 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Marie-Thérèse van Lunen
Chénu
From Jésus, ‘Les Cahiers du libre
avenir, no 95’, Dec 1997, pp. 38-41.
translated for www.womenpriests.org from the French by
Joanna Waller (see credits), and published
on the Internet with permission of the author and the editor of Les
Cahiers.
Female and feminist viewpoint on the World Youth Days
(Journées Mondiales de Jeunesses)
Note: The World Youth Days were celebrated in Paris in the
summer of 1997. Pope John Paul II addressed the convention.
The media has the tremendous power to demonstrate contrasts. It was
therefore perhaps a surprise to any outside spectators who happened upon the
World Youth Days on television or who came cold, at home, to some sections from
the homilies. First of all, the visual contrast was so clear, even though it
may not have been grasped immediately, with so many other things to surprise,
stir, or even excite the viewer. Among all the boys, it was hardly worth
noticing the presence on one side of the barriers of all these young girls,
full of energy, calm, confident in the contribution and services they provide,
these enthusiastic young women, students or professionals.
Soon, however, their presence began to make itself felt: they seem
attractive, independent, modern, dressed in short skirts, jumping into the
fountains with the boys to bathe, sleeping on the ground alongside them,
sitting on their shoulders to take photos. Some of them stood out even more, by
exhibiting unexpected behaviour, breaking with protocol and thus picked out by
the press: Marie-Victoire, the Mauritian girl who took the pope’s arm to
guide him towards the Trocadero pavement, the young mother who crossed the
forbidden zone with her baby who she absolutely had to present to him, and this
very young girl, whom the media took to their hearts; she went forward, took
the pope’s hand, held it between her own and gazed at him intently for a
long time.
What a contrast there is between these independent spirits and,
opposite, on the other side of the barriers the stiff figure of the Church: the
platform-load of bedecked cardinals, mitre-wearing bishops, the long procession
of priests in chasubles, the deacons, acolytes and choristers, all, without
exception, members of the hierarchy and of the male sex.
It is astonishing that no-one has noted this contrast among the other
phenomena, the language, rites and symbols which have already contributed so
much to this catholic-religious gender construction. Revalidated at the World
Youth Days by powerful and in many ways very successful media coverage, it has
until now met hardly any resistance or criticism.
Language
Close, detailed study of the text of the homilies leads to the
inescapable conclusion that their language is also very revealing. Obviously
no-one would expect the pope to use inclusive language as consistently as do
some feminists, carefully using masculine and feminine forms, which it must be
admitted is very difficult when speaking French as the Pope was. Is it
necessary however to go to the opposite extreme?
- Generic terms are not neutral
Young people, my friends, Christians are very rarely given
feminine pronouns in the Pope’s text in French, while these are used in a
few situations, particularly at the beginning of a speech, to acknowledge the
presence of women in the audience. How can a woman feel anything but ignored,
with the recurrent, not to say absolute use of male pronouns such as
"tous", "chacun" and "ceux" ("all", "each" and "those") in
the following: Each man freely accepts membership of the gift of
faith…passes on to all those around him…; Dear young people, dear
friends, First of all I greet you all, Yes my young friends, for each of
you.. (eve of Longchamp).
Careful study of the solemn and meaningful homily given at Longchamp on
the Sunday morning, without including all the various greetings and thanks
offered to the various cardinals and other representatives, nor the gospel
quotes and examples (none of which uses the feminine form of speech anyway)
– there are 27 nouns or pronouns whose form in French is firmly masculine
(even though some may be considered generic), such as: our brothers, all,
all those among you, fishermen, each one of us, man, etc. Only 6 words,
sometimes epicene, may be considered generic as long as they are not assumed to
be masculine by the use of the adjective or pronoun, namely: human being
(repeated), the human person, dear young people, humanity, members of the
Church, disciples, witnesses. Finally there are only four explicitly
feminine references: the maternal breast, the Virgin Mary…., a mother
the Church and, this isolated opening: gives you brothers and sisters to
love in order "to be one in Christ". This last example does however give
rise to some restrictions, since in another text even more resolutely expressed
in masculine forms – the interview given to La Croix (20-08) –
sisters, named twice, are also third party recipients rather than being
addressed directly: young people…when meeting their brothers and
sisters of other faiths; …that they place at the service of their brothers
and sisters.
- Is the pope speaking to women?
Doubtless he is, but it is well-hidden, with one happy exception in Evry
cathedral: Dear brothers in the episcopate, dear brothers and sisters.
Otherwise, the masculine form prevails in his French (distinguished
representatives (représentants) of other Christian families).
The omission was all the more noticeable when it took place before so many
female conference members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, on the
occasion of the beatification of Frédéric Ozanam,
representatives (ibid.) of the great spiritual family, heirs of the
spirit of Monsieur Vincent. There were a few exceptions. Some were
mandatory, so to speak: religious sisters when religious were mentioned,
and civil dignitaries, meaning men and women. Others appeared in
welcoming statements, but very rarely indeed, with a speedy restoration of the
masculine gender: in Evry cathedral, brothers and sisters were mentioned
three times (but: if you enter into dialogue with your brothers…)
and in the Way of the Cross message on the Friday, with all those, men and
women, who…have given their lives for their brothers. This fine ending
to the homily for Ozanam’s beatification: Let the Christ call each one
by his or her name, so that he or she may say: this is my path!
- Are women not participants or examples?
Only the Virgin Mary, Saint Teresa mistress of spiritual wisdom
(in the allocution declaring her to be a Doctor of the Church) and during the
beatification of Ozanam, though with no examples given, the daughter of
charity, sister Rosalie Rendu, who led Ozanam and his companions to the poor in
the Mouffetard district.
Otherwise, I found no example of the faith of women followers of Jesus.
Nothing placing women as subjects, as believers. Not even a mention of the
parable of the lost coin, or the lighted lamp… There were only sons of
Israel, apostles and disciples. Nicodemus, the good Samaritan, Simon of Cyrene,
the rich young man and the man who found a pearl in his field.
It is not difficult to understand that the multitude of masculine forms
of address, examples and terms reinforce the effect of the almost total absence
of feminine references, forms of address and terms, resulting in an
overwhelming sexist corpus. It is useful to remember that the term sexism,
given official recognition in UN conferences, has the prime meaning of
discrimination based on sex, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or not. Its
second meaning is that of prejudice: the idea of inferiority or superiority
of one sex or the other or a stereotypical role for men and women. (1)
- Inexplicable omission. Serious deficiency.
In the homily given at Longchamp, the pope states that the chosen of
God include all people on earth. In Jesus Christ, God chose the whole of
humanity. He has revealed the universality of election by redemption. In Christ
there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free man. All are one. The terms
are not given in quotes, but the reference is to Gal 3:28. As everyone knows,
this wonderful declaration, at the heart of the Christian faith condemns all
discrimination based on race, class or sex. The reference, used by Vatican II,
and quoted many times since, is widely known nowadays and its omission here is
all the more surprising. Why has the religious press not highlighted this?
To my knowledge, there has only been one short letter in le Monde of
10/9, from André Tunc, commenting thus:
Why remove the reference "neither male nor female"? Because this
was not this issue? Slavery is even less so. Is it not because Saint
Paul’s magisterial vision condemns the very discrimination which the
Church today practises against women as regards their access to
ministry?
The whole of the catechesis offered at the World Youth Days seems to be
marred by another serious and sad deficiency which also arises from an impasse
over the feminine: the pope, probably duly warned, unusually did not mention
anything to do with sexual morality, which is normally a frequent topic on his
travels. While he spoke often of dialogue between cultures and peoples, there
was nothing about human sexuality. Where were the welcome reflections of John
Paul on the radical equality of the two sexes? When recalling that
man is the image of God, was this not the most positive opportunity to
call young people to the wonder of self-respect, precisely that it is the human
being in its man/woman face to face encounter which is the image of God? I find
it upsetting that for lack of any admonitions about abortion, the pill or
homosexuality, the pope could find nothing important to say to the young people
of today, girls and boys assembled to listen to him, about the rich blessings
and the demands of their sexuality.
- Brothers, sons of God, sons of the Church....
The effect caused by the use of mock-generic terms is made even worse
when the term brothers is used, and the sisters are forgotten:
- You are to be the true builders of the Church, if you take the
Good News to all nations, if you enter into dialogue with your brothers of
other origins and cultures… (Evry cathedral);
- love shared in the joy of a reconciled heart and brothers found
again (Friday’s Way of the Cross);
- responsibilities of men and of believers…. Decisions you will
have to take for the good of your brothers; rejoin Christ by discovering him in
your brothers (speech, not given, on the washing of the feet, 21-8).
It is a fact that some have difficulty in admitting, but there are more
and more women who dare to say that they are offended or scandalised by having
to fight against the use of identifying language which indicates if not their
exclusion, then at least their lesser importance, an inferiority made all the
more tangible by the ban in place on women fulfilling certain ministries and
functions within the Church.
I will admit, to qualify my proposition, that the repeated use of
brother or son, and the absence of sister and daughter, do not
mean exclusion for me, but imposes at the very least a painful separation. The
deepest and most radical point in the matter of women’s liberation is
actually that we should be able from here on our own individual identity,
proudly and joyfully, restored, without having to cower or hide behind a
masculine identity and become dissipated or lost beneath the male image.
Language, symbol, liturgy, a sacred and metaphysical
construction of gender
The power of symbols and the sacred importance given to them by the
liturgy in their organisation and repetition can never be stated often enough.
An operating symbol justifies the situation that has produced it. It restates
it, spontaneously, superbly brings it back into being again. As for language,
before ever it expresses thought it gives it structure. Thus it is a
fundamental right for every human being that he or she is recognised – and
therefore named – in his or her own personal and individual identity, in
terms of sex, race and culture. I am astonished that those who have seen so
often in the Bible how important the naming process is are astonished that
women finally are experiencing the need and the desire themselves to be
explicitly named. Realistically, I think that there is only one way of
convincing a sceptical brother: call him "my sister" (1), begging him to
try honestly, every morning, to address himself in the feminine form.
Scrupulously, he could even extend the experiment, until he could say to
himself: “I thought I was an honest bishop or priest, generous in my
vocation, but here I am, as woman, and I must understand from now on that I no
longer have this vocation forbidden to my sex”.
This wonderful statement of Vatican II should be frequently recalled,
though the Church seems to neglect it without reflection:
- “It is deeply to be deplored that these basic personal rights
are not yet being respected everywhere, as is the case with women who are
denied the chance freely to choose a husband, or a state of
life…”Gaudium et Spes 29.2. …
- “children should be able to follow their vocation, including
a religious vocation, and choose their state of life”…(ibid.
52.1).
Oblivious youth?
A whole bundle of explanations will doubtless be required for
understanding why a female, even a feminist, point of view saw so little
daylight at the World Youth Days.
As is known, most of the young people were brought to Paris in existing
catechised and organised groups, thus already polarised into a tradition whose
chauvinist character is normally forgotten. These boys and girls will rather be
celebrating the successful innovations implemented. The example of the
chasubles is significant: the traditional rite has been rehabilitated with a
new covering and an unusual media-friendly label certain in number and effects.
The Pope’s language is also expressed differently, less conventional,
affectionate and confident in tone, and coming from a brave old man of such
stature and conviction that it cannot fail to give traditional catechesis a
certain force.
For the majority it is likely, judging from objective surveys taken of
young people’s faith, that the effects of emotion and enthusiasm will have
outweighed the substance of the message. More than ever, the latter came as a
complete package. Communicative, visual, sensory, emotional, critical judgement
played no part in it, either for young people attracted to the Church and its
catechesis, nor even more for the others.
Although French sensitivity is not sharpened by the remnants of a
self-centred symbolism and language accepted as correct in themselves by
tradition, it is possible to be persuaded that its media promotion operates in
two ways. In the short term, it may successfully within a homogenous grouping,
justify and renew the prevalence of the masculine. In the longer term, however,
and for an increasing number of people, media coverage acknowledges a greater
and greater shift between the symbolic, ritualistic and linguistic forms of
former times and those established in present-day social realities and value
systems, which contribute to making androcentrism not just outmoded but
prohibited. As will be clear, it is not a superficial argument about words and
forms but a search for meaning and a debate about significance. Who would dare
to judge that the proclamation of the Gospel could be disdained or disregarded
in this way, leaving the Church fixed in the masculine language and images of
the past, trailing along behind society?
Should she not be the first to understand the direction of the current
search to establish the originality of each of the sexes, on a firm basis of
equality? The first to rejoice in the enrichment of the semantic codes by means
of which we try to talk about our community of men and women, brothers and
sisters, thus bearing better witness to this human being. Image of God, man and
woman he made them.
Marie-Thérèse VAN LUNEN CHENU
(1) Convention on the elimination of all forms of
discrimination towards women, art. 1 and 2 –
During a visit to Rome, a friend of mine, leader of a Catholic women’s
movement in Switzerland, tried to convince the bishop chairing the Council of
the Laity that it was important to name women explicitly. He disapproved,
mocked and rebuked her, and her demands were in vain. Disappointed, she then
closed the discussion herself, bidding him "farewell to my sister!" He was so
struck by this that he passed on his experience to the other bishops:
"You’ll never guess what happened to me!.."
Read also: Kari Elisabeth Børresen,
Religion Confronting Women’s Human
Rights: The Case of Roman Catholism, Ch.24 in Facilitating Freedom of
Religion or Belief, ed. Tore Lindholm e.a., Derk Book, the Hague, 2001.
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!