AN OPEN LETTER TO SOME
OF THE DECISION MAKERS OF THE HIERARCHY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH
Why are some of you so afraid of women?
I ask this because whenever the subject of women comes up,
the reaction from some of those making decisions involving women or women's
involvement in the church is extreme. I
have learned over time that when there is an extreme reaction to an expressed
thought, fear is usually involved.
To put this question in perspective from my point of view
let me comment that I have been married for over 58 years to the same man, have
had 5 children (one deceased), and obviously am too old for birth control or an
abortion, am definitely not a homosexual, and have no desire for
ordination. Nor am I a theologian in any
sense of the word. I had a vocation to
be a wife and mother for the first thirty years of our marriage, and then
became a politician at the county level for the next 25. It always seemed to me that not a day went by
that I didn't use my experience and expertise from my first vocation for the
next 25 in the art of the possible – politics.
From a political perspective, I was our county's very politically
conservative base's favorite bleeding heart liberal.
I do not call myself a feminist, but rather a 'personist'
because I do not believe that anyone, men included, should be obligated to fit
into a rigid role prescribed by someone else.
All should have the ability to be productive members of society and
faithful members of their own religious communities. Over time it became apparent to me that
institutions basically operate pretty much the same, be they religious or
civil. I mention all of this because I do not want anyone to think that I have
a personal secret agenda. I just want to
know why the institutional hierarchy of my beloved Church is afraid of people
like me -- women.
Several years ago Pope Benedict XVI
issued a statement regarding evolution vs. creationism which was elegant in its
simplicity. The basic statement was that
there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity. This statement was based on the best
scientific thinking of the 21st century. Yet the hierarchy is willing to make
decisions on over half of its members using theories regarding the 'proper
role' for women from ancient Greek times at the least, and probably before
that. Sex was to be only for the
procreation of children. Women were to
be considered useful only for the production of children and the maintenance of
a home for them and the man, under the direction of the man who was preferably
a husband. Women were considered to be
less than fully human, and particularly a woman who was married and presumably
had sex. No one has explained
satisfactorily why a woman who maintained her virginity was considered to be
more human than a woman who had sex. To
assert that God would create women for the sole purpose of the procreation of
children, and then deny them their full humanity if they indulged in the only
way to procreate those children is truly a Catch 22. For those women who did not have a vocation
to virginity, they were truly caught in the middle of a situation that fully
excluded them from expressing their God-given wisdom and understanding. If nothing else, this is completely
illogical. Doesn't Genesis claim that
"male and female He created them.
In His own image he created them."
If women use the power of their God-imaged sexuality, and then become less
than a full human, doesn't this imply that God is somehow incomplete as well if
he created something that if used properly diminishes half the people who use
it? And further why doesn't sex diminish
the men who indulge in its practice? We
have come a long way from the overt expression of this denigration, but
obviously the shadow of it remains in some of the male hierarchy's attitudes
toward women.
20th century research into sex and sexuality
reveals that sex also has the equally important role of providing the two
consenting partners with a knowledge of and loving relationship with the other
partner. It is definitely a relationship
building activity, regardless of whether children are produced or not. All we have to do is witness the many
extraordinarily loving relationships between men and women where no children
are involved. This learning is a far cry from that ancient concept of the role
of women and of sex.
Slowly, and slowly, attitudes toward women have changed in
the general population, but not in the most inner sanctums of the Catholic
Church. The men in these circles do not
want women involved at all. By not
allowing women into the decision making process, however, the men do not have
access to the God-given intellectual and spiritual gifts that the excluded
women possess. Perhaps it is because if
women were involved in the decision-making discussions, different conclusions
might have to be reached. The men might
have to admit that they do not know everything there is to know.
The five most notorious basic areas that are continually
under contention in the church now, and that are causing a continual leaking of
members of the church either to other denominations or out of religion
altogether are birth control, abortion, homosexuality, a married clergy and
women's ordination. I contend that these
all have a direct relationship to women and to women's experience, and to the
fear that the hierarchy seems to have toward exploring this experience and
knowledge. Below, in order, are brief
explanations of my thoughts on these five subjects.
(1) Birth Control.
The hierarchy contends that every sexual act must be open to
procreation. This rigid attitude
completely negates the new understanding of sex and the underlying
strengthening of the relationship of the husband and wife. Women understand this relationship-building
quality of a loving sexual bond. Men who
have never married and who never listen to the experience of women can never
have that understanding. They may read
about it, but they cannot truly understand it.
Thus, the stricture on artificial birth control is completely out of
context because it does not take into account this new and more complete
understanding of the role of sex. To
insist that only 'natural' methods, such as 'the rhythm system' work very well
indicates a total lack of actual experience with this system. My personal experience is that from the
hierarchy's perspective the system works very well – a baby a year.
(2) Abortion. In all
of my years of life I have never heard anyone say they are 'pro abortion'. What many of us say is that although we as
faithful Christians believe that all life is sacred, there are many, many women
who do not hold our anti-abortion belief.
Nevertheless, we believe that the lives of these women are also sacred –
as sacred as the unborn. Are we making
value judgments that say that this life is sacred, but that one is not
sacred? Probably the only time I have
agreed with the radical religious right is that any abortion is wrong –
including those involving rape or incest.
After all, it is not the fault of the fetus that it was not a loving act
that caused its life to begin, so what right do we have to terminate it. Thus, we need to really spend much time,
effort and finances to educate men and women that irresponsible sex is the
wrong, and that wrong is not rectified by having an abortion. Adoption is a much better choice. At the same time we need to respect the lives
of women who do not believe as we do and see to it that if an abortion is
chosen, it is safe for the sake of the woman.
It often appears to me that some anti-abortion speakers seem to feel
that all women have no feelings about abortion at all – sort of an attitude of,
“Well, should I have a manicure or an abortion today?” Nothing could be further from the truth for
the vast majority of women. Women recognize this as a life or death decision. Women,
after all, are as equally beloved children of God as are men. To believe otherwise is in direct
contradiction of, "In Jesus there is neither…male nor female…." Jesus
treated women as equal to men. We should
do no less.
On a related issue to abortion is the fact that
approximately 20% of all pregnancies in women of optimal child bearing age end
in either a miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion. Thus, women, even those who ardently desired
children, are more conscious of terminated pregnancies than most unmarried
men. These terminated pregnancies are
usually quite emotionally painful, and are not therefore the common subject of
discussion. It has been said by the
medical profession that these pregnancies terminated because of a defect in the
fetus, but that is an assumption. There
are also terminated pregnancies because of hormonal imbalances in the woman. Yet there is no outcry on the part of the
Bishops over the proposed laws in some states to criminalize miscarriages. These laws would once again put women’s lives
on the line, since a woman who is having or did have a miscarriage would not go
to doctor for fear of ending up in jail.
There could be a real danger of the woman bleeding to death.
(3) Homosexuality.
The issue of homosexuality is truly a very difficult one. It leans directly on the question of the
ultimate meaning of sex, and a sexual relationship. At one time homosexuals were thought to be
mentally ill. That changed to merely
disturbed, and that has, in some circles, become a 'choice' on the part of an
individual. Even the church recognizes
that it is not a choice. As one gay
person told me, "Who in their right mind would chose this lifestyle that
means one will be harassed, made fun of, excluded and ridiculed? Only someone who is truly off their rocker
would choose it." When researchers
finally find the genetic reason for homosexuality, a lot of people in churches
are going to end up with a lot of egg on their collective faces for not having
accepted homosexuals as children of God, in their own right, with their own
place in God's plan for us. Why God has
chosen to create homosexuality will never be known until we are face to face
with God. Our job here is to remember
the old 1960's slogan. "God does
not make junk." Another issue here
is the meaning of sex. If sex is only
for the procreation of children and has no other function, then obviously
same-sex sex is a problem. But if the
equally strong function of sex is to create a loving and creative bond between
two people, the strictures against homosexuality dissolve. I doubt if the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony
ever becomes available to homosexual couples for many, many years to come. I don't know if it ever should. But I do believe that if women were involved
in church decision making, there would be a somewhat different attitude toward
homosexuality than there is now. After
all, these are our children. We know
them better than anyone other than they themselves do. The knowledge and experience of women, as
well as homosexuals, needs to be acknowledged and included in any discussion
regarding homosexuality.
(4) Married Clergy.
The next issue is a married clergy.
Celibacy is a vocation for some men, and these men can be completely
celibate in a mystical way. The
imposition of celibacy on all men as a prerequisite for a vocation to serve
God's people as a priest should be banned.
Blaming the clergy child abuse scandal on possible homosexuals in the
priesthood is truly immoral. Immoral
because it frames the discussion in way that precludes the fact that an imposed
celibacy is the more likely cause. It is
truly possible that with better psychological screening prior to allowing young
men into the seminary the possibility that this scandal will decrease is pretty
good. We know that a married clergy will
not eliminate it because of the scandals that occur in churches with a married
clergy. But these scandals tend to be
between consenting adults, as reported in the media. It is time that marriage becomes available
to the priesthood. Women need not be
feared, either as direct decision makers, or by their influence as the wives of
decision makers. If a man believes he
has a vocation to be a celibate that is his choice. Again, it should not be imposed by
others. Forcing men into a prescribed
role is as damaging to them as forcing women into a prescribed role is damaging
to them.
(5) Ordination.
The final issue is the ordination of women. Over the years there have been all sorts of
reasons presented for excluding women from the priesthood. Each has fallen, one by one. The only two left are tradition and that
since the priest stands as 'alter Christus', a woman could not possibly be a
priest because she cannot represent Christ at the altar for the simple fact
that she is female and Christ was male, so ipso facto, she is out of the
equation. Any tradition based on ancient
and discredited assumptions should be discontinued. Jesus
treated women with all of the respect He wanted women to receive. For some reason, over the centuries this
obvious degree of respect and consideration Jesus
had for women has been buried under tons of cultural garbage. Many great and wonderful treatises have been
written as to why this has happened.
Archaeologists and other scholars have uncovered the fact that in the
early church women were equal to men, and served as deacons, priests and
bishops. Therefore, the 'tradition' that
is used as the excuse that women must be excluded now has been found to be a
faulty tradition based on invalid assumptions by pagans, primarily, regarding
the role of women. The final reason for
the exclusion of women from the ordained, even down to being ordained Lectors,
is that because women do not in their bodies replicate the physical
characteristics of men, they therefore cannot be an 'alter Christus'. Jesus ,
however, was a Jew, and all male Jews in those days were circumcised. So, if priests must emulate the exact
physical characteristics of Jesus ,
have they all, all over the world, every one of them, been circumcised?
It seems to me that the strictures against women being
members of the ordained priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church comes more from
a fear of women than from scriptural or theological reasoning. In the early days of Christianity before sex
was completely understood, I believe that those Christian men who wished to be
pure before God did not understand the perfectly natural sexual reaction they
had when confronted with a comely woman.
Nor did they understand the psychological phenomenon of projection. Since they had been raised and educated by
those who still believed in the ancient Greek beliefs regarding women, it was
quite easy to project onto women the blame for the men's own turbulent and
perhaps unwelcome feelings of sexual desire.
This coupled with the pagan way of viewing women, made it quite easy over
time to demonize women into a less than human person. It is time, in the 21st century,
to discard these ancient methods of theological discussion regarding
women. Women are different from men,
obviously, and having worked with many men over the years, I know that the
thought processes of women are different from men. I have also found that this is a good thing,
and with men and women working together as equals, much can be
accomplished. In the first few centuries
of Christianity women were considered equal; were ordained as lectors, deacons,
priests and bishops. Christianity swept
the pagan world. Now women are excluded
from even being ordained as lectors. The
Church is shrinking in size and influence.
What is wrong with this picture?
Would we rather have a tiny congregation taught and led by only celibate
men, or a life-giving and Jesus filled
church with great energy to transform this poor tattered world of ours?
Perhaps it would be advantageous if those in the hierarchy
who so adamantly oppose the presence of women underwent psychiatric counseling
to understand and cope with their fear of women. We really are not all that dangerous. After all, Jesus
loved us. At times we can be really
marvelous, in the true sense of the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment