 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Ida RAMING (bibliography)
from Lumen Vitae, Revue Internationale de
Catéchèse et de Pastorale 55 (1999) pp. 47 - 57
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 Lumen Vitae.
Catholic women participating in a celebration of worship and listening
to linguistic images used in the liturgy are going to gain the impression that
the divine sphere is reserved to an exclusively masculine God, that women have
no part to play at all and never appear there. Prayer to God, to the Lord and
to God the Father run like a red cord through official liturgy and even through
the texts for celebrating the Eucharist, where often only the epithets change:
"Omnipotent Father", "Merciful Father", "Holy Father". This way of addressing
God culminates finally in the prayer "Our Father". Many sacred songs also use
the same language: along with "God, Lord" and "King", there is "the Father who
is in heaven". Here is one example from many others: "We consecrate to you,
Father, the fruits of the earth, bread and wine…as brothers of Christ, let
us enter into the sacrifice with him!"
Mary the mother of Jesus is of course a role model for women. Prayers
and hymns addressed to the mother of God are of fairly limited significance in
the course of the liturgical year, however. Moreover Mary is not a
representative of the divine transcendence, but as a human being, she is found
down with her created sisters with respect to God.
In a cult such as this, dominated by masculine names and images of God,
can women develop even an embryonic awareness of their resemblance to God, as
given to them in Genesis 1: 27 ("God created man in his own image; in his image
he created him. Male and female he created them")? How is it possible, under
such circumstances, for women to develop a sense of dignity as separate,
independent human beings, since in this religious context they do not have the
experience of being consecrated and recognised as human beings created in the
image of God, but on the contrary, are led to question themselves at the
deepest level of their being?
One objection that we may raise however is that God lives in
"inaccessible light" (1 Tm 6:16). God is invisible, transcendent, outside our
representational universe and therefore also indescribable; all the names and
images borrowed from our representational universe cannot adequately express
the mystery that is God. In some sense they are only "noise and smoke". The way
in which we talk about God could be of no importance.
It’s not just about using masculine nouns, however! On the
contrary, these male images and names for God are reflections of the very
structure and organisation of the Church. Only men, as ordained priests, may
preside at the celebration of the Eucharist. They act in persona
Christi, as representatives of Christ in the holy celebrations. They alone
(as priests and bishops) may assume ecclesiastical responsibility, together
with the mandate for ecclesiastical management (cf. cc. 129; 274 §1
CIC).
There is therefore an indissoluble link between a male representation of
God, articulated in the corresponding names and images, and the structure of
the Church itself, characterised by the male hierarchy. The exclusion of women
from the priesthood, anchored in law (c. 1024 CIC), has up to now been
motivated mainly by the fact that women, because of their sex, cannot represent
"the man" Jesus, the "betrothed" and "Lord of the Church", "the image of the
Eternal father" (2). They are considered to be "unordainable".
By this argument, however, women are in practice being denied their
resemblance to God. The "masculinity" of God and Jesus thus becomes an ideology
that the patriarchal structure of the Church does not just support, but
declares to be "the will of God" (3). The negative effects on women’s
sense of their own self-worth are clearly evident: the "religion of the Father"
oppressive to women only because of their sex, subjects them from childhood to
representational images "which may awake in them feelings of invalidity,
inferiority and even of negativity. This explains why many women have such low
expectations of themselves, never reach full maturity and do not even try
to…" (4). As regards the Church and women within the Church, the effects
of the "religion of the eternal Father" may be described in the following
terms: it "is at the root, not just of the marginalisation of women in the
Church, but of a whole series of negative effects: […] the scorn for
pluralism and the fear of dialogue and confrontation; the paternalism in the
pastoral field and centralism in the management of the Church…" (5)
The sociocultural background to the male image of God
and the reinterpretation by Jesus of the name Father applied to God.
Modern exegesis has shed light on the origin of the male names and
images for God. The faith communities of the Old and New Testaments developed
in a patriarchal culture. "This situation necessarily affected not only the
religious language of the future Jewish and Christian communities, but also the
structures of their political and social lives. In the patriarchal social
order, the man exercised all the authority within the family. He owned the
woman (or women) as wife, mother, etc. He was free, they were not. Children
belonged to the father not the mother. Wife (or wives) and children were
obliged to obey and serve him. The pyramidal structure of families, society,
political and religious institutions, culminated in the supreme heavenly
authority of God, the Father of all." (6). In the light of this sociocultural
reality which pervades the Old Testament, it necessarily followed that the
Hebrew believers gave God male names, such as lord, shepherd, king, etc.
Conversely, it is surprising to note that, in the Old Testament, there
is a marked hesitation to call God Father (7), although this name for
God (or the gods) was fairly widespread in the Ancient Near East (8). This must
be attributed to the fact that the concept of God as Father is understood, in a
biblical sense, to be entirely transsexual, and therefore has no connection
with procreation. "Unlike pagan myths about the genealogy of the gods, the
paternity of God in the biblical sense bears no relation to begetting […]
God is called Father in relation to an act of election, itself
inseparable from his intervention in history on behalf of his people. God is
the Father of Israel. He is not the father of humanity" (9). According to
Claude Geffré, this connection of the paternity of God to a historical
act (the liberation from slavery in Egypt) marked a significant modification to
the concept of Father. The absolutely transsexual concept of divine fatherhood
"demands that we do not endow this symbol with exclusively male traits"
(10).
The restraint still observed in the Hebrew Bible on the subject of
God’s Fatherhood is entirely abandoned in the New Testament. The name of
"Father" given to God occurs frequently here (11). The invocation formula in
Jesus’ own prayer is "Father" (cf. Mt. 11:25 ff, par Lk. 23:45 et al.) or
"Abba" (father dear, Dad: Mk. 14:36). As in the Old Testament, this masculine
term used for Father in the New Testament is a reminder of the underlying
patriarchal structure persisting from ancient Israel. The illustration is made
directly in some of Jesus’ parables: the Prodigal Son, or the Merciful
Father (Lk 15: 11-31), for example, describes a "family" consisting only of a
father and two sons. There is no mention of the mother, who must have given
birth to the sons. In Jewish society at the time of Jesus, only sons could
inherit. Thus Jesus’ message relating to God’s mercy may be
illustrated by the behaviour of the father in the parable towards his
"prodigal" son and heir, without involving any female character at all.
Rightly, exegetical research brings in "the close relationship between
Jesus’ insistence on the paternity of God and the proclamation of the
coming of the kingdom of God" (cf. the petitions in the Our Father).
"Jesus is not announcing any God other than that of the Covenant" (12). "God
gave him the task of transmitting and fulfilling salvation in word and deed
with the reign of God. He entrusts him with representing his love to humanity.
Jesus responds to God in the world in a unique way, standing up before all
people" (13), as it is said in Mt 11:27, "All things have been committed to me
by my Father. No-one knows the Son except the Father, and no-one knows the
father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
According to this statement, what joins Jesus to God, whom he calls his
Father, is "the bond of a unique relationship" (14). He is the Word made flesh
and the image of the invisible God (cf. Jn 1:14; Col 1:15). The words given to
Jesus by John, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9), proclaims
that, in the words and deeds of Jesus, in his suffering and death, the "Father"
reveals himself. "The foolishness of the language of the cross (cf. 1 Cor 1:18)
is the last word on the Father of Jesus", that is the usual representation of
God the Father, of his omnipotence, his incapability of suffering and his reign
which incorporates everything, is superseded. In and by Jesus God is
reinterpreted: "At the moment when Jesus (on the cross) rejects the
presence of an idealised father and experiences instead his silence and
absence, at that moment, it is God himself who is manifesting his solidarity
with the suffering and death of humanity…". To a certain extent, God
abandons his prerogatives (omnipotence, kingship) "to withdraw from his
position of strength into the humanity of the crucified one" (15). The last
words of Jesus on the cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?") may
be interpreted as "God’s renunciation of himself" (16).
This image of God suffering for love of humanity does not just eliminate
the normal representation of God, in his omnipotence and kingship, but also
wipes out the ideal image of man, the stamp of patriarchy, and the authority he
holds over women. Jesus, and thus God, through his life and death, refutes
completely the lordship of man, all male arrogance, since he expects his
disciples, no matter what their sex, to demonstrate humble service of
neighbour, this being the pattern of behaviour preferred by God (cf. Mk.
10:42-45 and par; Jn 13:1-20).
This extremely close relationship between Father and Son, witnessed to
by Jesus many times, demonstrates the life of God himself which, through the
death and resurrection of Jesus, and the sending of the Spirit, is expressed in
the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. Metaphors borrowed from sexuality are used
to describe the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit: it involves
"procreation" by and from God. The description of the relationship between
Father and Son as procreation arises essentially from the ancient theory of
procreation, according to which man begets life from his "seed", while the
woman is only the "receptacle", providing the shapeless "material" for the new
life (17).
In the light of this theory of procreation, finally demonstrated as
incorrect with the discovery of the female ovum (in the mid-19th
century), since it ignored the genetic contribution of the woman in the
formation of a new life, there is only Father and Son, when
speaking of God. In this regard, the patriarchal theory of procreation, whose
repercussions in the Bible are obvious, must be seen as one of the roots of the
male image of God, alongside the social dominance of the man in the ancient
world (18). It should be noted, however, that it is only possible to describe
the trinitarian relationship between "Father" and "Son" using images and
metaphors from the female domain, since this image of the "birth from God" is
by far the best way of visualising the emanation of the "Son" or "Logos" from
God. Even in the Bible, expressions from female sexual language are
unhesitatingly transposed onto the "male" God (19). The prologue to John’s
gospel expresses this particularly clearly: "No-one has ever seen God; the only
Son, who is at the Father’s side (or: who is in the bosom of the Father)
has made him known" (Jn 1:18).
While the doctrine of the Trinity was being developed, these biblical
seeds began to germinate. The council of Toledo (675 A.D) declared: "the Son is
begotten or born (genitus vel natus) not from nothing, nor from any substance,
but from the maternal womb of the Father (de utero Patris), that is, from his
being" (20). As the examples quoted here show, the image of mother used for God
is fundamentally a more evocative and more suitable metaphor.
Jürgen Moltmann (21) notes that the Christian doctrine on the
Trinity represents "a first step towards overcoming male language in the
concept of God."… A father who both begets and gives birth to his son is
not a uniquely male father. He is a maternal father. He can no longer be
defined as having only male sex, but must be as if bi- or transsexual. "The
intention of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity would be to "produce a
community of women and men without dominance or favouritism". Referring to Gal
3: 28 f. ("in Christ, there is neither male nor female…") Moltmann
stresses: "only a society freed from sexism and class division can become a
truly representative image of God in three persons".
Failure to realise the implications in practice
Until now, there has been no attempt to look at the consequences of this
new understanding. The official liturgy, as ever, uses exclusively male
discourse when speaking of God ("Father"), although in the meantime, the
socio-cultural position has changed significantly from that pertaining in
ancient Israel.
Opposing this obvious "sign of the times", the institutional Church also
maintains the structural subordination of women in its institutional
legislation (exclusion of women from the responsibilities relating to
ordination, cf. c.1024 CIC) and the exclusively male language relating to
God.
In the light of this clearly mistaken course of development, a reminder
of the Old Testament’s ban on images is needed. In the version given in
the book of Deuteronomy, it is formulated thus: "You saw no form of any kind
the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch
yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for
yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a
woman….!" (Dt. 4: 15-19).
This ban on images is not directed only at visible, physical
representations of the Lord (or other gods). "It is rather a permanent
invitation to transcendence, an invitation not to take possession of the
divinity" (22); since the Lord cannot be reduced to an image or a name.
"To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him
to?…To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One
(Is. 40: 18 and 25). The ban on images, taken in its historical context, "does
not relate only to visual images, but also to verbal images which are given
an absolute value", and therefore also to the concept of Father used for
God. The Hebrew Bible is particularly notable for its concern "to relativise
the various models and expressions used to describe the divine and God…"
(23).
If the official liturgy of the Church continues to use the exclusively
male representation of God, and therefore also the name of Father for God, the
sacred nature and absolute transcendence of God, which fundamentally affirm
Judaeo-Christian tradition, will be forgotten (24). Moreover, this exclusively
male image of God implies that the resemblance of woman to God, according to
the promise by which women and men will be equal before God, in Christ, as
"children of God" (Gal 3:27 f) is ignored and devalued.
It is especially true that for adult women who are freed within
themselves from the dominance of men this rendering of male concepts of God as
absolute and sacred poses ever greater problems. The use of a language and
metaphor system that also includes the feminine for God is long overdue. For
this reason, therefore, the unique statement made by the pope John-Paul 1: "God
is our Father; what is more, he is also a mother for us!" was felt as a sign of
hope – it flashed around the whole world like a spark on a powder
trail.
Even in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, there are many signs
(25) of a language and metaphor system of this type, in accordance with the
"signs of the times" (John XXIII), but these signs could and should be
developed in order truly to recognise the resemblance of woman with God.
According to Raurell, it is a "legitimate requirement of feminist theology that
the religious experience of women should be expressed independently of images
and symbols – subordinate to masculine language. This is an all-embracing
theology" (26). Without a "revolutionary transformation" of human speech about
God, which also involves "a reappropriation of feminine semantics for the
divinity" (27), the message of Revelation cannot in the present times be passed
on properly, that is, in a way which is understandable and acceptable to human
beings – in other words, exclusively male language must be replaced by
human language which integrates both sexes and is aimed at the resemblance of
the woman and the man with God. The truth is, that simply modifying liturgical
language – without at the same time fundamentally reforming the
subordinate position of women in the Church – would only be a sham
(28).
This change in theology and in the liturgy, inspired by the personal
dignity of woman and her likeness to God, does not in any way mean a change in
the faith of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in one God. Rather a liturgical
language which is equitable as regards woman and the human "integrator" shows
the way towards overcoming the abusive use, still prevalent, which takes the
sacred name of God as an ideological basis and as a justification for
discrimination against women in the Church (cf. c. 1024 CIC), and thus
dishonours that name. This opportunity for the liberation of women opened up
with the help of the liturgical language and metaphor system also enables
deeper, broader access into the inexpressible mystery of God, since "the truth
of the mystery of God and of the liberation of humanity are closely linked"
(29).
Footnotes
1. Ida RAMING, doctor in theology, born in 1932, has studied philosophy,
pedagogy, theology and German philology at Münster and Friburg-en-Brisgau;
her theology doctorate was entitled On the exclusion of women from the
ministry in the Church. A critical study of chap. 968, §1, of the Code
of Canon Law (1970); Publications in the area of historical-theological
research on women, especially on the subject of the position and recognition of
women in the Roman Catholic Church. Address: Überwasserstr., 8, D-48268
Greven.
2. Cf. Declaration of the Congregation of the Faith on the admission of
women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter insigniores), 15 October
1976, DC, 1977, n°1714, pp. 158-164; Apostolic letter of John Paul II
Mulieris Dignitatem, 1988, DC, 1988, n° 1972, pp. 1063-1088;
Critical discussion of this subject in I. RAMING, Frauenbewegung und
Kirche. Bilanz eines 25järhigen Kampfes für Gleichberechtigung
und Befreiung der Frau seit dem 2. Vatikanischen Konzil, Weinheim, 2nd ed.
1991; see also I. RAMING, Der Auschluss der Frau vom priesterlichen Amt.
Gottgewollte Tradition oder Diskriminierung?, Cologne-Vienna, 1973.
3. Cf. Apostolic letter of John Paul II Ordinatio sacerdotalis,
1994, DC 1994, n° 2096, pp. 551-552.
4. F. RAURELL, Der Mythos vom männlichen Gott, Friburg,
Basle, Vienna, 1989, p. 13.
5. F. RAURELL, ibid., p. 166.
6. F. RAURELL, ibid., p.34. See also Erhard S. GERSTENBERGER, Jahwe -
ein patriarchaler Gott? Traditionelles Gottesbild und feministiche
Theologie, Stuttgart, 1988, pp.25 ff.
7. According to F. RAURELL, ibid., p. 50f., God is only called Father
fifteen times in the OT, apart from instances where God is compared to an
earthly father. Cf. also J. GNILKA, Jesus von Nazareth. Botschaft und
Geschichte, Friburg, Basle, Vienna, 1993, p. 265: "In the OT, and in
Judaism, it is very rare to address God in prayer by the use of Father."
8. Cf. on this subject H. TELLENBACH (editor), Das Vaterbild in
Mythos und Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1976, p. 98.
9. C. GEFFRÉ, "'Father' as a proper name for God", in
Concilium n° 163, 1981, pp. 67-77, here p. 69.
10. C. GEFFRÉ, ibid., p. 69.
11. J. GNILKA, op. cit. (see note 7), pp. 205, 264.
12. C. GEFFRÉ, op. cit. (see note 9), p. 265.
13. J. GNILKA, op. cit. (see note 7), p. 265.
14. J. GNILKA, op. cit. (see note 7), pp. 266.
15. C. GEFFRÉ, op. cit. (see note 9), p.77.
16. C. GEFFRÉ, op. cit. (see note 9), ibid. (referring to W.
Kasper).
17. In both Old and New Testaments, the masculine theory of procreation
is assumed to be fundamental: male "seed" is often mentioned, without the woman
having any equivalent contribution of her own to make to the birth of human
life. In Wis. 7:1ff, the Old Testament representation of the process of
procreation is developed into a theory owing something to Greek influence: "I
was formed in flesh within my mother's breast, where for ten months, in her
blood, I became whole, through the male seed..". Cf. also on this topic E.
LESKY, ‘Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr
Nachwirken’, in Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der
Literatur (Geistes- u. sozialwissenschlaftliche Klasse), 1950, n° 19,
pp. 1227-1425.
18. Cf. S. GERSTENBERGER, op. cit. (see note 6), pp. 21, 23 (with the
corresponding biblical quotations given).
19. There are examples of this in both the Old and the New Testament:
cf. for example Dt 32:18; Jer 2:27; Is 42:14; 49,15; Jn 1:13f. and Jn 1:17.
20. Quoted by J. MOLTMANN, ‘Le Père maternel’, in
Concilium, n° 163, 1981, p. 83.
21. J. MOLTMANN, ibid., p.83.
22. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p. 49.
23. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p. 49 ff.
24. Cf. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p.91.
25. Many examples of this in F. RAURELL, pp. 34-100; also in S.
GERSTENBERGER, op. cit. (see note 6); see also the article "Gott/Göttin"
in the Wörterbuch der Feministischen Theologie edited by E.
GÖSSMAN and others, Gütersloh, 1991, pp. 158-173 (many
bibliographical entries).
26. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p.177.
27. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p.178 f.
28. A women's movement inside the Church, which is now spreading
throughout the world, is struggling for a reform of the position of women in
all areas of Church life. Cf. on this subject Iris MÜLLER and Ida RAMING,
Aufbruch aus männlichen "Gottesordnungen", Reformbestrebungen von
Frauen in christlichen Kirchen und im Islam, Weinheim, 1998. Also, refer to
the specialist library established by Iris Müller in the seminary for
religious studies at the Faculty of Catholic theology in the University of
Münster (Hüfferstr. 27, D-48149), "Frauen in den Religionen".
29. F. RAURELL, op. cit. (see note 4), p.180.
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!