Benedict XVI: The View from Germany
August 22, 2006, 9:05 am
Posted by John McGreevy
This interview with Benedict XVI conducted by German television reporters, struck me as interesting for a number of reasons, notably his views on the Middle East, women in the church (disappointingly vague in contrast to the sharp intelligence on display throughout the interview), secular Europe and other matters. The most insistent (and to my mind attractive) theme — now evident in Deus Caritas Est as well — is his desire to present a positive view of Catholicism, as something richer and more meaningful than a church poised at every instant to say “no.”
Mr. McGreevy,
I am curious about what exactly what you found vague about his statement on women in the Church. I read the interview, and while this statement is short, it certainly didn’t seem vague to me – what were you looking for?
I thought the Pope was eloquent in many of his responses, especially about moral relativism and a new wave of secularization in the western world, but I have to agree with Prof. McGreevy that the Pope’s statement on the ordination of women was, as Prof. McGreevy says, vague when contrasted to the Pope’s responses to other questions.
I was heartened that the Pope began his answer by saying that “[w]e reflect a lot about this subject, of course,” but he immediately followed this with “we believe that our faith and the constitution of the college of the Apostles, obliges us and doesn’t allow us to confer priestly ordination on women.” I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with, the all-male Apostles argument that is asserted for the prohibition on female ordination, but then the Pope continues with the following:
“I believe that women themselves, with their energy and strength, with their superiority, with what I’d call their “spiritual power,” will know how to make their own space. And we will have to try and listen to God so as not to stand in their way but, on the contrary, to rejoice when the female element achieves the fully effective place in the Church best suited to her, starting with the Mother of God and with Mary Magdalene.”
It appears the Pope is leaving it to women (“with their superiority”??) to find their “fully effective place” in the Church. This seems pretty vague to me. True, the Pope says earlier that he will help women look for their “right place” in the Church (what exactly is “right place”?), but the Pope also says that he will listen to God “so as not to stand in their way.” With all due respect, I think more is called for by the Church’s hierarchy as to the role of women in the Church than to assert the prohibition on ordination and then step aside because women will know best how to find their “right place” in the Church.
As to my own feelings on the issue of ordination of women, I admit to having a lot of trouble squaring the notion of the all-loving God I deeply believe in with the purportedly faith-based restriction on the gender of priests. I find it difficult to believe that God would create a barrier to the priesthood that is based solely on the fortuitous circumsatance of having an XY chromosome combination instead of an XX combination.
I also have the more practical and immediate problem of explaining to my daughter–raised by her parents with the mantra and assurance that women can achieve whatever men can, and now entering her third year of college with the possibilities and opportunities of the world open to her–why the Church has imposed a gender-based obstacle in the way of women who express an interest in the priesthood. My answers are never suficient for her, and I feel her attachment to the Church straining under the weight of this issue. Sadly, I doubt I’m the only father with insufficient answers for his daughter.
Did anybody seriously expect the Pope to come out and say we should ordain women right today?
I thought what he did say was an invitation to women to find their place in the church, and to praise Hildegard, Catherine and Birgitta, three of my Holy Faves. Might have been nice if he had also mentioned some non-celibate types, too, but not a bad start.
I also liked what he said about humor and humility (especially since German humor is considered an oxymoron in some circles):
Fuchs: Stories with humor in them too? In 1989 in Munich you were given the Karl Valentin Award. What role does humor play in the life of a pope?
I’m not a man who constantly thinks up jokes. But I think it’s very important to be able to see the funny side of life and its joyful dimension and not to take everything too tragically. I’d also say it’s necessary for my ministry. A writer once said that angels can fly because they don’t take themselves too seriously. Maybe we could also fly a bit if we didn’t think we were so important.
As to the role of women,I thought the main point for today is that Canon Law keeps non-ordains from decision making power. Since Canon Law can (and should) be changed, this seems like an opening that needs some follow up!
The main thing though is how people in our individualized world find God. Last week, for the first time, at our annual conference on aging, we had a workshop on spirituality. The key notion discussed was how people experience unconditional love often analogously.
I mentioned the best seller “Marley and Me” about a couple’s growth in many ways from the lessons they learn from their loving (“world’s worst”) dog! The author describes himself as Catholic but seems to gain little insight from his Church.
Could it be that our divided, balkanized Church shows far too little of the unconditional love BXVI espouses and far too much of the individualism(“i’m right, you’re wrong”), that undercuts the sense of love and community he sees we need?
“Not stand in their way?” Compared to JP this is an enormous jump and substantial progress. Women need no active help from the pope and are willing to go forward if the hierarrchs will not stand in their way.
Having experienced seventeen centuries of subjugation, women would delight if the hierarchy got out of the way.
I have no problem with women priests but I would counsel extreme caution here. The main reason is the problem with the priestood is mainly its exaltation and sacralization. We have to take the “power and the glory ” out of the presider position.
If the injunction of Christ is to take the lowest place, then the clergy have been an abysmal failure.
Bill,
I am 6’3” tall, through the vicissitudes of genetics, I will never ride the winner – or a contender – in the Kentucky Derby. I suggest that you tell your daughter that the Church teaches that women may not be ordained, does so as a matter of infallible doctrine and as the result of divine revelation. You find it hard to believe “God would create a barrier to the priesthood” for women. I find it hard to accept that God would create a barrier between me and a career in the Sport of Kings, but he did. I would sympathize with your position if we were talking about the Rotary Club, but we aren’t. We all have a “right place” in the Church – the mystical Body of Christ, and I don’t find it hard to believe that something as fundamental as our sex might play an important part in what that place is.
Leaving aside the many good arguments for a male priesthood (I recommend Peter Kreeft’s essays and lectures on the subject) the arguments for priestesses seem to me to boil down to “Jesus didn’t know what he was doing.” One must either believe that Christ was sexist Himself, or that He tolerated sexism because He had to. Not much of a Deity in either view. Could it be that there are reasons, perhaps reasons you and I don’t fully comprehend, that drove the choice?
I think it very dangerous for us to apply our 20th-21st Century sensibilities to many of the matters of doctrine. I am sorry, but for all of the wonderful advancements in freedom and equality, we have really screwed up an awful lot. Marriage and the family are disintegrating, people are alienated from their communities, socially we are a mess, and a lot of that is thanks to our modern, enlightened, ideas – our rejection of the idea that people don’t have a right place.
Sean, as I understand it, the “infallibility” of the 1995 statement about the ordination of women by then-Cardinal Ratzinger was questioned by some b/c it didn’t come from the Pope himself.
Some observers felt that the response to Pope John Paul’s statement on women’s ordination, which did not claim infallibility, was meant to close discussion on the issue.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v112/ai_17927584
Perhaps something has happened since then that you know about.
I certainly concede that the ordination of women isn’t going to happen soon, and that perhaps there are profound reasons women are not meant to be priests, just as men are not meant to bear children.
If so, I don’t hope to wrap my head around them in this lifetime.
But I’d be careful of rolling that all up with “modern enlightened ideas” and the social messes we’re in as a result of people not knowing their “right place.”
My grandmother had ideas about the right place of black people, and it was in the kitchen making her food, not sitting at the same table with her eating it.
And I’m sure you don’t mean to suggest that we ought to go back to those “good old days.”
Sean,
I wonder how modern it is to acknowledge that Mary Magdalene was at calvary while Peter fled, she was the first at the Resurrection while the apostles doubted.
Further, more women were at the cross and were quite active in preaching and spreading the Word in Paul’s time.
Jesus spoke to the woman at the well which was taboo and fostered their rights which was unheard of.
I have to agree with McGreevy, I liked the comment that he wants Christianity to be more than a list of “moral prohibitions” with special emphasis on the positive messages it brings to the world’s problems.
I too found his comments regarding women in the church rather disjointed to say the least. In fact it seems to me that Benedict XVI is aware of the contradictions he is expressing even as he expresses them. I wonder if in saying “will know how to make their own space” he isn’t actually admitting that maybe, just maybe, those illicit ordinations occurring on boats and now appearing to be growing in frequency may one day bring about what he now says is impossible.
I have been fascinated by the concept of “self-excommunication” which has become the standard answer of the bishops regarding such “ordinations”. Somehow it doesn’t make any sense! These women do not see themselves excommunicated. In fact they see themselves as more fully Christian and Catholic. So who is fooling whom? Are the bishops delusional or the woman delusional? I can not help but wonder when the number of male priests is so small and the demand so great for Eucharist, that it will suddenly be discovered that woman will always have been part of the evangelizing function of the church. Could it be that Benedict XVI has actually contemplated such a scenario?
One final point mentioned by Benedict that I found of particular interest was when asked “How can the ministry of Peter manifest itself fittingly in today’s world?” Benedict in part replied ….. There’s a strong awareness that we need a unifying figure that can guarantee independence from political powers and that Christians don’t identify too much with nationalism. Although he was speaking to German reporters I could not help but think that last phrase might have been directed at American Catholics.
Sean–
Thanks for your post. However, the absolute bar on female ordination is different than your horse racing analogy. Your stature may make it extremely unlikely that you could find a thoroughbread owner to hire you as a jockey, but there’s no absolute prohibition on your pursuit of a racing career. (Keep your day job, though.)
There are many things I accept but don’t fully understand–e.g., the Trinity, the indissoluble God/human nature of Christ, the miracle of transubstantiation. None of these are gender-based. And maybe the prohibition on female ordination falls in the accept on faith alone category, but I’m not convinced of that yet.
In Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Pope JPII said that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” While I don’t deny that this statement carries great weight, it’s my understanding that “definitively held” is different than saying something is infallible. And while I’m not naive enough to think that there will be any retreat any time soon on the Vatican’s position on the issue, I do believe in the power of prayer and the role of the Holy Spirit in keeping the Church on the right road, no matter how many detours the Church takes before getting back on the main road (e.g., the excesses of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the denial of the work of Galileo on heliocentrism, the rejection of modernism and Biblical critical analysis).
Also, I’ve read at least some of Peter Kreeft’s commentary supporting an all-male priesthood, but I’m still not convinced that there is a clear and compelling Scriptural basis for preventing women from receiving Holy Orders. I’ll keep reading, however, including the thoughtful posts such as yours on this blog.
Did anyone else notice that when the subject of women came up Benedict switched from “I” to “we”. Was he trying to strike a more formal note? Was he feeling defensive? Did he mean “we” = the church? But he did not say explicitly “the church”, as he might have been expected to. I don’t have an answer. I suspect that Benedict has doubts about the arguments hitherto put forth, but is not prepared to say so in so many words.
All,
A few points -
I think my jockey analogy is directly on point. Regardless of the rules, my ability or lack thereof is inherent. Read Ordinatio sacerdotalis, “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” In other words, this isn’t just that the Church has decided not to ordain women, but that they can’t. The Church’s doctrine is not based on an exercise of authority, but on its lack of authority.
It seems to me, when it comes to the sexes, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. In addressing injustices, we have deluded ourselves about our fundamental roles as human beings. We all know from our own experiences that the difference between men and women is probably the most fundamental one there is, but because we must treat everything in terms of power relationships we delude ourselves into acting like “there are no differences that matter.” For example, how many of you have had co-workers who either themselves or their wives have put off having children for years to pursue a career (almost certainly through the use of chemicals and medical mechanisms) and then desperately try to have a child or two in their late 30′s or 40′s (again almost certainly through the use of chemicals and medical mechanisms). Am I the only one who sees how warped this seems? Moreover, we always seem to “equalize” by insisting that women be more like men, and in so doing treat what women have done historically seem unimportant or deserving of contempt.
Look at the Church itself. From the 60′s on we have heard it is just a matter of time before women are ordained. Some of the greatest proponents of this view have been religious sisters. What has happened? Not only has there been a decline in priestly vocations, the religious orders, both men and women have virtually vanished. Nothing will drive something down more than everyone acting like it’s second best. The irony is, some of the most “powerful” women in church history come from this humble place. Who but a Mother Theresa could have the authority to go to the UN or the US Capitol and scold the politicians for their callousness to the life on innocents, AND get a standing ovation?!?
We are too wrapped up in seeing things through a win-lose, superior-inferior, lens. Is it so hard to believe that something so fundamental to our human nature as sex does not impact our roles in the life of the Church?
Finally, as for “knowing one’s place,” I stand by my comments. Knowing one’s place doesn’t always imply some sort of superior/inferior relationship. Knowing one’s place means taking one’s vocation and place in life and accepting all the authority, limitations, and responsibilities that go with it and then doing the best you can. We are a society that fundamentally doesn’t understand this. You are a husband and a father, but you’re not “fulfilled.” What does our society say? Go find yourself, get fulfilled, and if that means you don’t deal with all the baggage that comes with “your place” go to a new place. Heck, you don’t want to be a man at all, just go see a surgeon. This is what I mean.
Sean–
I’m not being flippant with the following hypothetical that would not apply to all women who wish to be priests, but suppose a Catholic woman with “gender dysphoria,” a medically-accepted condition and diagnosis, has transgender treatment–including surgical reassignment, hormone therapy, and counseling–and that individual now both intrinsically and extrinsically regards himself as a Catholic man, and he presents himself in all respects to the world as a man. He also expresses an interest in pursuing ordination as a priest. Can he be ordained if he completes the requisite training?
I would say yes, even accepting the current restriction on female ordination. What is maleness? Is it one’s physical appearance at birth? A fully functional sex organ? One’s DNA complement? The gender that the individual believes he or she is (e.g., a man trapped in a woman’s body)? Why wouldn’t the individual I’ve described be an appropriate conduit for the changing of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood at Mass?
I think Pope Benedict does get selectively vague on a few key points when the subject of women’s taking a more visible place in the governance of the church arises. He begins by saying that the “constitution of the college of the apostles” obliges the Church not to ordain women, suggesting that the matter is out of his hands, and goes on to give a lame assurance that there are lots of other things a woman can do in the Church. But look at the examples he offers: Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Catherine of Siena (1347-1380, and Brigit of Sweden (1303-1373). All three are women who by force of character, position in society, unusual personal gifts and extraordinary claims of direct revelation from on high, were able to influence the popes and bishops of their time and so influence the Church. Benedict seems to be offering a challenge to women of today : “Nobody’s stopping you, you know, step right up and speak prophetically to the Church, find your own space, be as outrageous as you like (all his examples certainly were), and you will be heard. Except, of course, that we can’t allow you to have any power to decide anything important in Church governance because (Catch 22) you have to be ordained for that and (sigh) we can’t do that.” Does Benedict have a sense of humor? I think so. (Did you know that Brigit founded an order of monks and nuns who lived separately but worshipped together, the monks being subject to the nuns in temporal matters and the nuns to the monks in spiritual ones? I guess in a way, that lady knew her place.)
Benedict’s final sentence is: “And we will have to try and listen to God so as not to stand in their way but, on the contrary, to rejoice when the female element achieves the fully effective place in the Church best suited to her, starting with the Mother of God and with Mary Magdalene.” But he is vague on two crucial points: what “that fully effective place in the Church best suited to her,”might be, and in what respect the Mother of God and Mary Magdalen exemplify it. (And then, of course, there is what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t suggest “we” might do anything positive to help women find that fully effective place except stand out of God’s way.)
Sorry, that last sentence of my previous post should read: He doesn’t suggest “we” might do anything positive to help women find that fully effective place except stand out of THEIR way.
[The parable of the Good Samaritan does come to mind.]
Benedict is not the bully dogmatist John Paul was. The question is is he finding his way, being caution or merely being an astute politician.
So far I like to believe that he is attempting to alleviate the polarization within the church. I stay cautiously optimistic because, for better or worse, the Bishop of Rome remains pivotal.
Pressure from the left and right is already happening big time. Right now we seem perked on the ‘wait and see’ ledge.
Bill,
Not only no – but Good Lord NO!
First, this demonstrates some of my point. I may “regard myself” as a rubber tree plant, but I ain’t. Sex (I refuse to say gender because it is a misuse of the word) is a fact, not a social construct. Certainly there are unusual or extraordinary genetic and medical conditions, but the disorder you describe is essentially a psychological condition. The fact that this is a “medically accepted diagnosis” carries about 1 nanogram of weight with me. Any diagnosis for which the treatment is the dismemberment and mutilation of an otherwise healthy human body is – well – insane itself.
All that aside, you (perhaps inadvertently) have hit the nail on the head in identifying the priest as a “conduit” for the consecration. A conduit is an empty tube, a path, and nothing more. A priest acts in personam christi or alter christi – this is why it is important what he is – and that he is a he (among other reasons).
Susan – you have also, I think, hit on something. I think the examples of outstanding Catholic women in the interview are terrific. Why? Because they are outstanding. This is among the reasons I am baffled by the position that the Catholic Church’s doctrine on ordination is harmful to women. No other faith has the scores and scores of examples of outstanding leadership and influence as the Catholic Church. Please, try and name 10 religiously influential women in another faith group (outside the Old Testament) who most people would recognize. Except for religious news wonks, I don’t think you can find many people who can name the new female Episcopal primate. All I remember is that it starts with an S. Ask the average American who Mother Theresa was – or even who Mother Angelica is – and they probably can. Then there’s Our Lady, or as I like to call her, the First Catholic, who has more influence than any woman in history – and still does. Most of all, for generations Catholic mothers and religious sisters have been the primary catechists for the Church, influencing countless millions of Catholics – and a few poes as well.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ – the push for priestesses, it seems to me, is based on the argument that the head or the feet are more important than the heart or the blood.
Susan, do you think perhaps the Pope declined to tell women what their role ought to be in order not to limit them? Us?
Thanks for pointing out the fact that St. Birgit ran a double house. This was the norm in much of northern Europe in the early Middle Ages, and maybe elsewhere.
Many English abbesses were extremely powerful and influenced bishops and kings. Several bishops were the proteges of St. Hilda of Whitby.
In the hundreds of years these houses operated in England, only one–Coldingham–was ever tainted with any kind of sex scandal.
It’s all there in Bede.
Nevertheless, the double houses were discontinued and the sexes segregated. And perhaps what happened to English monasticism is testimony to what happens when women are marginalized and their influence diluted.
Monastic abuses in England helped create conditions that sparked the schism with Rome. The monks of Chester were especially thuggish, buying up land, jacking up rents, and extorting and beating up residents.
People began appealing to the crown for relief long before Henry VIII decided to dissolve the monasteries altogether.
Is it a coincidence that English monasticism started to go sour when women were marginalized? Maybe. But a St. Hilda, Werburh or Audrey would never have allowed the monasteries to become so ill-regulated.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. I agree with John Borst. Benedict XVI’s awkward syntax when speaking about women, the hesitant “we must get out of their way” tone (when the rest of the interview contains specfics ) and the inability to choose examples of successful women in the church from the modern era point to the sharp tension between women’s increasing authority (and rightly so) in the world and the paucity of women leaders in the hierarchical structure of the church. This is not a debate about women’s ordination, per se, but also a discussion about power and how it is exercised. There’s nothing to suggest that Benedict XVI is anything but sincere in his belief that the ordained priesthood must be limited to men. But perhaps he also recognizes, reading between the lines, the enormous strain this places on the Church in the West.
I must admit that remain baffled by a lot of this discussion on the role of women in the Church. As I said in an earlier post, it’s as if we are talking about the Rotary Club, or better still a big corporation, with all the emphasis on who gets to do what and what “power” they have. What is the purpose of the Church? If it is basically a giant administrative body, I am with you, there is no reason not to have women in any role. This is an over simplification, but I see the Church’s role as two-fold – helping us participate in Christ on Earth and helping us get to heaven.
If you look at it this way, who the CEO or CFO is isn’t all that important. Even more to the point, the historical record shows that being “powerful” in the Church has very little to do with the actual purpose of the Church or influence over its members. Now this example probably won’t thrill the readers of Commonweal, but look at Mother Angelica. Here is a woman with a high school education from a working-class home who came from a small convent who through her faith, strength of personality and perseverance founded the most influential Catholic media organization – certainly in America, and perhaps in the world – all the time being opposed by many “powerful” bishops. I’m not just talking about women. Even among Catholic men, it is rarely the “powerful” with the real power and influence. What about Padre Pio? How about Fulton Sheen? He was a bishop, but by any measure he was just upper-middle management on the power scale. Every American Cardinal in the 20th Century was less influential than he. Saint Francis? St Thomas Aquinas – arguably the most influential theologian in Catholicism and did it all from his cell.
Look too at our mainline Protestant brethren. They have mostly bought in to this “get with the times” mentality – whether it’s with women’s ordination of other “progressive” ideas, and what has it wrought. Dwindling numbers, but even more importantly, a lifeless, bland Church of “Just be Nice.”
All Christians participate by virtue of baptism in the sacerdotal priesthood of Christ. In that important sense all Christian women are already priests just as all Christian men are. The Baptismal rite makes this quite clear. What is at issue is whether women may also attain to what we may call the presbyteral priesthood, whose special province it is to preside at the Eucharistic service. The New Testament does not provide an explicit answer to this question. As the Church grew, the view that women should not be admitted to the presbyteral priesthood prevailed. It was inevitable in the West, given the remarkable changes that have taken place in the 20th century in accepted views about what women might and might not properly do, that the question of the admission of women to the presbyteral priesthood should be reopened. The attempt of John Paul II to settle the question has not been quite successful. Many find the arguments he offered unconvincing. His attempt to impose silence is most readily interpreted as attesting to his awareness of the weakness of his case qua set of arguments. This not to deny that either he or his successor are sincerely convinced of the view they profess.
The question here is theological and needs to be settled by thorough going theological investigation. The question is whether the church has the authority to admit women to the presbyteral priesthood. It cannot be answered by inquiring into the physical and psychological differences between men and women. Not can it be settled by considering the consequences, to themselves and to the church, of admitting or not admitting them. I do not pretend to know whether women are much harmed by not being admitted and I do not pretend to know that the church is much harmed by not admitting them. Women would probably be and fare neither better nor worse than men in the presbyteral ministry as is the case in other roles, lately open to women, in the professions and in business. As for the shortage of presbyters, it could with less controversy be solved by ordaining married men. I doubt the question will be resolved soon. It will certainly not be resolved easily. It would be helpful in the meantime if we were not diverted by false issues.
Addendum: In the interests of full disclosure I should add that I have seen no knockdown arguments against the ordination of women, and since some very good minds have failed to find them, I doubt there are any. If I am right, then it is obviously an injustice to deny women ordination. I hope the time will come when this view will prevail.
Joseph,
Whether there are or are not “knockdown arguments” for or against anything in the deposit of faith it seems to me to be irrelevant unless you have first arrived at the conclusion that an institution or sacred tradition is not ordained by Christ.
There is no “logical” reason that the form of the Eucharist is not a piece of fish either – but that’s irrelevant. A priest can’t go around consecrating lox. The sacraments are instituted by Christ, and the details matter. Before you can even get to the point of accepting any argument for priestesses you must arrive at one or more of a number of conclusions such as -
Christ’s choice of men is irrelevant
Christ’s choice of men was in keeping with the times (there are a lot of problems with this one)
The Gospel accounts are inaccurate
The early Church squelched the idea of priestesses (brings in to question almost every Tradition)
Sean
In assuming that the exclusion of women from the presbyterate is part of the deposit of faith you are committing the fallacy called “begging the question” i.e., assuming what needs to be shown. As for the rest, you need to study the New Testament with a good commentary.
Jean, your idea that the Pope might have been graciously refusing to intervene because he didn’t want to limit women’s options in finding a fuller role in the church is a kind way of looking at what he said, and a hopeful one. If I were to try to look for a ray of hope in what he says, I guess I would find it in his regret that female employees of the Holy See can’t serve in certain decision-making positions because they aren’t clerics. He certainly knows that Canon Law can be changed easily enough, so perhaps he means to do something about it
I was disheartened by his response to the question, “Shouldn’t women’s contributions become more clearly visible, even in positions of higher responsibility in the Church?” because he evaded a direct answer, commending a group of women who exercised considerable power behind the scenes in advising Popes and Fathers of the Church in the middle ages , And then he suggested that women today find a fuller role in the church for themselves. But the notion that it is good for women to exercise their agency in the world primarily through influencing– and manipulating—powerful men is ( to put it as mildly as I can) well past its “sell-by” date. And suggesting that women find a fuller role for themselves in a system that has long marginalized them seems pretty faint encouragement.
I have been trying to think of some women who have spoken out to the Church about a new and fuller role for women in recent times and have had their interventions warmly welcomed by the hierarchy and the Pope. But I am afraid I am drawing a blank. There must be someone out there, or we are in a dark age indeed.
Sean–
I think we’ll have to (civilly) agree to disagree on this issue, though I am reminded of a comment by Peter Steinfels in a Commonweal article about five years ago that, and this isn’t verbatim, the policies of liberal Catholicism today are the substance of papal encyclicals 100 years from now. That’s happened before. :)
On the positive side, it should be said that never before have so many women been so well educated. Never before have they been so often read and quoted.
As has been well documented Catholic women are getting more degrees in theology than men.
One day all of this will be thrust upon us and it will be not a question of when but how.
There have been a number of references to women’s roles at the Vatican, a point which Susan Gannon brought to our attention by reminding us of the context within which the question was posed specifically: “Shouldn’t women’s contributions become more clearly visible, even in positions of higher responsibility in the Church?”
You may want to check out the August 26, 2006 web issue of The Tablet at http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/8491/ where the editorial is titled “The Vatican view of women”.
Perhaps, Sean, can at least admit that the Vatican “is basically a giant administrative body,” and in that context can agree with the Tablet’s editorial.
John, thanks for posting the Tablet piece. Fifteen percent sounds pretty low, but the article doesn’t say whether that’s a rise or decrease from previous years.
My guess is that that 15 percent represents a substantial increase from 50 years ago. Anybody have any stats?
While it’s certainly possible the Church will never ordain women–and crystal clear that this Pope isn’t going to–it is NOT a sin for women to ask why they cannot be priests and deacons.
Neither would it be a sin for those who are against women’s ordination to offer a respectful response instead of tossing around words like “priestesses,” as if we were ready to usher in liturgical innovations such as serpent handling, poison drinking, chicken sacrifice and Gaia worship. The Pope has never used this insulting term, and I don’t know why those who support his position feel the need to.
Neither is it a sin for women to dislike the church’s stance or its answers to their question, so long as they obey the church’s teaching. And, apart from a few mavericks, the vast majority do on this count.
Whatever women ultimately achieve through the church, my opinion is that their fullest participation in those roles–EMs, lectors, altar servers, DREs, diocesan administrators, parish councillors, religious sisters, Catholic school teachers–help church leaders better understand and value what women contribute to the church.
I saw nothing in the Pope’s interview that runs counter to that opinion, and much to support it.
Jean’s list of the roles women play in the Church, prompts me to share the story of a young woman I met while touring Newfoundland this past June. I covered 3,800 km. in ten days so managed to reach into some very remote corners of the province. In one such corner on the north shore is the village of Fleur de Lys, where a 2000 year old Dorset soap stone quarry of paleo-Eskimo origin exists. While there I stopped at the tiny café Aunt Gert’s. As we were leaving, I noticed on the wall that the young woman who managed the place and served us had a certificate in pastoral counselling from a Catholic college.
I wondered why a person so trained would be in such an isolated place running such a tiny six seat lunch stop. Helping the family was the reason but that got us into a discussion of what a pastoral counsellor did and her experience in that role. It quickly became obvious her experience in Ontario parishes had been disappointing. What she described was a strong resistance by priests to accept her role within the parish. All they wanted was a traditional house-keeper, gopher while the priests maintained the traditional paternalistic clerical role. She was obviously bitter about this. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to probe further but I left, unsurprised but disappointed by her experience, one I’m sure which isn’t isolated or confined to this country.
John, you may have been unsurprised, the lady you met might be bitter, and her priests might be unappreciative.
And at the risk of sounding like Little Mary Sunshine again, I bet this woman has left her mark on the people she serves. Moreover, she serves as a foil for what pastoral care should be, and my guess is that, in the minds of those she serves, the priest is coming up short.
Even if she cannot be a priest herself, she is showing people what a priest ought to be.
Well, I have finally thought of a wonderful woman who did speak to a Pope in recent times about a fuller role for women in the church and lived to tell the tale.
Here is an article about Sister Theresa Kane, R.S.M. When John Paul II came to the U.S. in 1979, she greeted him and slipped into her words of greeting this message:
“As women we have heard the powerful message of our church addressing the dignity and reverence of all persons. As women we have pondered these words. Our contemplation leads us to state that the church in its struggle to be faithful to its call for reverence and dignity for all persons must respond by providing the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of the church.”
The Pope was “visibly annoyed” at the time, and she did get quite a bit of criticism from various sources, but she was heartened when, quite a bit later John Paul at least sent her greetings through a third party. Her attitude toward the future of women in the church seems resolutely hopeful, though there hasn’t been as much movement as one might wish on her issues.
Here is an interview with her about the matter, from NCR:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_39_36/ai_65774931
Benedict mentioned among other the indications of important roles played by women in the church the work of the sisters of the Fathers of the Church. I haven’t noticed any annotations of this remark. My candidate would be St. Macrina, the elder sister of Basil and of Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory wrote a life of his sister testifying not only to her piety but to her theological acumen. Macrina is on the calendar for July 19, but not in the U.S., if memory serves. Perhaps she will be promoted more extensively after the Pope’s hint. St. Scholastica might have been on his mind but I don;t think that St. Benedict is technically a Father.