Men are leaving the Catholic Church because it has become feminized...

Some years ago Wintery Knight observed: "On the Biola University site, I found a book review of a new book by David Murrow called “Why Men Hate Going to Church”.

Here’s the problem:

There are generally more women than men in every type of church, in every part of the world, according to church growth experts like Patrick Johnstone, author of Operation World. A traditional explanation is that women are more spiritual than men. But the leaders of this new movement suggest that the church’s music, messages and ministries cater to women.

…In America, among evangelical churches, 57 percent of members are women and, among mainline Protestant churches, 66 percent are women, according to a 1998 book American Evangelicalism (University of Chicago Press).

The problem is that the church has become feminized, and men don’t like that, and so, they leave.
Here’s more:

To describe many women, Murrow lists traits like “relational,” “nurturing” and “peace-making.” He describes many men as “goal-driven,” “competitive” and “adventurous.” These differences show up in the types of movies many women and many men like: romantic vs. adventure films, Murrow said. In sum, women thrive when secure, and men thrive when challenged, he said.

As Christianity became more feminized, it began to focus more on producing emotional satisfaction. But men want something different.
The article goes on to quote one of my favorite Christian writers, Nancy Pearcey, an expert in apologetics and theology.

…many people think of church only as a nurturing place that addresses personal needs, Pearcey said. Think: sitting in circles, sharing feelings, holding hands, singing softly, comforting members. An example of the feminization of the church is its music. Typical praise songs refer to Jesus as a Christian’s lover and praise his beauty and tenderness. Rarely do they praise his justice or strength, or refer to him as the head of an army leading his church into spiritual battle, like “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

All of the outward facing disciplines within Christianity, such as apologetics, theology, ethics, etc. are de-emphasized, censored or resisted in feminized churches. There is no place for rationality, moral judgments and boundaries, debates and disagreement, confrontations and persuasion, or other manly Christian practices.

Christianity is evangelical, and evangelism takes study and preparation, which culminates in confrontations and discussions. The object of these discussions is not to win the argument. It is to win the person over to your side. So facts and arguments play a huge role in  evangelism, but there has to be gentleness too, if you actually want to win. And this is what Christian men are supposed to do. But does the church support it?

Another turn-off for men is touchy-feely sermons. Pearcey said the modern church stresses emotions and inner spiritual experiences while neglecting the intellectual side of the faith.

“The more traditionally masculine side of Christianity enjoys crossing swords with hostile secular worldviews. So, as long as Christianity appeals to the emotional, therapeutic, interpersonal, relational areas, it’s not going to appeal to men as much as to women,” Pearcey said.
Churches should engage men’s intellects to help them see the relevance of Christianity to the “real” world of politics, industry and business, Pearcey said.
“We have to recover the notion that Christianity is true on all levels, not just for your emotional life or repairing relationships, as important as those things are,” she said.

Christian men love apologetics and they also love theology, philosophy, ethics, science and history. We love competition. Anything testable that can be debated! Anything where there is a clear winner and loser.

Many churches emphasize Jesus’ softer teachings, like his love and his desire to save, and they ignore the doctrines of sin and hell, according to Podles. But men dislike liberal Christianity — “a mild religion of progress and enlightenment” as opposed to a battle between good and evil, Podles said.

Men want to expend their lives for a great cause, even if it involves risk, according to Murrow. He said that’s why the U.S. military’s “Army of One” campaign was effective. But American churches rarely teach about Christian suffering and martyrdom, Murrow said. Instead, today’s Christianity is presented as an antidote to these things, he said.

And men thrive on risk, adventure and achievement:

“Men are more attracted to religion if it presented as a quest, an adventure, a heroic exploit,” Pearcey said. “They want something challenging, bracing, demanding.”
To reach men, churches should stress the cost and dangers of following Christ — including Christians’ conflict with the world, the flesh and the devil, according to Podles.
Yet, men should be reminded that the sacrifice won’t always be a “huge, glorious display like William Wallace stepping out on a battlefield,” Erre said. Many times it will be staying in a troubled marriage, raising a handicapped child, or working a hated job to provide for a family, he said.

Many women believe that the purpose of Christianity is to be happy and to make others happy by not discussing controversial things like religion. They do not attach the same importance as men do to the duty to be an informed ambassador for Christ, trained in apologetics, and able to persuade others about God’s existence and character. They do not believe that the Lord’s reputation needs to be defended in public in the same way that men do.

Many women also don’t want to be confronted about their beliefs by informed men, because their beliefs are based more on intuition and emotion. They would rather be accepted and affirmed – and so they favor men who don’t know much about the details of Christianity. So manly Christian skills; theology, apologetics, ethics, philosophy, history, science, etc. are not valued in the feminized church.

Touchy-feely sermons come from touchy-feely pastors. A feminized church tends to attract more “gentle, sensitive, nurturing” leadership,” according to Pearcey.
“If religion is defined primarily in terms of emotional experience and is therapeutic, then who is it going to attract as ministers?” she said. 

Pearcey said to consider a typical youth pastor.

“He’s really into relationships, very motivating, but is he teaching good apologetics? Is he teaching youth to use their minds and to understand deeper theological truths? At least the ones I’ve known haven’t,” she said. “Today, the common trajectory is for youth pastors to become senior pastors,” she added.

Maybe women should be more sensitive to male needs and character, and more concerned about what the Bible teaches about the the role of apologetics in the Kingdom of God.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Latin Vulgate (see the Douay-Rheims Bible) indicates that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the New American Bible, which is used by the USCCB, omits the word effeminate:


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Latin Vulgate):

Verse 9: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:

an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri

Verse 10: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt."


1Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New American Bible) posted online by the USCCB:

Verse 9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

Verse 10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Why do you think this is so?  The Latin Vulgate, which we have obtained from the great St. Jerome, is the most precise translation of the Sacred Scriptures available.  There are many other problems with recent translations of the Scriptures.  But my focus here is on this passage.  Why has the word "effeminate" been dropped from 1 Corinthians 6?

Dr. Leon Podles writes, "Walter Ong, having been formed in a masculine, Jesuit, clerical milieu does not seem to be aware of how feminized Christianity had become even before the 1960s, but he saw a rapid shift in the Catholic Church in the 1960s toward even greater feminization...The contrasts of Christianity, grace and sin, life and death, have been toned down with a considerable loss of emotional power.  Without this power, the popular appeal of the liturgy has declined (even with a more accessible language) and church attendance has plummeted...Even the change from Latin to the vernacular was also a symptom of feminization, according to Ong.  Latin had been a means of maintaining a Latin culture in the Roman Catholic clergy.  A language restricted to men is common; it is a sign of masculine separation from the feminine world.  After it became a learned language, Latin was learned almost exclusively by men.  The system of education that used Latin and centered around Latin literature was centered around contest and disputation and was confined almost entirely to men.  The disappearance of Latin was part of the demasculinization of the clergy.." (The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, pp. 133-135).

The Cult of Softness has made such inroads that it has crippled the inner life of the Church.  Liturgy has been feminized  And now, the Sacred Scriptures (the very Word of God) must be rewritten so as not to offend more "civilized" and "refined" tastes; so as not to offend "modern man."  The Christian faith must be replaced by a self-worship which cloaks itself in language which purports to be Christian but which nevertheless remains a language which has been watered down to make it more acceptable to modernity.

Dr. Podles cites a study by Lewis M. Terman and Catherine Cox Miles, which included a Masculinity-Femininity test, writing, "Terman and Miles gathered data from three groups: Catholic seminarians, Protestant seminarians, and Protestant ministers.  As one might expect, men attracted to the religious life differed strikingly in their masculinity from the general male population: 'The Catholic student priests score at a point far less masculine than any other male group of their age; in their early twenties they are more feminine than the general male population at middle life.  The Protestant theological students in their middle twenties are, however, more feminine than they and exceed in femininity the sixty-year-old man of equal education.  The adult ministerial group is barely more masculine than the Protestant theological students and less so than the student priests.  They exceed in femininity the college men of the seventh decade.'  Terman and Miles concluded that 'some dominant factors must be present in all three groups to make them, without regard to age, conspicuously and almost equally lacking in mental masculinity.'  Interestingly enough, the similarities between the Protestant and Catholic groups and the Catholic group's slightly higher scores ruled out celibacy as a major factor in a lack of masculinity..." (P. 9).

Effeminacy (and here we are not necessarily speaking of homosexuality), has become the forgotten vice in seminary formation.  This as many masculine men continue to be excluded from pursuing priestly vocations and masculinity itself is banished to the margins of the Church.
As a military veteran, I continue to witness firsthand the effects of the feminized Church.  I have volunteered but am unwelcome because of my masculinity.  Like so many other men, I have been marginalized.  I am unwelcome.  The "pastor" cannot even look at me because he has such disdain for me.  He has nothing but contempt for everything I stand for.  Because I engage in apologetics and fight to promote traditional Catholic teaching, I am viewed with suspicion.

Several parishioners have actually approached me to say that they enjoy my voice (and particularly my rendition of the Salve Regina in Latin) and to tell me that I should be in the choir.  They seem puzzled that I am not already in the choir.  But it's no mystery.  See here.

Susan Bailey of the Worcester Commission for Women and Richard Rohr

Susan W. Bailey, of the Worcester Diocese 'Commission for Women," [the same dissent group which has heavily promoted the work of Joyce Rupp and other well-known dissidents], writes, "Today I started reading a book entitled The Naked Now by Richard Rohr. I originally planned on reading it because a group I belong to, the Commission of Women of the Diocese of Worcester, chose this book as the one they wished to study this year. A dear friend of mine, a deacon in the Catholic Church, had also highly recommended it.

Rohr aims to teach the reader to see as the mystics see.

I have long resisted the notion of being a mystic though this same friend insisted that I be open to the idea. The pragmatist in me, the one who is unimpressed with splashy theatrics and celebrity, would have nothing to do with it. I saw no connection between my earthly life and supposed “heavenly visions.” I mistakenly connected mysticism with crying statues; I wanted nothing to do with it.
However, the creative in me, now being regularly exercised with reading and study, began to speak up and say,

“Hold on a minute. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.”

And my inner self, also exercised daily with prayer and reflection, objected too.
The Naked Now is now affirming something I’ve been experiencing ever since I started all this exercising: this newfound ability to “read between the lines,” and it is growing exponentially.
Rohr spells out three ways to view the world through a simple example: how three people view a sunset. One simply enjoys the beauty, nothing more. A second enjoys the beauty and understands the science behind a sunset, giving him extra insight.

The third not only appreciates the beauty and perhaps the science, but also “tastes” the experience. His vision enables him to transcend the physical experience to something mystical.

Rohr calls this seeing with the “third eye.” And I knew exactly what he meant.

I experienced that kind of vision all summer long in my lunchtime walks through the woods, past streams and alongside the lake at Wellesley College. Some of these experiences were quite intense, most especially my kayak trip on Lake Waban.

And I had noticed this vision even before the summer.

Reading the Bible had always been a difficult and dry experience. I simply could not understand what it was trying to tell me. However, last year I began to experience a strange sensation while reading: my mind and my heart would be literally flooded with ideas and insights. It was thrilling and a little scary. It was like God was chattering at me!

I don’t remember when I began acquiring this “third eye” but I am guessing it is connected to a few newer habits in my life: challenging reading, journaling and blogging, and set times for prayer. (This blog is a result of those new habits.)

I allowed myself to be carried in the flow of God’s will, just like my kayak floats down river. I went with the flow and without realizing it, accepted an invitation from God to go deeper with my faith.

I didn’t really know what was happening but had a sense that it was better to just “go with it” rather than to question.

And now, I have a book that will explain what’s been happening.

And the best part is, you can experience this too.

Everyone is called to be a mystic. It’s what Jesus intended. It was not just for those saints we see commemorated in statues and prayer cards.

Jesus means for each of us to experience this “third eye,” a direct result of a close, intimate relationship with Him.

The closer we get, the better we see.

And that’s when life really starts to take off. Surrounded by and immersed fully in this Divine love, we can experience what Henri Nouwen wrote in that post I highlighted the other day, “It is in the heart of God that we can come to the full realisation of the unity of all that is, created and uncreated.”  See here for full article.

Susan Bailey's belief in a "Third Eye" is very disturbing.  It is a concept rooted in New Age occultism.  See here for example.  But then, the Worcester "Commission for Women" has long promoted New Age spirituality.  See here, here and here for example.

Nor is it surprising that Bailey would promote the work of Fr. Richard Rohr.  As Bryce Andrew Sibley explains:

"Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God "Father." He writes in Adam's Return (which was the basis for his presentations) that we must "find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God...."
Rohr bases this claim on his belief that "God is the ultimate combination of whatever it means to be male and whatever it means to be female." He asserts that God is in no way sexed, and here he seems to be in agreement with the Catechism, which states: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes" (#370). However, this does not mean that it would be proper to refer to God as "Mother." Rohr's thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called "Mother" is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father..." (#240).
Rohr's problem also extends to his vision of the Church. During his presentations, he made several negative references to patriarchy, particularly to the Church as a patriarchal institution (patriarchy finding its roots in the Latin word pater, meaning "father"). The vague references he made during the conference become clearer when seen in relation to what he writes about the patriarchal dimension of the Church in his book Simplicity, in the first chapter, titled, "God the Father -- God the Mother?" Here Rohr describes the structure of Catholicism as patriarchal. Jesus was happy to call God "father," but "presumably that has something to do with his patriarchal culture." The Gospel text then "reveals the beginnings of the bias against women," and the beginnings of patriarchy. Our "liturgical texts are almost completely patriarchal, and they perpetuate this narrow image of God." But fortunately (according to Rohr), "we belong to the first generation of the Church that has come to consciously recognize our patriarchal biases."
Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.
Although the Church is patriarchal by structure and office, the true symbol of the Church is not Peter, but Mary. Maybe having a more developed image of the Church as feminine would assuage Rohr's desire to have God reveal Himself in feminine terms.
The ultimate irony here is that, while concentrating on the problem of rejecting our earthly fathers, Fr. Rohr rejects his heavenly Father. He also rejects the spiritual fathers whom God has called to be representatives of His paternal authority on earth. It follows logically that if someone rejects the definitive Revelation of God as Father, then it is very difficult to teach men to be good Christian fathers (or males) themselves.

Homosexual Advocacy   The reality of sexual difference -- that man was created as male and female by God for a reason -- is a basic teaching of Catholic anthropology and theology. Pope John Paul II wrote beautifully about the significance of sexual difference in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, in which he calls the reality of man being created as male and female a "truth which is immutably fixed in human experience" (#2). At first, I was encouraged to see that Rohr appeared to ground his "male spirituality" in the reality of sexual difference as one truly positive aspect of his presentation. However, when I took a closer look at some of his other writings, particularly those dealing with homosexuality, I began to question whether Rohr really holds a strong belief in the importance of sexual difference.
The website of Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group, carries a letter written by Fr. Rohr (dated 2000) supporting this organization's mission. Soulforce claims that its purpose is non-violent resistance to the "spiritual violence" perpetrated against "gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons by social and religious groups. The Soulforce website defines spiritual violence as "the misuse of religion to sanction the condemnation and rejection of any of God's children." Soulforce claims that spiritual violence is a misuse of God and religion to perpetuate society's prejudices against "gays," lesbians, etc. Needless to say, Soulforce protests the condemnation of homosexual activity and homosexual "marriages" by the Church and other religious organizations.
Rohr's support of Soulforce and its goals is rooted in his interpretation of Jesus' all-inclusive love. He writes that the Church has failed to live up to the Gospel values by "judging" and "excluding" homosexuals. He hopes that the Church will realize the error of her ways, but until she does he hopes that Soulforce will maintain its loving, inclusive position because "our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of [Christ's] realm of grace for far too long."
Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr's support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as Soulforce (and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on "male spirituality." As the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (#2357). "They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity" clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.
There is yet another irony. While Rohr endorses the work of a homosexual advocacy group (on that group's website), he criticizes political conservatives active in the 2004 presidential election for their preoccupation with what he refers to as a "body oriented morality." He writes in an essay posted on the website of his Center for Action and Contemplation, "In the upcoming years we must find ways to address this ‘body oriented' morality, which has always held churchy people captive, but now seems to be widespread. The body holds human shame and inferiority, and people can be most controlled at that level.... We [i.e., political conservatives] want body morality, not really a demanding Biblical morality. No concern about social values, or justice values, or basic truthfulness, just puritanical concern for keeping human bodies so called ‘pure,' by preoccupation with issues like abortion, those terrible gays, and stem cell research. All of which can be addressed by a more nuanced morality. But America does not like nuance or compassion.... These body issues, these pretensions at being pro-life, demand very little change of 90% of the population, but allow us to remain preoccupied with trying to change others. How convenient for the ego. How disturbing for the future of religion and state." Rohr echoed these same sentiments in his conference when he said that religious people often use religion to condemn others, particularly those who participate in abortion and homosexual activity. Religious people do this, he claimed, so that they do not have to hear the Gospel message and transform themselves. (Of course, Rohr is condemning those who condemn.)
So, if Rohr thinks we should look beyond these "body issues" to a more "demanding Biblical morality" why is he so concerned with the "body issue" of homosexuality?

"He Was Paying No Debt"   And so our discussion of the body brings us to Rohr's thinking on the Redemption that Christ brought about in His body. In the first chapter of Adam's Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: "‘Incarnation is already redemption,' and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God's commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing' place of God." Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption. This is made more evident in this passage from his critique of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, supposedly taking the teaching of John Duns Scotus as his justification: "As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of the Franciscan understanding of the redemption, based on the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. He did not believe in any ‘substitutionary atonement theory' of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us, he was paying no debt, He was changing no Divine mind. Jesus was only given to change our mind about the nature of God! (Imagine what we are saying about the Father, if he needed blood from his son to decide to love us! It is an incoherent world with no organic union between Creator and creature. No wonder so few Christians have gone on the mystical path of love, since God is basically untrustworthy and more than a little dangerous.) For Duns Scotus, Jesus was the ‘image of the invisible God' who revealed to us a God's eternal suffering love for humanity, in an iconic form that we could not forget. He was not ‘necessary,' but a pure gift. The suffering was simply to open our hearts, not to open God's -- which was always open."
I will not belabor arguing the point in detail that the crucifixion and death of our Lord was not only part of God's eternal plan but also necessary for the atonement of sins. I would hope all faithful Catholics already know this. Rohr's teaching here is at best confused. It does not seem clear to me that the "substitutionary atonement theory" teaches that the death of Christ was necessary for God to love us or to change His mind about us. What the atonement theory does teach, however, is that there is a real debt rendered to God when we sin, which is our death. How can we, of ourselves, mend a relationship initiated freely by God Himself? How could our sin, our rejection of the free friendship offered us by God at the creation, result in anything else but our death? In terms of our sinfulness, only God can fix what we broke, and He did. Christ died in our place. He himself suffered the real punishment for our real sins -- He paid the debt -- and therefore those who accept Christ have access to divine life.
Instead of focusing on Rohr's error in claiming that Christ's death was not necessary for redemption, let's look at his teaching on Original Sin and how his teaching leads to an erroneous proposition. In the section on Original Sin in Adam's Return, Rohr says that Original Sin "names the ‘corporate body pain' that we all suffer from together." It is the "tragic flaw in all of us" and we should not "waste time blaming anybody" for its existence. It is the collective hurts that have been passed on to us by our parents, just as they were passed on to them. Baptism washes away this "original wound" and "our endless capacity for self-rejection and self-hatred" by "situating one's life in a much bigger picture." For Rohr, Original Sin is the "original wounding," it is the "shadow self that you do not understand," "the dark side that seems to be in everything," "the common pain of being human." "It does not deserve punishment. It deserves tears."
Clearly, Rohr has a very weak understanding of Original Sin. Once again, I do not think it necessary to go into great detail about the teaching of the Church on Original Sin (see the Catechism, #388-421). It should suffice to say that Original Sin comes as the result of the sin of the first man. It resulted in the loss of the state of grace and a tendency toward sin that is passed on through human nature. It is more than just a "tragic flaw" or an "original wound" -- it is a loss of grace and divine friendship, which is what necessitates a Messiah and Redeemer. One paragraph from the Catechism explains this point particularly well: "The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side' of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ" (#389).
Here we see the real root of Rohr's redemptive theology. His "tampering" with the correct understanding of Original Sin truly leads to an undermining of the saving mystery of Christ. If Original Sin is nothing more than a "tragic flaw" or "shadow side," if Original Sin is not seen from the perspective of the fall from grace, then the just penalty due for that, and hence the necessity of salvation, of Christ, His message, His death and Resurrection are all meaningless. As the above quote from the Catechism points out, one cannot have the Good News of salvation that comes through Christ without the bad news of condemnation that comes through Adam. Without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohr's Christ turns out to be."

The fact that Susan Bailey would promote this deeply confused and troubled priest should concern Worcester diocesan officials.  But no doubt they are far more concerned with banning orthodox, heterosexual candidates to the priesthood while ensuring that speakers like Robert Spencer never see the light of day within the Diocese.

Never mind that Fr. Richard Rohr is a heretic who promotes New Age spirituality and presided over a "lesbian wedding."  See here.  No, the Diocese is bent on pursuing its mission of ostracizing those who defend orthodoxy and stand up for Magisterial teaching.  Just a couple of weeks ago I was told that I would be ostracized for standing up for sound liturgical rubrics.

As Michael Brown would say: Our sad time!

Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism

The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication.  It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium.  But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop.  And nothing has changed.  Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself.  In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."

Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith."  But these lies do not square with the facts.  Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.

I too pray that Mary Donovan will "rest in peace."  For she lacked peace in her lifetime here on earth.

The Diocese of Worcester promotes angry dissident Joyce Rupp

In a previous post, I noted how The Catholic Free Press is once again promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, a dissident religious who rails against the hierarchical Church while promoting New Age spirituality.  Many parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese are also promoting the upcoming day-long retreat with this angry, dissenting religious.  The retreat, which is to be held on September 29th at St. Anne's Parish hall in Shrewsbury, is being sponsored by the "Commission for Women," and has as its theme: "The Gift of Self - Compassion."

Sister Rupp, the self proclaimed spiritual midwife, claims to have learnt a lot from Eagle Crux a native American spiritualist and feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism. She tells us that everything is made of stardust including ourselves and that stones have as much right to be here as we have, in fact more so because they have been here longer. Her books include how to draw sacred mandela dancing circles and even have the rites for the blessing of the sexual organs! On Ireland she says that the Irish love of learning was first fostered by the wise druids and in the same article goes on to extoll New-Ageism as valuable and that some in the church are envious of it because it draws people toward spiritual growth.

In her book entitled "Cosmic Dance," this lost soul gleefully described a gathering of lesbians which she attended: "Different from me , thousands of them. Holding hands, kissing, arms around each other, stretching me beyond the safe world of heterosexuality. A gathering of lesbians challenging me to enter a world I never visit."

Is this why she is so welcome in the Worcester Diocese?  Because she advocates New Age occultism and stretching "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality"?

Back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," the angry feminist lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused wihtin the Catholic Church. Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."

Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church.  But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church.  She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity.  And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.  He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'  All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ.  If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His Pastors?  Of course not.  And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council). 

Rupp, flying into an uncontrolled temper tantrum because women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, complained that, "Power rightly exercised can be healthy and helpful. Rome agrees, but only so long as this power is in the hands of men. When women begin to assert their rights* and seek to have their God-given potential and gifts fully acknowledged and accepted for service in the church, they are not only denied this right but are written off as adversaries, reactionaries, and power-seekers."

So much for persevering in charity.  By venting such hatred against the Church, Rupp has shown her contempt for Christ.  For the Pastors of the Church rule in His name and by His authority.  If you want to read more of Rupp's hate speech against the Mystical Body of Christ, it may be found here.

Bishop Robert McManus asked Anna Maria College - and rightfully so - to disinvite Victoria Kennedy, an atheistic humanist, from speaking at its Commencement this year.  One has to wonder why one dissident isn't welcome while another is.  Is it simply because one is a Catholic religious?  Dissent is dissent Your Excellency, whether one wears a religious habit (or in Rupp's case, I'm sure, a small pin to denote that she's a "Catholic" religious) or a business suit.

Bishop McManus, do you really think Joyce Rupp is the best person to be giving a presentation on compassion to the faithful of this diocese?  Does her dissent trouble you at all?  Her New Age spirituality?

* Ordination to the priesthood is not a "right," even for men.  No one can take by force what God is not calling him to.  Hence the need for a discernment period for men considering the priesthood and the Church's ratification of the vocation.

The Catholic Free Press promotes New Age Advocate Joyce Rupp

The basic credo of the New Age Movement, which looks to usher in a New World Order, is that a person creates their own reality according to what feels right for them. For example, a person may choose to be homosexual, bisexual, monogamous or polygamous and it's "okay" as long as it's "right for me." A person may choose whether or not to have an abortion. And so on. Of course, this is nonsense. For, as Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand reminds us, "The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another." (The New Tower of Babel: Modern Man's Flight from God, pp. 57-58).


This New Age relativism is promoted by the Worcester Commission for Women [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts]. The Commission for Women has had Sister Joyce Rupp as a guest speaker at its "Gather Us In" Conference and their website links to her website.  The Commission for Women also published a prayer by this New Age advocate in which she said, "We will make choices and decisions in 2010 of how we create our reality" while praying that we will all "..let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted" so that we will, "welcome people and events disturbing [our] comfort zone."

In a previous post, I noted how Sister Rupp, a self-proclaimed spiritual midwife who feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism, has extolled New-Ageism as valuable and claims to have stretched herself "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality" while attending a "gathering of lesbians." And this certainly explains what she means when she prays that we "let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted." In an interview with US Catholic (April 2000), Sister Joyce Rupp said that, "In many ways, New Age has become the new enemy. That's unfortunate because some things about New Age are valuable...I think some Church people are envious about New Age, because it does draw people toward spiritual growth."

Johnette Benkovic, at her website Women of Grace, writes:

We have received several questions regarding the orthodoxy of a Servite nun and author named Joyce Rupp who is a popular speaker on the Catholic retreat circuit these days. The following information should prove helpful.


There are some very serious issues with Sr. Rupp.

Let’s begin with her authorship of several books about a quasi-divine entity named Sophia, which she describes in her article “Desperately Seeking Sophia” as being “another word for the radiant presence of the Holy One.” Sophia is supposedly derived from the Greek translation of the word “wisdom” in Scripture – which is Hagia Sophia.

Rupp treats Sophia as a kind of goddess of inner wisdom in her books, and even admits to struggling with the question of whether or not Sophia is Divine. Apparently, she never really answers that question for herself because although she refers to Sophia as another name for God, she treats this “person” as someone we’re supposed to discover, open ourselves to, pray to and turn to for all our needs in life – sort of like what most of us do with God.

“I count on Sophia to influence my attitudes, values, and beliefs, to help me make good choices and decisions,” she writes. “I pray to her each day to guide me as I try to reflect her love in all I am and all I do. Whenever I am in doubt as to how to proceed in my work and relationships, I turn to Sophia for wisdom and courage. She has never failed to be there for me.”

This very troublesome presentation of God, which could easily lead those of weak faith into idolatry, comes from Rupp’s own dislike of Church hierarchy, something she does nothing to hide. For instance, in a Dec. 2008 interview with the National Catholic Reporter, she said that the reason her retreats are attended by mostly women is because “Women haven’t trusted their own spiritual experiences because the church for so long told them, and all of us, what to do and how to act.”

That she is heavily invested in the New Age is beyond doubt. First, it should be noted that she holds a degree in transpersonal psychology from the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, California. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology describes transpersonal psychology as “the study of humanity’s highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness” (Lajoie and Shapiro, 1992:91).

If this definition sounds a bit “iffy” – it is! Transpersonal psychology, which attempts to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, has received no serious recognition from the scientific community and was described by the authors of the Pontifical document, “Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life” as “the classic approach to the New Age.”

It’s interesting to note that the Institute where Sr. Rupp received this “prestigious” degree also offers classes in shamanism, the goddess, ESP and Eastern spirituality.

Evidence of Rupp’s involvement in the New Age becomes even more apparent when visiting the website of the retreat center she founded along with Sr. Margaret Stratman, known as the Servite Center of Compassion. Located in Omaha, it offers courses in Tai Chi, the Enneagram, yoga, and dreamwork.

Sr. Rupp is also known to speak at conferences where occult practices are featured, such as the 27th Annual Women and Spirituality Conference that was held in 2008 at the Minnesota State University-Mankato. During this conference, classes were offered in tarot, astrology, communicating with the dead, yoga and psychic powers.

That Rupp will surely introduce retreatants to the syncretism in which she freely indulges is evident in an interview that appears on her website: “I am in tune with a lot from Native American spirituality, partly because of the way it connects with nature. I also like it because it brings the body into prayer, for example, standing and praying toward the four directions [a pagan ritual]. I’ve also learned a lot from the Buddhist perspective about compassion, and it has greatly enhanced my Christian compassion. And I resonate with the Sufi tradition, the mystical branch of Islam. I find that it connects very much with the Roman Catholic mystical tradition of lover and beloved. The Sufis started the Dances of Universal Peace, which have been very important in my spiritual life. They are simple movements with prayers from different traditions that are chanted and danced in a circle. I find that very compelling and a wonderful way to connect with people. From Buddhism, I value the practice of mindfulness, being aware and present to the moment.”

There’s a lot more that could be written about Sr. Rupp, but I think this is enough to give you a good enough idea of who she is."  (Post may be found here).

It is enough if you are a person of good will who is interested in meeting the demands of truth.  It is enough if you are authentically Catholic as opposed to being such in name only.  However, the Commission for Women, which seeks to promote confusion and dissent, is still promoting this New Age advocate and angry feminist and The Catholic Free Press, the official newspaper of the Worcester Diocese, continues to assist the Commission for Women in this violent endeavour.

On page 8 of this week's edition of the CFP, in the Diocesan Calendar, we read that: "The diiocesan Commission for Women will present Sister Joyce Rupp in a day-long retreat for women with the theme 'The Gift of Self-Compassion' on September 29 from 9 a.m. -3 p.m. in St. Anne's Parish Hall, 130 Boston Tpke. in Shrewsbury."  The listing mentions that Sister Rupp is a member of the Servites but says nothing about her bizarre New Age beliefs or her dislike of the Church's hierarchy.

Several years ago I tried to get The Catholic Free Press to list a Marian Movement of Priests Cenacle in the Diocesan Calendar of Events.  I was not successful.  Margaret Russell, the paper's editor, denied my request.  And yet, Ms. Russell apparently has no problem whatsoever with promoting an event featuring a New Age advocate whose views are hardly consistent with Catholic teaching and spirituality.

How sad.

More on Joyce Rupp here.

Encouraging news from the new director of Joseph House in Manchester, New Hampshire...

Colleen McCormick, the new director of Joseph House in Manchester, New Hampshire, an apostolate connected to Ste. Marie's Parish in the city, has left a comment at this Blog.  She writes:

"Today at Joseph House we have many active prayer and ministry groups. We have Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, Eucharistic Adoration, Lectio Divina, Intercessory Prayer, and Healing Prayer Ministry. If you have not visited us lately, or never stopped in, I would encourage you to join us the first Sunday of each month beginning this December 4th, as we pray a Holy Hour of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Holy Hour starts at 7pm and no reservations are necessary. It would be a wonderful way to introduce or reintroduce yourself to the Joseph House prayer community."

Blessings in JMJ,
Colleen McCormick


This is indeed encouraging news.  For years I have been warning of the dangers of Centering Prayer.  Back in 2005, I warned my readers that Joseph House was heavily promoting this method of contemplative prayer.  Now, thanks be to God, Joseph House has recognized its dangers.  See here.

I was ostracized by the pastor at the time - Father Marc Montminy.  But I hold no grudge.  Instead I have been praying for Ste. Marie's and for Joseph House.  And I consider this an answer to prayer.  Praise be Jesus Christ!

La Salette Attleboro: The Fallout Spreads...

There has been much fallout since my Blog post exposing the emergence of New Age spirituality at the La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts. Michael Brown carried the piece at his website Spirit Daily and the Medjugorje Forum initiated a discussion thread. A Catholic woman posed a question for the experts at EWTN which may be found here.

For a little more background on Joyce Rupp from Donna Steichen (the author of Ungodly Rage, a favorite of mine which is published by Ignatius Press), go here. Ms. Steichen, writing about New Age influences upon St. Andrew's Parish in Fort Myers, Florida, notes how:

"...it was the school principal, Sister Elizabeth Dunn, who did most to reveal how deeply alien feminist theology had penetrated into St. Andrew's when, for Christmas in 1994, she gave each school staff member a copy of Sister Joyce Rupp's little book of self-centered feminist mediation, The Star in My Heart: Experiencing Sophia, Inner Wisdom. Rupp's bibliography cites notorious feminist authors from Merlin Stone (When God Was a Woman) through New Age pioneer Jean Houston to Rianne Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade) and Elizabeth Dodson Gray, keynote speaker at the annual Massachusetts WomenChurch meeting a few years ago.

Like many current feminist writers, Rupp personifies the figure of Divine Wisdom in the Old Testament Wisdom books as 'Sophia,' a name used because it is the Greek word for wisdom. Rupp echoes standard feminist rhetoric when she says:. . . it seems evident that Sophia is the feminine face of God. This aspect was eventually lost due to a highly male-dominated culture and a church that was very fearful of the goddess traditions of the past. That feminists seek to make a goddess of Divine Wisdom is ironic, since they have so noticeably failed to acquire even mere human wisdom, for which their need is clearly desperate. Surely some feminist scholars must know that the use of the feminine pronoun in Scriptural references to Wisdom is a matter of grammatical gender; in Hebrew and Greek, all abstract nouns are feminine. Divine Wisdom is not a Person but a perfection of the Holy Trinity, traditionally attributed to the Son because He is the Word of God."

Like most of feminist theology, this exercise is simply a propaganda campaign, exhibiting less intellectual honesty and scholarly objectivity than one might find in a public-relations campaign by the advertising council. The rising tide of feminist spirituality at St. Andrew's crested with an Earth Week observance in late April. All-school events are not routine at St. Andrew's. No services were held during Holy Week, for example, nor after Easter in celebration of the Resurrection. There was no all-school May crowning of the statue of the Blessed Virgin. The school does not assemble for May rosary devotions. Yet the faculty pulled out all the stops for Earth Week, a purely secular media event invented by members of the 1960s counter-culture to draw attention to their environmental concerns. Classroom teachers were urged to implement specific activities for each day of the week, and two major all-school 'prayer services' were scheduled.