 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by René van Eyden
For men the entire world (and Church), for women the
other half
From the Portuguese Olhares feministas sobre a Igreja
Católica, René Van Eyden Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
Mary E. Hunt, cadernos no 9, Publicações CDD, São Paulo
2001.
The
age-old view of man and woman- as hierarchically superior and subordinate to
each other survived in the Catholic Church untill the middle of the twentieth
century. It became untenable in the end, because of the profound changes in the
social, cultural and political fields. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), assigning identical rights to men and women, marked a
fundamental breakthrough towards a new world order. In the so-called
‘second feminist wave’, starting in the ‘sixties, a new
self-awareness of women made itself vigourously manifest. The United
Nations’ Women’s Year (1975) stimulated a worldwide effort to abolish
the subordination of women.
In the
Catholic Church, too, strong renewal tendencies made themselves felt. The
traditional subordinate position of lay people, and especially of women, was
increasingly felt to be an injustice.
In
this climate of renewal the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) took place,
intended as an aggiornamento, an updating of the church. The new definition of
the church as the People of God, in which all the baptized are equal, offered
hopeful perspectives. It was expected by many that the Council’s new
approach to the man-woman relationship would also have its effects within the
Church.
This
hope also found support in pope John XXIII’s encyclical ‘Pacem in
Terris’ of 1963, which identified the womens’emancipation
movement as one of the ‘signs of the times’ and for the first time
had positive words for it.
But
soon this one swallow turned out not to make a Roman summer. To be sure, the
Council texts and the subsequent Vatican documents do no longer speak of a
‘state of subordination’ for women. Pope Paul VI’s addresses
chose a more modern vocabulary when discussing the role of women. But most
catholic women considered this adaptation of vocabulary insufficient as long as
no practical consequences were drawn regarding equal responsibility in the
church.
A
historic event was the address which cardinal Flahiff of Winnipeg held at the
Bishops’ Synod of 1971. At the request of the catholic women’s
organisations in Canada he proposed that Rome set up an international study
commission which, in the light of the ‘signs of the times’, was to
examine the position of women in the church and especially the possibility of
their ordination. The issue now having been raised publicly and with worldwide
applause, Rome could no longer ignore it. The way in which this International
Study Commission (1973-1976) was continuously manipulated by Vatican
authorities is very characteristic of the Roman strategy of control. A secret
memorandum limited its task: it should start from the specific role of women
and the complementarity of men and women, and it was not allowed to take up a
study on the ordination of women. How this Commission was composed and presided
over, and how five women members - among them Marina Lessa, from Brasil
-bravely opposed indoctrination, was recorded by Dirkje Donders in her
theological thesis ‘La Voz tenaz de las mujeres’ (Nimega, Paises
Bajos, 1997). The hopeful expectations of women in the catholic world ended in
deep disappointment and indignation about the course and the results of this
Roman Commission. The Commission’s debacle made the pope draw two
conclusions: Rome would have to work out a specific anthropology of manhood and
womanhood and, as soon as possible, offer a clear statement about the
impossibility of the ordination of women. The contents of Roman teaching about
these two subjects will be summarized below
1. A theological anthropology of womanhood
In
earlier times Roman statements about woman were not based on a reasoned
doctrine, but on the ideas handed on in a patriarchal tradition. But this was
broadly criticized, among others by the catholic international women’s
organisations, certainly after the international Women’s Year, and the
protest was becoming louder and more of a nuisance. Following the
Council’s line Vatican texts from then on confirmed the ‘equal
dignity and responsibility’ of women in family and society, always
concernedly adding that the family tasks remained central and should not be
jeopardized by outdoor work. Within the Church women started to participate in
all kinds of activities, but the sacred area around the altar remained taboo.
The old ban on girls being altar servers was explicitly reinforced, and the
‘new ministries’ of reader and acolyte were not opened to women. Only
incidentally the influence of women’s studies can be traced, for example
in the Apostolic Letter ‘Familiaris Consortio’ (1981) which
condemns ‘machismo’.
The
Vatican texts about women show no coherence: they do discuss certain aspects,
but a systematic anthropological and theological foundation remains absent for
the time being.
The
first systematic exposition on womanhood can be found in the Apostolic Letter
‘Mulieris Dignitatem. On the dignity and vocation of woman’
(1988). In a meditation-like form pope John Paul II offers his ideas, starting
from the Creator’s eternal plan. In an equal way men and women are human
persons, but a specific difference keeps them apart. In other words: there is a
fundamental equality and at the same time a basic difference. It is as such
that women and men are equal partners and oriented towards each other.
Accordingly any form of male domination is to be rejected.
The
life choices in which women experience their dignity and vocation are
motherhood and virginity; that is: as married mothers or consecrated virgins (=
spiritual motherhood). Other ways of life remain out of sight, and what women
themselves think gets no attention. What we are offered is no more than an
abstract and universalist dissertation on ‘woman’: the personal
experiences of women in our time and in various parts of the world do not play
a role, and their social situation is ignored.
Motherhood as women’s physical and spiritual vocation is a
predominant theme in John Paul’s thoughts: the way he looks at women is
not based on the idea that motherhood is one element of what it is to be a
woman, but rather that motherhood defines womanhood. Thus being a female person
is onesidedly and excessively defined by biological characteristics. It is not
surprising, then, that there exists a gap between the way the Vatican speaks of
‘woman’ and women’s actual life spheres. Women do no longer
define themselves from out of their capacity to become mothers but, as
independently thinking and acting persons, they incorporate the full human
vocation into their self-definition.
The
older assertion of the natural inferiority of women has now been replaced by
the anthropological model of mutual complementarity. This is an important
improvement: as subjects and in their human dignity men and women are fully
equal. But the gap is not really bridged: the biological differences represent
an essential difference in natures. The nature of men and the nature of women
have irreducible characteristics of their own. Within this duality ‘the
human being’ finds its perfection. Woman complements man, just as man
complements woman: women and men are complementary.
From
this dualistic view of the human person normative directives are derived for
different roles and functions of women and men, both in society and in the
church. There are equal rights and there is equal responsibility, but a
specific vocation defines their concrete forms. Accordingly women can take up
any job in society provided their primary responsibility is not jeopardized.
Women should not strive to appropriate male characteristics; this would only
lead to ‘masculinisation’ and to the loss of their fundamental
glory.
A key
role is this exposition is played by Mary who, as both virgin and mother, is
the great symbol for all Christian women: in her the real dignity and vocation
of ‘woman’ ‘become fully manifest. For John Paul this is not
only a matter of pious Marian devotionalism, but it concerns the central
meaning of ‘Mary as an image of the Church’.
The
Church cannot be understood as a mystery if no reference is made to the Mother
of our Saviour, who because of this is also the Mother of the Church. She leads
all people on their road to holiness, and in her the Church has already reached
perfection. Her role in the work of salvation is more fundamental than
Peter’s and the Apostles’, and in personal holiness she surpasses all
ministers in the church: popes, bishops and priests.
When
explaining the relationship between Christ and the Church the pope makes
extensive use of symbolical arguments, taking his lead from the letter to the
Ephesians. Christ’s relationship with the Church is like the relationship
between bridegroom and bride. Only a male can represent Christ the bridegroom
and act ‘in persona Christi’. That is why Jesus has only called men
to be his apostles: only they get the mission to administer the
Eucharist.
Women
represent the Church as a bride and are oriented on Mary. Just like Mary they
are called to a higher holiness than the priesthood entails. Women are expected
to endorse this specific female vocation willingly and actively. Thus the
metaphor of bridegroom and bride is used to legitimize the exclusion of women
from the ordained ministries. All this proves that ‘Mulieris
Dignitatem’ is in fact a document of church policy. The pope starts by
advocating the equality of women, but in the end he decides to uphold the
existing patriarchal church order. What he sets out to prove was that the
non-ordination of women also has an anthropological basis: the specific
difference between the male and female natures leads to their tasks and
symbolical functions being radically different. Just because of their female
natures women cannot be a symbol of God and Christ; only men can be
that.
This approach reminds one of the ‘biology is
destiny’ school of thought with regard to women. So the proclamation of
woman’s dignity results in an ideology that is both unchristian and
inhumane.
In
‘Mulieris Dignitatem’ and other Vatican documents a dualistic
anthropology shows itself: human nature exists in two basically different
forms, a male one and a female one, and each of them is provided with specific
physical and psychical characteristics.
The
new and promising element here is the recognition of the personal equality of
the two groups, but this is thwarted again and again by the subsequent emphasis
on the specific nature of being a woman and woman’s specific role. This
anthropological duplicity offers any opportunity to back out of the
consequences of being equal persons.
Women’s studies radically reject that dualistic anthropological
model. First of all because it provides a symbolical argument to keep women
outside the ordained ministries. But especially because this model wants to
prove that the roles women are assigned in society and church are based on the
physical and psychical characteristics of the female nature, a role-assignment
which is not arbitrary but nature-given and laid down by God in the order of
creation. To be sure, the roles given to women and men are presented as
mutually complementary, but in concrete reality the definition of the specific
characteristics again results in a dominant position for men and subordination
for women. A dualistic concept which preaches equality in theory but in
practice legitimizes inequality is untenable and contradictory in itself.
Profound differences between women and men are obvious. But the question is
what meanings are attached to these differences. The dualistic approach ignores
the fact that the traditional interpretations were formulated in an
androcentric context.
That
is why it is necessary that women themselves define the meaning of the sex
differences and work out the practical implications. If this is only done by
men, as is the case in the Vatican documents, the exposition on equality and
complementarity itself also lacks credibility.
2. The ‘genius of women’: a Vatican
discovery
A
second document presenting the Roman authorities’ anthropological view on
womanhood is the ‘Letter of Pope John Paul II to women’ of
1995.
It was
elicited by the forthcoming Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijng,
September 1995. The pope directly addresses all women throughout the world:
“I would like to speak directly to every woman, to reflect with her on the
problems and the prospects of what it means to be a woman in our
time”.
The
letter’s tone is strikingly sympathetic, and never before did a Vatican
text speak so appreciatively about ‘this great treasure which is
womanhood’. After the Vatican’s enormous loss of face in the previous
year such a tone was badly needed if goodwill was to be regained among women.
In 1994 the United Nations’ Conference on Population and Development, held
in Cairo, had drafted an action programme which, among other things, spoke
about the reproductive rights of women and the possibility of safe and legal
abortion. The pope’s stubborn offensive against this and the obstruction
by the Vatican delegation had provoked the deep indignation of women’s
movements both in the western and the third world countries. Much more than
‘Mulieris Dignitatem’ does this Letter discuss women’s concrete
life situations. The pope speaks of ‘the great process of the Women’s
Liberation’ and pays his respects to those women who fought for
‘basic social, economic and political rights’. In the course of
history much injustice was done to women: “they have often been relegated
to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude". He apologizes for
this to women: ”If objective blame is deserved by not just a few members
of the Church, for this I am truly sorry". The ultimate anthropological basis
of the dignity of women we find by meditating on the creation story in Genesis.
We are told that the creation of woman is marked “by the principle of
help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Men and women are
complementary. Womanhood expresses the ‘human’ as much as manhood
does, but in a different and complementary way”. Then follows the
Letter’s core content, the formulation of the Vatican’s dualistic
anthropology: womanhood and manhood are complementary, not only from the
physical and psychological point of view, that is in acting, but also, from the
ontological, that is in being. “It is only through the duality of the
‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’ that the ‘human’
finds full realization”. ‘Duality’ refers to the essential
differences between men and women, both in being and in acting. That is the
main thing. But, the pope goes on, this difference does in no way affect their
unity. That unity is given form in their interpersonal and reciprocal
relationships. In order to explain this going together he repeatedly speaks of
‘the unity of the two’ or, more sophisticatedly, of ‘a
relational uni-duality’ which means: forming a unity in diversity. In his
view this anthropological model keeps the correct balance between on the one
side an undifferentiated equality and on the other an irreconcilable
conflictual difference.
This
approach leads to his warning that equal rights for women must not lead to
egalitarianism. For he wants to counteract the tendency to level out the
specific differences between the sexes. For this would do damage to the typical
richness and value of womanhood which are so vital for women themselves and for
society. The most striking expression in this letter is ‘the genius of
women’. The pope uses it when he wants to outline the highest human and
moral qualities given in womanhood. In this letter he does this seven times,
having already used it in the central section of ‘Mulieris
Dignitatem’. He does not give a formal definition of ‘the
feminine genius’,but describes its manifestations. We can see in Mary the
highest expression of this ‘feminine genius’: “Putting herself
at God’s service, she also puts herself at the service of others: a
service of love
The
‘genius of women’ means attentiveness for concrete people,
sensitivity to human beings in all circumstances: “women placing
themselves at the service of others in their everyday lives. Perhaps more than
men, women acknowledge the person, because they see persons with their hearts.
They see them independently of various ideological or political systems. They
see others in their greatness and limitations; they try to go out to them and
help them”.
No
doubt the pope’s gratitude for the immense contribution of women to
mankind’s well-being, his condemnation of discrimination and injustices,
especially sexual violence, and his appeal for an affective and intelligent
campaign for the promotion of women, show a sincere and deep commitment. Still,
catholic women maintain fundamental objections to the Vatican attitude towards
women. Their criticism focuses on two points: the patriarchal anthropology and
the sexual ethics taught by the Roman authorities.
According to the pope the essential and proper nature of women becomes
manifest in women’s ‘natural’ concentration on tasks in the
various areas of education and health care. “In this work they exhibit a
kind of affective, cultural and spiritual motherhood”. Thus women are
mainly defined as mothers and guardians of life. The definition of what is
specific to being a male or a female uses an essentialist terminology, and
there is a clear danger of biological determinism. Extolling women’s
servanthood is supported by a theology of servanthood. A ‘servanthood
ecclesiology’ tries to teach, us that selfless service is central in
Christian life and community. But since the notion of service has been
differently interpreted for women and for men, and the theology of service has
different implications for women and men, this theology is generally rejected
by feminist theologians.
As we
saw, the central concept in John Paul II’s anthropology is the
‘complementarity of men and women’ - it strikes one he never speaks
of the ‘partnership of men and women’. A certain diversity of roles
is not the result of an arbitrary imposition but is rather an expression of
what is specific to being male and female. This diversity is also present in
the Church. Only men can, as priests, be an ‘icon’ of Christ, the
shepherd and bridegroom of the Church. The womanhood of women also has an
‘iconic character’: it expresses the essence of the Church as the
bride of Christ. So there is ‘iconic’ complementarity in the male and
female roles in the Church.
In
this letter addressed to all women in the world the pope explains why women
cannot be priests in the Catholic Church. It may seem strange that it is in
this context that he discusses why women are debarred from the ordained
ministries and defends this in such a remarkable way. But the reason is clear:
one year before, and in order to silence all discussion, he had published
‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men
Alone’, presented as a definite item of doctrine. This attempt to
eradicate dissenting opinions, however, was a sad failure. The waves of
indignation rose high, and never before was the resistance of female and male
theologians against a papal decision expressed so clearly. Women’s
ordination had already long before become something that obsessed him. Pope
John Paul II considers it his inescapable duty to proclaim on any occasion that
this is contrary to God’s will. Even a letter to women who in their
overall majority are not catholics, is made a podium for his ecclesiastical
policy.
This
dualistic view of mankind is intimately connected to two other firmly held
convictions: the emphasis on an androcentric presentation of God, and the
assigning of a religious significance to Christ’s being a male. Rome does
not allow inclusive language in liturgical texts (e.g. the persons of the Holy
Trinity can only be referred to with masculine pronouns). Ironically, it is
consistent that the Letter does not criticize sexist language, which after all
is an elementary form of discrimination.
The
sexual ethics presented by the Roman authorities are conspicuous for their
rigidity concerning contraception, abortion and homosexuality. The pope is
holding a personal and rabid crusade against the practice of abortion and legal
recognition of it. The Letter’s section on abortion fits in his strategy,
but for women who read it the sound is jarring. It speaks of pregnancy
resulting from rape in situations of war or resulting from other instances of
rape. And the judgement is despotic: “In these cases the choice to have an
abortion always remains a grave sin”. Such a verdict shows the pitiless
consistency engendered by the Vatican’s theological model of objective
morality.
The
most significant term, frequently used in this letter and in other papal
anouncements, is ‘the dignity of women’. He does not speak of the
‘human rights of women’, an expression that is used more generally
and especially in the women’s movement, and which has a clearer and more
tangible content. This can be explained from the Vatican’s aversion to the
concept of ‘reproductive rights of women’ since this can mean the
right of women to make reproductive choices. Recognizing women’s sexual
autonomy has no place in a patriarchal anthropology.
For
women who have read this letter in which the Catholic Church claims to defend
the dignity of women a painful question remains: why has the Holy See failed to
ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women?
Lofty
ideas about the ‘promotion of women’, if not followed by concrete
applications within the church community, are meaningless for women.
3. ‘The God-ordained equality of women’ (Mary
McAleese)
During
the last 25 years the Catholic Church has shown two ever stronger movements
which are radically opposed: the campaign for equality of women as regards all
church ministries, supported by a huge majority of the faithful and expressed
ever more openly and forcefully, and the Roman authorities’ efforts to
suppress this endeavour. The defense is mounted by the doctrinal authorities in
a dramatically ascending series of statements and measures: a doctrinal
statement (1976), a ban on discussing established doctrine (1994), the weapon
of infallibility (1995), and the oath of loyalty with accompanying sanctions
(1998).
The
decisive statement of the pope runs as follows: “I declare that the Church
has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and that
this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s
faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994). This requires women to
forswear their intellect and imposes a ‘sacrificium intellectus’( a
resignation of rational insights) by theologians.
Rome’s prohibition of further debate has given rise to a flood of
theological publications. The biblical and historical arguments for the
non-ordination of women have been thoroughly refuted in numerous studies. The
so-called ‘theological exegesis’ used by the pope in his expositions
leads to an arbitrary selection and interpretation of biblical texts. In 1993
the Pontifical Biblical Commission published a study on ‘The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’ in which a section is devoted
to feminist biblical hermeneutics and the feminist exegesis is called
‘very enriching’. No traces of this excellent study are found either
in the pope’s texts about women or in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church.
The
criticism of the biblical (Jesus did not include women in ordained ministry)
and historical (the Church’s continuous tradition excluded women from
ordination) arguments that are put forward has led to Rome’s ever more
emphatically using the symbolic argumentation. In the pope’s reasonings
symbolical meanings are the core of his stand that women cannot be ordained
priests. Thus an existing piece of church order is vindicated by appealing to a
symbolism which, seen from a male point of view, allegedly underlies
it.
But a
theological argumentation built on symbols and metaphors has no cogency. No
binding conclusions can be drawn from it with regard to the ordering of the
church community. Existing things have a reality value of their own which
prevails over their religious symbol values. This order of precedence is
improperly reversed if the symbol is considered normative for the realities. It
easily leads to metaphysical speculations that are susceptible to ideological
abuse.
Starting with the ‘Declaration on the Question of the Admission
of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood’ of 1976 a ‘Marian’
argumentation is also advanced. As mother of the Church Mary ranks highest in
sanctity. But she was not given the task to be a priest in the Church. In the
same way women, representing Mary symbolically, are called to a more elevated
form of holiness. If a woman strives to become a priest, she is aiming for
‘the inferior’ and disowning the ‘superior’ she embodies as
a woman.
In the
past women were refused entry to the priesthood because of their alleged
‘inferior status’. Now they are accorded a ‘state of
eminence’, but the inference is identical. Pope John Paul II’s choice
of symbols is noticeably selective. The New Testament offers many images for
the Church; none of them has a monopoly, and the bridegroom-bride symbolism is
no exception. Both this selective choice and the manner of reasoning show that
the interests of the church institute play a role. What is no more than a
symbolic suggestion - seen from an androcentric perspective - is twisted into a
description of reality and then into a directive for this reality. If
infallibility is used as the last resort to reduce counter arguments to
silence, the power factor raises its head. The oath of loyalty required of
priests and theologians obliges them to submit to the so-called definitive
Roman doctrinal pronouncements (cf. ‘Ad Tuendam Fidem’, 1998).
Who, for example, publicly advocates the ordination of women, is guilty of
breach of oath, and punishable for this. This gives theology features of
ideology. The truth is caught in the trap of power.
That
is why Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza has pointed out that in this era of Roman
fanaticism theology is called to become a criticism of ideology: it must point
out where texts of the magisterium are ideological - for the tactics of
ideology are legitimizing, veiling, dehistoricizing, fragmentizing and
unification (‘Ecclesia semper reformanda: theology as criticism of
ideology’ in Concilium 1999.1).
In the
Women’s Ordination Movement attention is asked for the distinction between
pursuing the ordination of women and fighting non-ordination as an injustice.
The insistence that women as women are unordainable is wrongful for various
reasons. It is an insult to all women that women are excluded because of their
biological womanhood. It is an ignoring of the vocation of those women that
want to work in the ecclesiastical ministry. It is a deformation of the Church
as the sacrament of community between people and with God. And it means that
the pastoral talents of women are not made available to the community of the
faithful.
The
question whether ordination itself is a desirable goal gets different answers,
dependent on the specific situation of women. Quite a number of women believe
that women can be ordained, but that it would be unhealthy for a woman to put
herself in this position in the present hierachical system. The recent Vatican
documents show a massive arrogance, the arrogance of ‘truth is
power’. They confirm the impression that a desperate rearguard battle is
being fought. Realizing this women and men at the grassroots start striving for
a process of structural transformation. Mary Hunt describes how in all regions
of the worldwide Church women are finding creative forms of liturgical,
pastoral and diaconal activities (‘We women are church: Roman catholic
women are creating ministries and theologies’ in Concilium 1999.3).
This is a hopeful perspective, as Penny Lernoux reminds us: “The People of
God will continue their march, despite the power-plays and intrigue in
Rome"(‘People of God’. The Struggle for World Catholicism. New
York 1989, 417)
René van Eyden
See also:
- by Prof René van Eyden Women in Priestly
Ministry
- Kwok Pui-lan, Christology, Introducing
Asian Feminist Theology, Pilgrim, 2000, ch.6, pp79-97.
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!