Are Catholic men being turned into wimps?


As a Catholic man myself, I can very much relate to this article. I have seen the effects of what the author describes.


My parish recently received a man from the local seminary who was just ordained a deacon. He gave the homily last Sunday and it was really good, using the kind of martial imagery and other manly ideas of faith, evangelism, and fatherhood. So I think there’s definitely good reason to hope, as the article said.

I also think since love between two men has been reduced to only homosexual love, rather than the kind David and Jonathan shared for example, for example, many young men may, even subconsciously, be uncomfortable with idea of loving Jesus Christ or their non-family, non-opposite sex neighbor completely.


I agree - where are the real men?


The real men are the one’s living their faith, and not sacrificing it to the HDTV or the club scene.


What exactly is Catholic masculinity?:confused: I read the article, and there are some points I agree with, but some I don’t. But why is there an either or type of thing here, I wonder? If there are women serving on the altar, this somehow diminishes Catholic masculinity?:confused: My husband is very much a man, and he’s Catholic…and I’m a very strong minded woman. I think that women shouldn’t be shadows of men, in order to make them ‘feel’ masculine, or act it. My husband’s masculinity, in other words, is not dictated by me. It’s dictated by God.


Since God created us male and female we are to respect and encourage our respective roles and attributes.


and women are not priests, they are in some cases, asked to be EEM, and I am not seeing how that is not respecting men’s roles in the Church. I am not for female priests, bishops, etc…I believe in those traditions that the Church set forth. I also believe in if the Pope were to issue a change to women serving at all near the altar, I would also respect that change. I am more of a traditionalist …but, for now, if the Pope is ok with women in certain roles, I’m not sure why we, as lay people, are not. And, I don’t see a strong connection between women serving in lay roles when needed or asked, and that of men becoming ‘wimps,’ as the OP’s title suggests.


whatevergirl… where did you find that most stunningly beautiful picture that you carry on your posts? :slight_smile:

I can totally relate to your question, by the way. Having been brought up in a somewhat different culture where the roles of both men and women are constantly challenged by both the opposite sex and the devil and our own psyche I am smack in the middle between two poles… the patristic that sometimes temps the christian male, and the totally secular that degrades both men and women in the likeness of the beast.
I once listened to a program on EWTN where the men were basically talking about masculinity in a way that made me feel really sick. Sort of like “your wife is at home changing a diper right now…wow, you the man!” and there was no room for the differences of people… I think all this talk about roles is okay in as much as we can truly admit and recognize our longings as women and men, but what about talking about personalities… and callings from God.
I dont think it is fair to want to passify a woman in order to feel male. Maybe I got too many male hormones but hey… I wanna be a preacher and an evangelist and I find that totally feminin… why would it not be? I wanna be active … not passive … I wanna serve in the Church through the ministries of the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1. Cor 12… nothing none-feminine about that… I wanna love and make Children with God and my husband… I wanna shout from roof tops and go on adventures…
Some of the most beautiful men throughout history were poets, lovers, warriors, cripples, martyrs, fire fighters, men that played with their kids and held their wifes… men that prayed both with the Bible and contemplative… some were teachers in the kindergarden and others were astronauts… all were men and good at being men.
Is there a problem with this… then we should ask that problem to adress it self… it may be desire for power in descuise.
So God created man in His own Image, in the Image of God He created him/her; male and female He created them…

Did I hear someone say AMEN?


I agree with some things, but again…this statement in that article…But a funny thing happened on the way to a testosterone-free Church, beginning perhaps in the early 1980s… just seems a bit opinionated on the part of the author. Opinion is not fact, but the media paints Catholics in a bad light, and many take it for fact–others, like us, know better. We need to also make sure we don’t develop opinions about our faith, if it is being misrepresented in this light, as well. I have never attended a ‘testosterone free’ parish…and the RCC is not that at all…and not ‘heading’ that way, as the author here tries to convince the reader. I think there needs to be reform, but I just disagree with broadbrushing the RCC as demasculinizing our men.



(And I just did a google search, and plugged in ‘virgin Mary’ into the search engine…and the most stunning pics come up!):slight_smile:


I dont think it is fair to want to passify a woman in order to feel male.

I really don’t think this is just some ego trip to make men “feel” like men.

As Buffalo says, men and women are different. We are given different roles.

Neither is better. Just different.

We are different, biologically, spiritually, mentally, sexually. Instead of ignoring these differences, they should be glorified in the God-given roles, we have been given.

The male qualities are frowned upon, wanting to take the role of protector, provider and leader of our family are frowned upon as controlling, uncompromising and tyrannical.

Women naturally empathize better, better at looking after kids, naturally more passive.

Let’s face it once you take away the role of defender, provider and leader away from a husband, he’s kind of forced into a pseudo - female role. What is there left for him?

In Christ,



I think you make excellent points. I would say that I am not naturally better at cooking, for example, than my husband …which has often been viewed as a female type role. I was coddled as a child, and was never taught basic skills such as cooking. Now, I babysat a lot as a teenager, and think from that experience I gained a great skillset for being a good mother. But, again, children need a father equally as much as a mother. And life experiences often help us in future roles. I am a better business woman than I am at cleaning. I don’t like cleaning, and if both my husband I work–we equally do the house chores together, and the kids also help. But, when I was home with my children when they were younger, I took care of the home (and tried to cook nightly! lol:o ) But, all that being said, I don’t like the word, passive, but that’s just me. I am not a passive personality. I am not aggressive like my husband, or really an aggressive type at all, but I’m not passive. I agree that men and women have God-given roles, but I think that man’s interpretation has muddied the waters a bit, as to what those roles are…there needs to be balance, and **we can all work together ** for God’s kingdom.


Hey brother.
I basically agree with all your points, exepct for one thing:.
“Women naturally empathize better, better at looking after kids, naturally more passive”. I believe some dads are better at looking after their kids that their mothers are… anyway… I get your point. what I revolt against is calling the woman’s activities “passive”. I find it absurd or bordering disrespectful. Tell any woman, regardless of her ministry- wether she has a career or is a house wife, that she is passive and you will get a hurt look… Why this urge to call it passive and the male activity active?

The man as a defender, provider and leader … great… provided he can live up to that . My own dad, though I love him dearly, could not. My mom wore the pants as we say where I come from. She was the one who took care of everything: 45 hour workscedule, raising the kids, cooking and cleaning… we call her “miracle mom”. dad was always distant… he made more money… but he lacked in the human area as a family-man.
anyway… I think Christopher West/ Pope John P. 2. were right in admitting that women have experienced much tyranny from men throughout time… He even apologized… he recognized it. Why wouldn’t we… its all over the place also today in the third world.

I once read a catholic booklet about a man who beat his wife half to death and shoot her… she kept living with this man and the booklet, made by some “holy catholic man” praised her as nearly a saint. Its the only time I threw a book across the room and then threw it in the trash.
So I fear these roles when they allow no freedom… no rational and human empathy but become stiff and dehumanised in their attempt to fit the “divinely ordained roles”…

We do need the man to be our defender. Why? because the woman, as well as the man, was created to love.
So I think we agree… :slight_smile:


Not much as that is his essence. Despair, addiction and depression.


You’re quite right. The problem is that having a disproportionate population of females doing these good works doesn’t prod the males to become more involved.

If a female with “domestic” power over a male doesn’t vehemently encourage that (those) male(s) to DO MORE within the Church while she DOES MORE within the Church, then she is not doing her job.

Men feel “intimidatedly displaced” by females when females take a “role”, and are MUCH less likely to “usurp” their “beloved females” positions.

This drives men from being “participatorially Catholic”.

Is that what anyone wants?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai iaoe. Aloha nui.


The subject line of your thread is misleading. I just read the article, and the focus of the article is not about men being turned into “wimps”. Rather, the focus of the article is on how a more masculine spirituality increases lay male participation in the church.


You will know them by their fruits. Is a manless Church what we want? Is it good? I submit it is not. I have to trust that Jesus knew enough about man and women (since He created them) to launch the Church in the fashion He did.


Who’s taking the role of defender, provider, and leader away? Haven’t seen any of that. Men and women work together in my parish quite nicely. More of the EMHCs are women, but more of the lectors are men. Not sure why, but I always suspected that the time committment of the EMHC, which in our parish includes both training and helping take the Eucharist to those who cannot attend Mass, dissuaded the men.

The article had some interesting points, but I have to agree with whatevergirl, if I understand her point correctly. Women have always had an important role in the Church. Expanding and changing that role in some ways, such as allowing women lectors and EMHCs, does not take anything away from men. The men I know don’t shrink back from their duties because they are intimidated by anything. If that is the quality of their leadership, let’s give the ladies a chance.


The situation is horrible in the feminised pre-university education, with some teachers even being verbally and outspokenly anti-male. I suppose the situation may sometimes be similar in religious education in early years, or perhaps in other forms of activity including young people. Well, “including” is the key. Boys won’t feel included if things are done the girly way. Boys need to be accepted as boys and men as men. No pinky shirts and ribbons SVP.

See… the whole young generation is a problem. Sometimes I talk to guys and I feel like I’m talking to girls, whereas if I talk to an elderly lady that survived WW2, it feels like I am a girl compared to them.


This thread and the article makes me think “All the more reason everyone should take a look at some form of Theology of the Body.” Seriously, it has all the answers to this sort of thing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit