Queens has some really Catholic neighborhoods. I mean exceptionally Catholic. Even the praying mantises dont just pray. They say novenas. -Steve Allen

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

The Death of Masculinity

Matt speaking here: Marcel from Mary's Aggies will be guest posting here once a week for the next month. We're happy to have him here. It'll be nice to have someone smart to speak with at the CMR Editorial Meetings. Here's Marcel's post:

Masculinity is dying a quick death. It is attacked from all sides, for example:

-Radical feminists say that being masculine is anti-woman.

-The feminized man is esteemed (esp. those who have a same sex attraction).

-Fathers are portrayed as blundering idiots in media.

It doesn’t help that some modern cultures (e.g., China , Muslim countries, etc) revere the masculine to the detriment of women, just as our own did not so long ago. This is a macho-only kind of mentality which is truly harmful (warning: graphic images) to women and girls.

So, what is a man to do? Our modern world swings between two extremes that both tear down true masculinity – on the one side is the overly-macho crap and on the other is the emasculated feminization of masculinity.

The answer lies in the root of the problem, which started “in the beginning.”

Adam was given the commission by God to “to cultivate and care for” the Garden of Eden and all that was in it (Gen 2:15). Adam messed up soon after. He fails to protect his wife, because he is a coward. He then blames his wife and in doing so he relinquishes his masculinity. Notice that after giving up his masculinity he quickly falls into lusting after his wife, which is why they have to cover themselves – to protect themselves from the lust of the other.

We still suffer from the same issues.

The modern man has also relinquished his masculinity by failing to have self-control. The modern man is an emasculated macho fool who has given in to his pornified passions and lives a sterile and contracepted life – he bears no fruit, literally and figuratively.

These issues are not only killing masculinity, they are also killing femininity. Because only when masculinity is truly lived properly will femininity flourish.

So, where do we start? We start with discovering what a real man is NOT:

A real man is not emasculated ninny.

Neither is a real man a testosterone infused sack of passions.

A real man is this -> a man who desperately seeks to follow in the footsteps of THE MAN.

He will be courageous in the face of danger.

He will fight for and maintain self control.

He will put to death his lusts.

He will be in control of his emotions and yet not afraid of them.

He will find himself in losing himself.

He is humble, but sure of the gifts God has given him.

He is gentle when he should be and rough when necessary.

He is a man of strength of character and his word means something.

He fulfills his promises.

He isn’t ashamed of his Lord or either of his mothers.

He will put life in the proper order – 1 – God; 2 – His wife (if he has one); 3 – His children (if he has them) 4 – Others; 5 – Himself

A real man isn’t afraid of his masculine traits, but embraces them as a gift from God. He doesn’t abuse them, but understands the way to use them in service of God and others.

It is time we men resurrect true masculinity.

Your Ad Here

42 comments:

Rick said...

The term virtue came from 12th century via Old French vertu that came from the Latin virtus "manliness, excellence, worth" which ultimately came from vir "man, husband"]

fumblingtowardgrace said...

AMEN! I am posting this...now. Thanks for the friday inspiration!

That Married Couple said...

Amen!

K. Marie said...

Amer to that! I will definitely be sending this link around.

Anonymous said...

"He fails to protect his wife, because he is a coward."

I'm not really sure how you arrive at this conclusion. What exactly is he failing to protect her from... Satan? Plus, how can you infer cowardice on his part based on the scant information provided to us in Genesis?

Fr Bill P said...

Our diocese started a summer camp for teenage boys to focus on Catholic masculinity focusing of the 4 cardinal virtues. They have prayer and Mass and other Catholic prayerforms, they go hiking, canoeing, and generally are allowed to explore the outdoors. They did it for the first time last year and it was hit. They did it because the priests were tired of turning away as many as we accepted for seminary studies due to lack of maturity and masculinity and seeing young women settling for overgrown boys to marry hoping that marriage would change them. WE figured we work on explaining to them what it means to be a Catholic man and then worrying about vocations.

Anonymous said...

"He fails to protect his wife, because he is a coward."

I'm not really sure how you arrive at this conclusion. What exactly is he failing to protect her from... Satan? Plus, how can you infer cowardice on his part based on the scant information provided to us in Genesis?

Hebrews 2:14-15
Now since the children share in blood and flesh, he likewise shared in them, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death had been subject to slavery all their life.

Marcel said...

My reasoning for saying Adam was a coward is this. His job is to protect, yet he is silent while watching his wife be tempted by Satan - silent in the face of evil. Satan wasn't just a used car salesman of a snake, he was a monstrous demon who threatened Adam's life. Genesis 3:6 says "she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

Adam was standing behind his wife, in silence, along side an invader who comes and endangers his wife, the Garden, and his life. He kept his mouth shut. He is a coward. His fear then gave way to pride. He chooses the devil's temptations, and his own pride, over God,

Richard A said...

I don't know. It's a valid interpretation, I guess, but St. Paul says that Adam wasn't deceived, Eve was. I think Adam, like many men, was seduced by a cool doodad and figured it was worth the price.

Apart from that, good article. These days it seems to me that self-control is the essential missing element in manhood.

Wine in the Water said...

I'm not so sure that you could say that Adam was a coward before the fall. He might have been there, but he might not have. Paul does tell us that Adam wasn't deceived. So if he was there, then his sin was quite a bit greater.

But he *was* a coward after the fall. When confronted by God, Adam acts like a 6 year-old and points the finger at Eve. Rather than protecting her, standing up for her, or just taking his punishment and letting her take hers, he tries to shift the consequences to her. I think that makes him a coward.

WW2MarineVeteran said...

The repot plus the comments made me think about all of the content. Are we any better than our original parents Adam & Eve. I think not. We still are learning as individuals.

Anonymous said...

I like the content here, but I think it could have been written better. I agree with the other commenters that Adam was not made a coward (as it sounds the way you wrote it). He was only a coward at the moment of his first sin.

One thing you forgot about things a real man is: A real man is also a WEAK SINNER who falls time and time again but gets up every time to continue carrying his cross (by God's grace). Your article makes it sound like a real man is a perfect and sinless man.

Other than that I thought it was a great article.

Anonymous said...

I would like to share this with you. Men will be men only when women expect them to be and insist that they are. Many times women don't hold up their end of the deal..we are taught by the culture, by our parents, by the Church to stand up for ourselves, to take care of ourselves, to protect ourselves. What then are the men left to do when women are doing everything? I discovered when I let go of everything and expected my husband to do it, then he did it. I want him to take care of me, protect me, honor me. 15 years ago he was just my partner, silent, not sure what to say, not wanting to offend me or make me angry. He was like Adam I suppose. I made a lot of mistakes while he stood by and watched. Men can't become men until women let them....

Meg Murray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
uzza said...

One can hardly call Adam a coward based on Genesis 2. According to it, Adam's job was to protect the garden, not Eve, and the serpent never threatened anyone. He said god was lying about the fruit, and Eve believed him and found out the truth by eating it. Result: one did not die as god claimed, instead their eyes were opened and they became as gods, knowing good from evil, as the serpent had said. Not only was the serpent non-threatening, he was helpful, in fact he's the only one in the story who comes out looking good.

Nor is there any indication that Adam was there or knew anything about this. Afterwards, in her new godlike knowledge of what was right and wrong Eve gave him the fruit too. Why would he not also eat it and become as a god? There's some real bravery there on Eve's part, but no cowardice.

OTOH, you could call Adam a coward based on Genesis 3:12-13, where both the humans wimped out and tried to pass the buck, both doing what you called “relinquishing their masculinity”.

Anonymous said...

You must be a convert. The true example and role model of masculinty would be the life of Christ. Why you wasted your time bringing the alagory of Adam and Eve into this subject is shear sophistry.

Anonymous said...

It starts in Rome. Husband headship is neither in Vatican II's documents nor in the Catechism yet it is 6 times explicit in the New Testament. And Vatican II's documents were repetitive concerning the authority of pastors, bishops and the Pope and silent about the authority of fathers and husbands. Do we really wonder why men vanished from the Church when in effect it says to them: our authority is important and yours is not? John Paul II wrote twice about headship (TOB%Dignity of Women) and by avoiding 5 NT passages and only quoting Ephesians, he was able to equate mutual submission which is important also...as the only submission in marriage....which would mean husband headship vanishes and the 5 other passages from the Holy Spirit which he did not quote were typos. He refers to them but hints that they represented the old outlook of the Jews. Now compare that with the 1930 encyclical
Casti C. section 74 first sentence....and you will have found that the problem lies within John Paul's sporadic dislike of certain passages in the Bible which also led him to a feminizing of the death penalty issue (see section 40 of Evangelium Vitae where he sees the old death penalties as not really from God).

Fr. Andrew said...

One thing that ticks me off in the Church today is people thinking that things have to be done perfectly or not at all. Maybe Marcel didn't write a "perfect" article on the issues but he raised a discussion. Fittingly, this atmosphere of criticism is emasculating.

The more pertinent issue for those who seek to build up the body of Christ is the pervasive presence of these emasculated and effeminate images of men in culture. The lack of true masculine leadership is the biggest problem I see for the future of the Church. It weighs on current presbyterates and threatens future ones. It is a poison in marriages and in business. We need to do something, even it it isn't perfect. To misquote G.K. Chesterton: "Anything worth doing, is worth doing badly."

Father Bill P, if you're still tracking these responses, kudos! I'd love to hear what you do in your diocese as I am involved with college formation.

Megan said...

You people shouldn't be so obesssed with the idea of god.
You do not know him, If he's even ther.
And if he is, he is not a human. You should not praise idols that you do not know.

You should believe in things around you, such as other people or the sun and moon and yourself.
You should come first.

You can not help other until you repair yourself. God would agree, if he is real.

Anonymous said...

"Fittingly, this atmosphere of criticism is emasculating. "

Fr. Andrew, are we not allowed to discuss the article written, or are we just supposed to blindly agree with everything we read?

Theoden said...

Well and truly said. I've found consolation and strength for my journey as a husband and father in the patronage of St. Joseph. His "seven sorrows and joys" have been a rich devotional guide.

Marcel said...

Disagree all you want, discussion is fine in my opinion.

I am not a convert, but what does that have to do with it anyway?

I never said I was a great author - that is Matthew's job.

If you want to read more on the idea of Adam's cowardice - try Scott Hahn. He has some good stuff on it - but then again, he is a convert and maybe we shouldn't listen to anything he says...

Anonymous said...

If the Church is not going to defend men in marriage, where they are the overwhelming victims of unwanted divorces wherein the state and their "beloved" enslave them, then this article and this discussion are moot.

Rome does not listen. Instead the Pope just talks and allows the clergy to geld men.

Keep encouraging divorce, as the Catholic Church does in spite of its falsehood and doublespeak and men will continue to be destroyed.

Kate said...

Don't most of these traits apply to "real" women as well? Courageous, trustworthy, gentle/fierce as necessary, honest...

Anonymous said...

These traits should apply to all people but we have lost guidance in the Catholic Church and men. like it or not, are in the cross hairs of these attacks, primarily.

Either they are defended, mostly in attacks against marriage, since that is the "primary" vocation(but not only one)by the Catholic Church or the Church should be brutally assaulted until it does.

The Church does nothing of the sort now and those who say it does are gelded.

Christina said...

Good post. Although I disagree with most of the criticism, I think it's fair enough to express it. I'd be worried about Marcel's masculinity if he couldn't take the criticism ;-)

I liked the one comment about how men can't be men unless women let them. This is so true and it's why I actually like the interpretation of Adam being a coward. The word used for serpent is also the word used for dragon or monster, this wasn't a garden snake. Eve should have stood back and allowed her husband to confront the devil, to defend her, instead she stepped forward into the void he left and was deceived by the serpent. Adam failed in his mission to protect the garden and to lay down his life for his wife.

The cure was for Jesus to lay down his life for the Church, his bride. Mary, as the new Eve, stood back and allowed him to offer himself, undoing the sin of our first mother, "the obedience of Mary unties the knot of Eve's disobedience."

Mary gives us the example of how women need to allow men to be men, yet it's so hard for me to remember having been brought up in this "women can do all" world.

David said...

Christina, your argument doesn't make sense to me. You said you agree that Adam was a coward and that he failed to protect the garden, but you also say men can't be men unless women let them. If he could not have been a man unless Eve allowed him, how could we say his failure was the result of cowardice? No, if what you're saying is true, then the garden was infiltrated because of a decision Eve made, not because of a decision Adam made.

Either it was within Adam's power to protect Eve and we can therefore blame him for her demise, or it was not within his power and we cannot blame him. What you're saying goes like this: "We women decide when men can be men, and if they fail to protect us, well, we can still blame them!" You know, have your cake and eat it, too?

Personally, I don't buy it. You can say what you like, but it's not up to you or any woman whether I behave like a man. That's up to me. If a man feels comfortable expressing himself only when his wife allows him, then we would tend to think that man is timid and frightened of his wife -- which is, frankly, not very manly. No, a man who is sure of himself will express himself whether his wife wants to hear it or not.

As for Mary "allowing Jesus to offer himself," I'm sorry, but -- reality check! I don't think it was up to Mary to decide whether humanity was going to be saved. That took place at God's initiative. It was His will. We know Mary would only have colluded with His plan because she was free of the stain of original sin, but if for some reason she had chosen otherwise, I'm sorry -- wake up call -- Christ would have been dying for us either way. Either that, or the God of the universe is, in reality, a timid little boy who does whatever mother tells him, whether she is right or wrong, sane or insane, simply because is frightened to death of her.

All this talk about women getting to decide when men act like men is sheer nonsense. It's power that doesn't exist, power you don't have. I would imagine it's easy to believe in a world like ours because most men today are so uncertain about themselves that they readily concede to women at the first sign of opposition -- even when the women are horribly wrong! Now that's cowardly!

Christina said...

David, I don't disagree with you, I just think it's a bit more nuanced than "it's all Adams" or "it's all Eve's" fault.

I don't think it's impossible for a man to be a man, even if the women in his life are pushing him to be a emasculated ninny, it's just harder. When a man comes across a woman who wants to do everything, it's easier to sit back and let her. That is what a lot of men in our culture are doing.

When a woman comes across a man doing nothing (or something "poorly"), she often decides to "just do it herself." It would be much harder for a woman to sit back and allow a man struggle through and fail.

I suppose using the word allow is what makes it sound like I believe otherwise, like women control men. I don't. It's allow in the sense of "allowing a child to fall." So the mother doesn't hover over the child, preventing every fall. The child could still fall, despite the mother's hovering, and in fact the fall could be worse. The child could also NOT fall when the mother steps back and allows the child that opportunity.

I don't think Mary could have taken Jesus down from the cross, but I think she had a vital role to play in standing there with arms open, accepting his death.

David said...

Christina, I don't buy anything you're saying. Your initial comment was the following:

"I liked the one comment about how men can't be men unless women let them. This is so true..."

You then backpeddled in your response but your latest comments are almost as insulting as your initial ones.

Your third paragraph is very interesting. You said, "It would be much harder for a woman to sit back and allow a man to struggle through and [here's the hook] fail." Two implications follow from what you've said: first, women are, by default, generally more capable than men, and second, a man will, given the opportunity, fail. Neither position is reasonable. Neither is in accordance with reality.

Your fourth paragraph was an absolute gold mine! You don't actually think it was an improvement on your former position, do you? You start off by saying you don't believe women control men, but how do you clarify your position? You compare the relationship between a man and woman to the relationship between mother and child. It's clear which roles you think the sexes play. Do you really think it's appropriate for a woman to think of her husband as the child she's raising?

You don't seem to want to acknowledge men as your equals. You say you don't want to control them, but you make it clear that you conceive of men as subordinates. Your stance is, by default, to think of men as useless clods who need to be tolerated at worst -- your word is "allowed," which is, if you didn't notice, a word that implies power -- or "raised" at best.

I'm sure you think I'm being antagonistic - and I am. Unapologetically so. I'm sick and tired of remaining silent in the face of demeaning tripe like this, and I'm sick and tired of the silence of my fellow men. Guys, we've got to start talking back when women put us down like this. Our women do not have any respect for us. Period. Perhaps they never have and never will - I don't know. The sexes seem impossibly at odds. But whatever women choose to believe about us, we at the very least cannot abandon respect for ourselves. Aren't you tired of looking at your fellow men and sensing their shame about themselves, their reticence to be who they are? Doesn't it make you mad to get treated like dirt all the time? When did we start feeling bad about being men? Do we deserve this? I don't think we do, and I think it's time we start talking up more. The things Christina said are the things said all the time and they have changed the face of the culture in which we live. I don't want to be the only one who hasn't thrown in the towel.

Rouxfus said...

Sounds a lot like John Walter Weyland's definition of "The True Gentleman":

The True Gentleman is the man
whose conduct proceeds from good will
and an acute sense of propriety,
and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies;
who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty,
the obscure man of his obscurity,
or any man of his inferiority or deformity;
who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another;
who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power,
or boast of his own possessions or achievements;
who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy;
whose deed follows his word;
who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own;
and who appears well in any company,
a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.

Christina said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christina said...

Five years ago I was walking into church and a gentleman held the door open for me. I said thank you and he mentioned how nice it was to have someone hold the door open for you. I didn't understand what he meant, being a good 60 years younger than he, thought he was talking about being polite. The next time I saw him I ran ahead to open the door for him, being polite and all, and couldn't understand the sad look in his eyes as he walked through.

The thoughts in my mind had nothing to do with "I can open a door better than a man" or some such nonsense, I'm only in my 20's and that custom died long before I was born. It didn't occur to me until much later that I could step back and allow a man to open the door for me.

And by allow, I mean just that. The man in the story above could have wrested the door from my hands...he was a hearty 80 year old...and forced me to walk through. He didn't because he was a gentleman and part of being a gentleman is not forcing a woman to accept your leadership.

I'm sorry if my analogy of raising children offended you. I'm a woman and think in terms of babies and children. If I were a man I could come up with a great sports or car analogy for this, but I'm not. Men think differently then women, and because of that it often "looks" like he's doing it wrong to a woman, even if the end result is the same or better.

I can't think of a better word than allow, if you can please let me know. Passivity maybe? Open? Perhaps men and women perceive the word allow in different ways?

David said...

Christina,

Your last post seemed to be mainly your effort to clarify your meaning of the word "allow." I understand what you're saying, and I agree with it. I also recognize you've been trying to say this since your first post. But I have a problem with a lot of other things you said. Incidentally, these were the things that colored my understanding of your use of the word "allow," and not unreasonably I believe, since you repeatedly described men in terms of inferiority and subordination.

I spent time talking about the implications of the things you said. I think they were pretty damned logical. You refuse to acknowledge any of those implications, and hardly anything that you actually said. Instead you choose to backpeddle, evade, excuse, etc.

And this garbage about your being a woman and thinking in terms of babies and children? Give me a freaking break. You've got more than one schema floating around in your head, Christina. This isn't about the maternal instinct. This is about you refusing to relate to men as equals.

So you went on at length with this fanciful imagery of a mother-wife "allowing" her baby-husband to fail. Awww, how cute. Maybe afterwards she burps her husband and gives him a binky. How about this? Has another scenario ever occurred to you? The wife steps back, chooses not to meddle in whatever her husband is doing - as is the ever-aggravating, arrogant, and belittling feminine wont - and the husband succeeds. He does a great job. He takes good care of his wife. Why? Because he's a grown, capable, experienced man - not a baby. If his wife's not a control freak (good luck), he can show this to her without fighting to do so.

To me, this thing is very clear. It's not about the maternal instinct. It's about *fear.* Talking about your husband like he's a child isn't about the maternal instinct. It's about fear. Children are helpless and dependent, not threatening. But a man? That's a different story. Who knows what this guy will someday do or say? Who knows what I'll someday learn about him? I don't think I can trust him. I don't want to trust him. I won't trust him. I refuse to hand my heart over to a man. You deliberately think about men in ways that make them seem harmless to you. You deliberately refuse to acknowledge them as equals. You relate to men as children - and I'm willing to bet surround yourself with male peers who act like children, and who think of you as a sort of mother figure - so you can avoid relating to them as equals, as threats.

So go on, backpeddle, fight back, whatever. Continue to refuse to take responsibility for anything you actually said. You might be able to dupe other guys, but you won't deceive me.

Aaron said...

St. Paul tells us in Ephesians that the duty of the husband is to sacrifice himself for the good of his wife. Christ gives Himself up for His Church, so all men must likewise sacrifice themselves for their wives. The Church, likewise, submits to this saving action of Christ: She allows Him to sacrifice Himself for her.

Likewise, then, Adam's job is to protect his wife...which he fails to do. Adam knows the penalty of following what Satan proposed-death-and yet he sat back and allowed his wife, flesh from his flesh, bone from his bone, to listen to Satan when death was a certainty! That is cowardice.

It is for this reason that Hebrews calls Christ the New Adam: He actually stood up and did what was necessary to protect His Bride: "Yet not what I will, but what You will." From this extension, Mary is the New Eve: she stood back and allowed her Spouse to do what was necessary: "Be it done unto me according to your word."

We get the true aspects of masculinity and femininity from Our Lord and Our Mother. To assert that one sex is dominant over the other denies the Incarnation.

Jason in Michigan said...

Great discussion! It needs to be had throughout the Church. For many years I have chafed at the overt and latent feminization present both in Western society and in the Church, and it's damned well about time we had a real discussion about what it means to be a Christian man.

One major obstacle to realizing this discussion is the perpetual portrayal of Christ as the meek, humble servant who, seemingly, died for us because he was too impotent to do otherwise. The obsessive focus on his meekness and mild demeanor is only the beginning. We are taught from little boyhood to deny our active impulses, to empathize with others, to avoid conflict and to passively accept bad treatment without complaint. These things might be a path to holiness for a properly-formed man, but to many of us, we were never taught to be men first - with all the failings and negative aspects that come with it. We have been malformed and have lost the ability to act, to initiate, to confront.

And don't get me started on our liturgies. Replete with felt banners, faggoty music, hand-holding and saccharine homilies that beat the same tired old drum of "forgiveness and love", men have left the Church in droves and won't be coming back. The sooner we return to a more masculine liturgy, the better off we all will be, including the young women who are desperate to find a good Catholic man to love and protect them, and find there just aren't enough.

A very good article on this subject: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=48

Flexo said...

How was Adam supposed to "protect" Eve?

By dragging her away? By putting his hands over her ears? By wrestling with the serpent? All of which is nothing more than seeking to deny her free choice of the will. And to deny her free will, to try to take her free will away from her, would not be an act of protection, it would not be an act of love and compassion, rather, it would have been an act of violence -- an act of evil.

We should be very careful in saying that Adam failed to "protect" Eve, that he should have denied her free will, that he should have taken her free will away from her. You start saying that, then you are not far from saying that God failed by not protecting both Adam and Eve from the serpent.

Eve knew as well as Adam what God had said about eating the fruit. What more protection was needed? Adam is supposed to protect her against herself? It was her choice. She ate the fruit because she freely chose to do so, she freely chose to throw off the protection that she had and do what she wanted to do.

It wasn't Adam's failure to protect, it wasn't God's failure to protect, it was Eve's choice.

Flexo said...

As for Jesus as the New Adam, doing what the "cowardly" first Adam failed to do --

Temptation is still rampant in the world. Indeed, Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted.

He doesn't protect us by eliminating temptation, by preventing us from being tempted, which is what some would have had Adam do, rather, He protects us by giving us the grace to overcome temptation, and then by forgiving us when we succumb to it.

David said...

Flexo, I think what you're saying is true - to a point. Suppose, for example, you have a friend who for a long time has been extremely depressed and while sitting at lunch together, he says to you, "I've had enough. I want to end my life."

What would you say?

If I were faced with that situation, I would, of course, try to help my friend find hope. I would try to help him resist the temptation to despair and suicidality. I would encourage him, console him, remind him about the things that make life worth living. I would not say, "Well, that's your choice. It's up to you. If you go through with it, don't blame me."

But this is something like what Adam said to Eve in his silence. Don't you agree? It was something like, "I don't care," or "It's not my problem!"

He might have reasoned with Eve. He might have reminded her about God's warning. He might have said, "Honey, we don't need to eat the apple. Why don't we go to the grove you like so much and have some lunch together?" Or - "Babe, I really love the way you did your hair today. It recalls to mind the power and the glory of God, to whom we owe our lives" - followed by a hard stare.

But Adam tried... nothing. He stood there, silently watching the evil one seduce his wife. You don't stand around doing nothing while the one you love is walking straight into danger!

Hell - I know you think coercion is evil, but even here I beg to differ with you. I say, to hell with it, Adam should have dragged Eve away kicking and screaming. "Sorry, babe, we're not doing this today." Either that, or he should have smashed the snake's head open with a rock. Just solve the damned problem!

I'm sorry, but I've got to say one more thing. You said Jesus doesn't protect us from temptation. I realize this is true to an extent, but - I mean, you don't think this is as bad as it could get, do you? What I'm saying is, I think God is forever holding the devils at bay for us. They aren't doing to us at any point a tenth of what they'd like to do. God won't let them. He does keep us safe, but He lets us handle just enough to give our freedom an arena in which to operate.

My two cents.

Anonymous said...

A real man is able to handle a woman doing things for herself. I don't mean doing things for him, but for herself. A woman is not a child, either, and does not need a protector or another father but an equal.

Christina said...

You are right David, what I said before was wrong. Respect for each sex is vital; I'm sorry if my previous posts were disrespectful towards men. What follows is my current understanding of this topic.

Both Adam and Eve sinned in not trusting God and because of this neither sex is exempt from original sin. Adam's mistrust led to inaction when he choose not to confront the serpent; Eve's to action in trying to confront the serpent in a way she was not equipped to do. Their children are broken as a result.

God corrected our brokenness by becoming man. In order to do so, He enabled one woman to be fully feminine and thus, fully receptive to the will of God. Being such she was able to give birth to Our Lord, who grew into a man, fully masculine.

The full glory of his masculinity was made manifest in his action of dying on the cross. His mother stood below, in her full femininity receiving the gift He gave in full cooperation with the will of God.

Thus, men and women need each other, and one cannot achieve the fullness of their being without the other.

One of the problems with modern feminism is that it tries to make women sufficient unto themselves, which never works. Women cannot reach their full potential as women, unless the men are fully masculine, unless they're gentlemen.

Often falling off the horse on one side is corrected by falling off on the other, thus we need to be sure not to try to make men sufficient unto themselves. Men cannot reach their full potential as men, unless the women are fully feminine, unless they're ladies. Men need women to be feminine as much as the women need men to be masculine.

Modern women often complain about the lack of masculinity in men, yet refuse to relinquish control over to them and embrace their femininity in submissiveness as demonstrated by Our Lady. Men, likewise, complain about the lack of femininity in women, yet fail to do the hard actions as demonstrated by Our Lord.

By this both sexes cripple the other and then both blame the other. We must each seek, through the grace of God, to become the best version of ourselves, becoming fully masculine or feminine, and thus will best enable those of the opposite sex to also reach fullness.

David said...

Well said, Christina. You're making much more sense than I was. God bless you.

Anonymous said...

I am by no means a spiritual person. I am anti-theist in point of fact. However, Marcel's focal point and the majority of his argument above is dead on, balls accurate (to coin a phrase).
For another interesting perspective of congruent subject matter check out Meghan Palma's article "Hand Cream And The Death Of Masculinity" at the Daily Nexus UC Santa Barbara.

Post a Comment