 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
This Open Letter, which has been in the public domain for some
years, was sent to the Pope, on the 31st of October 1994, by 14 Religious
Sisters, all qualified theologians & academics, who belonged to 10
different Congregations.
As we know from reliable sources, in response to
this letter pressure was put by the Vatican on the Bishops and Religious
Superiors of these Sisters. Usually this took the form of reprimands and
cautions communicated through the Apostolic Nuncio in New Delhi.
The Pope
himself did not deign to reply.
To: Holy Father John Paul II
Palazzo Apostolico,
00120 Citta
del Vaticano.
Response to the apostolic letter
of Pope John Paul II
on Reserving
Priestly Ordination to Men alone,
dated 22 May 1994.
Dear Father,
We are women religious from India, proud
of our membership in the Catholic Church and the gift of faith we received in
her. We are a movement just five years old. We do not have as yet an
institutional structure or an office building. The address given above is that
of a member who has a permanent residence. We meet once a year to discuss some
significant issues in the life of women and in our own experiences and try
through theological reflection to deepen our faith and commitment. We write
this letter to you with filial confidence that you, as the father of all
Christian people, will listen to our response to the tone and content of your
letter on reserving priestly ordination to men alone (22 May 1994).
I. From our anguished
hearts
There are some statements in the letter that are extremely painful for
us to read. No1, para. 2 says “...her teaching authority which has
constantly held that the exclusion of women from priesthood is in accordance
with God’s plan for the Church”. The phrase ‘exclusion of
women’ seems -to negate our very membership in the Church. We do have full
membership in the Church through the sacraments of initiation namely Baptism,
confirmation and the Eucharist. Then why should we as a class be prevented from
certain. functions in the Church? Dear Father, who decides what is God’s
plan for the Church? Is it not the people of God? Do you as the father of this
family of faithful exclude us from the people of God even in the common search
for God’s will for the Church today?
II. God’s plan in the
fullness of time
“When the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of a
woman... ” (Gal. 4:4). It was the divine plan to choose a woman to enter
into the divine saving act in a unique way. She brought into this world the
Incarnate Son of God without the help of a man. How can those who believe in
the call of Mary to be the mother of Jesus exclude women from bringing in the
Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The divine call is gratuitous
and how can human decisions bind God not to give a specific call to an entire
class of people, in fact half the number of human beings based merely on gender
differences?
III. The signs of the time -
Dialogue
1. All around us we find different sections of the world community in
dialogue with one another. In the political, scientific, economic, cultural and
religious fields there are constant dialogues going on for better understanding
of others holding different opinions, resolving conflicts and building up
mutual respect among groups to make the world better place to live in. Even in
the Church, dialogue among Christian Churches is encouraged. Why does the
Church not think of entering into dialogue among its own members?
2. In the Church there are pastoral magisterium, the scientific
magisterium composed of scholars who are involved in research, reflection and
writing in Scripture, theology, Church history etc. and the people of God in
general. In all these groups the voices of women should be considered as
significant especially because it is a group which was and still is continually
and systematically suppressed. With the growing consciousness in the world,
women are slowly discovering their dignity as children of God and raising their
voices.
3. Since 1976 a great deal of research, study and writing had been done
on the subject of the Church’s practice of reserving priestly ordination
only to men. Articles and books by scholars showed the intrinsic weakness and
inadequacy of the arguments addressed in favour of the official position to
exclude women. According to these works, there is no scriptural or theological
basis for such an exclusion. All these sincere efforts and hard work by so many
men and women of faith and scholarship have been just pushed aside and ignored
by this letter. Why is dialogue in this matter so completely denied? In the
Church which is the People of God, ever led by the Spirit towards all the Truth
(Jn.16:13), is not dialogue the way to discover Truth?
IV. Legitimising oppression of
women
1. We express our feelings of hurt, pain and humiliation at the fact
that this letter completely ignores the struggles of women especially the
religious women oppressed by the male clergy. Actually it legitimises the
oppression. The entire sacramental system, jurisdiction, decision making,
administration, in fact every adult function in the life of the Church is in
the hands of male clergy. Women are kept for ever in total dependency. In plain
language, we are relegated to perennial childhood and made to depend on the
male clergy for living our Christian religious life. Priests make use of this
inequality to their maximum benefit by extracting cheap labour from us. They do
not hesitate to put us to moral torture íf we do not comply with their
unjust demands. Often we, women religious wonder if dedication of our lives to
God is only to be the handmaids of celibate priests. They do not consider us as
human persons who need time and necessary means for ourselves to meet our
psychological, intellectual and spiritual growth and the freedom to decide our
apostolate according to our Constitutions. The fact that our Constitutions are
approved .by the Holy See has very little meaning because we are just expected
to fulfil the demands of the clergy who think we exist merely to do what they
tell us. We can give you thousands of, examples from our own experience. Do you
not see that such oppression is legitimised and perpetuated by this letter?
Does the voice of the oppressed within the Church go unheeded?
2. The letter seems to suggest that you have no intention of having any
dialogue with us. I t is strange that even in this 20th century, men presume
that the Divine plan is made known only through them. Are not women, members of
the Church? Does not the Spirit dwell in us? How come that the Church
symbolised as a woman in the scripture is all-male in its official functioning?
V. Making doctrines out of a
culture of dominance and subservience
The occasional praise in the recent encyclicals of the so called
womanly characteristics do not please us at all. In the name of feminine
virtues only servitude and self-negation are praised. The studies in social
psychology show that the so called womanly qualities are what the dominant
class lay down for the subservient or oppressed class as conditions to win
acceptance and appreciation from their oppressors. Since the survival of the
oppressed depends on the acceptance by the dominant class, they develop these
qualities and train their young ones also in these qualities, establishing them
as characteristics of their class. Should .the Church see this culture of
dominance and oppression as divine ordinance and make doctrine out of it
calling it theological anthropology? How can the Church be the mediator of
Christ’s redemption to all peoples when it keeps half its members (women)
in abject subservience and the worst type of dependence?
VI. Concocting arguments to
exclude women
Drawing Mary into this question seems to us that arguments are
concocted just to exclude women from priesthood. How could Mary claim
priesthood when there was no priesthood during her time? Did Jesus ever claim
priesthood? Does not the gospel show us that the Christ-movement was an attempt
to liberate people from the dominance of cultic priestly class and lead them to
worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth (Jn. 4:23)?
VII. Priesthood - instituted by
the Church and not by Christ
1. The letter insists again and again that priesthood was instituted by
Christ and that He ordained only men so the Church has no authority to change
it. Is it not a strategy in religions that whatever was instituted by the
priestly class was told to people that it originated from God so that people
practise it unquestioningly? We have examples in the Old Testament too e.g. the
laws in the chapters 21, 22, 23 of Exodus.
2. The words ‘Do ..it in memory of me’ are a reference to
Yahweh’s instruction to Israel to have an annual celebration of the
Passover as a memorial of His saving act in liberating Israel from the slavery
in Egypt. They were used by Jesus to make His disciples understand that He was
instituting a new Passover and a new covenant which would involve not only
political liberation as in the Old Testament but the total liberation of the
human person. It was an expression of His desire that such a liberative thrust
should continue in the Christ-movement.
3. During the apostolic times, the imposition of hands (now the main
ritual in priestly ordinatíon) was used to impart the spirit to preach
the gospel and not to ordain them to priesthood (Acts. 9:17, 13:3, 1 Tim.
4:13-14). In the case of deacons (Acts 6:6), it is clearly stated in the Acts
that the apostles said “it is not right that we should give up preaching
the word of God to serve tables. Therefore...” Christ did not ordain
priests and there was no priestly class during the New Testament times. Later
when the Church adopted the clerical and hierarchical structure, it absorbed
elements of the highly patriarchal Judaic religion from which it originated and
the socio-political structures of the Roman Empire where it took root. The
Roman Empire had collapsed and after centuries we had moved away as an
independent religion from Judaism. Should we still cling on to those elements
which we imbibed from these two realities nineteen centuries ago?
VIII. Conclusion
Dear Father, we love the Church, that is why we are concerned and write
to you. In the Vatican documents, frequently the people of God are exhorted to
respond to the signs of the time. May we request you to see the signs of the
time in the voices of women and what is happening in the other churches and
society? Threatening the Churches that ordination of women is a block to
dialogue and union seems to us that the Church prefers to sit in an ivory tower
refusing to see the activity of the Spirit in today’s global scenario in
which dialogue is the mode of interaction, communication and growing together.
When women’s
issues do not even have the dignity to be an object of open dialogue, we feel
that our very membership in the Church is negated.
We earnestly request
you to reconsider your Letter and enter into a dialogue with us, women.
Yours sincerely,
Sr.Margaret Shanti, I.C.M. - St.Joseph’s Hospital
Dindigul-624 007.
Sr.Corona. Mary, O.S.M., Jegamatha Ashram,
Tiruchirapalli-620 004.
Sr.Rose Paul, F.M.M., Providence Convent, Bangalore-560 029
Sr.Pushpa Jyothi, S.M.M.I., St.John’s Medical College
& Hospital, Bangalore-5 60 034
Sr.Clare Muthakattil, M.M.S., Kottayam-686 002.
Sr.Kochurani Abraham, Snehvardhini, Varse-402 116
Sr.Marie De Britto, St. Joseph Convent, Madurai-625 009
Dr. Sr.Gentiana, St.Xavier’s Hospital, Purathakudi-621
111.
Sr. Corona Mary, O.S.M., Jegamatha Ashram, Tiruchirapalli-
620 004.
Sr. Jacinta, St.Mary’s Convent, Mysore-570 008.
Sr. Antony Xavíer, C.I.C., Loretto Novitiate,
Madurai-625 008.
Sr.Irene Fernandez M.M.S., Medical Mission Sisters,
Bibwewadí, Pune-411 037
Sr.Shanti Fernandes, C.P.S., Ashram, Shivajinagar, Pune-41 1
005
Sr.Mary George, Holy Cross Compound, Wadagamcheri, Pune-411
014.
Sr. Mary Lobo, Nari Jagran Manch, Bodh Gaya-824 231.
Date: 31-10-1994
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!