really part of the problem we see in parish Liturgies. The Mass will always have a necessary element of theatre, but it works best when everyone understands themselves as a participant in a Heavenly drama, rather than...show tune divas.
Posted by: Jason at Jun 10, 2006 6:10:41 PM
There was nothing more effeminate that the old days when the priests flounced around the altars in lace, brocade, etc. Take a good look at the web pages for the Latin Mass Society, the SSPX, etc. View Pell et al in their 15 foot cape trains, the gloved hands, buckled shoes, etc. And you call THAT masculine?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Jun 10, 2006 6:30:29 PM
I don't know what is more mysterious - the article or the weird speculation I've been reading here.
Go find two Catholic men, one who attends church and one who does not. ASK THEM WHY THEY DO OR DON'T ATTEND. Repeat 10,000 times at random and take notes. Then summarize the results and report them.
I often find clear thinking on this blog. Well not in this thread, at least not today.
Posted by: Mark Andrews at Jun 10, 2006 6:48:11 PM
I'm with Tim Young...in the middle of Michigan, we're overrun with men at 6:30 AM Mass (I'd say we're hovering at 70/30 percentage-wise) and at Masses later in the day, it's about 50-50.
When I've visited other parts of the country, sometimes there are more women, but from my experience, it's a pretty even distribution.
Posted by: Angela at Jun 10, 2006 7:03:26 PM
Uh, as Amy hints, this issue LONG predates the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, just not in America. Anticlericalism was a particularly male fashion that descended the classes from at least the Enlightenment (and actually back to the high-tide of clericalism centuries before that). In the 19th century, there were overt efforts to involve women in more ways, more devotions and such, so as to maintain a strong Church influence in the family.
And laying it at the feet of women who took up the invitation (and their spiritual descendents) is looking in the wrong place. It's a very teenage guy thing to do, though. I kinda wince at the lameness of it.
Also, daily life in the Catholic church was largely mediated by an important and numerous group of women into the 1960s: nuns (actually, sisters, OK). Far more visible and influential than the relatively fewer number of priests and brothers. They were layfolk then. And actve women layfolk are just more married now, by and large.
Posted by: Liam at Jun 10, 2006 7:07:26 PM
If, in fact, what the Church has always taught that we are doing at Mass - worshiping God by our actions and prayers, and receiving strengthening for the spiritual struggle - is wrong, even wrongheaded, then what attracts or repels men vs. women in the liturgy and the life of the Church is actually just a matter of style. And if that is so, of course, the more modern and in tune with the sensibilities and prejudices of the day that style is, the better. But if it works the other way around, if we were instructed by God on His Own very nature and on how to worship Him, then He knows better than we do what we need and what we will find in how we approach Him even if we may not have been aware of it.
A survey of men might be useful, but only if it is informed with the mind of the Church and an appreciation of the dynamics of these survey instruments. A population that it is suspected is missing something in an institution may very well not be able to articulate what the missing element is, especially if it is a lived experience, and even more so if that experience is spiritual and not entirely earthly. Our good old down-to-earth culture is great at grabbing a hold of problems, finding and naming them, and wrestling them down into submission. Spiritual life, the life of God in the soul, just is not confined at all by that embrace.
There is nothing at all weird about going through life, including spiritual and religious life, as male and as female, with different but complementary strengths, gifts, and needs. It's part of being human and was directly willed by God and ratified by Him as a good thing as part of His Divine pedagogy. Rather, it is weird not to seek out our calling within this framework, which, of course, involves a certain amount of questioning of our selves, our culture, and the state and adequacy of ecclesial institutions.
There are no generic humans. There are common elements of humanity in us all. But we live in this world as male and female. I suspect that our ancestors would have be amazed to find the current amount of confusion on this point.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Jun 10, 2006 7:21:39 PM
Liam,
Who is laying the blame at the feet of the women who took up the 'invitation'? And who is denying the importance of women in the Church? The complaint is about priests, bishops and the liturgy. Check out this ad:
http://www.dor.org/vocations/simple.htm
Yes women religious WERE an integral part of the Church--when the priesthood and liturgy were more manly. As the clergy became more metrosexual and the liturgy more like a Care-Bears jamboree than worship the number of women religious fell.
Of course there were very big problems in the pre-VII. But do you honestly think that recruiting more homosexuals into the priesthood, building grotesque churches and singing banal songs were the solutions to these problems? Uncle Screwtape is having a very hearty belly-laugh at our expense.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 10, 2006 7:40:43 PM
RP
I am mystified by the idea that the preconciliar liturgy was inherently more manly than the postconciliar liturgy. And the issue of homosexuals in the seminaries predates Vatican II as well.
Posted by: Liam at Jun 10, 2006 7:52:35 PM
A propos the effeminate character of the Gather hymnal liturgy:
Profile of The Touring Broadway Theatregoer
The average touring Broadway theatergoers was female, affluent and well-educated. Moreover, 75% of those who made the decision to buy tickets were also female. Gender ratios were similar across the country, although the Northeast reported the highest percentage of female attendees.
(http://www.livebroadway.com/press_releases_12.html)
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 10, 2006 8:20:21 PM
