Towards Just Gender Relations: Rethinking the Role of Women in Church and Society [1 ed.] 9783737009850, 9783847109853

Citation preview

Religion and Transformation in Contemporary European Society

Band 13

Herausgegeben von Kurt Appel, Christian Danz, Jakob Helmut Deibl, Rüdiger Lohlker, Richard Potz und Sieglinde Rosenberger

Die Bände dieser Reihe sind peer-reviewed.

Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel / Sharon Bong / Rita Perintfalvi (eds.)

Towards Just Gender Relations Rethinking the Role of Women in Church and Society

V& R unipress Vienna University Press

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet þber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Verçffentlichungen der Vienna University Press erscheinen im Verlag V& R unipress GmbH. The editors wish to thank their partners (Communicantes, Hþnermann Foundation, Missio Aachen, Renovabis and Weltgebetstag) who helped in financing this book.  2019, V& R unipress GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, D-37079 Gçttingen Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich gesch þtzt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen FÐllen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlagabbildung: RaT-Logo (Gerfried Kabas, Wien). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage j www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2198-5235 ISBN 978-3-7370-0985-0

Contents

Foreword

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

I. The Tagaytay Conference July 14–17, 2016 Virginia Saldanha (Mumbai) Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Gemma Simmonds (London) Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership (II)

. . . . . . . .

29

Kochurani Abraham (Kerala) Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Angela Berlis (Bern) Restoring the Female Diaconate in the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Christine E. Burke IBVM (Manila) Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? . . . . . . . . .

61

Shalini Mulackal PBVM (Delhi) Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation: A Critical Study of the Role of Women Religious in the Church and Society . . . . . . . .

71

Teresa Forcades i Vila OSB (Monastery of Montserrat) Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

6

Contents

Margaret Beirne RSC (Sydney) “Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament .

91

Ramon Echica (Cebu) The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Eamonn Conway (Limerick) A Church beyond Clericalism

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Sharon Bong (Bandar Sunway) Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today . . . . . . . 137 Martin Lintner (Bressanone) / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel (Vienna) Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics . . . . 147 Serena Noceti (Florence) Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

II. The Vienna Conference. September 22–25, 2016 Marianne Heimbach-Steins (Münster) Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections. Ways Towards a Constructive Gender Debate in the Catholic Church and Theology . . . . 179 Gerhard Marschütz (Vienna) Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

. . . . 199

Elzbieta Adamiak (Koblenz-Landau) The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice in Central and Eastern Europe, with Special Focus on Poland . . . . . . . . 215 Maria K. Moser (Vienna) Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility . . . . . 231 Saskia Wendel (Cologne) Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God . . . . . . 245 Maaike de Haardt (Nijmegen) Mary : Portrait of an Im/Possible Image? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Contents

7

Janine Redemann (Vechta) Strengthening the Role of Women in Ecclesiastical Decion-Making Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Agnethe Siquans (Vienna) What’s the Difference? Female Prophets in Early Christian Writings . . . 283 Tallessyn Grennfell-Lee (Massachusetts) Gender and Inclusive Liturgy : Patriarchy, Liturgical Language, and Liberation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Nadja Furlan Sˇtante (Maribor) Postmodern Perception of the Role of Women in Environmental Sensitization of the Roman Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Larissa Hrotkj (Budapest) The Social, Political and Religious Conflicts about Gender in Hungary and Hungarian Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 L&dia Balogh (Budapest) The Evolution of Gender Roles and the Situation of Women in the Context of Protestant Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 About the Authors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Foreword

In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis urged theologians to contribute to a renewed theology of women and to reflect on how decisionmaking spaces of the Church can be opened up to receive the specific contribution of women: “I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families, and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because ‘the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace’1 and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures. […] This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life” (nos. 103–104). Elsewhere Pope Francis affirmed: “I must acknowledge that we are somewhat behind in developing of [sic!] theology of women. We have to progress in that area.”2

INSeCT, the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology, has taken up this call of Pope Francis and launched a Global Research Project called “A question of gender justice: the role of women in decision-making in different areas of church and society”. INSeCT is a worldwide network of nearly 30 societies for Catholic Theology from across the Globe. Founded in 1996, it aims to foster academic theology and theological research on various continents through communication among the members societies, particularly concerning information about projects and work in progress, the result of academic research and theological congresses, conventions, and meetings. The Network encourages research within theological 1 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 295. 2 Pope Francis, in-flight press conference from the USA to Rome on September 27, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-fran cesco_20150927_usa-conferenza-stampa.html.

10

Martin M. Lintner

disciplines and stimulates interdisciplinary, ecumenical, and interreligious work in the interest of academic theology. INSeCT launches regularly three-year Global Research Projects. The General Council of the Network, which is made up by the Executive Committee and the Presidents of the member societies and meets every three years, discusses and decides the topic. The Project “A question of gender justice: the role of women in decision-making in different areas of church and society,” from 2014–2017, wanted to take up Pope Francis’s call for a renewed theology of women and was seen at the same time as the logical follow-up from the previous topic 2011–2014, “The nature, function and location of theology, with particular attention to the power of theology to overcome power abuse in church and society.”3 The reflection on theology and power with special attention given to the sexual abuse crisis, and religion and politics, brought international Catholic together scholars for a renewed, practical, and theoretical exploration of power and its uses and abuses. Today’s global challenges – poverty, violence, war, ecological disasters, and human rights violations resulting from ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination – all especially affect women. Gender issues, therefore, require the special attention of the church and all disciplines of theology. Of course, there is much discussion today about the concept of “the feminine.” Furthermore, it is impossible to redefine the role of women in church and society without also discussing the role of men. INSeCT’s task was to foster a broad theological discussion on sex and gender. The arguments about gender are highly controversial, both within the church as well as in non-Christian and secular contexts. Within the Catholic Church, there is a tendency to lump all gender theories together and label them “ideological.” For example, in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis speaks of “various forms of an ideology of gender that ‘denies [sic!] the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family’” (AL 56). Even though the Pope recognizes a central thesis of Gender theories, i. e., to distinguish, but not separate biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) (cf. AL 56; 286), he complains that “this ideology leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time” (AL 56). Without doubt, there are various forms of ideological gender theories, but at the same time it is wrong to judge all forms of Gender theories as ideological and, therefore, to deny an open, critical, and academic dialogue with them. 3 See Stephen Bullivant et al. (ed), Theology and Power. International Perspectives, Paulist Press 2016.

Foreword

11

There is the clear danger of ideological “anti-genderism,” especially within the Church. In response to this tendency, an open, differentiated discussion is essential, because the refusal to engage in open dialogue and discourse is in itself ideological. Gender justice, gender equality, and the basic human rights of men and women are key questions for a worldwide ethical discussion, especially with regard to the role of religion(s) in society. The commitment to gender justice and equality requires further sociological, anthropological, and theological reflection. As theologians, we face the challenge to contribute, even more because this is a precondition to “recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life” (EG 104). INSeCT encouraged all of its member societies to engage in open and diverse discussions about this topic, with an open mind towards an unambiguous option for the underprivileged, and a clear outlook on particular regional and historical contexts. Member societies of the Network had been asked to interpret and respond to the research project in a way that is relevant to their specific regional contexts. Many member societies all around the world have responded positively to this invitation and solicitation. The present volume is the fruit of two International Conferences in July and in September 2016, which involved the European Society for Catholic Theology (ESCT) and various Asian Theological Societies as the Australian Catholic Theological Association (ACTA), the Catholic Theological Society of the Philippines (DaKaTeo), Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA), the Indian Theological Association (ITA), and the Indian Women Theologians Forum (IWTF). Both conferences were organized in collaboration with the European Society of Women in Theological Research (EWSTR). I would like to thank all those who have organized these two conferences and contributed towards their success. First of all, I thank Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel, who coordinated the ESCTresearch efforts for the INSeCT project, Rita Perintfalvi, who was the contact person on behalf of ESWTR and co-organised the International Conference in Vienna, Dennis Gonzalez, President of DaKaTeo and coorganizer of the International Conference in Tagaytay, Manila, and Sharon Bong, member of EWA, who, along with Prüller-Jagenteufel and Perintfalvi, is co-editing this volume. Finally, it is also appropriate at this stage to thank the International Catholic Mission Society MISSIO in Aachen, Germany, and RENOVABIS, an action for mutual solidarity of the German Roman Catholics with the people of Central and Eastern Europe, for their financial support of theologians from Asia and from Central and Eastern Europe who have attended the Conferences. Martin M. Lintner President of INSeCT 2014–2017

Preface

The European Society for Catholic Theology (ET) has taken up the INSeCT Global Research Project 2014–2017 “A question of gender justice: the role of women in decision-making in different areas of church and society” by organizing two conferences – both are here documented providing special insights into processes of intercultural dialogue – the first one between Asia and Europe, the second one within Europe, especially between the Western and the Eastern Central European societies. The first conference was a joint venture by ET and the Catholic Theological Society of the Philippines (DaKaTeo), a symposium held in Tagaytay in July 2016. Participants were invited from Europe – ETand the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR) – and throughout Asia-Oceania – DaKaTeo, the Australian Catholic Theological Association (ACTA), Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA), the Indian Theological Association (ITA), and the Indian Women Theologians’ Forum (IWTF). The topic for the European-Asian dialogue focused on “Gender and Ecclesiology”. Eight subtopics were presented and discussed by one Asian and one European theologian each. The fruits of these discussions make for the first part of this volume. This part gives a profound insight into the intercultural debate on gender issues in the Asian and the European Catholic church. Virginia Saldhana (India) and Gemma Simmonds (United Kingdom) write about their experiences of women at the grassroots’ level of church leadership. Kochurani Abraham (India) and Angela Berlis (Switzerland) give insights on question of women’s ordination, especially the diaconate; Chris Burke (Manila) puts the question if women should not be installed as ministers of the sacrament of reconciliation. Shalini Mulackal (India) and Teresa Forcades (Spain/Catalonia) discuss how women religious make the vanguard of women’s participation in the church; Margaret Beirne (Australia) shares insights on women leadership in the Old and New Testament. Ramon Echica (Philippines) and Eamonn Conway (Ireland) aim at a church beyond clericalism; Sharon Bong (Malaysia) and Martin Lintner together with Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel have a deeper look at the question of

14

Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

gender complementarity with special focus on Catholic sexual ethics; and Serena Noceti (Italy) explores the role of women in a new ecclesiology of the laity. The second conference was hosted by the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna (Austria) and the Viennese “Forum Zeit und Glaube” of the Society of Catholic Academics in September 2016. Here the topic was not so much focused on church practice but had a special aim for gender theories and their theological and political implications: “The Role of Women in Political and Ecclesial Decision-Making Processes – Ideological and Practical Issues between Gender ‘Ideology’ and Gender Justice”. Six keynote speeches that have been published previously in German in the bi-annual magazine “ET Studies” (vol. 8, issue 1, 2017) are republished in English: Marianne Heimbach-Steins (Germany) explores “Ways towards a constructive gender debate in the Catholic church”; Gerhard Marschütz (Austria) has a thorough look at the criticism of gender studies in the Catholic church; Elzbieta Adamiak (Germany/Poland) analyzes the conflicts round the gender debates in Eastern Central Europe; Maria Katharina Moser (Austria) looks at women beyond victimization; Saskia Wendel (Germany) is proposing gender sensitive images of God; and Maaike de Hardt shows Mary as an im/possible image. The Viennese documentation is completed by a half a dozen of the fifteen papers that have been presented at the conference. Janine Redemann (Germany) pleads for a strengthening of women’s participation in ecclesial decision making processes; Agnethe Siquans explores female prophets in early Christian writings; Tallessyn Grenfell-Lee (USA) shows the possibilities of gender sensitive liturgies; Nadja Furlan Sˇtante (Slovenia) presents women in the environmental sensitization of the Catholic church. Larissa Hrotko (Hungary) has a look at the conflicts about gender in Hungarian Judaism; and Lidia Balogh (Hungary) gives special emphasis on the evolution of gender roles in the Protestant traditions. The editors are proud and happy to present this collection of culturally diverse approaches to the questions of gender justice by that being able to foster the academic discourse as well as the practical debates on gender issues in the Catholic Church and beyond – reaching out to our respective societies. The editors also want to thank not only the authors of this volume but also the translators and proof readers: Caroline Ayasse, Patrick Eldridge, Elaine Griffiths, and Marshall Cody Staton have done a marvellous job. We also thank Daniel Kuran and Marlene Deibl for the layout and the current communication with the publishers.1 We also give thanks to the publishers of RaT to accept this volume in 1 For the sake of authenticity we largely maintained the character of the spoken word. We also kept the different styles of references, not wanting to rank one culture higher than the other. Even if the styles of the articles are different now we hope this will be understood as representation of the cultural manifold INSeCT represents.

Preface

15

their series. Last but not least we give our thanks to Communicantes, the Hünermann Foundation, Missio Aachen, Renovabis, the German committee of “Weltgebetstag der Frauen”, and an especially generous anonymous donor for their financial support. Without them, this volume could not have been published. We hope that the ideas we are able to share in this volume will prove stimulating for the ongoing discussion on gender issues in our churches and societies. Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel in the name of all the editors

I. The Tagaytay Conference July 14–17, 2016

Virginia Saldanha (Mumbai)

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership

1.

Introduction

The idea of Church at the grassroots concretized in Asia with the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences (FABC) articulating this vision in 1990. The bishops called it ‘A New Way of Being Church’ and describe it as “a communion of communities,” where “laity, religious and clergy recognize and accept each other as sisters and brothers” (FABC V, 8.1.1). A Desk created by the Bishops to implement this vision, called the Asian Integral Pastoral Approach (AsIPA) says it is working to change the style of leadership from top down to “a collaborative leadership.”1 The Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) adopted this vision as their pastoral priority in 19922. In 1992 the CBCI also established a Desk for Women under the Commission for Laity, which in 1996 was raised to the status of a Commission, and then progressively demoted between 2011–2014 to an Office, and now as a Council for Women is back under the Commission for Laity in the CBCI. Its work is to empower women. In 2010, the CBCI published a Gender Policy, which aims for the “Empowerment of Women in the Church and Society”3 based on the scriptural equality of women in Gen.1:27, however, there is no framework for its implementation. My introduction shows the different structures created by the bishops for lay participation and leadership as well as for women’s empowerment in India. My paper, first takes a look at the experiences of some pioneering women leaders in SCCs, then, examines women’s experience of leadership in parishes obtained through some interviews and questionnaires. I 1 Statement of the 2nd Asian Integral Pastoral Approach (AsIPA II) General Assembly, no. 3.4 New Style of Leadership pg. 107, “For All the Peoples of Asia”, Vol. 3, Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferneces Documents from 1997 to 2001, Ed. Franz Josef Eilers SVD., Published by Claretian Publiations, Manila, March 2002. 2 SCCs in Mumbai, http://www.mumbaiscc.in/sccinmumbai (26. 05. 2016). 3 The Gender Policy of the Catholic Church of India, published by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, Commission for Women, Dec. 2010.

20

Virginia Saldanha

then present a critical socio-theological analysis of the findings in these responses with a short conclusion.

2.

Pioneering Women’s Experience in SCCs in India

Sr. Christin Joseph HC and Sr. Martina L. Thabah MSMHC used their experience of the SCCs in the Philippines to create a dream of forming SCCs in their home country. They worked hard, with determination, collaborating with men to realise their dream.4 As a parish priest, the former Archbishop of Delhi tried to create SCCs but it collapsed when he left the parish, because priests were not interested. Later as Archbishop, he recruited Sr. Gemma and Sr. Suja to help him form SCCs in the archdiocese.5 The 2012 National Report of SCCs in India speaks of an unnamed Sister who visited several villages with a catechist to encourage the Gospel Sharing among communities. She found only women present. So she went in search of the men whom she found sitting together drinking alcohol. She sat with them, befriended them and finally convinced them to come to the Gospel Sharing in the community.6 The Society of the Helpers of Mary (SHM) joined a team of four priests in two experimental parishes to implement the vision of Vatican II. Sr. Seema SHM cofounded Jagruti Kendra7 with the priests, through which they started neighbourhood community groups in the parish. The sisters together with the community leaders organized the communities on social, civic and parish issues following the teachings of Lumen Gentium “the laity by their very vocation seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God.” (LG #31) The team demonstrated that it was possible to implement the mission of the Church in the inter-religious context of India. The majority of participants in the community were women from different faith traditions who were directly responsible for the success of the Basic Human Communities as they were called in these two parishes. The sisters were able to draw out the women who would not have responded to priests (males) attempting to break new paths in the community. The women trained by the sisters were so empowered that even though they were unlettered, they went from parish to parish to start inter-religious women’s groups in slum neighbourhoods. Sr. 4 Pioneers of SCCs in India, http://www.sccind.org/home/inner/15 (31. 05. 2016). 5 Ibid. 6 http://www.fabc.org/offices/olaity/docs/Report of National Council of SCC Meeting in India 2012.pdf (03. 05. 2016). 7 Jagruti Kendra is the community Centre established in the parish of Jeri Mari. It was the hub where all the work in the community of the two parishes in Jeri Mari and Saki Naka was coordinated.

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership

21

Seema SHM was the pioneer sister in this project since its inception in 1988. Her strong assertiveness negotiated a space for the sisters to work with the priests as partners and collaborators in the project. Today, an SHM sister is Director of Jagruti Kendra.8 These stories demonstrate women’s commitment, skill, creativity and ability in bringing about change in communities. These women are like the foundresses of the House Churches in the apostolic times; they were instrumental in founding grassroots ‘churches’ in India.

3.

Experience of the Gender Stereotypes9

The majority leaders in SCCs are women. Most of them are in the age group of 50–70, an age when they are free of their child rearing responsibility. Many of them are widows. Women working outside the home retire at 60 and look for an opportunity to be out of the house doing something altruistic with their time and talents. It also gives them an opportunity to be recognized and appreciated in the community. I brings them fulfillment and builds their self-confidence. Where men are involved, they automatically assume leadership while the women do the work of the community under their direction. Women seem to be content to play a subservient role, happy to ‘help’ their male coordinator, but the ultimate control of the SCCs is with the priest. In the Archdiocese of Bombay, the Community coordinator is supposed to carry the voice of the people in their community to the Parish Pastoral Council (PPC) meetings and the discussion at the PPC has to be brought back to the community. But this does not happen. Women coordinators who asked questions stated that they were not heard. Women coordinators work alongside their animators. The programmes carried out in the community are traditional and pious (like saying the rosary, way of the cross in lent, etc.) coupled with gettogethers to build camaraderie. No discussions or reflections on women’s issues take place, perhaps for fear of disturbing the status quo. The training programmes reinforce the clerical and hierarchial model of Church and the consultative role of lay leaders in the Parish Pastoral Council (PPC) (canon.536.2). Therefore, women generally remain silent in the PPC. There is absolutely no training for the empowerment of women in the context of realizing their equality with men in the Church. The tendency to rope in women who are ‘doers’ and not ‘thinkers’ is clear. Most women fall into the traditional mould of submissive, 8 Interview with Sr. Seema SHM was done on 23rd June 2016. 9 Culled from the responses to a Questionnaire I sent out to women working with SCCs in Mumbai.

22

Virginia Saldanha

passive and obedient, who would not take on challenges that could threaten the status quo in the Church. The high value given to acceptance from priests and bishops ensures the status quo for both lay leaders and clerics. Women’s leadership style is negatively affected by the teaching that man is head of the household (Eph 5: 23) which is emphasized by popular conservative family movements that reinforce women’s subordination. Men increasingly get involved into the SCCs but are more interested in being boss rather than a coworker in the community. Women feel the pressure to balance family commitments and community work, with little or no support from husbands. One woman expressed the wish that her husband would help with housework so that she would become a bit freer to do her work in the community. Women’s work in the community fills a big lacuna in pastoral ministry. There is no doubt that this work is considerably appreciated by the community which itself is very traditional and steeped in religiosity. Though it brings women fulfillment and builds their confidence, it reinforces the fact that as women their nurturing skills are essential to this work. As Joan Chittister points out, “Nurturance is indeed the only role comfortably awarded to women. The fact is that apart from motherhood and homemaking, little else but ‘nurture’ has been open to women to satisfy their need for fulfillment”10 While the Gender Policy is based on “Woman and man created in the image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:27) there seems to be no effort to make this a reality in the running of the SCCs, where the majority of women exercise leadership at the very grassroots of the Church. In his foreword the then President of the CBCI stated, “The Policy promotes the egalitarian message of Jesus, with the vision of a collaborative Church with Gender Justice. It envisages a world where both women and men can enjoy total freedom and equality to grow in the image and likeness of God.”11 Yet women remain subservient to the priests, and are easily controlled by them. At home, they are saddled with household responsibility and wish that husbands should at least ‘help’ them so that they are not under so much pressure to take care of the family and their responsibility in the community. The stated mission of the CBCI Council for Women is “To stimulate reflection in the Church on its mission to form a discipleship of equals”12 and to contribute to the process of creating a gender just church and society… Yet, there is no 10 Dr. Pauline Chakalakal dsp, in “Discipleship, a space for women’s leadership?” pg. 282 Pauline Publications, Pauline Sisters Bombay Society, 2004, quoting Joan Chittister in “Job’s Daughters”, pg. 39. 11 Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, in the Foreword to “Gender Policy of the Catholic Church in India” published by the Commission for Women, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, 2010. 12 CBCI Office for Women, http://cbci.in/all-Commissions/women.aspx accessed on 8th June, 2016.

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership

23

concerted attempt to create awareness about the CBCI Gender Policy in the SCCs. A study was done by Streevani, Pune, in 2013 “on the ‘role of women in the Church’ in the light of the Gender Policy. It covered nine dioceses across the country. Members of parish councils were chosen as respondents.”13 In India, members of parish councils are largely the leaders in their respective SCCs. The survey found that only 16 % or 142 of the 1000 respondents had read the Policy. 370 or 40 % had heard about the Policy and 44 % or 488 had not heard about the document. Given that 63 % of the respondents were women, the ignorance about a document that pertains to their lives, especially given the extent of violence to women in India, and the submissive status of women, is of concern. Anecdotally, every Indian woman at some stage in her life experiences violence either at home, in the street or in public space, or in the workplace.

4.

Women Struggle to Break the Gender Mould

For culturally conservative women, the opportunity to come out of their homes to participate in social programmes is itself a big step. Even the opportunity to sit with a priest and discuss anything is a big social shift. The SCC work has socially empowered women giving them the opportunity to sit with other women and sometimes even with men, without their domineering husbands overseeing their activities. For widows, spaces designated as ‘Church work’ are acceptable for their participation outside the home. Hence, widows readily come forward to offer their service as community animators. Women value Gospel Sharing. If done from a feminist perspective, it is a tool for empowerment and building faith. One group who usually share from feminist a perspective say they are silent when the priest is present.14 Sr. Seema SHM empowered women through negotiation with bishops and clergy. She points out that sisters may or may not be successful in partnership with the priests depending on the attitude of the individual Parish Priest and the assertiveness of the Sister.15 I had started a group called “Women’s Space” in my parish where women could come and share their experiences and discuss women’s issues. It became very popular attracting more and more women. The Parish Priest was not happy

13 George Julie SSpS, “Women Living the Legacy of Vatican II: Gender Policy of the Catholic Church in India”, in “Women as Equal Disciples, Unfinished Task of The Church”, Eds. Virginia Saldanha, Varghese Theckanath, SG, Julie George, SSpS, published by Streevani Pune, Montfort Social Insititute, Hyderabad, 2016. 14 From responses to my questionnaire. 15 Interview with Sr. Seema SHM.

24

Virginia Saldanha

with the popularity of this group. He then said he could not provide space for the group to meet so we had to shut it down. Women wish for more leadership roles but do not specify what role.16 Several Parish Priests discourage women’s Cells, which are intended to function in tandem with SCCs. However, some coordinators do help women victims of violence in their quiet way.17

5.

Socio-Theological Implications

Jesus came that all may have life, life in abundance. (John 10:10). Through his life and ministry he healed the sick, fed the hungry, brought sinners to repentance and in general brought life and joy to people’s lives. “Women can more easily emulate the priesthood of Jesus because of the qualities of caring, nurturing, sacrificing and inner strength they have been encouraged to cultivate down the ages and which are precisely the qualities that are required for building people and community but which are not encouraged in men brought up in a ‘macho’ patriarchal society.”18 Sadly, qualities of servanthood attributed to women are seen as complementary to the leadership qualities of men who because of their biology are said to represent Jesus though not necessarily his spirituality of servanthood. Families in difficulty, like single parent families, senior citizens, young parents, all need the support of the community. With the diminishing influence of the extended family and the increase of nuclear families in modern urban living, the family necessarily depends on the community in the neighbourhood. Women put into practice the core Christian values of love (Jn 13:34–35), caring, sharing (Mt 25:35–36). They follow the example of foot washing that Christ gave his disciples before he sat down to supper. “For I have set you an example that you should do as I have done to you. Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them” (Jn 13:14–16). Women are the face of Christ in the community. This fact has to be recognized as an important dimension of pastoral work done by women in the community by raising the status of this ministry and recognizing women as partners in ministry towards a Church of equal discipleship. Women actually create support networks and communion in the community. Pope Francis en16 From responses to my Questionnaire. 17 From my personal experience of working as Executive Secretary of the Women’s Desk of the Archdiocese of Bombay from 1992–2000 and my continued association with the Commission for Women of the Archdiocese of Bombay as advisor. 18 Saldanha Virginia, ‘Healing Priesthood – Women’s Voices Worldwide’ Eds Angela Perkins & Vereena Wright, Published Darton Longman & Todd, 2003, London.

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership

25

courages the faithful to create welcoming spaces that help people connect and trust each other. He said that if communities are created, close and warm relations will develop so that each person will feel held within a network of solidarity and belonging, this helps in giving people a dignified life, especially those who live in cramped overcrowded spaces. (Laudato Si. #148). The New Way of Being Church does open up a space for women’s leadership in the Church but it is a space that is closely monitored and controlled by the Priest whose mindset is steeped in Indian culture and is seen to be in the place of God, so is greatly revered. This ensures women’s subservience. The New vision which talks about a “communion of communities” where “laity, religious and clergy recognize and accept each other as sisters and brothers”, does take a step towards a Church as the People of God, but it does very little to empower women towards a Church that is a discipleship of equals. Women more easily model the “servant leadership” demonstrated by Jesus while pervasive clericalism is detrimental to the spirituality of servanthood. The patriarchal mindset prevents women from seeing this as a problem so they do not expect servanthood from their religious leaders and are happy to provide the service, making up for this lacunae in the community. They are happy to be servants to the priests as well and often count it as a privilege. The idea of equality in discipleship does not occur to them. Sr. Pauline Chakalakal dsp, makes a very important point about women’s growth prospects in the current framework of leadership by pointing out that “Unless women are alert, this sort of power (nurturing power) can imprison them in their traditional roles of ‘obedient wives’, ‘sacrificing mothers’, or ‘docile and devoted daughters’ of the church. While this stereotyping benefits the male members of the church and society, it may in fact cripple women’s intellectual and psycho-spiritual growth.”19 Gendered roles are reinforced and no initiatives are taken to ensure partnership. The fear of change is entrenched in the clergy and subtly passed on to people. “When challenged with the issue of gender equality, the initial reaction is fear of loss which comes whenever the status quo is challenged, the feeling that ‘we will loose everything that we believed in’. Following closely is the fear of change which comes when people are conscientised and realise that things have to change which leads to the fear of the unknown ‘what will happen next?’”20 As long as clericalism is alive and active in the Church women’s subservient status will be reinforced. The big question is, how can it be dismantled? In January 2014, addressing an Italian Congress of Catholic women Pope Francis called for a 19 Dr. Pauline Chakalakal dsp, in “Discipleship, a space for women’s leadership?” pg. 282. Pauline Publications, Pauline Sisters Bombay Society, 2004. 20 Hadebe Nontando, in “Gender, Gender Equality and the Church”, published on the web at “Ecumenical Women at the United Nations” https://ecumenicalwomen.org/theology/acade mic-articles/gender-gender-equality-and-the-church-by-nantondo-hadebe/ (08. 06. 2016).

26

Virginia Saldanha

greater role for women in the Church and in decision making, but sadly he went on to reinforce the stereotype of women as mothers.21 A word of caution, complimentarity is a concept alien to the millennial generation. With millennials, gender roles are blurred so there is no male or female – as all are one in Christ (Gal 3:28). Sticking to the idea of complementarity, the Church can lose this generation. The New Way of Being Church requires new structures that are inclusive. Using Christ’s maleness to marginalize women in ordained ministry is against the example he gave of breaking tradition and defying culture to empower women.

6.

Conclusion

The conundrum for me as a grassroots feminist is that while women leaders in the SCCs are doing wonderful pastoral work, where they meet a vital social and even if traditional spiritual need where the priests are woefully falling behind; they reinforce the complimentary gendered model. Though the Pope and Bishop’s conferences continue to encourage women’s participation, unless and until a systematic and critical process of de-gendering is initiated in the Church, ‘a new way of being Church’ will not be possible. New wine needs new wineskins! The evolution of ‘new wineskins’ will involve: – “Uprooting the hierarchical and patriarchal mindset from ourselves and our communities – Creating an awareness of Christian discipleship according to the vision of Christ – Dismantling clericalism by “Choosing leaders for Christian communities according to the criteria deployed by the early Church, like selecting persons filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3).” – Celebrating ‘inclusive table fellowship’ in Small Christian Communities which are the “house churches” of today where sharing experiences of joys and sorrows can help create bonds of support and solidarity, thereby building community. – Recognizing the varied ministerial services (at the grassroots) exercised by all the people of God like Coordinators of Small Christian Communities, Ministers of the Eucharist, Ministers of the Word, Ministers of healing/teaching/

21 See Glatz Carol, “Women Should Play a Greater Role in the Church says Pope” The Catholic Herald UK. Online: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/01/27/women-should-playa-greater-role-in-church-says-pope/ (02. 03. 2016).

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership

27

social outreach/ justice and the like, as equally valued and effective ways of realizing the vision of Jesus.”22 This will help the Christian community become the ‘new wineskin’ that can hold the ‘new wine’ of the Reign of God. Thus will the dream of birthing a new Church with structures which are collaborative, participatory and inclusive without distinctions of class, caste and gender become a reality.23

22 Statement of the Indian Women Theologians Forum after reflecting on the “Common Priesthood of Women” at their annual meeting in 2015. 23 Ibid.

Gemma Simmonds (London)

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership (II)

The invitation to speak about women at the grassroots level of Church leadership poses a challenge. It is not possible to speak for women across the entire world, as if there were one category of ‘women’ and one view could speak for all of us. Perhaps it might be possible to speak for and about women from the ‘global north’, but my travels within Britain and Ireland, the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which count as belonging socio-economically in the global north, despite being geographically in the south) have persuaded me of the significant contextual and cultural differences there. The thought arose while preparing this paper that perhaps I could speak for European women, but as a post-Brexit British citizen it now feels presumptuous to speak for Europe, either East or West. So, what I write comes mainly from the perspective of one very small island which, with the Brexit decision, appears to be doing its best, for unfathomable reasons, to cut itself off from the rest of its native continent and to live in ‘splendid isolation’, despite all political rhetoric to the contrary. I may, therefore, find myself speaking for a very small minority. It is an often-repeated caricature of the British that, when faced with foreigners who have the bad taste not to speak the Queen’s English, they think that if you speak your own language very loudly and very slowly, everyone will understand. This is a familiar experience in other contexts, for it is largely what the ‘hierarchical church’, for want of a better term, has been doing for much of my lifetime. Every now and again, some part of the body of the faithful, usually led by alleged minorities within the laity, tries to open up to a broader view, a more inclusive conversation and a more collaborative way of proceeding. Other sectors within the faithful breathe the free air and look out at the expanded horizon and feel excited … or feel threatened, and once more pull up the drawbridge and retreat inside the safety of the male-centred castle, shouting very slowly the same tired slogans that have been shouted for generations. This is not the best basis for a dialogue of equals. In speaking about women at the level of church leadership, for example, in

30

Gemma Simmonds

Base Ecclesial Communities, social justice movements, etc., it seems important to begin by looking at our socio-political context. The four main principles of Catholic Social Teaching are: – the dignity of the human person made in the image of God – solidarity, standing alongside those in need, helping them to become agents of their own transformation – subsidiarity, which recognises the capacity each person has to make a contribution to human flourishing, and acknowledges that a higher body should not remove the capability of those perceived as ‘less able’ – the search for the Common Good, providing the best conditions for human flourishing.1 These are the fundamental principles that drive the focus and mobilise the energy of many women participating at grassroots level within the church. They stand at the heart of the recent Synod on the Family, summoned by Pope Francis to deal honestly with the contexts in which Catholics the world over are attempting to live their faith. Many people on both the liberal and the conservative sides of the ecclesial spectrum expressed their disappointment at Pope Francis’s refusal, after the Synod, to operate out of a model of leadership that imposes global solutions on local and particularized situations. They wanted him to take a stand and either reinforce the rules of what they deemed ‘Catholic tradition’ or to change them radically. Instead he offered a suggestion that the faithful act as adults and stop relying on a paternal authority for the solution to their questions. Insisting on the principle of subsidiarity, he attempted to devolve power back to local pastors and to the sensus fidelium of the people of God in conversation with them. There is one difficulty, however, when this principle is applied to women in the church. It is that it tends to lead to an essentialist way of speaking of women as a unified, global category, and Pope Francis himself is not immune from this. The exclusion from the synod of all but a handful of women (many of them included only in the context of their relationship with their husband) and the continuing talk of ‘women’s role’ in the church, of ‘women’s issues’, ‘women’s genius’ is problematic. When Pope Francis talks, even in a benign way, of women’s genius, and says that ‘we have not yet come up with a profound theology of womanhood in the Church’ it reinforces the notion of a church of ‘we/us’, meaning men, the mainstream or, as Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza calls it, male-stream members

1 See http://www.nbcw.co.uk, National Board of Catholic Women, Women and Poverty Report, p. 26.

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership (II)

31

and the ‘others’ – women, reduced to a category, an object of study or specialist concern.2 In her book, Keeping God’s Silence, Quaker theologian Rachel Muers speaks of the ‘dumb silencing’ of women, in which they are ignored in public discourse dominated by men. The construction of the universal subject as male tends to lead to the exclusion of concerns specific to women as being trivial or irrelevant. Women become absent in contexts where their experience is not thought to count.3 In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf suggests that women are also silenced by being talked about.4 In both ways, women’s own voices and the witness of their own experience struggle to be heard. In this sense, calls for a ‘theology of womanhood’ as opposed to a renewal of the basic categories of our overall theological anthropology, are not helpful, and only serve to reinforce the notion of women as a problematic, non-normative ‘other’. So, what categories and contexts of human existence are women using when operating at grassroots level in the church? In my experience, they are generally offering a Gospel-inspired response to the human dilemmas that arise when the dignity of the human person made in the image of God, the solidarity demanded by a radical understanding of human oneness, the subsidiarity which arises when people are recognized as appropriate agents of their own transformation, and the human flourishing brought about by concern for the common good are absent. The National Board of Catholic Women in the UK is an umbrella organization bringing together Catholic women working at grassroots level in a broad spectrum of church and Gospel-inspired, socio-political organisations. Ours is a minority church in a country rapidly divesting itself of even the tribal cultural vestiges of its Christian heritage. We do not have the financial means of the Church in Germany, for instance, which is able to offer lay pastoral ministers a salary on which they can live. Religious have often held posts within ecclesial organizations because they were the only ones able to manage the financial risk such jobs posed. However, the median age of religious is rising beyond such employment. We have a small, but theologically literate and highly qualified number of lay women and men who are fit and ready to hold positions of leadership in the Church, but for whom there are few resources and opportunities for such leadership to be exercised realistically. It is this kind of leadership that was envisaged at the greatest exercise in 2 Cf. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_ 20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html and Catholic Women Speak Network, eds., Catholic Women Speak: Bringing our Gifts to the Table, (Paulist Press, NY, 2015), p. xxix. 3 Rachel Muers, Keeping God’s Silence: Towards a Theological Ethics of Communication (Oxford: Blackwells, 2004), pp. 32–3. 4 Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own, (Penguin, London, 1945), pp. 27–8.

32

Gemma Simmonds

pastoral consultation of the laity the British Catholic Church has ever experienced, namely the National Pastoral Congress, held in Liverpool in 1980. Huge hopes of lay leadership, lay collaboration, and partnership with the clergy were raised, but this proved to be the end of the rainbow of Vatican II, and the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI. The election of a vigorous and dynamic young Polish pope had a vital momentum of its own, but came in time to sweep this grassroots initiative aside in favour of a new centralization and a steadily creeping reclericalization of the community of the faithful.5 In the recent past in Britain, financial insecurity within the Church has frequently been used as the reason for needing to dismantle lay-led ministries and departments within dioceses and replace the laity with clergy. Strong drives to raise money have been imported from the USA and the Catholic laity have dug deep into their pockets. But in a diocese which recently went through the radical re-configuring and re-clericalizing of its key posts, a large sum of money was raised, supposedly to support diocesan initiatives in evangelization, health-care, education and the like, only for the bishop to invest a significant sum in sending to each parishioner in the diocese a CD of the Pope reciting the Rosary. It is difficult for many of the donors to understand and embrace the pastoral priorities here. Groups led by women at grassroots level tend to focus instead on issues that arise within the family and wider society and on the problems caused by the recent European economic crisis, carrying government-imposed austerity measures, which have most severely affected the poor, especially women and children. In the UK, we currently have over three million people relying on voluntary food banks to eat, many of which are run by or from churches. According to the Council of Europe, more than 16 % of the European population is poor, with women hit the hardest. The European Women’s Lobby states that, ‘a third of single parents experience poverty, and of those single-parents 80–90 % are women’.6 Deprivations include a lack of basic necessities such as food and adequate housing, social isolation, a lack of reliable work and financial and familial insecurity. This is the reality of poverty within the affluent global north, involving a day-to-day struggle to live and survive, adversely affecting physical and psychological well-being and putting stress on personal relationships.7 These are the realities faced daily by women involved in grassroots’ level church leadership, attempting to preach and live the Gospel in their faith-inspired response to such contexts. In addition to this are the rising problems brought about 5 See James Sweeney, Gemma Simmonds and David Lonsdale eds., Keeping Faith in Practice Aspects of Pastoral Theology, (London, SCM, 2010). 6 See http://www.eapn.ie/eapn/women-in-europe-deserve-a-better-deal. 7 See European Anti-Poverty Network, Poverty and Inequality in the EU, 2014, https://issuu. com/eapneurope/docs/2014-poverty-explainer-en-web.

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership (II)

33

by mass migration from conflicted countries or those experiencing significant economic crisis. The Church’s response requires a renewed understanding of the sacramentality of ordinary living rather than endless renewal or re-structuring of access to the sacraments via parish re-ordering, as if this were the most vital issue in the lives of the faithful. Baptised into Christ’s threefold ministry as prophet, priest and king, women leaders act by proclaiming the presence of God-with-us – God in our genuine, lived reality, rather than in an ecclesial holy space which has little contact with the way it feels to be human. With an ageing and dwindling population of priests, we are seeing the relentless closing down of parishes and the re-configuration of cluster parishes and Mass centres. The focus is increasingly centralized on the priest and the provision of sacraments. But at grassroots level the focus is not so much on sacraments in the dogmatic or even the concrete sense, but on signs which make real what they signify, namely the living presence of God within vulnerable human reality. Prophetic signs of hope are given by women who are pontifices, bridge-builders within broken communities and relationships. In life-giving words and signs of the reign of God they proclaim a Eucharistic sense of union with God and between people by affirming the holiness of human sexuality and bodiliness in the image of God. They repeat in memory of Christ through simple service of ordinary human needs the washing of the feet – a privileged sign of his presence among us. They reconcile the broken and separated, whether at the personal or socio-political level, heal the wounded and confirm the humanity of those worn down by hostile social systems. Their analysis of the origin and causes of these problems, as well as their witness to Christ’s presence in healing and challenging response is at the heart of their leadership. Women offer signs of leadership through their God-given gifts in terms of articulation of their own experience and the particular qualities with which they face social, intellectual, political, and spiritual challenges. A generation of girls and young women exists now within the Church in Europe that looks at the secular, political, and professional landscape and sees women’s leadership and decision-making at the highest level. If the community of faith is the only one to which they belong where their decision-making powers are not welcome, why should they continue to remain within it? The notion that the experience of women carries equal authority with that of men in the Church is not new. In the early seventeenth century, Mary Ward attempted to pioneer a new way for women to exercise grassroots leadership within the Church in the context of religious life and the education of girls and young women. Seeking to break beyond the limitations of the cloistered life, which was the only option for religious women of her time, Mary was convinced by her years of pastoral experience of the aptness of women for an apostolic way of life on the Jesuit model. She

34

Gemma Simmonds

also became convinced of the fundamental equality of women and men before God, a theological insight not universally shared at the time. One Jesuit expressed his conviction that women were not able to comprehend God as men are. Mary refuted this assumption in a speech to her sisters: “There was a father that lately came into England whom I heard say, that he would not for a 10,000 of worlds be a woman, because he thought a woman could not apprehend God: I answered nothing but only smiled, although I could have answered him by the experience I have of the contrary : I could have been sorry for his want of judgment, I mean not want of judgment, nor to condemn his judgment, for he is a man of a very good judgment; his want is in experience.”8 This marginalization of women’s experience within the Church, based on the conviction that their access to God was of an entirely different order from that of men, led in Mary Ward’s time to a high degree of invisibility and inaudibility in spiritual and ecclesial matters. Women seeking to find a voice and a place in the public forum were not welcome. Where this remains the case today it tends to be in the more subtle and unspoken assumptions that lie behind structural difficulties in women gaining access to decision-making positions and processes within the Church. Now as then, it represents a huge loss and impoverishment in the way that the community of the faithful embodies and announces the Gospel to a broken world. In Laudato Si Pope Francis states, the human person grows more, matures more and is sanctified more to the extent that he or she enters into relationships, going out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others and with all creatures. In this way, they make their own that Trinitarian dynamism which God imprinted in them when they were created. Everything is inter-connected, and this invites us to develop a spirituality of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity.9 This is where women are exercising the priesthood of all believers within their service in grassroots leadership within the Church. The spiritual insight and wisdom of women, based on their experience of living that Trinitarian dynamism, is of vital importance to the growth and sustaining of faith, hope, and love within our ecclesial communities. The lack of access to positions where they can exercise this leadership has already been made clear. There is a further serious challenge. Many of those in leadership within women’s ecclesial groups in the global North have been members of them for decades. These groups are ageing and not being renewed by younger members. It has been said that today’s generation is characterized by ‘believing but not belonging’.10 Where are the women 8 Ursula Dirmeier, Mary Ward und ihre Gründung: die Quellentexte bis 1645 (Münster, Aschendorf, 2007), p. 359 [spelling modernized]. 9 Pope Francis, Laudato Si, 240. 10 Grace Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing Without Belonging (Oxford, Blackwell, 1994).

Women at the Grassroots’ Level of Church Leadership (II)

35

leaders of tomorrow’s church? We cannot rely on the religious. The median age of women religious in Holland is currently 87. Short of a miracle, women’s religious life there will have virtually disappeared within a decade. In the UK, there has been a 300 % rise in women joining religious life in the past five years, which is a significant sign of hope, but the median age of religious in general is still only ten years below that of Holland. Furthermore, it is not realistic to demand of a younger generation that it emulate in toto the concerns and perceptions of a previous age. For anyone aged fifty and younger today, the Second Vatican Council is part of history and their ecclesial concerns and experiences are not those of their mothers’ or their grandmothers’ generation. Younger women live under such economic and work pressure that they often no longer have sufficient time or inclination to join group activities. Perhaps for some the gap between their experience of participation, consultation, and leadership in the secular world and their continuing marginalization within the Church has become too wide for them to reconcile, so they have simply walked away. When the present generation of women involved in leadership at grassroots level finally comes to an end, where will we find their successors, and what will be their concerns? Others among them will be the only person in their family or their peer group to have a living faith. For these, a permanently embattled relationship with those in authority within the Church is neither necessary nor desirable. If some of their generation are characterized by ‘believing but not belonging’, for them, the desire to belong to and be identified with the Church is strong. The division of membership into ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ categories is meaningless to them, and the struggles of the conciliar era are not their own, either with regard to the Church or indeed with regard to the issues within secular feminism. They must receive the encouragement and the freedom to seek and find for themselves an effective response to the challenges of their own time. The issues of poverty and inequality facing women at the grassroots level of leadership within the Church are of global proportions and will not be solved by a single papal encyclical or by any one programme of structural change within the community of the faithful on its own. Nevertheless, the Spirit of God continues to call us forward to respond as fully as possible to the challenge of service and leadership that each of us received at our baptism. My travels across the world have made clear to me that there is no continent in which women do not have the capacity and the vocation to exercise leadership within Church and society. What is equally clear is that where the Church and its ministers are characterized by increasing clericalization, this capacity and this vocation will be largely overlooked, to the serious impoverishment of the people of God. If we wish to have a Church that, after the mind of Pope Francis, is a field hospital where the wounds

36

Gemma Simmonds

of our present world can receive adequate attention, we need women to have equal access to equal positions of leadership.

Kochurani Abraham (Kerala)

Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination

Gender is an unresolved question with reference to ecclesiology, as it is confronted by conflicting points of view that emerge from different perceptions of human identity. While there are sharp moves to crack the hardened gender coatings of ecclesiology, particularly on the ecumenical front, counter moves that resist change are equally strong. This is most evident in the stand taken by the official Catholic Church on gender as apparent from women’s positioning in relation to Catholic hierarchy and its power equations. Reactions in the Indian Church to the Vatican pronouncement on the possible inclusion of women in the foot-washing ritual of Maundy Thursday 2016 illustrate the politics of gender in the Catholic setting. While some welcomed the move, there were voices of dissent from many quarters. The Latin rite communities were put at ease with the clarification from Rome that the inclusion of women was optional. However, the Oriental churches in India that are in communion with Rome took a sort of ‘anticipatory bail’ from washing women’s feet on the grounds that this implies a change in the ritual, and for them, ritual changes are made not by the Pope, but by the Synod of bishops of the particular Church. Interestingly, on a counter note, in the global scenario, the proponents of the Women’s Ordination Conference asserted that “if Jesus can wash his follower’s feet, women can lead the church”. Their assertion was based on the argument that, in washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus subverted the master/servant and male/female power relationship, since the category of slaves or servants who washed the master’s feet was comprised mainly of women.1 Against the backdrop of this ecclesiastical genderscape, I place the discussion on ‘Female Deacons, Women Clergy and Ordination’, and address these concerns from a feminist theological perspective, focusing on the Catholic framework.

1 Soline Humbert, Rite & Reason: If Jesus can wash his followers feet women can lead the church, The Irish Times, 22 March 2016.

38

1.

Kochurani Abraham

The Gendered Problematic of Female Diaconate

Recommendations that the question of female diaconate be opened to study have been raised earlier,2 though this became news with the announcement by Pope Francis that he would set up a Commission to study this issue. It is doubtful that this Commission will come up with anything new, as there has been a lot of scholarly work done so far on female diaconate from the perspective of the Bible and the tradition of the Church.3 A quick glance at the complex history of female deacons in the early traditions of the Church will throw light on the implications for what is being demanded today. It is an undisputed fact that women exercised ministry as deacons in the early Church and at different moments in the later tradition, though scholars have not come to a consensus on what really constituted this ministry.4 In Paul’s reference to Phoebe as “diakonos of the Church at Cenchreae” (Rom 16:1), certainly he was not referring to an activity like waiting a table or serving food, as in the secular usage of the Greek word diakonia, but she was a co-worker with Paul, engaged in ministry.5 Liturgical functions have also been identified as being part of women’s ministry as deacons.6 In Didascalia Apostolorum – the earliest reliable witness to the existence of the office of deaconess – the woman deacon is called and appointed by the bishop as a minister to women in the liturgy of baptism and for visiting women who are sick and homebound.7 Another Church Order, Apostolic Constitutions, prescribes the eligibility of deaconess as “a pure virgin or at least a widow who had been but once married,

2 See “Partners in the Mystery of Redemption”, U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Response to Women’s Concerns for Church and Society, Origins 17:45, April 21, 1988. 3 For a detailed study of the complex history of deaconesses see Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church, trans. by Jean Laporte and Mary Louise Hall,Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1976; Aime Georges Martimort, Deaconesses, An Historical Study, trans. by K.D. Whitehead , San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986; Olson, Jeannine E., One Ministry, Many Roles: Deacons and Deaconesses through the Centuries. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992. 4 John N Collins in his exhaustive study of diakonia in Christian and non-Christian sources from about 200 BCE to 200 CE finds that in all such sources the word is used to mean “messenger” or “emissary,” and has no implications of humility or of helping the needy. See Collins, Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources, Oxford University Press 2009. 5 See Ann Marie Caron, “Women Deaconesses: Historical and Contemporary Explorations” in Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt (eds) Where can we find her? Searching for Women’s Identity in the New Church, New York: Paulist Press, 1991, 132–151. 6 See Olson, Jeannine E. One Ministry, Many Roles Deacons and Deaconesses through the Centuries. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992. 7 Didascalia 3.12.1–3 cited by Ann Marie Caron, “Women Deaconesses: Historical and Contemporary Explorations”, 134.

Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination

39

faithful and well esteemed.”8 The close parallelism in the ordination ritual of deacons and deaconesses indicates that women’s diaconate was truly sacramental,9 though it is also observed that, in spite of their elevation in honor and importance, deaconesses were not allowed to teach in the Church or to baptize.10 While some conclusions can be drawn from the annals of history, the question that is of concern at this juncture is about female diaconate in the 21st-century Catholic Church. The issue of female diaconate was raised at the meeting of the sisters of UISG and Pope Francis, and what conspired at this meeting throws light on the deep-rooted gender problematic of Catholic ecclesiology.11 The sisters are concerned about the ‘integration of women in the life of the church’ and raise the issue of including women in the office of permanent diaconate in view of addressing this concern. The sisters’ position is very logical. Since consecrated women are already engaged in catechesis, works of charity, and even preaching in some situations – tasks that specifically fall under the mission of deacons – why not include women in the office of permanent diaconate? Within this framework, they point to the tieup between decision-making processes, preaching, and priestly ordination as an important impediment to the church’s full embrace of the “feminine genius.”12 However, the responses of the Pope to their questions bring to surface the fixated gender normativity of Catholic ecclesiology – that women deacons cannot preach at Eucharistic celebrations on account of their inability to be in ‘persona Christi’, even though they can be like their male counterparts in all the other functions that correspond to permanent diaconate.13 Women’s supposed 8 Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c.370–380), Const. apost. II, 26:6 cited by Ann Marie Caron, “Women Deaconesses: Historical and Contemporary Explorations”, 134. 9 See Gryson, “The Ordination of Deaconesses According to the Apostolic Constitution,” appendix in The Ministry of Women, 115–120, also Phyllis Zagano (eds) Women Deacons? Essays with Answers, Collegeville Minnesota Liturgical Press, 2016. 10 See Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study, p. 63; also Phyllis Zagano(eds) Ordination of Women to the Diaconate in the Eastern Churches: Essays By Cipriano Vagaggini, in NCR, June 20-July 3, 2014. 11 International Union of Superiors General (UISG), a triennial gathering of leaders of Catholic women religious in the world met with Pope Francis on 12 May 2016, during which the issue of women’s diaconate was raised. Cf. ncronline.org/news/Vatican, 12 May 2016, (25. 05. 2016). 12 Here the sisters engage the Pope on his own terms, on his assertion that the “the feminine genius is necessary in all expressions of life and society” “Feminine genius” being an expression that has been in circulation in the ecclesiastical circles since John Paul II, it is interesting to note that the meaning attributed to this expression by the Popes seems quite different from the sisters’ usage of the same. 13 The Pope explains the matter as a liturgical-dogmatic problem on the basis that at the Eucharistic celebration there is a unity between the Liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. The priest or bishop who presides does so in the person of Jesus Christ and women cannot preside since they are not ordained.

40

Kochurani Abraham

inability ‘to represent Christ’ makes apparent the ‘phallogocentrism’14 that marks Catholic ecclesiology, whereby complementarity between the sexes is taken as a theological imperative, which in turn lays the ground for women’s exclusion from decision-making and leadership roles in the Church.15 In considering the question of female diaconate, we need to pay attention also to the fact that permanent diaconate is basically a ministry of service, that can be better qualified as a compliant ministry of service, with obedience as its marking characteristic. As per gender norms that are patriarchally inscribed, service is essentially a woman’s duty. While the Church remains ideologically fixated on these gender norms, female diaconate will only serve to uphold a gendered ecclesiology at the level of theology and praxis. Accordingly, from a feminist theological standpoint, the New Testament notion of diakonia as service can be reclaimed for women solely as a critical category challenging those who have actual power and privilege in a patriarchal Church and society.16 The need of the hour then is not the incorporation of women into the lowest strata of the gendered ecclesiastical hierarchy, but the transformation of the whole Church into diakonia, which Moltmann names as the heart of Christian spirituality and what constitutes the eschatological hope for a society transformed in and through love.17

2.

Women Clergy and the Ordination Question

The question of women’s ordination in the Catholic Church has been a thorny issue over the past few decades. This is because ‘women priesthood’ is an important symbol for the lack of women’s presence in the official life of the Church, which denotes women’s exclusion from all decision-making positions and practical policymaking activities.18 In addition, the fixation in the Catholic 14 Phallogocentrism, a neologism coined by Jacques Derrida refers to the privileging of the masculine (phallus) in the construction of meaning. Butler explains phallogocentrism as regims of power/discourse with often divergent ways of answering central questions of gender. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York and London: Routledge, 2006, xxxii. 15 In some of the Catholic Churches of the Oriental rite in India, this ecclesiology finds extreme expressions like banning even the entry of female bodies to the Madbaha or the Sanctum Sanctorum set apart clearly by railings. 16 See Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza “‘Waiting at Table’: A Critical Feminist Theological Reflection on Diakonia”, in Concilium, 1988/4, No. 198, 84–94. 17 Jurgen Moltmann Deaconship in the Horizon of God’s Kingdom (Diakonie im Horizon des Reiches Gottes), 1984, p. 41, cited by Daniel Muneanu in “Ecumenical Diaconial Work as a Cultural Contribution to the Humanization of Our Contemporary Society”, cf. https://aca demiccommons.columbia.edu/SophiaVol2Munteanu.pdf (20. 06. 2016). 18 As pointed out by Anne Carr, this is a traditional exclusion that is historically based on the

Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination

41

Church with the tradition of an all male priesthood contradicts the pronouncements by the present Pope on the expansion of “possible roles (for) women in decision-making areas of the Church’s life.”19 Nonetheless, the Vatican’s claims based on its reading of scripture and tradition that ‘the Church has no authority to ordain women to priesthood’, and that it wishes ‘to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by Lord Jesus Christ’ are being challenged strongly in recent times.20 While the hermeneutics of the scriptural texts21 on which the Catholic practice of reserving priesthood only to men is contested based on biblical scholarship, a notable development is the emergence of a rethinking on what constitutes ‘tradition’. Theologians today are of the opinion that tradition is not simply ‘there’; it has to be understood, judged, and evaluated. The Church’s stand on tradition is challenged taking Cyprian’s axiom: “A custom without truth is simply the antiquity of error” (Cyprian Epist.74:9). According to Paul Ricoeur, this dictum calls for a two-fold hermeneutic – a ‘hermeneutic of restoration’ that attempts to bring the power of ancient symbols to bear upon the present and a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that brings a critical and emancipatory mind to the works of the past.22 It is interesting to note that the opponents and proponents of women’s ordination, thus keeping the discourse alive on women priesthood, deploy these hermeneutical approaches. Feminist theologians advocate seeing tradition as a process. As they argue, ‘tradition is not a static past and there are the seeds for a new model of ministry which includes women fully in the Church’s own understanding of the processes by which tradition develops and lives, when this is joined with the new experiences of Christian women today.’23 Even so, a historical consciousness is necessary for perceiving tradition as a process, as it helps to understand how the

19 20 21

22

23

inferiority and the subservient status ascribed to women. See Anne E Carr, Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience, San Francisco: Harper & Row 1988, 21. Evangeli Gaudium, no. 104. Official Church’s stand on women priesthood is brought out in the documents Inter Insigniores (1976) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 1994. The reservation of priesthood to men alone is based on the scriptural texts like the Last Supper (Lk 22:20); the apparition of Christ to apostles gathered in a room where he gives them power to forgive sins (Jn 20:22); and Christ commissioning the apostles before his ascension (Mt 28:19–20).According to the catholic interpretation of these texts, in none of these bestowals of priestly power were women included. See Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy : An Essay of Interpretation (N. Heaven; Yale Unversity Press1970) cited by Joseph Komonchak, “Theological Questions on the Ordination of Women” in Ann Marie Gardiner (ed) Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision, New York: Paulist Press 1976, 147. Anne Carr, “The Church in Process: Engendering the Future” in Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience, 23. See also, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorena, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1983.

42

Kochurani Abraham

Church has evolved its self-identity, structures, and ministries in response to the changing times and its influences. Scholars are of the opinion that no major Roman Catholic ministerial office in its modern form can be found in the New Testament.24 As evident from the Gospels, Jesus did not call himself or his disciples “priests”, as his horizons were clearly prophetic. The New Testament never designated any Christian leader as “priest” (hiereus); this term was deployed either for Christ alone (Heb 7:15) or for the whole “priestly people” of God (1 Pet 2:5).25 A plurality of ministries evolved like that of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, admonishers of the preaching of the Gospel, besides the functions of deacons and deaconesses. There were those who presided, shepherds who led, and the overseers. Each of these functions was understood as a gift of the Spirit, a share (clerus) in the authority of the risen Lord, a charism or calling from the Lord for service to the congregation.26 However, signs of the emergence of what is attributed to priesthood today in terms of the hierarchical (the apostles and the bishops or presbyters); the charismatic-prophetic (prophets and perhaps teachers) and the communitarian (the natural or appointed leaders who presided in the absence of the apostles) are seen in the early phases of the growth of the Church.27All the same, the all male and cultic priesthood certainly is a later development through many sociopolitical factors, which, through the attribution of theological meanings, were established as the structure of Christian leadership and ministry.28 In understanding the Christian tradition as a process, it is also important to read the historical signposts regarding the place and role of women at the beginnings of Christianity and when the Church emerged as a hierarchical institution. Being very much part of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples and the first witnesses to resurrection – the experience by which Mary Magdalene was acclaimed ‘apostle to the apostles’ – women were actively engaged in ministries of the early church as prophets, teachers, foundresses of house churches, charismatic healers, miracle workers, and leaders of the worshipping community 24 See John Mc Kenzie, “Ministerial Structures in the New Testament,” The Plurality of Ministries, Concilium 74, ed. Hans Kung and Walter Kasper (New York: Herder & Herder 1972), 13. 25 Most scholars recognize Tertullian (165–225 CE) as the first writer to explicitly name the bishop a priest (sacerdos). It is by the end of the third century that the terms hiereus (Greek, in the East) and sacerdos (Latin, the West) came to be used to designate the bishop and/or the presbyter in a universally accepted way. See Karl Rahner et al., eds., Sacramentum Mundi, vol. 5, New York: Herder & Herder 1970), 97. See also Raymond Brown, Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections, New York: Paulist Press 1970, 40–45. 26 See Hans Kung, The Church, New York: Sheed and Ward 1967, 393–406. 27 Myles Bourke, “Reflections on Church Order in the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30:4 (October 1968: 499–507) cited by Anne Carr in Transforming Grace, 26. 28 See Hans Kung, Why Priests?, trans. Robert Collins, New York: Double Day 1972, also Ernest Niermann, “Priest,” Karl Rahne et al ed. Sacramentum Mundi, 97.

Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination

43

(Rom 16: 1–16 and other texts). Since women’s visibility was strong in the early Church, Christianity was even termed a ‘religion of women and slaves’ by the ancient Greek writer Celsus.29 Women’s exclusion from ministry and leadership begins with the development of cultic/ministerial priesthood in the post-apostolic era, during which the Roman hierarchical model of temple service was emulated, the Levitical paradigm was introduced as a type of Christian office and Eucharist came to be understood as an un-bloody sacrifice replacing the bloody sacrifices of the Temple.30 With this distinct revival of the Old Testament concept of temple priesthood and an identification of it with the Christian ministry, there is also the revival of purity laws that keep women from any proximity to the sanctuary. It is against the backdrop of these developments that we need to see tradition as a process in considering the issue of women priesthood today. Conversely, even as serious deliberations are being made about women’s ordination, we need to examine critically whether this will resolve the matter. It is said that systems of power produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent and subjects regulated by such structures are, by virtue of being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the requirements of those structures.31 Further, as feminist poet Audre Lorde argues: “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”.32 While it is a fact that many Catholic women feel incapacitated in the Church for being denied priestly ordination, whether their incorporation into the clericalized Catholic hierarchy in the present ecclesiastical setting could lead to the transformation of the Church remains highly questionable. The Gospel saying about the danger of stitching a new cloth into an old one that it could result in a bigger tear is apparently applicable in this context. Among feminists who are lobbying for ordination, there seems to be a consensus that they are not seeking women’s entry into the clericalized power structures that characterize the Church now.33 Feminist ministers do not seek to be incorporated into the lowest ranks of the patriarchal hierarchy as altarservers, lectors, deaconesses, or even priests, but want to engage in ministry in order to subvert clerical-hierarchal structures and to transform the patriarchal 29 Excerpts from Contra Celsus by Origen, volume 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers published 1867–1872, http://www.bluffton.edu/courses/humanities/1/celsus.htm. (05. 06. 2016). 30 See Edward Schillebeeckx, Ministry. A Case for Change, London: SCM Press, 1981, also See Raymond Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999. 31 Michel Foucault, “Right of Death and Power over Life,” in The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley, New York: Vintage 1980. 32 Audre Lorde (1979) cited by Estelle B. Freedman (eds), The Essential Feminist Reader, New York: Random House, 2007, 331. 33 Soline Humbert, Rite & Reason: If Jesus can wash his follower’s feet women can lead the church, Irish Times, 22 March 2016.

44

Kochurani Abraham

Church into a discipleship of equals.34 Since these women are not aspiring to be included in a ministry whose very form and symbols are shaped primarily by patriarchy, redefinition and declericalization of ministry is seen as an essential task.35 Ministry, as Schillebeeckx observes, is the praxis of the Reign of God. In his opinion, the New Testament ministries did not form or develop from and around the Eucharist, but from the formation of the community.Leadership and structures of the community need to emerge based on the gift of the Spirit, from which no one is excluded.36 Since the gifts of the Spirit are not restricted to a certain group within the church, all members of the people of God, by virtue of their baptismal priesthood, have the authority and right to exercise liturgical and ecclesial leadership functions.37 A creative transformation of the Church structures with ‘new forms of participation, communication, diaconal action and Church leadership’38 then, is the need of the hour. This implies that a particular local church or community identifies who would be the persons imbued by the Spirit, who can lead them in worship, and in other organizational matters without the constraints of gender. In this new way of being the Church, the theology that underlies the celebration of the Eucharist also needs to shift gears, from Eucharist as sacrifice to Eucharist as the inclusive and egalitarian table fellowship of the Reign of God. Such a shift in focus will help free the Eucharist from its cultic and ritualistic shackles and make it a meaningful and liberating sacrament in our societies that are deeply marked by class, caste, gender, and other discriminating hierarchies. To conclude, the evolution of the Catholic Church as such a democratic institution in the 21st-century may seem utopian in the present circumstances. Yet that is not impossible as women with feminist sensibilities have already begun to live ‘the story of power transformed’. They are affirming themselves as ‘“Church”, despite the remarkable recalcitrance on the part of the kyriarchal institution to bring its structures and teachings in line with contemporary theological thought and spiritual practice’.39 Such an evolution of the Church will 34 Fiorenza, “Waiting at Table,” 91. 35 See Lynn N. Rhodes, Co-Creating. A Feminist Vision of Ministry, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987. 36 Sehillebeeekx, Edward: Ministry : Leadership in the community of Jesus Christ, New York, Crossroad, 1982. 37 Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of Liberation, New York: Crossroad, 1993, 23–38. 38 Hermann Haring, “The Authority of Women and the Future of the Church” in Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and Hermann Haring (ed) “The Non-Ordination of Women and the Politics of Power”, London SCM Press Concilium, 1993/3, 117–125. 39 Mary Hunt, “‘We Women Are Church’: Roman Catholic Women Shaping Ministries and Theologies” in Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and Hermann Haring (ed) “The Non-Ordination of Women and the Politics of Power”, London SCM Press Concilium. 102.

Female Deacons and Women’s Clerical Ordination

45

not happen in a Vatican III or in Synods of the Bishops, but it is possible from below, from the grassroots as more women, men, and others beyond gender binaries join hands in communion. Speeding up this movement, the Spirit, Wisdom Sophia, is the challenge before us today.

Angela Berlis (Bern)

Restoring the Female Diaconate in the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht

The Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht see themselves as churches within the Catholic tradition and thereby continue firm in the faith and order as these were developed in the early church. The Old Catholic Church sustains the threefold apostolic ministry of deacon, priest, and bishop; and ordination is one of the seven sacraments.1 Since the mid-1980s, women have served as deacons in most Old Catholic churches. This contribution will describe upon which historical background the discussion of the diaconate for women took place, which theological arguments and considerations played a role, and how the diaconate developed a profile through praxis.2

1.

Historical Point of Departure

The discussion about the female diaconate in the Old Catholic Church did not take place in a vacuum. The following five aspects serve to shed light on the background of the discussion. First, the church started to reflect on the significance and self-sufficiency of

1 For a brief portrait of the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union see, Urs von Arx, “The Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht”, in: Paul Avis (ed.), The Christian Church. An Introduction to the Major Traditions, London 2002, 157–185. – With thanks to Rebecca Giselbrecht, University of Bern, for her translation. 2 For general information, compare Phyllis Zagano (ed.), Women deacons? Ostfildern 1997. For the discussion in the Old Catholic Churches see, Angela Berlis / Klaus-Dieter Gerth (eds.), Christus Spes: Liturgie und Glaube im ökumenischen Kontext, (FS Bishop Sigisbert Kraft), Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 47–62; Dorothea Reininger, Diakonat der Frau in der einen Kirche. Diskussionen, Entscheidungen und pastoral-praktische Erfahrungen in der christlichen Ökumene und ihr Beitrag zur römisch-katholischen Diskussion, Ostfildern 1999, 399–460. This highly recommended book provides a comprehensive overview of the discussion about the diaconate in various churches, compiles all of the known arguments and experiences with women in the history of the diaconate together for theological reflection, which might grow in the Roman Catholic Church on hand these testimonies within various Christian churches.

48

Angela Berlis

the diaconate for the three-fold ministry of the church at the end of the 1950s.3 Between 1969 and 1985, a revision of the rites of ordination ensued (episcopate, presbyter, diaconate).4 In the 1960s, the idea that the diaconate should no longer be treated as a step toward priesthood was influenced by developments at that time in the Roman Catholic Church including the Second Vatican Council and the creation of a permanent diaconate for married men. Within the Old Catholic Church, this pertained at first only to the question of a diaconate for men.5 Second, at the same time, the wish to include women as lay members in the service of the Old Catholic Church was growing increasingly significant.6 The German-speaking Old Catholic churches already emphasized the co-responsibility of laypersons in the 1870s. At that time, laity attained the right, which was anchored in the constitution of the Old Catholic churches (in Germany in the “Synodal- und Gemeindeordnung,” 1874), to share in responsibility at every level of the church: the parish, the synod, and church leadership (as lay members of the so-called “Synodalrepräsentanz” or “Synodalrat”). The bishop and the synodal council – both clergy and laity – led each respective Old Catholic Church in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Women, however, did not obtain the possibility to participate in this manner at the parish and the church level until after the First World War. After which, it took another quarter of a century before certain individual women were elected to the synodal council in the Old Catholic Church of Germany (1967), and of Austria (in the middle of the 1970s). In Switzerland, a woman could serve as a delegate of her parish at the synod of her church beginning in 1954. The first Swiss woman gained election to the synodal council in 1966. Since the middle of the 1960s, the election of women to church leadership, as lay members of the synodal council, is an expression of the cultural and ecclesial zeitgeist, which would later structurally strengthen the incorporation of the charisms of women as laypersons.7 Women have always actively participated in the life of the church, as church3 For instance, at the session of the national synod of 1957 in the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland. 4 Cf. Urs von Arx, “Zur Erneuerung des Diakonats in der altkatholischen Kirche”, in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 95 (2005), 209–213. 5 Mandatory celibacy is not required for clergy in the Old Catholic Church. Therefore, whether men were married or not did not play a role in the question of the permanent diaconate. 6 For the significance and roles of female laity in German speaking Old Catholicism see, Angela Berlis, “Einbruch in männliche Sphären? Der Aufbruch alt-katholischer Frauen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”, in: Michaela Sohn-Kronthaler (ed.), Feminisierung oder (Re-)Maskulinisierung der Religion im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert? Forschungsbeiträge aus Christentum, Judentum und Islam, Wien – Köln – Weimar 2016, 179–198. 7 On the introduction of women’s active and passive voting rights in the Old Catholic Churches, see Angela Berlis, Frauen im Prozess der Kirchwerdung. Eine historisch-theologische Studie zur Anfangsphase des deutschen Altkatholizismus (1850–1890), Frankfurt a. M. 1998, 273–283.

Restoring the Female Diaconate

49

goers, or through their engagement in local women’s organizations, or as sisters of the Old Catholic Sisterhood. In any case, during the 1960s, women’s social and ecclesial roles were in the throes of change. Thus, young women no longer entered the Old Catholic Sisterhood founded in the last decade of the nineteenth century ; the last sister died in the mid-1990s. The loss of a traditional female diakonia is regrettable; however, nothing could be done to change this because quite unlike the nineteenth century many career paths were now available to women. In the turmoil of the 1960s, not only did trust in the traditional roles of women within society break up and change but, at the same time, – third – the way of thinking about what women can and cannot do began to shift.8 Laywomen’s abilities were coming into view. The alteration of a mentality went even further, as, latest in the early 1970s; it grew more and more conceivable that women might bear ecclesiastical office.9 This change of mentality or thinking becomes visible in the way the use of words and attitudes changed: No longer did the role of women get qualified in the sense of “serving” and “ministering angel,” but women were considered actors, who could even serve the church within the framework of an office. The increase of professional women in society definitely influenced this process of rethinking women’s roles; particularly those that had been reserved for men. Professionalization included the women entering the pastorate in Protestant churches. In the second half of the twentieth century, the first woman in office that Old Catholics might have met could well have been a female Protestant pastor – at least Old Catholics, who were married with a Protestant partner and would sometimes attend Protestant Sunday services together. Furthermore, in the 1960s, altar girls did enter the altar room in many Old Catholic churches.10

8 Dr Ilse Brinkhues (1923–2012) reported in an interview how she was elected by the diocesan synod in Germany in 1963 as the first female lay judge in the synodal court: The synod elected only men to the church court; one seat was still empty. Then an elderly woman, a teacher, stood up and asked where it was written that only men could be elected. No one before her had thought to question the previous arrangement. Cf. Angela Berlis & Annick Yaiche (eds.), Holprige Wege, beharrliche Schritte. FS Ilse Brinkhues, Bonn 2003, 65. 9 The Old Catholic Women’s organizations in several countries played an important role, cf. Angela Berlis, “Der Bund Alt-Katholischer Frauen und sein Engagement für die Rechte von Frauen”, in: Gisela Muschiol (ed.), Katholikinnen und Moderne. Katholische Frauenbewegung zwischen Tradition und Emanzipation, Münster 2003, 199–220; Will Keman & Ineke Schenk (eds.), Vrouwen houden de kerk wakker. Bond van Oud-Katholieke Vrouwen in Nederland 1927–2007, Schoorl 2008; Rosmarie Kull-Schlappner, 50 Jahre Verband christkatholischer Frauenvereine der Schweiz 1916–1966, [no place] [1966]. 10 Girls served as acolytes in the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands beginning in 1965 in some parishes and after the 1970s in practically all parishes; the local vicar played thereby an important role. Often the vicar’s daughters were the first. Cf. Angela Berlis, “Vrouwen in de

50

Angela Berlis

All of these developments extended the popular view toward a transformed role for women in church and society. In addition to this, and as a fourth aspect, since the 1970s, theology began explicitly grappling with the question of women in the Bible, in church history, and tradition; and the general public picked up that conversation. Fifthly, because in the meantime, the question of ecclesial office for women had achieved ecumenical relevance. In the 1960s and 70s, various churches, who build upon the three-fold ministry, developed or defined their position in regard to the female diaconate.11 The Church of England introduced deaconesses, not belonging to the three-fold ministry, in the nineteenth century. After extensive consultations, many deaconesses were ordained deacon in the Church of England after 1987, and these belonged to the three-fold ministry. Neither the Roman Catholic Church (consider the 1977 document Inter Insigniores), nor the Orthodox Church, ruled out the female diaconate in principle.12 Moreover, there were outspoken theologians and bishops in both traditions, who were proponents of a re-introduction of the female deaconate, for example at the Gemeinsame Synode (Common Synod) of the Roman Catholic Dioceses of the Federal Republic of Germany (1971–1975) or the Greek theologian Evangelos Theodorou (*1921)13 and the Inter Orthodox Theological Consultation of Rhodes (1988).14

11 12

13

14

Oud-Katholieke Kerk”, in: eadem et al., De Oud-Katholieke Kerk van Nederland. Leer en Leven, Zoetermeer 2000, 193–219, here 204–205. For more detailed information about the churches named in the following: Reininger, Diakonat der Frau. Cf. KNA ÖKI 45/1977, 930; 5/6/1978, 103; 39/1978, 934; 29/1981, 570; only the Coptic Patriarch Shenuda III spoke entirely against any office for women (KNA ÖKI 8/1978, 175). Cf. Christian Oeyen, “Was sagt die Tradition wirklich?”, in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 75 (1985) 97–118, esp. 97–104, here 97. Cf. Evangelos Theodorou, “Das Amt der Diakoninnen in der kirchlichen Tradition. Ein orthodoxer Beitrag zum Problem der Frauenordination”, in: Una Sancta 33 (1978), 162–172. Theodorou, emeritus Professor and earlier Vice-Chancellor of the University of Athens is a pioneer in research on women in the diaconate since 1949. In 1954, he wrote a comprehensive dissertation on the subject (in Greek). All synodal delegates to the 46th German Old Catholic Diocesan Synod of 1981, at which the theme was discussed, received a copy of the article by Theodorou in order to prepare for the synod. They were also provided an article by the then Anglican deaconess Julia Butterworth (she was later ordained deacon and priest and retired in 2007). Cf. the report in Orthodoxes Forum 3 (1989), 93–102, here 100. Cf. for general information, Cipriano Vaggagini, Ordination of Women to the Diaconate in the Eastern Churches, ed. Phyllis Zagano, Collegeville, Minnesota 2013.

Restoring the Female Diaconate

2.

51

The decision-making Process in the Old Catholic Church

Given this background, it may seem astonishing that in 1976 the International Old Catholic Bishop’s Conference (IBC) declared with one vote against that women could not be admitted to the three-fold apostolic office of deacon, priest, and bishop.15 The IBC justified this with Jesus’ commission and the tradition of the Church. The declaration was primarily a reaction by the IBC to developments in the Anglican Communion with whom the Old Catholic Church is in “full communion” since 1931. The Old Catholic bishop’s declaration met with resistance in the Western European Old Catholic Churches – an opposition that was concentrated for the years to come on the question of the diaconate. In 1981, the synods of the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland and of the Catholic Diocese of Germany spoke out in favor of the introduction of a female diaconate based on that “there were female deacons in the Early Church.” The IBC conducted a survey within the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union and consulted their theological educational institutions. After this, and “after extensive engagement with the testimonies of tradition,” the IBC responded to their member churches that a permanent “diaconate for women as well as for men is possible in principle.”16 The IBC left the individual Old Catholic churches the freedom to introduce this diaconate and commissioned the International Old Catholic Liturgical Commission to develop a formula for ordination. In 1985, the IBC approved the ordination rite (for men and women) and recommended its use to the member churches. The main idea of the ordination prayer within the ordination ritual for a deacon is:that the particular duty of a deacon lies in service; he or she does this as an analogy of Christ’s service, which is continued in the church. The Old Catholic ordination rite of both men and women is almost identical; only in the ordination prayer itself, the differing biblical and early Christian paradigms are named.17 In those Old Catholic Churches that opened the diaconate to women, 15 For the following, including citations cf. Berlis, “Diakonin soll sie sein!”. 16 Oeyen, Tradition, 101–102. 17 The prayer for ordination for a woman points out that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, while the prayer for a man points to the calling of the “seven men for service to the church” (Acts 6). When a woman is ordained, the prayer contains the following sentence: “In the service of a female deacon, You show us Your love that You minister in Your church through the Holy Spirit and with which You accompany us as your children.” In the case of a male deacon, the prayer contains the sentence: “In the service of the male deacon, You show us Your love that You prove to us in Jesus Christ and with which You accompany us as Your children.” Gebet- und Gesangbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz, ed. Bischof und Synodalrat der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz, Basel [2004], vol. I [in the following: CG I], no. 272, p. 259f. (quote on page 260). The different formulations for women and men led to discussions in Germany and in the Netherlands. Cf. Reininger, Diakonat, 433–437. In Germany, the first female deacon, Angela Berlis, was ordained by the then bishop and scholar

52

Angela Berlis

the understanding is that there is no essential difference between the male and the female diaconate. The lex orandi reflects the lex credendi and vice versa. The first female deacon was ordained in the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland in 1987, after the Synod of 1977 introduced the permanent diaconate and the 1984 synod decided to admit women as deacons.18 In the Old Catholic Church of Germany, the first ordination of a female deacon was in 1988; others followed 1991 in Austria,19 1996 in the Netherlands,20 and in 2003 in the Czech Republic.21 The Kos´cijł Polskokatolicki, the Polish Catholic Church in Poland (PKK), and the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States (PNCC) that belonged to the Union of Utrecht until 2003, however, did not open the diaconate to women.

3.

Theological Aspects and Reasons for Opening the Diaconate to Women

In the discussion regarding the female diaconate, the Old Catholic theological objectives (with mainly the tradition of the Early Church as a theological guideline) were considered, and, at the same time, contemporary needs were taken into account.22 Regarding the orientation on the praxis of the Early Church,

18

19 20

21 22

of liturgy Sigisbert Kraft (1927–2006) in 1988 together with a man, Ralph Kirscht. This was clearly stated: same ritual, same office. This statement was clearly emphasized in Bishop Kraft’s sermon on Gal 2,27f. Cf. Marianne von Arx, “Diakonatsweihe von Angela Berlis”, in: Jahrbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 100 (1990), 92–94. H[ans] M[etzger], “Gott sagt ‘Ja’ zu uns”. Interview mit Doris Zimmermann, in: Jahrbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 100 (1990), 62–64; on the occasion of the ordination of Karin Schaub to the diaconate on Pentecost 1989 cf. Hans Metzger, “Offen sein für Neues. Hans Metzger interviewt Karin Schaub”, in ibid., 52–55. In 1990, Denise Deluz was the first female deacon to be ordained in the French speaking part of Switzerland. Cf. Jahrbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 102 (1992), 98–99. After changes to the constitution of the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland by the synod, both men and women belonged to the clergy of the church. Similar changes to constitutions were made in the other Old Catholic churches that introduced the ordination of women to the priesthood. Cf. Jahrbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 103 (1993), 100. Cf. De Oud-Katholiek 112 (1996), 121–122. Grete Verhey-de Jager was ordained as a deacon in October 1996 in Utrecht (Archdiocese of Utrecht). Since her ordination to the diaconate in November 1988, Angela Berlis already served as a deacon in Ijmuiden (Diocese of Haarlem); since the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands did not at that time officially permit women in the diaconate, Berlis, who belonged to the German Old Catholic Church, was considered to be “borrowed.” Cf. Berlis, Vrouwen, 208–209. For the Old Catholic Church in the Czech Republic cf. Phyllis Zagano, Women in Ministry. Emerging Questions about the Diaconate, New York – Mahwah, NJ, 31 and 70–71. For a summary of the theological arguments cf. Reininger, Diakonat; cf. in addition Urs von Arx, “Die Debatte über die Frauenordination in den Altkatholischen Kirchen der Utrechter Union”, in: Denise Buser / Adrian Loretan (ed.), Gleichstellung der Geschlechter und die

Restoring the Female Diaconate

53

it is generally known that the diaconate of women was never abolished, rather, it was no longer used.23 For this reason, the reintroduction of the female diaconate can be considered the restoration of an existing ministry. Thus, the International Old Catholic Liturgy Commission took the Early Church’s office of the female deacon as its starting point for their deliberations when preparing a formulary for the ordination rite.24 Thereby, it remained clear that contemporary needs would be taken into consideration in regard to the reintroduction of the office of the female diaconate. It was not to be a repristination: while in the Early Church female deacons were especially responsible for women, say for baptism in which adults were completely submerged, this is not necessarily the case in a contemporary context. The commissioning, which is the same for the male and female diaconate, corresponds to the suppositions and needs of today. Concerning the (theological) understanding of the ministry, it can be noted that since its inception the diaconate was a distinct office; throughout church history, it grew to be a transitional office or stepping-stone. It is not easy to regain a proper understanding of the diaconate as a distinct office with its direct relationship to the bishop.25 Indeed, the 1985 Old Catholic ordination formulary does not differentiate between an ordination to a perma-

˘

Kirchen. Ein Beitrag zur menschenrechtlichen und ökumenischen Diskussion, Freiburg i.Ue. 1999, 165–211. See also The Church and Ecclesial Communion. Report of the International Roman Catholic – Old Catholic Dialogue Commission, in: Thomas F. Best / Lorelei F. Fuchs / John Gibaut / Jeffrey Gros / Despina Prassas (Hg.), Growth in Agreement IV/1. International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 2004–2014 (Faith and Order Paper 219), Geneva (WCC) 2017, 533–567, no. 63. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_ councils/chrstuni/vetero-cattolici/). In the second report of this dialogue commission, the Old Catholic point of view regarding the question of ordaining women is further explained. This report is currently only available in German: Kirche und Kirchengemeinschaft. Erster und Zweiter Bericht der Internationalen Römisch-Katholisch–Altkatholischen Dialogkommission 2009 und 2016, Paderborn 2017, nrs. 65–80. 23 The development was different in the Eastern and Western Church. In the Western Church, the office of the female deacon disappeared earlier than in the Eastern Church. One important reason for this was the increasing significance of the religious communities and orders beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries. Nuns increasingly assumed the work of female deacons. However, the Armenian Apostolic Church has continuously had female deacons: Cf. Kristin Arat, “Die Diakonissin der armenischen Kirche in kanonischer Sicht”, in: Handes Amsorya (1987), 153–189; eadem, “Die Weihe der Diakonin in der armenisch-apostolischen Kirche”, in: Teresa Berger / Albert Gerhards (eds.), Liturgie und Frauenfrage. Ein Beitrag zur Frauenforschung aus liturgiewissenschaftlicher Sicht, St. Ottilien 1990, 67–75. In more recent times, the Armenian Apostolic Church is ordaining women to the diaconate again. For instance, Hrip sime Sasunyan in 1982 in Istanbul and in 2017 Any Manvelyan in Teheran. With thanks to Dr. Mariam Kartashyan (Bern) for pointing this out. 24 Cf. for this Berlis, “Diakonin soll sie sein!”, 57–61. 25 A study project in the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands resulted in these findings. Cf. G[rete] C.G. Verhey-de Jager, Geef het diakonaat de ruimte, Leusden 1996 (unpublished work).

54

Angela Berlis

nent diaconate and an ordination to the diaconate as a steppingstone; this difference is established in non-liturgical conditions and requirements, for instance, in the level of theological education, but also in whether a person feels called to the diaconate or the presbyterate. Opinions are divided in the contemporary ecumenical discussion regarding the sacramental character of the diaconate. Some take the position that women’s ordination to the diaconate is acted as a cheirotonia (an ordination by laying on of hands), others tend toward a cheirotesia (a benediction or appointment). (Do you mean an appointment with a benediction?)26 Since the reflection about sacraments grew only in the course of the twelfth century, there is no univocal understanding of the question of the sacramentality of the ordination of a female deacon in the Early Church. Because the Early Church simply did not ask the question of whether the ordination of females to the diaconate a sacrament is or not.27 In regard to the Old Catholic position, a number of deliberations led to recognizing the diaconate of both women and men as essentially the same: – First, female deacons in the Early Church were members of the clergy and their ordination belonged to the ordo sacer.28 – Second, the distinction between an “apostolic office” for men and “nonapostolic office” for women is not helpful because every office of the church is directly or indirectly apostolic.29 – Third, it is not reasonable to extrapolate a respectively different office for women and men from the few differing accents of the ordination prayer that, except for slight differences, is identical for both men and women.

26 Cf. for this Theodorou, Amt: Through his research, he concluded that female deacons are ordained through a cheirotonia and belong to clergy. For the various assessments, cf. examples in Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church, Collegeville, MN 1976 (analogous position of female and male deacons in the ancient church) und Aim8 Georges Martimort, Les diaconesses. Essai historique, Rome 1982 (female diaconate is substantially different from male diaconate, and of a minor order). Find overviews of the different points of view held by churches in Reininger, Diakonat. 27 According to Yves Congars’ point of view, the decisive question is not whether the ordination of the female diaconate is a sacrament, but rather whether it is authentic or not – Congar is thereby convinced and takes a stand for the revitalization of the female diaconate. Cf. Yves Congar, Gutachten zum Diakonat der Frau, in: Amtliche Mitteilungen der Gemeinsamen Synode der Bistümer der Bundesrepublik Deutschlands 7 (1973), 37–41. 28 Cf. Theodorou, Amt; Martien Parmentier, “De toelating van de vrouw tot het ambt van diaken als theologisch probleem”, in: De Oud-Katholiek 96 (1981) 1-2.12-13.18; Oeyen, Tradition. 29 Cf. Oeyen, Tradition, 104; Herwig Aldenhoven, Theologische Überlegungen zum Diakoninnenamt im Sinn der Erklärung der IBK vom September 1982, [Bern 1982] (unpublished manuscript).

Restoring the Female Diaconate

55

Here again, in this context, it seems appropriate to point out the accord between lex orandi and lex credendi.30 The theological consensus that has grown over many years was found by the Old Catholic churches by grappling with the historical testimonies of the Early Church as well as with contemporary theological voices of the ecumenical movement. The Old Catholic Church did not only consider their steps toward the inclusion of women in the diaconate as “resuscitation,” that is, “revival”; they were also carried by a very broad ecumenical affirmation. The prayer of the church and the grace of the Holy Spirit are closely connected with ordination. This points toward the ecclesial dimension of the ministry. According to Old Catholic ecclesiology, the entire church participates in the process which leads to a person becoming a deacon: Before an ordination, the bishop announces his plan to ordain a certain person and asks the entire church whether there are objections against the ordination of this candidate; during the ordination service, the entire gathered congregation agrees to the ordination through acclamation. Following the practice of the early church, female deacons are directly under the oversight of the bishop; if they are called to work in a parish, the local vicar shares the supervision with the bishop.

4.

The Diaconate in Practice

The actual practical fields of action for female deacons varies in each Old Catholic Church between diaconal social and pastoral work. Several Swiss female deacons were first active Catechists teaching religious education.31 Their role in the liturgy conforms to the Catholic tradition: proclaiming the gospel, intercession, preparing the gifts at Offertory, singing the exsultet in the Easter night liturgy, etc. The caritative, catechetical, and pastoral tasks bring forth the partaking in the liturgy, and not the other way around.32

30 A contrasting position – that ordination of female deacons is a “benediction” or a “blessing” (and therefore not a part of the threefold ministry) – was held in the 1980s by the Kos´cijł Polskokatolicki (PKK) in Polen and the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) in the USA. To what extent the PKK upholds this view today could not be examined in the framework of this contribution. It is worthwhile to note, however, that the question of the theological understanding of the office for women developed successively, which had to do with the rethinking process that has been described. 31 Cf. for instance, Marianne Stirnimann, “Eine typische Woche”, in: Christkatholisch 133 (2010) Nr. 3, 4–5. 32 For the ordination liturgy consult Sigisbert Kraft, “Die neugefasste Weiheliturgie der altkatholischen Kirchen und ihre ekklesiologische Bedeutung”, in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 79 (1989) 192–203.

56

Angela Berlis

At the ordination, the deacon – here for a woman – is entrusted in the following manner : Dear N. While the ministry of a deacon will be entrusted to you, thus, consider the duties that you will assume. A deacon looks after the poor, the sick, and the suffering. She strengthens the faithful, accepts those who doubt, and labors for the indifferent. She proclaims the Gospel. She supports the bishop and his male and female priests at the celebration of the divine service, particularly by distributing Holy Communion. The bishop and the female or male vicar can in addition commission you to administer baptism and to assume other pastoral tasks.33

The 46th Diocesan Synod in Germany in 1981 expressed the following respectively : “Their ministry includes spiritual care, proclamation of the Word, religious education, and work in the parish, leading liturgy of the Word, as well as certain other pastoral ministry.”34 Accurately speaking, this means: a (male or female) deacon preaches, makes home and hospital calls, officiates at burials and marriages, administers baptism, and brings communion to the sick. In Germany, the deacon is also authorized to administer the anointing of the sick; whereby, it is possible to offer holistic support to the sick and dying.35 In addition to the diaconal ministry exercised within the celebration of the Eucharist officiated by a (male or female) priest, deacons of both genders also hold 33 This text can be found (in the masculine form) in: CG I 272, p. 258. The words “female priest” and “female vicar” did of course not appear in the original version in 1985; the ordination of women to the priesthood began in the Old Catholic Churches from 1996 onwards. Cf. Angela Berlis, Women’s Ordination in the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht, in: Ian Jones / Kirsty Thorpe / Janet Wootton (eds.), Women and Ordination in the Christian Churches: International Perspectives, London – New York 2008, 144–154. 34 Amtliches Kirchenblatt des Katholischen Bistums der Alt-Katholiken in Deutschland, Nr. 2, 15. January 1982 (no page numbers). – Other Old Catholic Churches each have their own description of tasks with differing details. 35 The 46th Diocesan Synod in Germany in 1981 formulated reservedly with regard to “the liturgical tasks (…) of such a female pastoral worker (…) at the celebration of the Eucharist and other sacraments”; they should be “investigated and determined in relation with future experiences.” (Ibid.) The development of the ordination rite as well as practical experiences led to further reflections and to a liturgical praxis by which the liturgical ministry of a female deacon does not differ from that of a male deacon.

Restoring the Female Diaconate

57

diaconal worship services.36 These were developed through praxis. In the beginning, worship services with communion (of already consecrated hosts) were common. In 1995, the Swiss Deacons in the service of the Church at that time and the professors of the Old Catholic Theological Faculty of Bern together developed a formulary for a “Diaconal Intercessory Service” (a worship service without communion) for the Old Catholic Church of Switzerland.37 The term “diaconal” does not refer to the person of a deacon, but rather it denotes the areas of the life of the church, “in which the diakonia is designated as service to human persons.”38 This worship service is led by a deacon because the tasks of the diakonia or the pastoral care for people is clearly visible as a task of the deacon. In a number of Old Catholic Churches, women have performed the ministry of deacon for more than thirty years.39 They have proved themselves; their office is accepted by the people of their congregations. They stand as women in their work place, in their work in the parishes, in retirement centers and special-care homes, in women’s work, they speak the Word on Radio and TV – and naturally at the altar and at the ambo! Inconspicuously, both men and women carry their part of this office in all of its fullness. The hope ever spoken in the discussion phase in the 1970s and 1980s is fulfilled – the hope that by including women the office would be anthropologically broadened and the experiences of men and women could be effectively integrated. Men and women are established in Christus Diaconus with equal rights and equal dignity. A diaconate without women would be unthinkable for many Old Catholics today. Thus, times change and so do we humans alongside them (tempora mutantur et nos cum ipsis). Introducing women’s ordination required the Old Catholic Church to engage in a profound learning process, which was not without conflicts.40 Not all of the Old 36 In his historical overview, the liturgical scholar David Holeton also examines the role of male and female deacons in the liturgy taking into consideration the situation in the Anglican and Old Catholic churches, which are distinct from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Cf. David R. Holeton, “The Liturgical Role of the Deacon in the Past and Today”, in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 95 (2005), 214–233, esp., 222–231. 37 The form can be found in: CG I 298. 38 Antje Kirchhofer, Der Diakonale Gottesdienst. Essay im Rahmen der Übung “Homiletik/ Liturgik”, 2nd November 2011, 6. This unpublished text was provided by its author, whom I thank. 39 For a description of the praxis and of experiences of female deacons in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, cf. Angela Berlis, “Das Diakoninnenamt in der Altkatholischen Kirche: Entwicklungen und Erfahrungen”, in: Diakonat der Frau – Chance für die Zukunft? Dokumentation zu den Tagungen am 18. Juni 1993 und 19. Mai 1995 in der Katholisch-Sozialen Akademie Franz Hitze Haus, (ed.) Angela Urban, Münster 1995, 47–56; Fritz-Ren8 Müller & Doris Zimmermann, “Zehn Jahre ständiges Diakonat – Erfahrungen und Ausblicke”, in: Christkatholisches Kirchenblatt 117 (1994), 243–245; Karin Schaub, “Diakonin soll sie sein …”, in: Bibel und Kirche 50 (1995), 173–174. 40 Cf. Angela Berlis, “Frauenordination. Ökumenische Konflikte und ihre Bewältigung, am Beispiel der Alt-Katholischen Kirche”, in: Ökumenische Rundschau 55 (2006), 16–25.

58

Angela Berlis

Catholic churches took the same path. This can be explained by contextual differences: a church in Poland lives in different surroundings than a church in Western Europe. We have learned to live with these differences. The process is open to the future.There are also differences between the Old Catholic churches that call and ordain women to the diaconate: The Old Catholic Church of Switzerland has a special educational training to become a permanent deacon (male and female) that leads to a salaried position in the church. In Germany, there is a difference between a full study of theology at a university and distance learning; the first leads to a full-time office, the later to a non-stipendiary assisting position in a parish (mainly next to another primary source of income). Education and the sort of stipendiary or non-stipendiary positions available in the Netherlands, Austria, or the Czech Republic point to other differences.

5.

Concluding Thoughts

I conclude with a few thoughts that arise from the Old Catholic discussion and praxis in the hope that these may serve the general discussion. The Old Catholic Church is not a large denomination, and congregations are usually small; thus, most churches have one full-time cleric – a male or female vicar. When the team grows to include a deacon, it requires getting used to. Thus, I realized in my own years of practical service as a deacon (1988–1996) that priests often do everything alone. They are accustomed to it. It is a challenge for pastoral personal to work in a team – to share with others. In liturgy, there is a liturgical space, which is designated and predefined for diaconal ministry. The role of the deacon is to bring lived sociality and the diaconal day-to-day life into the liturgy, to prepare the people and the table, and to lead the people back to the everyday afterward. This, just as it is expressed in the call of dismissal – “go forth” – sung by the deacon thereby sending the congregation back into the everyday, to the “liturgy after the liturgy.” The deacon looks people in the face – acting as a “guide” or “portend” to Christ – and this binds them together in purpose. Deacons know that they are sent to the margins of the church and society, over and beyond the parish. Singing the exultet – the Easter hymn at the beginning of the liturgy of the Easter night – has always been the high point of my diaconal ministry : to proclaim the transition from dark to light, rejoicing in the hope and knowledge, in the new beginning, and the ascent of Christ, the Sun. Limiting women’s access solely to the diaconate entails the danger of unwillingly cementing conventional gender role distribution. This begins with translation; whereby, the female “diakonein” (in Greek) in the New Testament is translated often with “serving”, the same word is used for men to refer to the office of a “deacon”. The notion continues in the sense that a female deacon is

Restoring the Female Diaconate

59

viewed as an assistant for the office-holder of leadership, which is still often a man. Contemporary reflections regarding the female diaconate must consciously consider these questions and may not just think along traditional lines of thought; whereby, not only the same honor/dignity for both genders would be under question, but also the honorability/dignity of office. More thought is also necessary at the symbolic level. Just as the Old Catholic professor for systematic theology and liturgy, Herwig Aldenhoven (1933–2002), pointed out in 1989, “An office for women should be associated with a femininely informed symbolic.”41 On hand these reflections, Aldenhoven argued for different formulations of the ordination prayer; whereby, the ministry of a deacon out of the love of God in Jesus Christ and the calling of the deacon to God’s love through the Holy Spirit are brought into relation.42 The Holy Spirit traditionally often has feminine characteristics; Aldenhoven emphasized the masculine element – “the distinction” – in the Son and the feminine element of relation in the Holy Spirit. “The feminine and masculine are necessary in equal measure for the Christian faith, that is, at the core of the Christian faith itself”; men and women have “common work but different ways to complete it.”43 He established this through Trinitarian theology : because the Son and the Holy Spirit are “completely coordinative” in the Trinity, different points of reference do not lead to the conclusion that these are different offices.44 However, at the time (in the 1980s), the comparison was not appreciated. Co-ordination or equality was addressed at the symbolic level; nevertheless, the social reality pointed to differences. Today, in a situation where the apostolic office enjoys general acceptance for both men and women, this symbolic appears with its different accents in a different and more attractive light. The ambition to anchor the feminine and masculine at “the core of Christian faith itself” remains central – at the level of anthropology and doctrine.45 The diaconate is not an alternative office for women, who feel in fact called to the priesthood – this is something that I had to experience myself during many years in the diaconate. In addition to the question of gender, the perception of ministry and the distinct nature of the diaconate play a role here. Moreover, the tension will remain as long as women do not have access to all the ministries and offices of the church. However, with the female diaconate, more than before, a 41 Herwig Aldenhoven, “Frau und Kirche”, in: Jahrbuch der Christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz 99 (1989), 31–32. 42 For the precise formulation, see ftn. 17. 43 Aldenhoven, “Frau und Kirche”, 32. 44 Ibid. The complete equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit is a requisite of the Old Catholic Church evident in its rejection of the filioque in the Niceno-Konstantinopolitane Creed. 45 In any case, the critical question must be asked of whether, not only men can mirror the feminine, but women also the masculine, or at least represent it. Thus, these absolute determinations, which Aldenhoven did not actually intend, prove once again deceptive.

60

Angela Berlis

good step is made toward the goal of doing justice to women’s religious authority.46 This is firmly grounded in tradition. Now is the time to draw practical consequences from theological insights. The female diaconate could help divided churches to build on the common tradition of the Early Church – a foundation that is shared by all Churches.47

46 Much has been written in the last century regarding women’s religious authority. What I would like to point out is that the spiritual authority of women has helped carry and determine the life of the church in every century. Women have repeatedly entered new lands of theological thought and thereby connected to tradition. Take for instance Heleen Zorgdrager, “Reclaiming theosis. Orthodox Women Theologians on the Mystery of the Union with God”, in: Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 104 (2014), 220–245. 47 Thus, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria in Kolwezu (Congo) ordained three female Catechists and three nuns to the diaconate. Cf. http://www.katholisch.de/ aktuelles/aktuelle-artikel/orthodoxe-fur-wiedereinfuhrung-von-diakoninnen (24. 02. 2017); cf. Christ in der Gegenwart 69 (2017), No.10, 116. There were also earlier thrusts in this direction, e. g. Nektarios of Aegina in the 1920s or Archbishop Christodoulos (Paraskevaidis) of Athens. Cf. “Orthodox Liturgists issued a statement of support for the revival of the order of deaconness by the patriarchate of Alexandria” (24. 10. 2017): https://panorthodoxcemes. blogspot.ch/2017/10/orthodox-liturgists-issued-statement-of.html (01.04. 2018).

Christine E. Burke IBVM (Manila)

Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

I have been asked to consider the interface between spiritual direction and sacramental confession in the context of women’s ministries in the church. In many unofficial ways, this interface is already dynamic. This paper is a simple theological reflection on experience in this area. It outlines a few examples of ways women (and laymen), who are increasingly involved in pastoral ministry, are unavoidably being experienced as facilitating reconciliation by the women and men to whom they minister. It analyses the contexts that call this forth; placing this reality in dialogue with our tradition, both in history and in scripture; then outlining some possible actions.

1.

Real experiences from the women in ministry

Since Vatican II, many Catholic women (and some lay men), often with professional preparation in counselling or spiritual direction have moved into pastoral care in prisons, hospitals, retreat centres and taken on pastoral responsibilities in parishes. In Australia, where I come from, the average age of priests is into the seventies. Many have been asked to care for up to three parishes and are not available for chaplaincy roles. Often people report that lay ministers listen caringly to their stories and encourage them to plumb a deeper truth in themselves. Not being able to rely on the efficacy of set words and gestures can call forth a sense of “presence” that facilitates conversion. To ground what I say in the real experience of women I have worked with, these are three stories which could be multiplied: 1. Kate was a chaplain in a women’s prison for ten years. Men can rarely minister effectively in a women’s prison, since many inmates have experienced serious abuse by men. She listened to many women and was heartbroken by what they had done and what had been done to them. She arranged short reconciliation services with them, where they named their need for forgiveness and she affirmed that God

62

Christine E. Burke

had forgiven them. To suggest they then go and tell repeat these to a male priest would have been a slap in the face to their sense of peace and God’s forgiveness. 2. Susan was a chaplain in a public hospital. A man was brought in very close to death. He wanted to talk about his life. He had committed some terrible acts during his life and wanted to make all well with God. She listened to him, supporting him with her concern, assuring him of the love God has for anyone asking forgiveness. She offered to try to contact a priest, but he said: No please, am I forgiven by God? You let me know now so that I can die in peace. She asked if he was sorry, held his hand, assured him of God’s love and sat with him as he died. 3. Ruth is a spiritual director who prayed with a middle-aged woman through a thirty-day retreat. Praying quietly with the scriptures, the retreatant felt an overwhelming sense of God’s forgiveness. When the spiritual director asked if she would like to go to reconciliation with the priest, explaining that she would not have to go back over her sins, but just to ask for forgiveness, the retreatant said: “Sister-you have helped me bring my whole self, sins and all, to God. Telling a priest would seem to be a ritual without meaning. He does not know me: it would be using the words like they are magic, when I know the forgiveness given by God and it has come to me through your listening”. Do any of us doubt that these penitents were forgiven by God? With true contrition, sins are forgiven. The question seems to me rather : why does our church authorise these women to minister in the name of the community as chaplains and pastoral workers and yet not recognise their gift as sacramental, and thus allow them to reconnect a penitent with the wider church community?

2.

What light can history give?

How has the “power of the keys” been restricted to the ordained? A short, yet penetrating exploration of the history is found in Kenan Osborne’s 1990 work: Reconciliation and Justification1. The 16th century, reformers were quick to point out that the sacrament of penance/reconciliation cannot call on a clear originating event in the life of Jesus like Baptism and Eucharist. Despite what Trent asserted, scripture scholars do not see any specific event in the life of Jesus in which he “instituted” it2. However, Jesus’s whole teaching was geared toward 1 Kenan B. Osborne OSB Reconciliation and Justification: the sacrament and its theology (New Jersey Paulist 1990). 2 Osborne, 24.

Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

63

reconciliation, bringing Good News to the poor – living out the loving kindness of God, who welcomes sinners and calls us to turn back and live out of that love. The sacrament is clearly grounded in Jesus’s life. For much of the first millennium of the Christian era, the rite of penance existed in a very different format. After Baptism, one could approach this sacrament only once in a lifetime. The Episkopos was the person who oversaw this rite; return to the Eucharistic community was possible after a long public penance. Murder, apostasy, or adultery were the only sins that needed to be confessed. Penance was a public process because such offenses weakened the Christian community, and the penitent had to undergo some process of restitution. There was no private confession. For most people most of the time, the community in their daily lives forgave each other and thus continued Jesus’s ministry and command to be reconcilers. With the rise of Celtic monasticism in the sixth century onwards, and the missionary efforts to re-evangelize Europe, the practice of spiritual direction, which often involved private confession of sins with the abbot or abbess, spread into the wider Christian community. Respected female, as well as male, spiritual leaders were sought out as guides for the spiritual life. This private confession was resisted strongly by the Roman church, but eventually won out because the people chose this practice and refused the public form of the rite. Change came from the grass-roots upwards. It was not recognised officially until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, where private confession to a priest was recognised. Even after this, people wanting to deepen their spiritual lives often sought out women mystics. Osborne claims that private confession was still not widespread by the time of the Council of Trent3. The shift to this private ritual of penance put more emphasis on the telling of sins, and less on the impact on the community. It also gave rise to abuse, as priests were often ill-trained, venal, or worse. The sacraments were codified as seven at the Council of Trent, and the anathemas hurled at those who said Jesus did not personally institute each one owe more to the desire to refute the reformers than to the Church’s previous teaching4. The sacrament of penance was nailed into place with strong emphasis on confession to a priest. Priests were to be prepared for the proper administration of the sacrament by manuals, which clarified and calibrated penances for sins of various kinds. Little connection was made to the saving life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and his message of the gratuitousness of God’s love. The formulas of contrition showed no sense that the sin had wounded the community. The penances, which came to be standardised as “three Hail Marys”, did little to establish new ways of acting in the future. 3 Osborne, 158. 4 Osborne, 162.

64

Christine E. Burke

For the next three centuries, the power of the clergy, as the agents of forgiveness, had profound effects on the life of everyday women and men in the church. While not forgetting the consolation that came through many wise and compassionate confessors, and the improved formation of clergy, the manuals were legal in approach and their emphasis was on sexual sin. Domestic violence was not taken seriously because of the rights of the man in marriage; sexual abuse was treated as breaking the vow of chastity, rather than destroying another vulnerable human being. The unnecessary digging into people’s personal lives, together with a demand for confession before communion gave enormous power to the priest, especially in small village communities, but also took responsibility for honesty and forgiveness away from the community as a whole. It built up a climate of guilt rather than joy, and conveyed a sense of God as judgemental and demanding rather than forgiving. One could add the many stories of women, young and older, who found it particularly hard to talk through personal and intimate areas of their lives with a man. The dominant understanding of sin as sexual failed to recognise the growing inequities in systems of slavery, industrialisation, colonisation, rampant capitalism, and destruction of the planet, which became entrenched in western culture and sucked all into a web of sinful structures. Vatican II proclaimed a paradigm shift in the theology of church, from primarily an institutional structure to the people of God. The emphasis shifted from confession of sins to reconciliation with a loving God and with each other. The first form of the rite advocated a greater use of scripture in the sacrament and a more reflective process with the penitent. This can have a focus on the forgiving action of God, but it blurs the line between confession and spiritual direction. Many priests are not well trained for the latter. A queue outside also makes it difficult. A stronger sense of the structures of sin challenged the preoccupation with personal, mortal sin. However, in the 1980s, efforts to express this in the third form of the rite were pulled back by Roman officialdom, who feared a loss of a sense of (sexual?) sin in the Catholic population- and perhaps the loss of clerical power entailed. Meaningful and well-attended liturgies with General Absolution were forbidden. Without a forum of the third form of the rite, many Catholics, who might have allowed questions of justice to challenge their assumptions, joined the drift from the church practice. Others in remote areas are deprived of the sacrament because there simply are not priests available. Nevertheless, even where private confession is available, something has shifted in the Catholic psyche: people have not come back to confession in hoped-for numbers. Unfortunately, another factor affecting our current situation is the clerical sexual abuse scandal exposed in many countries. Many in the church and beyond it think that some in church leadership have been more ready to assure for-

Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

65

giveness to clerical abusers than to understand the complexity and messiness of ordinary people’s lives and relationships. The former have been given too many chances; others have faced harsh legal requirements with no shades of grey. So, what has happened? I can speak most surely for western society, but what I am saying has been confirmed here as well. As in an earlier era of the Church, people have voted with their feet. Those who continue to seek a deeper spirituality in the Catholic community choose to ponder their lives with people who have the gift for bringing peace, healing, and light to dark places. With them they discern the action of God, the pull of self-serving or a self-indulgent culture, and the best way forward in their relationship with a God of love. Others in prisons, hospitals, and parishes are grateful for a person to reassure them of God’s love. Non-ordained, lay and religious, with pastoral gifts, have been called forward to some form of ministry and have been prepared professionally as spiritual directors and pastoral workers- a rigorous process of skilling and self-examination.

3.

What can theology and scripture contribute?

Vatican II saw the life, death, and resurrection of the person of Jesus as the sacrament of the love of the triune God for the world. It called the whole church of God to holiness and to the witness of love, mercy, and justice, which would make present God’s love and continue to beacon that love into the world. Osborne says that whenever the church at any level reflects the prodigal love of God it is truly fulfilling its nature. This places the responsibility for sharing forgiveness and reconciliation on each one of us. “This means that prior to a renewal-effort regarding the individualised sacrament of reconciliation; the local church community needs to be renewed, to be made into a more reconciling community than it is. Only then should one begin to discuss the sacrament of reconciliation as an individual rite within the church.”5 Another insight arising after Vatican II, in the context of poverty and injustice worldwide, was the recognition of build-up of so many selfish acts into structures of sin. This calls for communal awareness both of being trapped in these structures and being increasingly wounded by the actions of big business, the denial of human rights, and the destruction of our planet. Some communal dimension in this sacrament seems to “fit” with many ordinary Catholics. A symbolic ritual is needed to deepen this awareness. Spurred on by a reference in one of Sandra Schneiders’s books on that line in John’s Gospel, “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them” and especially the following line, namely 5 Osborne, 216.

66

Christine E. Burke

“whose sins you shall retain they are retained”, I sought out her article in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.6 Since Trent, John: 20:23 has been interpreted as the “institution” of the sacrament, and a confirmation that this power is only for priests, especially since they have the power to hold back forgiveness. Schneiders applies the tools of modern exegesis and examines the verse in the light of the overwhelming message of peace and forgiveness of the resurrected Jesus. She claims that the meaning has been twisted to make it parallel Matthew 16:19 and/ or 18:18. This approach, she argues, does not accord with rules for reading John’s Gospel. If this verse is read through the lens of Johannine theology and the message of Easter, then her translation: “Those whom you are holding (embracing, including in the ongoing life of the community) are indeed held fast in the communion of reconciliation”7 has enormous implications. It was not eleven men sitting in the upper room, but “the disciples”, women and men. If we see that Jesus did not give anyone the power to hold others in sin, it completely changes the meaning of this verse and of our appreciation of reconciliation. “Just as Jesus received his disciples from the Father and holds them fast in communion with himself despite their weakness and infidelity, so his church will draw into one through baptism those whom Jesus commits to it, and it will maintain them in communion through the ongoing mutual forgiveness of sins.”8This turns the tables: the responsibility to forgive, to welcome, and to include falls on all our shoulders. How might we be a different church if all are commissioned to forgive? “Whenever the Church at any level and all of its levels does not reflect the God’s prodigal forgiveness, it is distorting the gospel and camouflaging what should be the very revelation of God.”9

4.

What actions do these few considerations suggest?

A friend once argued: we remove 50 % of available people because of gender, and then remove 90+% of the remainder because of the requirement of celibacy, and we ask the small number left to do 100 % of the ministry – if we then wonder why it is not working, we are ignoring the right question. The system we have is broken, at least in many parts of the world. Yet we are called by Jesus to be reconcilers, to bring the Wisdom and the Holy Mystery of a relational God to a world desperately needing that assurance. Catholic women theologians have 6 Sandra Schneiders: “The Lamb of God and the Forgiveness of Sin(s) in the Fourth Gospel”, in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 73, 2011, 1–29. 7 Schneiders, 28. 8 Schneiders, 29. 9 Osborne, 216.

Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

67

been saying for years that we cannot just “add women and stir” as if the cake remains basically fine just needing a bit more flavour. Women’s gifts have been so absent from church teaching, preaching, leadership, and liturgy that what is needed is a whole new recipe; some similar ingredients, but different ones as well. This paper started from the question of those situations within the Catholic community, where one individual listens to and helps another recognise the gratuitous love and forgiveness of God. History suggests that this sacramental act does not have to be tied to priesthood. It is a sacrament with a history of change. Osborne says, “Confessing individual sins privately to a priest, even though brought into the Church by the Holy Spirit, remains more a church law than a divine law.”10 Some constants remain: contrition, an openness to the freely given forgiveness of God, a readiness to begin again in the light of that love, and to rebuild bonds of love and justice in one’s community. How can we as a church community best witness to and ritualise the prodigal forgiveness of God today? What is the ‘sensus fidelium’ telling us?

1.

Put the focus on building a reconciling people

In a myriad ways, women and men across the world in the process of daily living offer and work for reconciliation. In homes, businesses, war-zones, and areas of civil unrest, courageous people are to be found, seeking to build societies of forgiveness. This is not limited to Catholics or Christians. The first move is to recognise and rejoice in this and help people to see themselves as reconcilers, as ministers of this sacrament. Every Christian is called to a ministry of reconciliation in everyday life situations. Rather than starting with the ritual, linking this sacramental reality to peace building, to environmental healing, to outreach to the “other” as well as to dynamics of family, friends, and workplace could bring a much stronger sense of the need for inner spiritual support to keep on being reconcilers. Rather than seeing the sacrament as limited to “getting rid of” personal sins, this could motivate us all to recognise our need to refill the wells of mercy within us through some symbolic process. Renewing the local community into a more reconciling community is step one before any discussion of the renewal of the individual rite.11 So the question is: what will make us a more reconciling people of God? The Year of Mercy is a call in that direction. Pope Francis talks of bringing people from estrangement to full inclusion, that mercy is greater than justice. 10 Osborne, 235. 11 Ibid.

68 2.

Christine E. Burke

Re-open the issue of General Absolution within a liturgy of repentance

Maybe the current breakdown in the official practice of private confession – few attending official confession and situations emerging, where reconciliation is happening outside the confessional- is a sign of our times, a call by the Spirit to look afresh at this whole process. The need of many- at least in my countryexpressed by attendance at the Third Form of the Rite of Reconciliation, is for a rite that highlights the need for forgiveness for social sin, and calls us to work together for justice. Can this question be reopened and creative ways sought for lamenting our failures in ecological justice, poverty, and in the face of migrating peoples? Give up efforts to drum individuals back into confessionals and encourage an alternative that works!

3.

Can we let the breakdown in this area lead us to a rethink of how we do leadership?

“If all are called by baptism to participate in the mission of the church and its ministry, as Vatican II clearly states (LG 33), then allocation of ministries must be governed by charism and competence rather than by any static classification based on ‘state in life’”.12 Some people have special gifts in this area of supporting others in their spiritual journey. Can we spread more widely the role of witnessing God’s forgiveness and reconnecting a sinful person with the Church community? Could there be a way of officially naming and recognizing this particular gift in the community? Of course, proper formation is needed, but it might not look identical to current seminary formation. This implies a far reaching discussion of sacramentality and sacraments, not a discussion by bishops in synods but involving people at all levels of the believing community. How do people think that, we as a church community, can best be witnesses to and ritualise the prodigal forgiveness of God today? Can we authorise the reconcilers? By conferring on them an official role to assure people of God’s forgiveness on behalf of the Christian community, they could lead the penitent back into the community of believers. I realise this raises all sorts of questions within Canon Law, but should law or love predominate? Some change is required to prevent the present practice from moving further from the authorising community.

12 Mary Hines, “Community for Liberation”, in Freeing Theology : the essentials of theology in feminist perspective. ed. Catherine Mowry LaCugna (Harper, San Francisco 1993) 167.

Women as Ministers of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

4.

69

Going well beyond the question

If we could begin to move this way, we could maybe restructure communities with a strong emphasis on the gifts given by the Spirit to various members. My own hope would be that we do not stop with reconciliation. The actual practice of ministry is changing so much as married, single, and religious people step into roles that once were the preserve of priests. This calls into question the way the leadership currently works. Should we not also authorise as preachers the women and men who can bring the word of God alive and, in short simple homilies, link it to ordinary life? What about the healers who bring peace and hope to the frail and sick? They are often the ones who prepare the sick and their families to move with peace from this world into Mystery. Currently, in Australia, young people increasingly chose a civil marriage celebrant with little or no faith, but who is flexible in planning. The sacrament goes by default. Could some role be devised to allow mentoring married couples to witness this sacrament? If a particular gift of the Spirit is discerned by the community, and ratified by the appointed leaders of the community, might this not be a way out of clericalism and into collaborative leadership? This, of course, has implications for who has the gift to lead in the celebration which brings a community together, in sadness or joy, in sorrow for sin and thanksgiving, in breaking open the word of God to penetrate hearts and actions, so that together we hold the dangerous memory of the Broken and Resurrected life that shapes our faith and our actions. Organising and enabling the community to function in such a way would require real gifts of leadership, but as St Paul said, there are many gifts, but it is the same Spirit, who is given to us to enable us to continue Jesus’s mission. The call to conversion is addressed to the whole community. Does this issue give us some indication of one way the Spirit is calling? I have argued that the current state of the question calls us to work for a greater sense of the sacrament being lived in everyday life; it calls us to re-examine the possibility of a more communal sacrament of reconciliation and it challenges us to look at the way we do leadership in the church. If each person is called to be a sacrament of reconciliation, we have an exciting journey ahead of us as a church.

Shalini Mulackal PBVM (Delhi)

Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation: A Critical Study of the Role of Women Religious in the Church and Society

1.

Introduction

Women in India and in Asia at large experience exclusion at various levels. In South Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. women’s overall situation is far from satisfactory. They are victims of violence, discrimination, and various atrocities. Women are still considered inferior to men and have no freedom to make decisions even matters pertaining to their personal life. It is in this context that I would like to look at ‘Religious women as Vanguard of women participation.’ Are women religious really in the forefront of women participation? How is their life organized so that maximum participation is ensured from members? Are there any roadblocks preventing their participation? Are these blocks internal or external? This paper is an attempt to answer some of these questions in the context religious participation of women at all levels, both in the Church and in society. The first part of the paper will explore participation of Consecrated women in governance. In the second part, I propose to look at Consecrated women’s participation in the life and mission of the church. In the third part, I hope to look at the way women religious are participating in public life. In the fourth part, I would like to have a reality check of the religious participation of women, and how their participation is perceived by the church in general.

2.

Participation of Consecrated Women in Governance

By responding to the call of Jesus, consecrated women have renounced marriage and family. In doing so, they are freed from the restrictions often imposed within a patriarchal household. Being part of a larger group, each consecrated woman participates fully in the life and mission of her Religious order. Before Vatican II, the life of individual religious sister was not very different from the married woman as far as her participation in the governance of the Institute was con-

72

Shalini Mulackal

cerned. But this situation has changed significantly for some Religious Orders since Vatican II. Responding to the call of Vatican II, a good number of Religious Orders, especially those who have international membership, have undergone renewal in their self-understanding, lifestyle, understanding of mission, charism, governance, etc. Many Religious Orders have updated and rewritten their Constitutions.1 In keeping with the Feminist thinking and world-view, some Religious Orders have radically changed their style of functioning and have reinterpreted the meaning of poverty, chastity (celibacy), and obedience in the present day context. In the light of the renewed understanding, the style of governance too has changed. Today, in many Religious Orders, all the members participate in decisionmaking processes at various levels. Many orders have moved away from a hierarchical way of functioning. For instance, Presentation Sisters have been practicing Team Leadership at all levels for the past two decades or so. This is a definite move from a hierarchical way of functioning. Team leadership caters for more participation. ‘Provincial Chapter’ has given way to ‘Unit Gathering’ in order to ensure maximum participation of all the members. In their newly written Constitution of the Presentation Sisters, the purpose of the Unit Gathering is expressed as follows: “The Unit Gathering is the primary governing body within the Unit Community. It is a time for reflection, evaluation, discernment and decision-making concerning the life and mission of the Unit Community…”2 ‘The General Chapter,’ which is renamed as the ‘Congregational Gathering,’ takes place once in six years. Even though only a few elected members from each Unit represents at this Gathering, the participation of each member is ensured by having the Gathering in phases.3 Besides, the leaders are no longer called ‘superiors,’ ‘Provincial Superiors’, or ‘Mother Generals.’ Instead, they are addressed as local animator/leader, Unit leader and Congregational leader.4 Many Religious Orders today have created appropriate structures to ensure the participation of all members in the self-governance of the Institute, besides their participation in the life, charism and mission of the Congregation.

1 For instance, Presentations Sisters (Union Group) the Order where I belong, have re-written their Constitutions way back in 1983 and recently again in 2012. It is renamed as “Our Way of Life”. 2 Our Way of Life, Constitutions of the Union of Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, An Apostolic Religious Institute of Pontifical Right, (2014), C 51, 31. 3 Unit Gathering takes place in different phases. The first and third phase takes place in each Unit in which all members are expected to participate. The meeting of the elected delegates is the second phase. 4 Change of language is necessary to change a reality since language mirrors the reality and viceversa.

Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation

3.

73

The Participation of Consecrated Women in the Life and Mission of the Church

From the earliest time of Christianity, we find women totally dedicated to Christ and engaged in various apostolic activities. It began with Jesus’s movement, where a number of women followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem and helped Jesus and the twelve out of their own pockets (Lk 8:1–3). Women played an important role in the propagation of the Faith, the spreading of the Good News, both in the Roman Empire during the great persecutions and in the expansion of the Church that followed. In early Christianity, an “order” of widows developed a female apostolate to the sick and needy and an educational mission addressed particularly to women. Early Christian communities supported women with notable spiritual gifts in return for their prayer and for sharing the revelations that sprang from their intense meditations. These “widows” were the fountainhead from which many springs flowed: communities of virgins, recluses, cloistered nuns, and caregivers who experimented with various titles the possibilities of chaste life among sisters.5 Then, for more than one thousand years, women disappeared from the lime light of history. They had no role to play, at least not a public one, in the life of the Church, though their actual contribution throughout many centuries of Church History and in many places in Europe is remarkable.6 Gradually, a clericalised church fixed the role of women. All that the women had to do was not to play any active role at all.7 Today, we witness another picture. It is no exaggeration to say that throughout much of Asia, the Apostolate of the Church is determined by what the religious women do, since the vast majority of consecrated persons are religious women. For instance, at the Synod of Consecrated Life in 1994, it was recognized that 5 See Jo Ann Kay McNamara, Sisters in Arms: Catholic Nuns through two Millennia (London: Harvard University Press, 1996), 2. 6 See for example, the great German Mystics like St. Hildegard, St. Gertrude and the reformers like St. Theresa of Avila. There were also so many great women like Mary Ward, Nano Nagle, who founded religious orders in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. 7 The best illustration of this truth is the very first convent in India, Santa Monica in Goa, which was already established during the first period of the Padroado. The women who opted to support the great missionary expansion of the Church in Goa- among them the foundress, a widowed noble lady, and her daughter, together with some of the best of the Goan societyentered this Convent. The Bishop then locked the door and there the active role of these enthusiastic women ended and was changed into the passive role of suffering, praying and contemplation. No other role for women could be conceived in the Church in India since the time of St. Thomas Christians, except the role described above. See Sr. Maria Alacoque S.Sp.S, “The Role of Sisters in Present-Day Mission in India”, In Christo, Vol. 18, No. 1 (January 1980): 21–33 at 22.

74

Shalini Mulackal

women comprise 75 % of religious personnel in the Church. In India, religious women comprise 82 % of the religious in the country.8 However, this situation is not unique to Asia, as it is evident from an address from Pope Francis during his visit to U S. when he said: “In a special way I would like to express my esteem and gratitude to the religious women of the United States. What would the Church be without you? Women of strength, fighters, with that spirit of courage which puts you in the front lines in the proclamation of the Gospel. To you, religious women, sisters and mothers of this people, I wish to say “thank you,” a big thank you…and to tell you that I love you very much … I know that many of you are in the front lines in meeting challenges of adapting to an evolving pastoral landscape. Whatever difficulties and trials you face, I ask you, like Saint Peter, to be at peace and to respond to them as Christ did: he thanked the Father, took up his cross and looked forward!”9 Other church leaders acknowledged the role women religious play in the Church, too. For instance, Pope Pius XII had said: “The Apostolate of the Church is almost inconceivable without the help of religious women.”10 Vatican II clearly states how religious women are expected to participate in the mission of the Church when it says: “Religious should carefully consider that through them, the believers and non-believers alike, the Church wishes to give an increasingly clearer revelation of Christ. Through them Christ should be shown contemplating on the mountain, announcing God’s kingdom to the multitude, healing the sick and the maimed, turning sinners to wholesome fruit, blessing children, doing good to all, and always obeying the will of the Father who sent Him.”11 Most women joining religious life today are taught the same. In whatever ministry one is engaged, one continues the mission of Jesus or furthering the Reign of God proclaimed and lived by Jesus. It is through their ministry that they 8 D’Lima Hazel, Keynote Address “Women Religious Journeying Solidarity : Discovering our Communion with God’s Creation” (CRI Meeting 1999), as quoted by Daniela, “The Role of Women Religious in the Transformation of the Social Order”, The Living Word, Vol. 107, No. 6 (November-December 2001): 358–373 at 358. 9 This is taken from Pope Francis when he preached at Vespers in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 24 September during his visit to the U S. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/watchlive-vespers-wo\ith-pope-francis-in-new-york-city-65830/ (25. 09. 2015). As quoted by Gerard Mannion, “Changing the (Magisterial) Subject: Women Teaching-with-Authority – from Vatican II to Tomorrow”, Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. 81/1 (February 2016): 3–33 at 31. 10 Cardinal Agagianian: “It is in great part on the Missionary Sisters that the fate of the Church in Mission lands depends.” Bishop Meaury of Lourdes: “The evangelization of mission lands will not succeed without the assistance of Missionary sisters.” Quoted by Sr. E. Pakumala, “The role of the Religious Sister in the Evangelizing Effort of the Local Church”, Indian Missiological Review, Vol. 1/1, (January 1979): 65–70 at 67. 11 Lumen Gentium, No. 46.

Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation

75

participate in the life and mission of the Church. Besides the traditional apostolate of education and health care, religious women today are engaged in many other ministries. For instance, women religious render a great service in the area of Catechesis. They play a vital role in imparting Faith Education to Christians in various fora. In Family Catechesis, religious women who are engaged in Family apostolate undertake in imparting faith to parents in families. Many religious women are involved in Parish Catechesis. Through Sunday Catechism especially, women prepare children to receive the sacraments, and hence, Sisters actively take part in this ministry. In rural areas, they help in preparing people for a meaningful celebration of the Eucharist. They also prepare children for First Holy Communion, youth for Confirmation and couples for Marriage. Besides these roles, the Sisters who are teaching in schools and colleges impart Christian faith to the young through regular catechism classes. Some sisters are also engaged in occasional or non-formal type of Catechesis like preaching retreats for children, youth and adults, organizing seminars or conducting bible study classes.12 In fact, religious women who render service in this area are indeed participating in the teaching mission of the Church since the Church’s canons remind us that we are all members of the Christian faithful, sharers in Christ’s own prophetic function, and that all are called to exercise the Church’s mission, including its teaching mission, in the world (c. 204).13 Religious women in India are known for their willingness to work in the remote villages. Many of them work with very little facilities of modern life like electricity, telephone connection, etc. They reach out to the margins of society. Through their educational institutions, religious women have made significant contributions throughout India, especially in the remote areas of the country. This is true in other Asian countries as well. Various religious orders run scores of elementary, secondary and high schools, and colleges in rural and urban areas of the country. In the field of health and family welfare, too, Sisters are rendering valuable service. Besides having their own hospitals and dispensaries, some have rendered their services in the civil hospitals of the Northeast region. Through a large network of dispensaries, the sisters have provided an immense amount of medical service, particularly in the rural areas. The mobile clinics are a great help to the poor and the sick in the villages.14

12 See Sr. Martina L. Thabah, MSMHC, “The Role of Women Religious in Catechesis”, in: Kristu Jyoti, Vol. 29/1, (2013): 92–98 at 94–95. 13 See James A. Coriden, “Theologians and Bishops: Good Procedures Promotes Collaboration”, in: Felix Wilfred and Susan A. Ross, eds. Theology and Magisterium, Concilium 2 (2012): 64–74 at 65. 14 See Fr. Thomas Edamattathu, and Sr. Ida Rodrigues, “Contribution of the Religious Sisters to

76

Shalini Mulackal

Many religious sisters, especially those working in Northeast India, have contributed towards direct evangelization. Visiting homes is one of the important aspects of Evangelization. The Sisters, by their friendly conversation and patient listening, establish personal relationship with the families especially with the women. During the past hundred years, the Catholic Church in this region has grown in numbers. The contribution of the religious sisters has been very significant and vital. The sisters by their continuous touring of the villages and instructing the faithful, as well as making new contacts, have greatly contributed to the growth and deepening of the Christian faith. The regular house visits and the personal contacts of the Sisters have helped to revive many lapsed Christians and broken families. Conducting Bible camps, youth camps, retreats, and sobhas have significantly contributed to the strengthening of Christians in their faith. In some places, the sisters have paved the way for the missionary priests to enter.15 An increasing number of religious women are in the forefront of developmental work. Many fight for securing justice for those who are deprived of their rights. They not only engage in social work, but some are involved in advocacy and lobbying for the less privileged in society. As Pope John Paul II said: “By their virginal consecration and the apostolic chrisms stirred up by the spirit, women religious have always been near to the problems of life: at the side of the children, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the dying, in helping unwed mothers, in education, catechesis and a thousand fields of missionary activity.”16 Religious women view themselves as being on the side of the poor and as enabling them to be their own agents of change. They are committed to the abandoned children, street kids, AIDS victims, the elderly, the lonely, the sick, prostitutes, marginalized and broken families, homeless, single mothers, and the unemployed.17 Religious women also give a preferential option for the empowerment of women and girls. The Conference of Religious, India, held in New Delhi, in 1996 Declared: “We as religious women, have a very serious obligation to be in solidarity with all our sisters in our country and find out the role we can play to accompany them. We have to generate energy and strength to counter the forces that dehumanize them. Today we speak of the feminization of poverty. 70 % of the world’s adults the Church in Northeast India”, in: Indian Missiological Review, Vol 12, (December 1990): 123–139 at 132. 15 For example, in Nagaland, which was closed to the missionaries, the Sisters of Christ Jesus did the pioneering work. In Manipur and Mizoram the FMA and the Sisters of the Little Flower of Bethany prepared the way for the Catholic missionaries, through their contacts and humanitarian services. See ibid. 133. 16 Address of His Holiness, John Paul II at the Special Audience of 14 May 1993, in UISG Bulletin (1993), 4, n. 92. as quoted by Daniela, “The Role of Women Religious in the Transformation of the Social Order”, 365–6. 17 Ibid.

Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation

77

who are below the poverty line are women. It brings with it illiteracy, poor health, sexual exploitation, repeated pregnancies.”18 In order to help women to earn their livelihood, sisters organize women’s Self Help Groups (SHGs) and conduct vocational training for them. These include training in weaving, sewing, tailoring, typing, knitting, etc. A large number of girls, who are school dropouts, are trained for the government school certificate in cutting, tailoring, and embroidery. For instance, the grihini schools run by the Sisters in various places in Northeast India are of great help to many. Here an average of 300 girls passes through the grihini and vocational training schools of the Sisters every year.19 Besides, women in villages are instructed in hygiene, food habits, childcare, first aid, etc. for better living conditions. At the social level, the Sisters have played a major role to raise the dignity of women in society through education and various conscientization programmes.

4.

The Participation of Consecrated Women in Public Life

The religious sisters, by the very fact of being engaged in various ministries, are simultaneously participating and contributing in the public life. Their work is visible to the public eye. Whether they teach, nurse, or engage in social or charitable work, they are participating in public life. Some have excelled in their field of activity and has been recognized for their contribution by the government and other agencies. For instance, the charitable works of the Missionaries of Charity founded by Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta has been recognized and acclaimed by many. She was the recipient of numerous honours, including the 1979 Nobel Prize for her humanitarian work. There also were other religious women who have contributed in various fields like education, social action, and health care. In recent years, India has witnessed the martyrdom of two eminent religious sisters who were working for the poor and fighting for their rights. The first one is Sr. Rani Maria.20 Sr. Valsa John too was brutally murdered because of her

18 Conference of Religious, India, Letter nos. 5 & 6, 76. 19 See Fr. Thomas Edamattathu, and Sr. Ida Rodrigues, “Contribution of the Religious Sisters to the Church in Northeast India”, 134. 20 Sr. Rani Maria Vattalil (1954–’95) was a Catholic religious in the Franciscan Clarist Congregation, who sacrificed her life for the sake of the poor and marginalized. She hailed from Kerala and was working as a missionary, in the Diocese of Indore, in Central India. She served the society with prophetic courage to exalt the human dignity. Her love and compassion for the shattered and the broken people found outlet in every conceivable way in social action and community services. On the 25th February 1995 while she was travelling by bus from Udayanagar to Indore a paid-killer stabbed her to death.

78

Shalini Mulackal

involvement in helping the people to get their rights.21 Today, there are religious women who are practicing lawyers, social activists, doctors, professors, psychologists, and heads of institutions. Each one is contributing their best to the interest of the public.

5.

The Participation of Consecrated Women in the Church and Society – A Critical Appraisal

At first glance, one may get the feeling that all is well with regard to the participation of religious women in the mission of the Church and society. However, this is not the whole of reality. On the one hand, it is true that the mission of the church rests largely on the shoulders of her religious women. According to Hazel: “It is they who walk in sunshine or rain upon the ragged paths of our far-flung rural centers, they who run the schools, dispensaries and community centers that dot the landscape of our mission endeavors. It is they who assure the stability of our institutions and projects at the larger levels of Church presence; they who can assure the penetration into the homes and hearts of our people through the pastoral mission.”22 However, religious women do not get the recognition that they deserve from the Church. Often, their work is appropriated as the work of the Church when it suits the leadership. Their work is often taken for granted. Religious women become invisible and inaudible like salt that dissolved into the water. Often, the work of religious women is appropriated without due acknowledgement. There is also a tendency to consider religious women as providers of cheap labour in the church. As a result, they are not paid a just wage when employed in church-run institutions. When it comes to decision-making in the Church religious women are seldom included. Since the sacramental life of the church is made central, it is what the priest does as an ordained minister is valued more than the apostolate done by the religious sisters. The mission of the church often carried on by the religious sisters is not given its due worth. As a result, religious women who also respond equally to the call of God to follow Jesus as a radical disciple like any priest are given only a secondary position in the Church. The role of the priest is seen as the all-important role. 21 See Shalini Mulackal, “Sr. Valsa: The Prophet-Martyr of Pachuwara”, in People’s Valsa: In the Foot Steps of Her Master, edited by Mary Scaria SCJM and Helen Saldanha SSPs (Delhi: Media House, 2013), 53–67. 22 D’Lima Hazel, Keynote Address “Women Religious Journeying Solidarity : Discovering our Communion with God’s Creation” (CRI Meeting 1999), as quoted by Daniela, “The Role of Women Religious in the Transformation of the Social Order”, The Living Word, Vol. 107, No. 6 (November-December 2001): 358–373 at 358.

Women Religious as Vanguard of Women Participation

79

On the other hand, the majority of religious women, though they work tirelessly in various ministries, are not empowered themselves. Since they have internalized the patriarchal values, they continue to take a subservient position in the church. Considering more than one hundred thousand religious women in India, it is often said that they are like a sleeping giant. If all these religious women are empowered, then the face of India and Indian church will never be the same!

6.

Concluding Remarks

In most countries of Asia, participation of women in the public, as well as in Church life is far from satisfactory. Most of them are confined to the four walls of their homes. This is especially true of the vast majority of Indian women who are poor, illiterate and are living in rural areas or in large city slums. For these women, participation in decision-making processes, both at home and in the church/society is a distant dream. Viewed from this context of women’s reality, religious women can be seen as the forefront of women participation both in the Church and in society at large. Compared to other women, they are privileged to get a good education and other opportunities for participation. Their self-understanding as consecrated women in the church with a prophetic call impels some of them to be at the forefront in raising their voices against injustice done to women or any other vulnerable groups. Through their apostolate women religious participate in the mission of the Church. Being members of particular religious orders, they also get the opportunity to participate in the governance of their organization and to be part of the decision-making processes within the order. Though religious women could and should participate much more in the mission of the Church, especially to be prophetic women as their call entails, many are unable to play that role. Many religious women are still under patriarchal clutches and are happy to play a subservient role. Those who are awakened with a feminist consciousness find it very difficult to get acceptance in a church that is still very much patriarchal and hierarchical in its thinking and functioning.

Teresa Forcades i Vila OSB (Monastery of Montserrat)

Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society

In this paper, I will start by drawing some theoretical distinctions in order to clarify how I understand the relationship between the fostering of religious women and the promotion of women in general, both in the Church and in society. In the second part, I will identify four characteristics of the life of religious women that are emancipatory for religious women in particular, and for women in general. Third, I will present two historical examples of religious women who have contributed decisively to the development of Christian theology and to the deepening of the notion of human freedom and human agency.

1.

Theoretical disctinctions

1.

Fostering the participation of religious women in society and in the Church is not the same as fostering the participation of women in general in society and in the Church

Sadly, the participation of religious women continues to be promoted in some cultures and groups, inside and outside of the Christian tradition, in an effort to consolidate the subservience of women to men. Historical research, however, shows that, starting with Mary of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene in the 1stcentury and continuing until Th8rHse of Lisieux in the 20th-century, women have rarely conformed themselves willingly to the patriarchal ideal of submission and inferiority. Instead, they have had to be more or less brutally forced into it during their lives, and most particularly after their deaths, in order to be presented as appropriate inspirational and devotional figures. That being said, it is also clear that religious women continue to defend the submission of women. For example, the majority of women who were teaching in religious orders during the Franco regime in Spain educated girls in the patriarchal mindset. More recently, as I was considering becoming more active in the politics of my country, a very friendly

82

Teresa Forcades i Vila

and sincere old nun of my monastery volunteered her advice to me with the words: “Let the men be in the first-line. Our place is the rearguard”.

2.

Participation of women and religious women in society and Church is not the same as having a feminist consciousness

Beginning around the time of Pope John Paul II, there has been a trend in the Catholic Church that openly promotes the participation of women in society and in the Church, but does so under the premise of John Pauls II’s theology of the body. This view operates under the premise that women are by nature nurturing and welcoming, and more able to support the fostering and the promotion of others – particularly their husbands – than to develop their own personality or life-project. In order to acknowledge the need for the talent of women in the Church, in 1994, Pope John Paul II founded a cloistered feminine monastery within the Vatican premises (Mater Ecclesiae Monastery). The religious women in that monastery came from different religious orders and stayed there for five years. Their main task was to pray for the Pope and also to care for some of his needs (washing and ironing his clothes, providing him with fresh fruits and vegetables daily, and with a freshly cut bouquet of a special type of white rose known as ‘John Paul II rose’). The Pope visited them twice a year to celebrate the Eucharist. Every five years a different feminine religious order was asked to take responsibility for the Pope’s monastery ; the first nuns were sent back to their original communities and a new set of volunteer nuns were asked to replace them. The Poor Clares lived in the monastery from 1994 to 1999, the discalced Carmelites from 1999 to 2004, and by the time it was the turn of my religious order, the Benedictines, the Vatican staff were finding it difficult to recruit religious women who willingly wanted to participate in that project. In 2013, the monastery Mater Ecclesiae ceased to host religious women and became the residence of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI.

2.

Emancipatory characteristics of the life of women religious

There are four characteristics that apply to most religious women, be it Christian or not, which can be identified as fostering the emancipation of women in general. These are: greater literacy and education, social responsibility, bonding with other women, and the opportunity to deepen one’s unique subjectivity.

Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society

1.

83

Greater literacy and education

The reading and reciting of sacred Scriptures and other pious and devotional texts have always been central aspects of most religions. Consequently, religious women have had, through the ages, greater literacy and education than women in the general population. Christian religious women, in particular, have established schools for girls and have fought for the access of women to higher education. The English Catholic Mary Ward (1585–1845), founder of the sisters of Loreto, was a true pioneer in that sense. She had to fight against the institutional Church to foster the high education of women, for which she was persecuted and proscribed, and as a result, was not officially recognized as the founder of her own religious order until 1909. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI declared her venerable, the first of three steps on the path to being declared a saint.

2.

Social responsibility

Not having had children or families of their own, religious women hold many socially relevant responsibilities in their communities and often beyond them. A most striking example are the European abbesses of the Middle Ages, who had ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictional power within their territories, and were granted the official authority symbols of mitre and staff. However, more relevant still is the fact that, in order to organize themselves, each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of religious women communities that have ever existed had to elect a superior and a council of sisters to assist her. The offices held by these women have received different names in different traditions and moments in history, but, whatever the name (abbess, prioress, mother superior, mother general, sister counselor, and so on), these women were granted authority to rule and tended to expand their self-organizing beyond the boundaries decreed by the male rulers. The imposition of strict clausure for religious women and the ongoing fight to control it bears witness to this.

3.

Bonding with other women

The patriarchal household is organized such that women are granted their social identity through bonding with men as daughters, mothers, sisters, spouses, or lovers. Experiencing one’s basic social bonding with other women is in and of itself subversive of the patriarchal order. Patriarchal feminine identity is linked to the sexual and reproductive function. Having young women freely renounce

84

Teresa Forcades i Vila

their sexuality and reproductive abilities, and thereby choosing virginity instead has been and remains a source of unease when not directly a scandal. I remember being struck in 1996 by the Harvard Divinity School visiting professor Ding-hwa Evelyn Hsieh’s seminar on Buddhist nuns in 16th-century China. I was 30 years old at the time and had already decided to enter a Benedictine monastery (which I did in 1997). What struck me was how utterly negative most of the stories preserved in the popular historical sources were about women who wanted to become nuns (e. g., they are ugly, they have been left by a lover, they are sick, they are selfish, they are brainwashed, etc.) and how similar, practically identical, those stories from 16th-century Buddhist China to the stories told in 4th-century Christian Mediterranean societies about women who wanted to become nuns.

4.

The opportunity to deepen one’s unique subjectivity and have ‘a room of one’s own’

Living in a religious community has not always meant having ‘a room of one’s own’ in the physical or literal sense. Monastic or convent dormitories have often been communitarian. Nevertheless, the discovery of one’s inner world and the expectation that one’s own life is to be experienced in a reflective and personally responsible manner is what gives religious life its identity. Solitude, silence, and meditation, complementing the experience of orderly interaction with one’s sisters, have fostered the development of original female subjectivities and have prompted passionate reflections on the meaning of personal freedom.

3.

Historical examples1

1.

Gertrud of Helfta (13th century)

The discovery of a God able to create and to honor human freedom to its last consequences led 13th-century German theologian, Gertrude of Helfta (1256– 1302), together with her monastic sisters, to develop a Christology alternative to the hegemonic Pantocrator Christology of the High Middle Ages. The dominant image emphasized Christ’s power to rule and to impose His Law on all creatures. He was conceived in the image and likeness of an Emperor, a commanding and sovereign Lord exercising His supreme authority from above. 1 The historical examples are taken from Teresa Forcades, Faith and Freedom (Polity Press, 2016).

Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society

85

In the context of such dominant view, it is surprising that in Gertrude’s first experience of God, Jesus appears to her as a young boy of sixteen with no majestic attributes. At the time of this experience, Gertrude was a mature nun of twentysix that had been living in the monastery since the age of five. From that first experience onwards, Gertrude’s understanding of Jesus grows ever more intimate as she starts to develop the idea of God’s vulnerability without abandoning the idea of God’s majesty or God’s transcendence. It is precisely the simultaneity of God’s transcendence and God’s vulnerability that becomes the central tenet of Gertrude’s theology. In order to grasp adequately this aspect of Gertrude’s theology, it is particularly revealing to compare the inner experience that she describes in chapter VIII of her book, The Herald of Divine Love, with her description in chapter XIV. On both occasions, Gertrude is participating in the mass of Sunday XV at the ordinary liturgical time. On both occasions, the experience takes place after chanting the antiphon of the day : ‘Be my protector’. In her first experience, Jesus offers his heart to her as a promised land in which one finds rest and protection: “Touching during the recitation of these verses your blessed chest with your venerable hand, you showed me which one was the land that your endless liberality was promising me.” In her second experience, the roles are surprisingly reversed and Jesus is the one looking for comfort and rest in Gertrude’s heart: “You made me understand by the words of this introit, only Object of my love, that, being wearied by the persecutions and outrages that so many people inflict on you, you looked for my heart, that you might repose therein. Therefore, each time that I entered therein during these three days, you appeared to me as if lying down there like a person exhausted by extreme languor.” The experience of God’s vulnerability and need is possible for Gertrude because of the Incarnation, that most distinctive and peculiar of all Christian claims: God took flesh, existed as a human being in time and space in all God’s plenitude. In early Christianity, this idea seemed plainly absurd to those who were wise, and to those who were religious it seemed outrageous. It is likely that this continues to be the case today. The idea of God does not agree well with the idea of limitations. And yet, the limits that our spatiality and our temporality impose on us are never in fact obstacles to the realization of our potential for love (our divine potential) in all its fullness. These limits are indeed the condition of possibility for our freedom in the same way that the air is the condition of possibility for Kant’s dove: The dove is convinced that without the resistance of the air, it would fly quicker, wrote Kant in the introduction of his Critique of Pure Reason. (c.f. KrV, B 8) Trust, freedom, joy, depth, intimacy, body, serenity, light, repose, kiss, and sweetness are some of the words that keep reappearing in Gertrude’s writings. They express how she experienced God and how she talked about God to the many pilgrims who queued at the door of the monastery to talk to her and to her

86

Teresa Forcades i Vila

sisters. The theological circle of Helfta is responsible for having started the tradition of the ‘sacred heart’ of Jesus, duly understood not as a kitsch depiction of superficial sweetness, but as a taking seriously God’s invitation to friendship and personal intimacy. Gertrude left behind her childish quest for an almighty controlling God in order to discover that God was indeed vulnerable, and was expecting and actually needing from her the unique and original act of love that only she could perform and that needed to be constantly renewed. Gertrude discovered that God expected such a personal relationship of love from her and from each of us. The striking combination of God’s majesty and God’s vulnerability is the theological novum introduced by the nuns of Helfta, a novum that reflects the gospel at its purest. Gertrude described this double dimension of the unique love of God with the image of the heart and the two rays of light: golden for the divinity, rose for the flesh of the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, God has undergone what all classical notions of God most abhor, that is, change. God has changed: it has acquired a body that, through the resurrection, has been incorporated into God’s self for all eternity. The nuns of Helfta did talk to each other about these inner experiences and did help each other to take seriously the challenges they involved, but each of them were utterly alone when facing them. In the process, they were discovering the depths of what modern language calls ‘subjectivity’; they were true 13th-century pioneers of the discovery of subjectivity and individual freedom; they anticipated the ‘devotio moderna’ and were transformed by their experience in a way that gave them authority to inspire others in the path to personal fulfillment and joy. They are an example of female leadership that escaped patriarchal control and developed in a seemingly natural and daring way.

2.

M. Jesús de Ágreda (17th century)

Another pioneer in exploring subjectivity and individual freedom to its ends was the 17th-century Spanish nun and theologian, Mar&a Jesffls de ]greda (1602– 1665). She argued that the maternity of Mary of Nazareth, proclaimed ‘mother of God’ by the Christian tradition, was the theological locus of human freedom. Her approach can be most succinctly expressed by saying that the goal of human life is to ‘bring to light the Light’, the Light with the capital ‘L’ being God, while the expression ‘to bring to light’ being taken in the sense that it has in Spanish: to give birth. The goal of human life is ‘to bring to light the Light’, to give birth to God, to become ‘a mother of God’. The expression ‘mother of God’ is a translation of the Greek Theotokos that, in a literal way, translates to ‘the one who gives birth to God’. Therefore, this is the idea: God can only exist in space and

Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society

87

time if ‘born’ from a human being, that is, if a human being freely accepts – as Mary of Nazareth did – to conceive and to give birth to God. The Christian tradition claims that, approximately two thousand years ago, this happened literally, biologically, in Mary of Nazareth and that, as a consequence, God was physically conceived and born as a human being and then lived around thirty-three years and ended up being executed by the State as a criminal. It is an astonishing claim that theology takes this at face value and then proceeds to analyze its consequences. For Mar&a Jesffls de ]greda, the main consequence is an immediate validation of human freedom: God could not have become human without the free assent of Mary of Nazareth. De ]greda takes a few pages of her book, The Mystical City of God, to describe how Mary reacts to God’s request, how she listens, how she assesses critically what she has heard and poses her question: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? She draws the attention to how Mary dwells in herself and takes her time to ponder the proposal and its possible consequences. According to the gospel of Luke, Mary finally answers: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me [fiat mihi] according to thy word. De ]greda analyzes this answer and wonders which is the word of God that Mary is ready to let be heard within her. Inspired by the opening sentence of the gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, de ]greda refers Mary’s ‘fiat’ [fiat mihi] to the first word that God pronounces in the Bible, that is: Fiat lux (let it be light). These are the words pronounced by God in the book of Genesis on the first day of Creation. What ‘light’ is it that God is talking about? God cannot refer to the light of the sun because the sun is not created until the fourth day. The light of the first day of Creation that brings cosmos out of chaos is no other than the Logos (the Word) conceived as the ‘principle of intelligibility’ of the world; it is the light of enlightenment, of comprehension and understanding, of making sense. The Logos-Word that existed from the beginning as the second person of the Trinity becomes the principle of intelligibility of Creation when God contracts (tzimtzum) in order to make room for us (perichorese). The existence of the second person of the Trinity implies that in God there is diversity : there is in God from all eternity a truly ‘other’ of the Father that is the ‘condition of possibility’ for the historical existence of the world as truly ‘other’ from God. In the beginning of Creation, God declares: Fiat lux. In a given moment in history, Mary declares: Fiat mihi, and in doing so, she ‘brings to light the Light’. Only at this moment is Creation completed, when the Logos-Light is present in it not only as its ‘principle of intelligibility’, but also as the Logos really is: as a person. The divine person becomes historical and reveals to the world the fullness of God’s free (gracious) love. In the Fiat of Mary of Nazareth, Creation finds its fulfillment. Our goal as persons made in the image of God is none other than to ‘bring to light the Light’. The Logos cannot exist in the world without us. The

88

Teresa Forcades i Vila

maternity of Mary is unique and extraordinary in its historicity because only she has born God in the flesh. Nonetheless, Incarnation and Redemption only reach their goal when each of us freely disposes herself, as Mary did, for a loving dialogue with God that will leave her metaphorically pregnant. This dialogue need not be explicitly Christian or even religious: according to the first letter of John, where there is love, there is God. Opening oneself to personal love is necessary in order to find meaning in life; personal love (loving somebody who is free to say no to you) is the Light with a capital ‘L’, the principle of intelligibility without which the world makes no sense. Each of the chapters of de ]greda’s book finish with an intervention by Mary of Nazareth that not only ratifies what the author has argued in the chapter, but also introduces some corrections and modifications. At the end of the chapter, where de ]greda explains Mary’s Fiat, Mary herself declares: “My daughter, I see you are admired, and with reason, for having known with a new light the mystery of God’s humbleness in uniting with the human nature in the womb of a poor maiden as I was. But now I want you to turn your attention to yourself and ponder that God’s humbleness was not to favor me alone, but to favor you as much as me. The Lord’s Mercy knows no end and He enjoys and takes care of each person who cares to welcome Him as if that person were the only existing creature in the world and if only for her He had become man. Hence, thank with all the strength of your affection the coming of the Lord to the world as if you were alone in it; and then thank Him afterwards because He came exactly in that personal way for each one. And if you understand and confess with vivid faith that God self, infinite in attributes and eternal in majesty, is the one who came to me and took human flesh in my entrails, then you have to understand and confess as well that the same God is looking for you, calling you, taking care of you, caressing you and turning Himself fully to you, as if you were God’s only creature; ponder well and consider what responsibility that entails and turn your understanding into vivid acts of faith and love, for all has been given to you by such a King and Lord that came to you when you could not search for God nor reach God.”2 The summit of Creation has started in Mary of Nazareth, but it is still unfinished. It will only finish when each of us acts like her and expresses from the most intimate center of her freedom the Fiat that brings to light the Light.

2 Mar&a Jesffls de ]greda. La m&stica ciudad de Dios. Manuscript from 1660. Part 2, Book III, Chapter 11, Paragraph 141. The translation into English is my own.

Religious Women as Vanguard of Women Participation in Church and Society

4.

89

Conclusion

The thesis of the paper has been that, while the existence of religious women in and of itself has to be considered neutral regarding the emancipation of women (it can be liberating or not), it is nevertheless possible to identify some characteristics of the life of women religious that, when present, have been able in the past, and are still able in the present, to foster emancipation for women. The theology of Gertrud of Helfta and M. Jesffls de ]greda has been sketched in order to illustrate the significance and transformative power of the work and life of some religious women.

Margaret Beirne RSC (Sydney)

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

1.

Introduction

In 2002, the International Theological Commission published its Report on Women Deacons, Le diaconat: 8volution et perspectives.1 Section I of Chapter I makes a passing reference to “the men and women collaborators of Saint Paul” (Rom 16:3–5; Phil 4:3). Nevertheless, when giving examples from the New Testament in Section III, not a single reference is made to women co-workers. Such consistent omission in official Vatican documents reflects centuries of failure to acknowledge women’s leadership roles in the Church. Yet the New Testament itself provides ample evidence that women were recognised as leaders in the early Christian communities. This paper will argue that the Gospels and the letters of Paul, in spite of the apparent dominance of male disciples, provide a solid scriptural basis for a greater role for women at every level of leadership within the Church.

2.

Paul and his co-workers

According to Acts, when Paul arrives in Philippi on his second missionary journey, he finds a group of women gathered on the Sabbath for prayer (Acts 16:13). No men are mentioned as being present, yet Paul proceeds to share the good news with them. The wealthy businesswoman Lydia responds wholeheartedly and prevails on Paul to accept her hospitality : “and she would not take no for an answer” (v.15).2 1 In the Introduction to her recent edited work Women Deacons? Essays with Answers, Phyllis Zagano recommends that, because of the problems with the English translation, “the serious reader is well advised to read the French original”. See Women Deacons? Essays with Answers. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016) xii. 2 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 302.

92

Margaret Beirne

When Paul and Silas are moving on from Philippi, they call in to farewell Lydia and “comfort the brothers” indicating that she had lost no time evangelising others and hosting them in her own home (Acts 16:40). It would seem that Lydia had become and continued to be the leader of the Philippian community, hosting the gatherings, perhaps even the Eucharist, in her own house.3 On the other hand, and at first sight, it would appear that Paul is not a champion of women and their potential role in missionary activity. In 1 Corinthians 11, he insists that women should wear the customary head covering when celebrating the Eucharist. He then links this to an argument that seems to be based on the male superiority of the creation account in Genesis 2:4b–25 and negatively on the equality of Gen 1:27. Paul writes: “A man is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflectionof man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.” (1 Cor 11:7–9) However, when this passage is placed in its literary context, we note that it is introduced by Paul with a commendation that the community has maintained “the traditions just as I have handed them on to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Significantly, it is followed immediately by Paul’s scathing criticism of the way in which their behaviour towards the poor when they come together to celebrate the Eucharist is a mockery of the body of Christ (11:17–22). He then recalls the central theological “tradition” regarding the Eucharist (11:23–27). In this whole chapter, Paul is concerned with the traditions he has faithfully handed on to the community. What can be missed in the discussion about proper head coverings, is that Paul is not saying a woman should not pray or prophesy (v.5), but that when she does so, she should be suitably dressed.4 He is taking for granted that women do in fact exercise such a ministry. In Romans 16, Paul refers to a number of women who are his co-workers. Prisca and her husband Aquila are “co-workers” (sumeqco}r lou, v.3), the same word Paul uses of Titus (2 Cor 8:23) and Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25). Then there is Mary, “who has worked very hard (pokk± 1jop_asem) among you” (v.6). In the next verse, Paul greets Junia who, together with Andronicus, is described as “prominent among the apostles” (1p_sgloi 1m toi˜r !post|koir, v.7). In the scholarly debate about the gender of Youm_a, the weight of evidence is strongly in

3 See Teresa J. Calpino, “‘The Lord opened her heart’: boundary-crossing in Acts 16:13–16,” Annali di storia dell’esegesi, July 2011, 81–91, who suggests that the ideal early converts in Acts were the God-fearers such as Lydia and Cornelius: “She[Lydia] is represented as an ideal female member of the cult of the risen Christ: a foreigner, a merchant, a woman who acts outside male authority, and a worshipper of the God of Israel.” (91). 4 See the chapter “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16”, in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

93

favour of her being a woman, not least because from Origen and John Chrysostom and up to the Middle Ages, her gender was assumed.5 At the head of this list, Paul commends “our sister” Phoebe, a “deacon (di\jomom) of the church at Cenchreae” (Rom 16:1).6 The Greek word di\jomom is the singular accusative of di\jomor, which in every other occurrence in the New Testament is translated “deacon”. Paul uses it of his own ministry (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23) and less often of his co-workers (here and in Phil 1:1). While its use as an ‘office’ is sometimes said to have originated with the appointment of “the seven” in Acts 6:1–6, the term is not used there as a noun, but rather as a designated function (diajomei˜m tqap]fair). However, it soon became much more than this, at least with Stephen (Acts 6:8–7:60) and Philip (Acts 8:4–25); cf. the reference to Philip’s “daughters who practised prophecy” (Acts 21:9).7 In his letter to the Philippians, Paul mentions other women who came to have a significant role; Euodia and Syntyche may well have been among the women he first encountered along with Lydia. Most studies of these verses (Phil 4:2–3) focus on the presumed disagreement between these two women and tend to overlook what follows: “these women who have contended with me in the cause of the gospel along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers (aVtimer 1m t` eqaccek_\ sum^hkgs\m loi let±, v.3)”. This description is almost identical to Paul’s description of Timothy who “served with me in the gospel” (s»m 1lo· 1do}keusem eQr t¹ eqacc]kiom, 2:22) and Epaphroditus “co-worker”, (sumeqc¹m, 2:25), thereby acknowledging they exercise a ministry comparable to Paul’s closest collaborators.8 Arguably, the most powerful defence of the equality of women and men is in Galatians. Having admonished the community, Paul claims the grace of having been given the same authority as the original apostles (Gal 1:11–12), chosen by Christ for the work to which God has destined him (1:15–16). It is not adherence to the Law that saves us, but faith in Christ (2:16). Therefore, no one is excluded from this revelation (2:16); on the contrary, “There is no longer Jew or Greek,

5 For a detailed study of the historical treatment of Junia, see Bernadette Brooten, “Junia… outstanding among the apostles”, in Women Priests, Arlene and Edward Swidler eds. (Paulist Press, 1977), 141–144. 6 For a brief defence of translating this term as ‘deacon’, not ‘deaconess’ (NRSV), see Brendan Byrne, Romans (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 447–448. 7 For a thorough study of this issue regarding Phoebe, see Corrado Marucci, ‘The “Diaconate” of Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2) according to Modern Exegesis’ in Phyllis Zagano (ed.) Women Deacons? Essays with Answers (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 1–12. 8 Cf. John Chrysostom wrote of Euodia and Syntyche: “These women seem to me to be chief of the Church which was there (that is, Philippi) and Paul commends them to some notable man whom he calls ‘co-worker’ and to Phoebe our sister who is a minister of the church in Cenchrea.” (Homily 13 on Philippians, PG 62).

94

Margaret Beirne

there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

3.

The four Gospels

Without doubt, male disciples and especially “the Twelve” are centre stage in the Gospel accounts of the life and mission of Jesus. However, across the four Gospels, the role of women in this mission is highlighted in various ways. Moreover, it grows in significance from the brief references in Mark, the expansions in Matthew’s redaction and the distinct and explicit narrative features in Luke. However, the Fourth Gospel portrays the missionary role of women disciples as genuinely equal to that of men.9

3.1

The Gospel according to Mark

Apart from the reference to Peter’s mother-in-law who “serves them” (digj|mei aqtoi˜r, Mark 1:31b) after she is healed by Jesus, and the case of the Canaanite woman whose daughter Jesus cures (Mark 7:24–30), explicit references to a role for Markan women disciples begins only with the Passion Narrative (Mark 14–15). The first incident concerns an unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’s head with costly ointment. When she is criticised by the host, Jesus staunchly defends her : “Let her alone… she has performed a good service for me: she has anointed my body beforehand for burial” (jak¹m 5qcom Aqc\sato 1m 1lo_, Mark 14:6). He then makes an extraordinary claim on her behalf: “Wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (d 1po_gsem avtg kakgh^setai eQr lmgl|sumom aqt/r, Mark 14:9). In Mark’s account of the death and resurrection of Jesus, a large group of women is given the role of faithful witnesses (15:41b). At his crucifixion, they are said to be “looking on from a distance” (15:40). Three of them are named: “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (15:40). The evangelist then identifies them as followers of Jesus who “had served him in Galilee and followed him to Jerusalem” (Ajoko}houm aqt` ja· digj|moum aqt`, 15:41).10 The same three women are then identified as those who come to 9 Cf. Raymond Brown: “One is still surprised to see to what extent in the Johannine community women and men were already on an equal level in the fold of the Good Shepherd.” The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979), 198. 10 The verb akoleuthein identifies them as disciples; see John Donahue & Daniel Harrington,

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

95

the tomb at sunrise “when the Sabbath was over, to anoint his body” (16:1). Finding the tomb empty, they are told of Jesus’s resurrection by “a young man in white” and commissioned to announce this to “the disciples and Peter” (16:5–7). The original ending of the Gospel describes their failure to carry out this commission “because they were afraid”, 1voboOmto c\q, 16:8).11 Such a stark conclusion has a ring of authenticity : they would not be the last disciples of the risen Jesus to disobey in face of a challenge!

3.2

The Gospel according to Matthew

In general, Matthew follows his Markan source, but frequently changes details and inserts ‘fulfilment quotations’ in order to accommodate his Jewish Christian readers. For example, in their accounts of the non-Jewish woman who begs Jesus to heal her daughter, where the evangelist Mark describes her as “a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin” (Mark 7:26), Matthew refers to her as a Canaanite woman who cries out: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David” (Matt 15:22–23). In the narrative that follows, the Matthean Jesus praises this ‘pagan’ woman: “Woman, great is your faith” (Matt 15:28).12 The incident of the woman anointing Jesus’s feet / head is one of the few that occurs in all four Gospels (Matt 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; John 11:2–7). It is also one of the few times Matthew preserves his Markan source almost word for word. Not only is this so for the narrative movement (just before the passion account), the historical setting (Simon the leper’s house), and theological message (her anticipated recognition of the religious significance of Jesus’s imminent death and burial), but also for the conclusion with the same climactic prophecy as Mark: “Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her” (Matt 26:13). In the first pericope of the resurrection narrative, Matthew follows Mark (Mark 16:1–8): early morning, first day of the week, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” go to the tomb, discover it empty, and receive the news of Jesus’s resurrection and commission (Matt 28:1–7). Where the Markan women run away in fear (16:8), those in Matthew’s account respond with “fear and great joy” (let± v|bou ja· waq÷r lec\kgr, v.8). This “joy” leads into their “going quickly” to carry out their commission. As though in response, they are suddenly blessed The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), p. 449, n. 41. The juxtaposition of the two verbs confirms it. 11 Cf. Donahue & Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, 460–461. 12 See Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina series. Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1998, 237.

96

Margaret Beirne

with the appearance of the risen Jesus who greets them with the word: Wa_qete· “Rejoice!” (Matt 28:9).13 What follows is of great importance in the support of women’s future role in proclaiming the good news. It is to them that the risen Lord first appears. This statement is confirmed by his commission to them to take the good news to the other disciples. Unlike other resurrection appearances, they recognise him immediately, fall at his feet and worship him (pqosej}mgsam aqt`). He then reassures them by responding to their initial fear : “Do not be afraid” (Lµ vobei˜she, v.10).

3.3

The Gospel according to Luke

The Gospel of Luke has often been credited as the one that gives most support to women disciples and their role in sharing the mission of Jesus.14 This is largely based on the comparatively large number of Lukan women characters both named and unnamed. In the Lukan Infancy Narrative, Elizabeth (Luke 1:5–25) and Mary (Lk 1:26–2:56) are portrayed as women of faith and complete trust in whatever God is asking of them. For her part, Mary is presented as ‘the ideal disciple’15 throughout the Gospel, beginning with her unqualified acceptance of God’s invitation: “Behold the servant of the Lord (B do}kg juq_ou); let it be with me according to your word” (1:38). She immediately goes to visit her kinswoman Elizabeth and the two recognise the amazing work God is doing through them epitomised in the ‘Magnificat’, Mary’s time-honoured hymn of praise that identifies her again as a woman both humble (tape_mysim ) and prophetic (“from now all generations will call me blessed”, !p¹ toO mOm lajaqioOs_m le p÷sai aR cemea_, 1:47).16 Unique to Luke is an explicit statement made in the context of Jesus’s Galilean ministry (Lk 8:1–3) that a group of women accompanied him and “the twelve” during the mission in Galilee and to Jerusalem, where they became primary witnesses to his death and resurrection.17 Such an acknowledgement also occurs retrospectively in Mk 15:40–41 and Matt 27:55–56. 13 Often translated as “Greetings” (so NRSV) but more accurately, “Rejoice”, the same root as “joy” in verse 8. 14 For a brief overview, see Beverley Roberts Gaventa, “Mary” in Mary Mother of God Carl E. Braaten & Robert W. Jenson eds. (Grand Rapids: Wm. E. Eerdmans, 2004), 18–35. 15 Gaventa, “Mary”, 22. 16 On Mary’s prophetic call and role, see Barbara E. Reid. “An Overture to the Gospel of Luke”, Currents in Theology and Mission, Dec. 2012, 428–434, 428–9. 17 This short ‘summary’ underplays the fact that it is clear the women were “with Jesus” (the core meaning of discipleship) throughout his ministry. See Richard Baukham, Gospel Women Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans, 2002 (T.& T. Clark, 2002), p. 110.

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

97

All three Synoptics attest to the fact that the “women followed and ministered to him”, Ajoko}houm aqt` ja· digj|moum aqt`, Mk 15:41//). “To follow” and “to serve” are the very definition of Christian discipleship; clearly, this is attesting to the fact that these women were disciples of Jesus and known to be such across the early Christian communities. Three of them are named, further suggesting that their identity was familiar to the Lukan community : Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza and Susannah and “many (unnamed) others” (6teqai pokka_, Lk 8:3). For women, married or otherwise, to accompany the male group, and for an extended period, would have been most unusual and in fact, rabbinic law forbade women from leaving their homes, let alone wandering around with a group of men. Their role is spelt out: “who served them out of their own means” (1j t_m rpaqw|mtym aqtai˜r, 8:3b). However, in spite of highlighting these important references to women disciples, some feminist scholars claim that the overall effect actually downplays their role in Jesus’s mission, in particular in this passage that their role was one of servitude rather than service. Against this, it can be argued that, just as the male disciples had, they also had given up home and family (and social status?) to follow Jesus. Baukham goes even further when he writes that the translation should read “that both the twelve and some women were with Jesus” (ja· oR d~deja s»m aqt`, ja· cumai˜j]r timer, 8:1c–2a).18 Another Lukan literary feature is that of ‘gender pairs’, an observation made as early as 1949 and accepted and developed by many Lukan scholars since.19 In an exhaustive study, Turid Karlsen Seim claims that this literary phenomenon in Luke achieves “a gender completeness or complementarity” that reflects gender inclusiveness in this Gospel.20 A final fascinating example is that of the two disciples whom the risen Lord encounters on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:13–35). Tradition has taken for granted that these are two male disciples (even of “the Twelve”), but in fact, the Greek is: d}o 1n aqt_m (Lk 24:1) correctly translated by the NRSV as “two of them”, and repeated later in the naming of “one of them” as Cleophas (Lk 24:18). I have often wondered if the other one is “Mary the wife of Cleophas” (Jn 19:27), a suggestion recently illustrated in modern iconography. If so, we would then have an example of a male and female disciple travelling together with Jesus by their side and sharing with Him “the breaking of the bread”(Lk 24:35).

18 Baukham, Gospel Women, 111. 19 For a comprehensive list, see Margaret Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: a Genuine Discipleship of Equals JSNT, 242 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), p. 17, n. 82. 20 Turid Karlsen Seim, The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), p. 20.

98 3.4

Margaret Beirne

The Gospel according to John

Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we find a number of ‘gender pairs’; while fewer in number than in Luke, they fulfil a much more substantial literary and theological role.21 There are Johannine ‘pairs’ of characters that are not of opposite gender such as Martha and Mary, Peter and the Beloved Disciple, and Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. The six ‘gender pairs’ are: 1. The mother of Jesus (2:1–11) and the royal official (4:46–54) 2. Nicodemus (3:1–21) and the Samaritan Woman (4:1–42) 3. The man born blind (9:1–41) and Martha (11:1–54) 4. Mary of Bethany and Judas (12:1–8) 5. The mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple (19:25–27) 6. Mary Magdalene (20:11–18) and Thomas (20:24–29) It is beyond the limits of this paper to expand on each of these and to show how they support “a genuine discipleship of equals”. Instead, I will focus briefly on the two female characters who exercise an extraordinary missionary role in their response to Jesus’ invitation.

a)

The Samaritan Woman

When the Johannine Jesus encounters the feisty Samaritan woman, she reacts by reminding him that she is “a woman and a Samaritan” (John 4:9), a point that does not seem to affect Jesus in the least – he knows what he is about! In the subsequent dialogue, her responses reflect her increasing capacity to engage in theological dialogue and, with it, to grow in understanding the true nature of “the living water” and to be open to the self-revelation he is about to make to her. When she acknowledges that he is “a prophet” (4:19), Jesus then pushes her further into understanding the nature of true worship (4:21–24) to which she responds: “I know the Messiah is coming; when he comes, he will proclaim all things to us,” to which Jesus responds by doing just that. She becomes the recipient of the first “I am” statement in the Fourth Gospel: “I am (he) the one who is speaking with you” (9c~ eQli, b kak_m soi, 4:26).22 Filled with this new and astonishing insight, she rushes off to share it with her villagers. That they believe her witness and return with her to Jesus says a great deal about her ability to communicate to others what she has received (4:39–40). 21 Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 25–26. 22 Sandra Schneiders. Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 139.

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

99

She thus becomes the first ‘missionary’ in this Gospel and fulfils in practice what the disciples are still to learn (4:31–38). That many of the villagers come to believe in Jesus on the strength of his own word (4:41–42) takes nothing from her testimony, but sets the pattern for all future evangelisation: the task for all disciples is to lead people to believe in Jesus.

b)

Mary Magdalene

The other Johannine woman ‘missionary’ is Mary Magdalene (John 19:27; 20:1–2, 11–18). Here as in the Synoptics, she is the one constant figure among the group of women who witness Jesus’s death (Mk 15:40; Mt 27:55–56; Lk 23:49), visit the tomb and receive the good news of his resurrection (Mk 16:1–6; Mt 28:1–6; Lk 24:1–9), and are commissioned to bring this message to the other disciples (Mk 16:7; Mt 23:7; Lk 24:7–9). Only Matt and John record a resurrection appearance to these women; in Mt to the group, but in John to Mary Magdalene alone (Mt 28:9–10; John 20:11–18). The appearance to Mary Magdalene in the Fourth Gospel is the first in a series of Johannine resurrection appearances in John 20. On either side of the appearance by the risen Jesus to the disciples (Jn 20:19–23) are parallel individual encounters with Mary Magdalene (20:11–18) and Thomas (20:24–29a). A characteristic of these two Johannine disciples is their desire to touch the risen Lord, but for different reasons.23 Where Mary’s is an immediate loving response on realising that he is alive, Thomas uses it at first as a necessary ‘proof ’ for believing that, although when he actually sees the risen Lord, he utters the most profound creedal statement of the Gospel: “My Lord and my God!”(20:29). However, it is Mary Magdalene to whom the fourth evangelist unequivocally attributes the role of the primary witness to the resurrection of Jesus. In the exquisite description of this personal encounter, she does not at first recognize the risen Lord by sight, but rather by hearing his voice, a clear mark of her being one of “his own” (Jn 20:15–16; cf. Jn 10:3–4: “the shepherd… calls his own and they follow him because they recognize his voice”.) “Jesus says to her : Mary. Turning, she says to him in Hebrew, Rabbouni (Teacher). Jesus says to her, Do not cling to me (ûptou, go on touching, clasping) me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father ; but go and tell my brothers/sisters: I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:16–17). She thus becomes the first and unique recipient of the good news of the resurrection and its associated theological implications for the risen Jesus. Immediately, she obeys this unique 23 See Dorothy Lee, “Partnership in Easter Faith: the Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20”, JSNT 58 (1995), 37–49, pp. 40–41.

100

Margaret Beirne

commission and announces to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord and the things he had said to her” (:~qaja t¹m j}qiom ja· taOta eWpem aqt0, Jn 20:18). Many centuries later, when commenting on this passage, St Thomas Aquinas calls Mary Magdalene the “apostle to the apostles”. Now, in a papal decree on 3rd June 2016, this title has been officially recognized in the welcome proclamation by Pope Francis that what has been until now a simple memorial has been raised to a liturgical feast on a par with that of the apostles.24 In commenting on this, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship writes: “Thus, as Rabanus Maurus and Saint Thomas Aquinas say, she becomes the apostolorum apostola because she announces to the apostles what in turn they will announce to the whole world… It was with good reason that the Angelic Doctor applied this term to Mary of Magdala, for she is the witness to the risen Christ and announces the message of the Lord’s resurrection just like the rest of the Apostles. For this reason, it is right that the liturgical celebration of this woman should have the same rank of Feast as that given to the celebration of the Apostles in the General Roman Calendar.”25

4.

Conclusion

In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis speaks of the need for women and men to work together in bringing about the kingdom of love and tenderness as God intends, in “a synthesis that enriches both.”26 Last year, in response to a question from women leaders of consecrated life at the UISG Assembly in Rome, the Holy Father responded that he would support a study of how the role of women deacons was exercised in the early Church and, presumably by extension, the whole question of women’s ecclesial leadership. Based on his genuine openness, and the fact that he has appointed six women to the new Commission, there is real hope that this third Vatican attempt to study the question of women deacons will give transparent recognition to the women leaders in the earliest Christian communities as embedded in the New Testament. It is almost forty years since Raymond Brown SSS, arguably the leading Catholic Johannine scholar of the 20th century, commented in regard to John 4:27 – “The disciples, surprised at Jesus’ openness with a woman, still did not dare ask him: ‘What do you want with a woman?’ That may well be a question whose time has come in the church of Jesus Christ.”27 24 For a link to the official decree see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/ documents/sanctae-m-magdalenae-decretum_en.pdf. 25 L’Osservatore Romano, 2016-06-10. 26 Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, para. 139. 27 The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 198.

“Women Leadership in the Church”: Foundations in the New Testament

101

This paper has attempted to give a necessarily brief overview of the positive portrayal in the New Testament of women as disciples and evangelisers. It has thus provided a solid scriptural argument for recognising and bringing about a much greater contribution by women in leadership at every level of the Church. A vision of how such a Church might look is embedded in various ways within the New Testament texts and most clearly in the Fourth Gospel. Leadership within the Christian community is exercised by individuals in a spirit of self-effacing love, exists only – to serve the community’s needs and is – shared in alternating-fashion by women and men alike. In thus providing an – alternative to the patriarchal household-code model of the later Epistles, the discipleship community of equals, which endures in – various degrees in the ‘dangerous memory’ of the Gospels and the Pauline letters, witnesses to a – counter-culture wherein power and domination are replaced by humble and loving service.28

28 Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel, p. 32.

Ramon Echica (Cebu)

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

1.

Introduction: The Problem and its Context

The subject matter of clericalism can be either the clerics or the Church as an institution. The two kinds of clericalism are related, but at the same time distinguishable. Clericalism among the clergy is manifested when priests show a feeling of entitlement to social perks and privileges, when they think that their clerical status gives their word more weight than the word of the faithful, or when they think that they are not answerable to the faithful whom they serve.1 In this kind of clericalism, bishops and priests practically behave as an all-boys club, promoting each other’s interests and defending each other from perceived attacks from the non-members. Without denying that reforms have been instituted, we can look at the past and see how the clergy tried to hide sexual abuses as a good example of what is abominable with this kind of clericalism. Sometimes called hierarchialism, clericalism on the institutional level is shown when the Church excludes the laity in ecclesiastical and moral discourses. Oftentimes, a clericalist church is male-dominated. In the postmodern milieu where the conversation must be kept going, institutional clericalism sets the word of the Church as final. Institutional clericalism is also manifested when the Church highlights her power in terms of numbers, and in pomp and pageantry in the liturgy. A triumphalistic and clericalist church does not feel accountable to secular laws, but instead tries to play the role of a power broker in the political arena.2 A clericalist Church is oftentimes disincarnate, away from the lives of

1 For a critique of the lack of lay participation in the Church today, cf. Paul Lakeland, Catholicism at the Crossroads: How the Laity can Save the Church (New York: Continuum, 2007), and Lakeland, Liberation of the Laity, New York: Continuum, 2003). 2 In this connection, some theologians have called for institutional humility. Cf. Gerard Manion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity : Questions for the Church in our Time, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007). Cf. also Dennis Boyle, Timothy Furry and Pascall Bazzel, eds. Ecclesiology and Exclusion: Boundaries of Being and Belonging in Postmodern Times (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2012).

104

Ramon Echica

concrete people, and more interested in intra-ecclesiastical affairs. She often extols the myth of a Catholic nation and the logic of atemporal truths. Ironically, the laity can also be guilty of clericalism. To put it in another way, the people themselves can be “clericalized.” This is manifested when, out of misplaced deference to men of the cloth or to the church as an institution, they refuse to speak out against clerical abuses. These lay people may join calls for transparency in secular institutions like the state but they exempt the Church from such calls. Many of these lay people are women belonging to exclusively female groups like the Catholic Women’s League and the Mother’s Butler or female-dominated like the Legion of Mary. Needless to say, church people are all too happy to receive help from these women who can be counted on to help in tasks as varied as feeding children and keeping clerical vestments spotless. These lay groups confuse the reign of God with the institutional church, and often show more concern about the interests of the hierarchy over Christian values. The clericalized lay people often see themselves as the long arm of the clergy, and not recognizing that they have their own vocation apart from bishops and priests.3 Since the object of our investigation will be church documents, this essay gives more emphasis to institutional clericalism. We will reflect more specifically on whether the Philippine Catholic church has exercised humility in the performance of her task of preaching the Gospel or whether she has been clericalist in doing her mission. The starting point of our reflections on clericalism in the Philippine context is President Rodrigo Duterte’s seemingly being on the warpath against the Catholic Church as an institution, which he calls the most corrupt. In a press conference, he shows a book detailing abuses done by the clergy and says people will no longer believe in the Church once they read it.4 To be sure, conflicts between the secular government and the Catholic Church are not new in this predominantly Catholic country. Limiting ourselves to the time when the country’s independence was recognized by the United States,5 we can mention some major conflicts, which we try to see from the perspective of the gender issue: – In 1956, the Rizal Bill was proposed in Congress, requiring students to read the novels Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo of the national hero Jose Rizal. Proponents of the bill were well-respected nationalists Claro M. Recto and Jose 3 A description of this type of lay people can be found in Aloysius Cartagenas, Becoming a Leaven of Society : The Catholic Church and Philippine Politics in the Light of the Second Plenary Council (Quezon city : Claretian Publications, 2014, pp. 81–82. 4 The book in question is Aries Rufo, Altar of Secrets: Sex, Politics, and Money in the Philippine Catholic Church (Pasig City : Journalism for National Building Foundation, 2013). 5 For conflicts during the Spanish period, cf. John Schumacher, Readings in Philippine Church History, 2nd ed. (Quezon City : Ateneo, 1987), pp. 114–122.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

105

Laurel. Recto demonstrated in the halls of the senate that the objections raised by the bishops against the novels were reproductions of the objections raised by the friars in the late 19th century. He perceived the irony that the Filipino clergy were in fact exalted by Rizal in the person of Padre Florentino and that if not for Rizal, “there would be no Filipino bishops but only assistant Filipino parish priests.” Opponents of the bill believed that the novels of Rizal were anti-clerical or even anti-church. They reasoned that reading these novels might give the impression that what Rizal described continues to be the state of the clergy at present. The Church moved for its rejection. The bishop of Bacolod invoked the so-called Catholic vote and threatened a senator from Negros, Jose Locsin, with the loss of his senate seat.6 At one time, Archbishop Rufino Santos spoke against the bill in his homily and the Manila Mayor Arsenio Lacson, who was then listening, walked out of the Eucharistic celebration. The bill eventually passed into a law. From the perspective of the theme of Church and gender, we can see the hierarchy going beyond the attempt to downplay the narrative of abuses by the male clergy in the Spanish era. In effect, they tried to reason that the abuses committed to the mother Sisa and her two boys, and to Maria Clara, to name just a few, are a thing of the past. – When Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, most bishops did not pose any objection. However, there were those who already warned against martial law even in its initial stages.7 In the context of the theme of gender, we can be reminded of the words “strong man” as the description of Marcos. There were images of a Marcos as the strong man (Malakas), while his wife was the ever loyal and beautiful woman, (Maganda). The official line of Archbishop of Manila Jaime Cardinal Sin was “critical collaboration” with the Marcos government. As years passed, and especially after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983, the Church became more active in her opposition to the Marcos dictatorship.8 The role of the Church in the 1986 people power and bloodless revolution is well documented. – Conflicts regarding the issue of reproductive health were present during the presidencies of Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and Benigno Aquino III. Just like in the Rizal bill debate, there was also one bishop, then CBCP President and the local ordinary of Tandag, Nereo Odchimar reminded President Aquino of the 6 Cf. Reynaldo C. Ileto, Knowledge and Pacification: On the US Conquest and the Writing of Philippine History (Quezon City : Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2017), p. 239. 7 The list of bishops who opposed martial law even during its initial stages can be found in Pasquale T. Giordano, Awakening to Mission: The Philippine Catholic Church 1965–1981 (Quezon City : New Day, 1988), p. 275, n. 64. 8 For a documentation of the Church’s role in the fight against Marcos dictatorship, cf. Robert I. Youngblood, Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development a d Political Repression in the Philippines, (Quezon City, New Day, 1990).

106

Ramon Echica

possibility of excommunication.9 The Church opposed it with all her might for decades, but the law eventually passed in 2013. Today, a few years after the law was passed, many members of the hierarchy and some lay groups still oppose the law and are active in blocking its implementation. It is interesting to point out, again looking at the problem from the perspective of gender, that at the initial stage of the debate, the usual argument for the pro-RH was “populationbased,” i. e., the need to curb over-population. However, at a later stage, the arguments shifted to the question of the rights of women in particular, or of couples in general, to determine the size of the family. – There were two major conflicts between the hierarchy and the President Ramos’s administration. One was about a conference far from home but whose impact, the Church feared, could be devastating to the traditional concept of the family. This was the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development. Cardinal Sin called for a rally which thousands attended and where a copy of the Cairo draft paper was burned. Secondly, near the end of the term of President Ramos, his supporters pushed for charter change. Most probably with his tacit support. Such a move was opposed by Jaime Cardinal Sin, warning that such move was inopportune and may give rise to a new dictatorship. Cardinal Sin issued an appeal for the Filipinos to join a national day of protest, which gathered around six hundred thousand people, despite the heavy downpour. The attempt to amend the constitution was eventually shelved. – The death penalty was, in principle, abolished by the 1987 constitution except “for heinous crimes as may be defined later by congress.” President Fidel Ramos, following a campaign promise, asked congress to define heinous crimes so that the death penalty could be restored. Indeed, it was restored in 1996. With its restoration, two convicted rapists were executed on separate occasions. Estrada did not heed the pleas of the European Union, the Vatican, and some members of the Philippine Catholic hierarchy. – There are other conflicts which are not yet full-blown, but with the potential of becoming major irritants in Church-State relations. Among them are the possible legalization of divorce, same sex marriage, and euthanasia. We see in these different conflicts that there are times when the Church has opposed strong machismo tendencies of the powerful (dictatorship, death penalty), but there were also times when the Church played the role of the 9 Eleanor R. Dionisio, “Who Speaks for the Church: Catholic Cacophony in the Reproductive Health Debate” in Eleanor R. Dionisio, ed. Becoming a Church of the Poor: Philippine Catholicism after the Second Plenary Council (Quezon City : John Caroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, 2011), p. 25.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

107

benevolent macho, trying to prevent the weak from determining their own fates. In a sense, the above conflicts are inevitable as the Church relates to a secular world, where the state cannot be officially linked to any religious confession. Philosophers like Jurgen Habermas have oftentimes stated that religion does not have a privileged place in political discourses, but must compete in a plurality of ideas. In this regard, many are critical of the stand taken by some bishops, who think that the position of the Church in moral discourses automatically assume a universal validity. Nevertheless, after citing these past, and in some cases ongoing issues, still the case of the relationship between the Duterte administration and the Catholic Church may present some unique elements. Whereas others have opposed the positions taken by the hierarchy, no chief executive in the past has openly called the institution of the Church as corrupt and predicted its irrelevance. No president has claimed to be a victim of clerical abuse. He accused one long dead Jesuit of molesting him while he was still a student of Ateneo de Davao. Duterte in fact has taunted and challenged the bishops to a debate where he can expose the sins of the Church from the beginnings of the papacy, as if he will reveal something which has never been known by many. His adversarial attitude towards the Church hierarchy was already present during the campaign. He cursed the Pope for causing heavy traffic during his visit to Manila. While he has been antagonistic to some Catholic bishops, he has acknowledged his friendship and debt of gratitude to a religious group/sect called Kingdom of God of Jesus Christ whose founder and leader is Pastor Quiboloy. President Duterte consciously projects himself as the typical tough-talking macho. In the campaign, he scandalized even some of his supporters when, talking about a rape-murder tragedy, he mentioned that the victim was so beautiful that she made him think that he, the mayor, should have been the first. He also brought along his live-in partner, who loyally professes that the President’s philandering days are over. Meanwhile, part of his image of toughness is his tirade against the Catholic Church. It would seem that the message is “I am strong enough to go against an institution which others revere.” On the other hand, church people have warned against his connection with death squads. Fr. Armando Picardal, a Redemptorist who was assigned in Davao, exposed that the death squads of Davao city is responsible for the deaths of 1.424 people,10 some of whom were killed due to mistaken identities. Another Redemptorist, Fr. Cris Montajo, warned the people that they might be committing sacrilege if they receive communion while supporting a candidate who is behind the death squads.11 Without naming names, some bishops were obviously referring to 10 “Filipino Priest Lays Bare the Existence of Davao Death Squad.” UCANews.com, April 2, 2016. 11 Sacrilege Communion, Cebu Daily News, April 6, 2016.

108

Ramon Echica

Duterte as someone not worthy of their votes if they discern prayerfully their choices. Archbishop Orlando Cardinal Quevedo warned, “a candidate who promises change could have the same values and behavior that require change.”12 The most obvious reference to Duterte came from a pastoral letter from Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, who quoted the expose of Fr. Picardal to assert that a city with “such a high rate of unsolved killings cannot be called a city of peace and order.”13 Already perceiving that the Church hierarchy was against him during the campaign, the President saw the 2016 election as a referendum between him and the bishops who opposed him. With that framework, he sees his electoral victory as the repudiation of the position of the bishops. Thus, his statements seem to bully the bishops and taunt the Catholic Church. After the elections, on the other hand, the hierarchy continued her criticisms although in a more guarded language. After Duterte was proclaimed the winner, and with the spate of killings of suspected drug lords, CBCP President Socrates Villegas broke his vowed “virtue of silence” by describing the spate of vigilante killings “disturbing.”14 After some eight months of Duterte’s presidency, the CBCP issued a pastoral letter. It is admirably well balanced. It sees the validity of the war on drugs, by criticizing its method. It criticizes both the silence over the drug problem and silence over the killing. It mentions also its awareness of its shortcomings. With the above as the background, we reflect on how the Church should perform her task of promoting Christian values, and denouncing the anti-values, in a context where the national leadership may show antagonism or defiance towards her. How should the Church avoid the temptation to believe that she herself does not need conversion while the others are in need of such? Can the Church participate in the discourse on morals without falling into the pitfalls of clericalism, where she believes her word is necessarily weightier and she alone, not the faithful, receives God’s word, which she then relays to the people? How can the church battle against the iron fist policy of the strong man without making it a fight between two machos. In other words, there is a need for the Church to be prophetic without being clericalist. Can the Church be a countercultural voice without falling into the same errors committed in her previous 12 Cf. Pagadian Diocese.Org. May 2, 2016. 13 Cf. “Archbishop Ledesma Scores Duterte Davao Officials for Mass Murder” Interaksyon, May4, 2016. Other bishops who spoke against electing Duterte without naming him would include, Archbishops Jose Palma and Socrates Villegas. 14 Cf. “Church raises alarm bells over vigilante killings” in CBCPnews.com. June 21, 2016. On his earlier statement that silence would be his response to Duterte’s tirades against the Church, cf. Cf. PaternoEsmaquel, “Bishop Amid Duterte Tirades: There is Virtue in Silence” Rappler, June 5, 2016. Villegas is quoted to have said, “Mine is the virtue of silence before the arrogance of Pilate.” Many noted however, the irony that he had to speak and use words when he extolled the virtue of silence.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

109

confrontations with the secular state? For instance, in the reproductive health debate, it was noted that the Church appealed to the lawmakers’ instinct for selfpreservation when she threatened with exclusion from the so-called Catholic vote.15 It was also overly simplistic when she used labels like team patay and team buhay. In the current dispensation, the Church cannot expect favors from the head of the secular state that is not disposed to be friendly with, or can even be contemptuous of her.16 It is a common observation that the Church in the Philippines has lost a considerable amount of clout in the political arena. But then again, even if we mentally bracket the current situation of a presidency that appears antagonistic to the Church, should she simply not just compete in the marketplace of values and ideas? What can guide the Church in navigating the tricky waters of prophecy and avoiding the unevangelical trap equating the promotion of values with the interests of the hierarchy? To answer our queries, we will try to get some guidelines from documents of the Philippine church herself.

2.

Sources for Reflections on Clericalism in the Philippines

2.1

The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines

If there is one document that can always serve to check clericalism in the Philippine Catholic Church, it is Acts and Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (henceforth, PCP-II). Held twenty-six years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council, PCP-II was held in view of the changing context of the Philippine Church brought about, among others, by Vatican II itself, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, 1986 peaceful revolution, and numerical growth within the Church. At the outset, it is necessary to state that PCP-II does not give us concrete suggestions on how to deal with secular rulers who openly flaunt their opposition to the institutional Church, as is seemingly the case of the Duterte presidency. Not only would that be anachronistic, but it also goes beyond the common practice where church documents deal explicitly only with general principles, 15 Cf. Eric Genilo, “Crossing the Line: Church’s Use of Political Threat against Pro-RH Legislators” Hapag 7 (2010), 63–77. 16 In recent memory, the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was the administration most friendly to the Church hierarchy. Insecure about her own legitimacy, she courted the favors of the hierarchy. But this also resulted into some embarrassing situations for the Church. One such situation was the revelation that some bishops asked for vehicles from the Arroyo administration.

110

Ramon Echica

even if a specific context may most probably be in the mind of the authors. Indeed, PCP-II specifically states in the section on the church and the political community, “We cannot give specific answers to all the specific questions that have been raised. But the general question we can address is how the Church that is a community of disciples… must relate to and act on the conflictive world of politics.”17 Thus, talking only on general principles, we can say first that PCP-II is a repudiation of a clericalist Church. Certainly, PCP-II is not a narcissistic obsession with her institutional self. This is clear when she states that in the Church “equality of dignity in all the members… notwithstanding the diversity of ministry and charisms”18 as it calls on the laity “to participate more fully in the life of the Church”, for they are “not mere objects of pastoral care, passive and compliant recipients of the clergy’s evangelizing efforts.”19 It buttresses such statement when she acknowledges that “No social transformation is genuine and lasting where people themselves do not actively participate in the process.”20 It puts the same point differently in another paragraph, “… integral development of people will be possible only with their corresponding empowerment.”21 It notes the active participation of women in the task of evangelization and liberation versus the relative inactivity of men, although admittedly, it does not give us data on the role of women in the decision-making process of the Church.22 Furthermore, consistent with the abandonment of the idea of the Church as a perfect society, she admits “with humility and sorrow” that the Church as an institution and as a people is flawed and is oftentimes perceived to be “a bastion of conservatism and a defender of the status quo.”23 PCP-II also has several sections on the Church’s relationship with the world and thus the charge of narcissism cannot be leveled against it. In her vision of a renewed Church, PCP-II takes the way of Jesus as a paradigm. Jesus was sent by the Father to bring good news of liberation to the poor. In this regard, the Church embraces the mission of love of preference for the poor and the socially insignificant. The texts most directly pertinent to our discussion would be the section on “The Church and the Political Community”.24 This section is preceded by, and thus situated within the context of, other themes like, among other themes, national renewal, social transformation and its spirituality, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Acts and Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines 8/333. PCP-II 95. PCP-II 99. PCP-II 325. PCP-II 326. PCP-II 386. PCP-II 246. PCP II 330–346.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

111

social conscience, and the church’s social doctrine. It is then followed by the theme of the laity’s involvement in politics. PCP-II insists on the clergy’s competence to pass moral judgment even in political matters.25 It is the laity who should get involved in partisan politics. However, it acknowledges that there are gray areas in the distinction between moral principles, which are the province of the clergy and partisan politics that should be the concern of the laity. This happens when “the bare enunciating of moral principles becomes, because of circumstances, in actuality and act of partisan politics.”26 To cite an example from the issue at hand, to proclaim the dignity of life and to denounce extrajudicial killing would be an exercise of the Church’s competence in moral issues. Yet, such denunciation of killing outside the confines of the law – which is a moral judgment – can also be interpreted to be directed against the present administration that can be admirably passionate about stopping crime but that can also be nonchalant in its attitude towards the life of suspected criminals. PCP-II then goes on to say that the values of the Gospel must penetrate politics and these “cannot be sacrificed on the flimsy pretext that the Church does not engage in politics.”27 However, it calls on the Church to practice even beforehand, what it proclaims and to be authentically prophetic.28 Obviously, these statements of PCP-II are meant to be prescriptive and not descriptive of what is actually implemented. Thus, we need to ask whether the Philippine Church is true to the vision of PCP-II. However, it will be beyond the scope of this theological paper to investigate whether the praxis of the Church would be consistent with her official statements. Suffice it to state that, in all likelihood, and to varying degrees, the Philippine Church has her lights and shadows with regards the implementation of this vision. So instead of investigating church praxis, we go to official statements coming from the Catholic Bishops Conference as a collegial body. To get a clearer picture, and at the risk of being anachronistic, and we include those even prior to PCP-II.

2.2

CBCP Statements

Perhaps more than any other national conference of bishops, the CBCP has been active in voicing out her opinion on socio-political issues.29 Because of its recent 25 26 27 28 29

PCP-II 340. PCP-II 344. Ibid. PCP-II 346. The ecclesiology of the two planes, which has made some churches passive in relation to political issues, does not seem to be influential in the CBCP. For a description of this twoplane theology, cf. William Cavanaugh, Torture and the Eucharist: Theology, Politics and the

112

Ramon Echica

pre-occupation with the reproductive health issue, an observer may mistakenly think that this was the obsession of the CBCP. While indeed it issued numerous statements on reproductive health and contraception,30 it also issued pastoral letters on, among other issues, the environment,31 elections,32 death penalty,33 migration,34 corruption in the government,35 and the Church’s mission of peace.36 It is thus admirable in its engagement with the state and society in general and is not focused only on intra-ecclesiastical affairs. In connection to the issue of clericalism, we can also see some evolution within the thinking of the CBCP. To illustrate this point, let us cite one preVatican II pastoral letter. The title itself is a claim to a privilege supposedly not given to the lay : Bishops: Successors of the Apostles (1956). In this letter, the bishops assert, “It is not anybody who may present himself to the people and claim that he has the right to take over the commission of the Apostles. The authority in the Church to preach, to rule, to baptize, etc. is given by appointment

30

31

32 33 34

35 36

Body of Christ (Malden, Blackwell, 1998) Cavanaugh attributes this theology of the two planes to the thought of Jacques Maritain. CBCP, “Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines on the encyclical Humane Vitae” (1968); “Statement of the Catholic Bishops on Public Policy Regarding Population Growth” (1969); “Pastoral letter of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines on the Population problem and Family life” (1973) “Moral Norms for Hospitals and Catholics in Health Services” (1973); “Joint Pastoral Letter on Christian Marriage and Family Life” (1976); “Thou Shalt not Kill” (1979); “Love is Life” (1990); “Save the Family and Live” (1993) “Saving and Strengthening the Family : A CBCP Statement on the 20th Anniversary of Familiaris Consortio” (2001); “We Must Reject House Bill 4110” (2003); “Standing up for the Gospel of Life” (2008); “On the Government’s Revitalized Promotion of Condoms” (2010); “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill” (2011); “Contraception is Corruption” (2012). It must be noted that some pastoral statements primarily on the population and on family life also contain statements about contraception. Cf. CBCP, “What is Happening to our Beautiful Land” (1988). This 1988 pastoral letter states that “assault on creation is sinful and contrary to the teachings of the faith.” Cf. also “A Statement on the Mining Act” (1998); “Water is Life: A Statement on the Toxic Contamination of Former Military Bases” (2000); “A Statement on Mining Issues and Concerns : Do not Defile the Land where you Live and where I Dwell; Upholding the Sanctity of Life” (2008). There are pastoral statements either before or after almost all national elections, plebiscites or referenda. Only the barangay elections are not commented upon. CBCP, “Statement on the Non-Restoration of death Penalty” (1992); “Life or Death? A Primer Calling for Commitment to Life and the Abolition of the Death Penalty” (1999). CBCP, “Because I was a Stranger and you Made me Welcome” (1975); This letter urges the Philippines to welcome refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia. Cf. also “I was a Stranger” (1979) “Statement of the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines on Refugees” (1980); Pastoral letter of the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines on National Migration day. This last is not principally about immigrants coming to the Philippines but Filipinos migrating abroad. CBCP “Thou Shall Not Steal” (1989); “Hate Evil and Love Good (Amos 5,15) CBCP Statement on the Pork Barrel” (2013). “Joint Pastoral Letter for Mission of Peace” (1982) “CBCP Statement on Peace in the Philippines and the World” (2001) and “An Urgent Appeal for Peace” (2003).

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

113

to those whom God has chosen… This is not then a matter of a man’s ability or willingness to serve but of God’s choice and appointment.” Independent of the theology of the statement, surely the tone of the statement is heavily clericalist, emphasizing that other people do not possess episcopal powers from God. Although the CBCP raised valid points, it was acting on the instinct of self-preservation, when it argued against the reading of certain books: “The Pride of the Malay Race” by Rafael Palma (1950), which argued that Jose Rizal died a mason, and the “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo” of the same national hero that highlighted clerical abuses.37 But in fairness, it can be rightly said that in these attempts to censor these books the CBCP then was acting according to the spirit of its times.38 The CBCP was at its prophetic best when it articulated the people’s fear and frustrations during the time of martial law. In 1982, when many, including priests, were abducted for subversion, the CBCP bravely asked for a “more precise legal definition of subversion” and then continued that the government must look at the far deeper issues like poverty and development and the dissent from unjust laws.39 It asked for the repeal of the law-making powers of the President, which made automatically legal his arrest and seizure orders. In “Reconciliation Today” (1983), the Philippine bishops, after stating that they share the joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties of the flock, called on the military and para-military forces to demonstrate that their loyalty is not to any person but to the institution. It also called on the state to respect the people’s right to dissent. This same pastoral letter called for the restoration of the writ of habeas corpus, and the repeal of repressive decrees that are in violation of due process. In 1984, on the first anniversary of the assassination of opposition leader Ninoy Aquino, the bishops issued another pastoral letter, “Let there be life”, where they admitted that the event woke them up from their slumber and made them realize that that violence has been a sad part of Filipino society. It then criticized the operations of secret marshals and the economic crisis, which was not conducive to the respect for life. The year after, in another pastoral letter, the bishops were humble enough that they are not addressing the economic issue as specialists but as pastors. They then asserted that the huge gap between the rich and the poor was a scandal “of monumental proportions” and then called on the rich not to wait for the day when they will be forced to divest of their wealth for the sake of a classless society. Certainly, the pastoral letter that made the most immediate impact in Phil37 In the mind of the Philippine Catholic hierarchy however, the novels of Rizal attacked not only clerical abuses but also the Catholic Church as an institution and Catholic dogma. 38 Since the paragraph deals with books, it has not included its warning against The Da Vinci Code. The warning was more about the movie and not the written novel. 39 Cf. Joint Pastoral Letter on the Church’s Mission of Peace (1982).

114

Ramon Echica

ippine history was the 1986 Post-Election Statement. After hearing allegations of massive cheating, the CBCP issued a bold statement: “According to moral principles, a government that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis. For such an access to power is tantamount to a forcible seizure and cannot command the allegiance of the citizens.”40 A few days after the statement was issued, the peaceful revolution began that led to the flight of the Marcoses to Hawaii. It was on the issue of reproductive health that the bishops received much opposition, and the whole institution was perceived as a hardliner and insensitive to the plight of the poor. In the following paragraphs, we focus not on the issue of contraception itself – since realistically, we cannot expect the bishops to be in favor of contraception at this stage in the evolution of Catholic thought – but on how the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines has approached the issue. The CBCP was clericalist in tone in its 1969 statement of support for the highly controversial encyclical letter “Humanae Vitae” of Pope Paul VI. The pastoral letter first correctly states that the encyclical, in its entirety, is about dignity of conjugal relationship and not simply about what is prohibited for being intrinsically dishonest. Then comes the statement that would seem to exclude any further reflection based on experience from married couples. However, the truth that the Church is an institution and hierarchical is a defined doctrine of faith. If it is by nature hierarchical, then its hierarchy is not just an ornamental feature of its life. The hierarchy has to function and its function is to serve the People of God through the sacramental life and the interpretation of the truth and the will of God. It is to be noted that in this last pastoral letter, the CBCP was addressing dissent from the people but it stated that it was confident that the clergy would not pose objection to the teaching. The same attitude can be seen in the 1973 CBCP document, “Moral Norms for Catholic Hospitals and Catholics in Health Services”, which asked parents to be submissive to the Church’s teaching office that authentically interprets divine law in the light of the Gospel. It would appear from these statements that there is insufficient attention given to the idea that the Holy Spirit resides in the faithful41and that the sensus fidei is a locus of God’s revelation.42 The CBCP would also appeal to numbers when, in the pastoral letter “Save the Family and Live” (1993), it objects to “the abrasive acts of insensitivity to the sentiments of the majority church…” The same document starts its arguments from “what revelation says” and from “what nature says,” but there is no section on the experience of couples, 40 The statement does not explain the principle it is based on. But it seems the principle is the social contract theory that says the authority to govern emanates from the people. 41 Lumen Gentium 4. 42 Lumen Gentium 12.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

115

especially the poor. There are times when the CBCP would naively take a oneissue or an all-or-nothing approach when it called the anti-RH heroes of the nation, forgetting that some of them have been unrepentant of their role in graft and corruption or in suppressing the rights of the people.43 To be sure, there are statements that were more pastorally sensitive: it sometimes acknowledges that the RH bill has some good points.44 There are times when it takes a better tack by stating that in the long run, contraception would be bring more harm than good, although it may have failed to elaborate on this argument. It is important to note that the discourse on contraception has evolved from demographic growth control in the 1960s to the issue of maternal health and reproductive rights in the 1990s up to the present. In this regard, the responses of the CBCP also responded according to the different premises of the contraception issue. It is remarkable that, in the 60s and 70s, the CBCP actually acknowledged the validity of the demographic concerns. In 1969, it explained “some measures may be necessary to bring population growth under control,” even as it calls for a more holistic approach to the problem. It reasoned that contraception program could help control the population only to the extent that it restricts the number of children and, thus, she expressed fear that such will “eventually include abortion and masked infanticide.”45 The CBCP again acknowledged the population problem in its 1973 statement, but added “we believe what is sexual control, not contraception control.”46 However, when the discourse shifted its emphasis to maternal health and reproductive rights, the CBCP had to defend its record of defending the rights of women, “We certainly want to defend and promote the health and the rights of all women in our society. We have done so in the past. We will continue to do so.”47 However, there is no sustained answer to women’s rights as an argument for reproductive health. Whatever nuances the CBCP as a collegiate body made were undermined by the clericalist approach of some individual bishops who threatened excommunication or who threatened lawmakers with the so-called Catholic vote instead of addressing the issue of moral values. This approach led the wellrespected Jesuit sociologist to warn, “… the Church seems to have backed itself into a no-win situation. If the bill passes over the total opposition of the hierarchy, there will be gloating in some quarters and a sense of ‘Who is afraid of the 43 Cf. CBCP, “Contraception is Corruption” (2012). 44 Cf. CBCP, “Standing up for the Gospel of Life” (2008). 45 CBCP, “Statement of the Catholic Bishops on Public Policy Regarding Growth Control” (1969). 46 CBCP, “Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines on the Population Problem and Family life” (1973). 47 CBCP, “We must Reject House Bill 4110” (2003).

116

Ramon Echica

big bad Church?’ If it is defeated by the opposition of the Church, I fear a powerful backlash at the Church’s ‘interference in politics’ and ‘reliance on political power rather than moral suasion’ – the beginnings of an anti-clericalism, such as has overwhelmed formerly Catholic bastions as Spain and Ireland.”48 In our brief review of CBCP statements, we find some examples where true to the spirit of PCP-II, the hierarchy showed extraordinary courage, unmindful of her own institutional interests, in denouncing the abuses by the establishment. There were also numerous occasions in which the energy of the Catholic hierarchy was directed to the defense of supposedly atemporal, natural laws to the neglect of an incarnational ecclesiology. There were times when the Church was successful in her advocacies, like the abolition of the death penalty, or the overthrow of dictatorial or corrupt regimes. She also experienced miserable failures when she fought against the Rizal Law, the Filipinization of educational institutions and reproductive health. To what extent can these past approaches guide the Church’s current engagement with the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte? To answer this question, we need to go to more theological reflections, in the form of thesis statement, which also serve to be our conclusion.

3.

Concluding Theological Reflections

3.1

The Church proclaims the Gospel and cannot play the role of a power broker

After a successful anti-Cha-cha rally mobilized by the Church in 1997, political commentator Amando Doronilla wrote, “The rallies…prove that, outside the State, the Church is the only social force capable of mobilizing public opinion and protest against any regime. In mature democracies, political mobilization is carried out by the political parties. In our democracy, the Church’s national infrastructure serves as the vehicle for mass mobilization.”49 Indeed, parishes, Catholic schools, and lay mandated organizations can provide the Church with the mechanism for mass mobilization. Even after Marcos, the Church did not go back to the sacristy, but continued to engage in moral and socio-political issues.50 However, it needs to be asked whether, in 48 John Caroll, Engaging Society II: Musings of an Oxymoron, (Quezon City : Ateneo de Manila, 2014), p. 209. 49 Doronilla, “Pulling back from the Brink”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 12, Sept. 1997, p. 9. 50 Cf. Antonio F. Moreno, Church, State, and Civil Society in Post-Authoritarian Philippines:

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

117

successful efforts to gather warm bodies for a rally, is it only or principally because of the call of some bishops or are the majority of the people already in prior accord with the mind of the hierarchy. It is likely that both factors are contributory to the successful display of numbers. Whatever is the answer, any call to gather people may not be readily effective today. One reason is the popularity of the President. Even some who are expected to be in the opposition are now joining the bandwagon. Secondly, if ever the issues are the restoration of the death penalty or extra-judicial killings of drug pushers, people are currently on the side of President Duterte. People’s fear of crime tends to make them bracket the issue of the morality of the methods in fighting or punishing the criminals. For now, no public outrage is evident over extra-judicial judicial killing. The issue is not simply the possible lack of effectivity. Mere show of numerical strength may be acceptable for a political party. However, the Church is not a political party. She needs to reach out to the depths of the conscience of the people. It is extremely triumphalistic and clericalist to show quantitative, but merely external strength and not go into the depth of our values. It is as if values are determined democratically. It is not that the show of force through numbers is wrong. Rather, such show should be accompanied with the inner conviction of the participants. There were times in the past when some bishops would gather a large number of people for a rally, including boys and girls from Catholic schools, carrying placards, who were too young to understand the issues concerned. The show of outward political strength is not only evident in political rallies. Oftentimes, this is accompanied by threats of political backlash to legislators who propose laws perceived to be not in accord with Catholicism. Sometimes, the hierarchy is intentionally oblivious of the corruption or other crimes committed by those who support its institutional advocacies. In fact, some of these dubious political characters may be major donors in church activities. There are times when the Church practically deifies one political group or one politician. Consequently, she is no longer able to criticize the party’s or the person’s shortcomings. In this context of the evident popular approval51 of the iron-fist policy of the Duterte administration, the Church can go back to the process of conscientizaNarratives of Engaged Citizenship (Quezon City, Ateneo University Press, 2008). Moreno cites examples of failures and successes in engagement with the state. Success stories would include the anti-logging campaign in the Diocese of Malaybalay and the creation of peace zones by Archbishop Miguel Fortich in Negors Occidental. 51 Some commentators who have lamented this seeming lack of outrage would include Randy David, “The Creeping Normality of Extra Judicial Killings” Philippine daily Inquirer, (July 10, 2016), p. 16. Jose Manuel Diokno, www. Rappler.com/views/President-Duterte-do-not-killin my name), July 8, 2016.

118

Ramon Echica

tion of the people through the Basic Christian Communities.52 Obviously, the BECs cannot simply be inwardly focused on liturgy and worship, important though this maybe. It is also doubtful whether those BECs, which are or were identified with one particular ideology, usually with the left, could be helpful in today’s political landscape. Conscientization can take the form of a see-judge-act schema.53 With the people, our leaders can start with a phenomenological description of the situation, then give a moral evaluation of it, and plan a course of action.

3.2

The Church is not perfect and she can be judged by the same standards by which she judges the state

An anecdote coming from a bishop can illustrate this point: “No wonder, a principal in San Narciso,” Zambales said to me very seriously when she heard priests criticizing Marcos’ one man rule, “Father, I can’t understand why you priests are so much against one-man rule, In the Church we always had one man rule.”54 The comment may lack theological nuances, but it drives home the point that the Church cannot feel exempted from the moral standards with which she uses to judge society in general. It is wrong to preach dialogue when this might not be practiced in the church. The examples can be multiplied. Preaching justice and equality would necessitate that the preacher follows the laws on just wage. Protesting against police extra-judicial killing should mean that the Church could not place herself above the laws of society. If the Church throws stones at institutions like the state for lack of transparency, she should remember that her windows may be made of glass and that these institutions may throw back the stones. Condemning the victimization of the poor should mean that the victimizers within church-structures should not go scot-free.55 We no longer describe the Church as a perfect society. Rather, it is semper reformanda. We need to take stock with this paradigm shift in ecclesial self52 There are basically three types of Basic Christian Communities. Cf. Christl Kestler and Jurgen Ruland, Give Jesus a Hand! Charismatic Christians: Populist Religion in the Philippines (Quezon City : Ateneo de Manila University, 2008), pp. 70–71. The first is more traditional type which focuses on the liturgy, bible reflection and lay involvement in church ministries. The second is the developmental BECs which believe that reflection on the Bible would lead to social action. The third is the transformative BECs. 53 Cf. Fe Mendoza, Basic Ecclesial Communities: Context and Foundations of Formation (Mandaue City, Mandaue Printshop, 2005). 54 Teodoro Bacani, “A Theological Perspective in Basic Christian Communities” A Threat of a Challenge? Proceedings of the General Assembly of the General Assembly and the Annual Meeting, 30 June 1985) p. 42 cited in Kesler and Ruland, Give Jesus a Hand, p. 167. 55 Cf. Cartagenas, Becoming a Leaven of Society, p. 36–38.

The Philippine Church: Beyond Clericalism in her Relations with the State

119

understanding. The Church cannot deify herself at any time, but most especially today when she is defied.

Eamonn Conway (Limerick)

A Church beyond Clericalism

1.

Introduction

Clericalism has been identified by Pope Francis as the key current impediment to the mission of the Church. Moving beyond clericalism is, therefore, an absolute priority for the Church’s future. The topic is important for another reason. We also need to acknowledge that some in our Church have experienced the effects of this evil (we should not hesitate to use the word) in a deeply personal way. I will begin by offering a brief description of clericalism. I will then explore the relationship between the sexual abuse crisis and clericalism. I will then go on to summarise what Pope Francis has been saying about the topic. This will be followed by a brief consideration of professed and operative understandings of priesthood and how they may dispose clergy towards clericalism. I will then conclude with some suggestions concerning how we might arrive at “a Church beyond clericalism”.

2.

What is clericalism?

The US Conference of Major Superiors of Men considered the issue of clericalism as far back as 1983.1 They described it as “the conscious or unconscious concern to promote the particular interests of the clergy and to protect the privileges and power that have traditionally been conceded to those in the clerical state.” Their report highlights the fact that clericalism becomes manifest in the behavior of individuals, but that it also can be evident in the church as an institution. It can be inherent in church structures and be reinforced by church procedures and processes. Clericalism is at work when we encounter “an authoritarian style of ministerial leadership, a rigidly hierarchical worldview, and a virtual identi1 In solidarity and service: reflections on the problem of clericalism in the Church, Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Washington DC, 1983.

122

Eamonn Conway

fication of the holiness and grace of the church with the clerical state and, thereby, with the cleric himself.” The report goes on to say that “lay people, religious men and women are all liable to the pitfalls of clericalism in certain situations. Generally speaking, exclusive, elitist or dominating behaviour can be engaged in by any person or group within the Church. Such behaviour is properly termed ‘clericalism’ when it rests on a claim to special religious expertise or ecclesial authority based on role or status in the church.” There are many other descriptions of clericalism, but the above embraces the key elements and is adequate for our purposes here. We now move to consider the link between clericalism and the sexual abuse crisis.

3.

Clericalism and Sexual Violence

The most extensive investigation of clergy sexual violence of children to date was conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on behalf of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which reported on its findings in 2004.2 This report endorsed research that found that clericalism was a contributory factor to the sexual abuse crisis.3 Clericalism, understood as a distorted understanding of the power and status of clergy, creates a power differentiation between clergy and laity. This power differentiation gave clergy unique access to children, especially the most vulnerable, and placed potential abusers above suspicion. It added to the suffering of victims by making it more difficult for them to break their silence. It also caused them deep damage spiritually, because for many devout victims and their families the priest’s power was considered of divine origin; for many of them, it was identical with the power of God. Clericalism also contributed to the attempts at cover-up. It disposed people to believe priests over the faithful and to act to protect the institutional Church and abuser priests. It also made secular authorities hesitate, at least at first, to initiate enquiries, conduct investigations, and to prosecute when they found evidence. There are other factors that I would argue to be common both to sexual violence by clergy and to the prevalence of clericalism. Research has shown, for instance, that priest offenders frequently work out of a harsh and negative God imagery, evidence of a relationship with God based upon fear and guilt rather than upon unconditional love.4 Clergy offenders have also been found in general 2 http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Natureand-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-Sta tes-1950-2002.pdf. 3 See Thomas P. Doyle, “Clericalism: enabler of clergy sexual abuse”, Pastoral Psychology, Vol 54, No 3, January 2006. 4 M Keenan, (2002) ‘Child Sexual Abuse: the Heart of the Matter’, The Furrow, Nov 2002.

A Church beyond Clericalism

123

to have a higher IQ than other sexual abusers, with a corresponding strong tendency to rationalise and intellectualise, but a diminished capacity to explore feelings and emotions.5 Therapists also note a tendency among clergy abusers to view authority as lordship and power as control, and to have seriously unresolved psychological issues relating to conflict and authority. Similarly, clericalism and authoritarianism tend to go hand in hand as well as the reluctance and even the incapacity to draw closely to people on the basis of equality in relationships. This issue in regard to God-imagery is also worth considering. If we understand and experience God’s power as enabling, that is, as “power for”, rather than as dominative, that is, as “power over”, then are we not less likely to behave in a dominative and controlling way towards others? Are we are not more likely to be open to the joy of what God is bringing to the life of the Church through the service and mission of others? As we know, sexual violence is often as much about control and power as it is about sexuality. The control that sex offenders exercise over their victims can serve as a compensation for the powerlessness they feel in other aspects of their lives.6 Paradoxically, clericalism can give rise not only to excessive power, but also to a sense of powerlessness, and this not only among the laity, but among clergy as well. It does this by creating sub-groups among the clergy with an internal “pecking-order” in terms of who is “in” with those in authority and who is not. There can also be a subset of clericalis distinctive to the episcopate.7 Thus, clergy are not only to be considered perpetrators of clericalism, but victims of it as well. One further point: the problem at the heart of the sexual abuse scandal, Lisa Sowle Cahill has commented, is not celibacy, as many have wrongly argued, but what she called a “closed society”, one “largely insulated from the realities and the values of ordinary people”, along with a culture of control. Citing Cahill, Paul Lakeland goes on to say that the roots of the crisis lie in the fact that leadership is exercised by an “enclosed elite caste”.8 In other words, clericalism. As we shall see, this speaks to Pope Francis’s constant call for pastors who are capable of proximity and shepherds who live with the “smell of the sheep on them.” Speaking at his first Mass of Chrism as pontiff, on March 28 2013, he 5 C. Bryant, (2002) ‘Psychological Treatment of Priest Sex Offenders’, America, April 2002, 17; T. Plante, (2002) ‘Can Psychology help a Church in Crisis’, Monitor on Psychology (Journal of the American Psychological Association), Vol 33 June 2002. 6 See Olive Travers (1999), Behind the Silhouettes, (Belfast: Blackstaff), 74; E. Conway, (1999), ‘The service of a different kingdom’. In: E. Conway, E. Duffy and A. Shields, The Church and Child Sexual Abuse – towards a pastoral response, (Dublin: Columba Press), pp. 76–90. See also H. Goode et al, pp. 186–188. Bishops and delegates interviewed for the RCSI report considered a power-orientated culture, characterised by centralisation of power and authority, to be least dominant in existing Church culture. 7 See Donald Cozzens, Sacred Silence, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 119–121. 8 Paul Lakeland, The liberation of the laity, NY: Continuum, 2003, 189–90.

124

Eamonn Conway

criticised priests “who do not go out of themselves” and who instead “gradually become intermediaries, and managers.” He could have added, “or worse”. It is self-evident that the sexual abuse crisis raises serious questions about the nature and quality of the spiritual and theological formation as well as the human development of clergy. Serious attention needs to be given not just to the adequacy of initial priestly formation but also to their ongoing formation, that is, their continuing professional development as well. We now turn to consider what Pope Francis has been saying about clericalism.

4.

Pope Francis and Clericalism

In recent decades, there have been many articulate descriptions of clericalism, along with detailed condemnations of its effects. It would be difficult, however, to find criticism that is as detailed or sustained as that of Pope Francis since he has come into office. He has spoken about clericalism most authoritatively in Evangelii Gaudium 102, but he has also made it a regular theme of his addresses. If anything, his concern about clericalism seems to be increasing. During World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, on July 28 2013, Pope Francis met with the leaders of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. Under the heading “Temptations against Missionary Discipleship”, he spoke of what he called the “sinful complicity” of clericalism. He explained that by this he meant a tendency among priests to clericalise lay people and among lay people to collude in their clericalisation. The result, he said, is a lack of maturity and of Christian freedom among lay people. He mentioned that lay people can and should enjoy autonomy (his word) and he sees popular piety as one particular manifestation of such autonomy. He also mentioned that “bible study groups, ecclesial basic communities and Pastoral Councils are helping to overcome clericalism and increase lay responsibility.”9 Later that year, on 16 November 2013, in a video message delivered at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City, the pontiff addressed pilgrims on the nature of authentic episcopal leadership.10 He called for bishops whose leadership would be characterized by “closeness, tenderness and patience” (already here we begin to see what for him are the antidotes to clericalism) and who would manifest the mercy of God. He went on to contrast the “true shepherd” with “a prince or a mere functionary whose focus is primarily on dis9 https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-frances co_ 20130728_gmg-celam-rio.html. 10 https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2013/documents/ papa-francesco_20131116_videomessaggio-guadalupe.html.

A Church beyond Clericalism

125

cipline, rules and organisation”, one who rules remotely, and thus, fails to foster a personal encounter between Christ and his people. As we know, “proximity” is a key word for Pope Francis, and for him it seems to be the antidote to clericalism. He speaks of the need for proximity especially to those discarded by society in our “throwaway culture”. They represent in a particular way the prolongation of the incarnation (EG 179). Speaking to the Guadalupe pilgrims, he went on to describe clericalism as, a self-referential attitude, implying a group mentality that weakens the impetus directed at an encounter with the Lord, who makes us his disciples, and (weakens) our outreach to men who await the proclamation of the Gospel. Clericalism takes its toll on the mission of the Church. A Church beyond clericalism, then, in Pope Francis’s view, would be one led by ministers who are formed with the capacity for closeness and for encounter, and who, as he says, “know how to move peoples’ hearts, to walk with them, to enter into dialogue with their hopes and fears.” In the same address, the Pope called upon bishops to take direct responsibility for forming priests with these dispositions. He told them to prioritize this responsibility while “sparing no effort” and said that they cannot delegate this vital work to others. He also questioned whether small seminaries are able provide the quality of formation that is needed today. It is clear from Pope Francis’s remarks that he does not believe bishops should delegate the responsibility of priestly formation to anyone, including, it would seem, to seminaries. Once again, we find ourselves needing to consider the nature and adequacy of priestly formation. And I believe we need to ask if seminary formation, by its very nature, disposes future priests towards clericalism? This is a point that needs careful consideration. Considering further Pope Francis’s statements on clericalism, we turn now to Evangelii Gaudium, which he published just one week after the above address, on November 24, 2013. This exhortation is the blueprint for his pontificate and for the reform he seeks in the Church. In this lengthy document, he addressed clericalism just once (n 102), but to understand its full significance we need to attend to the context in which he did so. That context is mission. The whole Church is to be placed on a missionary footing: it is to undergo a missionary conversion (n 25); a “missionary option” is to transform everything (n 27), and missionary activity is to become “paradigmatic” for the life of the Church (n 15). Pope Francis sees clericalism as the core internal impediment to the Church’s mission because it is impeding lay people from appropriating fully their ecclesial identity and from fulfilling their distinctive missionary responsibilities in the social, political and economic sectors of society. In some instances, lay people have been deprived of the formation they need to apply the Gospel to the transformation of society. In others situations, even where lay people have been so formed, “in their particular Churches room has not been made for them to

126

Eamonn Conway

speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making” (n 102). It is clear from what Pope Francis says here and what he has repeated subsequently (as we shall see in a moment) that lay people by virtue of their baptism bear distinct responsibilities for the mission of the Church and that they enjoy appropriate autonomy in regard to how these responsibilities are exercised. According to him, lay people have a right to make decisions in areas in which they and they alone are competent, and/or are in fact more competent than clergy. In the paragraphs of Evangelii Gaudium immediately following n 102, Pope Francis calls for three things: greater formation of lay people for their distinctive mission. He also calls for greater scope for them to exercise this mission, and a review, to be conducted by pastors and theologians, of how lay people, and he specifically speaks of women, are to be appropriately integrated into decisionmaking processes in the Church’s life. Pope Francis specifically mentions the need for the inclusion of women in decision-making because of the importance of what he refers to as “the feminine genius” (n 103), quoting Christifideles Laici of Pope John Paul II. Evidently, the theme of clericalism was on Francis’s mind around this time in 2013 because he returned to it a couple of weeks later during one of his morning masses in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, on December 16. He was meditating on prophecy in the context of the readings of the day (Book of Numbers 24:2–7,15–17b, and Matthew 21:33–37). “When there is no prophecy among the people”, he said, “clericalism fills the void”. Clericalism stifles prophecy by asking, “by what authority do you these things, by what legal authorization?”11 The lay charism of prophecy, then, can be a victim of clericalism. On 22 March 2014, Pope Francis developed the point that he had previously made about how lay people can be complicit in clericalism, only this time he called clericalism an evil besetting the Church. Speaking to the Catholic media organisation Corallo, apparently without a text, he described clericalism as a “two-way” or “double” sin. Priests like the temptation of clericalising the laity and the laity welcome it because it is “more convenient”. He goes on to say, “I have heard this so many times: ‘You know, in my parish I have a great layman: this man knows how to organize … Eminence, why don’t we make him a deacon?’ The immediate proposal of the priest is to clericalize. Let’s make this layman … And why? Because the deacon, the priest is more important than the layman? No! This is the mistake! Is he a good layman? Let him continue to be so and grow so, because it goes with the identity of Christian membership. For me, clericalism hinders the growth of the layman. However, keep present what I have 11 https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2013/documents/papa-francesco-co tidie_ 20131216_eye-opened.html.

A Church beyond Clericalism

127

said: it is an ‘accessory’ temptation between the two. Because there wouldn’t be clericalism if there weren’t laymen who want to be clericalized. Is this clear?” Just a few months ago, this time in a letter to the Pontifical Commission for Latin America dated March 19, Pope Francis returned to the theme of clericalism. This is perhaps his most carefully articulated statement on the matter to date. The focus of the Letter was on the role of the laity in Latin America and in it he revisited one of his favourite concepts: the “faithful holy People of God” (santo pueblo fiel de Dios). This is a concept that has been dear to him since the early 1970s.12 The “faithful holy People of God” is his own adapted version of Lumen Gentium’s emphasis on the people of God but owes its evolution also to the political context in Argentina in which Bergoglio grew up and later ministered. As priest and later as bishop, he became progressively annoyed with how politicians, media, and intellectuals spoke about the people (el pueblo), but rarely listened to them or spoke from or out of their experience and context. Bergoglio developed a keen and healthy respect for the inherent wisdom and lived faith of el pueblo fiel. Relating this to the Church’s understanding of the people of God, he developed a strong personal commitment to the Church’s teaching on the infallibility in credendo and the sensus fidei of the people of God. It is no surprise, therefore, that he underscores both of these teachings in Evangelii Gaudium (n 119). Back in 1978 (he did not a become bishop until 1992), he outlined in a spiritual meditation one aspect of what he saw as the distinctive competency of the faithful: “When you want to know what the Church teaches you go to the Magisterium… but when you want to know how the Church teaches you go to the faithful people. The magisterium will teach you who is Mary but the faithful people will teach you how to love Mary.”13 In Evangelii Gaudium (n 119), he says that the People of God “does not err in faith, even though it may not find words to explain that faith”. Linking this to the 1978 interview he seems to be suggesting that when it comes to the formulation of teaching the Magisterium is expert, but when it comes to living out the faith, the holy faithful people of God has its own distinctive competency and expertise. He develops his understanding of the distinctive competence and autonomy of the lay faithful further in the recent Letter to the Pontifical Commission for Latin America that we have been considering. “It does us good”, he says, “to remember that the Church is not an elite of priests, of consecrated men, of bishops, but that everyone forms the faithful Holy People of God. … The faithful Holy People of God is anointed with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and thus, as we reflect, think, evaluate, discern, we must be very attentive to this anointing.” He goes on to say, 12 See Austin Ivereigh, The Great Reformer, London: Allen & Uniwin, 2014, 110–117. 13 Cited in Ivereigh, 111.

128

Eamonn Conway

“one of the greatest distortions that Latin America has to confront – and to which I ask you to devote special attention – (is) clericalism. This approach not only nullifies the character of Christians, but also tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the heart of our people.” Among the negative impacts of clericalism he identifies are the following: it destroys the prophetic dimension of the Church and it robs lay people of their proper place in the visibility and sacramentality of the Church as described in Lumen Gentium 9–14. He mentions again that one of the few areas in which lay people have succeeded in enjoying autonomy seems to be in the area of popular piety and devotion. As we know, Pope Francis remains very close to Pope Paul VI and he refers to him here. He says, “Pope Paul VI used an expression that I consider fundamental, the faith of our people, their guidelines, research, aspirations, yearning. When they manage to listen and orient themselves, they are able to manifest a genuine presence of the Spirit.” He then goes on to ask: “let us trust in our People, in their memory and in their ‘sense of smell’, let us trust that the Holy Spirit acts in and with our People and that this Spirit is not merely the ‘property’ of the ecclesial hierarchy.” Let’s summarise where we have got to so far. – We have established that clericalism is the tendency to promote the power and privileges of the clergy. We have said that it resides in individuals, but also in the church as an institution. – We have claimed that there is link between clericalism and sexual violence and that clericalism has been a contributory factor in the sexual abuse crisis in the church. – We have examined Pope Francis’s analysis of clericalism. Among the recurrent themes of his criticism is how it emasculates the proper and autonomous role of that criticism also frustrates the personal encounter with the Lord and fundamentally damages the Church’s mission in the world. Pope Francis also criticizes the tendency of clergy to clericalise the laity and of laity to collude in this. The antidotes to clericalism he proposes are: – the absolute prioritising of the Church’s mission; – greater proximity of clergy, especially to those on the peripheries of society ; – appropriate inclusion of laity in decision-making processes in the church; – more formation for the laity ; – a greater emphasis on the primacy of the sacrament of baptism and on the church as the faithful holy people of God served by the clergy ; – a greater appreciation of the infallibility of the faithful in credendo and upon the sensus fidei.

A Church beyond Clericalism

129

– Finally, and perhaps most important of all, he calls upon us to recognise and accept that the Holy Spirit is present and active among the lay faithful and to trust in them and in the Holy Spirit. Is there more to be said about “A Church beyond clericalism”? By way of conclusion, I want to return to what I consider to be a central issue. It is the operative theology of priesthood that may give rise to clericalism.

5.

Operative theologies of Priesthood: do they contribute to clericalism?

Few priests would admit to being clericalist in their behaviour or recognise such behaviour in themselves. In fact, they might be quite articulate in condemning the evil of clericalism, while being examples of it in their own behaviour and interaction. Explaining the gap that can exist in our lives between beliefs and behaviour, Michel Foucault writes, “our actions are formed by forces that lie beneath and can run contrary to our consciously professed beliefs and values.”14 Along similar lines, the organisational pychologist Edgar Schein claims that “behaviour is a function of deeply-held, taken-for-granted constructs, values, beliefs, and identities that are ‘below the surface’”.15 As Church functionaries and also as academics, we can be disposed to be content when things appear to work in theory and can be less concerned about whether or not they work in practice. Clericalism, however, is fundamentally a form of behavior and as such we need to enquire into what informs and determines it. It is, therefore, useful to consider not only “professed”, but also “operative” theologies of priesthood. This is what we will do now in this final part of the paper.16 Broadly speaking, and aware of the risk of caricature in this attempt to summarise a theology of priesthood that in reality is much more complex, we can nonetheless tentatively speak of two related, but distinct emphases at work in how the ordained priesthood is currently understood in the life of the Church: – One understanding lays emphasis upon the priest as representative of Jesus Christ to the Christian community. In this, the prevalent understanding, the priest is understood in a unique way to be repraesentatio Christi and the

14 See Vincent J Miller, Consuming religion, NY: Bloomsbury, 2003, 21. 15 Edgar Schein, The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. 16 Aversion of this part of the paper has already been published in Eamonn Conway, “Operative Theologies of Priesthood: Have they played a part in Child Sexual Abuse?” Concilium: International for Theology, 2003 (3), 72–86.

130

Eamonn Conway

distinction between the priest and the Christian community is considered foundational to the Church. – The second understanding puts stress upon the priest as representing first and foremost the Christian community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With this second model, the emphasis is on unity, on belonging, before distinction. The priest is one of and with the community before he stands over against it or ministers to it. In the first of these, the priest is Christ at work, building up the Church.17 He acts in persona Christi capitis, and the emphasis is on the distinction rather than the unity between the head and the body of the Church. Celibacy and distinctive dress amplify the separateness of the office. The priest is one who stands apart, his very life a sacrificial offering for the sake of the Church. Augustine wrote “With you, I am a Christian; for you, I am Bishop.”18 If the understanding of priest as repraesentatio Christi emphasizes “for you”, the understanding of priest as repraesentatio Ecclesiae stresses “with you”. According to this understanding, the faith of the Church is born witness to in a special way by the first apostles, but it is the Christian community rather than the priest alone that is alter Christus.19 The priest as repraesentatio Ecclesiae on the other hand gathers and presides over the faith of the Church as people of God. He enables and facilitates the Christian community’s proclamation of the Gospel. Hence, the term presbyter is considered more appropriate than priest, which is used only of Israelite priests and of Christ in the New Testament. By way of shorthand, and again aware of the risk of unhelpful caricature, we can say that the priest who sees himself primarily as repraesentatio Christi will be at home with a more cultic understanding of his office and with the language of priest-sacrifice-altar. The priest who understands himself as repraesentatio Ecclesiae will understand his role more communally and prefer the language of presbyter-table-companionship. In what way are these theologies operative in the life of the Church? We are indebted to the Vienna pastoral theologian, Paul Zulehner, who conducted the most extensive research in Europe to date on the theological self-understanding of clergy. He surveyed some three thousand bishops, priests, and seminarians in

17 For an outline of the two understandings see P. Hünermann, (1981), ‘Mit dem Volk Gottes unterwegs. Eine geistliche Besinnung zur Theologie und Praxis des kirchlichen Amtes’, in: Geist und Leben 54 (1981) 178–187. See also R. Gaillerdetz, (1999), ‘Shifting Meanings in the Lay-Clergy Distinction’, Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol 64/2, pp. 115–140. 18 Augustine, Sermo 340,1. 19 See P. Hünermann, (1981). See also B. Nolan (1992), ‘What difference does Priestly Ordination make?’, JH Murphy (1992), (Ed), New Beginnings in Ministry (Dublin, Columba Press) pp. 128–159.

A Church beyond Clericalism

131

sixteen dioceses in five European countries at the turn of the century.20 Broadly speaking, four clergy “types” emerge from the survey, which reflect not only the two different understandings of priesthood, but also contrasting attitudes to contemporary culture.

1.

The “man of Christ unaffected by the signs of the times” (der zeitlose Kleriker)

– understands his ministry as strictly and uniquely repraesentatio Christi; – derives authority from Christ through the bishop, not through the community ; – is distanced from contemporary culture and undisturbed by “the signs of the times” – the Gospel is preached in season and out of season; – considers ministry principally as sacramental; – understands tradition statically, as the “depositum fidei” which he is to serve and protect; – is concerned with unity between priests, bishops and the pope; – except for retreats and spiritual direction, is unlikely to see the need for ongoing formation; – is uncomfortable with change and avoids risks; – considers clerical dress, titles, and symbols of office important. Zulehner characterises this type as the “anxious warden or sentinel”. According to the survey, this clergy type is most frequently found in leadership positions in the Catholic Church.

2.

The “man of God open to the signs of the times” (der zeitoffene Gottesmann)

– understands ministry both as repraesentatio Christi and repraesentatio Ecclesiae; – stresses his role as prophetic, and especially gives a voice to the voiceless in society ; – is concerned with unity among the hierarchy (vertically) but equally among the community (horizontally); 20 The countries concerned were: Germany, Croatia, Austria, Switzerland and Poland. As only European countries are represented, one must be cautious about drawing inferences for other continents e. g. India and Latin America.

132

Eamonn Conway

– after the celebration of the Eucharist, considers preaching and giving spiritual advice the most important parts of his ministry ; – lives with the tension between Church and world, the sacred and the profane, and acts as a bridge; – is comfortable with shared decision-making; – is more person than task-oriented; Priests of this type are found most frequently in middle management in the Church. They are often elected by their brother priests to representative positions because they are seen as “bridge-builders” between church and world, repraesentatio Christi – repraesentatio Ecclesiae, and so on.

3.

“The man of the Church responsive to the signs of the times” (der zeitnahe Kirchenmann)

– understands ministry first and foremost as repraesentatio Christi; – sees his vocation as personal from Christ and therefore does not necessarily have or desire a close relationship with a parish community ; – sees his vocation as a profession, and carefully distinguishes between his private and public life; – is very professional in his dealings with people; capable of fulfilling joyfully the different roles a priest finds himself in, from celebrant to school manager ; – values on-going education in, for example, media and communications, psychology, and economics, but not necessarily theology ; – listens and consults, but make his own decisions. This category of priest is frequently found in academic circles, as well as in Church leadership. Of all the types, he has least interest in or particular commitment to a local community and for him, unity as such, whether vertical or horizontal, is of less importance. Zulehner describes him as the “solitary wolf”.

4.

Finally, “the community leader in tune with the times” (der zeitgemässe Gemeindeleiter)

– is fundamentally committed to the common priesthood of all the faithful and is least at ease with the distinctions between lay and cleric; – stresses the charismatic nature of the Church, and facilitates joyfully the diversity of gifts in the community ; – finds nourishment for his spirituality in service rather than sacraments;

A Church beyond Clericalism

133

– is least likely to be concerned about directives from Rome; – is uncomfortable with having to make or implement top-down decisions; – values highly discussion and consensus decision-making; Zulehner sees this fourth type as “the man on the margins”, the one least likely of the four types to be promoted within the Church. Which of these four operative understandings of priesthood is most prone to clericalism? Our instinct might be to identify the understanding or type that least accords with our own theological disposition and we need to be on guard against this. My own experience of reflecting on these models with clergy groups is that, just as each of them has something distinctive and valuable to contribute to a holistic theology of priesthood, equally each of them is prone to a clericalism of sorts. In addition, rarely do priests self-identify unambiguously with just one type. We can say this. Types 1 and 3 are working out of an understanding of priesthood that seems more certain and self-contained, whereas one would expect types 2 and 4 to be the most likely to manifest what Pope Francis calls proximity. We might consider type 4 to be the one least prone to clericalism but we have to ask if, in that understanding, the sense of priestly identity is so weak that there is nothing distinctive about it at all.

6.

Conclusion

There are aspects of the problem of clericalism that we have hardly touched on in this paper such as the need to integrate the sensus fidei more into the life of the Church. There are others that we have not touched upon at all, such as clericalism as a manifestation of the church’s sinful nature.21 Our investigation could usefully have included a study of clericalism and anti-clericalism in the New Testament, as well as the origin and etymology of the terms “lay” and “cleric”. The aspects that we have considered, however, have highlighted the need above all for attention to the issue of formation, that is, initial and continuing formation both of clergy and of laity. This formation needs to be self-reflective and self-critical. It also needs to have at its heart spiritual and human formation that negates any need to exercise “power over” others, and instead understands power as enabling, that is, as “power for”. Those in leadership in the Church also need to value openness, accountability (vertical and horizontal), transparency in decision-making, and the avoidance of secrecy. The goal of formation must 21 See Eamonn Conway with L#szlj Luk#cs, “Casta meretrix – the Church, sinful and holy”, ET Studies, Journal of the European Society for Catholic Theology, 02/2011, 157–174.

134

Eamonn Conway

always be to facilitate a personal, honest, dynamic, committed, and self-effacing relationship with Jesus Christ. Writing in the context of the Synod of the German Church that took place in the early 1970s, Karl Rahner made a special plea for a declericalised Church. A Church beyond clericalism, in his view, would be one in which “those who love, who are unselfish, who have a prophetic gift in the Church” are understood “to constitute the real Church.” It would be one in which “the office-holders in joyous humility would allow for the fact that the Spirit breathes where he will and that he has not arranged an exclusive and permanent tenancy with them.” A declericalised Church, according to Rahner, would be one that recognizes that “the charismatic element, which can never be completely regulated, is just as necessary as office to the Church.”22 Viewed by these criteria, we still have some distance to go, but Pope Francis and the Holy Spirit are definitely leading us in the right direction.

Appendix: Texts for Consideration 1.

In a homily delivered in 1839, entitled Christian Sympathy, John Henry Newman wrote the following

It were well, if we understood all this, perhaps the reason why the standard of holiness among us is so low, why our attainments are so poor, our view of the truth so dim, our belief so unreal, our general notions so artificial and external as this that we dare not trust each other with the secret of our hearts. We have each the same secret and we keep it to ourselves and we fear that as a cause of estrangement which would really be a bond of union, we do not probe the wounds of our nature thoroughly : we do not lay the foundation of our religious profession in the ground or our inner man: we make clean the outside of things, we are amiable and friendly to each other in words and deeds but our love is not enlarged, our bowels of affection are straightened and we fear to let the intercourse begin at the root: and in consequence our religion viewed as a social system is hollow, the presence of Christ is not in it.

2.

From James Joyce, Portrait of the Artist as a young Man

To receive that call, Stephen, … is the greatest honour that the Almighty God can bestow upon a man. No king or emperor on earth has the power of the priest of 22 Karl Rahner, The shape of the Church to come, London: SPCK, 1972, 56–57.

A Church beyond Clericalism

135

God. No angel or archangel in Heaven, no saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, has the power of the priest of God, has the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose from sin, the power of exorcism… the power, the authority, to make the great God of Heaven come down upon the altar and take the form of bread and wine. What an awful power, Stephen!

3.

A Prayer by Lacordaire “To live in the midst of the world with no desire for its pleasures; To be a member of every family, yet belonging to none; To share all sufferings, to penetrate all secrets, to heal all wounds; To go daily from men to God to offer Him their homage and petitions: To return from God to men to bring them His pardon and His hope; To have a heart of iron for chastity, and a heart of bronze for charity ; To teach, instruct, pardon and console; To bless and be blest forever; O God, what a life, and ’tis thine O Priest of Jesus Christ.”

4.

A Prayer by Karl Rahner

The Priest is not an angel sent from heaven; he is a man chosen from among men, and a member of the Church, a Christian. Remaining human and Christian, he begins to speak to you the Word of God. This Word is not his own. No, he comes to you because God has told him to proclaim God’s Word. Perhaps he has not entirely understood it himself. Perhaps he adulterates it. But he believes; and despite his fears, he knows that he must communicate God’s Word to you. For must not some of us say something about God, about eternal life….must not some of us speak of sin and the love and mercy of God? So, dear friends, pray for him. Carry him, so that he might be able to sustain others by bringing them the mystery of God’s love, revealed in Jesus Christ.

Sharon Bong (Bandar Sunway)

Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today

1. I begin by socially situating myself as a feminist and Catholic laywoman who teaches and researches in the multidisciplinary fields of genders, sexualities, and religions in the context of Southeast Asia. As the Coordinator of the Gender Studies major at the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University, Malaysia, I offer to this edited book, my knowledge in the field of feminist thought that I have engaged with since the 1990s through disciplines as diverse as literary studies, religious and women’s studies, and sexuality studies. The invitation was received to present and publish on the subtheme, ‘A gender perspective on Catholic sxual ethics: Who defines the roles and issues?’. This subtheme complements other presentations at the joint symposium organised by INSeCT–DAKATEO–ET within the main symposium theme, ‘Gender and ecclesiology : An intercultural dialogue’ held in the idyllic space of Tagaytay, the Philippines. Within this framework, the verb ‘complement’ or its cognate theoretical term, “gender complementarity”, are the bases on which I structure my paper for this edited book. I begin with the observation that “gender complementarity” lies at the heart of not only discussions on Catholic sexual ethics, but also in relation to theology, ecclesiology, christology, mariology, pneumatology, church and mission, and soteriology within Christian thought and praxis, notably, Catholicism. The term “gender complementarity”, as Chris Beasley explains, is the “conception of women as ‘different but complementary’” (Beasley, 1999, p. 7). She adds that women “are defined not so much as for men (e. g. his subservient “partial helpmate”) but as in relation to men”. This constructs women not only “as different but as men’s opposite”. Man becomes the standard upon which woman are measured, valued, and treated accordingly. She continues by citing Simone de Beauvoir, an existentialist feminist who posits that: “He (i. e. man) is the subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other [emphasis added]”. The fuller implication of

138

Sharon Bong

this positioning of woman “in relation” to man is that woman “is not so much second-rate man in this context as that which is ‘not man’”. As the negation of man, she is assigned qualities that are distinctive and comes to ontologically embody these. Woman’s irrationality, passivity, nature, dependence, and otherness are different to man’s in the sense of oppositional (and superior) qualities such as: rationality, activity, nurture (or progress), independence, and subjecthood. The framing of “oppositional pairs” or “dualisms”, as we are familiar with, take the form of: Man/Woman, rationality/irrationality, activity/passivity, nurture/nature, independence/dependence, and subject/Other (Beasley, 1999, p. 9). These are “lop-sided conceptual pairs” – in a sense, unequally yoked – as the “first order of concepts” in each pair, as aligned with man (and by extension, masculinity) are accorded more weight or importance. In contrast, the second “order of concepts”, as aligned with woman (and by extension, femininity), are less valued or deemed derivative from the first “order of concepts”. These dualisms that have been universalised as the bedrock of Western thought are so tirelessly rehearsed that they become naturalised through time and space, i. e. are considered as givens and, therefore, unquestioned. From a feminist standpoint (a theoretical and political position), however, these dualisms that are premised on “gender complementarity” have resulted in harmful reductionist effects, lopsided knowledge productions (where voices of the less valued are silenced or trivialised) and the long litany of gender inequalities and inequities (e. g. gender-based discrimination and violence). Feminists as such take on the ethical and political imperative to challenge the dualisms of man/ woman and masculinity/femininity – the privileging of the first “order of concepts” – as a “violent hierarchy”. And it becomes a violent “sexual hierarchy” when (hetero)sexuality made the norm is brought into the fold, thus resulting in the systemic privileging of heteronormativity/(over and above) non-heteronormativity across political, legal, educational, religious, and familial institutions. I likewise take on this call to challenge dualisms that are problematically fuelled by “gender complementarity” as a feminist and Catholic in the work that I do and deliberate on the relevance and need of revisiting “gender complementarity” today. In the process of writing this paper, I find myself tangentially returning to a topic that first motivated my foray into feminism in my early 20s back in the 1990s. This tangential topic is the Catholic Church’s standpoint on not ordaining women into ministerial priesthood and serves as a complementary backdrop to the main topic – the revival of “feminine genius” in light of Pope Francis’s decision, as a “sign of the times”, to institute the Commission for the Study of the Diaconate of Women in August 2016. The second part of the paper aims to critically review the contemporaneous use of “gender comple-

Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today

139

mentarity” – it is far from being archaic or irrelevant to our contexts today – as embedded in the notion of “feminine genius”. It is timely to do so as the Catholic Church approaches a potentially pivotal moment in its history and mission.

2. I first came across the term “feminine genius” in preparation for the NGO Forum in Huairou that was held in conjunction with – and complements – the (ministerial) 1995 Fourth UN World Conference on Women (FWCW) in Beijing. The then Pope, now Pope Saint John Paul II, sought to advise women of the world (John Paul II, 1995b), and also Gertrude Mongella, the then Secretary General of the FWCW (John Paul II, 1995a), on the eve of this August event aimed at advancing and celebrating women’s rights as human rights in local and global contexts. The term “feminine genius” gained prominence when used in the ‘Letter of Pope John Paul II to women’ (1995a); his global address beyond the Catholic (universal) church. “Feminine ‘genius’”, however, was first introduced in the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, on the dignity and vocation of women on the occasion of the Marian year, referring to the “moral force of women…the ‘perfect woman’ (cf. Prov 31:10). Our time in particular, awaits the manifestation of that ‘genius’ which belongs to women, and which can ensure sensitivity for human beings in every circumstance” (1988, 30). The distinctiveness of women and femininity is also evident in the works of Edith Stein, philosopher and later Carmelite nun, St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (Westenberg, 2016, p. 31). The term now enjoys some currency through media revitalisation on occasions when it is used by the present Pope “to describe women’s role in the church… [although] ‘women are excluded from the decision-making processes of the church’” (McElwee, 2016a). This reflexivity has led to his initiating a Commission to study the historical precedence of female deacons in the Catholic church with a potential view of resuscitating this practice in this millennium. Pope John Paul II begins by giving thanks to “every woman”: mothers, wives, daughter, sisters, women who work and consecrated women (1995b) for their unique contribution throughout history. However, he soon exhorts women – who are strategising to more effectively realise women’s human rights at the close of the last millennium – to “reflect carefully on what it means to speak of the ‘genius of women’… in order to see in this phrase a specific part of God’s plan”. In “God’s plan”, the “creation of woman is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual” (Gen 2:18). He adds that, “Womanhood expresses the ‘human’ as much as manhood does, but in a ‘different and complementary way’”.

140

Sharon Bong

From this foundational principle of “feminine genius”, one may glean that the essence of womanhood is that of a “helper fit for [man]” (Gen 2:18); to assist him in exercising dominion over the earth and all living creatures, in large part, through propagating the species and harnessing earth’s resources to sustain the human population. The concomitant qualities that have become essentialised as femininity are nurturing, life-giving and subsidiary, i. e. woman helps rather than initiates. “Essentialism”, which refers to “the attribution of a fixed essence to women…entails the belief that those characteristics defined as women’s essence are shared in common by all women at all times” (Grosz, 1995, p. 47). It is revelatory that Pope John Paul II extends his congratulatory yet cautionary note to “every woman”, Catholic and non-Catholic – where differences that matter that distinguish one woman from another (e. g. gender identity, sexual orientation, social-cultural contexts, personhood, etc.) are elided. “Every woman” becomes a monolithic entity whose womanhood, from the beginning of time, can only be and should only be – to the end of time – a helpmate to man. To some extent, the “real meaning of ‘helper’”, as imbued with reciprocity in John Paul II’s “theology of the body” (2006), is diluted. Woman is fundamentally created to alleviate man’s aloneness in the world and to enable him to realise his own essence which he realises “only by existing ‘with someone’ – and, put even more deeply and completely, by existing ‘for someone’” (Pope John Paul II, 2006, as cited in Zeno, 2010, chapter 3). Worse, the superlative term “genius” that is accorded to “every woman” and appended to the “feminine” seemingly alleviates, but in effect, compounds the violent reductionism of such essentialism. It is all the more violent as it is ‘divinely ordained’ and bulwarked by the weight of tradition and infallible papal teachings within Catholic thought itself. “Every woman” is gifted with the capacity of becoming a “helper fit for [man]”: she is his helpmate par excellence. That is her “genius”; her singularity, her femininity that is, can only be and, therefore, should be aligned with her womanhood. In contrast, man cannot and, therefore, should not serve in this capacity. So, one may posit that such relationality or “principle of help” that is a woman’s raison d’etre is indeed “onesided [rather than] mutual”. Mutuality in this context does not mean reciprocity : “Their most natural relationship, which corresponds to the plan of God, is the ‘unity of the two’, a relational ‘uni-duality’” (1995b). That is why the question of who man is in relation to woman does not arise; it is superfluous. For when “the book of Genesis speaks of ‘help’, it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being”. The complementarity of womanhood and manhood are not only physical and psychological, but also ontological: “It is only through the duality of the ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’ that the ‘human’ finds full realization” (1995b). Essentialism here, lopsidedly ascribed to woman,

Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today

141

unproblematically slides into the uncontested terrain of “gender complementarity”. Womanhood imaged in the likeness of God (imago dei), therefore, “expresses the ‘human’ as much as manhood does, but in a ‘different and complementary way’”. The “gender complementarity” that is also the bedrock of the church’s theology of the body makes sacred gender and sexual differences – from the very beginning “male and female” were created (Gen 1:26) – thereby justifying dualisms; the “unity of the two” (1995b). In doing so, it too neatly and expeditiously contains gender and sexual divergences, dissonances, and diversities: there are only two ways of acting and being in the world as man/woman and masculine/ feminine. The feminine fnds her place in relation to man. Containment of the “feminine genius” framed by esesentialism and “gender complementarity” finds its “highest expression” in the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1: 38) (1995b). Mary, Mother of God in embodying the “highest expression of the ‘feminine genius’”, sets up an impossible ideal for “every woman” as the Virgin-Mother. The “mystery of ‘woman’ [as] virgin-mother-spouse” as elaborated in Mulieris Dignitatem (1988, 22), “constitutes the divine economy of salvation in human history… [where] one can have no adequate hermeneutic of man, or of what is ‘human’, without appropriate reference to what is feminine”. As John Paul II in his ‘Letter to Women’ explains: …in line with this economy of signs…there is great significance to that “womanhood” …a powerfully evocative symbolism, a highly significant “iconic character”, which finds its full realization in Mary and which also aptly expresses the very essence of the Church as a community consecrated with the integrity of a “virgin” heart to become the “bride” of Christ and “mother” of believers. When we consider the “iconic” complementarity of male and female roles, two of the Church’s essential dimensions are seen in a clearer light: the “Marian” principle and the Apostolic-Petrine principle (1995b).

Mary, as Virgin and Mother signifying the “two vocations of women” (1995a), is just as neatly and expeditiously placed within the dualisms of: Man/Woman, Christ/Church and bridegroom/bride. She occupies the second “order of concepts” in these dualisms: Woman, Church, and bride. The “iconic complementarity of male and female roles” within the “divine economy of salvation” is now literally fleshed out. Mary, by her fiat (her obedience in accepting her salvific role as virgin-mother), begets Christ Jesus (“Marian principle”), who begets the church through his ministry, the 12 apostles and their successors (“Apostolic-Petrine principle”). And the twain shall not meet as they are complementary. Within the economy of “gender complementarity”, they are rendered mutually exclusive: woman is not man, the church is subordinate to Christ, and the bride defers to her groom. The full message of John Paul II’s ‘Letter to

142

Sharon Bong

Women’ is now made apparent. Whilst all believers share in the “common priesthood”, a gift bequeathed in Baptism, only the elect male may rise to “ministerial priesthood” as the church’s two-century-old tradition has – in fidelity to the complementarity of these principles – “entrusted only to men the task of being an ‘icon’ of his countenance as ‘shepherd’ and ‘bridegroom’ of the Church” (1995b). In sum, the “feminine genius” puts “every woman” in her place. The cautionary note glimpsed in John Paul II’s ‘Letter to Women’ (1995b) finds clearer (patronising) expression in Mulieris Dignitatem (1988, 10) in relation to the quest and “question of women’s rights”: Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women wil not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. The “feminine genius” is sanctioned “proper femininity” (Bartky, 1997). It is to exercise her “originality”, which is her essential acting and being in the world as a “helpmate fit for [man]”. It is to stay in place within the dualisms of man/woman, masculine/feminine, Christ/church, bridegroom/ bride, and ministerial/common priesthood. It is to emulate the impossible ideal of virgin-mother beginning with the virtue of obedience to man and God. The “question of women’s rights” risks women overreaching her place. To do so, misappropriatng “male characteristics” is a transgression of the boundaries set up within the economy of dualisms and risks the “‘masculinization’ of women”. What is also inferred is that the relational ‘mutuality’ inherent in dualisms, notwithstanding the unequally weighed first and second “order of concepts”, does not constitute the “male ‘domination’”.

3. The invocation of “feminine genius” resurfaces today with Pope Francis’s insistence that there should be a “more incisive female presence” in the Roman Catholic Church leading to his initiation of the Commission for the Study of the Diaconate of Women (Rosen, 2016). “The diaconate”, says Susan Ross, Professor of Theology at Loyola University, Chicago “would be affirming what women already do”. Women have so many roles of service in the church, but have no official status. “To give women an official status is, I think, way, way, way overdue” (Rosen, 2016). Susan B. Thistlethwaite, Protestant professor at the

Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today

143

Chicago Theological Seminary, asserts that the “systemic exclusion of women from equality before God in the priestly leadersip of the Catholic Church is a scandal, and it needs to be rectified with the same passionate compassion Pope Francis has applied to others who are excluded” (Thistlethwaite, 2016). She notes that the feminist Catholic theologian, Rosemary R. Ruether, had long observed the parallelism between man’s “domination and subordination” of women and the earth, “hence the tendency in patriarchal cultures”, as Ruether maintains, “to link women with earth, matter and nature, while identifying males with sky, intellect, and transcendent spirit” and by extension, the priesthood (Thistlethwaite, 2016). It is apparent to many feminist theologians that dualisms of man/woman, sky/earth, intellect/matter, and transcendent spirit/nature operate to subdue both women and the earth. Whilst others in response to the revitalisation of the “feminine genius” – with the potential for a radical shift in the church’s stance on ordaining women deacons – seek to reify “the complementarity of man and woman…as different but equal expressions of what it is to be human” (Grossu, 2015). Arina O. Grossu, who is Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, says that: “we must reject an unbridled feminism that is antagonistic to the genius of man even as we seek to elevate the genius of women”. She goes on to echo Pope Francis’s own reservations about “gender ideology”, which she labels as “dangerous… that seeks to destroy not only the family but also our identity as men and women” (Grossu, 2015). Other conservatives “worry… [that] female deacons would be a ‘slippery slope’ to women in the priesthood”, when “seeing women in liturgical vesture and roles” become a common sight rather than an aberration (Rosen, 2016). Women deacons are, in fact, not an aberration, but a “historical fact” (Zagano, 2015). As Phyllis Zagano, the leading authority on women deacons in the Catholic Church, says, this “historical fact” was brought up by some bishops, but ignored by others during the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, which “restored the diaconate as a permanent grade of order” for married men above the age of 35, but not for women (Zagano, 2015). Zagano adds that Phoebe in early Christianity “is the only person in scripture called deacon” (Rom. 16:1) and that the “initial choice of servants – deacons – by the apostles was from among those put forth by the community following Jesus’ death and resurrection” (Acts 6: 1–6). She concludes that “the ordination of women to the diaconate seems to be something Francis could do easily” (Zagano, 2015). The 12-member Commission comprising six men and six women (one of whom is Zagano) will study the historical precedence of women deacons and make an appropriate recommendation to Pope Francis. A deacon, as Phillip M. Thompson, executive director of the Aquinas Center of Theology at Emory University, explains: “is a minister of the Catholic Church who is ordained as a

144

Sharon Bong

sacramental sign of Christ, who came ‘to serve and not to be served’”. If women are to be ordained as deacons by the church, “they can baptize as well as marry and bury. They can offer homilies. These are momentous steps” (Thompson, 2016). “Momentous steps”, as Pope Francis that with discernment, “could do easily”, where studies on the diaconate by previous commissions were not signed off by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI and the “historical fact” of women deacons, strangely missed out in a revised second study which was signed off (Zagano, 2015). The diaconate of women is the gift of a “more incisive female presence” that complements the all-male clergy and married male deacons of the Catholic Church. It fits into the “gender complementarity” ideology of the church in not unsettling the “iconic argument, which holds that a person must be male in order to represent Christ”, in persona Christi, the basis of the church’s “ban on women priests” (Zagano, 2015). In Inter Insigniores (Declaration on the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood), within the “economy of salvation…we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man” and, therefore, the celebration of the Eucharist is only reserved for a man who “[takes] on the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of consecration” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976). In contrast, however, feminist theologians look to the humanness rather than the maleness of Christ Jesus and how, precisely, in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), “[t]here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Therefore, it is fitting to conclude with the wisdom of Sr. Mary Melone, a Franciscan sister and Commission member, who eloquently articulates the two-century tensions inherent in the advancement of “more incisive female presence” within the Catholic Church: “The important thing is that there not be an excuse to exclude women from the possibility of working towards decision-making roles inside the church. I do not think that the ordained priesthood must be the only condition to guarantee a significant role to women… On the other hand, it is clear that ministry guarantees forms of power precluded from others.” (McElwee, 2016b)

References Bartky, S. L. (1997). Foucault, femininity and the modernization of patriarchal power. In Diana Tietjens Meyers (Ed.), Feminist social thought: A reader (pp. 93–111). London & New York: Routledge. Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism: An introduction to feminist theory. London; Thousand Oaks, California; Sage.

Feminine Genius: Revisiting Gender Complementarity Today

145

Grossu, A. O. (2015). Feminine genius and the sexual difference. National Catholic Register. Retrieved from http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ feminine-genius-and-the-sex ual-difference. Grosz, E. (1995). Space, time and perverson: The politics of bodies. New York: Routledge. John Paul II (1988). Apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II on the dignity and vocation of women on the occasion of the Marian year. John Paul II (1995a). Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Mrs Gertrude Mongella Secretary General of the Fourth World Conference on Women of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_ let_19950526_mongella-pechino.html. John Paul II (1995b). Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women. Retrieved from https://w2. vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_ women.html. John Paul II (2006) Man and woman He created them: A theology of the body. Translated by Michael Waldstein. Boston: Pauline Books & Media. McElwee, J. J. (2016a, May 12). Francis to create commission to study female deacons in Catholic church. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline. org/news/vatican/francis-create-commission-study-female-deacons-catholic-church. McElwee, J. J. (2016b, August 9) Members of Francis’ women deacons commission express diverse viewss. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline.org/ news/vatican/members-francis-women-deacons-commission-express-diverse-views. Rosen, B. (2016, August 2). Why is Pope Francis creating another commission to study women as deacons ? The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www. csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0802/Why-is-Pope-Francis-creating-an other-commission-to-study-women-as-deacons. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1976). Inter insigniores: Declaration on the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. Thistlethwaite, S. B. (2016, September 27). Pope Francis: Apply the ‘golden rule’ to women in the Catholic Church. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffington post.com/rev-dr-susan-brooks-thistlethwaite/pope-francis-apply-the-go_b_8203862. html. Thompson, P. M. (2016, August 4) Will the Catholic Church have women deacons? Religion News Service. Retrieved from http://religionnews.com/ 2016/08/04/will-the-catholicchurch-have-women-deacons/. Westenberg, L. (2016) Incarnating the feminine genius in the contemporary Catholic Church. New Theology Review: An American Catholic Journal for Ministry, 29(1), 30–37. dOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17688/ntr.v29i1.1260. Zagano, P. (2015) Ordain Catholic women as deacons. Harvard Divinity Bulletin. Retrieved from http://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/articles/summerautumn2015/ordain-catholicwomen-deacons. Zeno, K. J. (2010) Discovering the feminine genius: Every woman’s journey. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/lib/MONASH/reader. action?docID=736871& ppg=26.

Martin Lintner (Bressanone) / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel (Vienna)

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

1.

Why Catholic sexual ethics call for a constructive dialogue between magisterium and gender theorists

1.1

Male-centred and patriarchal tendencies in sexual ethics

If we look at catholic sexual ethics as a whole, we see an ambiguous picture. On the one hand, recent theological developments show new approaches based on thoroughly researched studies in cultural and human sciences. Shining examples are Margaret Farleys’s great book “Just Love” and Todd Salzman’s and Michael Lawler’s “Sexual ethics.”1 Both are examples of post-patriarchal ethical concepts, including the works and insights of feminist theology and gender studies. At the same time, these two outstanding works have raised eyebrows from the side of the more conservative bishops and consequently have been notified by the CDF. On the other side, the magisterium fosters a kind of sexual ethics that is still male-centred and patriarchal. This is obvious concerning certain norms and its substantiations – e. g. contraception, homosexuality, pregnancy issues, etc. These are looked at from a predominantly male perspective – to be precise: the perspective of celibate men, who often do not even understand what we mean by “male perspective”. One of the most striking – and enlightening – issues of the recent decade was the so-called “Phoenix Abortion Case” (2010). Mercy Sister Margaret Mary McBride was swiftly excommunicated by her bishop for assenting to the abortion of an 11-week-old foetus in order to save the life of a pregnant woman, a 27-yearold mother of four, suffering from pulmonary hypertension. The woman was so gravely ill that doctors were certain that she would die if the pregnancy were not terminated. McBride, vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph’s Hos1 Farley, Margaret A.: Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, New York 52012; Salzman, Todd A./Lawler, Michael G.: Sexual Ethics. A Theological Introduction, Washington 2012.

148

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

pital and Medical Center in Phoenix, where the procedure occurred, was a member of the hospital ethics committee that approved termination of the pregnancy. – At this point, it is necessary to mention that we can find many reasons deduced from traditional moral teaching why a procedure like this would be morally justified, even less entail excommunication “latae sententiae”. However, that is not the issue here. Our point is, how and by whom roles and issues are defined. In the eyes of the bishop, it is not the role of the Sister-Doctor to determine moral reasoning independently of the church. Even less is it the role of a woman to decide whether a dead mother, together with a consequently dead foetus, really would be morally better than – as tragic as it may be – just a dead foetus with the woman still alive. The bishop’s approach – together with a strictly traditionalist moral reasoning – would argue that abortion is always wrong no matter what and, therefore, nothing could be done to save the mother.2 It is God’s will. Period. Obviously, this is male-centred, patriarchal moral reasoning – if we want to call it reasoning at all. More than that: this proves to be a model case for the argument that Carol Gilligan’s critique of Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral reasoning is not only right, it is still necessary even now.3 So my question is, Who is defining the issues what a man and a woman must or must not do? Moreover, what is the basic ethical framework behind this?

1.2

Signs of hope – signs of trouble

Right now, many hope that Pope Francis might change his tune. In fact, he is calling us to find ways to integrate women – and with them, the “feminine genius” – into political and ecclesial decision-making; this notion is very ambiguous in itself, as exemplified in the following passage of Amoris laetita: “I certainly value feminism, but one that does not demand uniformity or negate motherhood. For the grandeur of women includes all the rights derived from their inalienable human dignity but also from their feminine genius, which is essential to society. Their specifically feminine abilities – motherhood in particular – also grant duties, because womanhood also entails a specific mission in this world, a mission that society needs to protect and preserve for the good of all.” (AL 173) My first question aims to know what the Pope means by “feminine genius”, and further, what does it entail in particular – and who has the right to define its 2 Cf. Roberts, Tom: Ethicists fault bishop’s action in Phoenix abortion case, in: National Catholic Reporter, June 8, 2010 (source: https://www.ncronline.org/news/ethicists-fault-bi shop’s-action-phoenix-abortion-case). 3 Cf. Gilligan, Carol: In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development, Cambridge (Mass) 1982.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

149

specifics?4 The well known US feminist theologian and ethicist, Jamie Manson, published a firm critique of Pope Francis’s lack of gender sensitivity.5 In his documents, and even more in his talks, he shows an “unwavering belief in complementarity” and a in a na"ve “nuptial symbolism” of gender roles. A glimpse at the “relatio finalis”, the final report of the Bishops’ Conference on Family in 2015, helps to highlight the issue. How do the bishops look at men and women?6 No 25 emphasizes that women play “a crucial role” in family and society, because they are mothers and as such human and spiritual formators. In the very beginning of this paragraph, the bishops invoke the example of Mary and link this strongly with the birth experience. The following section deals with discrimination and violence against women and strongly defends their dignity as human persons against exploitation and sexual violence. Then the perspective turns to procreation: Women have to be defended against abortion and forced sterilization and against the abuse as “womb for hire” and the “marketing of gametes and embryos”. However, the main point seems to be: “The emancipation of women requires a rethinking of the duties of the spouses in their reciprocity and shared responsibility for family life.” So far, this seems to pose no problem, if it were not for the problematic overall perspective: Women as birthgivers are persons that even men need, since they all are born by a woman. The defence against violence and oppression is noble and necessary, but at the same time, there is obviously no idea that a woman could also choose – out of free will – to give birth to a child of another couple. Is “womb for hire” really the right term for this complex matter? For the sake of comparison, a look at the male side is helpful. No 26 states: “Man plays an equally decisive role in family life, particularly in reference to the protection and support of his wife and children.” The role model is St. Joseph who took care for his family and protected them. This statement is followed by a lamentation that fathers oftentimes are absent from their families depriving their sons of a masculine role model. But that model, as seen above, is limited to the double task of providing support and protection, nothing more is said about the role of the fathers except, maybe, that they should love their wives “as their own body” (Eph 5:28) just as Christ loves his church. So far, the model of complementarity seems perfect: women give care, while men offer protection and support. Is there nothing else offered by each? For a 4 For a detailed analysis of the meaning and history of the expression “feminine genius” cf. the article by Sharon Bong in this book. 5 Cf. Manson, Jamie: It’s time to be honest about Pope Francis and women, in: National Catholic Reporter, May 19, 2016 (source: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/its-time-be-ho nest-about-pope-francis-and-women). 6 Cf. Relatio finalis 2015, Nos 27–28.

150

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

more detailed background, we have a look at the 2004 CDF document “on the Collaboration of men and women”, which shows how highly men of the church still think of “the woman” and the “feminine genius” – as long as no woman gets into their way.

1.3

CDF “on the Collaboration of Men and Women” (2004)

First of all, the CDF makes very clear that Feminism, and what today is called “gender ideology”, have to be opposed, because they not only present no valid solution to gender injustice, but on the contrary : they constitute the problem! The CDF states: “A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.” (No 2) I always was inclined to think that to fight subordination means to fight for justice – a fight that is well in accordance with catholic social teaching. Nevertheless, this document is not about social teaching; it deals with matters of sexuality, family, and last, but not least, with the role of women in the church. However, let us stick to the first matter : the consequence of the “first tendency” is a second one: “A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary.” (No 2) What are the consequences? “This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.” (No 2) Now there’s the rub! We are facing a hidden agenda. The aim of the gender ideologists obviously is the following: “All persons can and ought to constitute themselves as they like, since they are free from every predetermination linked to their essential constitution.” (No 3) So, we are in the centre of sexual ethics: once the strong complementary model of man and woman crumbles, we face total promiscuity without any ethical values at all. One can only guess what the following warning really means: “This tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form.” (No 3) Christologically, we are on precarious grounds. If Christ’s maleness had any soteriological relevance, we might have to accept the fact that women are redeemed only partly, i. e., their femaleness itself is either unredeemed or un-

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

151

redeemable. This would be a major shift from the original tradition that states that, by assuming human form, God has redeemed all of humanity. Of course, this notion is aimed at the question of women’s ordination; but if we take it seriously, it goes much deeper than that. Jamie Mason’s analysis is the following (this time aimed at Pope Francis): “Francis is delicately saying that because women do not have a phallus, they cannot ‘image’ the body of Christ.”7 If that were the case, women could not only not be priests, but could also not be full members of the Church at all. Back to the main question: What is the role of woman as “complementary” to man? The CDF document invokes the creation of Eve as a “helpmate”, which, of course, does not entail inferiority, but the role as a “vital helper” (cf. No 6): “This is so that Adam’s life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same ‘flesh’ and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man.” (No 6) As nice as the words may sound, this thought leads to the conclusion that woman is created because man needs her ; woman is there for the other, i. e., for man. Although the text speaks of a “relational reality”, it seems that man is the sole purpose and woman the necessary means to that purpose: “Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists ‘for the other’ (cf. 1 Cor 11:9). Woman is ‘there for the other’.” (No 6) Therefore, we have a definition of woman as “being there for the other”, i. e., for man; the purpose of her life is to offer herself as a gift for the other. I wonder why it is not said explicitly : “gift for the man”? If we look at the complementary model more thoroughly, we see that equality is only there at the level of ideas, whereas, in reality, it leads to inequality and unjust relations, even if the CDF denies it. It states: “Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of ‘uni-duality’, which only sin and ‘the structures of sin’ inscribed in culture render potentially conflictual.” (No 8) Who is responsible for the conflict? Whose “sin” is the root of this? In No 2, we read that it is the “tendency” of feminist and gender theorists to wage conflict – a conflict that would not be there without them in the first place. In other words, no conflict between sexes would arise if woman would just know her place and stay there. This idea is based on the preferred nuptial symbolism, which follows the role models of Mary and Joseph, or Mary and Christ. The conclusions drawn by the CDF states in short: “Among the fundamental values linked to women’s actual lives is what has been called a ‘capacity for the other’. Although a certain 7 Manson, op.cit.

152

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

type of feminist rhetoric makes demands ‘for ourselves’, women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contribute to the growth and protection of the other.” (No 13) Here, we see clearly that the “genius of woman” (No 13) or “feminine genius” is related to family, motherhood, and all sorts of caring. Together with the theological model of Mary, it means the basic attitude of “listening and receiving” (No 15) – it is the place of the obedient servant. This, of course, is considered a virtue for all Christians, but even here, women are “special”: “While these traits should be characteristic of every baptized person, women in fact live them with particular intensity and naturalness.” (No 16) In the concluding point, we can see how a patriarchal way of thinking considers woman as the prime saviour from sin, and in the end, the hope to overcome the damage male sin has done to earth and society : “The witness of women’s lives must be received with respect and appreciation, as revealing those values without which humanity would be closed in self-sufficiency, dreams of power and the drama of violence. Women too, for their part, need to follow the path of conversion and recognize the unique values and great capacity for loving others which their femininity bears.” (No 17) In short: Woman saves the world from the egocentric perspective of men through her obedient service; and it would be a sin to refuse this service – a fall of woman into the pattern of male sinfulness.

1.4

Perspectives from feminist theology and gender theory

It is not at all difficult to apply a few of the basic insights of feminist critique to the gender perspective – maybe we should call it even more clearly gender ideology – of the magisterium, which is clearly androcentric, considering “the male as the determinant of the human being”8 and the female as deviant. This is the main character of patriarchy as a fundamental and universal power structure defining not only the place of women in matrimony, but also in society overall.9 This androcentric self-perception predisposes females to follow behaviour patterns that subordinate their own needs and desires to those of the men and children in their lives.10 Overall, we see the classic dualistic pattern,11 identifying woman with body, household, inside, emotion, and decency, while men are identified with mind, public sphere, outside, reason, and dignity. For more than half a 8 Rossi, Mary Ann: Androcentrism, in: Isherwood, Lisa/McEwan, Dorothea: An A to Z of Feminist Theology, Sheffield 1996, 5–6, 5. 9 Cf. Schottroff, Luise/Schaumberger, Christine: Patriarchat, in: WBfemTh1 (1991), 319–323. 10 Rossi, Androcentrism, op.cit. 5. 11 Cf. Nagl-Docekal, Herta: Dualismus, in: WBfemTh1 (1991), 64–67.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

153

century, feminist and gender studies have analysed this kind of construction as being far from natural, but rather a socially constructed knowledge system: the dualistic pattern is the way to interpret the world, and social gender roles are attributed via the biological dimension of sex.12 This attribution is only possible if sex is considered the natural basis on which gender as a cultural construct is built upon. The studies of Judith Butler and many others have shown this idea itself to be an intellectual construct: since sex is experienced within a cultural framework there is no “natural” experience of body and sex in itself; even the genitals are just a “sign” for being male or female.13 Therefore, the importance of gender roles cannot be overestimated. To analyse and deconstruct these roles is first of all a criticism of power structures – which explains why anti-genderism is so strong in the hierarchy : “they fear losing the perspective of a stable reality organized along dualistic gender differences that are considered to be natural (and therefore unchanging), complementary (and therefore unequivocal), and hetero-normative.”14 This would entail that everything begins to destabilize – not only sexual morality, but all of society as well. Therefore, gender is considered a “strategic vehicle used by feminists and homosexual activists to attack and destabilize the ‘natural’ family”15.Feminism and gender theories are not seen as academic discussions, but as “political strategy” and an “anthropological threat”.16

1.5

Conclusions for catholic sexual ethics

From a gender-sensitive perspective, we have to reconstruct theological ethics – and the initially mentioned moral theologians, Margaret Farley and Todd Salzman/Michael Lawler, are good examples how this could and should be done. Our question, therefore, is not primarily to question oppressive power structures that eventually become destructive and violent. The example at the very beginning of this article has shown clearly enough how a male-centred perspective is dam12 Cf. Hirschauer, Stefan: Wie sind Frauen, wie sind Männer? Zweigeschlechtlichkeit als Wissenssystem, in: Eifert, Was sind Frauen? In: Eifert, Christiane u. a. (Hg.): Was sind Frauen? Was sind Männer? Geschlechterkonstruktinoen im historischen Wandel, Frankfurt/M. 1996, 240–256. 13 Cf. Hirschauer, a. a. O., 241–242. 14 Cf. Hark, Sabine/Villa, Paula-Irene: “Eine Frage an und für unsere Zeit”, in: dies. (Hg.): AntiGenderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzungen, Bielefeld 2015, 15–40, 30. 15 Paternotte, David: Blessing the Crowds, in: Hark, Sabine/Villa, Paula-Irene (Hg.): AntiGenderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzungen, Bielefeld 2015, 129–148, 136. 16 Paternotte, David: Blessing the Crowds, op.cit., 138.

154

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

aging in real life situations. Feminist and gender studies have shown clearly enough how an oppressive patriarchalistic culture has damaged women’s bodies and souls. Now it is our task – not only women’s – to uncover, expose, and fight those structures.However, the focus here is that everybody is entitled and called to find his or her own place in life – especially in sexual relationships. Salzman/Lawler have shown clearly that complementarity is a sensitive issue and also necessary between partners; but at the same time, it cannot be linked to the genital complementarity of sex, not even to role-complementarity of gender, but it has to be understood as “holistic complementarity” between individuals, deeply rooted in the person and his/her understanding of him-/herself.17 Complementarity is not a question of gender, even less so of sex, but of personal identity – not individualistic, but essentially relational. From that understanding of sex, gender and personal relations, we go one step further in our question: how does this all correspond to sexual identity and sexual orientation?

2.

The responsibility of acknowledging and accepting one’s sexual identity

2.1

Introduction

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) acknowledges, “sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others” (no 2332). It continues: “[e]veryone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out” (no 2333). In the first part we have already expounded the problem of the notion of complementarity if it is reduced to genital complementarity of sexes, i. e., of maleness or femaleness, or to role-complementarity according to gender, i. e., of masculinity and femininity or father- and motherhood. On the contrary, it has to be understood in a holistic personal sense, which includes the whole person and their identity. Independently of his/her sex or gender, every human being is fully 17 Cf. Salzman, Todd A./Lawler, Michael G.: Sexual Ethics. A Theological Introduction, Washington (DC) 2012, 47–93; Salzman, Todd A./Lawler, Michael G.: The Sexual Person. Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, Washington (DC) 2008.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

155

and integrally human, but is at the same time in need of a relationship in which the person finds its/her identity in one’s relations with others.

2.2

What does sexual identity mean?

The aforementioned paragraph of the CCC clearly affirms that “everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his [and her] sexual identity”.What does sexual identity mean and who has the power and the competence to define one’s sexual identity? Sexual identity includes different areas of human being18 : (1) the biological dimension, (2) the socio-cultural dimension, and (3) the psychological dimension. 2.2.1 The biological dimension We must differentiate various aspects at the level of the biological sex: the genetic chromosome-related level (female XX, male XY), the reproductive and internal genital organs (ovaries, testes) and the related level of the hormones (oestrogen, testosterone), and the phenotypic appearance of sexual characteristics. In the current state of knowledge of sexual sciences, it is still controversially discussed whether there should be added as a further aspect of biological sex the prenatal development of that region of the hypothalamus that has not only an important function for sexual maturation, but is also linked to sexual orientation and influences sexual behaviour from adolescence. The process of the development and maturation of the biological sex is a very complex one, which in most cases proceeds in the way that the different aspects fit neatly together. Therefore, we can speak of a normal development or of normality in an empiric sense, but we must not speak of normativity in an ethical sense in order to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. There are also anomalous developments that may have different causes, e. g., a genetic anomaly of sex chromosome trisomy (XXX, XXY, XYY), or anomalous developments of the internal and/or external sexual characteristics, e. g., intersexuality. There may also be biological causes of the phenomenon, where the sexual orientation of a person does not tend towards a person of the opposite sex. The discussion of “normal” or “deviant” sexual orientation has, again, to be understood in an empiric sense, not in a medical or in an ethical sense. Hetero-normativity means that most people have a heterosexual orientation, but there exist also other forms of sexual orientation, which are not 18 Cf. e. g. Ulrike Kolanowski, Wie Jugendliche ihre sexuelle Orientierung entdecken. Persönliche Geschichten einmal anders betrachtet, in: Meike Watzlawik / Nora Heine (ed.), Sexuelle Orientierungen. Weg vom Denken in Schubladen, Göttingen 2009, 101–109.

156

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

subject to the free choice of the individual, but rather are given conditions, constituted prior to the freedom of the individual. As we will see later, the truly ethical question is how a person relates to these biological given realities.

2.2.2 The socio-cultural dimension It is undoubtedly an achievement of Gender studies to differentiate between sex and gender. Even though the two Assemblies of the Synod of Bishops on family and marriage in 2014 and 2015 reflect a quite undifferentiated and negative opinion about Gender theories by characterizing them generally as ideological, they have endorsed the distinction between “sex” and “gender”. The Final Report of the Synod of Bishops of October 2015 in paragraph 58 affirms: “According to the Christian principle, soul and body, as well as biological sex (sex) and socio-cultural role of sex (gender), can be distinguished but not separated.” Amoris laetitia no 56 also speaks about the “challenge (that) is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender” and identifies the very core of the “ideology of gender” in the denial of the “the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman” and in the vision of “a society without sexual differences.” This is interpreted subsequently as “elimination of the anthropological basis of the family.” I have my doubts as to whether this criticism is correct, as to whether it is justified against gender theories in general. I rather believe that this criticism fails to understand either the main common issue or the main concern of Gender studies, that is, to make us aware of the differentiation of sex and gender and to sensitize us to the various consequences of understanding the nature of masculine and feminine, as well as of the relationship between men and women.19 However, this cannot be discussed at this point. Anyhow, it is interesting that Pope Francis in AL no 286 affirms: “Nor can we ignore the fact that the configuration of our own mode of being, whether as male or female, is not simply the result of biological or genetic factors, but of multiple elements having to do with temperament, family history, culture, experience, education, the influence of friends, family members and respected persons, as well as other formative situations. It is true that we cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore. But it is also true that masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories.” Therefore, Pope Francis has in principle taken up the distinction between sex and gender positively. 19 Cf. the summery on feministic and gender studies by Gertraud Ladner, Feministische Forschung und Geschlechterforschung, in: ZKTh 136 (2014), 210–219.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

157

Excursus: The portrayal of women in Religions The Viennese religious scholar Birgit Heller states that, in all the major religious traditions, there exists a subordination of women to men, and vice versa the domination of men over women.20 This vision is not only a matter of sociocultural understanding of women’s role in society and religion, but rather reflects the deeper problem of projecting socio-cultural aspects into the nature of human beings and of legitimising this projection in religion. Historically and culturally developed understandings of the relationship between men and women were justified by declaring them as “given by nature”, that is, as conforming with human nature itself, or as willed by God. As a result, the masculine was attributed to the spiritual and divine sphere, the feminine, on the contrary, to the bodily and material one. The masculine nature and the male body were seen as the active, creative, and procreative part, while the feminine nature and the female body as the passive and receptive part. Men are seen as able to reason and acknowledge the truth, woman are seen as weaker, not only physically, but also in terms of reasoning and of moral behaviour and, therefore, as needing to be led by men. The risk of understanding being female not only not only as a form of non-self-sufficiency, but the feminine as such as a deficient form of being human, is quite evident. The move from here to the non-recognition of women’s self-understanding is gradual and small. Therefore, it is no wonder that, in the male-centred doctrine on sexual ethics, the female dimension and the women’s point of view is generally omitted. Women were seen as persons without their own sexual feelings and desires. These distinctions and this dualism are not mere religious characteristics, but can be found also in secular philosophies of the ancient West, as well as in the ancient social orders in the Roman Empire. These tendencies have exercised significant influence on the development of the Christian anthropological doctrine of notions of man and woman and, consequently, on sexual ethics. Women’s subordination to men was explained by the Order of creation, believed as revealed by the Holy Scripture, as well as by virtue of Natural Law. These questions, however, cannot be discussed here in detail.21 It should be noted, in any case, that this vision of subordination of woman to 20 Cf. e. g. Birgit Heller, Gender and Religion, in: Kari Elisabeth Børresen et al. (ed.), Gender and Religion. Genre et Religion, Rome 2001, 351–360; id., Gender und Religion, in: Johann Figl (ed.), Handbuch Religionswissenschaft, Innsbruck 2003, 758–769. 21 See e. g. Mary Douglas, Purity and danger : An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo, London 1966; Peter Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York 1988; Theresa Heimerl / Stefanie Knauß, Religion M/macht Geschlecht. Religion, Geschlechtskonstruktion und Medien, in: Sigrid Eder / Irmtraud Fischer (ed.), “… männlich und weiblich schuf er sie …” (Gen 1,27). Zur Brisanz der Geschlechterfrage in Religion und Gesellschaft (= Theologie im interkulturellen Dialog 16), Innsbruck/Wien 2009, 162–182.

158

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

man can be found in different texts of the Roman Catholic Magisterium up to the present day, even though in a more subtle form. As long as the “feminine genius” is seen as “for others”22, it is identified with a form of relationship of women to others in terms of caring. This form of relationship, in reality, all-too-often leads to asymmetric relations between the genders and causes social injustice and an asymmetric distribution of burdens.23 The emancipation of women requires critical rethinking regarding how Mary, virgin and mother of God, in the tradition was used as a model of how to be female and what the role of women should be. For example, in the late 1980s, the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians Women’s Collective in the Philippines had revealed the improper application of devotion to Mary, the Sorrowful Mother, because this devotion all-too-often was used to keep people, especially woman, shackled and passive .24 It states: “the ‘new’ Filipina (or female Indio) [after Spanish colonization, MML] was now her father’s meek daughter, her husband’s faithful subject, the Church’s obedient servant, and before her marriage, a chaste virgin who would yield only to her husband (and occasionally to the friar). Of course, like her peasant husband, she was also a slavelike toiler who worked the rich man’s and his descendants’ land for pittance.”25 Gender studies have revealed how these anthropological positions reflect male-dominated, that is, patriarchal, social structures, rather than nature-given features. The problem is not the differentiation of masculine and feminine, of male and female, but the normative evaluation of this division and the abuse of it in order to justify binary-ordered social structures of power. By defining a male or female genus, such structures are prolonged even nowadays.26 Therefore, it is necessary to free men and women from socio-cultural frames that were declared as nature-given and willed by God. There is no doubt that sex is a given element of nature, that human beings have to accept and personally make sense of it, but we have to distinguish it from the social role defined by religious and cultural traditions and societies. For example, in regard to the subordination of women to men, it must be emphasised that, according to Gen 3:16, this subordination is presented clearly as a consequence of sin and does not correspond to the original 22 Cf. CDF, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the World (2004), no. 13. 23 See Schnabl Christa, Gerecht sorgen. Grundlagen einer sozialethischen Theorie der Fürsorge (= Studien zur theologischen Ethik 108), Freiburg i.Br. et al. 2005. 24 Cf. Sr. Mary John Mananzan, “The Filipino Woman: Before and After the Spanish Conquest of the Philippines”, in: id. (ed.), Essays on Filipino Women, Manila 1987, 7–36; Aida F. Santos, Do Women Really Hold Up Half the Sky?: Note on the Women’s Movement in the Philippines, in: Carolyn I. Sobrichtea, Gender, Culture Society : Selected Readings in Women’s Studies in the Philippines (Women’s Studies in Asia Series: The Philippines), Soul 2004, 23–41. 25 Santos, Do Women Really Hold Up Half the Sky?, 26. 26 Cf. e. g. Relatio finalis 2015, 27–28.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

159

divine vision of relationship between man and woman. “Through sin the relationship of love and purity between man and woman turns into domination: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’ (Gen 3:16).”27 Overcoming this sin’s consequence of domination of men over women through Christ’s salvation means that for those who belong to Christ through baptism “there is no male and female” (cf. Gal 3,28). This does not “declare sex difference in any sense abolished in a new creation of unified, sexually undifferentiated humanity. Rather, it refers to the adiaphorization of sex difference in a new creation where being male or female is no advantage or disadvantage in relation to God and others and where man and woman are reconciled and united as equals.”28 2.2.3 The psychological dimension Sexual identity is strongly linked to one’s own Self-concept, that is, to one’s very personal understanding and image of him- or herself. Sexual identity has to do with one’s psychological feeling as being male or female, with one’s body awareness and experience, and with one’s personal sexual desire and orientation. It is also an expression of how one would like to be perceived by others with his or her very individual identity that includes the sexual dimension of his or her personality. The question of finding out and developing one’s personal identity belongs to the important aspects of self-awareness and of the sense that is inscribed into sexuality.29 Self-perception and the perception of oneself by others are two fundamental pillars for the development of personal identity. Every personal identity is always developed in a complex process of interpersonal relations.30 One’s sexual self-concept is influenced and determined by the biological dimension, as well as by the socio-cultural understanding of gender roles, but it is not determined either by the first or by the second. Therefore, it is one’s own responsibility to form his or her sexuality through critical confrontation, as well with one’s own biological sexual dimension, which includes the understanding of gender that one learns from the different social contexts where he or she lives, e. g., family, school, peer groups, Church, etc. This 27 Pope Francis, Amoris laetitia 19. 28 Judith M. Gundry-Volf, Christ and Gender. A Study of Difference and Equality in Gal 3,28, in: Christof Landmesser et al. (ed.), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, Berlin/New York 1997, 439. 29 Cf. Stephan Leimgruber, Christliche Sexualpädagogik. Eine emanzipatorische Neuorientierung für Schule, Jugendarbeit und Beratung, München 2011, 97. Leimgruber distinguishes five such sense-aspects: identity, communication, lust and vitality, fertility, and openness to transcendence (cf. ibid., 96–100). 30 Cf. Martin Buber’s Dialog principle of the necessity of the encounter with others in order to develop one’s identity : “The person in you becomes me.”

160

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

process, of course, can be very difficult and painful if a person’s sexual selfconcept does not correspond to their biological appearance or to social expectations. These tensions may put pressure on individuals, but are also critical questions that aim towards gender understanding and towards social judgements regarding what is normal and normative

2.3

Who defines one’s sexual identity?

As has been said previously, the forming of one’s identity is the fruit of a complex process. Personal responsibility always has to deal with different limitations of freedom, that is, it has to be achieved within real limitations and contingencies. These form the biological, social, and psychological framework of the concrete exercise of human freedom. Ultimately, the question is to enable and empower a person to his or her self-development and to ethical autonomy. This, first, requires taking seriously one’s own self-concept, as well as one’s own moral selfdetermination. Of course, both of them are embedded in a social and cultural context and do not happen in a vacuum. There are various forms of interactions and of social relations that influence personal self-determination. At the same time, personal self-determination and personal behaviour influence the interpersonal social dimension and the social understanding of gender. These close interactive relationships exist and must be considered. The determining factor, in any case, is the question of enabling the individuals to acknowledge and to accept their own sexual identity. In the end, this identity cannot be assigned outwardly to a person, but has always to include a person’s own self-concept, feeling, and desire. As many aspects of sexual identity are predetermined (as for example the biological aspects) or influence a person even before he or she has the possibility to relate to them consciously and critically (as for example the socio-cultural gender notions), finding out one’s own sexual identity does not consist simply in a free choice between different sexual concepts. Acknowledging his or her own sexual identity means to deal with determinations and limitations, as well as with personal and social expectations. To claim sexual autonomy does not mean that sexual identity becomes the choice of the individual, which can be changed freely over time, but to recognize one’s own responsibility of self-recognition, of sexual behaviour, and of placing meanings on sexuality. Further, it demands respect for body consciousness and psychological self-awareness, as well as for one’s individual sense of femaleness or maleness. Moral autonomy means the freedom and responsibility to express his or her own sexual identity by different forms of behaviour that are embedded in certain understandings of male and female roles, and that in different cultural contexts can be understood very differently.

Gendered Issues: A Critical Perspective on Catholic Sexual Ethics

161

This means that it is a person’s individual responsibility to learn to communicate with bodily sexual language and to use it in a proper way within daily interpersonal relationships.

2.4

Some conclusions for catholic sexual ethics

Sexual identity is neither biologically nor socio-culturally defined. It is rather an integral part of a person’s responsibility to acknowledge their sexual identity, to form and develop it within certain biologically, socio-culturally, and psychologically determined limitations. Freedom and moral autonomy have to be exercised within such a framework. There is the challenge to realize personal freedom in the tension between nature and culture. Culture has to be understood as the ability to act upon and to transform nature. This means, of course, to acknowledge the meanings and potentials offered by nature, and to actualize the potential inherent in nature. Mere nature does not have a normative force; on the contrary, any approach to interpret nature and its inherent potentials and meanings are mediated through a specific socio-cultural and anthropological-philosophical value-system. This is valid also for human sexuality. Any approach to biological sex is mediated through socio-cultural notions of gender. Acknowledging this, however, does not mean to deny the biological sexual dimension, but to recognize that there is no access to it beyond gender notions. It is up to the Church to acknowledge this scientific knowledge of Gender studies and to accept the personal responsibility of every man and woman for coping with his or her sexuality, body, affectivity, sexual desire, and orientation. Many of these aspects cannot be objectified, but are subjective experiences. Therefore, sexual identity cannot be assigned outwardly, but has to be formed by the person herself in a complex process of maturation and through confrontation with biological, socio-cultural, and psychological aspects. Sexual ethics has to aim to enable and empower people to assume this very personal responsibility. Ultimately, the Church should be very attentive to the negative consequences of deducing meanings of male or female sexuality from the biological basis of sexuality. It has to be attentive to the differentiation of sex and gender. Otherwise, it risks prolonging a male-centred perspective and view on sexuality and gender that creates distorted and unjust relations between men and women to the detriment of the latter. The Church has to overcome the historical baggage of a patriarchal understanding of sexuality and of relations between men and women that, until the present day, has caused the subordination of women and opened the door to violence against women and the instrumentalisation of the female body. This is a serious requirement, given our insight on how strongly such a

162

Martin Lintner / Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel

male-centred and predefined approach makes it impossible to deal freely and self-responsively with one’s sexuality. At the same time, the Church has to listen to people’s own self-understanding and to their own experiences, as well as to their own moral insights. As members of the Church, we do not have to speak on behalf of people – women and men – but we have to let them speak for themselves. Individual conscience and self-understanding need to be incorporated more broadly into the Church’s reflection on sexuality and on sexual ethics.31

31 The author fr. Martin M. Lintner OSM wishes to thank fr. Paul M. Addison OSM, London, for proofreading the manuscript of this text.

Serena Noceti (Florence)

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

In approaching the theme of women in a new ecclesiology of the laity, it is almost obvious that one should refer to the Vatican II, the first council in the Church’s history to have issued a document dedicated to the laity. The Council documents tackled the question of lay identity in a new manner with respect to what had been done in the previous fifteen centuries, when exclusion, marginalization, and denigration of the lay condition had been reiterated and justified1. Likewise, the Council opened new scenarios for the recognition of the subjectivity of women in the Catholic Church. The Council was a real turning point, a watershed both for the condition of the laity and for the status of women, but the Council should not be approached naively.

1.

Two perspectives of thinking of laymen/laywomen at the Vatican II

First, the Council documents present at least two different theologies regarding the “laypeople” that are placed side by side, but it did not come up with a systematic and comprehensive vision2. 1 Cf. G. Canobbio, Laici o cristiani? Elementi storico-sistematici per una descrizione del laico cristiano, Morcelliana, Brescia 1987; P. Neuner, Abschied von der Ständekirche. Plädoyer für eine Theologie des Gottesvolkes, Herder, Freiburg I.B. 2015. 2 About the “Theology of laypeople” at Vatican II: G. Zambon, Laicato e tipologie ecclesiali. Ricerca storica sulla “teologia del laicato” in Italia alla luce del Concilio Vaticano II (1950– 1980), PUG, Roma 1996; A. Anton, Principios fundamentales para una teologia del laicado en la eclesiologia del Vaticano II, in Gregorianum 68 (1987) 103–155; G. Routhier, Une histoire qui t8moigne du reflez du thHme du la"cat, in C. Theobald (ed.), Vatican II sous le renard des historiens, M8diasHvres, Paris 2006, 95–126; G. Magnani, La cosiddetta teologia del laicato ha uno statuto teologico?, in R. Latourelle (ed.), Il Vaticano II. Bilancio e prospettive venticinque anni dopo, Cittadella, Assisi 1987, I, 493–543 [ed.fr. Le la"cat: status th8ologique?, in R. Latourelle (ed.), Vatican II. Bilan et perspectives vingt-cinqu ans aprHs, Cerf Bellarmin, Paris Montreal 1988].

164

Serena Noceti

In Apostolicam Actuositatem, and in Lumen Gentium chapter IV3, we see a “theology of the laity” that leads to the fulfilment of teachings emerging from the 1950s (see Y. M. Congar)4 ; there is an accentuation of the idea of a secular nature that distinguishes the identity of laypeople, who are autonomous beings in their actions in the world and in history, but dependent on the clergy in the determination of their overall guidelines. As noted in LG 31 and AA 7, the moral, spiritual, and religious principles are defined by the Church hierarchy, and then entrusted to laypeople in order to be applied by them in political, economic, social, and family policies. The communications dynamics remain unidirectional (as in the Tridentine model) and oriented to “mere” application. Something very different is delineated in Lumen Gentium (Chapter II) and in Gaudium et Spes 43: namely, a new “theology of being laypeople” was formulated. Laypeople are recognized here as bearers of a word and of a unique presence needed for understanding the Gospel in history and for building the Church. From this second perspective, laypeople are those who safeguard the laic"t8, the secularity, and the extroversion of the Church, because they guarantee an interpretation of the Gospel in light of the evolution of cultures and languages of our time (GS 44). Their word “makes” the Church, and contributes in a peculiar way to the tradition of the Church (traditio ecclesiae; cf. LG 12; DV 8). The post-Vatican II reception in the papal Magisterium, particularly starting in the mid-1980s, has largely reintroduced the “theology of the laity” (see Christifideles Laici), acknowledging, in a limited manner, the word of laymen and laywomen as the word necessary for interpreting the Gospel today5. The synodal dynamics have been insightfully recognized, but without the assurance of adequate instruments or institutions to allow for multidirectional communications, interpretation, and decision-making dynamics in which laypeople are actually protagonists6. 3 Cf. S. Noceti – R. Repole (edd.), Commentario ai documenti del Vaticano II. II. Lumen gentium, EDB, Bologna 2015; Y.M. Congar (ed.), L’apostolat des la"cs. D8cret “Apostolicam Actuositatem”, Cerf, Paris 1970; M. Semeraro, Il cristiano laico nel testo conciliare di Lumen Gentium 30–31, in Lateranum 56 (1990) 143–181. 4 Cf. Y.M. Congar, Jalons pour une theologie du la"cat, Cerf, Paris 1953 [tr. it. Per una teologia del laicato, Morcelliana, Brescia 1967]. 5 Cf. S. Pié Ninot, Aportaciones del S&nodo 1987 e la teolog&a del laicado, in Revista EspaÇola de Teolog&a 48 (1988) 322–370; R. Lanzetti, L’indole secolare propria dei laici secondo l’esortazione apostolica postsinodale Christifideles Laici, in Annales Teologici 3 (1989) 35–51. See: Congregatio pro clericis et Al., Ecclesiae de mysterio, Su alcune questioni circa la collaborazione dei laici al ministero dei sacerdoti, in Enchiridion Vaticanum 16/671–740. 6 Cf. H. Legrand, La sinodalit/, dimensione inerente alla vita ecclesiale. Fondamenti e attualit/, in Vivens Homo 16 (2005) 7–42; R. Battocchio – S. Noceti (edd.), Chiesa e sinodalit/. Coscienza, forme, processi, Glossa, Milano 2007; H.M. Legrand, Coll8gialit8 des 8vÞques et communion des 8glises dans la r8ception de Vatican II, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th8ologiques 75 (1991) 545–568; A. Borras, Sinodalit/ ecclesiale, processi partecipativi e mo-

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

165

Similarly, we should not forget that Vatican II talked about women in an extremely limited manner (with only nine very brief references)7. The language and the perspective were substantially androcentric and patriarchal; women were included in affirmations formulated about the religious and the laity, which are drawn from an anthropological and ecclesial understanding that is seemingly gender-neutral, but, in reality, it is the product of a universalized male declared “human”, without any addition or qualification. It is only in the post-Vatican II period that women have been able to make explicit what was implicitly said about them when one was talking about the lay condition; the potential and conditions for an authoritative, public, and competent word from women, as the word needed for building the “church”, has only been acquired in the past 50 years8. Even today, there is an extremely limited awareness of the Church being a gender-oriented and structured institution9 ; the work of deconstruction of the patriarchal system that defines intra-ecclesial relationships (in particular, those between ordained ministers and laymen/laywomen), the liturgy, and pastoral practices (at a symbolic and structural level) is largely insufficient. The discussion of the question of the relationship between masculinity and power is almost taboo.

2.

An ecclesiological (re)view

With reference to my proposed reflection, I have a decided preference for the second model (“theology of the being laypeople”), within the framework of an ecclesiology that envisions a “hermeneutic community” church in which the dalit/ decisionali. Il punto di vista di un canonista e G. Routhier, Il rinnovamento della vita sinodale nelle chiese locali, in A. Spadaro – C.M. Galli (edd.), La riforma e le riforme nella chiesa, Queriniana, Brescia 2016, 207–232. 233–247 [tr. spag. Sal Terrae, Santander 2017]. 7 About women and Vatican II, cf. , cf. M. Perroni – A. Melloni – S. Noceti (edd.), Tantum aurora est. Donne e Concilio Vaticano II, LIT Verlag, München 2012; C.E. McEnroy, Guests in Their Own House: The Women of Vatican II, Crossroad, New York 1996 [ed. riv. 2011]; M. Eckholt, Ohne die Frauen ist keine Kirche zu machen. Der Aufbruch des Konzils und die Zeichen der Zeit, Matthias Grünewald Verlag, Ostfildern 2012. Cf. Gaudium et Spes 8–9 (Enchiridion Vaticanum = EV I/1343.1347). 29 (EV I/1410). 31 (EV I/1415). 49 (EV I/1476). 59–60 (EV I/1521); Apostolicam Actuositatem 9 (EV I/948). 32 (EV I/1040); Ad Gentes 17 (EV I/1141). 21 (EV I/1165). 8 Cf. C. Militello (ed.), Il Vaticano II e la sua recezione al femminile, EDB, Bologna 2007; B. Albrecht, Die Aussagen des II. Vatikanischen Konzils in Ihrer Bedeutung für die berufliche Mirtarbeit der Frau in der Kirche, in O. Semmelroth (ed.), Martyria, Leiturgia, Diakonia, Matthias Grünewald, Mainz 1968, 431–450; M. Perroni – H. Legrand (edd.), Avendo qualcosa da dire. Teologhe e teologi rileggono il Vaticano II, Paoline, Cinisello B. 2014. 9 Cf. S. Noceti, Unterwegs zu einer inklusiven Kirche (EG 103–104). Prinzipien für eine ekklesiologische Re/Vision, in K. Appel – J.H. Deibl (edd.), Barmherzigkeit und zärtliche Liebe. Das theologische Programm von Papst Franziskus, Herder, Freiburg I.Br. 2016, 336–348.

166

Serena Noceti

contribution of the word of laymen/laywomen is as church making and significant as that of the ordained ministers. For centuries, the identity of ecclesial persons was defined starting from the theological word of only men who belonged to the clergy. Such theological word had the power of defining the boundaries of identity, of assigning the forms of identity of every man and woman, and of determining and justifying the “lines of mystical demarcation” (V. Woolf) between men and women, and between clergy and laypeople. For centuries, the identity of the laity has been delineated by assuming the figure of the “sacerdos” as analogatum princeps; the identity of the laity has been expressed in negative form (the layperson is not a priest, is not a religious man/ woman) and placed within the sphere of denigrated “unholiness”. For centuries, the vision of laypeople has been a variable derived from the ecclesial self-conscience (it betrayed the different interpretative models of the church-world relationship in vogue) and dependent on the self-understanding of priests. Vatican II started to redefine subjectivity and relationships, but it still reflects – in Chapter IV of Lumen Gentium, in particular – an ecclesiological understanding that “separates” the “church sphere” and the “world sphere”; the ordained ministers belong to the former, while laymen/laywomen belong to the latter. In applying today’s more established hermeneutical criteria of Vatican II documents, I believe it is essential to frame the reflection about women within an ecclesiology that takes into account the drawing up of the documents and gives preference to Chapter II of Lumen Gentium. This chapter is dedicated to God’s people, and to the reading of the relationships among “Kingdom of God – world – church” in Chapter IVof Gaudium et Spes10. From this perspective (that was not fully received by and in Magisterium), it is possible to better define the role of laymen and laywomen, who, through baptism, are also persons who co-institute the “ecclesial We”11. It is necessary to analyse the development of the “ecclesial We” institutionalized thanks to the contribution of the different parts of the ecclesial body. The identities of laymen/laywomen and ordained ministers need to be considered as a whole and in correlation with one another, without one of them (or a generic idea of a baptised person) upgraded to a primary point of perspective. Such identities can be understood – in their specific profile – only within the framework of those formal-functional distinctions that emerge when examining the way in which the “ecclesial We” lives and works in a communication system. All laypeople and ordained ministers are subjects of ecclesial praxis and evangelization in the world and in the church, and the call to serve the Kingdom of God as a church and in the church is common to all. However, the 10 L. Boff, Chiesa: carisma e potere. Saggio di ecclesiologia militante, Borla, Roma 1984. 11 Cf. S. Dianich – S. Noceti, Trattato sulla chiesa, Queriniana, Brescia 2002, 20052, 20153, 390–428 [tr. port. Tratado sobre a Igreja, Editora Santu#rio, Aparecida SP 2007].

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

167

differentiation is seen in the form of the relationships that laypeople and ordained ministers maintain with the established “ecclesial We” and with the function of the “collective subject” as such. Ordained ministers are mainly oriented to serving the Kingdom of God through service to its ecclesial mediation as a collective body subsisting through the centuries, since they guarantee to the church its foundation in the experience of apostolic faith12 ; laypeople aim at the serving the becoming of the church through and in historical development. Their identity does not end in an exclusive and univocal relationship with the Christian community, but laypeople point out the coming of the kingdom in human history, and they safeguard the “symbolic figure of the extroversion of the Church” and the secularity of the Church in many different ways13. The “layperson” does not exist; he/she cannot be traced back to a single pattern. Laypeople live in plural forms/Gestalten. We have to start with the overall vision of the institutionalized “collective body” of the Church and investigate relationships – with reference to communications, functions, and powers – that make the ecclesial body exist and act, in order to define the singular contribution of women. The philosophical-sociological background to which I refer is based on P. Berger’s and T. Luckmann’s construction of the social world, as well as J. Habermas’ theory of communicative action14. Starting from Dei Verbum 8 and Lumen Gentium 12, the historical-collective subject “church” may be approached from the standpoint of communicative interactions with attention to the symbolic and pragmatic aspects of communication (with particular significance given to the performative nature). This is akin to a game – a choreography – of three interacting parties (God’s people, theologians, and bishops), whose specificity is captured in this communicative dynamism15. For God’s people, it is the perception of spiritual reality and of 12 The Council offers a path for interpretation of the ministerial from an ecclesiological-relational perspective, which is significantly detached from the previous theologies concentrated on a christological-ontological foundation. Cf. S. Noceti, Introduzione al cap. III di Lumen gentium, in S. Noceti – R. Repole (edd.), Commentario ai documenti del Vaticano II. II. Lumen gentium, EDB, Bologna 2015, 209–223; M. Fallert, Mitarbeiter der Bischöfe. Das Zueinander des bischöflichen und priesterlichen Amtes auf und nach den Zweiten Vatikaninischen Konzil, Echter, Würzburg 2007; E. Castellucci, A trent’anni dal decreto ‘Presbyterorum Ordinis’. La discussione teologica postconciliare sul ministero presbiterale, in La Scuola Cattolica 124 (1996) 3–68; 195–261. 13 S. Dianich (ed.), Dossier sui laici, Queriniana, Brescia 1987; B. Forte, Laicato e laicit/. Saggi ecclesiologici, Marietti, Casale M. 1986. 14 P.L. Berger – Th. Luckmann, La realt/ come costruzione sociale, Il Mulino, Bologna 1969 [or. 1966]; J. Habermas, Teoria dell’agire comunicativo, Il Mulino, Bologna 1987–88 [or. 1981]. 15 Cf. S. Noceti, Sensus fidelium and the Ecclesial Dynamics, in Th. Knieps-Port Le Roy – A. Brenninkmeijer-Werhahn (edd.), Authentic Voices – Discerning Hearts: New Resources for the Church on Marriage and Family, LIT Verlag, Zürich 2016, 170–183. Cf. Chr. Duquoc,

168

Serena Noceti

words transmitted; for theologians, the reflection about the realities of the faith; and for the bishops, who have a certain charisma of truth, an authoritative, decisive, and magisterial contribution in terms of interpretation. In order to outline a new theological vision of the “being laypeople”/laity, it is not sufficient to refer to a participative ecclesial vision with generic spiritual fellowship (koinonia), declaring the phase of hierarchical logic concluded as a result of the turning point with Vatican II. We have to reconsider the multi-directional communicative dynamics that make up the koinonia, the Tradition, and the Church, so as to realize a new subjectivity of laypeople and of women, and to open up new scenarios for drafting/elaborating a new ecclesiology from a gender perspective.

3.

In a gender perspective, women are subject of speech: the question of entitlement

When believers speak to one another and together, a co-understanding (Verständigung, the term used in Habermas’ communicative action theory) is expressed and produced. The Verständigung that is generated is a renewed understanding of the faith with a new collective-conscience content. Women contribute to this process based on the full baptismal subjectivity acknowledged to them today. First, they affirm the power of an expression/ profession of the faith that passes through the symbolization of an inner-faith experience, which is living in a gendered body that is to be perceived and described through a symbolic and linguistic order according to gender. In the “hermeneutic community”, the word of laywomen is bearing witness to the in/ auditus (because it has not been listened to)16. The dynamics of communicative interaction that give rise to and become real and true that qualify the communion are unfolding as women are starting from new “places”: the human experience of the meaning of life produced by women, marginal places, and places for face-to-face dialogue. In addition, women thus contribute to the generation of ecclesial relationships in which unity in difference and the relationship with

Il popolo di Dio, soggettivo attivo della fede nella chiesa, in Concilium 21 (1985) 574–585; D.J. Finucane, Sensus fidelium. The Use of a Concept in the Post-Vatican Era, San Francisco 1996; O. Rush, Sensus Fidei: Faith “Making Sense” of Revelation, in Theological Studies 62(2001), 231–261; Ch. Ohly, Sensus fidei fidelium. Zur Einordnung des Glaubenssinnes aler Gläubigen in die Communio-Struktur der Kirche im geschichtlichen Spiegel dogmatisch-kanonistischer Erkenntnisse und der Aussagen des II. Vaticanum, St. Ottilien 1999. 16 Cf. Aa.Vv., Donne invisibili nella teologia e nella chiesa, in Concilium 21 (1985) VI.

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

169

otherness (alterit/) are safeguarded17. They could contribute because they are perceived as an “other”, but at the same time they are aware of being a cofounding part of the Church. Laywomen have abandoned the “infantile” conditions (in Latin an “infant” is someone who does not talk), and are redetermining now the tradition of the Church (traditio ecclesiae) with their authoritative, public, and competent expression. Their perception of spiritual things and of the messages transmitted and their theological study of these spiritual things and attested words are reshaping the tradition of the Church (traditio ecclesiae), both as a process and in its contents. At the same time, the critical question about why the voice of safeguarding the apostolicity of Catholic Church doctrine is only masculine leads to the perception of a gap that needs to be accounted for, above and beyond the easy “unspoken” explanations. Thus, the boundaries are also widened for ecclesiological research about ministries and the value of ecclesial mediation that change during the centuries. After Vatican II, women became present and active in the church, thus all ecclesial persons – ordained ministers, laymen – need to be repositioned within the ecclesial scenario, and the choreography18 of the ecclesial “performance” is to be redefined with respect to participation-decision making and the liturgy. The contribution of women is then first of all the contribution of a word interpreting and re-interpreting the faith, especially if this word starts from a perspective – that of gender19 – that highlights the increasing culturally defined form of understanding the person, the Gospel, and the sense of belonging. Altogether, it is an appeal to unravel and deconstruct those “falsely” neutral ecclesiologies and liturgies still anchored to an unthinkable masculinity, to a human that does not know what to say in his partiality20. Laywomen – both as laypeople, and as women – when they are detached from the profile of the Tridentine layperson (the one who has no function in the church) and from the expectations of acritical obedience and silent submission (which surround 17 Cf. U. King – T. Beattie, Gender, Religion, and Diversity : Cross-cultural Perspectives, Bloomsbury Ac. Press, London 2005. 18 L. Foster, Choreographies of Gender, in Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 24 (1998) 1–33. 19 Cf. R.W. Connell, Questioni di genere, Il Mulino, Bologna 2006; S. Noceti, Di genere in genere, in Vivens Homo 18 (2007) 291–303; H. Bussmann – R. Hof (edd.), Genus. Geschlechterforschung/Genderstudies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2005; Planté Chr. et al., Le genre comme cat8gorie d’analyse. Sociologie, histoire, litt8rature, L’Harmattan, Paris 2003; C. Simonelli, Teologia, differenza e gender : un dibattito aperto, in Studia Patavina 62 (2015) 73–88; M. Jakobs, Gender in Theologie. Neuer Wein in alten Schläuchen?, in M. Egger – L. Meier – K. Wißmiller (edd.), WoMan in Church, LIT, Münster 2006, 7–29; L. Vantini, Genere, Messaggero, Padova 2015. 20 Cf. L. Irigaray, Etica della differenza sessuale, Feltrinelli, Milano 19904 ; Diotima, Il pensiero della differenza sessuale, La tartaruga edizioni, Milano 20033.

170

Serena Noceti

laywomen) can categorically and dynamically safeguard the ecclesiological change of Vatican II: I). This is possible due to a self-awareness of a church in relation to the world, and in relation to the necessary inculturation of the faith in the languages of our time (GS 44); II). It is also due to the consciousness that each ecclesial identity can be understood and developed only in the relationship and as inter-subjectivity (GS 12, 24, and 32), and III), which is due especially to the relationship between truth and history, that the analytical-critical category of gender brings along with it. While efforts with respect to the laity, and women, in particular, have been primarily made to promote empowerment because of a faint awareness of lay identity, the primary and determining issue some 50 years after the Council seems to be that of consistent and adequate entitlement. It is a question of working around factors that determine “entitlement”21. In society, as in the Church, it is never only a question of roles, of conditions (innate or acquired), or of recognized paths of access at an objective level (and as such, institutionalized paths). It is no longer sufficient to act on the cognitive aspect of the “layman/laywoman” involved, who becomes aware of his/her being and cultivates expectations at an emotional and motivational level with normative force (the “having” to receive something), but concrete conditions must be provided for interaction between bishops, priests, and laypeople. Such conditions are to be established by the social body as a whole, and depend on conditions of feasibility of new behaviours and practices that jointly involve all of the players (ordained ministers and laypeople) in their “entitlement” and in being recognized in such established subjectivity. The Catholic Church still simultaneously presents (1) patriarchal-hierarchical models and (2) egalitarian-inclusive models, both justified by the text of Lumen Gentium; the overall transformation can only occur through the promotion of “hermeneutical communities” of men and women. Together, they recognize that they have mutual interests, that is, (re)constructing a truly evangelical collective reason, and tackling the unresolved issue of entitlement of all men and women. We cannot forget that gender is also a transformative-political category that indicates how the practices, systems, and social structures of gender change over time.

21 B. Major, Gender Difference in Comparisons and Entitlement, in Journal of Social Issues 45 (1989) IV 99–115; E. Singer, Reference Groups and Social Evaluations, in M. Rosenberg (ed.), Social psycology, Transaction, New York 1981, 66–93.

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

4.

171

Rethinking the tria munera – question of identity

The Council refers to the tria munera Christ in order to outline the profile of the common messianic mission of every christifidelis and of God’s people as a whole. They do this based on baptism, and in order to delineate the specificity of the contribution given by laypeople, bishops, and priests. The subjectivity of women requires and allows a new variation of the tria munera of laypeople, who we see today as “confined” within the perspective of the “theology of the laity” of Apostolicam Actuositatem and of Lumen Gentium Chapter IV, and therefore, “defined” starting from the idea of a secular nature of laypeople22. This is first of all an issue of defining the succession of the elements of the triple munus: in the case of God’s people and of the laypeople, the Council actually starts from the common priesthood (LG 10–11; LG 32), while in the case of the ministries, the teaching office (munus docendi) is ranked first. Perhaps it is appropriate that laypeople also start from the proclaimed and heard word, namely, from the evangelizing and communications dynamics of the faith that makes the church, and to place the consideration of the prophetic munus ahead of the other two munera. I have already extensively presented the contribution of the word of women to the dynamics making up the ecclesial life (the word of women has today the dimension of reflected awareness and recognized public authoritativeness). I add only that we must get to a focused consciousness of the fact that, according to LG 12, the sensus fidei ecclesiae flows at an empirical level from the consensus fidelium, which entails both men and women as participants23. Every transmission of formative meanings within the Church is their reaffirmation transformed through the unique and personal lives of individuals, both men and women. The sensus fidei ecclesiae represents a “symbolic universe”, the matrix of all of the socially objectified and subjectively valid meanings of the faith and it is always determined through “joint participation” of all, between each person’s appropriation and personal re-expression of the story of Jesus and the Christian event, which are always gendered, qualified, and expressed. We must, therefore, responsibly assume the task of a prophetic word, 22 Cf. P.G. Drilling, The Priest, Prophet and King Trilogy. Elements of its Meaning in Lumen Gentium and Today, in Pglise et Th8ologie 18 (1988) 179–206; Y.M. Congar, Sur la trilogie: prophHte-roi-prÞtre, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et th8ologiques 67 (1983) 96–115; N. Weis, Das prophetische Amt der Laien in der Kirche, PUG, Roma 1981. 23 P. Scharr, Consensus fidelium. Unfehlbarkeit der Kirche aus der Perspektive einer Konsensustheorie der Wahrheit, Echter, Würzburg 1992; H. Wagner, Glaubenssinn, Glaubenszustimmung, Glaubenkonsensus, in Theologie und Glaube 69 (1979) 263–271; R. Brosse, Consensus fidelium: un dialogue? R8flexions herm8neutiques sur la th8ologie fondamentale et l’eccl8siologie, in Revue Th8ologique de Louvain 29 (1998) 331–344.

172

Serena Noceti

which is significant because a community of men and women, whose equal dignity is not only attested to through words, but also promoted and carried out in practice, proclaims it. Secondly, the subjectivity of laywomen broadens the ways in which the common priesthood is exercised; the priesthood is the priesthood of existence before it is the priesthood of rites24. Women today are redefining the relationship with the space and time of human life; the gender perspective interrupts those coveted polar dichotomies that separate the public sphere of masculinity (trade and knowledge) and intimate atmosphere of the home, where women are supposed to be the sovereigns and the vestals. Choosing work, being mothers, and being sisters are just three of the many profiles qualifying women’s priesthood and worship of God as the gift of oneself to others; such profiles need to be revisited, first, because they are marked by reductive sacrificial logic, by significant perceptions of the oblatory nature of the human experience, and by anthropological-cultural specificities. The ever-present temptation, which includes women’s studies, is that of returning to a sacred code in which to reposition the feminine. In reality, the priesthood of Christ actually interrupts the idea of a religiosity conceived around the sacred/profane dichotomous division. The ecclesial temptation of returning to live by this code and reinstating the temenos of separation remains strong: women must safeguard that liberating affirmation of the holiness of God, who permeates everything and gives his capacity of humanization, disclosing the perils inherent to the excessive glorification of the sacred, even though recovered as the sphere of the feminine. Finally, this is an issue of rethinking the royal office of laypeople25, and consequently tackling the delicate, but essential, question of power in the Church. Women (all of whom are laypeople) attest to the entire Church that it is not sufficient to make reference to baptismal dignity or to denounce the hierarchical processes within in the Church, Moreover it is also not sufficient to call for (even with insufficiently debated feminine ecclesiological metaphors) “circular” church models26 in order to obtain equality or a structuring of proper relationships between all members of the Church if the dynamics of power recog24 Vanhoye A., Sacerdoti antichi e nuovo sacerdote secondo il Nuovo Testamento, LDC, TorinoLeumann 1985 [PrÞtres anciens et prÞtre nouveau, Seuil, Paris, 1980]; Perroni m., La tensione culto-comprensione: la teologia liturgico-sacramentale di Paolo, in A. Grillo – M. Perroni – P.R. Tragan (edd.), Corso di teologia sacramentaria, Queriniana, Brescia 2000, I, 227–257; Vanni u., La promozione del Regno come responsabilit/ sacerdotale dei cristiani secondo Apocalisse e 1Pietro, in Gregorianum 68 (1987) 9–56; Schelkle K.H., Un popolo sacerdotale, Queriniana, Brescia 1967 [Ihr alle seid Geistliche, Benziger, Einsiedeln 1964]. 25 G. Canobbio – F. dalla Vecchia – G.P. Montini (edd.), La funzione regale di Cristo e dei cristiani, Morcelliana, Brescia 1997, 135–172. 26 Cf. L. Russell, Church in the Round. Feminist Interpretation of the Church, Louisville/KY 1993.

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

173

nition, the exercise of authority, and obedience are not submitted to a critical examination27. In addition, the “knowledge-power” relationship needs to be contemplated without undervaluing the implications of gender that accompany the interpretation and exercise of authority in the Church (1 Timothy 2.11 and the passages thereafter). Women in the Church today are not vested with any decision-making potestas that could directly influence the ecclesial life as a whole (“Ecclesial We”); the research about potestas iurisdictionis, based on baptism, is extremely limited in terms of the number of undertakings and the contributions made. Moreover, the appeal to the sense of self-sacrificing service is frequent when it resonates the request of women for ecclesial roles (non-ministerial) and powers related to such roles (such requests have immediately been criticized as “claims”). The criticism of the glass ceiling28, which often precludes women from exercising leading roles in the pastoral field and which is thicker in the Catholic Church than in other social institutions, and the reporting of the persistence of a “patriarchal dividend” within the clergy who is not interested in the positions of undisputed power held for centuries, are issues that have gained little traction in today’s ecclesial reality. On this level, gender studies would contribute two qualifying elements to ecclesiology and to a new vision of the people of God’s munus regendi: a new symbolization of the concept of power in the terms of relationship29, in the sense of “making the other capable of ….”, and the disclosure that the power is also given by the position that you take and by the explicit or implicit recognition of function (and thus, entitlement) that the other ecclesial members bestow upon you. Here, too, the ecclesial practices of gender received, presupposed, imposed, and handed down (from women and men, from a form of church, and from a culture) are, to date, suffering from interruption due to the existence of a new subjectivity on the part of women. The “breaking in” of women as bearers of the word and of knowledge (but not of decision-making power) is placed within the heart of the Church’s structure and institutionalization processes, and this advance is calling those processes into question. Some sociological research indicates that there is a “feminine way” of dealing with power that is different from that of males30 ; namely, a more egalitarian, 27 Cf. J. Oldersma – K. Davis (edd.), The Gender of Power, Sage, London 1991; A. Luciano, Decifrare le differenze: strumenti di analisi per nuove politiche di parit/ tra uomini e donne, Franco Angeli, Milano 1996; S. Gherardi, Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures, Sage, London 1995. 28 Cf. P. Bourdieu, Il dominio maschile, Feltrinelli, Milano 1998; M.G. Bombelli, Soffitto di vetro e dintorni. Il management al femminile, Etas, Milano 2000. 29 S. Kreisberg, Transforming power : Domination, Empowerment and Education, State University of New York Press, Albany 1992. 30 M.C. Bombelli, La passione e la fatica, Baldini Castaldi Dalai, Milano 2004; F. Zajczyk, La resistibile ascesa delle donne in Italia. Stereotipi di genere e costruzione di nuove identit/,

174

Serena Noceti

more relational, intuitive style that is more open to cooperation and teamwork, accompanied by a strong sense of service to the collective body with the accent more on leadership than on control. There are also likely differences between men and women in the way power is acquired and maintained. There are “men’s ways” (i. e., those normally adopted by men) of coming to power (charisma and strategy), and “women’s ways” (expertise and dedication) of doing it. Also there are men’s ways of managing power (self-reference and exploitation of relational networks) and women’s ways (concreteness and availability). Women also say they take on roles to which power is connected not for the status the roles entail, but for the instrumental possibility connected to the roles, with respect to the aim sought and to collective growth. There do not seem to be so many (or only) natural and psychological characteristics at the heart of this difference, but rather the burden of a history of marginalization and domination too recent to be forgotten or underestimated. With their extraneousness to hierarchical logic (the repercussions of which have been suffered) and their transversal belonging to different spheres (between private and public), women are able to manage the dynamics of authority and power in a different manner. Non-aggressiveness is not an innate feminine characteristic, but it is the product of a cultural process that has praised and prized certain characteristics and has removed others, stigmatizing them in multiple (and seemingly not too painful) forms of everyday sexism.

5.

Giving new meaning to the ecclesial experience – symbolic question

As argued by Y. M. Congar, “Being a layperson means identifying and using all of the resources within us for the adventure of seeking the justice and truth that we hunger for, and that is the essence itself of human history”31. The subjectivity of laywomen, some 50 years after the Council, offers inconceivable energy to this search for truth and justice not only in the world, but in the “ecclesial We”, that is, for a prophetic Gestalt of the Church capable of playing a significant role in modern history. However, giving new meaning to the tria munera cannot be achieved if it does not also involve the sphere of the liturgy, where the ecclesial consciousness is delivered in order to be reshaped and regenerated by the mystery of God. Laypeople, and women in particular, are bearers of new spirituality, because women are bearers of human experience and Saggiatore, Milano 2007 E. Moss Kanter, Maschile e femminile in azienda, Olivares, Milano 1977. 31 Y.M. Congar, Elementi per una teologia del laicato, 42.

Women in a New Ecclesiology of the Laity

175

ritual languages that have not had the right of citizenship in the Church and in theology, and have not shaped celebratory and liturgical rituals32. In the Eucharist, tria munera are fully expressed, and show their related nature in celebrating the God of history, in history. I should like to conclude my reflection by recalling an evangelical icon that is well known to all of us, but that has been betrayed over the centuries by many Christians, in spite of the words of Jesus that demand mindfulness for the true understanding and the proper proclamation of the Gospel. It is the messianic anointing of Jesus by an unnamed woman who breaks into a feast to which she is not invited, but in which, she – silently and with a transgressive force – is made present and active (Mark 14). Within a home, a location extraneous to the logic of holy places, the woman performs a prophetic gesture that encompasses/resumes tradition, but she manages to present it in a new, human, vital, loving, and tender form (munus regale). Capable of interpreting the coming of God in a new dimension and time, she anoints the head of the defeated Messiah with an unexpected liturgical action (munus sanctificandi), which has scandalized the conformists and the indisputable religious authorities. For us, she is a symbolic picture of Christian women who break into a home – the Church – capable of creating disturbing prophetic gestures that are disclosing the memory of the Gospel thanks of new (in/auditae) stories.

32 Cf. T. Berger (ed.), Liturgie und Frauenfrage. Ein Beitrag zur Frauenfrage aus liturgiewissenschaftlicher Sicht, St. Ottilien 1990; M. Proter Smith, In Her Own Rite: Constructing Feminist Liturgical Tradition, Abingdon Press, Nashville 1990; B. Enzner-Probst, Leib Christi und Leib der Frauen, in S. Roll et al. (edd.), Women, Ritual and Liturgy, Peeters, Leuven 2001, 79–102.

II. The Vienna Conference. September 22–25, 2016

Marianne Heimbach-Steins (Münster)

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections. Ways Towards a Constructive Gender Debate in the Catholic Church and Theology

1.

Introduction: Gender – a Vocabulary of Cultural Conflict?

Gender is primarily a grammatical concept. Many languages classify nouns by ‘gender’. While the ‘gendered’ structure of language (cf. Bussmann 2005) in its everyday use is not a problem in itself, the demand for ‘gender-equitable language’, that is, the demand to represent gender differentiations in language, still gives rise to defensive reactions, outrage, and polemics. If language does not so much depict reality as it first makes reality accessible, then it is not immaterial whether language represents gender differentiations or just ‘implies’ them. If the latter is the case, the representation of ‘reality’ is structurally asymmetrical. The disputes that have arisen over the years point to questions that are still relevant for question of gender diversity, such as who is able to define and dominate reality by means of language, who and what can make a valid claim to representation, who exercises power over whom… These sorts of reflections also reverberate in the violent reactions that the vocabulary of gender provokes in specific societal and ecclesiastical circles. For many, the concept is a trigger word; it incites brusque repudiations, especially among the political rightwing and certain Catholic groups (cf. Hart & Villa 2015). Many people are not aware of scientific theories of gender, though they seem to be amenable to simplistic and misleading interpretations as well as sweeping judgements. Of course, not everything that trades under the name of gender can make a claim to scientific status. There are ideological demands on the gender category coming from many directions – from activists who fight against the prevailing gender norms and who aim to cast overboard any fixed gender identities, as well as from those who seek to defend the traditional order of the heteronormative, gender binary. Critiques of gender in the public sphere often operate with blanket assumptions and accusations of ‘ideology’, and they do not engage in an open and thorough investigation of concrete theories (cf. i.a. Kuby 2012). Unfortunately this is also often the case in official Church discourse (the Congregation for the Doctrine of

180

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

the Faith 2004 exemplifies this; critical of this is Heimbach-Steins 2009, 163–177; Laubach 2017). Some extreme positions (on all sides) give rise to scenarios of cultural conflict. If you place anything and everything that (either actually or supposedly) has to do with gender under the suspicious heading of ‘ideology’, as though just the use of the concept without anathema were proof of wrongheaded thinking, then you already close yourself off from any earnest engagement in the debate. That is not only an inadequate attitude towards the topic itself, but it also displays a disdain for one’s opponent, which – regardless of the position one adopts – deserves to be called ‘unethical’. Theories of gender that consider the difference between sex and gender to be the “object, not the presupposition” (Haker 2014, 21) of scientific discourse are an evident part of the critical debates within the sciences and humanities, including theology.1 The relationship between sex and gender entails empirical, epistemological, hermeneutical, and normative questions, and is open to a broad spectrum of theoretical approaches from philosophy and theology, humanities, social sciences, and law, but also medicine, anthropology, and the natural sciences. In the diverse fields for which the sex/gender difference is relevant, we find a variety of theories and approaches to gender studies (cf. i.a. Bussmann & Hoff 2005; von Braun & Stephan 2000). From the standpoint of the sociology of knowledge, we can make a distinction between Gender Studies and Gender Research. The term Gender Studies denotes a “humanistic science of gender difference that competes with the natural sciences to answer the question of what gender fundamentally is: a natural fact of the structure of our organs and cells or a meaningful [sinnhafte] and historical practice that becomes inscribed in our bodies” (Hirschauer 2014, 880). Gender Studies’ theoretical interests lie in what roles gender categories play in a society, how genders become distinguished from one another and what hierarchical and structural patterns emerge as a result, and how gender expresses itself in specific social practices. If the difference of genders is the object of research as such for Gender Studies, then Gender Research presupposes and depends upon it. The latter “applies gender as an analytic category and empirical variable, it observes phenomena […] by means of the gender difference and thus identifies biological gender differences or social and linguistic disparities” (Hirschauer 2014, 880). For instance, anthropological Gender Research would address gender-difference and gender-identity, while socio-political Gender Research would investigate gender relations as a matter of unequal power-relations. A normative-ethical approach would in-

1 It lies beyond the scope of our current investigation to give an exhaustive or even a representative overview of the social and philosophical theories of gender, which theological gender research is grappling with (or perhaps ought to be grappling with more intensively).

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

181

vestigate the deficits in gender equality, as well as the conditions, criteria, and strategies to bring about gender justice. The theological confrontation with Gender Studies focuses on Judith Butler, considered to be the main exponent of the (de-)constructive approach (Butler 1991; Butler 1995), which aims to “de-naturalize” (Villa 2003, 59) and develop a discourse-analytic interpretation and critique of the “power of gender norms” (cf. Butler 2009). There is no doubt that such an approach entails fundamental inquiries into traditional theological modes of thought as well as the essentialist framework of legitimization in the anthropology of gender that not only characterizes the Catholic Magisterium’s positions, but also the gender-, sexual-, and family-ethical norms it derives from that view of gender (often at the cost of errors in biology). The goal of this paper is to investigate the condition of the debate in the Catholic Church, to identify barriers that are impeding a constructive discussion, and to open up perspectives that will help us overcome these barriers. The following (example-oriented) analysis follows the traces of the concept ‘gender’ as it is found in magesterial sources – nota bene strictly in relation to the philosophical, social-scientific, and theological formulations of the concept: To start, I will take up current statements in the official ecclesiastical discourse and trace tensions within the Church’s position (1). Hence I will draw from the most recent Magisterial text, the post-synod letter Amoris Laetitia (AL) from the 19th of March, 2016, in which Pope Francis carries on the debates of the two Episcopal synods on the vocation and mission of the family in 2014 and 2015 (2). Close entanglements, which we must uncover and overcome in the theological debate, also serve as points of departure for the development of an independent, constructively critical theological theory of gender. We will sketch this against the background of how gender is applied as a category and what that achieves in terms of social analysis and critical epistemology [Erkenntniskritik]. To this end, I will examine the interconnections between gender, gender classification, and gender justice, and establish links between observations in the ecclesiastical context and the social significance of our complex of themes (3). I will then close this paper with some schematic conclusions for further research on the question of gender in the ecclesiastical context and in theological reflection (4), following Pope Francis’ renewal of the Second Vatican Council’s claim to take the complexity of lived realities into account in Church doctrine and theology. I see no good reason to exclude from that the dimension of gender, gender identity, or gender relations.

182

2.

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

The Critique of Gender and Gender Justice in the Current Magisterial Discourse of the Catholic Church – the Example of Amoris Laetitia (AL)

In AL, Pope Francis not only summarizes the results of the 2014/2015 synods on the vocation and mission of the family, but also puts his own stamp on its content and hermeneutical character. He speaks in a new, experienced, and appreciative tone that is somewhat alien to the Magisterium.2 To the extent that he clearly defines the respective jurisdictions of local churches and the Roman Magisterium in terms of the principle of subsidiarity, he is in a certain fashion withdrawing the role of the papal Magisterium. Taking into consideration the ineluctable diversity of the interpretation of pastoral situations in the mundane church, he calls us to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in this historical process (cf. AL 3). The legitimate diversity that we must preserve forbids generating new, universal, moral norms for the family on the basis of the synod; it is rather a matter of understanding how to discern who is appropriately and pastorally responsible across different situations (cf. AL 300). Essentially pope Francis is advocating for a sensitive way of handling the challenges that arise from the complexities of lived realities that differ so much from one another across the globe (cf. Heimbach-Steins 2016). This underlying, characteristic style also shapes how the pope deals with the results of both synods (cf. the German Bishops’ Conference 2014; 2015). It is even more astonishing then that Francis adopts certain apodictic judgements on the topic of gender from the synod documents, rather than leaving it open to further clarification in the Church and in societal conversations and debates.3 In the following, we will take a closer look at how he takes up this controversial topic, what accents he places on it, and whether we can uncover some approaches to make the positions that have become ‘gridlocked’ in the Church more fluid and dynamic. The second chapter of AL reflects on the multifaceted reality and “some challenges” (heading for AL 50–57) that families face. Following the synods, it discusses the strains and aberrations of familial cohabitation and parental responsibility, the lack of respect for marriage in many places, the practice of polygamy in certain societies, the problem of physical and sexual violence against women, including genital mutilation, the need to strengthen the presence 2 Cf. for instance the sections about the erotic dimension of love (AL 150–152). 3 The pope’s statements against ‘gender ideology’ in the context of his travels to the Caucasus region in October 2016 correspond to this, cf.: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/de/ speeches/2016/october/documents/papa-francesco_20161002_georgia-azerbaijan-conferenza -stampa.html.

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

183

of the man/father in the family – and as a final aspect, the challenge that “is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender” (56). The criticism of gender repeated in this context fills out a section of slightly more than a single page of a text that has 325 sections, 220 pages, and a considerable thematic scope; from a purely quantitative standpoint, the topic is not a particularly high priority.

2.1

Gender and the Suspicion of Ideology

AL 56 cites the final document of the 2015 synod verbatim, according to which the criticized ideology denies the “difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time” (AL 56).4 Here the bishops (and Francis) articulate four allegations: (1.) the criticized ideology aims at a “society without sexual differences”; (2.) it is “eliminating the anthropological basis of the family”; (3.) people use it to separate “personal identity” from the “biological distinction between male and female” in education and legislation; (4.) it sacrifices “[h]uman identity” for the sake of “the choice of the individual”. These massive and sweeping allegations – for which there are no supporting documents in either the AL or any other ecclesiastical texts – largely coincide with views the Church has spread for years in certain official and officious ecclesiastical texts,5 as well as with the writings of the anti-gender movement, represented partly with a scientific gloss,6 and partly with popular brochures.7 4 The inner-citation from the Relatio Finalis (8) handles the ‘gender ideology’ under the heading “Cultural Contradictions” (RF 8), which comprises an all-encompassing cultural critique. In the final document of the synod, the passage begins with the words: “Today, a very important cultural challenge is posed by ‘gender’ ideology”. Pope Francis articulates this in a more restrained manner, in that he sees it as one among “various forms of an ideology of gender” (AL 56), and he clearly appropriates the concept at a distance; moreover, he uses carefully differentiated signals, for instance when he writes that it is disturbing “that some ideologies of this sort […] assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised” (ibid). 5 Cf. i.a. Benedict XVI 2012, Papal Council on the Family 2007. 6 Cf. for instance, i.a., Kuby 2012; Kuby 2014; critical of this: Marschütz 2014. 7 Cf. above all the widely distributed brochures in 2014 from the papal social organisation Aid to the Church in Need. In the Christian context one can find anti-gender activists among right wing Catholics just as well as among the Evangelicals; some of this movement’s main players also appear in new Right wing populist politics, like the Alternative für Deutschland party in

184 2.2

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

Gender as Challenge

The final document of the synod, despite its considerable suspicion of ideology, acknowledges the difference between (biological) sex and (social) gender that underlies any given gender theory, though it rejects a separation between the two dimensions (Relatio Finalis 58). Francis takes up the two synodal statements as his own, but he goes a step further insofar as he hints at a possible clarification of this question: In direct connection with the sex/gender difference he addresses the decoupling of sexuality and reproduction, as well as the decoupling of reproductive capacity and actual biological parenthood thanks to pharmacological developments in the 20th century. He confronts this irreversible “technological revolution” with a warning about the temptation to ignore humanity’s createdness [Geschöpflichkeit], and its desire to place itself in the position of Creator. The suspicion of arrogance is one of the basic features of ecclesiastical criticism (cf. AL 56). Here he shifts our attention from the biological level – from ‘natural’ givenness – to the ethical-anthropological significance of the sexual/gendered disposition of human life, considered in a Christian-theological framework; hence he considers another dimension of gender’s ‘givenness’: “It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting and respecting it as it was created” (AL 56). Francis deliberately brings together two themes from different contexts of the synod. This yields an important point of reference for the theological discussion of gender : It is not enough to simply brand a modern development as an ‘ideology’ and reject it, just because it appears to be suspect from the standpoint of your own thinking. Rather, one must ask how such ‘revolutionary’ sociocultural changes brought about by the evolution of scientific knowledge pose a challenge to humankind and its self-understanding. Francis calls back to a fundamental theological interpretive category – creation, createdness – as ‘givenness’ in the sense of the traditional theological theory of categories based on the ontology of substance. However, the growth of knowledge and abilities also calls for a re-assessment of religious categories of interpretation; novel possibilities that arise in human history require appropriate (i. e. new) responses from theology as well as ecclesiastical practice.

Germany ; concerning the correlations between the religious Right and the political Right, cf. i.a. Kemper 2014; Püttmann 2015; Hark & Villa 2015.

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

2.3

185

Gender Identities and Gender Roles – A Dynamic Approach

The connection between the critique of gender and the problematization of the decoupling of sexuality and reproduction refer to a broader, relevant context in the AL. In the seventh chapter (“Towards a Better Education of Children”) there is a section devoted to a relatively thorough account of sexual education; hence, thematically, the text addresses gender perspectives once again (AL 258f.),8 however he does not use the term here (we cannot yet determine whether this reflects a strategic decision, for instance, avoiding it so as not to burden the message with a controversial term). He takes up the above cited conclusion from AL 56 argumentatively here: “Sex education should also include respect and appreciation for differences, as a way of helping the young to overcome their selfabsorption […] and to accept their own body as it was created” (AL 285), without the sort of self-relation that aims “to cancel out sexual difference because one no longer knows how to deal with it” (AL 285). While Francis renews the general suspicion of the so-called ideology of gender here, in AL 286 he takes up socio-cultural factors of influence that make an impact on the development of personal gender identities and the acceptance of gender roles, and (also) promotes a sensitivity to the dynamic of identity formation in sex education: “It is true that we cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore. But it is also true that masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories. It is possible, for example, that a husband’s way of being masculine can be flexibly adapted to the wife’s work schedule. Taking on domestic chores or some aspects of raising children does not make him any less masculine or imply failure, irresponsibility, or cause for shame. Children have to be helped to accept as normal such healthy ‘exchanges’ which do not diminish the dignity of the father figure” (AL 286). As an example of how the individual’s appropriation of a gender-role and gender-identity is a process, Francis refers to the changes in male- and fatherroles, specifically in the sense of the division of labour between partners in a family, which do not make the father any less of a man (ibid.). Here one can sense the experience of Latin-American masculinity in the background, marked as it is by ‘machismo’, which Francis has repeatedly criticized. His considerations obviously relate more to specific social images of gender roles than to individuals’ gender identities per se.9 By confronting the socio-cultural formation of gender 8 I am indebted to the analysis of Denise Motzigkeit, which I include in the above-mentioned paper (Heimbach-Steins, 2016). 9 However, it is clear that his reflections on the pastoral treatment of, for example, homosexuals

186

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

identity and the roles and images that shape an individual’s self-understanding as themes for sex education, Francis takes up a fundamental aspect of gender and highlights it as being near to his own thinking, characterized by ‘process-categories’.10 By reflecting on the reciprocal influence of different factors on the constitution of personal identity, he is structurally approaching those interactions between different structural categories of ‘the social’ (specifically gender, ethnicity, social affiliation, religion), which are investigated in academic discourse under the heading of ‘intersectionality.’ There is a palpable tension between, on the one hand, the rhetorical rejection of gender under the accusation of ideology, which Francis works out with citations from the synod documents, and on the other hand, his own approach through process theory, which opens up certain possibilities of connecting with basic insights from gender theory.

2.4

Equal Dignity and Rights – Gender Justice

Along with many social factors and events that affect and pose challenges in the lives of families and in pastoral realities, Francis explicitly addresses genderspecific denial of rights, the verbal, physical, and sexual violence practiced against women, as well as the instrumentalization of women and the female body.11 The text also explicitly rejects attempts to legitimize such patterns of behaviour by blaming female victims (for example, blaming problems on women’s attempts at emancipating themselves). He writes that the “equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear and within families there is growing reciprocity” (AL 54). After this statement of commitment to equal dignity and partnership, there follows a statement on feminism. Francis heads off the usual defensive gesture that we find associated with the critique of gender in Magisterial discourse: “If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in and trans-gendered persons, occurs under the category of mercy, as we can see in his statements in the above cited press conference at the end of the 2016 Caucasus trip (see fn 4 above). 10 His central topos fort his is the sentence “time is greater than space” (cf. i.a. EG 222–225; AL 3), and on this basis he expresses that “it is more important to start processes than to dominate spaces” (AL 261). Process thinking opens up a chance for a constructive discussion with gender-theory-approaches, cf. the suggestions in Heimbach-Steins et al. 2016, 4–6, 23–24. 11 This theme runs throughout the papal social decrees of the past decades; there are numerous examples of this decisive condemnation of gender-specific violence. This stands in contrast, however, to the Church’s equally decisive criticism of the support for rights for sexual selfdetermination (reproductive rights), under the mantle of an argument for the sanctity of life focused on prenatal life. This generates a fundamental tension – at least with regard to dealing with the results of sexual violence, especially rape.

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

187

the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women” (AL 54). This statement’s grammatical structure allows it to sustain a subtle differentiation of judgement: While the opening conditional clause is restricted in its appreciation of the fight for equal dignity and rights for women, the main clause recognizes the progress towards women’s equality as the work of the Holy Spirit.12

2.5

Interim Conclusions

The observations regarding AL (and the statements from the pastoral journey to the Caucasus) give us an ambivalent picture: Francis gives the post-synodal writings a new, innovative style, aimed at mediating between the subject, the situation, and the norm by virtue of a “logic of integration” and “logic of pastoral mercy” (AL 307–312). Instead of a rigid application of norms, he advocates for a pastoral hermeneutics, which attempts to take into account the concrete diversity of living conditions. At the same time, with respect to the question of gender and the connected pastoral challenges, we find little progress. Francis takes up the accusations against critical gender theory in ecclesiastical discourse and, in places, repeats them verbatim. Although he adds some nuance and re-contextualizes them, the changes are only perceptible upon a very close examination. What is driving the subtle modifications is the pope’s experience- and process-oriented thinking, while allows for a more precise insight into the concrete realities and dynamics of life and which undermines the essentialist fixations on a gender ontology. Therein lies at least the potential of a new appreciation for the differentiated reality of sexuality, gender identities, and gender relations.

3.

Gender, ‘Gender Order’, and Gender Justice – Social-Scientific and Social-Ethical Clarifications

In the following we will sketch the social-analytic insights from gender research as challenges or provocations for the sake of a theological-ethical and ecclesiastical-magisterial appropriation. Out of the recognition that gender, as a structural category of the social, is a relevant factor for social participation, there results complex questions concerning gender justice and demands for its political realization. 12 Cf. for contextualization Heimbach-Steins 2009, 21–90.

188 3.1

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

Gender – A Structural Category of the Social

Social-analytically speaking, gender is a structural category of the social or a common organizational pattern [Ordnungsmuster] of society : affiliation with a gender group functions as a social (and not, for instance, biological) organizational criterion, according to which a person has an assigned place in society. In this regard, gender has a similar meaning to ethnicity (‘race’), social stratum (‘class’), and religion: in each society there are specific, collective expectations that are bound to gender affiliation, which also influence the individual’s sexual development and gender identity. The social function of gender is not simply given as a natural fact on the basis of the biological dispositions of gendered bodies (or, in theological terms, based on the actuality of creation), but rather the function is produced through a process of interpretation, specifically through traditions, conventions, morals, and laws that orient our communal lives as guiding norms, which are anchored in concrete cultural, political, and religious contexts and systems. Just as human knowledge cannot grasp the thing in itself, our grasp of the reality of gender is never pure but always already interpretive. As such, no human being can interpret his or her own gendered mode of existence without involving the representations of what or how it is to be a man/ woman in society’ operative binary gender order (this holds under the conditions of a society structured according to a gender binary, even if individuals do not experience a clear gender assignment). Corresponding representations shape educational processes, insinuate themselves into self-images (even if one critically engages them), and contribute to the structuring of biographical decisions. Depending on the socio-cultural community, expectations linked to gender-specific roles can differ wildly, that is, they change over the course of history. In modern societies they are the topic of intense controversies and power struggles; this is illustrated not only in disputes over women’s attempts at emancipation – that has guided and advanced the processes of European modernity – but also in current gender conflicts.

3.2

Gender Order – a Societal ‘Guide’

The meaning of gender not only concerns individual gender identities, but also norms of gender equality, which society determines as a whole: Each gender order functions as a guide for beings in social structures that define them according to gender. There is no society without a gender order ; that applies to political communities as well as others, like religious communities, especially ones so institutionally structured as the Catholic Church. Hence, the Church too

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

189

is the object of much gender-related analysis and critique.13 From an ethical standpoint, we must evaluate social and ecclesiastical gender orders (like any order generally) according to whether they can combine the necessary safety for each person and protection for the vulnerable, with the greatest possible measure freedom. We must examine whether an order provides protection from gender-based discrimination and enables social participation and inclusion regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. This all the more important as each (gender) order defines certain limits of social interaction. One historical example (in our cultural setting) is the exclusion of women from the right to political participation, specifically from the right to vote. Another example would be norms that define sexual and gender-specific violence as ethically and legally reprehensible. The fact that such norms are also subject to change is apparent, for instance, in the treatment of rape, which has not always and everywhere been a punishable offence. For example, legislators only enshrined ‘marital rape’ in the German criminal code in 1997, and a change in criminal law only recently passed in Germany to effectively protect the victim’s individual rights – specifically in the sense of autonomy (‘no means no’) – in the case of sexual harassment or (attempted) rape. These sorts of rules for sexual offences have to do with gender insofar as they target gender-related concepts of what is considered normal or acceptable, and aim to further correct corresponding expectations. On the one hand, they take changes of social consciousness into account and, on the other hand, they influence the processes of change. Gender orders also exclude (groups of) people who cannot conform to the dominant normative orders from opportunities for social participation and social recognition. The normative order of binary sexuality does not leave any room for persons who were born without any definitive gender-characteristics and who cannot be identified within the male/female duality (today they would be described as intersexual). In the past, parents or other concerned parties would attempt to make the person – often during childhood – unambiguously male or female through surgical intervention. In order to give the child a definite place in society, those concerned parties would infringe upon the child’s autonomy ; not least of all in that s/he cannot feel ‘at home’ in his/her own body, and is thus burdened with lifelong suffering. Such attempts to ‘establish’ a definite gender is today no longer reconcilable with the defence of individual rights. The category of gender is helpful for analyzing the problem: In the name of a social gender-norm (i. e. exclusive binary sexuality), which was assumed to be in13 In the framework of theology, the inner ecclesiastical (gender) order simultaneously establishes a context-factor, which sets the conditions and limits for academic investigations (cf. Heimbach-Steins 2014, 279f.).

190

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

scribed into biological nature (i. e. sex), they feel the constitutional deviations of normatively posited ‘nature’ must be corrected. The supposedly unambiguous division – nature over here, culture over there – obviously does not do justice to the complex reality of human sexuality. An order that combines normative binary sexuality with normative heterosexuality also pushes people with same-sex orientations to the margins of society. This is even the case in very recent Western European history. Homosexuality is taboo for many societies; even now many societies (including parts of liberal Western societies) evince clear patterns of pathologizing and criminalizing homosexual people, and even physically threatening their lives. Unlike earlier epochs, however, now there is scientifically founded knowledge that same-sex orientations are neither curable illnesses nor a matter of arbitrary choice, but rather a sexual disposition, which is manifest both in humans and in non-human animals. The intense disputes over the legal status of homosexual persons and same-sex unions shows that gaining greater insight into the complexities of human dispositions at the level of gender- and social-orders does not happen without consequences. The struggle over the ethical assessment of lived homosexuality in the context of the Christian church can also be seen from this perspective; traditional norms and their justification must be examined to ascertain whether the conditions under which they were formulated are still valid and whether the models of legitimization involved are still compatible with today’s level of insight.14

3.3

Gender Relations – (In)Equality, (In)Justice, and the Right to Equal Recognition

The discussion of gender orders has to do with protecting (or denying) the recognition of people’s basic human rights. For this reason, a gender-sensitive (social) ethics necessarily involves the search for gender equality : The aim is to become explicitly and critically aware of relationships that structurally discriminate against members of certain gender-groups, or people with sexual orientations that differ from the heterosexual norm. A Christian ethics, which views a human being as a person who possesses the same creaturely [geschöpflichen] dignity as all humans, and who like all humans is addressed by God’s salvation, cannot avoid this obligation. Given the commitment to equal rights for women and men, which Francis endorsed in the AL, and the demand to accept the body “as it was created” (see above), grounded in creation-theology, the question arises: How do we overcome the barriers that block the way to gender 14 On the corresponding ethical-theological discussion, cf. Hilpert 2011; Goertz 2016, i.a.

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

191

equality in a comprehensive, just order of communal life in the Church’s teachings? Consequently, such a position would have to advocate for concrete steps to achieve greater gender justice: On the one hand, this concerns immediately apparent problems of unequal treatment in social and ecclesiastical contexts. Think, for instance, of the denial of female babies’ right to life (above all in societies in which an androcentric-hierachical gender order prevails in the midst of grave poverty), of the denial of women’s right to political participation, and of the withholding of property rights from girls and women in certain contexts. Under this heading, we cannot ignore asymmetries within the Church; the Catholic Church’s refusal to examine a priestly vocation based on gender is the focus of much criticism.15 On the other hand, we must investigate what lies behind the phenomenon: We must examine the long-term effects of gender relations in order to determine whether and to what extent the actual inequalities associated therewith are symptoms that can be traced back to structural injustices or if they are just the results of spontaneous, individual preferences. Think, for instance, of scenarios like gender-stereotyped career choices (e. g. care-giving jobs that are traditionally ‘feminine’), of the related differences in the level of wages and the long-term consequences with respect to benefits and protections for sick leave, retirement, and old age assistance. We must also problematize the diverse ramifications for stages of a person’s life, for instance in parenthood, in the division of labour between the couple among career-activities and familial care activities, and in the consequences of separation or divorce.16 This is a matter of complex interactions in the social, communal lives of the genders, under the conditions of dynamically shifting and evolving classification patterns [Ordnungsmuster] and factors of influence. Such social-ethical challenges are not, in themselves, explicitly theological problems but rather social-political and social-ethical ones. However, in the face of gender-specific injustices, and the knowledge of the factors that cause or exacerbate them, theological ethics and ecclesiastical proclamation cannot remain neutral insofar as they have committed themselves to defending the equal dignity and rights of all people.

15 There are no good theological grounds to articulate a supposed “right to ordain” for men or women; nevertheless the position that one does not have to (or is not allowed to) examine a vocation, for reasons of belonging to the female gender, poses severe problems. 16 This calls for a broad field of gender-, family-, and social-policies oriented towards lifestages, cf. Heimbach-Steins 2012.

192 3.4

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

Gender Justice – Political Commitment

Churches are therefore in a good position to advocate for the recognition of (the rights of) those who fall to the wayside in society due to their gender. Such questions are not merely academic matters, but compelling challenges that need to be addressed in a political agenda aimed at developing gender relations towards a just distribution of resources, positions, and possibilities for participation. This reflects the concept of gender mainstreaming. This concept, formulated and grounded in an international legal context, reflects the insight that “there is no gender-neutral reality, and men and women can be affected by political and administrative decisions in very different ways. The guiding principle of gender justice requires that we make policy decisions in such a way that they contribute to both genders’ enjoyment of equal rights” (Bundesministerium FSFJ 2016). The political strategy is based on European and constitutional norms, which make it a duty of policies, laws, and treaties to pursue gender equality, such as Art. 3 (2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as relevant provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty (1999) and the Lisbon Treaty (2008). Gender mainstreaming assumes ‘gender’ is a measure that structures society, and therefore demands that policy makers examine (as best they can) the effects of their political decisions in order to either prevent or overcome the threat of discrimination. The political strategy falls short, however, to the extent that it focuses almost entirely on quantitative and statistical parameters, and largely ignores qualitative factors. The concern for promoting gender justice converges with the normative requirements in a gender-sensitive Christian social ethics. Only when we structurally incorporate a sensitvity for consequences within decision-making and implementation processes (and not just for gender policies!) can we effectively address problems of injustice in social gender orders. Hence it is also important, from a Christian social-ethical perspective, to argue for the validity of the gender justice perspective (against those who oppose it), in policy matters from education to the family, from economic and health policy to population policy and international development. Nonetheless, we cannot accept all strategies that fall under gender mainstreaming, at least not without further examination. We must first have in place a sufficiently complex understanding of gender justice; we cannot assume a consensus view on this matter (in general, questions of justice are polemical issues in social and political arenas). In political disputes over gender justice and gender mainstreaming, individuals and groups assume divergent basic-ideas [Grundideen] about the nature and scope of that which is to be institutionally (and legally) regulated; in this field different, basic-understandings [Grund-

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

193

verständnisse] of social institutions (e. g. family, marriage, legally protected partnerships) meet and conflict with one another. Accordingly, we must critically discuss and evaluate the implications and consequences of gender mainstreaming in various spheres of social coexistence as well as in the related legal and political frameworks. We must ground the aims and methods of gender mainstreaming on a foundation of Christian ethics, and not just on human rights. Conflicts at the level of political action (which is always provisional and context-bound) and political disputes are inevitable.

4.

Preconditions and Perspectives for a Constructive Gender Debate in Theology and the Church

Beginning from recent papal assertions, our sketch so far has pointed out different concerns from gender-theory and gender-policy that we must address in society and in the Church. Under the conditions of flawed a social order, it is necessary to strive to have each person respected as a gendered being and for the fair participation of all persons in a community or society. In doing so, it is also necessary to question the status quo in order to address shortcomings as well as patent and latent structural injustices, which are (also) attributable to existing gender regimes and to societal and ecclesiastical processes, participation-patterns, and distribution-patterns, which, as a rule, are taken for granted. Processoriented approaches in ecclesiastical discourse point to opportunities for transforming this dispute – which has up until now been characterized by barriers and polemics – into a constructive debate. Theology and theological (social-) ethics have something to contribute here.17 The compass needle of the theological-ethical perspective must be calibrated in such a way that, within the structure of available theological knowledge and thought, powerful interest groups do not disrupt it. This requires a sensitivity for the working of power (through language, resources, and institutions) and a sensitivity for the actually operative power relations that are reflected in these structures. Using the category of gender, we must also subject the conditions of possibility of theological knowledge to a critical gaze. “Gender studies generally and feminist philosophy specifically […] are sceptical of the possibility of divorcing knowledge from power, or the ideal of a ‘pure’ knowledge, insofar as the object of their critical investigations concerns how supposedly objective discourses of knowledge structurally bear an implicit aim of justifying and maintaining a hierarchical gender order. In fact, the example of the gender thematic

17 The following reflections are largely based upon Heimbach-Steins 2014, 291f.

194

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

makes clear that the established order of knowledge may not be able to meet its own claim to ‘purity’, objectivity, and neutrality, and in any case has not done justice to it” (Klinger 2005, 329f.). What Cornelia Klinger asserts of philosophy also holds for theological thought, Christian traditions, and magisterial positions. As an instrument for the analysis and criticism of social gender-relations, the category of gender helps to reveal social constructions, to uncover dominant power relations’ prerequisites and patterns of legitimization, and to uncover problematic patterns of thought. It also helps open new perspectives in the central questions of theology (cf. Ammicht Quinn 2005). This is in aid of foreshadowing a comprehensive research program, one yet to be realized, and one that is beyond the scope of this present contribution. A few hints will have to suffice here: – The experience of faith, as interpreted by traditions, is not some museum piece, but a living process, for which new patterns of thought and speech must emerge that can correspond to social complexities as socio-cultural contexts shift and change. This also applies to thinking about gender and gender relationships within the horizon of theological reflection. A theological anthropology, which fundamentally conceives of the human being as a free and uniquely created being, must, precisely for this reason, expose those distortions and power struggles, which impede people from becoming subjects; an engagement with philosophical critiques of idealistic conceptions of the subject belong here, not least of all the contributions of Judith Butler. Theologians would do well to look at her oeuvre more comprehensively, rather than treating it as a talking point, as they have done up until now, predominantly in the guise of rejecting the provocations of gender studies (cf. Riedl 2017). A gender-sensitive reformulation of theological anthropology will have to initiate a new turn towards the gendered body as a symbol of existence, considered in connection with the central theological concept of incarnation – God becoming flesh in Jesus Christ (cf. Wendel & Nutt 2016). – A theological-ethical justice-discourse must analyze the powerful social differentiations (gender, race, class, religion) as the results of social constructs of identity and non-identity [Gleichheit und Ungleichheit]. Also, it must expose factual asymmetries of power, and question their legitimacy while devising criteria for social justice, based on the outcomes of real experiences of injustice, so that it can enable and empower human self-fulfilment. – Insofar as the category of gender exposes the constructed character of symbolic orders and thus also uncovers problematic universalizations and claims to power (above all, the universalization of the ‘masculine’ as the ‘human’), it presents a fundamental provocation to religious discourses and to the institutionalizations of religious truth claims; to that extent it also provokes a

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

195

fundamental re-thinking of revelation and history (cf. Ammicht Quinn 2005, 577f.). Herein lies what may be the deepest reason for the difficulties in dealing with gender-concepts in religious and theological contexts. The provocation extends far beyond the themes of relation-ethics, as it extends to the quintessential theological area of the understanding of revelation. Truth cannot be thought of as a possession, as a thing that can be grasped and understood. When it really concerns God and the truth of created existence, truth cannot be used as an instrument to rule and govern. From the perspective of the theology of revelation, truth and freedom go hand in hand. Truth is only concrete in history. Only in a process of seeking after the truth, with an eye to freedom, can human reflection approach it. This process involves all of the contextual conditions that determine the subject’s search – including gender. – The distrust that gender theories provoke in the contexts of religious institutions is hardly surprising; the concern they express must be taken seriously and transformed into a non-polemical engagement. A theology that takes seriously the provocation that the question of question raises (or the epistemological foundation of constructivism that underlies gender theories), faces a complex demand: On the one hand it takes seriously the striving for orientation and existential certitude that is especially manifest in the traditional modes of essentialist thought, like substance ontology and natural law. On the other hand, it cannot ignore the insight into the ineluctable social conditionality and mutability of every determinate order of communal life, which is articulated in epistemological constructivism. It must work out how to transform this tension into a theological form of knowledge, which does justice to the historicity of our access to truth without undermining the claim to the truth of revelation as such. – A gender-sensitive theology can contribute to holding open this tension and to protecting against the danger of fixed images of God, the human being, and the world. It can primarily do so because, as a theology, it knows the transitory nature of all human orders, by virtue of the ‘eschatological caveat.’ The theologian, coram deo, must fundamentally relativize and call into question every claim to determine and govern everything ‘definitively’, as it is a claim to power over objects and human relationships. The theological and ecclesiastical confrontations with the gender question also gives us the resources for an equanimity [Gelassenheit] that allows us to see what is shown in the sign of God’s good creation and accept what unfolds under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – beyond what we have already received from traditional norms and what Church doctrine has already integrated.

196

Marianne Heimbach-Steins

References Ammicht Quinn, R. (2005): Re-Visionen von Wissenschaft und Glaube. In: Bussmann, H. / Hof R. (Hrsg.): Genus. Geschlechterforschung /Gender Studies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart, Kröner, 258–288. Benedikt XVI. (2012): Ansprache von Papst Benedikt XVI. beim Weihnachtsempfang für das Kardinalskollegium, die Mitglieder der Römischen Kurie und der Päpstlichen Familie: https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedicxvi/de/speeches/2012/december/docu ments/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html (04. 10. 2016). Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (FSFJ) (2016): Gleichstellung und Teilhabe. Strategie “Gender Mainstreaming”: http://www.bmfsfj.de/BMF SFJ/gleichstellung,did=192702.html (04. 10. 2016). Bussmann, H. (2005): Haben Sprachen ein Geschlecht? Genus/gender in der Sprachwissenschaft. In: Bussmann, H. /Hof, R. (Hrsg.): Genus. Geschlechterforschung / Gender Studies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart, Kröner, 482–518. Bussmann, H. /Hof, R. (Hrsg.) (2005): Genus. Geschlechterforschung / Gender Studies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Ein Handbuch. Stuttgart, Kröner. Butler, J. (1991): Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter. Frankfurt/M., suhrkamp. Butler, J. (1995): Körper von Gewicht. Die diskursiven Grenzen des Geschlechts. Berlin, Berlin Verlag. Butler, J. (2009): Die Macht der Geschlechternormen und die Grenzen des Menschlichen. Frankfurt/M., suhrkamp. Deutsche Bischofskonferenz, Sekretariat (Hrsg.) (2014): Die pastoralen Herausforderungen der Familie im Kontext der Evangelisierung. Texte zur Bischofssynode 2014 und Dokumente der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. Arbeitshilfen 273. Bonn. Deutsche Bischofskonferenz, Sekretariat (Hrsg.) (2015): Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie in Kirche und Welt von heute. Texte zur Bischofssynode 2015 und Dokuemnte der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. Arbeitshilfen 276. Bonn. Goertz, S. (Hrsg.) (2015): “Wer bin ich, ihn zu verurteilen?”. Homosexualität und katholische Kirche. Katholizismus im Umbruch 3. Freiburg i. Br., Herder. Haker, H. (2014): Körperlichkeit im Plural. In: Herder-Korrespondenz Spezial 2, 20–24. Hark, S. /Villa, P.-I. (Hrsg.) (2015): Anti-Genderismus: Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzungen. Bielefeld, transcript. Heimbach-Steins, M. (2009): “… nicht mehr Mann und Frau”. Sozialethische Studien zu Geschlechterverhältnis und Geschlechtergerechtigkeit. Regensburg, Pustet. Heimbach-Steins, M. (Hrsg.) (2012): Sozialethik für eine Gesellschaft des langen Lebens. JCSW 53. Münster. Heimbach-Steins, M. (2014): “Nicht mehr Mann und Frau”(Gal 3, 28). Geschlecht und Geschlechterverhältnisse – Provokation für Kirche und Theologie. In: Stollberg-Rilinger, B. (Hrsg.): “‘Als Mann und Frau schuf er sie’. Religion und Geschlecht”. Religion und Politik. Würzburg, ergon, 279–293. Heimbach-Steins, M. et al. (2016): Familiale Diversität und “pastorale Unterscheidung”. Eine theologisch-ethische Analyse zum Nachsynodalen Schreiben Amoris laetitia von Papst Franziskus. Arbeitspapier des Instituts für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften Nr. 5. Münster. http://www.uni-muenster.de/FB2/ics/publikationen/index.html (04. 10. 2016).

Breaking Down Barriers, Creating Connections

197

Hilpert, K. (2011): Gleichgeschlechtliche Partnerschaften. In: Ders. (Hrsg.): Zukunftshorizonte katholischer Sexualethik. QD 241. Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 288–299. Hirschauer, S. (2014): Wozu Gender-Studies? In: Forschung und Lehre 21, 880–882. Kemper, A. (2014): Keimzelle der Nation? Familien- und geschlechter-politische Positionen der AfD – eine Expertise. Herausgegeben von der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin. Kirche in Not (Päpstliches Hilfswerk) (Hrsg.) (2014): Gender-Ideologie. Ein Leitfaden. München. Klinger, C. (2005): Feministische Theorie zwischen Lektüre und Kritik des philosophischen Kanons. In: Bussmann, H. /Hof R. (Hrsg.): Genus. Geschlechterforschung / Gender Studies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart, Kröner, 328–364. Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre (2004): Schreiben an die Bischöfe der Katholischen Kirche über die Zusammenarbeit von Mann und Frau in der Kirche und in der Welt. Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls 166. Herausgegeben vom Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz am 31. Juli 2004. Bonn. Kuby, G. (2012): Die globale sexuelle Revolution – Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit. Kißlegg, fe Medienverlag. Kuby, G. (2014): GENDER – Eine neue Ideologie zerstört die Familie. Kißlegg, fe Medienverlag. Laubach, Th. (Hrsg.) (2017): Gender – Theorie oder Ideologie? Freiburg i.Br., Herder. Marschütz, G. (2014): Zur Kritik an der vermeintlichen Gender-Ideologie. Wachstumspotential für die eigene Lehre. In: Herder Korrespondenz 68/9, 457–462. Papst Franziskus (2016): Amoris laetitia – Freude der Liebe. Nachsynodales Apostolisches Schreiben Amoris laetitia über die Liebe in der Familie. Freiburg /Basel /Wien, Herder. Päpstlicher Rat für die Familie (Hrsg.) (2007): Lexikon Familie. Mehrdeutige und umstrittene Begriffe zu Familie, Leben und ethischen Fragen. Paderborn, Schöningh (Ital. Originalausgabe 2003). Püttmann, A. (2015): Die antiliberale Versuchung. Wo es um Familie geht, scheuen manche Christen nicht die Nähe zu autoritären Mächten. In: Herder Korrespondenz 69/1, 49–53. Riedl, A. M. (2017): Ethik an den Grenzen der Souveränität. Christliche Sozialethik im Dialog mit Judith Butlers Anerkennungstheorie. Mit einer Untersuchung zum Kindeswohlbegriff. Gesellschaft – Ethik – Religion 8. Paderborn, Schöningh. Villa, P.-I. (2003): Judith Butler. Campus Einführungen. Frankfurt/M., Campus. von Braun, Ch. /Stephan, I. (Hrsg.) (2000): Gender-Studien. Eine Einführung. StuttgartWeimar, Beck. Wendel, S. /Nutt, A. (Hrsg.) (2016): Reading the Body of Christ. Eine geschlechtertheologische Relecture. Paderborn, Schöningh.

Gerhard Marschütz (Vienna)

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

‘Surprising’ in everyday language usually refers to something that is unusual or unexpected. It is surprising when a top-seeded tennis player loses in the first round of a tournament against someone who just qualified. This is, as long as there were no excuses like injuries, surprising because it is unusual and unexpected. Consequently, the winner played surprisingly well, contrary to expectations, and the loser played surprisingly poorly since she unexpectedly could not make use of her strong starting point.

1.

The Catholic starting point

The Catholic critique of gender is also surprisingly bad. However, is this the case prima facie? Is it not to be expected, if one considers the background of Catholic teachings on marriage and family? It would not be surprisingly bad, then, but rather simply bad. Those who understand this critique as being necessary would disagree, since they have negative associations with gender. That is to say, gender is an ideology that destroys the anthropological foundations of the family. This is the thesis that both the influential right-wing Catholic publicist and radical gender critic Gabriele Kuby and the popes Benedict XVI and Francis equally support. Gender – according to Benedict XVI – is an “anthropological revolution” which denies the “dual sexuality of man and woman stemming from creation” and therefore “the family as reality predefined by creation”1. In No 56 of the Apostolic Letter Amoris Laetitia2 Pope Francis also sees the “difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman” as denied by this ideology. It therefore “envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the 1 Pope Benedict XVI’s speech on 21st of December 2012 at the Christmas Reception for the College of Cardinals, members of the Roman Curia and the papal household; https://w2. vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/de/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2 0121221_auguri-curia.html. 2 Pope Francis, post-synodal Apostolic Letter Amoris laetitia (19. 03. 2016).

200

Gerhard Marschütz

anthropological basis of the family”. Hence, “personal identity and emotional intimacy” is “radically separated from the biological difference between male and female”. He stresses that “the biological sex and the sociocultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated”. It is noteworthy that this high level of alarm regarding gender does not exist in academic theology. On the contrary, there are varied efforts towards theological integration of the gender issue, without intention of paving the way for the destruction of family. However, if gender does entail the end of biological sex in favor of free choice, and with that the multiplication of gender, then such thinking would be, contrary to common perception, a “sick product of reason” (Auxiliary Bishop Andreas Laun) and at its extreme it would leave us with only two possibilities: Either, academic theology is sick because it is blind to the danger of gender ; or the Catholic critique of gender is based on a sick understanding of gender. Both would be bad and require therapeutic treatment. Here we require a clarifying diagnosis to start; we need to determine whether gender really is a family-destroying virus based on an anthropological revolution or not. First, the diagnostic result that exonerates academic theology, and which we will explain below, is as follows: Catholic gender critique is bad because (1) it is scientifically untenable; (2) it is based on a fundamentalist way of thinking; it is in addition especially bad because (3) it ignores established standards of Catholic theology.

2.

Bad, because it is scientifically untenable

The originally grammatical concept of gender is used to analyze the “grammar” of gender relations that is present in social systems (models of femininity and masculinity and the associated discourse concerning [in-]equality, etc.). We can only designate an analytical category as a dangerous virus if the accompanying critical questioning of gender relations is equated with their dissolution and abolition or with their redefinition and reinvention. Yet such a questioning also implies the critique of an essentialist understanding of gender that, in a biological framework, emphasizes the genuinely different and eternal essences of woman and man according to their specific abilities and tasks. This is exactly what happens in the Catholic gender critique. It claims that gender is only an understanding of sex, one that defines it solely as a social product and thus a construct we can choose arbitrarily, one that is radically dissociated from any biological foundation. This however, is ideological and contradicts the scientific findings “which always describe the differences between man and woman and

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

201

the causal factors very precisely”3. Especially in the traditionalist Catholic segment, though in the Evangelical (politically neo-right) sector too, the understanding of gender is set up as a straw man only to be rejected as absurd in favor of the salvation of marriage and family or even of Christian-Western culture. Is such an understanding scientifically tenable? Concerning the philosopher and philologist Judith Butler, who is viewed as the primary icon and target of gender theory, Gabriele Kuby adheres to the following conclusion: “Gender is not only tied to biological sex, this plays no part here, it only develops because it is created by language.” For Butler, she says, biological gender is a “dictatorship of nature” that is revoked “in favor of free self-invention”4 of gender. “The receptive Butler-students say : A body is not female, this is only a socio-cultural construct.”5 Similarly, the bestselling author Birgit Kelle dispells any ambiguity about this understanding of gender by having the sentence, “Have you thought about your gender today?”.6 Numerous other articles or books, which directly address gender ideology or genderism illustrate this same understanding of gender.7 Once again, it is surprising that this understanding does not exist in academic gender discourse. Even Judith Butler – whose theses are hotly debated, especially in relation to their speech-theoretic premises – does not understand gender in the way Kuby and like-minded people believe she does. Namely, they attribute to her the idea that biological gender “does not play any role”, and that nothing is natural, since gender is “only generated by language”, everything is only a social construct. Indeed, in her de-constructivist analysis Butler emphasizes that the presumed natural duality of gender difference is ultimately determined resulting from discourse. Furthermore, the distinction between biological sex and socio-cultural gender is irrelevant to her since “sex” has always been “gender”.8 Whoever now thinks at this point that, following the Catholic gender critique, Butler wants to dissolve the category of “sex” into “gender” and hence understands gender solely as a result of linguistic discourse is mistaken. Butler does not deny the existence of a prediscursive natural body. She does not claim that the body is only a discourse. The Catholic gender critique constantly assumes such an ontological claim, probably because it is incompatible with its own ontological claim con3 Gabriele Kuby, Die globale sexuelle Revolution. Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit, Kißlegg 2012, 184. 4 Ibid., 82–83. 5 Ibid., 154. 6 This ist the first sentence on the homepage to her book: http://gendergaga.de/. 7 In the German speaking discourse these are authors like Manfred Spreng, Mathias von Gersdorff, Manfred Spieker, Ulrich Kutschera, Harald Seubert and others. 8 Cf. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, London/New York 1990, 6–8f.

202

Gerhard Marschütz

cerning the category “sex”. Conversely, Butler develops an epistemological claim according to which there can be no access to reality without a discursive element. Therefore, “there is no recourse to a body that has not always already been interpreted through cultural meanings”9. For this reason, the assumption/claim that “discourse is formative, is not to claim that it originates, causes or exhaustively composes that which it concedes; rather it is to claim that there is no reference to a pure body which is not at the same time a further formation of that body”.10 Simply put: It is not about nature being strictly culture or a linguistic construct. Evidently, there are natural facts that are not caused, created or produced by discourse. The main point of the discourse-theory consists in the fact that natural circumstances cannot be thought of independently of their cultural and linguistic formation, which means that they are always located in discursive systems of thought and perception. In this sense “sex” has always been “gender”, meaning that in this category, the natural facts of gender that “sex” implies are “discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of other political and social interests”11 Such interests insist on a naturalization of the two-gender-system of binary sexuality, to then be able to interpret other forms of sexual desire and sexual identity as unnatural and pathological. The social philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, who is not strictly speaking in the field of Gender Studies, also mentions, “the language of nature, which ought to simultaneously reveal that which is most secret and true, is in reality a language of social identity”12. The normative understanding of the naturalness of heterosexuality (which is not solely a Catholic position) is therefore “a naturalized societal construct”13 that simultaneously excludes other forms of sexual desire (homo- and bisexuality) or sexual identification (intersexuality or transgender) from what can be normatively conceived or practically lived. If things were otherwise, natural variations of sexual desire14 and sexual identity15 would not have been labeled as unnatural phenomena. 9 Ibid., 8. 10 Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter. On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’, London/New York 1993, 10. 11 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, 7. 12 Pierre Bourdieu, Die männliche Herrschaft (La Domination masculine), Frankfurt a. M. 2012, 114. 13 Ibid. 45. 14 “The existence of a biological predisposition towards sexual orientation – may it be heterosexual or homosexual – cannot be doubted considering the findings.” Hartmut A.G. Bosinski, Eine Normvariante menschlicher Beziehungsfähigkeit. Homosexualität aus Sicht der Sexualmedizin, in: Stephan Goertz (Hg.), “Who am I to judge him?”. Homosexualität und katholische Kirche, Freiburg i. Br. 2015, 91–130; 125. 15 Genetically as well as hormonally, the borders are floating between male and female, and at

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

203

However, if this were to happen, we would have to recognize the “naturalistic justification of societally constructed difference between the genders”16 in this, which simultaneously implies corresponding exclusions. Butler opposes this exclusion with the term gender, the integrative category of recognition, which would, however, be completely misunderstood if taken – as the Catholic Church’s critique of gender does – as aimed at enabling the possibility of arbitrary multiplication of genders. This, according to Butler, is because the “genders I have in mind have been in existence for a long time, but have not been admitted”17 as socially acceptable lifestyles. Butler is aware that it is not only her conception of expanding practically livable lifestyles, but also her specifically philological approach that often causes misunderstanding, even though she claims not to be an idealist linguist. She openly admits: “Every time I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language. This is not because I think that the body is reducible to language; it is not. Language emerges from the body, constituting an emission of sorts.” She emphasizes, “that the body gives rise to language and that language carries bodily aims”, and hence “the signification of the body exceed the intentions of the subject”.18 Butler addresses these embodied, meaning-bestowing goals, the body’s own logic, only tacitly and surely not with the same systematic interest that she devotes to the discursive constitution of the body. This (as well as other elements) should be subject to criticism; however, it should also be understandable given the overall design of her complex theoretical approach, provided one is willing to engage in it. In any case, there can be no sensible accusation that Butler has overlooked or radically disconnected body. This is why “the assumption that with Butler the body is ‘only text’ is based on a big misunderstanding”19. Butler’s complex gender theory, which weaves together many philosophical preconditions, does not contradict with human biological insights – not least of all because there is no one gender theory, as gender studies is now integrated into diverse epistemological approaches. Now, whoever relies on information that reduces complexity, according to which men and women are different “by nature”, generally only see their own prejudices confirmed. In contrast, differentiated research designs which integrate the complexity of biopsychosocial interactions – key words here being epigenetics, embodiment, embodying – illustrate the dynamic embodi-

16 17 18 19

least at a ratio of 1:1000, humans show a factorial validity of variations towards the supposed “natural” binary gender gap. Cf. Claire Ainsworth, Sex redefined. The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that, in: Nature 518 (19. 2. 2015) 288–291. Pierre Bourdieu, Die männliche Herrschaft, 23. Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, London/New York 2004, 31. Ibid., 198–199. Paula-Irene Villa, Judith Butler. Eine Einführung, Frankfurt a. M./New York 22012, 155.

204

Gerhard Marschütz

ment of socio-cultural formations. The male or the female brain, from which one could derive generalized gender stereotypes does not exist. On the contrary, the network of gender and brain is constituted in a multi-facetted manner in a continuous process of biological, psychosocial and socio-cultural interactions.20 Ignoring such insights, the natural scientist Manfred Spreng refers in an article only to the different brain structures of men and women, with the goal of showing that gender ideology is in conflict with findings in brain research. He combines the “concepts Gender Mainstreaming, Genderism, or simply Gender”, which he uses synonymously, under the heading of “equalization of gender”, which largely ignores “actual inequalities between men and women” because “genderism […] strives to blur and ultimately dissolve gender boundaries”.21 He uses two quotes by Butler to exhibit the “scarcely comprehensible ways of thinking”22 of this ideology – though the first quote he gives corresponds to the original text only approximately at best, he does not explain its context and thus misunderstands it. The second quote does not exist at all, it is a complete fabrication, since Butler does not address the cited ‘gender mainstreaming.’ Spreng either could not or did not want to understand what was supposedly “scarcely comprehensible” in Butler, but he purports to know exactly the absurd goals of gender ideology.23 The evolutionary biologist Ulrich Kutschera represents a similarly abstruse understanding of gender. He understands the agenda of gender studies as an “irrational, quasi-religious woman-equals-man ideology”, which is “in diametrical contradiction to insights in biology”.24 Like Spreng, he is convinced that gender theorists disregard the biological differences between men and women, and that for them “newborns are a blank page”25 or are born as “gender neutral mammals”26 and are only “afterwards shaped as male or female by society”.27 Kutschera expands on this nonsense – there is no other way to describe it – in connection with the “lesbian esoteric aunt” Judith Butler, supposedly according

20 Cf. Cordula Fine, Die Geschlechterlüge. Die Macht der Vorurteile über Mann und Frau, Stuttgart 22012; Nina Degele et.al. (Hg.), Gendered Bodies in Motion, Opladen Farmington Hills 2010. 21 Manfred Spreng, Gender Mainstreaming. Identitätszerstörende Ideologie gegen Naturwissenschaft, in: Ethica 24 (2016) 65–93, 65f. 22 Ibid., 73. 23 It is more than surprising that this article was published in a journal which, according to its subtitle, stands for “science and responsibility”. 24 Ulrich Kutschera, Das Gender-Paradoxon. Mann und Frau als evolvierte Menschentypen, Münster 2016, 54; 52. 25 Manfred Spreng, Gender Mainstreaming, 71. 26 Ulrich Kutschera, Das Gender-Paradoxon, Mann und Frau als evolvierte Menschentypen, Münster 2016, 55. 27 Ibid.

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

205

to whom the “gender of human beings is shaped purely by social factors”28. Therefore, he quotes Butlers repeated example of a midwife in the delivery room: according to Butler her exclamation “It’s a girl!” must not only be understood as a descriptive, but rather also as a performative statement (“Become a girl!”), meaning that designating and executing coincide with one other in the performative speech act. Kutschera believes this example is completely absurd, as supposedly “through an act of speech, a gender-neutral baby is made into a boy or a girl directly after birth”29. In fact, Kutschera’s interpretation is absurd. On the one hand, he seems to be completely ignorant of the intended clarification of performative statements that Butler employs according to John L. Austin’s theory of acts of speech. On the other hand, he implies – that according to gender worldview – that a baby is gender neutral, which is completely absurd as well.30 No one within gender research, not even Judith Butler, denies that there are “sexually differentiated [body-] parts, activities, capacities, hormonal and chromosomal differences that can be conceded without reference to ‘construction’”31. In reality, these biological facts never exist outside of the discursive fields in which they are interpreted and signified. Therefore, biological facts always represent “some version […], some formation”32 of these facts. Consequently, Butler’s thesis is that “to claim that sexual differences are indissociable from discursive demarcations, is not the same as claiming that discourse causes sexual difference”33. She only emphasizes, “there is no access to this ‘sex’ except by means of its construction”; this is why for all those who think they can deny this, “‘sex’ becomes something like a fiction, perhaps a fantasy, retroactively installed at a pre-linguistic site to which there is no direct access”.34 Reformulated in a more general manner : “We, as people, who have always been born into a discursive system of meaning, cannot relate to the world other than linguistically. Each view of the world is discursively framed and has a specific lens, depending on the historic moment in time and the sociocultural, political context. In order to make this metaphor more precise, it is important to note that there is no view of the world without the lens. Consequently, a discursive-theoretical perspective is not burdened by the assump-

28 Ibid., 237. 29 Ibid., 238. 30 Birgit Kelle’s interpretation of the midwife example is equally absurd: “The worst ‘determination’ already happens in the delivery room, as a young life goes off the rails. […] Trapped in the much cited, heterosexual matrix.” Birgit Kelle, Gendergaga. Wie eine absurde Ideologie unseren Alltag erobern will, Asslar 2015, 18. 31 Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter, 10. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., 1. 34 Ibid., 5.

206

Gerhard Marschütz

tion that one need only to remove the glasses to recognize things – and people – in their actuality.”35 Conclusion: The literature on gender ideology, which frequently masquerades as scientific, continues to fall short of established scientific standards. The result is an interpretation of gender that is undifferentiated and distorted.36 This establishes a kind of “fast food gender knowledge” that serves specifically as an instrument to scandalize the public and set them against the numerous changes in the field of gender studies and consequently in the areas of marriage, family and sexuality. Ultimately, a prejudicial opinion of gender displaces an objective and balanced understanding. The allegation of ideology comes from an ideological understanding of gender, whereby the issue of gender is defamed and ridiculed. It attests to a “profound but obtuse [unbelehrbar] misunderstanding and incomprehension of what ‘gender’ means”.37

3.

Poor, because it is rooted in a fundamentalist way of thinking

This obtuseness especially opens the Catholic gender critique to the charge of fundamentalism. First, this includes an absolute understanding of truth that adherents defend relentlessly against discredited modern pluralism, which is thought to be “morally hollow or subject to the dictate of relativism”.38 This applies particularly in view of the changes in marriage, family and sexuality, which need to be faced with the unabbreviated truth about “family as a reality prescribed by creation” (Benedict XVI.), regardless of whether it “be convenient or inconvenient” (2 Tim 4,2). What remains hidden here is the contingent basis for recognizing the family has created reality [Schöpfungswirklichkeit]. Instead, oftentimes proponents bring to bear on the issue an unscientific biblicism and a supposedly unquestionable logic of natural law, with the goal of definitively explaining the essence of marriage and family, of men and women, and of sexuality as God’s eternal truth. There is no notion here of God’s historical truth, which is why any consideration of the spirit of the times is labeled ‘relativistic.’ Any attempt to modernize [Verheutigung] the truth is not at all allowed, since it is immutably fixed. 35 Paula-Irene Villa, Judith Butler, 23. 36 I analyzed this in more detail in relation to Gabriele Kuby. Cf. Gerhard Marschütz, Wachstumspotential für die eigene Lehre. Zur Kritik an der vermeintlichen Gender-Ideologie, in: Herder Korrespondenz 68 (2014) 457–462. 37 Regina Ammicht Quinn, Gender. Unnötige Aufregung um eine nötige Analysekategorie, in: Stimmen der Zeit 141 (2016) 600–610, 607. 38 Hans-Joachim Höhn, Gewinnwarnung. Religion – nach ihrer Wiederkehr, Paderborn 2015, 130.

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

207

Second, this connects to an inability to enter into dialogue. “Fundamentalists do not want to convince their counterpart. They want to lord the truth over him.”39 Their absolute understanding of truth implies a reduction of rational access. The honesty of a rational argumentation, one that appreciates dissenting positions – and the possible knowledge gained thereby – soon reaches its limit when confronted with a threat to the univocity [Eindeutigkeit] of its own position, especially where this entail contradicting the will of God (which is not accountable to or justifiable by rationality). Consequently, the integration of scientific insights takes place extremely selectively, only insofar as they serve to better depict and clarify their own position. A critical and constructive interdisciplinary dialogue does not take place. Thus, particularly in the area marriage, family and sexuality, proponents argue for the truth of the Catholic position in a primarily confrontational and defiant manner. It cannot be exposed to dialogue since the “plurality of gender, desire and sexuality”40 that is thematized in the humanities and social sciences forms the “inadmissible other”41 of its own frame of thought. Hence, third, there is a distinct in-group/out-group style of thinking – aimed at modern society, which they regard under a hermeneutics of suspicion, as well as at dissenting Catholics within the church who are allegedly lax or liberal Catholics. These essentially form the constitutive outside for the internal ‘self ’ identity, which is formed by differentiating itself from the non-identical outside. This brings about a dogmatic closure of the ‘self ’s’ position, which, even though its identity is thereby stabilized, it simultaneously brings about a closure towards other positions, which ultimately threatens to destabilize this identity. Among the ‘Insider Catholics,’ we can count popes Paul VI with Humanae vitae, John Paul II with Familiaris consortio and his statements on the essence of women and the theology of the body, and Benedict XVI with his critique of the culture of relativism, which are still in circulation. On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council and pope Francis are oftentimes ignored, selectively quoted at best, or most often criticized – sometimes severely. Consequently, all those who aim to theologically establish central gender concerns experience “dislocating violence” (Steffen K. Herrmann) since their suggestions are assigned a place that does not belong to the Catholic realm. This particularly affects theologians from Southeastern Europe. They often find themselves confronted with “strategies of affronts, defamation and ridicule”42 which all serves the purpose of silencing 39 Ibid. 40 Steffen K. Herrmann, Politischer Antagonismus und sprachliche Gewalt, in: Sabine Hark, Paula-Irene Villa (Hg.), Anti-Genderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzung, Bielefeld 2015, 79–92, 80. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 86.

208

Gerhard Marschütz

pro-integration “chatter” [Gerede] about gender within Catholic theology. At the same time, this restricts freedom of research and excludes the possibility of further scientific research activity.43 The fact that pope Francis firmly condemns gender theory44 – despite all the criticism concerning his “deviations” from the Church’s immutable doctrine on marriage in Amoris laetitia45 – is the point where proponents of a fundamentalist frame of thought will most likely agree with and approve of him. Nevertheless, we should not, for this reason, label Francis a fundamentalist nor his post-council predecessors, mutatis mutandis. He has already warned repeatedly against fundamentalism that is devoid of historical sense, which is why he emphasized a “historically bound revelation” in an interview with Antonio Spadaro46, one that opposes the “wish for a purely conservative order, for a defense”. Moreover, it is also why he describes the meaning of the Second Vatican Council concerning the “updated reading of the gospel for today” as “absolutely irreversible”. His apostolic exhortations Evangelii gaudium and Amoris laetitia also testify to a theological point of departure that is clearly opposed to a fundamentalist way of thinking. Nevertheless, his gender critique is based on an argumentation pattern and logic that arises from a fundamentalist frame of thought.

4.

Surprisingly poor, because it ignores established standards of Catholic theology

We can also see that the Catholic gender critique is surprisingly, unexpectedly poor against the background of the council’s “turn towards a personal, historic and existentially formed theology”47 – a change meant to overcome the previous

43 Cf. Jadranka Rebeka Anic´, Die Anti-Gender-Bewegung in Kroatien, in: Margit Eckholt (Hg.), Gender studieren. Lernprozess für Theologie und Kirche, Ostfildern 2017, 413–433; Boz˙ena Chołuj, “Gender-Ideologie” – ein Schlüsselbegriff des polnischen Anti-Genderismus, in: Sabine Hark, Paula-Irene Hark (Hg.), Anti-Genderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzung, Bielefeld 2015, 219–237. 44 Most recently he did this during his apostolic journey to Georgia and Azerbaijan (30.9.-2. 10. 2016), he described gender theory as “the big enemy of marriage”. 45 Cf. The five “dubia” of the four cardinals to Amoris laetitia: http://www.katholisches.info/ 2016/11/vier-kardinaele-stellen-sich-papst-franziskus-mit-fuenf-dubia-zu-amoris-laetitiafrontal-in-den-weg/ Also referring to http://www.filialappeal.org/ This talks about the fact that since the publication of Amoris laetitia “fallacies about the truth of marriage and family prevail in catholic circles”. 46 Antonio Spadaro, The interview with Pope Francis. Published by Andreas R. Battlog, Freiburg i. Br. 2013. 47 Hans-Joachim Sander, Theologischer Kommentar zur Pastoralen Konstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute, in: Peter Hünermann/Bernd Jochen Hilberath (Hg.), Herders

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

209

Neoscholastic narrowing of magisterial theology. This change, which is founded on the doctrine of marriage and family in the conciliar constitution Gaudium et spes (No. 47–52), has met with massive resistance in post-conciliar writings, which exhibit the dominance of a renewed recourse to a pre-conciliar, naturallaw-based was of thinking.48 Hence, Catholic theologians have maintained a historical and existentially uninformed adherence to a view of marriage as willed by God and founded on the (divinely created) nature of men and (especially) women. Such theologians thereby ignore the oft-repeated theological critique that this nature is never “self-evident” but is only accessible through a culturally and temporally conditioned human interpretation. The complementary characteristics of men and women, which the magisterium currently emphasizes, are drawn from the polarity model of Romanticism, which only emerged in the 19th century. Before that, the model of gender relations they primarily taught was the subordination of women to men, something that Pius XI still defended as a “fundamental law issued and affirmed by god” (No. 28) in the year 1930 in the encyclical Casti connubii. After the Second Vatican Council, this is no longer viable. Did God really pass this law? Or did the Church defend it for centuries, according to an authoritative image of God, until it could no longer defend the law in the face of irreversible socio-cultural transition to gender equality? From the standpoint of the social and cultural sciences, we have resolved this epistemological question long ago, because “it is clear that what is supposed to be eternally constant in history is nothing other than the result of a historically embedded work of immortalizing”.49 In contrast, Church History’s attempts at de-historicizing marriage and the family continues to attest to an understanding of revelation as a message of the immutable will of God that is also present in nature, which in turn is seen as creation. The Catholic gender critique is primarily rooted in this understanding, which, as the young theologian Joseph Ratzinger implied, contains “ideological elements” that tend to “neglect the historical in favor of the speculative” as well as evince “a strong preference for the conservative”.50 In the wake of a growing critical awareness of ideology within theology, the Second Vatican Council presented, with corrective aims, a communicative unTheologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Bd. 4, Freiburg i. Br. 2005, 581–886, 605. 48 Cf. Gerhard Marschütz, theologisch ethisch nachdenken. Bd. 2: Handlungsfelder, Würzburg 2 2016, 45–59. 49 Pierre Bourdieu, Die männliche Herrschaft, 144. 50 Joseph Ratzinger, Naturrecht, Evangelium und Ideologie in der katholischen Soziallehre. Katholische Erwägungen zum Thema, in: Klaus von Bismarck/Walter Dirks (Hg.), Christlicher Glaube und Ideologie, Mainz 1964, 24–30, 29.

210

Gerhard Marschütz

derstanding of revelation. According to this, God reveals himself as “overflowing with love” to his people, in order to “invite and take them up as friends into his community”.51 The fact that humans are created in the image of God, a basic concept of theological anthropology, entails a special relation of unconditional devotion to human beings, as humans are defined as the creatures that correspond to God and can be addressed by God. The human being exists before God and from God, in response to his love, which presupposes and empowers historical-personal freedom. We cannot express in any straightforward way what the human being is, as an image of God in its concrete, embodied male and female modes of existence, with unhistorical, static, essentialist declarations. In the form of personal truth, God opens up a relational history, which needs to be rediscovered time and again, historically, as the relationship in which humans find themselves and obtain a relationship to truth, truth about themselves, in their embodied uniqueness. Men and women do not gain a relationship to their true being through objectified knowledge about themselves, but in the mystery of love (both sacred and profane), which seizes them but is never fully comprehensible. In “the event of love, God and humans share the same mystery”.52 Just as we do not cognize God in himself and for himself, as he only becomes God for us relationally through the conviction of faith, so too the human being is not definable as either a male or female image of God in itself and for itself, since the human’s “essence” consists in existing as a relation. Yet relations are performances. In relations, a human being simultaneously both is and becomes. The variety of relational processes forms the horizon of possibility and empowerment [Ermöglichungshorizont] for the development of male and female identities, which is process-oriented and therefore has no definite end, since each answer one finds must remain provisional, as it cannot overcome the basic questionability of human existence. It is astonishing how elements of the Church have marginalized this conciliar change in the understanding of revelation when it comes to the Catholic teachings on marriage and family. Without such marginalization, it would not even be possible to formulate the total opposition to gender theories, as we have described it. A longer quote from Judith Butler can demonstrate their theological relevance and compatibility perfectly : “Sexual difference is neither fully given nor fully constructed, but partially both. That sense of “partially” resists any clear sense of “partition”; sexual difference then operates as a chiasm, but the terms that overlap and blur are perhaps less importantly masculine or feminine than the problematic of construction itself; that what is constructed is of ne51 Dogmatische Konstitution Dei Verbum, Nr. 2. 52 Eberhard Jüngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begründung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus, Tübingen 61992, 435.

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

211

cessity prior to construction, even as there appears no access to this prior moment except through construction. As I understand it, sexual difference is the site where a question concerning the relation of the biological to the cultural is posed and posed again, where it must and can be posed, but where it cannot, strictly speaking, be answered. Understood as a border concept, sexual difference has psychic, somatic, and social dimensions that are never quite collapsible into one another but are not for that reason ultimately distinct.”53 Gender difference is not a pre-given biological fact for Butler, rather it exists in reciprocally conditional psychological, somatic and social dimensions as “a question for our time, but persists as that which makes us wonder, which remains not fully explained and not fully explicable.”.54 How could a fundamental theological protest be formulated here – aside from based on an understanding of revelation as instruction with divine authority? Here, the difference of gender is not allowed to be a “question for our time”, but is only a matter to be defended as divine dictate. With Butler here, we must critique a position “unwilling to rethink one’s politics on the basis of questions”, which consequently means “to opt for a dogmatic stand at the cost of both life and thought”.55 Such an attitude is furthermore connected to a logic of exclusion, excluding people whose embodied experience does comply with the heteronormative matrix, denying them a place and recognition in the order of creation, as interpreted through natural law. These people are considered “objectively disordered” according to Church doctrine, hence they find themselves displaced into vulnerable and precarious situations. Ultimately, it is about the question: what or who do we recognize as decisively Christian here. If ‘Christian’ is a diacritical category, then it requires exclusionary boundaries, which may be important but never primary. In recognizing who does and does not counts as decisively Christian, we must take into account the fact that God’s unconditional love applies to everyone indiscriminately, as the Second Vatican Council’s understanding of revelation emphasizes. The experience of acknowledgment and appreciation [Würdigung] is founded in this, as it opens up a horizon of recognition, which allows one to discover and lead a good life. In essence, Judith Butler’s theory aims at a “project of acceptance”56, where the underlying question is “what maximizes the possibilities to lead a life worth living, and what minimizes the possibilities to lead an […] unbearable life”.57 53 54 55 56

Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, 186. Ibd., 177. Ibd., 180. Judith Butler, Körper von Gewicht. Die diskursiven Grenzen des Geschlechts, Frankfurt a. M. 1997, 10. 57 Judith Butler, Die Macht der Geschlechternormen und die Grenzen des Menschlichen, Frankfurt a. M. 32015, 20.

212

Gerhard Marschütz

From the point of view of gender and queer studies, it is intolerable that LGBTI-people, sexual minorities (lesbians, gays and bisexuals) and minority genders (transgender and intersexual people) can only find conditional social categories of recognition. Indeed, in contemporary Western societies they are scarcely thought of as sick any more and have found much improved status and treatment in the legal system, but they are still often labeled as ‘unnatural’ and ‘deviant’ (from statistical normality). This results in continuously diminished possibilities for leading a life worth living compared with those who lead heterosexual lives and find obvious acceptance in the normative conceptualization of a binary gender order. For Judith Butler, it follows that: “the norms of recognition serve the production and reproduction of the idea of what is human.”58 They turn out to be “a site of power by which the human is differentially produced”59. LGBTI-people have been and continue to be largely denied the status of being ‘recognizably human’ or are granted this status only partially. This denial is founded in a heteronormative matrix, according to which only the binary gender order is naturally given and normatively legitimized. To the extent that this order shapes what is recognizable as human, it simultaneously generates exclusions, which have always subjugated people who do not correspond to this matrix because they “who live and breathe in the interstices of this binary relation”.60 Finding ways to still theologically accord recognition to people who live in these in-between spaces, still represents a challenge that we have only insufficiently met.

5.

Hope dies last

The Catholic front against gender ideology seems to be galvanized and hardly surmountable. Still there is hope, as Pope Francis writes in the framework of his instructions concerning sexual education in Amoris Laetitia, “Nor can we ignore the fact that the configuration of our own mode of being, whether as male or female, is not simply the result of biological or genetic factors, but of multiple elements having to do with temperament, family history, culture, experience, education, the influence of friends, family members and respected persons, as well as other formative situations.” (No. 286) This quote would be a good starting point for a dialogue with Judith Butler. A requirement for this would be the realization that the Catholic gender critique’s underlying thesis that the 58 Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, 2. 59 Judith Butler, Die Macht der Geschlechternormen und die Grenzen des Menschlichen, Frankfurt a. M. 32015, 11. 60 Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, 65.

Surprisingly Bad. Theological Notes on Catholic Gender Critique

213

radical decoupling of biological sex and gender leads to the creation of “new human beings, who design themselves arbitrarily”61 is untenable and false, with respect to academic gender theoies. This thesis is rather a fabrication of extremely right-wing circles in the Church and in politics; it is based on a line of argument that is fed by prejudice, and it willfully ignores that gender theories “do not assume that human nature can be ‘invented’ in the sense of a radically new construction […], [they are rather interested] in the critique of a certain interpretation and re-interpretation of gender identities in light of alternative experiences of embodiment”.62

61 Gabriele Kuby, Die globale sexuelle Revolution, 28. 62 Hille Haker, Körperlichkeit im Plural. Geschlechtertheorie und katholisch-theologische Ethik, in: Herder Korrespondenz Spezial (2014), Leibfeindliches Christentum? Auf der Suche nach einer neuen Sexualmoral, 20–24, 21.

Elzbieta Adamiak (Koblenz-Landau)

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice in Central and Eastern Europe, with Special Focus on Poland

1.

The structural situation of women in theology and the churches of Central and Eastern Europe

The organizational changes to theological studies in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 can be summed up with the phrase “theology returns to the universities”. In some state universities, theological faculties were established for the first time. From a Polish perspective, one could claim that the developments of the 1990’s actually led to an enormous increase in interest in theology. At the beginning of the 21st century, however, the number of theology students suddenly declined – apparently due to low job prospects (which mainly consisted of religious education and, for men, the priesthood as well). In this situation, jobs in research and teaching had to be reduced, the few women who were employed as academic personnel at the few theological faculties bearing the brunt of these cuts. Their contracts were terminated or they did not receive extensions on their fixed-term contracts. These personnel policy decisions were made independently of what views employees had towards the gender issue or whether they even addressed it (Adamiak & Majewski 2004; Adamiak & Chrza˛stowska 2008).1 The scholarly literature has followed an analogous trajectory : the publications about gender issues from a theological perspective still leave much to be desired. In most Central and Eastern European countries, even the ‘classics’ of feminist theology or gender research do not exist in the countries’ respective languages. The most important difference from the situation prior to 1989 lies in the fact that the borders are open (though differences in the buying power of currencies still represent a hurdle), not to mention the changes that the digital flow of information has brought about. The situation has also changed due to the recognition certain theologians from Central and Eastern Europe enjoy as specialists in the field of theological gender research, thanks to their publications and media appearances. 1 In the quoted publications, research until the year 2005 is presented. The evaluation of development is based on own observations.

216

Elzbieta Adamiak

Doctoral dissertations and postdoctoral theses that either address gender issues or adopt feminist-theological approaches have appeared and some women became professors of theology. However, for many women – and it is in fact mostly women who concentrate on feminist theology or theological gender research – there are visible and invisible barriers in their churches. Many find themselves excluded from academic theology in our respective countries, which leads to the question of how they can, should, or must decide in this situation. Some of these women find employment at universities, but usually cannot weigh in with their theological education and research, let alone continue with it. Others attempt to find ways to connect a full position in a different field with their scientific passion, primarily pursuing it in their leisure time. A third group decides to migrate for job-related reasons, as their prospects for finding adequate work are better in Western and Northern European countries. All these paths mean additional effort in terms of work, time and energy. In any case, they have to master such transitions: adopting a different science’s rules (cultural studies, social sciences, pedagogy, and journalism, to name a few examples), expending energy to make time and room for what is important to them, finding their way in a new country and a new social environment, etc. Furthermore, these women must exert greater mental effort to stay on their chosen path, in the face of different forms of rejection coming from those who frequently determine or want to control our opportunities for further development. If one asks after the causes for the structurally weak position of women – or lay theologians in general – we would have to take many aspects into consideration, which would all go beyond the scope of this paper. That is why I will only discuss the fact that the study of theology in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is connected much more closely with church structures than is the case, for example, in German-speaking countries. One example that we can use to explore the question of how religious-ecclesiastical institutions handle gender equality, is the admission of women to ordination outside of the Catholic Church. In the Evangelical Churches of Poland and Latvia, the ordination of women does not exist. It has not yet existed in Poland and in Latvia, it has not been practiced for some time and was abolished according to canon law in 2016. In the Protestant churches of other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, women can be ordained as ministers. That said, the situation varies wildly across them: in the Reformed Evangelical Church in Poland (which has roughly 5000 members) women have been able to be ordained since 1991 – the first was Wiera Jelinek who was ordained in 2003. Since 2010, she has served as a minister in the Evangelical Church of Bohemian Brothers in Ratibor in the Czech Republic (Pijaczyn´ski 2003; Drzazga 2010). The Augsburg Evangelical Lutheran Church in Poland decided in 1999 that women were only permitted to be ordained as deacons. The result of this decision is that the one ecclesiastical office is carried out by three services in the Augsburg

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

217

Evangelical Lutheran Church: bishop, presbyter and deacon. The tasks that belong to deacons, who can be men and women (and not to be confused with the deaconesses who have been active in Poland since the end of the 19th century) are: charity work, help with the liturgy of the Word, preaching, baptism, church wedding, funerals, help with administering the sacrament of the altar, teaching children and youths as well as other activities in the community. The bishop performs the deaconry ordination. Receiving someone’s confession and – in particular – the celebration of the Lord’s supper are prohibited (Pragmatyka słuz˙bowa Kos´cioła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego). In 2016, the Synod took another poll concerning women’s ordination. For the first time in history, there was a majority of votes in favor, but not the necessary two-thirds majority (Kos´cijł Ewangelicko-Augsburski w Polsce przeciwko ordynacji kobiet na ksie˛z˙y agt /br 2016). The situation is different again in the Evangelical Church in Latvia. They introduced the ordination of women there in 1975. Women were ordained there up to 1993, that is, until Bishop Janis Vanags entered office and who still holds the office today. There were immediate reactions to the change in 1993; among other things, it led to the founding of the Association of Latvian Women Theologians. The discussion between supporters and opponents of ordination for women has continued since then. On June 3rd 2016, an historical decision was made: the church’s synod changed §133 of canon law, thereby abolishing women’s ordination once again (Lutherans in Latvia abolish women’s ordination beginning in 2016).2 This thumbnail sketch of the situation of women in theology and the church in Central and Eastern Europe shows how little they can participate in the structure of theological research. When they do – as Dace Balode did recently, who is the current dean of the theological faculty at the Latvian University in Riga – they are frequently confronted with problems of recognition. It is necessary to take this major disparity of power into account when analyzing the content of ‘gender debate’. Women theologians in Central and Eastern Europe are caught in the crossfire of the parties, regardless of whether they participate in the disputes, the polemics on both sides becoming increasingly harsh. This real life setting – or the Sitz im Leben – patently shows what gender research has pointed to for a long time now: social reality and theoretical concepts are mutually conditioning.

2 On the homepage of the study center for gender issues of the Protestant Church in Germany, one can find several reactions by different committees concerning this decision. http://www. ekd.de/gender-ekd/presse/29434.html.

218

2.

Elzbieta Adamiak

The analysis of the ‘gender debate’ in the context of Central and Eastern Europe

In Poland, like most countries of this region, the controversial discussion about gender arose in different areas, though initially in the academic arena, as there are currently interdisciplinary Gender Studies at the most important universities (Rudas´-Grodzka 2014)3. The discussion over gender sprang up directly after 1989, but was conducted in small groups of interested parties and at first it had only a minor influence on society. Politically, the discussion always gained in significance when international committees, for example the United Nations, commented on it. The first big debate of this sort took place in connection with the United Nations Conference on Women in 1994 in Beijing. The most recent one – on a much wider scale – took place on May 11th 2011 when the Council of Europe passed the “Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence” (Istanbul Convention). 2009 saw the formation of the Congress of Women (Kongres Kobiet), which unites diverse women’s initiatives and is supposed to provide women with a stronger political position across party lines. Each year an all-Poland assembly of women takes place with several thousand participants. It always has a thematic focus and important public figures are invited. Moreover, there are also regional meetings.4 In Christian churches, traditional women’s associations are partially revived but they do not yet have very large memberships. At the academic level, Central and Eastern Europe has hosted regional conferences for the European Society for Women’s Theological Research since 1989.5 Unfortunately, as the ‘gender debate’ has revealed, these initiatives have contributed little to the development of a more nuanced view of the term gender in church and society. Of the many definitions of gender, I will take up Regina Ammicht Quinn’s, as I hold it to be the most incisive: “‘gender’, initially a grammatical term, reflects the ‘grammar’ […] of gender relations inscribed in social settings. ‘Gender’ does not invent the structuring grammar of gender relations. Gender is an instrument for analyzing the existing grammars, whether they are religious, secular, political or private in nature. Thus, gender is a social constructivist term which neither refers to an ‘actual core’ of gender, nor can it be separated from ‘sex’ as biological gender” (Ammicht Quinn 2016, 606). This definition shows the development of 3 This encyclopedia collects interdisciplinary, theology included, yields of research in university gender studies. 4 For more information about this, see https://www.kongreskobiet.pl, also with English and French translations. 5 Two of these in Poland: 2000 in Lublin and 2014 in Gniezno (Gnesen). See: http://www.eswtr. org/de/konferenzen-mittel-osteuropa.html.

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

219

the gender category – from a grammatical, to a linguistic, to a philosophical perspective, which Ammicht Quinn views as a necessary instrument of theology today. From her definition, one can see what makes up the core of the debate: How an author frames the use of this term reveals which side the respective author represents in the ‘gender debate.’ On a fundamental level, it is not a question of how the term is understood. Rather, some authors presuppose that the term carries some inherent content, which makes it unsuitable for application in a Christian or theological context. In other words: it is rejected as a concept bound to ideology. The current discussions surrounding the concept of gender in Poland would require a more precise analysis of the reception of Judith Butler’s thinking as well as similar approaches (Butler 1990; 2008). Roughly speaking, this reception appears to be a polarized dispute: On the one hand, there is the almost uncritical assumption of approaches that are opposed to or critical of the Church. Then we have the Church and theological circles that almost universally reject the other side. This simplified image does not show the nuance of the dispute, but reflects the dynamic that it involves. In most Western languages there are already widespread theological sources that affirm the gender perspective, thus I consider it important to present and analyze the latter position. After a period of disinterest, several publications appeared that sought to substantiate the rejection of the gender concept. By way of example, I will mention the positions of two Polish theology professors, which set the tone of the ‘gender debate.’ Then I will turn to the pastoral letter by the Polish Conference of Bishops concerning gender6. Pawel Bortkiewicz is a moral theologian from Poznan, who explicitly rejects the gender concept as we can infer from several of his publications, one of which remains the valid pastoral program for the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. Bortkiewicz views the gender concept as being rooted in radical feminism, which he sees as a part of cultural feminism. Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on whether or not there are observable differences between these two approaches. With complete certitude and without even attempting to prove his position he considers all of them as heirs to Marxist philosophy. According to Bortkiewicz, radical feminism analyses male dominance and the oppression of women in all areas of life. He describes the preoccupation with the categories gender and sexism as follows: “Radical feminism deals only with women and sexuality, it does not consider social circumstances, thereby it is in opposition with for instance anarchist, socialist or black femi-

6 As mentioned above, I mainly deal with the ‘gender debate’ in Poland. The analogous debate in Croatia is documented in a series of publications by Rebeka Jadranka Anic´ (Anic´ 2012/2015a/ 2015b; Anic´/Brncˇic´ 2015).

220

Elzbieta Adamiak

nism” (Bortkiewicz 2013, 281)7. As this formulation demonstrates, Bortkiewicz does not distinguish between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ (‘Geschlechtlichkeit’ und ‘Sexualität’). This leads him to a series of moral assessments, as already suggested by the expression “gender ideology” which appears in the title (Bortkiewicz 2013/ 2014a). Bortkiewicz already considers the distinction between biological and socio-cultural gender as ideological. He equates this with the battle to negate every difference between women and men. Further, “Gender ideology […] is clearly a fundamental, elementary and anthropological aberration. […] The fundamental consequence of the left-radical ideology under discussion is the complete negation of moral rules which govern marriage and family life. This simultaneously leads to a barbarisation of culture, to the de-personalizationand de-humanization of all human relations” (Bortkiewicz 2013, 289–290; 2014b). This shows moreover that Bortkiewicz foregoes another distinction: Instead of speaking about deconstruction, he speaks about destruction (Bortkiewicz 2014/2015). Dariusz Oko, a theologian and philosopher from Krakow, has recently focused on the topic of gender. He engages in the debate more on a journalistic than on an academic level. Nevertheless, or precisely because of that he has a big effect on the Church and politically conservative decision-makers. The type of his publications also determines his language, which is full of neologisms, which are explicitly evaluative. He writes about “gender ideology”, “genderism”, the “gender revolution” or about “homo heresy” (Oko 2013a; Gender – ideologia totalitarna 2013, 40–43). Oko has gained more and more influence in the past few years, by virtue of introducing himself as an expert of the Polish Conference of Bishops, without proving himself to be professionally qualified and without actually fulfilling this function. Since the new elections in 2015, he has been considered an expert in the Polish parliament (Sejm), which invited him to deliver a speech with the title “Gender ideology – a danger to civilization” (Ideologia gender – zagroz˙enie dla cywilizacji). The fact that the Conference of Bishops has not distanced itself from him, would suggest that most bishops share his views. In many respects the structure of their thinking about (or rather recriminations against) the gender approach, Bortkiewicz and Oko resemble each other. Oko also sees a continuation of Marxist philosophy in feminism and in gender approaches. Oko’s main argument is that the reflection on gender has its roots in atheism. On this, he writes, “Gender ideology supports all enemies of God and religions, especially of biblical religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam” (Gender – ideologia totalitarna 2013, 42). Oko views the representatives of the “homo lobby” or the “homo heresy” and the “fanatic feminists” as supporters of “gender ideology” (Oko 7 Translation of all Polish texts into German by the author [and from German to English by the translator – Tr.].

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

221

2012/2013b). The “main ideologists of gender” according to Oko also include Judith Butler, whom he accuses of internal contradictions. He thinks that, for example, when gender is arbitrary (this is how simplistically he interprets her conception), there are no women or men, and so he asks in what way could one then stand up for women’s rights (Oko 2013a). Another similarity with Bortkiewicz’s approach is that Oko equates “gender ideology” with the sexual revolution. Unlike Bortkiewicz, Oko deals intensively with sexual minorities (Oko 2012/2013b). Both authors view “gender ideology” as an influential power that determines the mainstream media, finances and politics. However, Oko’s texts do not offer sufficient support for this claim. As this un-nuanced, indeed simplifying argumentation arose (a form of argument that has appeared in similar shape and form in various countries), German sociologist Gabriele Kuby took on many critical inquires into gender ideology (Kuby 2006/2007/2012/2013). The books she wrote against gender were translated into Polish immediately. Thus, the response seems to have preceded the stimulus. In 2013, the Polish Conference of Bishops explicitly commented on the topic of gender in a pastoral letter (Konferencja Episkopatu Polski 2013). It is the first letter by the Polish bishops on this subject, and until now the only one. Generally one could say that this letter is based on the arguments developed by both of the above-mentioned theologians. Consequently, the pastoral letter contains the complete rejection of the so-called “gender ideology” or “genderism”. It argues that “gender ideology” transforms the concepts of marriage and family and propagates new forms of family life. As such, they are an attack on public and domestic life. In addition, they are supposedly deeply rooted in Marxism and Neo-Marxism, which makes the feminist movement and the sexual revolution into agents of Marxism. This argument evokes memories of the old political system in Poland prior to 1989, which the vast majority of the population views negatively. Official representatives of the Catholic Church supported the successful opposition against this system. The allegation of Marxism is thus supposed to revive the ideological conflict of Poland’s recent history. A deep antagonism between the state and the Church marked this period. At the same time, it points towards a conflict, in which the one side – the communist ideology – is considered as having been intellectually overcome. “Gender ideology”, in sum, propagates principles that“contradict the integral understanding of human nature” (Konferencja Episkopatu Polski 2013). It claims that biological gender has no social meaning, but “what counts is cultural gender, which one can shape and define freely, independent from biological facts” (Konferencja Episkopatu Polski 2013).8 8 It should be pointed out that the English translation of the pastoral letter contains a mistake in

222

Elzbieta Adamiak

After this exposition one must bear in mind that the gender concept that the Polish bishops use in their letter more closely corresponds to the concept ‘queer’ as it is used in socio-cultural and academic language. However, they expand this understanding as well with attributions that are rarely found in the literature on gender and queer studies. The Polish bishops state: “According to this ideology [i. e. gender ideology – E.A.] one can decide for oneself freely, whether he is a man or a woman; he can also choose his own sexual orientation” (Konferencja Episkopatu Polski 2013). This radical representation and evaluation of the gender approach as a gender ideology leads then to its radical rejection. Gender ideology is supposedly deeply destructive with regard to people and their human relations. “Human beings, with their insecure gender identities are not able to fulfill the tasks which are before them in a matrimonial family and also in societal-professional life” (Konferencja Episkopatu Polski 2013). In answer to the pastoral letter, a series of critical female voices – both within and without the Church – spoke out. One of the strongest of these voices is that of the above-mentioned Congress of Women in the form of an open letter to Pope Francis (List Kongresu Kobiet 2013). In response to this, a meeting took place on March 4th 2014 between the nuncio in Poland at the time, Celestino Migliore, and representatives of the Congress of Women. There were other voices of academics, among them theologians, who expressed their discontent regarding the lack of nuance in the pastoral letter as well as the situation of women in the Church in Poland. Zuzanna Radzik and her new book on the Church of our Lady, in which she attempts to present the women’s movement in Christian churches worldwide in a journalistic fashion, is indirectly a reaction to the ‘gender debate’ (Radzik 2015). Radzik belongs to a new, hopeful generation of critically thinking women (and men), who are increasingly interconnected, especially via social media. However, for the most part they lack structural representation in churches and theological faculties, and will probably not attain it for a long time. These examples point to a non-simultaneity in the processes of gaining awareness, since in Poland we see the dynamic: the stronger the conservative wing is or appears in the Church and in politics, the more active are these new initiatives. This can also be seen with this following and final example I will consider : the media campaign “Let us give each other a sign of peace” from 2016.

this key moment. One can read that: “The community of the Church advocates an integral view of man and his sex, recognizing his flesh/biological, mental/cultural and spiritual dimensions. There is nothing wrong with research on the impact of culture on sex. What is dangerous, however, is to argue on the basis of ideology that biological sex has significance in social life”. The last sentence is supposed to say : “What is dangerous, however, is to argue on the basis of ideology that biological sex has no significance in social life” [Emphasis -E.A.].

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

3.

223

A sign of hope: the media campaign “Let us give each other a sign of peace”

The media campaign “Let us give each other a sign of peace” (“Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju”) started in fall 2016 with a large-scale, public poster campaign in several Polish cities and a campaign homepage. At the same time, many other activities took place in the media. This campaign was initiated and supported by three organizations: Kampania Przeciw Homofobii (Campaign against Homophobia), Wiara i Te˛cza (Faith and Rainbow) and Tolerado (a neologism comprising the word tolerance). In all three groups, people who do not conform to heteronormativity work together with people who support their demand for equality. Only Wiara i Te˛cza (Faith and Rainbow) is an organization that explicitly unites Christian LGBT people. The media message consisted of the sign of peace mentioned in the title – a handshake – depicted with two hands, one of which is entwined with a rainbow-colored band and the other with a rosary.9 There were no faces shown on the posters (Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju 2016). On the campaign homepage, the organizers explain the intention behind this: “This is the first social campaign in Poland with which representatives of the Catholic milieu have associated themselves – at the invitation of LGBT organizations. This campaign is aimed at devout people and seeks to recall that Christian values should lead to an attitude of respect, openness and a benevolent dialogue with all people – including towards homosexual, bisexual and transgender people. Independent of the controversies and heated debates that are about homosexuality, the believers increasingly recognize the problem of excluding homosexual people. They deem it necessary to advocate for changing the situation. On the other side, the understanding is growing in the LGBT environment that to fully participate in social life, dialogue with people of faith is necessary. One of the campaign’s concerns is to raise awareness that homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people also belong to the faith community” (Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju 2016). Important realizations can be inferred from how the organizer present themselves. They do not take positions on the official teachings of any specific church, not even the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, the organizers clearly state they are aware of the debate’s complexity regarding non-heteronormative forms of life. One can assume, given the social environment as well as concrete public statements some representatives of these organizers have made, that it is also a dialogue between believers and atheists. 9 In Poland a rosary is perceived as an object having to do with the Christian practice of piety generally ; the poster’s visual message however does not aim at establishing an exclusive connotation with Catholicism. Wiara i Te˛cza (Faith and Rainbow) is an ecumenical organization.

224

Elzbieta Adamiak

The campaign wants to create a platform for encounters across this insurmountable divide. Already in the preceding section about ‘gender debate’, it became apparent that we are dealing with a very polarized society. In accordance with the organizer’s statements, they understand this campaign as a “bottom up initiative” that aims to make personal encounters possible. This can be seen in the design of the campaign’s homepage for example. There are several short film clips with statements from LGBT people who practice a faith and their family members, friends or people who want to support them (Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju 2016). These statements often have a testimonial character. They are lifestories of people who describe different phases of the (in)compatibility of their sexual orientation and their faith, while their friends and supporters talk about the evolution of their own attitudes. The courage and honesty are not the only things that make these statements so remarkable, but also the fact that there are prominent Roman Catholic publicists like Halina Bortnowska, Katarzyna Jabłon´ska, Cezary Gawrys´, Dominika Kozłowska and Zuzanna Radzik among these voices (Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju 2016).10 This leads to another important factor : the media campaign “Let’s give each other a sign of peace” has several media sponsors, like the “Tygodnik Powszechny” clubs, the editorial department of the “Tygodnik Powszechny”, “Kontakt”, “20 lat Queer”, “Wie˛z´”, and “Znak” (Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju 2016). With the exception of “20 lat Queer”, these are all Catholic magazines or in one case, a movement connected with a magazine (the “Tygodnik Powszechny” clubs). The editorial departments are based in Warsaw or Krakow and are considered in Poland to be representations of the open understanding of what it means to be Christian in light of the Second Vatican Council. Not only were the campaign’s contents unusual for the Polish context, so was the collaborative work between LGBT-organizations and Catholic editors. The media sponsorship of this campaign was facing resistance from many Christians with traditional attitudes, whereupon the bishops took critical stances – Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz from Krakow (Kard. Dziwisz o kampanii “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju” 2016) taking a rigid stand, and Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz from Warsaw (Warszawska kuria o akcji “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju” 2016) taking a more moderate one. 10 Only two authors – Jabłon´ska and Gawrys´ – have previously dealt with the subject of the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude towards homosexuality repeatedly (Jabłon´ska/Gawrys´ 2013). Halina Bortnowska, theologian and philosopher, is equipped with a high level of moral authority due to her journalistic work and as well as her commitment in the hospice movement and her effort to support human rights. Dominika Kozłowska, a philosopher, and Zuzanna Radzik, a theologian, are representatives of the youngest generation. Kozłowska is editor-in-chief of the Catholic-Social monthly magazine “Znak” based in Krakow.

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

225

At a later stage, the committee of the Polish Conference of Bishops (Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski 2016) published an official statement.11 Due to the official nature of this aforementioned statement, I will focus on their message in the next paragraph. First, the bishops write that the handshake is a liturgical sign of the greeting of peace in the context of the confession of sins and the willingness to change. “There is a concern that the campaign ‘Let us give each other a sign of peace’ takes this gesture out of the liturgical context and thus gives it a meaning that is not compatible with the teachings of Christ and the Church” (Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski 2016). Second, the Church has taken a stand for the dignity of every person for two thousand years – independent of his or her sexual preferences. For this reason, making the accusation is unwarranted that the dignity of homosexual, bisexual and transgender people is being violated. The bishops refer thereby to the apostolic exhortation encyclical Amoris Laetitia (No. 250) by Pope Francis. Third, the committee of the Polish Conference of Bishops distinguishes between homosexual persons and their homosexual acts which “are objectively, morally bad, and can never enjoy the acceptance of the Church” (Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski 2016). The bishops affirm that, due to this, the Church speaks out against the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships. On that basis, they come to the following unambiguous statement: “The attitude of tolerance towards evil would essentially be indifference towards sinful sisters and brothers. It would have nothing in common with compassion or Christian love. In summary, we express the conviction that Catholics should not participate in the campaign ‘Let us give each other a sign of peace’, because it dilutes the clear demands of the gospel”. (Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski 2016) The statement by the committee of the Polish Conference of Bishops shows that bishops did not react against the campaign’s goal but some other content. Their statement plays out at the level of Church doctrine and of legal regulations that – as outlined above – the campaign did not put up for discussion. What is more, they assert the hardly tenable thesis that the Church, across history and up to the present, has never impaired the dignity of persons with homosexual preferences with concrete actions. Even though the letter’s conclusion clearly states that Roman Catholics should not participate in this media campaign, none of the magazines withdrew their support. In fact, they responded to the bishops’ statement (Kozłowska 2016; Nosowski 2016; Sporniak 2016). Details of their 11 The committee/presidium consists of: Archbishop Stanisław Ga˛decki of Poznan´ (Poznan), the charif of the Polish Conference of Bishops, his substitute Archbishop Marek Je˛draszewski of Łjdz´ (Lodz) and Bishop Artur G. Mizin´ski, the general secretarty of the Polish Conference of Bishops.

226

Elzbieta Adamiak

responses cannot be illustrated here, but the base line of their argumentation is clear : It is clear that the campaign’s goal is to put into practice that section of the Roman Catholic Church’s catechism that says: “A considerable number of men and women are homosexual. They did not choose this themselves and for most of them it represents a challenge. They must be met with respect, compassion and tactfulness. One should avoid setting them back unjustly in any manner” (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2358). These words are confirmed in the bishops’ letter. As far as the level of doctrine or the postulation of a change of legal framework is concerned, the editors emphasize that, if such messages have fallen within the scope of the campaign, this could only ever have been the opinion of individuals. By this, they singled certain statements from the film clips on the homepage. It is too early for a deeper presentation and analysis of this media campaign; the discussions that it initiated are still ongoing. The reason why it is a sign of hope to me is the fact that such a dialogue is not only seen as necessary, but also possible and in practice.

4.

Conclusion

In this article, I attempted to present the social, political and religious exchange surrounding the term gender in relation to gender equality in Central and Eastern Europe with a special focus on Poland. After some reflection on the situation of women in theology and churches, I touched upon the contents of the ‘gender debate,’ especially from the perspective of the adversaries to the gender theory approach, paying special attention to the voice of female theologians and the Polish Conference of Bishops. Under the category of ‘hope’, I finally point to the successful media campaign that is building bridges between worlds that are usually seen as incompatible. To conclude this article I would like to enumerate the goals of such a reasonable theology in this context very generally. What kind of theology is sought after given this situation? First, a patient theology. A theology which – to gain a wider, more understanding audience – is willing to discuss fundamental questions of methodology and content. The necessity for such a patient theology can be seen especially in relation to the approaches of feminist theology and theological gender research. Second, a critical theology that expresses itself in a nuanced way and does not let itself be used to intensify the polarizations of theological discussion. Third, a tradition-conscious theology that also seeks to preserve the theological traditions of women in the churches and the thought of feminist theologies. Fourth, an innovative theology that is pro-active, which does not proceed solely in a reactive way, a theology that chooses its own topics and pursues them in a sus-

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

227

tainable manner. Fifth, a theology that still needs to be developed, which can newly introduce coming generations of theology students to the dilemmas and ambivalences of theological traditions, especially those coming generations who will no longer begin their study of theology or religious pedagogy having been brought up in a confessional or even Christian context.

References Adamiak, E. (2013): Lila und lavendel in Polen. In: Adamiak, E. /Wacker, M.-Th. (Hrsg.): Feministische Theologie in Europa – mehr als ein halbes Leben. Ein Lesebuch für Hedwig Meyer-Wilmes. Feminist Theology in Europe – More than Half a Life. A Reader in Honour of Hedwig Meyer-Wilmes. Berlin, 80–89. Adamiak, E., Chrza˛stowska, M. (Hrsg.) (2008): Godzina kobiet? Recepcja nauczania Kos´cioła rzymskokatolickiego o kobietach w Polsce 1978–2005. Poznan´, Redakcja Wydawnictw, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny. Adamiak, E., Majewski, J. (2004): Ein beachtliches Kapital. Die theologische Landschaft im heutigen Polen. In: Herder Korrespondenz 58, 296–302. Ammicht Quinn, R. (2016): Gender. Unnötige Aufregung um eine nötige Analysekategorie. In: Stimmen der Zeit 234, 600–610. Anic´, R. J. (2012): Gender, Politik und die Katholische Kirche: ein Beitrag zum Abbau der alten Geschlechterstereotypen. In: Concilium 48, 373–382. Anic´, R. J. (2015a): Der Begriff “Gender” als Anathema: eine Kampagne der kroatischen Bischöfe als Beispiel. In: Herder-Korrespondenz 69, 157–161. Anic´, R. J. (2015b): Gender, gender ‘ideology’ and cultural war : local consequences of a global idea – Croatian example. In: Feminist Theology 24, 7–22. Anic´, R. J./Brncˇic´, J. (2015): Missverständnisse um den Begriff “Gender”: Überlegungen anlässlich einer Botschaft der kroatischen Bischofskonferenz. In: Concilium 1, 121– 126. Bortkiewicz, P. (2013): Ideologia gender – istota i konsekwencje dla duszpasterstwa. In: Stułkowski, S. (Hrsg.): Wierze˛ w Syna Boz˙ego. Przez Chrystusa, z Chrystusem, w Chrystusie. Przez wiare˛ i chrzest do ´swiadectwa. Program duszpasterski Kos´cioła w Polsce na lata 2013–2017. Poznan´, Wydawnictwo S´wie˛ty Wojciech, 276–293. Bortkiewicz, P. (2014a): Gender – ideologia w masce nauki. In: Klafka, Z. (Hrsg.): Rewolucja genderowa. Torun´, Wydawnictwo Wyz˙szej Szkoły Kultury Społecznej i Medialnej, 53–80. Bortkiewicz, P. (2014b): Historia jednego wykładu czyli Gender zdemaskowany. Warszawa, Prohibita. Bortkiewicz, P. (2014/2015): Gender – destrukcja miłos´ci i toz˙samos´ci człowieka. In: Premislia Christiana, 381–394. Butler, J. (1990): Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York. Butler, J. (2008): Uwikłani w płec´ :feminizm i polityka toz˙samos´ci, Warszawa, Krytyka Polityczna.

228

Elzbieta Adamiak

Drzazga, E. (2010): Wiera i Mirosław Jelinkowie opuszczaja˛ Zeljw. http://www.dzienni klodzki.pl/artykul/291328,wiera-i-miroslaw-jelinkowie-opuszczaja-zelow,id,t.html (25. 11. 2016). Gender – ideologia totalitarna (2013): Interview mit Dariusz Oko, geführt von Anna Cichobłazin´ska. In: Niedziela 24, 40–43. Graff, A (2014).: Report from the Gender Trenches: War against ‘Genderism’ in Poland. In: European Journal of Women’s Studies 21, 431–442. Jabłon´ska, K. /Gawrys´, C. (Hrsg.) (2013): Wyzywajaca miłos´c´. Chrzes´cijanie a homoseksualizm. Warszawa, Biblioteka “WIE˛ZI”. Kard. Dziwisz o kampanii “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju” (2016): http://krakow.gosc.pl/ doc/3436453.Kard-Dziwisz-o-kampanii-Przekazmy-sobie-znak-pokoju (25. 11. 2016). Komunikat Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski: Kampania “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju” rozmywa jednoznaczne wymagania Ewangelii (2016): http://episkopat. pl/prezydium-kep-kampania-przekazmy-sobie-znak-pokoju-rozmywa-jednoznacz ne-wymagania-ewangelii/ (25. 11. 2016). Konferencja Episkopatu Polski (2013): List pasterski na Niedziele˛ S´wie˛tej Rodziny (2013) roku. http://episkopat.pl/list-pasterski-na-niedziele-swietej-rodziny-2013-roku/ (25. 11. 2016). (English Version: http://episkopat.pl/pastoral-letter-of-the-bishops-confer ence-of-poland-to-be-used-on-the-sunday-of-the-holy-family-2013/). Kos´cijł Ewangelicko-Augsburski w Polsce przeciwko ordynacji kobiet na ksie˛z˙y (agt /br, 2016). https://ekai.pl/wydarzenia/ekumenizm/x98460/kosciol-ewangelicko-augsbur ski-w-polsce-przeciwko-ordynacji-kobiet-na-ksiezy/ (25. 11. 2016). Kozłowska, D. (2016): W odpowiedzi na komunikat Prezydium Konferencji Episkopatu Polski. http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/aktualnosci/w-odpowiedzi-na-komuni kat-prezydium-konferencji-episkopatu-polski/ (25. 11. 2016). Kuby, G. (2006): Die Gender-Revolution – Relativismus in Aktion. Kißlegg. Kuby, G. (2007): Rewolucja genderowa: nowa ideologia seksualnos´ci. Krakjw, Wydawnictwo Homo Dei. Kuby, G. (2012): Die globale sexuelle Revolution – Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit. Kißlegg. Kuby, G. (2013): Globalna rewolucja seksualna. Likwidacja wolnos´ci w imie˛ wolnos´ci. Krakjw, Wydawnictwo Homo Dei. List Kongresu Kobiet do Jego S´wia˛tobliwos´ci Papiez˙a Franciszka (2013): https://kon greskobiet.pl/pl-PL/news/show/list_kongresu_kobiet_do_jego_swiatobliwosci_papieza _franciszka 25.11. 2016). (English version: https://www.kongreskobiet.pl/en-EN/news/ show/letter_from_the_congress_of_women_to_his_holiness_pope_francis (25.11. 2016). Lutheraner in Lettland schaffen Frauenordination ab (2016). http://www.ekd.de/genderekd/presse/29434.html (25. 11. 2016). Nosowski, Z. (2016): “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju”. Bez warunkjw wste˛pnych. http:// laboratorium.wiez.pl/2016/09/09/przekazmy-sobie-znak-pokoju-bez-warunkow-wstep nych/ (25.11. 2016). Oko, D. (2012): Mit dem Papst gegen Homohäresie. In: Theologisches, 403–426. Oko, D. (2013a): Genderrewolucja, In: Polonia Christiana, 13 http://www.pch24.pl/gen derrewolucja,13036,i.html (25. 11. 2016). Oko, D. (2013b): Zehn Argumente gegen die Homosexuellenpropaganda. In: Theologisches, 47–54.

The Social, Political and Religious Exchange over Gender Justice

229

Pijaczyn´ski, M. (2003): Wiera Jelinek pierwsza˛ w Polsce kobieta˛ pastor reformowana˛. http://www.kosciol.pl/article.php/20030915133620915 (25. 11. 2016). Pragmatyka słuz˙bowa Kos´cioła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego (20. 06. 2016). http://bik.lu teranie.pl/files/Prawo/2016-06-20PragmatykaSubowa.pdf (25. 11. 2016). Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju (2016): http://www.znakpokoju.com/# (25. 11. 2016). Radzik, Z. (2015): Kos´cijł kobiet. Warszawa, Krytyka Polityczna. Rudas´-Grodzka, M. u. a. (Hrsg.) (2014): Encyklopedia gender : płec´ w kulturze, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca. Sporniak, A. (2016): Kampania “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju”. https://www.tygodnik powszechny.pl/znak-pokoju-35394 (25. 11. 2016). Warszawska kuria o akcji “Przekaz˙my sobie znak pokoju” (2016): http://warszawa.gosc.pl/ doc/3446459.Warszawska-kuria-o-akcji-Przekazmy-sobie-znak-pokoju (25. 11. 2016).

Maria K. Moser (Vienna)

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility “We can’t justify our autonomy with our status as victims. We can’t remain the undamaged and autonomous victims. This excludes each other. People deciding themselves what they are applies – fundamentally – also to women.” (Thürmer-Rohr 1999, 52)

Women claiming speech and responsibility – the subtitle of this article highlights its practical intention and identifies the subject who should take action through speaking and acting: women. How can women, being situated in an androcentric symbolic order and patriarchal structures, take action anyway? The women’s movement as well as gender studies have been discussing this since the 1960ies, thereby establishing the notion of gender as an analytical category and gender mainstreaming as a political instrument. In the second half of the 1990’s, the so called anti-genderism movement gained pace, a discourse which paints a nightmare scenario using somewhat populist language: Gender Studies and its sociopolitical implementation by use of gender mainstreaming allegedly cause a “destruction of the foundation of values and the basic social forms of society, namely the binary gender order, heterosexuality as a norm or standard, the marriage between a man and a woman, family and the inviolability of the child before and after birth” (Kuby 2014, 591). Since someone who makes use of populist speech usually has no interest in a dialogue or an exchange of arguments – as this would imply a willingness to question one’s own arguments and to possibly correct them – this contribution will not engage anti-genderism explicitly. Nevertheless, it is helpful to keep anti-genderism at the back of one’s mind since anti-genderists had, as Sabine Hark and Paula-Irene Villa believe, “understood very well what the ‘gender turn’ implies, namely an actual post-naturalistic or, to be precise, a postessentialist understanding of gender” (Hark & Villa 2015b, 19). The terminology and conception of ‘understanding of gender’ and ‘gender order’ highlight the theoretical requirements for women to be able to take hold of the word and the response. Gender mainstreaming points to the dual necessities of translating these intellectual requirements into political strategies, and of examining the intellectual requirements of emancipatory political strategies. So how can women, fixed into androcentric interpretive frameworks and

232

Maria K. Moser

patriarchal structures, rise to speak and take responsibility? We will make three attempts at formulating eight hypotheses in total: In the first attempt, we will sketch the development of women’s studies and gender studies; we will distinguish different levels of the discussion of the meaning of gender, and relate them to one another. Different analytical approaches to gender order and the “woman subject” are at the center of this attempt. In the second attempt we make the question of the “woman subject” more concrete, as we describe the internal feminist critique of perceiving women as victims. The convergence point of these considerations is the question of action and women’s agency. In the third and final attempt, we will tie the requirement of thinking of women as subjects capable of acting to the question of political strategies that enable women to rise, speak, and take responsibility. We will attempt to accomplish this by a critical examination of the example of gender mainstreaming.

1.

Gender-Discourse – Questions and Levels

In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir wrote: “One is not born as a woman, you become one” (Beauvoir 1993, 334). Since the beginning of the ‘Second Wave’ of Feminism and feminist theory development, thinkers did not consider femininity (and later gender) to be a pre-given or natural fact: people do not simply have a gender and are then determined by it. Rather, they practice gender (perform it). From the outset, theorists subjected the (individual, structural and symbolic) meaning of femininity to analyses and debates. Nonetheless, we can observe a development of this question. – From the question: Which experiences do women have ‘as women’, or more precisely, because they are women? Feminists and theorists posed this question with a view to the “big implications of a minor difference”, providing impetus to connect the experiences of discrimination and violence against women with the search for women in history, society and science. – To the question: Why do women have these experiences? Theorists articulated this question in light of the understanding of gender as a social category – what are women (and men) in the first place? How can we think about gender differences?1

1 The shift of focus from the big implications of a minor difference to the question of distinguishing the two genders at all is described as a “constructivist turn” or “gender turn”. At the center of the debate is the question of how the classification happens. The attribution of a dualistic gender metaphor is analyzed as a base, on which social action is organized (genderspecific work distribution) as well as individuals forming their gendered identity. In nor-

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

233

– On to the question: Why is there even male and female, and why is there gender at all?2 This question is now bound to questions concerning the conditions of gender formation and the critiques of binary gender hegemony and heteronormativity. One small example to highlight the significance of the development of this question: Protestant Churches are working on a reorganization of the liturgical readings and sermons.3 The new Revised Common Lectionary is said to consider gender issues by including “women’s texts”. That means texts which consider “biblical female figures and their lived reality” (EKD/UEK/VELKD 2014, 26). This entails an attempt to address the first of the three questions mentioned: Which experiences do women have as women? The EKD Research Center for Gender Issues in the Church and Theology acknowledges this attempt in its response, but simultaneously points out a) that it has an overly condensed reception of feminist or gender-conscious theology, which participates in the general development of questions in feminist theology and gender studies and b) that it lacks hermeneutical reflection. It criticizes the use of the term “women’s texts” insofar as that puts certain texts into a special category, while texts with male protagonists are not categorized separately. Hence, they ask whether this categorization in the draft implies, inversely, that the rest of the texts of the Bible are “men’s texts”, which consider biblical male figures and their lived realities. “From the perspective of gender, both types of texts are informative for mative as well as in political and strategic respects, the debate is characterized in this phase of feminist theory formation by the controversy between approaches of equality and difference. 2 The different trends of postmodern feminism have in common a radicalization of the constructivist turn: They assume there is nothing ‘beyond language’ and that the way we view the world and give things meaning is always composed linguistically. They are interested in the way gender and the gender gap is established, represented and practiced linguistically and discursively. Gender as a whole – sex and gender together – is considered to be an effect of cultural interpretations from the perspective of deconstructive approaches. Binary sexuality is not a natural fact, instead it is a social construct: a product of normalization, performances and perceptions. The critique of binary sexuality as such is focused in the term heteronormativity : heteronormativity means a binary and heterosexual organizational framework for perceiving, acting and thinking, which functions as a fundamental societal institution. This contributes to a naturalization of heterosexuality and binary sexuality, to its being taken for obvious and absolute, and to the reduction of complexity in human sexuality. 3 The current lectionary has been in use since 1978. The governing body of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), the Union of Evangelical Churches in the Evangelical Church in Germany (UEK) and the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Germany (VELKD) launched a revision process in 2010. In the liturgical year 2014/2015, parishes received a draft of the reorganization as part of a ‘trial run.’ The responses were evaluated at the regional church level. After the incorporation of the votes of the regional churches and the final decisionmaking process, the new lectionary is supposed to start on the first of Advent 2018 for the entire Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD/UEK/VELKD 2014).

234

Maria K. Moser

questions of gender relations and their respective constructs of gender when they are considered in their historic and literary context” (EKD Studienzentrum, 3). The EKD Study Center not only criticizes the andro-centrism (the mechanism that elevates the male to an undefined norm, in comparison to which the female is described as something abnormal) that lies hidden in the term “women’s texts”. It also urges the EKD to consider the meaning of gender as a social category and calls attention to texts that deal with the construction of femininity as well as masculinity. The questions posed in feminist theory and gender studies have developed and it is crucial to take this into account. Yet we must not, in my view, look on this development as a series of questions replacing one another. Especially for our more practical context – women rising to speak and taking responsibility – all three questions are still as relevant today as they ever were. Women rising to speak and taking responsibility faces a tension that no postnaturalistic or rather post-essential understanding of gender can get around: the tension of “woman” as a cultural and ideological category on the one hand, and “women” as real, material subjects in history on the other hand (cf. Mohanty 1988,150). In short: The tension between “woman” as a cultural and ideological category and “women” as real, material subjects has to be considered and maintained. (Thesis 1) The deconstructive approach’s radicalization of the constructivist turn led researchers to analyze social orders (and gender orders) less on a level of social structures than on a linguistic level, on a level of discourse and theories. In the years after 1989 Nancy Fraser articulated this development in political language: terms like “identity”, “difference”, “cultural dominance” and “recognition” dominated the debates, cultural-evaluative approaches are given priority and socio-economic approaches fade into the background (hence the “cultural turn”). “Cultural dominance replaces exploitation as the elementary form of injustice. Culturally bestowed recognition replaces socio-economic redistribution as the measure of injustice and as the goal of political struggle.” (Fraser 2001, 23). When discussing the question of how women can rise to speak and take responsibility, we must avoid separating the cultural-evaluative and socio-economic levels, we must engage gender as both a structural category and as a construct created by discourses, and thereby balance out the cultural turn with a social (re)turn (Klinger 2003, 24). Deconstructive approaches tend towards philosophical abstraction. With their normative line of attack that aims at new ways of thinking about gender, they seem far removed from the immediate interests and identities of real women and how they live and are understood now. On the other hand, the ongoing new and free de/construction of identity and difference are “only possible on the basis of (approximate) social equality” (Fraser 2001, 60). Nevertheless, it is not enough to just correct or compensate for the unjust repercussions of social circumstances without confronting the un-

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

235

derlying social structure that generates these circumstances. Consequently, practical and theoretical approaches that look at women as real and material subjects but do not question the ideological construction of the category ‘woman’ and the differentiation of the group ‘men’ from the group ‘women’ – which are fundamental to the inequality of gender relations – are in danger of ending up in a stigmatizing situation. For example, if one attempts to provide women with a fair share of education and employment through a quota, without touching on the roots of gender differentiation in labor division, the impression might arise over time that women are privileged recipients of exclusive treatment and unmerited generosity (cf. Fraser 2001, 59). Hence we conclude: Gender equality addresses two forms of injustice: (i) unequal access to diverse goods at the socio-economic level, which calls for redistribution, and (ii) cultural dominance on the cultural-evaluative level, which calls for recognition as well as a critique of gender categorization. (Thesis 2) A distinction that is especially important and helpful in the context of the Church and theology is the distinction between the anthropological level (gender/femininity as anthropological category), the socio-political or social level (gender differentiating structures in society and the Church as well as social and ecclesiastical performances of femininity and masculinity) and the normativeethical level (guiding principle for gender roles, including the question to what extent there should be a differentiation between genders, cf. Heimbach-Steins 2009). The relation to the anthropological level and the question of hermeneutics are decisive here: Deductive arguments, as we find them in anti-genderism for instance, stem from an immutable philosophical-theological system of eternal truths based on nature (in the Catholic version), or biblically, of eternal truths which are based on a literal understanding of the revelation of the Holy Scripture (in the Evangelical version). In contrast, inductive arguments begin from social reality, attempting to first perceive it (in an unbiased manner) and then interpret it theologically. This entails: How much freedom belongs to a woman or man in dealing with their own gender depends on how gender is interpreted on an anthropological level and on a normative level. (Thesis 3)

2.

Beyond Victimization

Sandra Bartky, professor of philosophy and gender studies in Chicago, wrote in 1975: “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization” (Bartky 1990, 15). This sentence is an expression of the fundamental belief of feminist theory and practice at the time. The women’s movement put the issue of violence on the political agenda. From there, the consciousness of victimization spread and

236

Maria K. Moser

became generalized. Violence against women was seen as the description of the basic pattern of gender relations in the patriarchy ; women were viewed as victims of men and circumstance “in most feminist literature” (Haug 1980, 643). In the following, we will examine the internal feminist criticism of the general perception of women as victims.4 In 1980, the German sociologist, feminist, and Marxist Frigga Haug first criticized the perspective of victimhood. Perceiving women as victims and to describe them as such obstructs the cause of emancipation and liberation, since: “Why liberation is possible and necessary and most of all, who is supposed to achieve it, or how … women as victims and subjects are supposed to attain the status of subject remains forever in the dark. In other words: the assumption that women are exclusively victims can say nothing about how they can get from the position of the ones who are acted upon to the position of the ones taking action” (Haug 1980, 646). Haug describes victimhood as a mode of women’s perception of themselves and other that, on the one hand, conceals their contribution to the production of oppressive structures and on the other hand prevents their liberation, which must begin with a change in each individual. The passivity associated with being a victim hinders the (oppressed) women’s potential to actively restructure their circumstances. Three years later, in 1983 – the notion of women as victims of male violence, patriarchal structures and patriarchal socialization remaining almost unchallenged in the interim – Christina Thürmer-Rohr criticized the perspective of victimhood in her famous theory of complicity. Unlike Haug, she does not concentrate on how women actively contribute to their own oppression, but on their contribution to the patriarchy itself. For Thürmer-Rohr ‘accomplice’, not victim, is the appropriate description of women’s role in patriarchal structures. The action that corresponds to this role is acting with the perpetrator, which includes the passive understanding of the female existence: “This ideology, that men act and women are acted upon, or that society creates conditions which women are exposed to, is one of the manifestations of our complicity. We define women as ‘the aggrieved’ and as the ones ‘at our mercy,’ no matter what image of women we may have before us. The image of a wife and mother who is simply willing to support others, constantly laboring, sacrificing her wishes for familial survival and peace. The overexerted woman carrying a double burden, who spends her lifetime running between multiple tasks that cannot be put off. The ‘equal’ who gives up her identity to participate in male prerogatives. Everyone is a victim. Everyone is enduring evil and injustice and is forced into this fate, everyone is giving away something that they need themselves and painfully lack, their energy, their work, their identity, because they cannot survive without this 4 For the victim’s perspective of women in different feminist contexts cf. Moser 2007b.

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

237

precious gift to the patriarchy. These sacrifices are painful, yet they are also redundant and will not gain any meaning by their being painful. The sorrow they cause is meaningless. It does not culminate in protest and an affirmation of life, but a deformation: Accepting the world as it is, not actively increasing the misfortune, but being willing to suffer the injustice that surrounds us. Sacrifices are irrelevant. They lack the moral they are said to have” (Thürmer-Rohr 1999, 60). It is about the “participation of women in the overall historic plot, the historic total product of this self-important male culture” (Thürmer-Rohr 1989, 93) – a formulation typical for Thürmer-Rohr, but also typical for the 1980’s. One side of victimhood is subjective-moralistic: This addresses the specific entanglement of individual women in patriarchal systems through their individual daily actions. When women understand themselves as victims and accept the ‘victim identity,’ they accept the duty [Aufgabe] given to them in a dominantly male society : self-sacrifice [Selbstaufgabe]. At this point, the question of female guilt and responsibility arises. The definition of feminist consciousness as a victim’s consciousness that we cited at the beginning has an exculpatory function, and this is just the problem: The victim is (due to the religious connotations of the term victim with “purity”) always innocent. Through the chain of associations ‘victim-innocence’ and ‘powerless-guiltless,’ the individual woman moves to a position without responsibility – both regarding their own situation and in view of shaping society. This unburdens her from having to accept responsibility and guilt (complicity). At the same time, she remains in a passive position, the position of the object. The concept of the victim is that it cannot act. If it would act, it would lose its innocence. Hence: Becoming a subject and assuming responsibility for women also includes taking on culpability. (Thesis 4) The other side of victimhood is socio-analytic: The general perspective of women as victims goes hand in hand with the feminist consciousness of injustice, which looks mainly or exclusively at the gender order and levels accusations at it. Countless authors “of color” criticized the close entanglement of white or western feminism with gender as a form of suppression. In the following, I will stick pars pro toto to Christina Thürmer-Rohr’s version of the critique that she formulated in the early 1990’s with explicit reference to the victim’s perspective. Feminism, according to Thürmer-Rohr, is also involved in the Western culture of profit and dominance. This becomes apparent in a series of characteristic limitations of Western Feminism, like for example the “limitation of the motivation for change to self-development and self-transformation; the limitation of the notion of experience to self-awareness; …the limitation of the critique of the patriarchy to the relationship white woman – white man, … the limitation of the concept of rulership to gender hierarchy and sexism” (Thürmer-Rohr 1994, 102). These limitations always entail a political margin-

238

Maria K. Moser

alization: “excluded from the critique of the patriarchy are concepts of rulership that, while not sexist, are racist and ethnicist and thus do not apply to the white woman.” (Ibid.). Thürmer-Rohr sees the most extensive political expression of this in the “self-definition of Western women as victims of circumstance, connected with the idea that victims are pure” (ibid. 105). “The search for group identities that wear a victim’s label, as well as the differentiation and hierarchization of different victim groups are related to the promise of being placed in a category of oppression. These secure the affiliation with the real victims. The victim’s suffering becomes the guarantee of innocence.” (ibid.). In contrast to that – in view of women taking on responsibility – we must emphasize: Women’s awareness of injustice is not limited to one’s own experience of injustice but relates to injustice suffered by others and self-caused injustice. (Thesis 5) Thürmer-Rohr develops this thought further by criticizing the act of categorization itself. Categorizing others as others is an act of violence. For ThürmerRohr the corresponding form of the critique of power and rulership is the critique of totalitarianism (cf. Thürmer-Rohr 1998). The critique of the act of categorizing is, as we have seen, also an issue in the deconstructive approaches of gender studies; let us now take a broader look at categorization. In the wider framework of feminist theory, researchers have expanded this idea with the concept of intersectionality (cf. Moser 2007a). Intersectionality is an approach to inequality research that analyzes the relationship between multiple dimensions of social structures and the formation of the subject. “First, the notion of interlocking oppressions refers to the macro level connections that link systems of oppression such as race, class, and gender. This is the model describing the social structures that create social positions. Second, the notion of intersectionality describes micro level processes – namely, how each individual and group occupies a social position within interlocking structures of oppression described by the metaphor of intersectionality. Together they shape oppression” (Hill Collins 1995 492). Working with the analytic category of intersectionality, as described in the quote from Patricia Hill Collins, concerns the triangle race-class-gender and their interplay, their overlaps and their meeting points. Researchers find more and more axes of dominance, such as sexual orientation, physical limitations or age. It is not uncommon to find an “etc.” at the end of the list pointing to additional possible categories of social inequality and marginalization. However comprehensive the integration of different categories of social inequality in individual cases may be, we find that: The confrontation with injustice and social inequality is not limited to the category of gender, but also must account for different axes of dominance and their respective reciprocities (intersectionality). (Thesis 6)

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

3.

239

Political Strategies originating from Gender Mainstreaming

As we have seen, for women to rise and speak and take responsibility, there needs to be certain intellectual conditions in place, which revolve around the question of the woman as subject. Regarding practice, the question arises: which (political) strategies support women in becoming subjects? An important strategy is gender mainstreaming, which anti-genderists forcefully reject. Gender mainstreaming is an approach that developed in the 1970’s in the context of international aid, drawing some critical conclusions regarding approaches that focused solely on women. As the name suggests, gender relations is at the center of this approach. Gender mainstreaming has joined the classic approach of the promotion of women to form a double strategy. The UN world conferences on women – Nairobi 1985 and especially Beijing 1995 – propagated this concept. The platform for action formed in Beijing calls on the signatory states to implement gender mainstreaming in their administrative activities. In accordance with this, the EU formally made gender mainstreaming a compulsory part of its Equality- and Antidiscrimination policy in 1997. Since 2000, the Austrian federal government has committed itself to implement the gender mainstreaming strategy via five decisions by the council of federal ministers. Since 2009, the application of gender mainstreaming has been constitutionally enforced in the drafting and implementation of the budget in Austria. On the website of the Austrian ministry for women, gender mainstreaming is defined as follows: “The goal of the gender mainstreaming strategy is to consider the living and working conditions of the genders in the planning, implementation and assessment of measures. We can only avoid discrimination by recognizing the respective differences and taking them into account. Consequently, gender mainstreaming means introducing a gender-based point of view in all policy areas and decision-making processes, with the goal of promoting the equality of women and men. Gender mainstreaming is different from explicitly feminist politics because it includes both genders equally” (BMB 2016). Gender mainstreaming is rooted in the tradition of ‘equality policies.’ Therefore, the critical question that concern equality policies equally apply to gender mainstreaming. First, we must acknowledge gender mainstreaming as a positive development (cf. Schenk 2008, 154): Gender mainstreaming understands gender as a relational category, so both genders are included. The focus is not only on feminine issues, as the approach requires that we name and take into account masculine issues as well. Gender mainstreaming understands gender relations as being the result of the actions and interactions of men and women. Both genders are responsible for change. Gender equality is no longer a group interest, but a cross-sectional matter.

240

Maria K. Moser

All of this does not yet address the form of envisioned gender relations. Only the understanding of gender and the objectives of equality policies, which are connected to gender mainstreaming measures, give content to the envisioned gender relations. We conclude: What gender mainstreaming de facto means in practice and what effects it has, are connected to the respective understanding of gender and the objectives of equality policies. (Thesis 7) Now let us take a closer look at (1) the understanding of gender and (2) the objective of equality policy, both considered as components of gender mainstreaming (and hence a closer look at the question of whether gender mainstreaming would really dissolve binary sexuality, as representatives of antigenderism fear): 1. Will gender mainstreaming dissolve dualistic gender relations? Or will it even affirm them? Factually speaking, gender concerns both men and women. The living and working conditions mentioned in the definition of gender mainstreaming are the living and working conditions of men and women. The definition states that the different conditions are supposed to be recognized and considered with the goal of avoiding discrimination. This is about the “big implications of a minor difference”, so to speak, which we started with in the first phase of the development feminist theory. Gender mainstreaming aims at the reduction of inequality in the allocation of resources, opportunities, leadership positions, and access to budget items and funds through different support measures. This often begins at an individual level rather than a structural one. In practice, this often involves the quantitative representation of women. This form of reducing inequality presupposes the identification of gender groups and the support for disadvantaged women tends to strengthen the distinction between the gender groups (including the negative dynamic of recognition already mentioned). Often, an essentialist understanding of gender dominates here (Schenk 2008, 155f, 163). That gender mainstreaming presupposes the difference between women and men is hardly surprising. Given the fact that most people in our society experience themselves as women or men, gender mainstreaming connects immediately to their experiences and their conditions. One can, together with Christian Schenk, ask if the dualistic understanding of gender is the practical main problem (ibid., 164). In practice, the deconstruction of binary sexuality is, as we already determined, quite abstract and it is, in my opinion, more about questioning and broadening the beliefs about women and men and their associated roles (including the role of the victim). This leads us to the second question concerning gender mainstreaming: 2. Does gender mainstreaming change androcentric assessments or does it affirm them? Does gender mainstreaming really lead to more comprehensive gender equality? Hidden in these questions is the old issue of the benchmark of

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

241

equality : Does “women should be equal to men” mean that they should orient their concepts of life towards “male” norms and that they should be integrated in a “male”-shaped public order with equal power and participation? (cf. Schnabl 2005, 68f.) Feminists in both the theoretical and practical realms have continuously criticized this benchmark as androcentric. Let us look at the EU’s “Strategy for equality between women and men” to discuss this problem by considering a concrete example. The European Union has set forth the following key issues (cf. European Commission 2010): – Equal economic independence for women and men (women in the job market, female employment rate, female entrepreneurs, integration); – Equal pay for equal work and work of equal value; – Equality in decision-making processes/ promoting equal participation of women and men in decision processes (quotas in leadership positions); – Fighting gender-related violence; – Equality in foreign policy/ promotion of gender equality outside of the EU. These topics address the problems of “women” participating in the “male world”. The areas of social life that have a ‘male connotation’ or are now in fact dominated by men need to open for women. The strategy does not include measures to promote men in housework or care work. This shows in the statistics. For example, women’s quotas are mentioned, but not the distribution between paid work and unpaid housework or care work. The strategy only considers housework and care work in connection to integration5, and not as stand-alone topics. Yet, the allocation of care, nurturing, and support is a sensitive point in societal gender-based discrimination (cf. Schnabl 2005b, 70). The asymmetric distribution of care work generates inequality on the socio-economic level. Here it presents itself as a question of distributive justice that calls for structural measures. In the absence of these measures, exploitative working conditions for female migrants have arisen, such as 24-hour care chains, which are exactly the opposite of structural support for gender equality (cf. HeimbachSteins 2010). On the level of cultural dominance and cultural-evaluative paradigms, the asymmetric distribution of care demands justice in the form of recognition. It is about questioning the androcentric symbolic order that distinguishes between production-reproduction, employment-housework, public-private, spirit-body, nature-culture and that connects these differentiations with the male and the female, evaluating and hierarchizing them (cf. Bernhard Fili 1994). This concerns a complete realignment of our society beyond androcentric 5 Expansion of public childcare to improve the compatibility of work and family is mentioned, as well as paternity leave.

242

Maria K. Moser

valuations, in both our thought and our actions: What is being devalued and why? How can we evaluate anew? What is socially necessary and meaningful? What about the distinction between public and private? In the field of anthropology one might ask: What about autonomy and dependence? In normative theories: What about the allocation of different topics to questions of justice on the one and to questions concerning the good life on the other hand? Care Ethics for one has discussed these questions intensively (cf. Schnabl 2005a). From a care-ethical perspective, we must look at the question concerning which practical strategies support women rising to speak take responsibility : Opening male-dominated fields up for women is not enough. We need a fundamental realignment of our society, beyond androcentric values. The crucial point here is the division and recognition of housework and care work. (Thesis 8)

4.

Summary: Eight Theses on “Women rising to speak and taking responsibility”

1. The tension between “woman” as a cultural and ideological category and “women” as real, material subjects must be considered and maintained. 2. Gender equality addresses two forms of injustice: unequal access to diverse goods, which is located on the socio-economic level and demands redistribution, and cultural dominance, which is located on the cultural-evaluative level and demands recognition as well as a critical view of categorization. 3. How much freedom belongs to a woman or man in dealing with their own genders depends on how gender is interpreted on an anthropological level and a normative level. 4. Becoming a subject and assuming responsibility for women also includes culpability. 5. Women’s awareness of injustice is not limited to self-experienced injustice but relates to injustice suffered by others and self-caused injustices. 6. The confrontation with injustice and social inequality is not limited to the category of gender, but also comprises different axs of dominance and their respective reciprocities (intersectionality). 7. What gender mainstreaming de facto means in practice and which effects it has, is connected to the respective understanding of gender and the objectives of equality policies. 8. Opening male-dominated fields up for women is not enough. We need a fundamental realignment of our society, beyond androcentric values. The crucial point here is the division and recognition of housework and care work.

Beyond Victimization. Women Claim Speech and Responsibility

243

References Bartky 1990: Bartky, Sandra, Femininity and Domination. Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression, London/New York. Beauvoir 1993: Beauvoir, Simone de, Das andere Geschlecht. Sitte und Sexus der Frau, München/Zürich. Bernhard Fili 1994: Bernhard Fili, Heidi u. a. (Hg.), Weiberwirtschaft. Frauen-ÖkonomieEthik, Luzern 1994. BMB 2016: Gender-Mainstreaming. Information des Bundesministeriums für Bildung der Republik Österreich: https://www.bmb.gv.at/frauen/gender/index.html (29. 9. 2016). EKD/UEK/VELKD 2014: Entwurf zur Erprobung der Neuordnung der gottesdienstlichen Lesungen und Predigttexte 2014/15 (im Auftrag von EKD, UEK und VELKD), Hannover: https://www.ekd.de/download/20140826_perikopenrevision.pdf (7. 2. 2017). EKD Studienzentrum: Votum des Studienzentrums der EKD für Genderfragen in Kirche und Theologie zum “Entwurf zur Erprobung der Neuordnung der gottesdienstlichen Lesungen und Predigttexte”, o.O. o. J., 3: http://www.gender-ekd.de/download/Votum Perikopenneuordnung.pdf (7. 2. 2017). Europäische Kommission 2010: Europäische Kommission, Strategie für die Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern 2010–2015, Luxemburg 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ gender-equality/files/gender_strategy_de.pdf (7. 2. 2017). Fraser 2001: Fraser, Nancy, Von der Umverteilung zur Anerkennung? Dilemmata der Gerechtigkeit in “postsozialistischer” Zeit, in: dies., Die halbierte Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt a. M., 23–66. Hark/Villa 2015a: Hark, Sabine/Villa, Paula-Irene (Hg.), Anti-Genderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzungen, Bielefeld. Hark/Villa 2015b: Hark, Sabine/Villa, Paula-Irene, “Eine Frage an und für unsere Zeit”. Verstörende Gender Studies und symptomatische Missverständnisse, in: dies. (Hg.), Anti-Genderismus. Sexualität und Geschlecht als Schauplätze aktueller politischer Auseinandersetzungen, Bielefeld 2015, 15–39. Haug 1980: Haug, Frigga, Opfer oder Täter? Über das Verhalten von Frauen, in: Das Argument 123, 643–649. Heimbach-Steins 2009: Heimbach-Steins, Marianne, “… nicht mehr Mann und Frau” (Gal 3,28). Sozialethische Studien zu Geschlechterverhältnis und Geschlechtergerechtigkeit, Regensburg. Heimbach-Steins 2010: Heimbach-Steins, Marianne, Globale Fürsorgeketten. Eine exemplarische Skizze zu Genderaspekten in der internationalen Arbeitsmigration, in: Becka, Michelle/Rethmann, Albert-Peter, Ethik und Migration. Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen und sozialethische Reflexion, Paderborn, 185–202. Hill Collins 1995: Hill Collins, Patricia, Symposium on West and Fenstermaker’s “Doing Difference”, in: Gender & Society 9/4, 491–513. Klinger 2003: Klinger, Cornelia, Ungleichheit in den Verhältnissen von Klasse, Rasse und Geschlecht, in: Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli/Wetterer, Angelika (Hg.), Achsen der Differenz. Gesellschaftstheorie und feministische Kritik II, Münster, 14–48. Kuby 2014: Kuby, Gabriele, Eine Top-down-Revolution. Der “Genderismus” zerstört Identität und Familie, in: Herder Korrespondenz 68, 590–593.

244

Maria K. Moser

Mohanty 1988: Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, Aus westlicher Sicht. feministische Theorie und koloniale Diskurse, in: beiträge zur feministischen theorie und praxis 23, 149–162. Moser 2007a, Maria Katharina, “Intersektionalität” – Ein brauchbares Paradigma für interkulturelle Gender-Ethik?, in: Annali di Studi Religiosi 8, 75–88. Moser 2007b: Moser, Maria Katharina, Opfer zwischen Affirmation und Ablehnung. Feministisch-ethische Analysen zu einer politischen und theologischen Kategorie, Wien/Berlin. Schenk 2008: Schenk, Christian, Frauenförderung, Gender Mainstreaming und Diversity Management. Gleichstellungspolitische Praxen im Lichte der Geschlechterforschung, in: Degele, Nina (Hg.), Gender/Queer Studies. Eine Einführung, Paderborn, 149–165. Schnabl 2005a: Schnabl, Christa, Gerecht sorgen. Grundlagen einer sozialethischen Theorie der Fürsorge, Freiburg/Wien 2005. Schnabl 2005b: Schnabl, Christa, Von der Gleichstellung zur Gerechtigkeit? Zu Verschiebungen in den sozialethischen Leitkategorien durch Gender Mainstreaming, in: Möhring-Hesse, Matthias (Hg.), Streit um die Gerechtigkeit. Themen und Kontroversen im gegenwärtigen Gerechtigkeitsdiskurs, Schwalbach, 63–76. Thürmer-Rohr 1989: Thürmer-Rohr, Christina, Mittäterschaft der Frau – Analyse zwischen Mitgefühl und Kälte, in: Studienschwerpunkt “Frauenforschung” am Institut für Sozialpädagogik der TU Berlin (Hg.), Mittäterschaft und Entdeckungslust, Berlin. Thürmer-Rohr 1994: Thürmer-Rohr, Christina, Kopfmauern. Wir im Westen, ihr im Osten, in: dies., Verlorene Narrenfreiheit. Essays, Berlin, 91–110. Thürmer-Rohr 1998: Thürmer-Rohr, Christina, Die unheilbare Pluralität der Welt – von der Patriarchatskritik zur Totalitarismusforschung, in: beiträge zur feministischen theorie und praxis 47/48, 193–205. Thürmer-Rohr 1999: Thürmer-Rohr Christina, Aus der Täuschung in die Ent-Täuschung. Zur Mittäterschaft von Frauen, in: dies.: Vagabundinnen. Feministische Essays, Frankfurt a.M., 45–67.

Saskia Wendel (Cologne)

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

1.

The politico-theological meaning of a gender-sensitive understanding of the image of God

In his post-synodal letter Amoris Laetitia from April 2016, Pope Francis famously commented on the topic of ‘gender’ as follows in Number 56 of the letter : “Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one that can also change over time. It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasized that ‘biological sex and the sociocultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated’. (…) Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created” (AL 56). It is remarkable that Pope Francis mostly cites the final document of the synod on the family and does not contribute much of his own. Nevertheless, embraced these formulations in his letter. Once we are given to ask: Why does the mere mentioning of the word ‘gender’ provoke so much repulsion? None of this is new – again and again there have been and there continue to be so-called trigger words and trigger topics, which have continuously been put under suspicion of ideology. For decades, it was the little word ‘feminist’ and currently it is the neologism ‘genderistic’ [genderistisch]. The discussion in

246

Saskia Wendel

church circles surrounding gender mirror current societal debates, but at the same time they also serve to legitimate these societal debates. In this respect, the dispute within a theological anthropology of gender is not a neutral subject; rather it is entangled in a societal discourse of power and is therefore sociopolitically volatile. In the following, when I investigate the possibility of a gendersensitive understanding of the image of God, in view of the parameter of equality/ difference, I do so with a clear politico-theological perspective on the political, social and economic construction that holds sway over sexual difference as a power relation. It is anthropology, in our context theological anthropology, which provides the legitimizing discourse for the construct of gender relations as power relations, whether it is ecclesiastical or societal.

2.

The gender-theological problem with the image of God

The image of God is one of the central motifs of theological anthropology. From it, we derive man’s creatureliness [Kreatürlichkeit], and at the same time his special capabilities (reason, freedom, etc.) – in contrast to his similarity with other creatures. Furthermore, this motif mediates between human beings and God, and thus establishes a relatedness between God and humanity. Finally, it frequently serves to religiously ground the belief that human dignity has universal validity. At the same time, it is an important hinge between anthropology and Christology. Traditionally, Gen 1:27 is taken to be a biblically anchored link between the image of God and gender, and therefore a connection between the construction of sexual difference as a natural given and God’s will in creation. Ecclesiastical gender discourses often refer to Gen 1:27 to demonstrate (in the context of creation-theology) both the natural givenness of binary sexuality and the natural understanding of sexual identity. This already reveals the gender-theological and gender-political problems in the motif of the image of God: 1. The first problem lies in the question of whether, or rather how, sexual difference is constructed, and in the follow-up problems of what positions to take in questions of sexual self-determination and identity, or the diversity of life styles and the societal meaning of reproduction, subsistence production and generativity, as well as the total complex of the gender-specific division of labor up to the determination of gender relations as power relations. 2. The second problem lies in the question of how a sexed image of God (father, lord) refers back to the understanding of being the image of God and, vice versa, how the construction of sexual difference via the image of God generates the projection of sexed images of God and turns the meaning of being made in God’s image into a mere projection mechanism. At this point, es-

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

247

pecially within the Church, the follow-up question concerning the total complex of problems surrounding the representation of God and his promise of salvation, or rather the repraesentatio Christi, occurs. Mary Daly notably pointed out this problem: “If God in ‘his’ heaven is a father, ruling ‘his’ people, then it is in the ‘nature’ of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male-dominated. […] if God is male, then (…) the male is God.” (Daly 1986, 13, 19). The adequate image of God, then, is strictly speaking the depictive relation between man and God or rather God and man. Thus, women are merely God’s image in a derivative sense, and a distinction corresponding to sexual difference is inscribed into the way we are made in God’s image, which thereby sets up a hierarchy. Proceeding in the opposite direction, we see that this construal of the image of God serves to legitimize the social hierarchy between men and women, along with its corresponding division of labor. The motif of the image of God becomes an important part of the legitimizing- or power-discourse regarding gender relations and their political, social and economic significance. In this context, Mary Daly raised another problem: the problem of Jesus’ masculinity, namely with respect to its Christological meaning and its practical consequences. If God is male, then he can only express himself adequately in a man, only a man can be a sufficient image of him. The male logos incarnates itself “once and for all” in a man. Simultaneously, the masculinity of the man Jesus inscribes itself into God’s nature, due to the hypostatic union of divine and human nature (without either mixing or separation). This is the case if ‘gender’ is not merely accidental, but belongs to the substance and the nature of humanity, and if humanity is always already sexually differentiated, i. e. if binary gender is primordially connected to the substance of humanity. If natural gender identity (sex) always consists in the difference of male and female, and if this feature essentially determines the nature of humanity, then it must also determine God’s incarnation [Menschwerdung] as ‘becoming flesh [Fleischwerdung]’. Then it is anything but arbitrary that God becomes flesh in a man. According to Daly, it follows like a logical consequence that Christ could only be represented by a man. Then Christianity would be inherently patriarchal, since it denies women the possibility of representing Christ, God himself, and his message of salvation: “The problem is not that the Jesus of the Gospels was male, young and a Semite. Rather, the problem lies in the exclusive identification of this person with God, in such a manner that Christian conceptions of divinity and the ‘image of God’ are all objectified in Jesus. […] The universalization process is characterized by the refusal to recognize the evident fact that Jesus’ maleness has not functioned in the same way as the ‘particularity’ of his Semitic identity or of his youth. Non-Semites or persons over, say, thirty-three, have not been uni-

248

Saskia Wendel

versally excluded from the priesthood on the basis that they do not belong to the same ethnic group or age group as Jesus. By contrast, the universal exclusion of women from the priesthood (…) has been justified on this basis” (Daly 1985, 79). Even if Daly’s critique appears compelling at first glance, upon a closer examination one can see that in Daly’s attempt to articulate a female counternarrative to this irredeemably patriarchal Christianity, she perpetuates the same constructions of sexual difference and imagery of God [Gottbildlichkeit] that she criticizes, only under an inverted (‘female’) banner. This does not yield a deconstruction of sexual difference, but the mere reversal of the order of that difference. Hence, it yields anything but a convincing solution to the problem. With respect to being the image of God and the issue of sexual difference, we need to dig deeper and to analyze the anthropological basis that determines the problematic relation between binary gender and the imagery of God. Here, contemporary gender theories could be of greater importance, and they can clarify why the struggle over gender has been so fierce. These traditional anthropological foundations are, on the one hand, the substance-metaphysical paradigm, and on the other hand, the understanding of sexual difference as an original category [Ursprungskategorie].

2.1

Substance Metaphysics – A problematic paradigm

The paradigm of substance metaphysics assumes an immutable substance, nature or eternal essence of humanity, i. e. a substance that makes one a human, that determines one’s “humanity”, combined with corresponding substantial characteristics in contrast to merely accidental, random and changeable characteristics. This Aristotelian metaphysics of substance has also determined theological anthropology for a long time and is still the basis of certain natural law teachings, with the requirement that one live according to one’s own nature and thereby realize one’s own being (essentia) at the center of it. Theologically, this point of view is safeguarded by creation theology, such that one understands the naturally given as something created by God. Realizing one’s being not only means to follow nature and to conform to it, but to follow God’s will and to submissively conform to it. Whoever fails to do so acts – according to this understanding – not only against nature, not only against natural law, but also acts against God’s will and with that places herself outside of the divinely intended order of creation (cf. Wendel 2011, 2012). With regard to humanity as the image of God, this means: people are the image of God especially when they realize their essence. If they do not do this, they become darker, more obscure images of God – and that means nothing else than to act sinfully, possibly even falling outside of God’s salvific will and promise of salvation.

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

2.2

249

The problem of understanding sexual difference according to naturalism and a logic of origin

Binary gender is understood as being simultaneously natural and stemming directly from God’s will for creation, and is thus determined as an original category : people originally and immutably exist as differentiated according to two genders, andthus, the characteristics ‘male’ and ‘female’ are immutable. Significantly, this understanding of sexual difference – based on the logic of origin – receives quasi-naturalistic support, because a substance-based understanding of the binary gender order is justified physically, as it is read off of the body, off of biological and anatomic facts. Here, we find a blend of epistemological representationalism and ontological realism: naturally given sexual difference is immediately evident in physical characteristics. It is not only important for the physical dimension but also has an impact upon the psychical, specifically, on the substance of the human being or rather on its form-giving principle. This shows that the purported substance-ontological paradigm is not dualistic, because then the psychical could not react to the physical dimension, or at least not in this way. Rather, it conforms to a hylomorphic ordering of the physical by the psychical, and the connected view that the psychical can never be manifest without a body. The psychical is interpreted as the active and determining form of the physical (anima forma corporis). Here a contradiction presents itself in the gender-anthropological paradigm we have outlined: The physical acts upon the psychological and by doing this, it is not simply passive matter, but makes an imprint upon the psychological and therefore is able to determine it. One could call this a kind of naturalistic hylomorphism, in which the matter or rather the body is thought of as determinative. What is problematic here is not only the construction of an unchangeable being, or the substance paradigm, or the connected construction of sexual difference as an originary category, but also the naturalization of the relation of the physical with the psychical, which entails a na"ve realism and representationalism. If one argues against naturalistic anthropologies on the one hand, then there is a chance that one either winds up with or recreates them on the other hand, especially in the context of an anthropology of the sexes insofar as the physical functions as the principle of derivation for the psychical. One could say that psychical or mental characteristics that are sexually differentiated emerge from physical characteristics – and this is nothing but a non-reductionist naturalistic thesis. Incidentally, this continues on an ethical level: From an ‘is’ (the naturally given sexual difference), we extrapolate an ‘ought’ (to live in conformity with one’s own male or female nature – and this is nothing but the notorious naturalistic fallacy (cf. Wendel 2013). This point of view is also frequently connected to a complementary thesis:

250

Saskia Wendel

Men and women are not equal (since they are different in essence), but of equal value. According to their difference at the level of natural gender identity (sex), they can possess different roles and tasks (gender); in this, they are equal as well as in their dignity – but not equal in their essence or in their essential tasks. Hence, they complement and complete each other, and this completion is decisive for the order of creation, since generativity can only arise from this. With respect to being the image of God, this means that women and men are both images of God, but in different ways. The human being, as the image of God, is always sexually differentiated. Sex and gender thus cannot be separated or are at least ontologically related, insofar as one derives from the other. If there is the additional requirement to live according to one’s inherent nature, i. e. according to God’s will for creation etc., then this means living according to his or her male or female nature and to complement each other and to comply with the mandate for creation. The passage from Amoris Laetitia that we quoted at the beginning perpetuates this traditional anthropological paradigm,as we find a substance-metaphysical hypothesis that posits an unchanging, sexually differentiated human nature which is anchored in God’s will for creation, as well as the complementarity of masculinity and femininity, which fulfill different but complementary tasks, each of which must be valued accordingly. The hypothesis relates sex and gender to one another, such that sex dominates gender, and so in this view gender theories along with “gender mainstreaming” appear to dissolve natural sexual differences, to act against nature, and against God. One peculiar feature of this thesis is that, even though being the image of God is connected to sexual difference on an anthropological level, another perspective comes into play thanks to Christology and masculinized images of God. Mary Daly pointed out this perspective with respect to the question of representation. God’s essence is not directly presented as being sexually differentiated, but is nonetheless masculinized right up to the name of trinity. Man thus becomes the image of God per se and the starting point for describing and determining God; conversely the projection of a male God legitimizes discourses of power, in which – the equality of men and women notwithstanding–there is priority given to men as the images of God, while women are only images of God in a derivative sense. This is aggravated by the Christological avowal that the second divine person incarnated in a man – and then according to the substance-metaphysical reading, the divine nature was then not only connected to a human, but to a masculine nature, since this feature necessarily belongs to human nature in the substancemetaphysical view. Divine, human and male nature are therefore unmixed but unseparated – and one could say that this leads to the perfect male sexualization of God, since the three divine personalities are one in their essence, yet distinct in their tasks and functions. If the nature of the Logos is united with the male nature

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

251

of Jesus, then this male nature of the Logos is in turn united with the nature of the first and third persons, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. In this ontologically charged mix, the labels Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not become merely analogical predications that are subject to change, but eternally valid descriptions of God’s essence. One could be tempted to solve the problem by correcting the hylomorphism, pointing out that the psychical and not the physical is determinative, so that a physical sexual difference does not have any immediate repercussions on the psychological level and therefore prevents one from constructing a male or female nature or deriving concrete cognitive and behavioral patterns from biological givens, since this would be nothing other than a crude biologism. Still, this attempted solution falls short, because it leads to new fundamental problems. First, hylomorphism is an – albeit softened – dualism, which does not consider the mental and the physical as separable substances, but always classifies them in a relation of differentiation in which the mental determines and dominates the physical as its active form. Of course, one would have eluded naturalism, but only at the cost of a cognitivist disempowerment of the physical, turning it into merely passive stuff. This would erase the intuition that, for the realization of human existence, both the mental and the physical are equally, equiprimordially, and reciprocally involved. By contrast, if one is anthropologically convinced that the mental and the physical form a unified whole in view of the emergence and realization of a conscious life that we call “human”, and that one cannot simply be traced back to the other1, then substance dualism and hylomorphism are equally implausible. Furthermore, even so-called theories of sexual difference do not solve the problem (for example, Irigaray 1980 cf. Diotima 1989, 1999). They insist that they do not argue in an essentialist fashion, but in strict semiological fashion they merely contrast a masculine symbolic order to a feminine symbolic order. Thereby, they give center stage to that which was suppressed and excluded in the male symbolic order, and from there they devote their efforts to determining female desire and female identity. The question remains whether constructions and subcutaneous naturalizations of masculinity and femininity are prevalent here. What is more, in these theories the understanding of sexual difference as an original category is still decisive. In the end, these theories fall into the same trap of merely inverting and replacing a ‘male’ legitimization story by means of a ‘female’ counter narrative, as can be exemplified with Mary Daly in the field of theology. This could even entrap us in new theories of complementarity, in-

1 This is the position of so-called neutral monism, as the philosopher Thomas Nagel has famously propounded. See Nagel 2014.

252

Saskia Wendel

cluding in the discourse of the image of God, particularly as these theories argue aggressively against an anthropological paradigm of equality. If a new theory of sex and gender is supposed to work strictly on the symbolic level (and with this, within speech acts and discursive practice), then it will also require a critique of the paradigms of sexual difference and thus also a reflection on the relationship of sex and gender. It is exactly from this point that gender theories set out. In the following, we must clarify two interconnected matters for a theological-anthropological understanding of what it means to be the image of God. The starting point is a theory of conscious life, that is neither substanceontologically nor dualistically oriented (be it formulated in a substance-dualistic or hylomorphic way), as well as the significance that the construction of gender has for the construction of sex. At the same time, the former allows for a modification of the latter insofar as – the reception of constructivist theories notwithstanding – it avoids the radical constructivist thesis that individual beings are completely subjugated to discourses of power. In the following, I would like to briefly outline this quasi-double ‘anthropological turn’ in the field of the anthropology of gender and its meaning, especially for our understanding how we are made in God’s image.

3.

A Gender-sensitive image of God

3.1

Subject/Person instead of Substance

We accomplish a first ‘anthropological turn’ by characterizing human self-understanding. The focus is no longer the essentialist search for an immutable essence of what makes one human, but rather the reflection on the structure of conscious life that belongs to the individual being, which we call ‘human.’ Here one must distinguish two perspectives, one of which is epistemological and one of which is ontological. Epistemologically, we can understand consciousness as determined by a formal double-structure, which we can characterize as the condition of possibility for the realization of conscious life. This dual structure is that of the First-Person-Perspective and the Second- and Third-Person-Perspective, or rather the perspective of the subject (singularity) and the person (relation). In the theory of consciousness, one often speaks of an epistemic dualism (between subject and object). However, it would be more precise to speak of a difference between the two perspectives, since, notwithstanding the asymmetrical, transcendental privilege of the subject’s perspective over that of the person, they belong together inseparably and their co-belonging determines conscious life in all its acts (thinking, feeling, perceiving, desiring, wanting, acting…).

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

253

Ontologically, conscious life must, contrary to mentalist shortcomings, be determined as a unity of the mental and the physical: The mental neither emerges from the physical, nor does the physical come from a mental foundation of consciousness, as the problems of psychophysical interaction and mental causation arise here. Rather, both the mental and the physical are to be seen as belonging to a ground inherent to consciousness, which is neither spirit nor matter. This ground however is not a substrate or a substance or a bearer of consciousness, as that would entail transferring thing-ontological [dingontologisch] categories onto the phenomenon of conscious life and thus onto a quality of being (i. e. ‘someone’, not ‘something’) that is fundamentally different from things and events. This theory of consciousness based on a “neutral monism” avoids the problems of substance dualism as well as problems of hylomorphism. The subjective and personal perspectives of consciousness (i. e. singularity and relation) therefore always include the dimension of embodiment: We are unique, not only as minds, but also as bodies, and we stand in relation to something other and to Others, not strictly in the manner of a mental state but as embodied existence [Existenz]. In this determination of conscious life, there is a marked equality in principle: It is equal in its realization and equal in its formal double-structure of subject and person and, above all, equal in its uniqueness and singularity. Conscious life is equal as well with respect to its ontological state as a unity of the mental and the physical, or rather, in its embodied existence. In the specific realization of this structure and in the material contents of conscious life, each such life is distinguished from another. The difference of each individual existence is therefore not determined by an essence that constitutes its specific difference, that is, not by an essentialistically grounded specific quality that determines its “what-it-isto-be-this” (Aristotle). Conscious life rather enacts its life differently in different contexts and situations, under different conditions, in different relationships, and these determine it with respect to content. This is why every conscious life is not to be understood merely as complementing one another, but as equal in principle because of its emergence and its characteristic double structure. Let us examine another crucial aspect in the accomplishment of conscious life, at least in human conscious life: the capacity [Vermögen] for freedom. This is not limited to the reflexive capacity for freedom of the will (decision, choice, resolution), but extends to the capacity for action and thus of creativity, the ability to begin something new, as well as the ability to do otherwise. Freedom can thus be labeled as a fundamental capability, characterized as an ‘I can’ [Können] that is applicable to acting as well as desiring, and which not only pertains to individual acts or volitional acts, since it underlies these as their transcendental condition of possibility. Although freedom does not possess an inherent ontological quality and

254

Saskia Wendel

therefore can be neither proven nor disproven, it is, from a practical point of view, nonetheless a decisive determination of conscious life in view of how it concretely enacts its existence.2 Here too, conscious life is equal in principle, not just equally valuable and therefore not complementary.3

3.2

A constructivist look at sex and gender

These determinations have an impact on how we understand sex, gender, and sexual difference. If one conscious life is not qualitatively distinguishable from another with respect to its essence, then difference is not a qualitatively determinate original category ; rather differences are formed in history and society, they are socially, politically, and culturally conditioned. This applies above all for such decisive differentiations as ethnicity, social class, and gender. As such, the binary sexual order is not an original difference in human existence. Accordingly, women and men are not essentially distinguished, but in principle equal in the realization of their consciousness (subject/person) and in their capacity for freedom. Hence, they do not have different tasks and roles which correspond to their supposed essences, and in which they are equal and complementary. Consequently, sex does not dominate gender, as gender can be traced back to the manifold mechanisms of socialization, discursive practices etc. in which it develops. Having said that, sex is not only to be equated simply with binary sexuality or with a natural givenness of masculinity and femininity. We have become used to understanding sex according to the natural gender identity in the mode of genus (the classifications male, female, neutral) combined with the view that this could be found in biological features, anatomic facts of the body, in the form of a representationalist image theory of gender, conforming to the epistemological “myth of the given”. In contrast, constructivist gender theories have sharpened the awareness that not only what we generally understand as gender (i. e. role, 2 This corresponds to a libertarian understanding, which comprehends freedom from a transcendental point of view, as a non-derivable and unconditional principle, which serves as a condition of possibility for the concrete capacity for willing and acting, or rather the concrete individual acts and decisions. We cannot go into detail regarding the controversy between libertarianism and compatibilism over the understanding of freedom, nor can we give a detailed explanation of the libertarian position. 3 This does not imply the recognition of other freedom; because this is an ethical category that entails an ought-claim (freedom ought to be). This claim cannot be inferred from a being, not even from the enactment of consciousness. The fact that one individual existence not only recognizes but acknowledges another individual existence, would therefore require its own ethical, transcendental reflection on the possibility of relationships of acknowledgment, which we cannot provide here.

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

255

function) is generated discursively, but that sex, too, is socially constructed, as are the representations of the body that we conceive (cf. Butler 1991,1997, 2009). Incidentally, this does not entail, as it is sometimes claimed, denying anatomical facts, but emphasizing that these are charged with meaning, classified, thanks to the synthesizing effort of the intellect. Here, binary codes play a central role, such as the binary code ‘male/masculine’ and ‘female/feminine’. For gender theorists sex becomes in this respect – and only in this respect – gender ; and it is in this respect simply not separated from gender. In fact, they remain inseparably connected, not in the sense of an immediate natural derivation of gender from sex, but in the sense of an integration in an interpretive matrix. This double ‘anthropological turn’ is of vital importance for an understanding of the image of God. That conscious life is an image of God and is a created being leads to the conclusion, according to the Christian interpretation, that it must not be understood as self-originating, but as owing its emergence and its structure to an ‘other’. It is contingent, accidental, and not necessarily existing, and it is finite and imperfect; therefore, it cannot be its own ground of existence. In the Christian interpretation, it owes its existence to an absolutely unconditioned conscious life, which corresponds to the one that it creates, since otherwise the creator-consciousness could not be the ground and origin of its being. Conversely, the conscious life that arises from this ground corresponds to it, and this relation of correspondence within a unity of difference, which is marked in the creatureliness of the founded or rather the ‘originated’ being, can also be described as an imaging or depictive relationship. If one describes the unconditioned being as God, then one can also speak of the image of God. This expresses both the unity with God (in the sense of emerging from him as his image) and the difference from him (as creatureliness due to the emergence from him as his image). Being the image of God becomes transparent in a conscious life’s own enactment of its existence, especially in its double structure of subject and person, as well as in its capacity for freedom. As we have already sketched out above, every conscious life is, in this regard, equal in principle, not just of equal value and hence not complementary to each other, and it therefore also follows that every conscious life is in principle equally (and not just ‘equivalently’) the image of God. Furthermore, being the image of God is also completely independent from any difference, including sexual difference, because these differences do not matter for a conscious life’s determination as subjective, personal, or free. Only at the level of the concrete, material enactment of existence, sexual difference comes into effect, though never just as sex, as it is always also gender, since it is subject to the operations of the body – and hence it is also subject to gender discourses and the constructions that result from them. One can formulate in theological terms: God has not created finished, sexually differentiated humans (man/woman).

256

Saskia Wendel

Indeed, this would be nothing other than pure creationism. God’s act of creation rather provides the possibilities for conscious life to emerge and enact itself. Accordingly, there is no denial of God’s will for creation or of the createdness of human existence, but this position does not transform sexual difference into an ontological category, nor makes the claim to illustrate how much gender is already involved in our idea of sex. Furthermore, this standpoint can clarify how the potential to produce and apply discursive practices, how bodily practices, and how the capacity for performativity, also refer back to God’s will for creation and correspond to the divine creative capacity, which also includes performative and reality-positing [wirklichkeitssetzende] acts. Incidentally, this also applies to Jesus of Nazareth. He, too, is the image of God in the above-mentioned sense, and according to Christian belief, he was able to evolve into a complete image of God, in the complete enactment of his (mental and physical) existence. This is the meaning of the tradition’s asserting that Jesus was free from sin. Here, however, the focus is no longer on apprehending the hypostatic union of divine and human nature according to a metaphysics of substance; rather the focus is on Jesus’s concrete enactment of his existence and on his role as the mediator of the message of salvation, which consists in practicing what he preaches, hence in the execution of performative acts. Whether Jesus was a man or not is completely irrelevant for this, since sex is not a category of substance or origin. Sex is not decisive for being an image of God and not for God becoming a human being. The second divine ‘person’ is therefore neither man nor son in the incarnation in Jesus, nor is it male prior to the incarnation, which would require that it only appear in a man. Jesus represents the second divine person, and in this task, there is no need for a specific sexual affiliation.4 Mary Daly overlooked this aspect in her critique of Christianity, because she was still entangled in substance-metaphysical thinking, but then so too were those who, in the context of a reflection on the representation of Christ, refer to his masculinity. Perhaps it is precisely this point that makes gender theories so suspicious to some, especially in a Catholic context. These theories try to develop a countervailing force to oppose the power of traditions, which supposedly they cannot be in a position to change, or to oppose traditions, which one sees as essential to the survival of humanity or at least the preservation of society. Using the same argument, people have also argued against women’s right to vote, against gainful employment for women, and against women’s eligibility for political office – or on a more general level, against democracy as a form of government. Obviously, everything has its time, and this can let us remain calm, but not patient.

4 See Wendel /Nutt 2016.

Equality and/or Difference – a Gender-Sensitive Image of God

257

References Butler, J. (1991): Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Butler, J. (1997): Körper von Gewicht. Die diskursiven Grenzen des Geschlechts. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Butler, J. (2009): Die Macht der Geschlechternormen. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Daly, M. (1985): Beyond God the Father. Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation With an Original Reintroduction by the Author. Boston, Beacon Press. Diotima (Hrsg.) (1989): Der Mensch ist zwei. Das Denken der Geschlechterdifferenz. Wien, Wiener Frauenverlag. Diotima (1999): Die Welt zur Welt bringen. Politik, Geschlechterdifferenz und die Arbeit am Symbolischen. Königstein /Taunus, Helmer. Irigaray, L. (1980): Speculum. Spiegel des anderen Geschlechts. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Nagel, T. (2014): Geist und Kosmos. Warum die materialistische neodarwinistische Konzeption der Natur so gut wie sicher falsch ist. Berlin, Suhrkamp. Wendel, S. (2011): Sexualethik und Genderperspektive. In: Hilpert, K. (Hrsg.): Zukunftshorizonte katholischer Sexualethik. Quaestiones Disputate 241. Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 36–56. Wendel, S. (2012): Subjekt statt Substanz. In: Landweer, H. /Newmark, C. /Kley, C. /Miller, S. (Hrsg.): Philosophie und die Potenziale der Gender Studies. Peripherie und Zentrum im Feld der Theorie. Bielefeld, transcript Verlag, 315–335. Wendel, S. (2013): Das freie Subjekt als Prinzip Theologischer Ethik. In: Goertz, S. /Hein, R. B. /Klöckner, K. (Hrsg): Fluchtpunkt Fundamentalismus? Gegenwartsdiagnose katholischer Moral. Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 159–173. Wendel, S./Nutt, A. (Hrsg.) (2016): Reading the Body of Christ. Geschlechtertheologische Lektüren. Paderborn, Schöningh.

Maaike de Haardt (Nijmegen)

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

1.

Introduction

Mary, The Most Powerful Woman in the World. This was the headline of the National Geographic’s December 2015 issue. In her editorial, editor-in-chief Susan Goldberg referred to the exceptional successful exhibition Picturing Mary : Woman, Mother, Idea at the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington DC. This fact prompted the editors of the National Geographic – a secular worldwide journal of general interest – to write their cover story, asking the very questions that so many theologians, historians, anthropologists, scholars of religion and many others wonder about: “What is it about Mary? She is the world’s most depicted woman, yet among the most mysterious.” (Goldberg 2015) They wanted to understand why people from all over the world, who share little, but do believe that Mary stands up for them, approves of them, and watches out for them. The result was a beautifully illustrated article in which the author literally followed the paths of the many faces of Mary, as well of those of her devotees all over the world. There was, of course, no clear and coherent answer to the initial questions. Hence, the concluding lines read as follows, “So many souls yearning to be witnesses for hope, so many souls imbued with the belief that the Virgin Mary was lightening their way.” (Orth 2015, 59) However simple this may seem and far from traditional theological discourse, I am convinced that this sentence is not without theological meaning and will return to this later. This is only one of the many examples that illustrate the ongoing and overwhelming interest in Mary. All over the world, most people would recognize her image. She can be found in music and all other forms of art, and the artist is not necessarily a Catholic or a Christian. Marian images and Marian devotional practices belong to the most visible, public, religious and devotional Catholic phenomena, but in contrast to other central Christian images, Mary is not a Catholic exclusivity : she is almost of equal importance in Orthodox Christianity. More and more Protestants turn to Mary, and protestant feminist theologians have written about her (Levine 2005). Mary is a source of inspiration in Islam,

260

Maaike de Haardt

Buddhism, Hinduism, and one can find her image even in alternative and present day spiritual practices (Tavard 1996). For that reason, Mary is regarded to be one of the most promising subjects of inter-religious dialogue (Smith/Haddad, 1989; Greshake 2014, 569). She is said to have inspired more people than any other woman ever has (Pelikan 1996, 2). Whatever the truth of this statement may be, it is puzzling that the figure of Mary indeed gives rise to continuous, extremely rich and diverse attention, whether in academic discourse or actual devotional practices. There seems to be no end to the continuous stream of publications of books and articles on Mary to which recently appearing websites can be added. It is perhaps an even more puzzling question if, why, and how the figure of Mary or Mariology can offer a sensible contribution to the question of the role of women in the churches and the tension between ‘gender ideology’ and gender justice. This last aspect will be the leading question of my contribution. Where to start and how to proceed? Instead of presenting a specific Mariology, I hope to find some clues in the Marian puzzle itself: in the many-layered paradoxical ambiguities that these thousands of Marian images and the probably equivalent amount of interpretations represent, and the complex ways in which they are related to all kinds of gender aspects. Therefore, the first part of my contribution will consist of preliminary methodological and hermeneutical considerations. From there on, I will discuss some feminist Marian proposals dealing with gender. In a third step, I will present some theological elements that I derived from Marian devotional practices. I will pay specific attention to the implications of the gendered (inter)relatedness of languages, images, and views on Mary and languages, images, and views on God. In my conclusion, I return to the question whether or not Mary can offer a contribution to overcome the ostensible impasse between ‘gender ideology’ and ‘gender justice’.

2.

Methological and hermeneutical considerations

A mere Mariological reflection is not enough to offer a perspective that can open up the sharp and often fruitless discussions on ‘gender ideology’ and ‘gender justice’. This regards especially those Mariological studies that also anchor ‘gender complementarity’ in Mary, as many of them do (e. g. Greshake 2014; Fuchs 2009). However interesting or challenging these studies otherwise may be, they offer – to put it mildly – no inspiration for furthering the dialogue on these gender controversies. Moreover, those more strict studies often simply ignore serious feminist or liberation theological questions with regard to Mary. In some cases, they do refer to feminist theologians, but without paying serious attention to their arguments or proposals and almost self-evidently accepting as normative

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

261

the asymmetrical dual anthropology that underlies gender complementarity (Greshake 2014, 23/463; Fuchs 2009, 55 note 201). Nevertheless, I consider Mariology as one of the pieces of the Marian puzzle, and therefore, a sign of the paradoxes and ambiguities that surround Mary. Since Mariology, as a systematic theological sub discipline, seems to have no high theological standing, and sometimes is even regarded as a ghetto (Logister 1995, 8), Mariology is confronted with questions concerning the relevance of this discipline (Greshake 2014, 15). It is good to realize, as Scheffczyck reminds us, that Mariology as a theological sub discipline in its own right, only came into being during the so-called ‘Marian age’, approximately between 1830–1950. Mariology was rather an effect of both the Marian movements and devotion, and the intense papal Marian activities during the Marian age, including the proclamation of two (highly disputed) Marian dogmas in 1854 (‘Immaculate conception’) and 1950 (‘Assumption’). Scheffczyck also draws attention to the relative lack of German speaking academic theological interest in developing a serious Mariology. Early Mariology from the 19th-century, according to many authors, suffered from exaggeration (Scheffzyck 2002, 193–195; Logister 1995; Greshake 2014, 164–174). After Vatican II, dogmatic Mariology like Marian devotions decreased in Western Europe (Beattie 2002; Greshake 2014). Partly because Vatican II effected far-reaching changes in Marian devotions and liturgy, by strengthening the Christological dimensions of Mary (Halkes 1980), and privileging the ecclesiological meaning and relevance of Mary (Logister 1995). This has become visible in the transformation of the names of Marian feasts – Candlemass, for example, became the feast of the presentation of Jesus in the Temple – and in the banning from daily Marian devotions such as hymns and rosary from the ordinary liturgy. Mariology itself gained renewed interests, whether influenced by liberation and feminist theology (Greshake 2014, 24), or by the pontificate of John Paul II. Interestingly, there is no consensus among theologians on its ‘proper place’ within Dogmatics, nor regarding its ‘Fundamentalprinzip’ (Fuchs 2009, 119–120). I consider the entire Mariological ambivalence and complexity, resulting from endless theological debates on Mary’s place, meaning and function, and its extreme uncomfortable relation to Marian devotional practices, an indication of the ‘power’ or ‘mystery’ of the figure of Mary to escape from theological and ecclesiological mastery. There is, in a postmodern way of speaking, always an openess to another perspective. The fact that there is hardly any Biblical evidence or reference to frame Marian interpretations gives leeway to such a relative openess. But there is more: Mary, Marian devotions, and Mariology seem to form one of the most outspoken as well as complex theological junctions where contested interpretations and devotions on how to imagine and reflect the relation between God and human intersect in a very specific and unique way. In this

262

Maaike de Haardt

light, it is understandable why Logister states that Mariology represents on a micro scale the many problems and questions of contemporary theology (Logister 1995, 8). All this makes Mariology a thrilling subject with regard to the tension between gender ideology and gender justice, especially because Mariology is explicitly and deeply determined by feminine gender images – just as theological reflection on God is, whether explicitly or self-evident and unreflected, but nevertheless fundamentally, determined by images of masculinity. Most contemporary European Mariological studies authored by men,1 are in favor of, or even vehemently defend the ideas of ‘gender complementarity’ and the fundamentally ontological difference between men and women, as many feminist authors have demonstrated (Adamiak 2008; Beattie 2002). This position in the end undergirds the judgement of ‘gender ideology’ and will therefore not be presented here.2 This is, by the way, not to say that all of these authors offer a conservative view on Mary or would oppose a more liberal, liberatory Mariology, or would oppose a more democratic church or the ordination of women. I will return to this later. This, too, is part of the Marian puzzle. I will, therefore, discuss feminist contributions to Mariology, but only from the perspective of their contribution to the deconstruction of the traditional gender paradigms. Are they able to think a gender-different Mariology? Can feminist Mariologies offer a constructive contribution to overcome the deadlock between ‘gender ideology’ and ‘gender justice’? Of specific interest is the question if and how the ‘God language’ in feminist Mariologies influences the ‘Mary language’ and vice versa, since Mariology can not be transformative without a corresponding renewed reflection on God. Before turning to the feminist Mariologies, several other methodological and hermeneutical considerations need to be mentioned. In order to open up a strict, inner-systematic theological discourse that follows a specific European and modern rationality, in particular liberation, political, feminists and postcolonial theologians have pointed out the relevance of context: of the social, cultural, historical, political and economic dimensions that are reflected in ecclesial and theological discourse and practices. They also insist on integrating class, gender, sexuality, race, colonialism in theological analysis and to keep a sharp eye for the interrelatedness or intersectionality of these and other categories (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011), and they emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary ap1 However, not only men hold this view. There are some women who defend, like men, the complementary thesis and who would regard the quest for gender justice as gender ideology (Schumacher 2004). However, most publications on Mary in this line of thought are by men. 2 For excellent descriptions and analyses of the notions of gender ideology, gender justice and underlying problematic gender anthropology, I refer to the articles of Marianne HeimbachSteins and Saskia Wendel in this issue.

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

263

proach. This plea for inclusion of contextual, intersectional, and multidisciplinary dimensions applies perhaps even stronger with regard to Mary, Marian devotions, and by implication Mariology (Gebara /Bingemer 1987). It enables us to gain more insight in the motives, mechanisms, and beliefs of the theologically contested and highly public and devotional character of Mary and Mariology, as well as the (mis)use of Mary in all kinds of ecclesiological, political, and nationalistic movements, or the gender specific or racial implications of certain aspects of Marian theology. In particular, Latin American and Hispanic feminist and liberation theologies explicitly point at the importance of Marian devotions as locus theologicus (Imperatori-Lee 2007). In Mary’s image, so many different, though interrelated dimensions are brought together. They are represented in devotions, art and discourses, demonstrating the highly pluri-vocal, paradoxical, ambiguous, and therefore, ultimately open character of Mary and, as Gebara and Bingemer state, of different Marian traditions (Gebara /Bingemer 1987, 18). In this paper, I also follow the Latin American and Hispanic insistence on including reflection on Marian devotional practices for methodological and hermeneutical reasons. First of all, as suggested in the introduction to this paper, these devotions are important pieces of the Marian puzzle. However, I also emphasize the fact that these expressions of lived religious practices are signs of ‘lived faith’. Research into lived faith, lived religion, as well as other so-called ‘everyday practices’ recently became more important in cultural studies and theological and philosophical reflection, inspired among others by the work of the French Jesuit Michel de Certeau (De Haardt 2004). In the field of religion and theology, the approach from everyday life or lived religion is used by – among others – feminists, postcolonial thinkers, liberation and practical theologians as well as postmodern thinkers, as a challenge to certain conventions: first of all, it can invoke those persons, practices, and insights that are traditionally left out by academic reflection on religion. In this sense, the notion of everyday life is “shorthand for voices from below, women, children, migrants and so on” (Highmore 2002, 1). From a feministliberationalist theological perspective, these everyday practices are considered reflections of the hope, desires, resistance, and the faith of ordinary people (IsasiDiaz 1993). Of equal importance is the intellectual and epistemological challenge of this turn to ‘the everyday’ (De Certeau 1984; Isasi-Diaz 1993/2004). In privileging the “others”, the theoretical outsiders, De Certeau uses the concept of appropriation as a primary tool in searching for resisting or surviving practices. Feminist and liberation theologians also use this notion.3 3 Leaving their quite different backgrounds and methods aside, the most explicit use of a specific ‘appropriation’ of religious texts, concepts, and symbols in order to ‘survive’ and, at the same time, express their own religious belief and spirituality of their experiences of Gods

264

Maaike de Haardt

De Certeau considers appropriation to be an important mechanism or process to describe the act of believing, as well as what makes people believe. These are, so he states, the ‘tactics’ with which people, day after day, produce a sense of meaning and freedom in their appropriation of cultural, religious, political, and social instruments as well as images, concepts and attitudes (De Certeau 1984, 29–42). The appropriation of Marian images, concepts, and attitudes thus refers both to the actual continuity and simultaneous discontinuity or transformation of Marian images, symbols, and interpretations in the actual processes of ‘repeating’, reproducing, and re-enacting traditional Marian rituals, prayers, and symbols. It is precisely this ‘unpredictable and uncontrollable’ mix of both continuity and discontinuity of meaning of Marian symbols and concepts that makes so-called ‘popular religion’ such a worrisome ecclesiastical and theological problem, even for some feminists (Althaus Reid /Isherwood 2007, 63–80). However, there is another element embedded in this focus on these everyday practices that allow people to ‘stay alive’ (De Certeau e.a.1998), or ‘survive’ and that as such also reflects their hopes, visions, their desires, relations, their love and their struggles (Isasi-D&az 1993). In this regard, De Certeau speaks of an encounter with ‘the wonder of daily life’, that for him is one of the many forms of the experience of the “Presence that reveals itself as that without which life is impossible” (De Certeau 1966). For Isasi-Diaz, these daily practices reflect the experiences of God’s presence in their lives (Isasi Diaz 1993, 166–185). As I will discuss later, I consider Marian practices as specific experiences of this ‘sense of presence’ and expect them to be relevant for our discussion.

3.

Feminist Mariologies: im/possible images

There has been much feminist reflection on Mary over the last 40 years, from different perspectives, contexts, and approaches. The critical, constructive work done in this field cannot be underestimated, nor can it be easily summarized or neatly systemized.4 All of these reflections have in common that they are, first and foremost aiming at deconstructing the patriarchal idealized Mary. They analyze and criticize the traditional images of the ideal and ‘unique’ feminine, the handmaid, the virgin and the mother and the subsequent implications of these idealized images in disparaging ordinary women. They highlight that the negative implications of Mariology for women’s presence among them, can be found in the works of the theologians Delores S. Williams, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz and Mary McClintock Fulkerson. 4 Elizabeth A. Johnson (2003) in Truly Our Sister. A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints, gives a good overview of many authors, positions and proposals in feminist and contemporary male Mariologies, before presenting her own model of Mary.

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

265

sexuality, women’s motherhood resulting from the impossible image of the ‘ideal’ feminine or ‘true womanhood’, as well as the religious valorization of obedience, passivity, humility, and submission was grounded by an anthropology of submission that has been replaced by an anthropology of complementarity. In short: Feminist theology was extremely clear on the fact that, without any critical deconstruction, rethinking, re-imagining, and reconstruction, Mary was an impossible image. Therefore, Elizabeth Johnson, in her Mariology, can say : “When women begin to analyse Marian heritage, one basis problem undergirds all others, namely, this tradition is just saturated with sexist construals of gender. […] Without these sexist gender constructions, which result inevitable in male social dominance and female subordination, the classic construals of Marian theology would fall apart” (Johnson 2003, 22). However, it is not only social dominance and subordination that is the problem, and Johnson is well aware of that, too. Theological dominance and subordination are more persistent, even in those cases where Mariology aims at social liberation and equality of women. So, the question is whether or not feminist Marian ‘reconstructions’ are able to break this deeply rooted ‘sex/ gender system’ in all its intertwinement with other forms of exclusion and injustice (Schüssler Fiorenza 1995), be it in its ‘old’ form of submission anthropology or in its recent form of anthropology of complementarity. There is no unambiguous positive answer to this question. As far as I can see, all feminist theologians reject, at least in theory, an essentialist femininity and womanhood and the same goes for the prescription of certain ‘qualities’ attached to women as typically ‘female’. They all point at the social, cultural, and religious construction of those images. There are no easy solutions to counter this essentialism or essentialist symbolism in Mariology, or to escape completely a gendered perspective that is free from hierarchical opposition. Many feminist theologians have offered creative reinterpretations of Marian dogmas and biblical texts in line with political and liberationalist perspectives, presenting ‘liberating Mary’ for women and all human beings, who is according to Gebara and Beringer ‘mother of God and mother of the poor’ (Gebara /Beringer 1987). In their view, Mariology, including dogmas, should be re-read again and again, in search for the truth and meaning for actual situations, doing “justice to Mary, women, men and ultimately humankind created in the image and likeness of God” (Gebara /Beringer1987, 6). Nevertheless, their work is not free of gendered ambivalence with respect to, for instance, their description of Mary Mother of God in which the “greatness of the mystery of women is unveiled” (Gebara /Beringer 1987, 100). Others – for example Radford Ruether – follow more directly the biblical and ecclesiological path of Vaticanum II in presenting Mary as ‘the feminine face of the church’, as a free woman, making her own choices and entering in co-

266

Maaike de Haardt

creatorship with God. Here again, the portrait of Mary, like that of Gebara and Beringer, as the feminine face of the ‘Church or of the Poor’ as image of the church, and image of the new and liberated humanity, based on the gospel of Luke, feels uncomfortable since it implies a ‘masculine opposite’. In this respect, Schüssler Fiorenza questions if these models are able to overcome “the dynamics of the cultural preconstructed sex-gender system and symbolic framing of meaning” (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011, 207). Another route, in the ‘minimalist’ line of the Council, and inspired by Marian interpretations of women suffering from poverty, racism, or ethnic prejudice, starts from the biblical story of Miriam of Nazareth. Both Johnson and Schüssler Fiorenza follow this path of the biblical Mary, although with different emphasis and focus. Johnson anchors Mary, as ‘someone like us’ (Truly Our Sister), in the Communion of Saints and calls her a friend of God and a prophet. She presents her Mariology as a modest proposal “coherent with elements of biblical, classical and conciliar teaching” (Johnson 2003, 113). Her Mariology is pneumatological, and her re-reading of the biblical Marian stories renders a woman of Spirit, the life-giving power of Sophia-God. Mary “bore a poor women’s life, lived a life with faith in the God of Israel, believed in a gospel for the downtrodden, found a way to bring forth the Messiah, and journeyed into the new community that spearheaded Jesus’ vision to the world” (Johnson 2003, 314). Her Mary is one of the paradigmatic figures, just as other saints are paradigmatic figures. Her ‘distinctiveness’ is being the mother of Jesus and therewith she has a bodily, psychological, and social relation with the Messiah and her prayer is the Magnificat. “She kept faith. We remember her. We connect her story with our own amid the searching narrative of the human race in its history of suffering and hope. We thereby find courage to act the critical dream of God for the world” (Johnson 2003, 112). Though this seems to be an inspiring and at first sight ‘unproblematic’ Marian proposal, Schüssler questions the ‘idealistic fashion’ in which a too positive reading of biblical texts has filled the elusiveness of the scriptural historical Mary (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011, 205). Her own proposal aims at the deconstruction of two dualisms, the good/bad women and the male divine/ female human, together with a rediscovery of the struggle of the historical Mary and a re-visioning of the divine. Mary, the young single mother seeks the support of another woman, Elizabeth (Schüssler Fiorenza 1995/2011). And Schüssler, too, describes Mary as “filled with the Holy Spirit, who exalts the violated and makes the fruit of illegitimacy holy, the two women rejoice in Gods liberating action” (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011, 209). The Magnificat is the expression of the proclamation of God’s salvation and wellbeing to the humiliated and downtrodden. Like all the other Marian proposals, this future is to be realised here and now, “being born among us today, from our flesh and blood […] It is born as the hope for those who are without

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

267

hope” (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011, 209). According to Schüssler, this dangerous memory of a young woman, though dangerous in the eyes of both ecclesiastical and political authorities, “can subvert the tales of mariological fantasy and cultural femininity. […] It is she who holds out the offer of untold possibilities of a different theology” (Schüssler Fiorenza 2011, 209). Along this line of feminist liberation Mariology, in which justice and (gender) equality are central, there is a strand of feminist theology in which theologians argue for a sexual difference between the sexes and develop a Mariology from this perspective. The most outspoken representative here is Tina Beattie. Nonetheless, she too wants to avoid an essentialist understanding of ‘woman’ (Beattie 2002, 6). In her work, she presents a creative and extremely critical, psycholinguistic, mimetic essentialist reading of masculine essentialism in orthodox and neo-orthodox Marian theology and symbolism. She aims at “creating a symbolic space theology that recognizes the existence of woman as body and not just as feminine ideal” (Beattie 2002, 7). Her essentialism is strategic, a necessary step in order to develop a gynocentric Marian theological narrative that is “provisional, playful and therefore ultimately non-essential” (Beattie 2002, 7). Luce Irigary is her leading guide in re-reading the gender difference of the orthodox and neo-orthodox Catholic tradition in a different manner. As far as Beattie is concerned, it is only in Mary and Marian theology that women may find resources that subvert the androcentric tradition and enables them “to explore the theological significance of the female body” (Beattie 2002, 8). The problem she highlights is that, despite the early church’s performative use of a non-sexed gender symbolism, in the end women are excluded from representing God in their bodies. The creatures’ ‘godlikeness’ was represented by mimetic masculinity and the creatures ‘vulnerability of the flesh’ was represented by mimetic femaleness, but only the actual male body was perfect enough to represent God (Beattie 2002, 57–58). She, therefore, is in search of a refiguration of Marian symbolism by considering Mary’s role in the incarnation and the emphasis on Mary as the new Eve in patristic literature. Beattie regards that as an indication of the centrality of the stories of the creation and the fall in Genesis as the central key to the interpretation of Marian symbolism. The virgin birth and Mary’s motherhood are central to challenging the fatherhood of God as the ultimate source of life in neo-orthodox defences of the essential masculinity of priesthood and these symbols are in need of revitalization for contemporary women (Beattie 2002, 146). Mary’s role in the incarnation, her freely chosen acceptation of her motherhood, affirms the goodness of creation and joy of birth and new life, and indicates that her motherhood is the core of her priesthood. Women are prohibited to perform this maternal priesthood role, so that the maternal symbol in fact represses the

268

Maaike de Haardt

body’s significance instead of expressing it (Beattie 2002, 78). Again, Beattie asserts she is not arguing for an essentialised male or female priesthood, in which only men can represent the sacrificial priesthood and women the maternal one. On the contrary, both men and women should be able to represent both types of priesthood. Her point is that a maternal priesthood that includes women would reflect the active and redemptive role of the female body (Beattie 2002, 205). With this highly sacramental and symbolic gynocentric Mariology, Beattie aims to counter both Catholic neo-orthodoxy, as for instance became manifest in the Papal documents on women in the church or women’s ordination, and liberal feminist theology. She identifies the problems with the latter as the definition of ‘full humanity of women’ in Western liberal terms in which egalitarianism, autonomy, and democracy are central (Beattie 2002, 2). Quoting Nancy Dallavalle, she states, “Catholicity […] cannot simply be about justice. Rather it is primarily about sacramentality” (Beattie 2002, 3). Motivated by Dallavalle’s view that the contribution of feminist theology lies in her ability to demonstrate that Catholic theology is not unjust but ‘theologically impoverished’, Beattie wants to re-read the rich tradition, sometimes against itself, and acknowledge its androcentric character, in order to identify liberating dimensions in Catholic symbolic narrative. Even if we think that Beattie succeeded in her work, and I think that she did reach her own goals, I do have problems with her approach. With her ‘high church’ French postmodern feminist and psychoanalytical approach, she is able to criticize the violence and absurdity of the highly influential vision of von Balthasar on male and female sexuality, on masculinity and femininity (Beattie 2006). The same goes for detecting the open, ambivalent, gender bending, and therefore potentially liberating dimensions of patristic reflection on the virgin mother, before these images became implicated in the fourth century state-sanctioned Christian patriarchy. So, she opens up a new way of interpreting central and deeply embedded symbols of the maternal and the feminine. However, this Mariology is not an easy read and far more abstract then she probably intends, considering her critique on the abstractness of Irigaray. Her conviction that these symbols need to be divested of male fantasy and idealization before they can be an expression of the realities and hope of women’s lives, in my view, is not only a gross overestimation of the power of theory/ theology, but also ignores actual women’s devotional appropriation of Marian symbols. Religious symbols, for better or for worse, are free and are not the ‘property’ of theologians or church authorities. Does she restrict herself, in her choice to be both critical and faithful to the Catholic tradition, and in applying a method that emphasizes the relations between language and power, in a strange way by giving too much honour to the ‘textual authorities’ of this tradition? Is demonstrating the theological impoverishment of the tradition partly a re-in-

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

269

scription of the a-symmetrical dualisms, considering the cultural and political power of the dominating sex/gender system? Do we need to rethink sexual difference in the framework of this highly androcentric and hierarchical presetting of the Catholic symbolic and sacramental tradition in order to claim, as Beattie does, gender justice? Other and more important questions arise: Are there other ways to rethink sexual difference, without making it the central symbol of a theology framed by an anthropology of complementarity in which male and female ‘together’ form her renewed nuptial model of her new sacramentality? Is she making too much of it, as many feminists would argue? Does she make too much of the relative and ambiguous ‘sexual’ difference, by making this difference the most fundamental without further reflection on the meaning and constructiveness of this seemingly complementary ‘gendered sexual’? Furthermore, her opposition between justice/liberal – read secular – on the one hand and sacramentality on the other hand seems to deny that it is also a good Catholic tradition to consider them fundamentally and intrinsically related (Ross 1998/ 2006). Besides, there is more sacramentality than Catholic orthodoxy would like to admit, as can be seen in its reaction to popular Marian devotion. Whether or not we are theologically convinced and/or inspired by these or other feminist Marian proposals, they demonstrate the power and strength critical feminist reflection brings to the reconstruction and transformation of a, for many women and men (Logister 1995), impossible and humiliating image to a possibly empowering one. This is not to deny the great diversity in positions, or the contradictory approaches, nor to neglect the theological controversies that also surround Mary in feminist theology (Althaus-Reid/Isherwood 2007, 63–80). Nevertheless, it makes visible that Mary, like all other central theological themes, is not imprisoned by ancient nor contemporary androcentric and submissive interpretations. In that sense, these feminist proposals all subvert and contradict the asymmetrical model of gender complementarity, as well as the with this model intrinsically intertwined images, concepts, and symbols of God, Jesus Christ, Church, and human beings. Both Schüssler and Beattie are quite right to emphasize the untold, not yet reflected upon possibilities for transformation the image of Mary indeed offers: Mary as an image of the impossible.

4.

Popular devotion and a Marian sense of presence

I now turn to Marian devotional practices in order to find out if a theological reading of these practices can lead to different or additional insights.5 I shall focus on and restrict myself to what I earlier called a “Sense of Presence”. 5 The general lines of this paragraph are derived from an earlier article (De Haardt 2011).

270

Maaike de Haardt

Present-day Marian devotions are hardly ever focused on Mary as a dangerous memory, first of the believers, nor on Mary as the image of the Church or the image of maternal priesthood. In popular devotions, we recognize in particular the traditional images, the classical Marian icons. Images of the Mother of God, the Virgin, the image of the suffering mother, the Mother of Mercy, Mother of Perpetual Help, and the image of the divine/cosmic mother, they are all there and often simultaneously. Gebara and Bingemer observe, “the formulation of institutional dogmatics is ‘not much of a problem’ for the poor” (Gebara/Beringer 1987, 127). In popular devotions, people turn to Mary, despite or because of (church) political conflicts, repression, or alienation (Samson 2012). People turn to Mary for support, comfort, help, or in order to experience something of her ‘presence’, as individuals or as a group (Hermkens 2009). However undefined and unreflective this presence may be, people pray and go to Mary, confident that it will be worth their while: witness millions of people worldwide in their dealings with and images of Mary. This type of experience is mentioned by people who turn to Mary during pilgrimages, when they light candles or pray in holy places (Zimdars-Swartz 1991; Post/Schuurmans 2006, 29–31/109–127) Following De Certau and Isasi Diaz, I call this experiences of presence. They are expressions of hope and desire, and as such experiences of a sense of ‘divine presence’ in its touch, nearness, comfort, sympathy, empowerment. Equally important in light of the earlier Mariological discussions, here the divine presence is represented in female form, in a self-evident way and without any further comment or problem. In that sense, Mary is God, for many of the devotees. Maybe it is the unconditional aspect of this love, comfort, support, and protection that characterizes these devotions and the sense of presence they generate: any one can turn to Mary, no matter who you are, or what you do or believe or whether you believe at all. Even people for whom visiting a place of pilgrimage is just a Sunday-afternoon outing – which is often the case in Western Europe – feel ‘touched’, no matter how vague that may be. In this light, Mary represents a specific dimension of divine presence: it is unconditional. According to Orsi, it is precisely this presence in/through the images which makes that iconoclasts, religious or political, want to cut off the power of this presence in ‘things’, or to limit the access to this power of/in the presence of individuals or groups (Orsi 2005, 51). As in textual interpretations, devotions have prescribed meanings and can and have been manipulated by the powers that be, but these powers never have been capable of completely controlling them. For people do appropriate the images and interpretations of Mary. They turn to her out of desire, need, love, fear, desperation or anger. Her relational, divine presence; the compassion, mercy, protection, support, comfort, and unconditional love they experience in

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

271

and because of her presence, can indeed be dangerous for those powers. Consequently, in this relational presence a critical, social, and ecclesiastical subversive power is hidden. Feminist liberation Mariologies also emphasize this subversive power, albeit seldom in relation to these devotions. The exceptions here are the Finnish Lutheran feminist liberation theologian Elina Vuola, who did anthropological research on Mary and Marian devotions in Latin America (Vuola 2006/2012) and the Hispanic feminist theologian Natalia Imperatori-Lee (2007). They, too, value the importance of lived religion and Marian devotions for systematic reflection. Nevertheless, it is important not to deny the dangers of nostalgic traditionalism and the re-inscription of the (gendered) status quo that can also be part of devotional practices. Can this divine presence, which is represented in and through the woman Mary, be characterized still further? Two elements spring to mind: the meaning of physicality and materiality of Creation and the principle of sacramentality, both of which are represented in Mary in their own way. Whether it concerns the pregnant Mary or the suffering mother, to the extent that Mary represents the divine, a strong physical component emerges. Life, also in its religious or spiritual dimensions, is physical, embodied: giving birth and nursing, feeding and caring, suffering and dying. Divine presence is not situated outside this vulnerable and finite everyday life, which probably nowhere becomes more explicitly clear than in the Marian images and devotions. Mary lived through it all. Artists are the ones who portray this in impressive and moving ways. Popular devotions immediately recognize and experience this as support and comfort. In popular devotions and in feminist liberation Mariologies, it is precisely this concrete Mary who sustains women and men all over the world in their suffering, powerlessness, anger, and resistance. In that sense, a stark demystifying and strictly biblical, and thus ‘sober’ Mariology, like that of Johnson or Schüssler, has too little regard for the ambiguity in the image of the suffering mother or other mother-images. Mary is more than the paradigmatic historical mother who lost her special son, as Johnson would like to present her. Maybe it is in the highly physical image of the Mater Dolorosa that the ambiguity and the strength of the meaning of Mary show themselves in a very special way : Mary is just like us and at the same time much more (Vuola 2006, 49). In my opinion, the symbolic power of these Marian images can only be this strong and universal if, and when, the support, involvement, and presence of the divine is expressed and/or experienced. This, in my view and contra Beattie, is not about mystification or symbolization of Marian motherhood, but about the mystery of God’s presence in the actual complex, vulnerable, embodied messiness of life, here represented in female images. Not only concrete physicality, but also, in a much broader sense, the importance of matter, and with it the sacramentality of Creation, becomes manifest

272

Maaike de Haardt

in Marian devotions and iconography. For example, this can be inferred from the many titles and the extensive cosmological and natural symbolism assigned to Mary : Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven, Mystical Rose, Seat of Wisdom. Epithets, notable as in the Queen of Heaven title of the Theotokos refer to the Mary as cosmic matrix, as matrix of incarnation and redemption (Sprednak 2004). As many scholars of religion have demonstrated, these titles and symbols also refer to much older wisdom traditions in which the Creatrix Goddess or Goddesses are prominent (Benko 1993). Marian titles and symbolism also resonate with references to the divine that can be known in and through the natural world and of which, in principle, the entire creation can be a witness: Mary of the forest, Our Lady of the Rivers, of the blackberries, etc. In Mary, through the many symbols and names connected with her, the sacramentality of creation is succinctly confirmed and celebrated. Not for nothing did countless devotional Marian places originate at pre-Christian holy places such as crossroads or wells. Both the meaning of the body and the materiality of divine presence, theologically translated into the age-old Catholic principle of sacramentality, in these cases, represented by Mary, offer a practical and experiential sense of and insight in the ‘excess’ of the Divine and the abundance of Divine images and language. This, too, can be seen as opening up traditional, one-sided masculine and transcendent images of God, emphasizing as in the other Marian images, the unsayable presence, or if you prefer, the immanence of God.

5.

By way of conclusion

Does this ‘via practica’ of Marian devotions, perhaps more convincingly than the Mariological discourses, manifest at least the possibility of a ‘different’ Mary and a ‘different’ God than classical Mariology presents? My reading concurs with that of Vuola, who states that these devotions do offer an alternative thinking about incarnation (Vuola 2012). Thus, by implication, offer at least a beginning of an alternative thinking on God, creation, and sacramentality. Could it be that this is the case because of and in spite of the power as well as the instability of traditional meanings and qualities Catholic Christianity attributed to Mary? For some people this ‘different’ Mary and ‘different’ God will simply be inspiring, others may have different sentiments, depending on place, time, and context related dimensions. My optimistic view does not deny that Marian devotional practices and places are sites of continuing struggle between and intertwinement of the traditional submissive Mary and a more subversive Mary. With regard to the central question of my paper, I now conclude that Marian devotional practices suffer from the same ambivalences, paradoxes, and competing interpretations as contemporary Mariologies, whether feminist or not.

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

273

They can and have been used to re-inscribe a traditional, women-humiliating anthropology, supporting all kinds of actions against demonic gender ideologies, and at the same time, Mary can empower women to resist and oppose this asymmetrical gender complementarity (Hermkens 2009 etc.). In my interpretation of these Marian devotional practices, Mary’s gender is relevant only in her representation of God. The previously presented feminist theologians emphasize the necessity of this female representation in order to break the androcentric patriarchal ban. Mary’s motherhood, however, is not theologically relevant in her historical motherhood, but in the ‘more’ that she reflects and represents. I do not see any reason to derive from Mary or attribute to her a sex/ gender specific anthropology. What is important in this sampling of diverse feminist Mariologies is that it reveals that they are all engaged to contradict on theological grounds, the theological and scientific arguments made by ecclesial and especially papal authorities in their proclamation of an asymmetrical dualistic anthropology based on essentialist gender differences and their demonization of gender theory. According to Judith Butler, this is a necessary and important task. Papal proclamations are too important in the social and political domain to be neglected. Therefore, in her view: “let a thousand conflicts of interpretation bloom, I say! And I say this not because pluralism alone will ease our minds but because the proliferation of possible interpretations may well lead to the subversions of an authority that grounds itself in what may not be questioned” (Butler 2006, 289). With a variation on Catherine Keller’s recent work on God and her playful use of Cusanus’ possible and impossible “nicknames” for God (Keller 2015): in such a world, Mary just might be an image of the Im/Possible.

References Adamiak, E. (2008): Developments in Mariology. In: Irrazabal, D. /Ross, S. /Wacker, M.-T. (eds.): The Many Faces of Mary. Concilium 2008/4, 27–33. Althaus-Reid, M. /Isherwood, L. (2007): Controversies in Feminist Theology. London, SCM Press. Beattie, T. (2002): God’s Mother, Eve’s Advocate. London /New York, Continuum. Beattie, T. (2006): New Catholic Feminism. Theology and Theory. Abingdon /New York, Routledge. Benko, S. (1993): The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology. Leiden, Brill. Butler, J. (2006): Afterword. In: Armour, E. /St. Ville, S. (eds.): Bodily Citations. Religion and Judith Butler. New York, Columbia University Press, 276–291. Certeau, M. de (1984): The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley /Los Angeles, University of California Press.

274

Maaike de Haardt

Certeau, M. de (1966): Culture and Spiritual Experience, In: Concilium 19/4, 3–16. Certeau, M. de et al. (1998): The Practice of Everyday Life, vol. 2: Living and Cooking. Minneapolis /London, University of Minnesota Press. Gebara, I. /Beringer, M.C. (1987): Mary. Mother of God, Mother of the Poor. Maryknoll. Orbis Books. Fuchs, A. (2009): Mariologie und “Wunderglaube”. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur spiritualitätstheologischen Valenz der Mariophanie im Kontext humanwissenschaflicher Fragestellung. Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet. Greshake, G. (2014): Maria – Ekklesia Perspektiven einer marianisch grundierte Theologie und Kirchenpraxis. Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet. Haardt, M. de (2004): “Changing the subject, changing the method? Systematic implications of a turn to everyday practices”. In: Annali di Studi Religiosi 5, Edizioni Dehoniani Bolgogna, 357–367. Haardt, M. de (2011): The Marian Paradox: Marian Practices as a Road to a New Mariology? In: Feminist Theology 19/2, 168–181. Halkes, C. (1980): Met Mirjam is het begonnen. Kampen, Kok. Hermkens, A-K. /Jansen W. /Notermans, C. (2009): Moved by Mary. The Power of Pilgrimage in the Modern World. Farnham, Ashgate. Highmore, B. (ed.) (2002): The Everyday Life Reader. London, Routledge. Imperatori-Lee, N. (2007): An Inculturated Mariology. Mary in the Latino/a Context. In: Kennedy, T. (ed.): Inculturation and the Church in North America. The Crossroad Publishing Company, 163–178. Isasi-Diaz, A. M. (1993): En la Lucha. In the Struggle. A Hispanic Women’s Liberation Theology. Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Isasi-Diaz, A.M. (2004): La Lucha Continues. Mujarista Theology. Maryknoll, Orbis. Johnson, E. (2003): Truly Our Sister. A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints. New York /London, Continuum. Keller, C. (2015): Cloud of the Impossible. New York, Columbia University. Levine, A.-J. (ed.) (2005): A Feminist Companion to Mariology. Cleveland, The Pilgrim Press. Logister, W. (1995): Maria, een uitdaging. Averbode, Altoria. Orsi, R. (2005): Between Heaven and Earth: The Religious Worlds People Make and The Scholars Who Study Them. New Jersey, Princeton Press. Orth, M. (2015): The Virgin Mary. The World’s Most Powerful Woman. In: National Geographic December 2015, 30–59. Pelikan, J. (1996): Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. New Haven, Yale University Press. Post, P. /Schuurmans, K. (eds.) (2006). Op bedevaart in Nederland. Betekenis en toekomst van de regionale bedevaart. Meander. Kampen, Uitgeverij Gooi en Sticht. Ross, S. (1998): Extravagant Affections. A Feminist Sacramental Theology. New York, Continuum. Samson, J. (2012): Sexuality and Gender Discourses at European Pilgrimage Sites. Nijmegen, Phd. Thesis Radboud University Nijmegen. Scheffzyck, L. (2002): Kenzeichen und Gestaltkräfte des “Marianischen Zeitalter”. In: Ziegenaus, A. (eds.): Das Marianische Zeitalter. Entstehung – Gehalt – Bedeutung. Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet.

Mary: Portrait of an Im/Possible Image?

275

Schumacher, M. (ed.) (2004): Women in Christ: Toward a New Feminism. Grand Rapids / Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans. Smith, J. /Haddad, Y. (1989): The Virgin Mary in Islamic Tradition and Commentary. In: The Muslim World LXXIX (3–4), 161–187. Sprednak, C. (2004): Missing Mary : The Queen of Heaven and Her Re-Emergence in the Modern Church. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Tavard, G. (1996): The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary. Collegeville, Michael Glazier Books. Tavard, G. (1996): The Thousand Faces of Mary. Collegeville, A Michael Glazier Book /The Liturgical Press. Vuola, E. (2006): Seriously Harmful for Your Health? Religion, Feminism and Sexuality in Latin America. In: Althaus-Reid, M. (ed.): Liberation Theology and Sexuality. Farnham, Ashate. Vuola, E. (2012): La Morenita on Skis: Women’s Popular Marian Piety and Feminist Research on Religion. In: Briggs, S. /McClintock Fulkerson, M. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theology. Oxford Handbooks online. (last accessed March 16, 2016). Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (1995): Jesus. Mirjam’s Child, Sophia’s Propher. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. New York, Continuum. Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (2011): Transforming Vision. Explorations in Feminist The*ology. Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Zimdars-Swartz, S. (1991): Encountering Mary. From La Salette to Medjugorge. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Janine Redemann (Vechta)

Strengthening the Role of Women in Ecclesiastical Decion-Making Processes

This paper outlines the issue of strengthening women’s role in ecclesiastical decision-making processes without them becoming men or priests. The pope wants their qualities as women to be integrated in decision-making. Therefore, the system of ecclesiastical decision-making has to change. Pope Francis speaks up for strengthening the role of women in ecclesiastical decision-making processes. However, he makes no clear statement how this aim could be achieved. This corresponds to the dynamic style of his texts. Instead of making a clear statement and establishing just one interpretation, he prefers to maintain an open process and dynamic process. He stresses that “time is greater than space”. The role of women can be strengthened in two ways. – Women gain access to certain positions and are allowed to participate in decisions concerning the according position. Therefore, the current system would stay the same regarding the decision-making of the clerus. However, the members of the clerus would be extended by consecrated women. – The structure of the system is changed in a way that important ecclesiastical decisions are no longer only made by incumbents. All church members and the baptised can be involved in the decision processes. As a result, women could acquire the chance to participate in decision-making processes, and as well, every other baptised person may actively and efficiently shape the church. However, in this altered system, women would still not be allowed to become a priest according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In order to make this possible, it is useful to apply new and creative analysis criteria, such as a gender-category.1 Consequently, this category needs to be established as deliberately and critically one. This process is not happening in Pope Francis’ work. The term gender is mentioned in his texts, but it is not used deliberately as an analysis category.

1 See Ammicht-Quinn: Gefährliches Denken. In: Concilium 48 (2012) 362–372.

278

Janine Redemann

Nevertheless, this category creates new questions and ways of thinking, which can be seen in the three phases of the feminist movement. – Discourse of equality : The equality of gender is assumed without questioning the system which initially caused the inequality. A woman would be allowed to become priest as long as she is guided by her intellectual qualities and not her feelings, emotions or nature. – Discourse of difference: Men and women are different from each other, but when the system is questioned, the female qualities are considered equal to men’s. There is the risk of confusing the acceptance of female and equal rights. Awoman is considered as equal concerning her qualities, such as feeling and sensuality. However, she is not allowed to become a priest because this requires the abilities of a man. – Forming a theory : Therefore, it is necessary to create a new theory by questioning and criticizing phases one and two. To develop this theory further, the focus will be set on gender-category. Its focus is no longer the disadvantages of western women. Now the criticism refers to the power-mechanism that leads to an imbalance, sexualisation, and discrimination of both genders. The lack of power concerning ecclesiastical decision-making processes affects women, as well as laity. For such a critical analysis in ecclesiastical and theological thinking processes, there is the category of Kyriarchy (Schüssler-Fiorenza). This category enables one to put gender differences into a bigger context and to integrate other opposites such as the laypeople and priests. The question is how sexualized, hierarchic, dualistic structures arise and which actual power they have or believe to have. The question of equality becomes a question of justice in terms of participation and acceptance while the differences remain. Therefore, applying gender-categories in the field of theology implies that this problem is not explicitly the problem of women, which could not be solved by using nature Euro-centrically. Strengthening the role of women regarding ecclesiastical decision-making processes shows that no explicit problem amongst women exists. This is because everyone who is not a priest is affected by the prevailing power structure, and therefore, barred from decision-making. It is about the role of laypeople in decision-making processes. Male laypeople generally could become priests, but they have to give up some pieces of their own identity to do so. This does change the structures just as much as the possibility to let women become priests. Gender-categories make it possible to draw attention to the actual problem: the basic structure of thinking. From a theological point of view, this problem mainly occurs in the radically conceived complementarity, e. g. the dualism of god-men, priest-laity, and man-woman. These

Strengthening the Role of Women in Ecclesiastical Decion-Making Processes

279

categories are seen as oppositional and often have a value. However, the concept of complementarity originates in the field of physics and describes two or three complementing qualities of an object regardless of any value. In the field of theology, the concept of complementarity is used as an example to explain the trinity of god. Creation can also be described as complementarity, e. g. the creation of man and woman. An object (men) can only be fully explained by the complementarity of its various forms (man and woman) that complement each other. By using the concept of complementarity, disputes can be overcome unless one component is preferred over the other.2 However, this is often not considered in the field of theology. The complementarity of gender is often reduced to procreation, which often leads to a naturalistic fallacy : it naturally requires a male and a female part to procreate new life. This circumstance leads an ethical duty to do so. As a result, to be a woman is reduced to motherhood.3 However, the man is not reduced to his role as a father, but fulfills important tasks within society and church. There is often a comparison of men and women with questions of decisions. This often leads to the fact that both are set against each other or that one is preferred to the other. This is not a complementary understanding of men and women to overcome disagreements. More precisely, the complementarity is reduced to the essential components to the procreation of children. In fact, the complementarity does not apply to all areas of being human, as if both being human and the creation task are reduced to its sexuality, which is only designed for procreation. However, Pope Francis has a further understanding of complementarity. On 17th November 2014, he speaks of a rich meaning of the word complementarity. Accordingly, it refers not only to complete one another, but also that the various gifts of each individual can contribute to the common good. Therefore, Pope Francis thinks of complementarity as a dynamic harmony that defines the center of creation. The complementarity of man and woman as the base of marriage and family must also be seen as such a dynamic and not as a single and fixed model. Consequently, it is possible for a marriage to occur in various forms as an embodiment of this dynamic harmony. In such a marriage, both partners contribute (their own) individual parts beyond their genitals. Hence, the complementary contrast of man and woman provides not only procreation, but also community in marriage and family, and parts of human cooperation. On the general audience on 15th April 2015, Pope Francis stressed the importance of the voice of women, which needs to be recognized as an authority within society and church. Hence, it is necessary to understand the female genius 2 See Schirrmacher, Die Entdeckung der Komplementarität. In: Professorenforum-Journal 6 (205) 3, 3–11. 3–8. 3 See Goertz, Geschlechtlichkeit und Geschlechterverhältnis. In: forum-grenzfragen.de 2016.

280

Janine Redemann

more detailed and what it can contribute specifically. “We have not yet understood in depth what the feminine genius can give us, what woman can give to society and also to us. Maybe women see things in a way that complements the thoughts of men. It is a path to follow with greater creativity and courage.” How could the role of women be shaped regarding ecclesiastical decisionmaking processes? According to the concept complementarity mentioned earlier, Pope Francis defines a nun as a bride of Jesus and a bishop or priest as bridegrooms of the church, who dedicate themselves during the Eucharist. Therefore, a nun is the representative of the maternal love of the church. Thus, another dimension of womanhood and mother hood is created. If the consecration of nuns is seen as a consecration to be a mother, this means to see the concreteness of the required love. Fellow human beings (others) and fellow nuns become children who need to be loved. This also addresses a task that a woman can fulfil: spiritual leadership as laypeople-charisma. Spiritual leadership means to find out what happened within one’s heart. This refers to the ability to judge during decision-making with various options. This assistance is not withheld by a priest, but is a part of motherhood. A mother gives not only birth to her child, but also accompanies it during its ageing. With such statements regarding nuns and monks being like mothers and fathers, beyond the fertility of the church, the pope pursues a goal: reforming the attitude that makes organisational and structural reforms possible4. The Pope does not want to transfer the duties and functions of men to women, but to create spaces for female presence. Due to a complementary understanding between men and women and their gifts, a woman would have to give up her womanhood (femininity) in order to assume the functions of a man. Behind the striving for a woman to be a priest, the pope suspects a “female machismo” inspired by an ideology of machismo. This striving does not do justice to women as women. The understanding of a priest and his duties has to be analyzed according to this statement. The Pope stresses not to mistake the duty of an office for its honorableness, such as Maria is always more important than all the bishops. He wants stress “to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church”.5 If women represent the role of Mary in the church, they are more important than the bishops and priests, according to the Pope on July 28th, 2013. Making the woman a priest does not do justice to her. Considering the gender category, it should be done cautiously. In the face of the gender-category, care should be taken not to remain in the second phase, that is, in differentiation, and not to confuse recognition with real authority and decisions. It remains to be asked 4 See FR Antonio Sparado, Interview with the pope, 2013. 5 Ibid.

Strengthening the Role of Women in Ecclesiastical Decion-Making Processes

281

whether a reduction of prevailing/current structures on sexuality is appropriate or the duality to be extended to other sections, e. g. the position of laypeople. Pope Francis makes clear that his aim is not to strengthen the role of women through clericalizing. Thus, he demands that women should have leading positions in the Vatican, however, not positions as priestesses, bishops or cardinals, but as women and laypersons. In line with the gender category, he sees this demand not as feminism, but as the preservation of the right of all baptized persons to co-responsibility in questions of the organization of the church. It is not enough for him to recognize dignity of women, but he asks for the active participation of the woman (cf. EG 103). In addition, he addresses the confusion of authority and power and demands a clear differentiation between dignity and function: “The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others.” (EG 104). Therefore, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the crux of power. More precisely, the priest, as the bridegroom of the church, dedicates himself completely. In contrast, the woman cannot fulfil this according to complementary understanding (not to confuse the function with dignity). However, what does this mean for the role of women regarding decision-making in the various sectors of the church? On 7th February, 2015, the Pope suggested an answer : “You women know how to embody the tender face of God, his mercy, which is translated into a willingness to give time rather than to occupy space, to welcome rather than to exclude.” With this allusion to tenderness, mercy, and the preference of time versus space, it becomes clear that women are necessary in church. More precisely, they are necessary in the church as a creative power to fulfil the mission formulated by the Pope in Amoris Laetitia. The demanded synodality concretized in AL is, therefore, only possible if women are offered space in order to provide for a more influential presence. The Pope demands in AL that no rigid rules are formulated to occupy spaces powerfully. On the contrary, priority is given to time to initiate processes and keep them running until the Holy Spirit will lead us to the truth (c.f. AL 3).6 If the texts of Pope Francis are read with regard to a question, like the role of women, it is clear that this is not a question that can be solved clearly. However, this is rather a process for the purpose of revivable synodality that shall involve more laypersons, and therein women find new spaces. There seems to be a comprehensive reform (first the attitudes and then the structures) in which women get more space as part of the reform of the laity. In fact, women can occupy this space, and therefore, the church can be shaped by them. A clear 6 See Heimbach-Steins, Redemann u. a., Familiale Diversität und pastorale Unterscheidung. ICS AP Nr. 5, Münster 2016.

282

Janine Redemann

solution in regard to this question is also expected vainly. However, the Pope allows the question to be tackled under new perspectives as also provided by the gender criterion. Approaching this question in a creative and bold way means to find different ways to strengthen the role of women in the decision-making of the church beyond the demand for clericalization of women. The beginning of this can be found in his executions about clericalism in Latin America. More precisely, in these executions, he gives a warning of clericalizing laypeople because they do well as laypeople. This happens in view of the fact that priests are considered as more important or more valuable than laypeople. This misunderstanding of the laypeople and the priest is seen in both the priest and the laypeople, who wish to move up the ladder, according to Pope Francis. “It does us good to remember that the Church is not an elite of priests, of consecrated men, of bishops, but that everyone forms the faithful Holy People of God.”7

7 Letter to cardinal Marc Quellet, 19. 03. 2016.

Agnethe Siquans (Vienna)

What’s the Difference? Female Prophets in Early Christian Writings

The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as well as other early Christian writings, speak about female prophets. As a spiritual gift, female prophecy is accepted in early Christianity. Yet many authors assume differences between male and female prophecy. This paper traces the specifics of that discussion regarding female prophecy in contrast to its male counterpart. As in the Tanakh, and in the New Testament, only a few individual female prophets are mentioned. 1 Cor 11 and 14 discuss female prophecy, praying, and speaking in tongues. There is also evidence for female prophets in the first few Christian centuries.1 The church fathers had to deal with the fact that their Bible acknowledged female prophets, on the one hand, and with the presence of female prophets in their own time on the other. Female prophecy had to be acknowledged as a charismatic gift of God. Nevertheless, the prophet’s female sex was often subject to debate. In their various writings, the patristic authors developed a discourse about the specifics of female prophets. In the following, I will address these specifics in relation to this discussion in patristic writings.

1.

Is there a difference in content?

The content of female prophecy is not different from that of male prophecy. Two examples: Augustine mentions Deborah’s prophecy in his “City of God”. Although Augustine describes Deborah’s prophecy as obscure, he does not ascribe this to her female sex. Like all Old Testament prophecies, her words relate to Christ: “This was at the time when Deborah was judge in Israel. Actually, God’s

1 For female prophets in early Christianity cf. e. g. Anne Jensen, Gottes selbstbewusste Töchter. Frauenemanzipation im frühen Christentum? Freiburg i. B. 1992, 254–362.

284

Agnethe Siquans

spirit ruled through her, for she was prophetess as well as judge, but her prophecy is so obscure that it would take too long to prove she was speaking of Christ.”2 In the so-called “Dialogue between a Montanist and an Orthodox”, Priscilla and Maximilla are rejected because they proclaim the same things as Montanus. But Montanist prophets, male and female alike, were heretics in the eyes of the orthodox.3 It was not their female sex, but their heresy that made them unacceptable. Obviously, in the eyes of patristic writers, there is no specific “female” prophecy with regard to content that differs from the male one.

2.

Are women’s prophetic performances different from men’s?

Early Christian texts actually demand specific behavior from women who prophesy. In 1 Cor 11, Paul insists on a particular headdress for women praying or prophesying. In 1 Cor 14:34–35, we find Paul’s famous words: “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (NRSV). Much has already been written on these Pauline or perhaps post-Pauline verses.4 I want to present two patristic interpretations of this prescript. In Origen’s interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34, female prophets play a prominent part.5 He criticizes the Montanist prophets Priscilla and Maximilla who – in his opinion – did not obey the Pauline command. In the following, he demonstrates the validity of Paul’s precept also for the biblical female prophets. He mentions the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), Deborah (Judges 4–5), Miriam (Ex 15:20–21), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20), and Hannah (Luke 2:36). His main argument is that all these women did not speak in public or in an assembly. He concludes that speaking in an assembly – which means speaking in the presence of men and speaking to men – is shameful for a woman. He offers his conclusion 2 Saint Augustine, The City of God (De civitate Dei) 18,15 (transl. Gerald G. Walsh/Daniel J. Honan), Washington D.C. 1954, 103. 3 Cf. Pierre de Labriolle, Les sources de l’histoire du Montanisme. Textes grecs, latins, syriaques publi8s avec une Introduction critique, une Traduction franÅaise, des Notes et des “Indices”, Fribourg/Paris 1913, 93–108. 4 Cf. e. g. among many others Schottroff, Luise, Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth. Wie Befreiung entsteht, in: Luise Schottroff/Marie-Theres Wacker (ed.), Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung, Gütersloh 21999, 574–592; Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, Zu ihrem Gedächtnis … Eine feministischtheologische Rekonstruktion der christlichen Ursprünge, Gütersloh 1988, 287–291. 5 Claude Jenkins, Origen on 1 Corinthians. Fragmenta e catenis in Epistulam primam ad Corinthios § LXXIV, 1–21, Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909), 29–51: 41f.

What’s the Difference? Female Prophets in Early Christian Writings

285

verbally from 1 Cor 14:35. Jensen points out that Origen had to interpret the term 1jjkgs¸a in varying ways to reach his conclusion.6 His treatment of the biblical accounts is also highly questionable.7 Origen’s ideas about women do not allow him to imagine these scenes other than in a very limited way. Origen concedes that a woman can be a prophet or even a leader of women, like Miriam, but that she must not speak in an assembly where men are present. Didymus the Blind also polemicizes against Priscilla and Maximilla in his tractate De trinitate. Similar to the “Discussion between a Montanist and an Orthodox”, he characterizes these women as heretics like Montanus. He also gives a list of biblical prophets: the four daughters of Philip, Deborah, Miriam, and Mary, the mother of Jesus. His point is that all these women did not write books in their own names, whereas the Montanist women obviously did. His argument is drawn from 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 11: women are not allowed to teach (according to 1 Tim) and they have to veil their head (cf. 1 Cor 11). Didymus interprets the veiling allegorically : a male name veils the female origin of women’s words, just as Luke’s name veils Mary’s prophecy in the gospel. Furthermore, he quotes 1 Tim 2:14, which alludes to Gen 3: man was not deceived, but only woman was. Paul’s prescriptions about female prophecy in 1 Cor are the basis for patristic writers to discuss the differences between male and female prophets and their activities. Women’s public speech is considered problematic – as it generally is in Greco-Roman Antiquity.

3.

Do female prophets articulate their message in a way different from male prophets?

Nancy C. Lee’s study8 presumes different “sound patterns” for male and female prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. In the New Testament, a similar question would prove insubstantial, because there is scarcely any Christian prophetic uttering. In the following centuries, only a few words by the Montanist prophets are handed down. Jensen lists seven sentences of Priscilla and Maximilla, which were quoted in several patristic (mostly anti-heretic) writings.9 It is, therefore, impossible to

6 Cf. Jensen, Töchter, 333f. 7 Cf. Agnethe Siquans, Die alttestamentlichen Prophetinnen in der patristischen Rezeption. Texte – Kontexte – Hermeneutik (HBS 65), Freiburg i.B. 2011, 36–37. 8 Nancy C. Lee, Hannevi’ah and Hannah. Hearing Women Biblical Prophets in a Women’s Lyrical Tradition, Eugene, Oreg. 2015. The results are very interesting but also raise some questions. 9 Jensen, Töchter, 302–326.

286

Agnethe Siquans

answer the question as to whether there was a specific female form or structure of prophecy in early Christian writings.

4.

Do the bodies or sexuality of female prophets play a role in their prophecy?

Hamori10 has pointed out that – with a single exception – no female prophet in the Hebrew Bible is said to have had children. Some, Miriam, for example, are also without husbands. Only the anonymous female prophet mentioned in Isa 8:3 bears a child – but she does not utter a single word. She “embodies her message”,11 which means the child is her message. In the New Testament, Hannah is an old widow; no children of hers are mentioned. The four daughters of Philip are explicitly called “virgins” (paqh´moi; Acts 21:9). Hamori discusses parallel phenomena in other cultures (from different eras) and concludes that female sexuality was and is considered a problem in connection to prophecy. For the male prophets, the possible spectrum of family relations is broader : they may be single and ascetic, or they may be married and have children. Female prophets are distanced from sexuality in some way. Patristic texts show contrasting tendencies: Miriam is made a virgin, if her familial status is considered at all.12 This is certainly due to her function as a type of Mary, mother of Jesus. Her tambourine is interpreted as a symbol of ascetics because it is absolutely dry. Moisture means fertility ; dryness, therefore, signifies virginity. Gregory of Nyssa develops this idea in his tractate On virginity.13 Ambrose deals with Deborah as a widow:14 he cannot imagine that a married woman can be a prophet, judge, and military leader. Likewise, he makes Barak her son because, for Ambrose, this is the only possible setting that allows Deborah to command Barak in the way the biblical text narrates. In Antiquity, the concept of virginity in connection to prophecy can be found time and again. The best-known virgin mantic is the Pythia of Delphi.15 Ter-

10 Esther J. Hamori, Childless Female Diviners in the Bible and Beyond, in: Jonathan Stökl / Corrine L. Carvalho (ed.), Prophets Male and Female. Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East, Atlanta 2013, 169–191. 11 Hamori, Childless, 172. 12 For Miriam as a virgin cf. Siquans, Prophetinnen, 91–102. 13 Cf. Gregor von Nyssa, De virginitate 19. This topos can also be found with other authors: Cf. Siquans, Prophetinnen, 85–91. 14 Ambrosius, De viduis VIII. Cf. Siquans, Prophetinnen, 119–125. 15 Also Cassandra was a virgin when she uttered her prediction: Cf. Anselm C. Hagedorn, The Role of the Female Seer/Prophet in Ancient Greece, in: Jonathan Stökl / Corrine L. Carvalho (ed.), Prophets Male and Female. Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern

What’s the Difference? Female Prophets in Early Christian Writings

287

tullian mentions her as a role model for Christian virgins, though not in the context of prophecy.16 In his De exhortatione castitatis, he quotes a sentence of the prophet Prisca (= Priscilla). In this sentence, she recommends holiness and catharsis.17 Marjanen supposes that the connection to virginity “made the institution of female prophets more acceptable”.18 Body and sexuality thus play an important part in the discourse about female prophecy.

5.

Do women’s psyche or intellect play a role in the discourse about their prophecy?

In Antiquity, the assumption of women’s physical weakness was often connected to psychic or intellectual weakness by male authors.19 Christian authors also assumed the weakness of women. Therefore, “strong” women attracted special attention. Origen, for instance, praises young female virgins who died in martyrdom. Women can prevail in the struggles of faith.20 According to Origen’s considerations of Deborah, women are capable of prophetic inspiration: “And in this, even the first aspect of the letter itself renders to the female sex not a small consolation, for it invites women to avoid despairing in any way on account of the weakness of their sex, for even they themselves can become capable of prophetic grace.”21 Ambrose also presents Deborah as an example for women: they must not refrain from virtuous deeds because of the weakness of their female sex.22 Some authors interpreted Deborah’s strength as compensation for the (moral) weakness of their contemporary males.23 Theodoret of Cyrus asks a basic question (qu. XII in Judges) and answers it with a fundamental statement: “Why did a woman prophesy? Because men and women have the same nature. As you know, the woman was formed from Adam

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East, Atlanta 2013, 101–125: 107. See also Hamori, Childless, 181. Tertullian, Ad uxorem 1, 6, 4. Tertullian, Exhortatio castitatis 10. Cf. Jensen, Töchter, 315–318. Antti Marjanen, Female Prophets Among Montanists, in: Jonathan Stökl / Corrine L. Carvalho (ed.), Prophets Male and Female. Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East, Atlanta 2013, 127–143: 135. Cf. Siquans, Prophetinnen, 447–449; Deißmann, Marie-Luise, Aufgaben, Rollen und Räume von Mann und Frau im antiken Rom, in: Jochen Martin / Renate Zoepffel (ed.), Aufgaben, Rollen und Räume von Frau und Mann 2, Freiburg/München 1989, 501–564, esp. 533–535. Cf. Origenes, Homilies in Judges IX, 1, 56–79. Origenes, Homilies in Judges V, 2. English: Fathers of the Church 119, 114. Ambrose, De viduis VIII. Cf. e. g. Jerome, Commentary in Isaiah VIII, 11–27; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon I,23,3; Theodoretus Cyrensis, Quaestiones in Iudices XII.

288

Agnethe Siquans

and, like him possessed the faculty of reason. Hence, the apostle says, ‘In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.’ Thus, Moses was called a ‘prophet,’ and Miriam a ‘prophetess.’ It is my view that Deborah was granted the gift of prophecy as a reproof to the men of that time. When none of them was found worthy of this charism, she attained the gift of the most Holy Spirit.”24 Time and again, the authors stress women’s psychical strength and strength in faith, as well as equality between the sexes on the spiritual level. Nevertheless, such women are often regarded as “manly”.

6.

Conclusion: What’s the problem with female prophets?

The patristic discourse maintains that female prophets are different from male ones. These differences have nothing to do with the content of their prophecy. However, the evaluation of their prophecy is inextricably associated with the authors’ ideas about women, their body, and their relationship with men. The female and male spheres are clearly defined and usually separated (at least ideally). The required hierarchical subordination of women is an important cause for the unease with female prophecy. Women who speak in public with divine authority implicitly claim authority over men and challenge the social order. Moreover, women are associated with sexuality. Female prophets are, therefore, often portrayed as chaste virgins, which makes them fit for their holy duty. The early church displays an ambivalent attitude toward female prophets. On the one hand, women are spiritually equal to men. God’s inspiration cannot be restricted to males. On the other hand, the consequences of prophetic inspiration for women were questioned: what does prophetic inspiration mean for women? Is it the same as for men? No, was the answer of the better part of patristic writers. They tried to adapt female prophecy to their notion of prophecy, proper female behavior, and women’s adequate place – and they were successful for centuries. That’s the difference.

24 Robert C. Hill (transl.), Theodoret of Cyrus. Questions on the Octateuch 2 (The Library of Early Christianity 2), Washington D.C. 2007, 329. Hill’s translates kºcor as “reason”. To me it seems more adequate to translate it as “word” because the text treats with prophecy and the prophetic word.

Tallessyn Grennfell-Lee (Massachusetts)

Gender and Inclusive Liturgy: Patriarchy, Liturgical Language, and Liberation

1.

Introduction: Homophobia and Patriarchy

Over the past four decades, issues of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Questioning (LGBTQ) rights have grown increasingly contentious in the United Methodist Church (UMC). As expected, General Conference last year reflected the frustration and polarization in the denomination: just to mention ‘LGBTQ’ aloud guaranteed the debate would end and the proposal voted down; queer rights advocates protested with duct tape silenced mouths and rainbow colored bonds around hands and feet. Despite increased acceptance of other issues in Methodism, such as alcohol consumption and divorce, the resolute resistance to LGBTQ inclusion thus begs the underlying question: What is so scary about queer rights in the church? The UMC is the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the United States (US). Its delegates meet at a General Conference every four years to vote on church policy ; and these decisions affect millions of people, both in the US and worldwide. Currently, the UMC Book of Discipline states that same sex relationships are “incompatible with Christian teaching,” excludes people in the queer community from ordination, and forbids clergy to marry same sex couples.1 In recent years, both the queer rights movement and the resistance to it have grown, particularly with the expanding influence of theologically conservative regions of the globe.2 In fact, sociologists have long argued that misogyny and patriarchy lie at the very heart of homophobia; same sex relationships directly threaten patriarchal power structures, in which men dominate women.3 While most societies today 1 The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, (Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2016). See 304.3, 341.6. Same sex couples are also forbidden to marry in United Methodist church buildings. 2 Christy Thomas, “The Truth About the Future of the United Methodist Church,” http:// www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtfulpastor/2016/12/01/truth-future-united-methodist-church/. 3 For example, see Rebecca L. Davis, “Eroticized Wives: Evangelical Marriage Guides and God’s

290

Tallessyn Grennfell-Lee

can agree that women should have the right to vote, to divorce abusive husbands, and to pursue any career, the continuing reality for women across the globe involves deeply embedded patriarchal ideologies that manifest in varying forms of misogyny, discrimination, and oppression. While many denounce the obvious forms of discrimination, subtler kinds of systemic violence continuously perpetuate not only the subordinate status of women but also their dehumanization. Feminists describe this pervasive paradigm as “rape culture”: “[A] complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women and presents itself as the norm.”4 This kind of systemic violence makes sense only when we remember that patriarchy necessarily dehumanizes all genders, sexual identities, ethnic identities, creatures, and ecosystems who fall below the pinnacle of its hierarchy in order to justify its dominance: in other words, rape is not a problem when women cease to be human. Police killings are similarly no problem when brown bodies cease to be human. Intersectional analyses reveal the connections among sexism, racism, and ecological destruction.5 Tragically, women, people of color, and members of the queer community also internalize the patriarchal ideologies that oppress them; and when patriarchal structures serve to protect them – to a certain extent – from violence, they may fight like cornered animals to preserve them.6

2.

Language, Idolatry, and Liberation

Discussions of liturgical language often take place in theological isolation from the societal and ecclesial context of rape culture. Staunch, widespread resistance to changes in liturgical language only provides more evidence that liturgical Plan for the Christian Family,” in The Embrace of Eros : Bodies, Desires, and Sexuality in Christianity, ed. Margaret D. Kamitsuka (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 167–8, 72–9. 4 Emilie Buchwald, Pamela R. Fletcher, and Martha Roth, eds., Transforming a Rape Culture, Revised Edition (Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2005), xi. 5 See Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Ecofeminism: The Challenge to Theology,” in Christianity and Ecology : Seeking the Well-Being of Earth and Humans, ed. Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2000). 6 For example, see Sylvia Rhue and Thom Rhue, “Reducing Homophobia in African American Communities,” in Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia: Strategies That Work, ed. James Thomas Sears and Walter L. Williams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 118–20.

Gender and Inclusive Liturgy: Patriarchy, Liturgical Language, and Liberation

291

language actually has nothing to do with language and everything to do with power. Language that reinforces maleness as normative, superior, and divine serves to uphold the same structures that support such a systemically violent society. Studies reveal, for example, that over 50 % of men find rape acceptable and would commit a rape if they thought they could get away with it. Moreover, 20–30 % of men experience substantial arousal by depictions of rape in which the woman or girl never shows arousal or consent.7 These alarming statistics preclude the isolation of rape to a small subset of the population and instead reveal the internalization of a toxic, violent masculinity so pervasive as to avoid perception by the majority of the population. We must appreciate the depth and violence of patriarchy in order to understand the strong resistance to even small challenges to its hegemony. Yet even in such depressingly corrupt contexts, language emerges as one area in which seemingly small changes can achieve high impact conversion, healing, and liberation. Psychologists have shown that symbolic and linguistic changes can alter implicit stereotypes, for example, against women and people of color, by reprogramming our brains to associate these groups with alternative, positive ideas and images.8 To associate women with strength, men with compassion, poor communities with hard work, and African American persons with resilience not only changes neurological connections in the brain but also builds empathy, reshapes communal relationships, and alters behavior patterns in positive ways. These findings highlight a clear role for ecclesial language and images in shaping implicit stereotypes and addressing prejudice. Societies resist gender equality because it disrupts established, stable systems that provide security from other kinds of chaos or danger ; patriarchy offers a dysfunctional system that nonetheless provides comfort, nostalgia, familiarity, cohesion, and a dubious brand of safety. Nowhere can this nostalgia and resistance to change be seen more clearly than with liturgical language. While the Church has certainly played a major role in the establishment and spread of patriarchy, it also holds power to subvert it, not only in mission and outreach but linguistically as well, to reshape foundational theological and ethical assumptions. People connect foundational parts of their individual and communal religious identities with certain rites, hymns, prayers, and Scripture translations. Indeed, the generation 7 Neil M. Malamuth, Scott Haber, and Seymour Feshbach, “Testing Hypotheses Regarding Rape: Exposure to Sexual Violence, Sex Differences, and the “Normality” of Rapists,” J Res Pers 14 (1980). 8 Irene V. Blair, Jennifer E. Ma, and Alison P. Lenton, “Imagining Stereotypes Away : The Moderation of Implicit Stereotypes through Mental Imagery,” J Pers Soc Psychol Nov, no. 81 (2001); Marco Brambilla, Marcella Ravenna, and Miles Hewstone, “Changing Stereotype Content through Mental Imagery : Imagining Intergroup Contact Promotes Stereotype Change,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 15, no. 3 (2012).

292

Tallessyn Grennfell-Lee

and reformation of religious movements has always involved cycles of liturgical redaction, in both the Bible as well as later history. To reform our religious narratives and symbols continues the vital process of reinterpretation in which each generation must engage in order to embody a living tradition and to prevent decay.

3.

Music, Ritual, and Transformation

The issue of religious language strikes at the root of all the other issues of inequality and subjugation the Church seeks to address. It is precisely because our language shapes and represents our identity so profoundly that we must continue to adapt it to fit evolving understandings of liberation and healing. Yet despite half a century of feminist analysis, most Christian liturgy continues to rely primarily upon patriarchal concepts for human communities and for the Divine. Music holds particular ritual power and influence, as evidenced by the strong resistance to its alteration by either authoritative ecclesial bodies or individuals. According to liturgical scholar, David W. Stowe, music and chant embody and reinforce core belief systems that tie communities together ; music makes religion accessible, communal, and internal in specific, unique ways: “Music… is most obviously a means of communication with the divine… Every time a worshiper sings a hymn, she is essentially professing a creed or testifying to her faith, at once internalizing and making public the teachings expressed by the song (which itself has been adopted by the collective as an appropriate expression of what the community chooses to believe). Sacred songs are extraordinary in their capacity to compress and epitomize the most fundamental ideas of a faith community. In fact, those who attempt to study religion without paying adequate attention to its sacred song run the risk of missing some key components of those belief systems.9 Yet Stowe also points out that Christianity’s Jewish heritage includes a keen awareness of the dangerous potential of music to cause strife and mislead people.10 Brian Wren also describes its particular theological impact as well as risk: hymns use metaphors and music to enable individuals in community to relate theological concepts to the deepest parts of human pain, joy, identity, and imagination – yet hymn and chant language necessarily sidesteps in-depth, systematic analysis:Their brevity and form are ill suited to systematic reasoning, and, though not lacking in rationality, hymns

9 David W. Stowe, How Sweet the Sound: Music in the Spiritual Lives of Americans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 3. 10 Ibid., 4.

Gender and Inclusive Liturgy: Patriarchy, Liturgical Language, and Liberation

293

invite us, not to step back from faith and examine it, but to step into faith and worship God. [H]ymnic metaphors organize our thinking, generate insights… help us to express and make sense of powerful feelings, and move us at a deep level by their appeal to the senses and the imagination. In doing so, the hymn-poem does theological work as valid and important as the reasoned article, lecture, or book. Naturally, both genres have limitations. Reasoning can be manipulative and perverse. As metaphors highlight some themes, they screen out others.”11 Martin Luther and the Wesleys, along with other reformers, recognized the importance of hymns to teach and interpret theology as well as to help people internalize and commit to lives of faith.12 As the hymns eventually replaced the central importance of the Eucharist, resistance to hymn changes also grew, leading to controversies that often split churches.13 Unsurprisingly, Roman Catholic churches sung the Mass prior to its translation into the vernacular, whereupon hymns took on new significance in Catholic worship, and where controversies also abound over liturgical changes.14 Into this landscape fraught with history, nostalgia, hierarchy, power, and controversy, feminist Christians and other liberation theologians continue to reform the liturgy to reflect the living tradition and meet the needs of the people of faith today. They take seriously questions such as that posed by Marjorie Procter-Smith: Liturgy is certainly a humanly created form that is both powerful and pure… The claim of encounter with God gives the liturgical event its power and its truth… But now a new question must be asked of the liturgy and its claims to truth: is it true for us? … Does the liturgy “translate violence” into beautiful forms, disguising its danger for women?15 If faith communities are willing to sing, “Joy to the world, the Lord is come!” will they also sing, “Joy to the world, for Love is come!”? Can the little “love” Jesus, asleep on the hay, lay down “her” sweet head? And could church families celebrate the Eucharist by saying or singing, “The Lady be with you,” or also, “May Love be with you”? If not, the supposed commitment to women’s rights remains liturgical lip service. Liturgies that once may have brought liberating 11 Brian Wren, Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 351, 74. Emphasis mine. 12 Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 208. Charles Wesley wrote approximately 9,000 hymns! 13 Kenneth W. Osbeck, Amazing Grace: 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990), 51. 14 See Roseanne T. Sullivan, “Propers of the Mass Versus the Four-Hymn Sandwich: Two Catholic Scholars Look at the ‘Great Catholic Music Debate’,” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, January 15 2016. 15 Marjorie Procter-Smith, In Her Own Rite: Constructing Feminist Liturgical Tradition (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), 13.

294

Tallessyn Grennfell-Lee

encounters with the Divine also now represent idols that not only distract from divine truth, but also participate in the systemic violence of patriarchy and, therefore, rape culture.

4.

Conclusion: Scary, Messy, Liberating Rebirth

Liturgy should not preserve the status quo; it should change and transform as the result of an encounter with the Holy. In order fully to embrace the resurrected life, Christian communities must find the courage to confront the idolatry and sin embedded in our language. Idolatry differs from tradition; true tradition provides wisdom, stability, strength, courage, and inspiration. Idolatry distracts, frightens, narrows, excludes, and oppresses. Instead of a focus on individual words or symbols, the Christian churches must ask the underlying questions: why do we resist specific changes, and how, together, can we find the courage to embrace both tradition and transformation? Until churches learn to focus on these foundational areas of fear and disease, we will remain stuck in tired arguments about Bible verses, homophobia, and the chaotic danger of the feminine Divine. But when churches can find the courage to turn away from the tomb and embrace the new Body of Christ – the embodied divinity of the Creation, the Sacred Womb, the Lesbian God/ess, the reality of the Queer Body of Christ today – then, and only then, will we find freedom, the promised peace that passes understanding, the resurrected life.

Nadja Furlan Sˇtante (Maribor)

Postmodern Perception of the Role of Women in Environmental Sensitization of the Roman Catholic Church

1.

Introduction

This paper is based on the on the question regarding the human vs. nature relationship, which is deeply marked by the collective memory of human domination over nature in the Slovenian socio-religious area. The negative stereotype of human superiority in relation to nature remains deeply rooted in the collective consciousness, which is reflected even in the current agreements on environmental protection that puts at the forefront the reduction of environmental change and its harmful effects for humans, but not as much the harmful effects for other living beings and nature as such. However, as a number of environmental ethicists highlight, including Arne Naess, the founder of deep ecology, it is unlikely that such a grave utilitarian approach should be able to overcome the current environmental crisis, which is essentially still based on the old ethical pattern of human domination over nature and human rights of its exploitation. In this segment, the positive contribution of theological eco-feminism is of the utmost importance. By means of a critical historical overview of individual religious traditions, it reveals and shatters the prejudices coming from within the negative superiority model of human over nature. By drawing on the methodology of key hermeneutic concepts in Christian feminist theology, this paper thus focuses attention to the urge of cultivating an ecological sensibility of modern humanity in relation to nature.

2.

Transformation of negative collective memory of domination of human over nature

From the perspective of Christian feminist theology, the negative stereotype of women as passive listeners and obedient maids serving the patriarchal image of domineering Christian Triune God that is dominant and distant from human and

296

Nadja Furlan Sˇ tante

nature, is, despite the attempts of to make aware gender equality, very much still a rooted prejudice present in the collective memory of Western humanity. The tendency for (pre)dominance, which is visible in ecclesiastical-patriarchal and hierarchical structure of Christian Churches (especially Roman Catholic), and frequently omits the voice of women, who represent a major portion of the faithful community, is strongly associated with the negative stereotype of human exploitative, non-sympathetic dominance at the expense of nature (Furlan Sˇtante 2014, 17). Just like the “sexual domination or subordination of women was maintained from generation to generation so that it was each time seen as something obvious and natural, but at the same time explained and justified as the only moral” (Jogan 1990 36), so was maintained the domination of human over nature. Domination over women and nature is (was) justified on account of the particular references to passages from the biblical texts that are (were) taken out of a particular context and were interpreted in the context of the agenda that was more relevant for the ethos of the time in question. Similarly, the protectors of the environment and the defenders of green agenda (eco-feminism, environmental ethics, deep ecology, and so on) present a critical assessment of domination ideas that was supposed to be given to Adam in the story of creation. Rosemary Radford Ruether criticizes the anthropocentric model regarding the abuse of animals, plants, and the environment at the expense of Adam’s (human) domination over nature: There is no doubt that the account is anthropocentric. Although created last, the human is the crown of creation, given sovereignty over it. However, an exploitative or destructive rule over earth is certainly not intended. Humans are not given ownership or possession of the earth, which remains “the Lord’s.” God, finally, is the one who possesses the earth as his creation. Humans are given usufruct of it. Their rule is the secondary one of care for it as a royal steward, not as an owner who can do with it what he wills. (Radford Ruether, 1992, 21) According to this interpretation, people should be God’s guardians of nature, preventing its exploitation and destruction. Actually, even the word for the first man – Adam (in Hebrew Adamah) means soil and indicates the matter from which (so the creation story goes) he was made. The fact that humans share with other mammals the same kind of warm blood is supposed to be the reason why, according to the creation story, they would not be allowed to eat meat (Schochet, 1984, 44). All of this presupposes a deep interconnectedness between man and earth or man nature, as well as between man and nonhuman beings. Eco-feminist reconstructions of the past are of the utmost importance not only on the issue of gender equality, but also on the question of the relationship between man and nature. Theological eco-feminism thus aims at establishing a model of substantial ethics and self-ethics of human relations that should take neither other people nor other non-human beings, such as animals, and plants (nature), as a means to

Postmodern Perception of the Role of Women in Environmental Sensitization

297

an end, but always as purposive in their own right, which is a reflection of God’s interference and God’s love, divine breath, and vital energy. Tadej Strehovec came to a similar conclusion, when he pointed to the theological understanding of the Christian relationship to creation, at the conference titled Ecology of Spirit.1 Namely : 1. Creation is considered to be positive as it is believed that there is a deep spiritual connection between God, human beings, and creation; 2. the importance of human responsibility for creation is emphasised, which in turn means that the human is responsible before God for his/her relationship to nature, and 3. creation is good, but not sacred (Umanotera, Strehovec 2007). The last finding says that, according to the Catholic doctrine, creation is good, but not sacred, in addition to the negative interpretation of the biblical story of creation (Genesis 1: 1–2), particularly with regard to the false interpretation of humanity as the crown of creation who rules the world (nature) and takes advantage of it by being distant from it, as well as being hierarchically (negatively domineering) superior ; consequently, this has led to the formation of negative views regarding the human vs. nature relationship that are based on exploitation, abuse, and the disrespect of nature as God’s creation. This prejudice of human distinct remoteness, separation, and self-sufficiency in relation to nature is further aggravated in being trapped in a hierarchical paradigm of Cartesian dualism. Even Pope Francis in the Encyclical Letter on Care for Our Common Home: Laudato si draws attention to the importance of the triple dimension of connectivity and relationships that are fundamental to human existence: “the relationship to God, our neighbour, and to the earth”. Similarly, as is also indicated by the Christian feminist theologians (the previously mentioned Rosemary Radford Ruether), Pope Francis exposes the perverted misinterpretation of the mission that was, according to the Bible, entrusted to man, namely, to subdue the earth (cf. 1 Ex 1.15): “As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17–19). It is significant that the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced with all creatures was seen as a healing of that rupture. (…) We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that JudaeoChristian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man ‘do1 On 21 February 2007 the Presˇeren Hall of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Art was the location where the conference of Ecology of Spirit was held, promoting the dialogue between religious communities, organized by the Umanotera, Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development. The key importance of the conference was to establish a dialogue between religious communities and to address the issue of climate change as an ethical issue.

298

Nadja Furlan Sˇ tante

minion’ over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures.” (Pope Francis 2015, 37–38) For example, the Christian tradition contributed a significant number of problematic images and symbols (through the lenses of eco-feminism), which were strengthened and preserved in the form of negative stereotypes and prejudices and then anchored in the heritage of Western philosophical-religious thought. Eco-feminist Christian theologians, therefore, strive for a revival of the lost image and symbol of understanding the universe as God’s body (Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sally McFague), which was a characteristic metaphor (albeit in diverse forms) and central image of the sensitivity of the western (Mediterranean) world. This was later replaced by the mechanistic world-view in the seventeenth century (Carol Merchant and Vandana Shiva). Above all, these theologians point to the importance of the awareness, as well as the importance of interrelationship and interdependence between human and nature, which is emphasized by Pope Francis saying: “When all these relationships are ignored, when justice does no longer reside on the earth, the Bible teaches us that all life is in danger. Noah’s story gives us a moral, as God threatens to completely destroy humanity because of its continuing inability to live according to the high requirements of justice and peace (…) (Genesis 1: 6, 13). In these very old narratives filled with symbolism, the above-mentioned belief is already present, namely, that everything is interconnected and that our sincere concern for our own life and our relationship to nature is inextricably linked with fraternity, justice and fidelity in relationships to others.” (Pope Francis 2015, 39–40).

3.

A woman and nature: a call for renewed substantial evaluation and recognition

Ecological crisis is a reality, a threat and a warning to modern man. Climate changes, global warming, and the reduction of biodiversity and other processes, which are supposed to be the result of environmental pollution and long-term excessive use and consumption of natural resources, are certainly a reflection and consequence of the globalized consciousness of the consumer imperialist relationship of man vs. nature. This hypothesis can also be heard in the Pope’s words: “I do not know whether this is all merely a human error, but mostly it is.

Postmodern Perception of the Role of Women in Environmental Sensitization

299

Man is constantly slapping nature,” which the Holy Father said before journalists on the plane, somewhere halfway between the area, where, ten years ago, the tsunami killed more than 35.000 people and the area in which the Haiyan typhoon killed 6.000 people in November 2013 (the Delo newspaper 2015). Notwithstanding the claim that global warming is one of the most controversial scientific issues of our time, also because some scientists claim that the anthropogenic threat of global warming is not real,2 the ecological crisis and global warming are not just scientific questions, but questions relating to economics, sociology, ethics, values, religion, (geo) politics, and individual lifestyle choices. All these require a careful consideration both on the personal level as well as on the religious and social levels. In the last decade of the twentieth century, all major world religions began to contend with the potential damage that their traditions have caused to the perception of the environment, nature and nonhuman beings, and began to look for positive elements in their traditions for ecological and confirming spirituality for everyday practice. In the third development phase, feminist theologies spread the criticism of certain theologies in relation to nature and human creatures. Thus, different theological eco-feminisms or eco-feminist theologies critically inquire into what correlation the gender hierarchies are in each religion and culture by establishing a hierarchical valuation of the human over nature. Theological eco-feminisms strive to deconstruct the patriarchal paradigm, its hierarchical structure, methodology, and thoughts. (Radford Ruether 2005, XI). In this sense, each of the major world religions faces the challenge of selfquestioning and self-criticism in the assessment of any negative patterns that contribute to the destruction of the environment and to restore the eco-friendly traditions. According to eco-feminists, and from an ecologically fair perspective, it is essential that religions eliminate the negative stereotypes and prejudices that reinforce both the domination of human over nature and social domination. What is definitely highlighted is the positive role of women, who have an important role in the process of ethics, environmental protection, and ecological sensitizing: “(W)omen should realize that the key to both their liberation as well as the solution of ecological crisis is not within a society whose fundamental 2 The reason for climate changes are seen in the events in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of certain major events, such as the impact of a comet on the Earth’s surface, in natural climate variability (minor ice age in the 17th and 18th centuries, the natural development of the atmosphere) or in variable Sun activities. However, only a small part of the professional public concludes that global warming represents a serious global problem. American geologist James Lawrence Powell has done an analysis of scientific papers recorded in the network of Web of Science. Of the 13,950 reviewed scientific researches on global warming, written between 1991 and 2012, only 23 (0.16 %) deny global warming. Of the 33,690 authors of these studies, only 34 (0.1 %) deny global warming. James Lawrence Powell argued the in-depth findings of these studies in his monograph, Revolutions in Earth Sciences, From Heresy to Truth (2014).

300

Nadja Furlan Sˇ tante

model of relations remains the model of domination of one at the expense of another.” (Radford Ruether, 1975, 204) The international United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – UNCED in Rio de Janeiro (3rd-14th June, 1992), known as the Earth Summit, was an important milestone for the development of the conceptualisation of the man vs. nature relationship, and also for the development of eco-feminism. At the same time, different events took place, among which there was also the World Women’s Congress for a Healthy Planet, where the Women’s Action Agenda 213 was written. The agenda was to be a response to the main document Agenda 21, adopted in Rio, which connected environmental issues with women’s issues and whose aim was to actively involve women in solving environmental problems. Women are a powerful force for change. In the past two decades, thousands of new women’s groups have been organized in every region of the world, ranging from community-based groups to international networks. Everywhere, women are catalysts and initiators of environmental activism. Yet policy-makers continue to ignore the centrality of women’s roles and needs as they make Fate of the Earth decisions. “We demand our right, as half the world’s population, to bring our perspectives, values, skills and experiences into policymaking, on an equal basis with men, not only at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June 1992 but on into the 21st century.” (Women’s Action Agenda 21) In the context of environmental discourse, eco-feminism is placed among the so-called radical (revolutionary) green theories, alongside deep ecology and social ecology. As for all other radical green theories, it applies also for ecofeminism to stand for fundamental social, political, and economic changes, for the changes within the entire mental paradigm. Eco-feminists thus highlight the moral critique of modern industrial societies and the exploitative nature of neoliberal capitalism and consumer society. Eco-feminisms require deeper values, which, in turn, bring radical social, political, and economic changes. In contrast to the softer approaches in solving environmental problems, which speak in favour of “management and technological” solutions and focus merely on treating the symptoms of environmental crisis, trying to mitigate the effects of excessive interference to nature, ecofeminism treats the environmental or ecological crisis as a result of unethical and improper relationship that man has toward nature and environment, the relationship that is partly the result of the impact of the mental paradigm conceived by hierarchical Cartesian dualisms. The call for the acknowledgement of the contribution and the role of women as active co-shapers of Church life and “eco-missionaries” can be identified in the guidelines collected at the session of the Synod of Bishops on new evange3 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

Postmodern Perception of the Role of Women in Environmental Sensitization

301

lization and transmission of religion, where women were acknowledged to play a key role in the process of new evangelization and environmental sensitization. In doing so, the importance of the new evangelization in the field of ecology was greatly emphasised. The new evangelization is to highlight “the respect for all living beings, the dialogue between religion and culture, the search for common denominators with those who are open to the truth and strive for the common good.” (Radio Vatican 2012)

4.

Conclusion

The world as a whole and Slovenian society in particular, are in the process of radical social reforms. All social areas of activity are caught by the wave of changes and reforms: politics, economy, education, healthcare, etc. An important recognition, on which this paper is actually based, is that we cannot reform one part of society without reforming all others at the same time. Since all reforms are interconnected, we cannot seek to change legislation, education, and other cultural institutions without trying to change the prevailing view of the socalled cultural theology and Christian theology of the Slovenian socio-religious space at the same time. Religion played and still plays a key role both in the oppression of women and of forming a pattern in the relationship regarding the human vs. nature, as in their struggles for liberation. It is precisely in this that the importance of ecological awareness of individual believers and religious congregations is visible and recognizable, as the latter are key players in the so-called ethical ecology of spirit and ecology of nature of a particular religious and social sphere. As Francis writes: “[t]his is why the Church seeks to draw attention to our duty to care for nature” (Pope Francis 2015, 43). Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is also known as the Green Patriarch and the Eco-Pope, as Pope Francis has repeatedly been named, warn Christians that the “crime against nature is a crime against ourselves and a sin against God” (Pope Francis 2015, 8). The more people respect their neighbours, the more sense of respect for nature and the environment we will have and vice versa. In this context, the concern for the environment is always the concern for people. An ecological conversion, already urged by John Paul II, is necessary to create lasting change and is consequently a social conversion. In doing so, what is relevant are moderation and modesty, but above all, the harmony of the heart, which justifies the belief that “less is more.” Last, but not least, the word ecology does come from the Greek word oikos meaning home (Hartman 2011, 147). This means that the very etymology of the word ecology calls for care for our common home.

302

Nadja Furlan Sˇ tante

References Delo. 2015. Papezˇ Francˇisˇek na Filipinih: cˇlovek je naravi prisolil klofuto. 17. januar. Furlan Sˇtante, N. 2014, V iskanju Boginje, Koper : Annales. Held, V. 2006. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political and Global, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Jogan, M. 1990. Druzˇbena konstrukcija hierarhije med spoloma. Ljubljana: FDV. Papezˇ Francˇisˇek, Okrozˇnica o skrbi za skupni dom, Hvaljen, moj Gospod, Laudati si’, CD 149, Ljubljana: Druzˇina. Powell, J. L. 2014. Revolutions in Earth Sciences, from heresy to truth, New York: Columbia University Press. Radford Ruether, R. 1975. New Woman, New Earth, New York: Seabury Press. Radford Ruether, R. 1992. Gaia and God, New York: HarperOne. Radford Ruether, R. 2005, Integrating Ecofeminism Globalization and World Religions. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Radio Vatikan. 2012. Zasedanje sinode: Beseda tekla o vlogi zˇensk v Cerkvi, ekologiji in pricˇevanju vere. 10. oktober. http://sl.radiovaticana.va/storico/2012/10/10/zasedanje_ sinode:_beseda_tekla_o_vlogi_%C5%BEensk_v_cerkvi%2C_ekologiji_i/slv-628677 (20. 2. 2013). Schochet, J. 1984. Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: Attitudes and Relationships, New York, KTAV. Sveto Pismo. Slovenski standardni prevod iz izvirnih jezikov. 1996. Ljubljana: Svetopisemska druzˇba Slovenije. Umanotera. Tadej Strehovec. http://www.umanotera.org/upload/files/ekologija_duha.pdf (25. 5. 2016). Women’s Action Agenda 21 (2013): https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docu ments/Agenda21.pdf (12. 2. 2013).

Larissa Hrotkj (Budapest)

The Social, Political and Religious Conflicts about Gender in Hungary and Hungarian Judaism

1.

Introduction

The term emancipation means, on the one hand, the liberation from dependence and, on the other hand, the legal and social equality of people or ethnical and religious groups. To be emancipated means to be emancipated with respect to somebody, whereby the status of culture, civilization and sociability to be attained is not merely abstract but involves real social groups which one wants to emancipate (Kiss, Endre 2009, 26). Women’s emancipation is philosophically viewed as a “socialization” of universal emancipation, a sociological concretization of the emancipatory idea, which inevitably leads to the politicization of emancipation. Women are obliged to be emancipated with respect to men, who are considered to be the social pattern. This necessity of comparing themselves with men appears at the same time as an emancipatory problem itself, because men’s emancipation has not yet reached the desired state of a just and happy society. One of the European Commission’s goals is the economic emancipation of women. For the execution of this task, they conducted comprehensive analyses of labour markets in different countries. The Hungarian studies showed an unfavourable situation. In the employment system, women are below average, which means that they fundamentally earn less pay and receive less social welfare than men. The same applies to equality in economic management. Despite the changes in training/apprenticeship relationships, the participation in economic leadership only changed minimally across Europe. One of the possible reasons is the commission mentioned is the so-called metaphor of the labyrinth. It is stated that women find themselves in a state of confusion due to the resistance, the prejudices and the difficulties they face while attempting to combine personal life and work. Hungary is ranked 99 out of 145 countries in the statistics concerning the social and economic emancipation of women, which some analysts try to explain by reference to the low gross national product

304

Larissa Hrotkó

(“Siralmas a no˝k helyzete Magyarorsz#gon.” Portfolio 2016). The commission statistically measured: – Economic participation and professional opportunities – Participation in education and training – Health and life expectancy – Political power The biggest statistical gap was found among women with higher income. There is a 26 percent gap between Hungarian men and women among higher income earners. In the lower and middle income wage categories, the Hungarian statistics look surprisingly okay (“Üvegplafon. A no˝k helyzete a mai magyar gazdas#gban”)1 The discrimination during the presidential election seems to be mainly implicit. Female candidates are subconsciously rated as less suitable solely due to their gender. Social prejudices play a negative role, because women (especially working mothers) are seen as weaker leaders. Research shows that this is not the case. The deficit of women in leadership positions is economically a disadvantage. On the one hand, economic efficiency suffers when potentially good female leaders are working in less suitable positions. On the other hand, country will be happier where the wages and prospects of being a leader are measured only according to talent and achievements.

2.

Women’s and men’s emancipation in Hungary’s Judaism

The salons or tea tables which symbolize Jewish women’s emancipation in Vienna and Berlin are unfortunately not known to Judaism in Budapest. The historic meaning of the Jewish salons for emancipation around 1800 must be emphasized. “[The salon] was not just a contemporary of two important emancipatory discourses – the so-called ‘tolerance debate’ about the political and social equality of the Jewish population and the debate about the character of the gender, which sought to re-determine the very nature and tasks of genders, and which ultimately resulted in the formation of the civil [bürgerlich] image of women.” (Lund 2009, 5 [2–9]). The salon was the intersection of debates about the civil [bürgerlich] improvements of Jewish people and women. The recognition and official emancipation of Hungary’s Jewry in the second half of the 19th century affected Jewish women only partly or indirectly. The tension between traditional behavioural norms, values and reality in everyday life was especially high in urbanized Jewish civil society at the turn of the century (Andrea Peto˝, 2002, 78). The social role of Jewish women within the religion was 1 Glass Ceiling. The situation of women in the hungarian economy today.

The Social, Political and Religious Conflicts about Gender

305

limited to charity. Women’s emancipation posed a threat to religion. Before women entered society, the clerical pot of money only had to be distributed to men. For this purpose, men developed strategies which did not work properly anymore after women appeared in the field. And yet right up to today they block women’s path to success and financial stability. One of these strategies can be described as “bratisasch” or “Kumpelschaft” (‘chum-ship’). This can be understood as the uniting of like-minded people to preserve financial and societal advantages in a social environment. This is the discriminatory and sexist strategy that is especially effective at the higher levels of the economy and religion. Furthermore in the religious sphere there is the preached tradition, i. e. the code of conduct in which the main topic is prohibitions regarding contact with women. Hungary’s neolog Jews wanted to reconcile the Enlightenment with the Jewish tradition. This is why they could not ignore female emancipation.2 New prayers books were written for women to keep emancipated Jewish women within Judaism. Since Jewish women were not able to assert themselves within the scope of religion, they started careers in civil professions, especially in medicine and education. In many cases, this led them to leave the religious community. Today, women in neologian synagogues are different from their mothers and grandmothers. The biggest change occurred in the consciousness of Jewish women. The Shoa and the foundation of the Jewish state contributed to the fact that now Jewish society is inconceivable without women. The foundation of Israel brought Jewish women into society and into the public sphere, where they slowly began to represent all professional activities successfully. The orthodox community needs to realize this as well, and yet it tries to limit women’s influence on “civil” activities. Today’s leadership of Neology – often under pressure from the socio-political situation of the community – impedes women from expressly stating their will to finally be emancipated, so that women cannot be provided with an actual overview of the neologian community’s situation. I should emphasize that Jewish Neology is the religious movement that especially values the diversity of Jewish culture and free development of personality. Hungarian Neology was and remains more rooted in tradition than more liberal or progressive synagogues. It avoids the Reform Synagogue’s renewal of liturgical tradition, it officially rejects homosexuality, it recognizes neither the ordination of women nor women minyans and insists on the halachic concept of Judaism. The same applies to the traditional role of women in the synagogue community. Recently, rabbis are trying more intensely to teach children’s education according to male Jewish traditions. Reforms in this area are unavoidable. There are several halachic arguments concerning the question of why women are 2 Neology formed in 1869 as a special hungarian school of thought of the Jewish revival/renewal movement, known for adopting the Hungarian language and culture.

306

Larissa Hrotkó

not allowed to lead the liturgy or publicly read the Torah, though neologian women do accept one of them. This is the alleged impurity of women due to menstruation, birth or any form of uterine bleeding. The bleeding woman must be separated from male society and from social life at the same time. This is the law of the Nida3. For this reason, many women in the neologian community refuse to touch the Torah, let alone step up on the Bima4. Their fathers, husbands and sons represent them, which is why it is still important today to prepare the male representatives for this role. Many women voluntarily renounce authority and the opportunity to join rabbinical professions. From an emancipatory viewpoint, we must not ignore the ordination of women and the question of the “impurity of women”. The relative but still persistent connection with orthodoxy represents more, politically and emotionally, for the Hungarian Neology than is publically acknowledged. Many Neologians come from Hungarian Orthodoxy and have Orthodox relatives. The conservation of Hungarian Jewish identity is also a reason why the Neologians want to support the Hungarian orthodoxy, or at least not upset them too much. This is why they manoeuvre themselves on thin ice between liberal Judaism and orthodoxy. At one moment, we are more orthodox than ever and even have the Mechiza5 in the prayer room at our disposal as a sign of piety, at another moment our chief rabbi will explain that praying the Kadish cannot be forbidden to women. The ambiguity in the emancipation of men in the synagogue entails the merely apparent emancipation of neologian Jewish women. The secondary status of women is not only found in the liturgy, but also in the administration of the community. Even though at least half of membership is women, only two women are working in the leadership of MAZSIHISZ.

3.

Closing Remarks

The situation regarding the equality of women in religion does not differ very much from the situation in the economy : Women have been recognized as equal persons, but they occupy few positions which bring authority and higher income with them. The situation of neologian Jewish women in Hungary does not seem to be very different from the situation of German Jewish women in the traditional synagogues. Some thoughts from Hannah Peacemann’s contribution to the Bet Debora 2016 may be edifying here. In her contribution to the conference Bet Debora in 2016, Hannah Peacemann emphasized that in the majority of Jewish 3 A tract in the Talmud. 4 Reading stage. 5 Dividing curtain.

The Social, Political and Religious Conflicts about Gender

307

contexts, women are playing only marginalized roles. Despite diverse feministJewish organizations, despite the demand for gender equality in larger parts of the world, the disadvantage of women in Jewish contexts remains a status quo (Hannah Peaceman, 2016, not published)6. I am not very optimistic that this situation will be acknowledged adequately, because most Jewish women of the Hungarian neology seem to accept the disadvantages and do not perceive their situation as a dysfunction of social structures.

References Hannah Lotte Lund, Nachtthee, Networking und Emanzipation oder : Was macht eine Berliner Saloni8re 1799 In: Salondamen und Dienstboten. Jüdisches Bürgertum um 1800 aus weiblicher Sicht, Wien, 2009, 2–9. Kiss Endre, Abschied von den Mythen und die spezifische Notwendigkeit der Emanzipation In: Kiss Endre, Judentum-Emanzipation-Mitteleuropa, Budapest, 2009. 24–32. Andrea Peto˝, “A fifflnak nevelt l#nyok” 8s tikkun olam szerepe a magyarorsz#gi zsidj no˝k politikai szerepv#llal#sban In: Toronyi Zsuzsanna (ed.) A zsidj no˝ 2002, 77–86. Siralmas a no˝k helyzete Magyarorsz#gon. In: Portfolio www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/…/ siralmas_a_nok_helyzete_magyarorszagon.235208.html. Üvegplafon. A no˝k helyzete a mai magyar gazdas#gban. In: H&rek https://szakszervezetek. hu/h&rek/2712-a-nok-helyzete-a-mai-magyar-gazdasagban 2015.12.28.

6 Hannah Peaceman, Zum erkenntnistheoretischen Privileg feministisch-jüdischer Perspektiven, Speech of September 4th 2016, Wroclaw/Breslau, Poland. Unpublished.

L&dia Balogh (Budapest)

The Evolution of Gender Roles and the Situation of Women in the Context of Protestant Traditions

The hypothesis of the paper is that Protestantism is not just open towards the idea of gender equality, but has actually played a proactive role regarding women’s emancipation through the implementation of some of the core Protestant doctrines. Focusing particularly on Calvinism, this paper investigates possible interpretations of a Biblical narrative, whereby the implications regarding gender equality are rooted in core aspects of Protestant traditions. I pay special attention to the Hungarian context.

1.

A Biblical narrative

The starting point of my argument in this paper draws on the narrative from the Book of Acts in the New Testament, which is centered on a female character called Lydia: “And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. / Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. / And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.”1 The plot of this story is told in not more than four verses,2 but throughout this paper, I will reconstruct this passage based on the Biblical context in which it is told, and thereby complement my interpretation with historical research. The story is taken from an episode of Paul’s missionary journeys; the venue is Philippi, a city in the Roman province of Macedonia. Located on the current 1 Acts 16:13–15 (New King James Version). 2 The central figure, Lydia is mentioned once again, later in the same chapter, at Acts 16:40: “So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.”

310

Lídia Balogh

territory of Greece, this was the first settlement in Europe, where Apostle Paul and his companions arrived to spread the Gospel to the local “God-fearing” (supposedly Jewish monotheist) community. Lydia, as her name indicates, was originally from the Roman province of Lydia, a region of Asia Minor (currently part of the territory of Turkey). Her home city, Thyatira was a centre of purple cloth trade; a certain kind of marine snails were collected there from the sea to use the mucuous secretum of the snails as a purple dye substance for textiles. Since the purple-dyed clothes were high-selling luxury goods by that time, we may presume that Lydia, as a purple seller, operated a profitable business.3 Since she could decide on her own whether or not to host a group of men who came from afar, she was apparently a householder4, and perhaps a socially and economically independent, single woman; maybe even a widow.5

2.

Protestantism and the emancipation of women

The following section of the paper jumps forward in time from Biblical times to the Reformation era in order to investigate the eventual impact of Protestantism on gender, with special attention given to Calvinism. According to Merry E. Wiesner’s presumption, “[t]he institutional and political changes which accompanied the Reformation often affected women’s lives more than changes in religious ideas alone”.6 As Wiesner points out, from the 1970s, “the rise of women’s history and family history has led to new ways of exploring issues of gender”, and scholars started to evaluate “the reformers’ ideas about women” with more care.7 In a book published in 1974, Jane Dempsey Douglass highlights the gender implications and impacts of two core Calvinist doctrines, namely ‘vocation’ and ‘universal priesthood’.8 As to the first doctrine, Calvin professed that every

3 See e. g. Kl#ra Lenkeyn8 Semsey, “Az Apostolok Cselekedeteiro˝l 2rott Könyv Magyar#zata,” in a Szent&r#s Magyar#zata: Jubileumi Komment#r (Budapest: Magyarorsz#gi Reform#tus Egyh#z K#lvin J#nos Kiadjja, 1995). p. 2082.; Richard S. Ascough, Lydia : Paul’s Cosmopolitan Hostess, Paul’s Social Network : Brothers and Sisters in Faith (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2009). 4 See e. g. Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Women Householders of Acts in Light of Recent Research on Families,” in Finding a Woman’s Place: Essays in Honor of Carolyn Osiek, ed. David L. Balch and Jason T. Lamoreaux, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011). 5 See e. g. Ascough, Lydia : Paul’s Cosmopolitan Hostess. 6 Merry E. Wiesner, “Beyond Women and the Family : towards a Gender Analysis of the Reformation,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 18, no. 3 (Autumn) (1987). p. 313. 7 Ibid. p. 312. 8 Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Women and the Continental Reformation,” in Religion and Sexism:

The Evolution of Gender Roles

311

Christian has a calling to serve God in the world, and stressed the importance of fulfilling one’s vocation.9 This idea that all Christians, men and women alike, are not only supposed to aim for the salvation of their souls, but also to find and complete their worldly missions, may have implicitly broadened the range of available social roles (and professions) for women.10 The other relevant doctrine also included in the Heidelberg Catechism11, ‘universal priesthood’, is derived from, among others, this Biblical verse: “you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”12. The idea that any Christian can talk to God directly is connected to the principle of sola scriptura. Douglass claims that the obligation of every believer to study the Bible individually facilitated the spread of literacy through the provision of primary education, both for girls and for boys.13 Kenneth J. Stewart’s monograph from 2011 discusses the ‘myths’, or unfounded accusations about Calvinist Protestantism, among others that Calvinism would ‘resist gender equality’.14 While Stewart does not claim that Calvin had explicitly encouraged women’s emancipation, he agrees with Douglas in holding the opinion that some Calvinist doctrines inherently paved the way for gender equality, e. g. the religious obligation to read the Holy Scriptures led to increased literacy rates among women and girls. Moreover, Stewart stresses that the Calvinist concept of marriage, including the possibility for divorce, also contributed to the improvement of (the Protestant) women’s status in the society. According to some historians, the Reformation had far-reaching impact on ideas of gender. Sascha O. Becker, Steven Pfaff and Jared Rubin, who summarize and synthetize previous research findings regarding the social impacts of

9

10 11 12 13 14

Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Rosemary Ruether (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1974). See: Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Institutio Religionis Christianae), trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press (Originally published in 1960 by the Westminster Press of Philadelphia, and the S.C.M. Press of London), 2006). Douglass, “Women and the Continental Reformation.” Heidelberg Catechism (translation approved by Synod 2011 of the Christian Reformed Church in North America and by General Synod 2011 of the Reformed Church in America), Lord’s Day 12, Q & A 32. 1 Peter 2:5 (New King James Version). Douglass, “Women and the Continental Reformation.” Stewart aims at demolishing four myths that, according to his perception, are held by Calvinists themselves, and six other myths believed by non-Calvinists. These are the latter: Calvinism is largely anti-missionary ; ii) Calvinism promotes antinomianism; iii) Calvinism leads to theocracy ; iv) Calvinism undermines the creative arts; v) Calvinism resists gender equality, and vi) Calvinism has fostered racial inequality. – Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011).

312

Lídia Balogh

Protestantism, highlight the historical fact that, in accordance with Luther’s explicit request, many Protestant towns in Prussia established schools for girls (alongside schools for boys); they claim that “Luther’s desire for relative gender equality in education had long run effects.”15 As a consequence, Protestant communities in this region “not only had higher literacy rates on average, but also a smaller gender gap in literacy,” even in the late 19th-century ; although later the enforcement of compulsory education laws eliminated the gender gap in elementary schooling, the phenomenon persisted in university enrolment until the post-WWII era, but again, the gender gap was more narrow among Protestants than among Catholics.16 Moreover, Inglehardt’s longitudinal-comparative analysis shows that women in Protestant-dominated European regions have shown increased interest towards public life compared to women living in (mainly) Catholic regions.17 An anecdotal example from the 21st-century also sheds some light on the embeddedness of the egalitarian traditions in the context of Protestantism. In 2010, the wedding plans of the heir of the Swedish monarchy, Crown Princess Victoria, stirred public debates in Sweden: as if it were a Hollywood movie, Victoria, the bride, wanted her father, the king, to lead her to the altar and hand her over to the groom. According to critics, including Protestant priests18, this plan defied the tradition of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, namely that the bride and groom walk to the altar together as equal partners; they claimed that the “handover of the bride” symbolizes reactionary gender roles by suggesting that an unmarried woman is not an autonomous individual, but the property of her father. Eventually, as a compromise, the king handed over his daughter to the groom at the entrance of the church, before they reached the altar.

3.

Interpretations of the narrative about Lydia

In this section, I return to the Biblical narrative presented in the introduction. Over many centuries, and in different contexts of Christianity, numerous analyses and interpretations of the story of Lydia have been published, including several monographs. Notably, in 1644, Johann Andreas Piccart, an author who lived in the Early Modern Period in Bavaria, published Lydia Purpuraria (‘Lydia, 15 Sascha O. Becker, Steven Pfaff, and Jared Rubin, “Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Reformation,” Explorations in Economic History 62, no. 1–25 (2016), p. 11. 16 Ibid., p. 12. 17 Margaret Inglehart, “Political Interest in West European Women: an Historical and Empirical Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies 14, no. 3 (October) (1981). 18 See e. g. Annika Borg, “Victoria M,ste Tänka Om När Det Gäller Bröllopet,” Dagens Nyheter, 22 April 2010.

The Evolution of Gender Roles

313

the Seller of Purple’)19, which concerns the Biblical character honoured as a saint by Catholics. Since then, the Lutheran theologian from Germany, Luise Schottroff, dedicated a chapter entitled, ‘Lydia: a New Quality of Power’ to an edited volume on Feminist New Testament interpretations in 1993.20 Schottroff also published a monograph on the social history of Early Christianity from a Feminist perspective, which published in German in 1994,21 while an English edition appeared in 1995 under the title Lydia’s Inpatient Sisters (referring to the female character in the Book of Acts).22 In 2009, the Canadian scholar of religious studies, Richard S. Ascough, published a monograph entitled Lydia, Paul’s Cosmopolitan hostess, which aimed to reconstruct the socio-historical context of the Biblical story.23 The book chapter of Shelly Mathews, an American theologian, on “Acts 16 and the legitimating function of high-standing women in missionary propaganda” also discusses the character of Lydia in the New Testament.24 The Canadian Theologian, Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay’s 2016 book, Lydia as A rhetorical Construct in Acts, provides an overview of the history of interpretation of the Biblical narrative by presenting a feminist critical approach.25

4.

The Significance of the Story of Lydia

From the perspective of European Christianity as a whole, the symbolic importance of the story of Lydia is provided by the circumstance that Paul entered the territory of Europe at Philippi, thus Lydia is to be considered the first European Christian in history. The episode may bear special importance for Protestants, especially Calvinists, due to several dimensions of the story, the first of which concerns the applicability of the concept of vocation. Notably, in his Bible Commentaries (16:11–15), John Calvin discusses the story of Lydia as an 19 Johann Andreas Piccart, Lydia Purpuraria Virtutum Pulcherrimarum Ceu Optimarum Mercium Pararia: Die Tugend-Purpur-Krämerin Aus D. 14. V. D. 16. C. Der Apost. Gesch. Bey Christbräuchlicher Copulation J. Christ Weissen Handelsmanns Vorgestellt (1664). 20 Luise Schottroff, “Lydia: A New Quality of Power,” in Let the Oppressed Go Free: feminist Perspectives on the New Testament, Gender and the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993). 21 “Lydias Ungeduldige Schwestern: Feministische Sozialgeschichte Des Frühen Christentums,” (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gu¨ tersloher Verlagshaus, 1994). 22 Lydia’s Impatient Sisters : A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity, trans. Barbara Rumscheidt and Martin Rumscheidt (Louisville, KY: Westminter John Knox Press, 1995). 23 Ascough, Lydia : Paul’s Cosmopolitan Hostess. 24 Shelly Matthews, First Converts: rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early judaism and Christianity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). 25 Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay, Lydia as A rhetorical Construct in Acts, Emory Studies in Early Christianity (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016).

314

Lídia Balogh

example of “free election”, which is driven by “godly desire” for faith.26 Gene Taylor’s collection of Calvinist sermons, published in the United States in 1995 presents the story to illustrate the doctrine of ‘irresistible grace’, as included in the Canons of Dort (issued at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–1619).27 From the perspective of Feminist Biblical interpretation, the story of Lydia may have special relevance, given the condition that the central figure (namely, the first Christian in Europe) is a woman, an argument that has been reflected in contemporary discourses on the New Testament and Christianity.

5.

The narrative in the Hungarian Calvinist context

Calvinism has played a significant role in the history of Christianity in Hungary. Following Roman Catholics, Calvinists are the second largest religious population in the country, according to the last census data from 2011.28 The story of Lydia holds specific importance in the Calvinists traditions in Hungary. This is not only supported by the fact that the narrative is frequently used in sermons, but also manifested by the popularity of the female name ‘Lydia’ in Calvinist communities in Hungary. The latter phenomenon is documented by the Ethnographical Map of Hungary, showing that more than 10 % of girls were given this name in Calvinist-dominated regions of the country around the beginning of the 20th-century, while, e. g. in Catholic communities the name ‘Lydia’ was virtually not present.29 In accordance with Calvin’s interpretation, the Hungarian Reformed (Calvinist) Church’s Bible Commentaries refer to Lydia’s story (in the introduction part) as an example of the ‘inner testimony of the Holy Spirit’ (by citing the relevant Biblical verse, i. e. “The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”).30 Moreover, according to the Calvinist interpretation traditions in Hungary, the story also sheds light on the other side of Calvin’s concept of vocation, that is, the importance of finding and fulfilling one’s worldly mission. This interpretation, as included in the Bible Commentaries in Hungarian, is based on a presumed continuation of the Biblical story : 26 Jean Calvin, Commentaries, Library of Christian Classics (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Transcribed from the 1958 edition, Westminster Press of Philadelphia), 2000). 27 Gene Taylor, “Calvinism: Analyzed and Answered,” (Tallahassee, FL1995), p. 22. 28 Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 2011. 8vi n8psz#ml#l#s, vol. 10. Vall#s, felekezet (Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 2014). p. 14, Table 1.1. 29 Magyar N8prajzi Atlasz, vol. VII. 440–507. t8rk8p (Akad8miai Kiadj, 1992)., Map No. 490. (by Zsolt Csalog). 30 Istv#n Czegl8dy, “]ltal#nos t#j8koztatj a Szent&r#srjl: kijelent8s, üdvtört8net, =szövets8g, 5jszövets8g, Szent&r#s 8s Szentl8lek,” in A Szent&r#s magyar#zata: jubileumi komment#r (Budapest: Magyarorsz#gi Reform#tus Egyh#z K#lvin J#nos Kiadjja, 1995).

The Evolution of Gender Roles

315

“Lydia was a diligent and energetic woman, who had a well-paying job. God made her to serve a great cause: the worldwide missionary work. Among the given conditions, she found the appropriate way to facilitate the spread of the Gospel, the way that enables her to undertake the service of Christ. She never left her job, but used the profit of her business to help the servants of the Gospel”.31 This interpretation may be considered as speculative or arbitrary, given that there is no explicit reference in the Bible regarding Lydia later in her life; whether she kept her position in society, or whether she chose an ascetic way of life. However, this interpretation of the narrative is clearly in line with Weber’s views of Protestant (first of all, Calvinist) ethics and capitalism.32 Regarding social modernization in Europe, Weber emphasizes the importance of the rational lifestyle model of Protestants, based on the concept of the worldly mission of believers, and on the reconciliation of Christianity and profitable (but decent) business activities. With regard to the interpretation of the story from the perspective of gender, the works of Kl#ra Lenkeyn8 Semsey, a scholar and prominent supporter of women’s ordination within the Calvinist Church in Hungary,33 stands out foremost. Lenkeyn8, who also authored part of the Hungarian Bible commentaries on Lydia’s worldly mission previously mentioned, emphasises that “[t]he Gospel was brought to Europe by men, but it took a woman to become the first European Christian”, and claims that ‘Lydia represents the type of the well-situated, autonomously working, independent woman’.34 By saying this, Lenkeyn8 does not just draw parallels between the New Testament era and today, but uses the Biblical narrative to legitimize progressive gender norms versus the traditional approach that limits women’s roles as complementary to men’s roles. Lenkeyn8 dedicated a chapter to the interpretation of Lydia’s story in her 1993 monograph on female characters in the New Testament,35 and discussed the narrative in detail in a book published in 1996, under the title that translates as “Followers of Jesus, Messengers of Jesus: Mary, Martha, Lydia and many others”.36 As for the contemporary reception of the Book of Acts narrative in Hungary, a Christian women’s magazine, entitled Lydia, was launched in the 1980s in Ger31 Lenkeyn8 Semsey, “Az Apostolok Cselekedeteiro˝l &rott könyv magyar#zata.” p. 2082. 32 Max Weber, “Die Protestantische Ethik Und Der Geist Des Kapitalismus,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik 20–21 (1904–1905). 33 See e. g.: Kl#ra Lenkeyn8 Semsey, “A no˝k ordin#cijja mellett,” Reform#tusok Lapja XXV, no. 1. (1981). 34 Lenkeyn8 Semsey, “Az Apostolok Cselekedeteiro˝l &rott könyv magyar#zata.” p. 2082. 35 Kl#ra Lenkeyn8 Semsey, “L&dia, az elso˝ eurjpai kereszt8ny,” in A no˝k az 5jszövets8gben, az 5jszövets8g a no˝kro˝l (Budapest: Magyarorsz#gi Reform#tus Egyh#z K#lvin J#nos Kiadjja, 1993). pp 204–205. 36 J8zus követo˝i, J8zus h&rnökei: M#ria, M#rta, L&dia 8s sokan m#sok (Debrecen: Böszörm8nyi J. lelk8sz 8s neje Eml8kalap&tv#ny, 1997).

316

Lídia Balogh

many, and later made available in Romanian and in Hungarian as well. The introduction to the Hungarian version emphasises the relevance and timeliness of the story : ‘we chose to name our magazine after a woman who’s every day life is comparable with the daily lives of busy working women today, and whose faithful life can be exemplary for us’.37

6.

Conclusion

Calvin’s doctrine of vocation, including the aspect of worldly mission, contributed implicitly to the improvement of the social status of women, and explicitly by widening available roles in society for women. The story of Lydia in the Book of Acts is often used in Protestant contexts to illustrate these concepts, sometimes in line with the Weberian understanding of Protestant work ethics and approach towards economic success. The popularity of the figure of Lydia in the Calvinist traditions, at least in the Hungarian context, may be perceived as a sign of openness towards women’s advancement in society and in the church. The fact itself that this narrative dedicated to a strong female character is frequently discussed and interpreted suggests that Calvinism accepts progressive gender roles. Moreover, some of the interpretations explicitly emphasise that the story is about an independent, economically active woman, whose identity is defined by her profession, and whose role is not complementary or relational to a man. These interpretations are appropriate tools for arguing in favour of gender equality, including women’s increased participation in decision-making, both in the church and in the wider society.

37 See the Hungarian version at http://www.lydia.hu (the German version is available at: http:// www.lydia.net).

About the Authors

Kochurani Abraham, PhD, is an independent feminist theologian and gender researcher in Kerala (India). She is a former coordinator Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA) and currently serves as Vice President of the Indian Theological Association (ITA). Elzbieta Adamiak, Dr. theol., is Professor for Fundamental Theology and Dogmatic at the University Koblenz-Landau (Germany). L&dia Balogh, PhD, is Junior Research Fellow at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Social Sciences. Margaret Beirne RSC, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College in Sydney (Australia). Angela Berlis, Dr. theol., is Professor for Church History in the Department of Old Catholic Theology in Bern (Switzerland). She is ordained priest of the Old Catholic Church and served 2007–11 as President of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR). Sharon Bong, PhD, is assoc. Professor of Gender Studies at the Monash University (Malaysia) and former Coordinator of the Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA). Chris Burke IBVM, PhD, is founder and director of the House of Studies of the Australia & South East Asia Province of the Loreto Sisters in Manila (Philippines). Eamonn Conway, Dr theol., is Professor for Theology and Religious Studies at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick (Ireland) and served 2009–11 as President

318

About the Authors

of the European Society for Catholic Theology (ESCT) and 2011–14 as President of the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (INSeCT). Maaike de Haardt, Dr. theol., was Catharina Halkes Professor of Religion and Gender at the Radboud University in Nijmegen (Netherlands) and served 2011–15 as President of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR). Ramon Echica, STD, is Professor and Dean of Studies at the San Carlos Major Seminary in Cebu (Philippines) and served as President of the Catholic Theological Society of the Philippines (DAKATEO). Teresa Forcades i Vila OSB, Dr. med & Dr. theol, is a Benedictin nun in the Monastery of Montserrat and works in the fields of theology and medicine from a feminist perspective. 2009–11 she served as Vice President of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR). Nadja Furlan Sˇtante, PhD, is assoc. Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Maribor (Slovenia). Tallessyn Grenfell-Lee, PhD, research in the fields of ecofeminism and medical ethics, lives and works in Central Massachusetts (USA). Marianne Heimbach-Steins, Dr. theol. habil, is Professor of Christian Social Ethics and Director of the Institute for Christian Social Siences at the University of Münster (Germany) and serves at the Planning Committee of the Network “Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church”. Larissa Hrotkj, PhD, is philologist, feminist theologian, and Jewish cultural historian in Budapest (Hungary). Martin Lintner OSM, Dr. theol, is Professor of Moral Theology at the Philosophical-Theological Academy in Brixen/Bressanone (South Tyrol/Italy) and served 2013–15 as President of the European Society of Catholic Theology (ESCT) and 2014–17 as President of the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (INSeCT). Gerhard Marschütz, Dr. theol., is assoc. Professor of Theological Ethics at the University of Vienna (Austria).

About the Authors

319

Maria K. Moser, Dr. theol., is a feminist theologian and Pastor of the Lutheran Church in Vienna (Austria). She serves as Director of the Evangelical Social Organisation “Diakonie Austria”. Shalini Mulackal PBVM, PhD, is Professor of Systematic Theology at Vidyajyoti College of Theology, Delhi (India). She served as Coordinator of the Indian Women Theologians Forum (IWTF) and Ecclesia of Women of Asia (EWA). Serena Noceti, Dr. theol., is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy in Florence (Italy). Rita Perintfalvi, Dr. theol., is feminist theologian and biblical scientist in field of Old Testament Studies in Budapest (Hungary). 2009–15 she served as board member of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR). Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel, Dr. theol., is assoc. Professor of Theological Ethics at the University of Vienna (Austria) and currently serves at the Steering Committee of the International Network of Societies for Catholic Theology (INSeCT). Janine Redemann, Dr. theol, is Researcher at the Department of Pedagogy of Religion at the University of Vechta (Germany). Virginia Saldanha, feminist theologian in Mumbai (India), was Executive Secretary of the Women’s Desk of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) and worked also for the Indian Bishops’ Conference. Currently she serves as Consultor of Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA). Gemma Simmonds CJ, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Pastoral and Social Studies and Theology at Heythrop College, London (Great Britain). 2014–16 she served as President of the Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain (CTAGB). Agnethe Siquans, Dr. theol., is assoc. Prof. for Old Testament Studies at the University of Vienna (Austria) and board member of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR). Saskia Wendel, Dr. theol. habil., is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Cologne (Germany).