New Feminism?
As I was catching up with the news this week, I came across this account of the police officer--the female police officer who stopped the rampage at Fort Hood in Texas.
And then I read this story of Cardinal Rode admitting that the reason he’s launching an investigation of women’s religious orders is that he wants to combat “a feminist spirit.”
What is “feminism”? The term is notoriously contested.
Is this police officer a self-identified “feminist”–I don’t know. I do know that she has managed to make good, and full, use of the gifts that God gave her–to protect those more vulnerable than she. And I know that anyone, male or female, who puts their life on the line to save other people is a hero.
Will it still be possible to raise girls–women–in the Church who admire that police officer for living out her own unique vocation as a woman -even if it isn’t theirs?
Re: “New” Feminism
There was a guy in the Church . . . what’s his name?
Um, John something or other.
John Paul??
I don’t know, anyway, this John Paul guy, or whoever he was, wrote extensively on authentic feminism, as taught by Christ and which the Church has always promoted, as opposed to the counterfeit feminism of the modern-day which is actually anti-woman.
I wish I could remember the guy’s name who wrote these things. You might want to check him out.
Bender–I think the name of the guy you’re thinking of is John Paul the Great.
Cathleen–I’m not sure I understand your predicate. Was there something uniquely feminine about the way our heroine reacted?
My strong suspicion is that Cardinal Rode would believe that she was not being sufficiently feminine–but too feminist.
For some reason the habits look startlingly like burqas to me –perhaps because I had just read the story about the Fort Hood incident.
Wow, that strong suspicion is so far of the wall that it’s hard to believe anyone would really think that about someone they don’t know well.
I hope the nuns who have made the sacrifice of wearing the habit, as a sign of their consecration to God, are not offended by the burqa comparison, given its association with repression and violence.
I probably could have done without the snark, but really now. The Church has been enthusiastically pro-woman since before the birth of Her Founder.
Many Muslims think the burqa honors women’s dignity too. The arguments are quite often parallel.
Bender and mark, read some history. Read some primary texts. Read St. Paul. Read Augustine. Read Aquinas. Even John Paul II acknowledges that the church has had sexist tendencies at times. And what in the world do you mean by “the Church” before her founder?
Don’t know how there was a church before the birth of her founder.
To say the Church has been pro-women throughout history since would be a topic of lively historical discussion to say the least.
And, there are man ycatholics who think JPII was not “The Great.”
Once more, we hae opinion stated apodictically, while Cathy raises a real question.
Junio turns into Junia, Magdalen turns into a prostitute when both are Apostles according to the Sciptures. All Paul’s female associates at the end of Romans are ignored by the Fathers of The Church. Women are burned at the stake as witches. Etc. Now that historians are reporting the truth it can be clearly seen how women have been suppressed by a patriarchial church which ignored the teaching of Jesus on this matter.
A hundred years ago Chauvinist use to brag that women were not equal because there never was a woman “Shakespeare.” Now with greater rights women are showing that they are very much the equal of males.
There really needs to be an investigation into the patriarchy (masculinism?) of the Vatican.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/benedicts_fear_of_feminism.html
Here’s something I did a while ago on the topic.
I was very impressed with Sgt. Munley too. She’s incredibly brave. To be shot three times and keep on standing her ground??? That’s amazing. But no less amazing than Catholic feminists who keep on standing their ground after repeated being “fired upon” by those in the Church who want to define their lives and outlook without ever listening to them or consulting their experience.
When teaching undergraduates a few years back, I used to run into young women who were uncomfortable with the word “feminist.” I would ask them if they were educated and employed, or if they hoped to be such.
“Of course.”
“And do you want to be paid less because you’re a woman?”
“Of course not.”
“Then you are a feminist.”
Often, sadly, it seems they lacked any of the historical consciousness of what their own mothers and grandmothers struggled for–and that their work isn’t done. Like the lady said, feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Bender: JPII’s “feminism” suffered from a lack of familiarity with actual women, their lives and struggles. (It’s always a give-away when a group of men who exclude women from their lives and work write documents instructing women on their nature.) His “feminism” is a picture of what he WANTED women to be, and was as unreal as the depiction of women in porn and men in romance novels–both of which suffer from seeing the opposite sex according to one’s own fantasies. Even where the fantasies are well-intended, as JPII’s probably were, they remain fantasies. The excellences proper to women are far wider than what JPII seemed to want women to be.
I share the dismay of Ann Althouse at Obama’s use of the Fort Hood tragedy to promote health care reform. She cringes at the thought that “these are the minds that will be making decisions for us for quite a while.”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood-massacre-was-rhetorical.html
If you’d all turn to your October 9 Commonweals (the one with the nuns on the cover, in their traditional/glorious/repressive habits), there’s a discussion of what “feminism” means on the letters page that I think could be helpful here. David Carlin wrote in response to Kathleen Sprows Cummings’s story “Do Women Have Souls?“: “When somebody says ‘I am a feminist,’ and leaves it at that, what she (or he) means is anything but clear.”
Cummings offered the requested clarification, which I’ll excerpt here, since our nonsubscribers may find it particularly useful:
Excellent post, Prof. Kaveny and liked your article. Lisa – your post and link to Cummings is very, very helpful. I would also support comments about the laci of JPII’s theology of the body – a body of work that has questionnable philosophical, theological, and sociological foundations. It is a fantasy unconnected to reality.
Need to make some added distinctions:
- used to teach American history – what we have lost in the last 20 years is the ressourcement of the 1960-70′s (without all the dramatization) is the actual history of women’s rights and equality. It is a memorable struggle that continues today in arenas such as big business (look at how many female CEOs; how many women sit on boards of directors; how many women are elected to higher offices?); in the church (my dismay over the recent Anglican offer is linked to two very different ways of looking at the gifts that women bring to the church – Cummings’ second point is applicable here – Romanita defines women so that they are unable to have certain church leadership positions….why? it is not scripturally based; not even based in history or a proper understanding of tradition; it is a convulted exercise via JPII reasoning that is questionnable at best).
- the local church whether northern or southern hemisphere is predominantly staffed by women; yet, leadership is reserved to men?
- in the church, in our schools, in our universities we need to focus more on the role of women; consider its impact on social justice and peace issues; its impact on religious liberty, ecumenism, and democracy. We need a 21st century definition of the vocation of women that is not limited by traditionalism.
For those of you who, like me, apparently just don’t read enough, apodictic means “incontestable because of having been demonstrated or proved to be demonstrable.”
Rita–I, like you, was amazed to hear that Sgt. Munley was shot 3 times and stood her ground. She is one manly Munley! But there’s no reason we Catholics should be surprised by female bravery. What could be a better example of bravery than Mary’s fiat? Or her standing at the foot of the cross when most of the Apostles were in hiding? In fact, the Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary led many to leave the Catholic Church 500+ years ago, yet the Church stood by Mary. It’s amazing that some people, for all their reading and all their education, are simply unable to see the big picture, and put things in the proper perspective.
Lisa–With all due respect, your statement that John Paul the Great excluded women from his life is so silly on its face that it’s hard to take anything you say seriously. George Weigel’s splendid biography shows that, on the contrary, Karol Wojtyla went out of his way to socialize with young married couples, and incorporated those experiences into his theology.
Mollie–Is there any issue you can’t spin into a plug of Commonweal magazine?
A provocative New Yorker cover from a couple of years ago:
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Kunz-New-Yorker-Subway.jpg
The problem is, I think –the extremes–extreme sexuality in the middle, and extreme attempts to cover it up on the ends.
Mark, I think she’s a strong woman–not a man or “manly.”
Mark, I guess you proved your point by the way you just put down three outstanding women on this thread. For your penance read “Truly Our Sister” by Elisabeth Thompson and then you can graduate to Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, Joan Chittister, Mary Daly, Rosemary Ruether and othe women who are restoring the church to her true self. Among other things….
Goodness. Mark: this is the blog of Commonweal magazine. Bender: you’re not in a position to complain about snark.
Cardinal Rode’ should come to learn something about how the feminism of many Catholic women has enriched this church and filled out what “male and female he created them means”. A dialogue about feminism is welcome; an inquistorial is not. I am confident that the Holy Spirit is working through the female charisms that have been unleashed over the last 40 years.
Of course, lots of cheers for Sgt. Munley, but try to remember that she was just doing her job, and though she deserves praise and kudos for doing it very well, she does not deserve more so because she was a woman. That would be patronizing and condescending.
And it’s just beyond ironic that men think they have the right to define what constitutes “authentic” feminism, and that includes the Pope. Part of being authentically feminist is understanding that women have a right to their own experience without it being pre-defined by male authority. An effort by a man to define “authentic” feminism should be dead on arrival.
Bill–
First, I agreed with Rita, I did not per her down.
Second, I meant my question to Mollie to be one of admiration, but I can see that it may not read that way.
Third, ok, I have to admit, the one was a bit of a put down, but she put down my guy.
Nevertheless I accept my penance and will put one of the authors on my (all too short) reading list.
Finally, is there a law against trying to inject some light-heartedness into the blog?
Why izzit that people who are on here largely to argue pick fights with Commonweal Catholics always protest they were just being “light-hearted” when they’re smacking someone down?
An honest argument or honest snark is one thing, and most of us can take it (or give as good as we get).
But protesting that you were just “light-hearted” and that we’re too dumb to pick up on your tone is just insulting.
Mollie, thanks for finding the reference for us. I was frantically looking through back issues for that bit.
Barbara, I’m not sure that men are necessarily unqualified to define feminism in terms of Church teaching. But it’s surely really damn annoying when they do.
Jean–Actually, the light-heartedness was the manly Munley thing, which was taken literally.
Barbara–Here’s the problem I have with the argument that a man can’t have insight into a woman’s nature. It seems a logical fallacy to me for a woman to make that claim. By your logic, how can a woman have insight into a man’s nature, to know that he’s unable to have insight into a woman’s nature? And, on a real world level, if a woman wants to learn more about the true nature of a particular man, isn’t she as likely to ask for a woman’s opinion?
Mark, here’s my problem –you root for your “guy” Rhode as if you’re rooting for a football team. You invoke John Paul II as if he had a magic wand, and can simply wave away the entire tradition, which is replete with sexist claims. No tradition–legal or theological works like that. In his treatise on the trinity, St. Augustine denied that a woman, on her own could be made in the image and likeness of God. St. Thomas saw women as defective males. Women were equal only in the task of reproduction–the only task, Augustine says, that a man would prefer a woman for. Otherwise, why not simply hang with his friends (my description.)
To think that one papal letter “mulieris dignitatem” is going to undo all of that is naive in the extreme. To think, especially that will undo all of that while relying on gross essentialist stereotypes what men are and what women are is historically blind–particularly when the study of history shows that the same stereotypes were used to justify excluding women from the vote.
The police officer is interesting precisely because she refuses to follow the stereotypes –she is not masculine, she is a strong woman. See my article on Buffy: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=801
And if you don’t think this is still a problem in Catholic circles in which Cardinal Rode is applauded, you need to look around a bit more. The dress matters–you can’t be a police officer in a habit or a burqa –or a dress. Strict dress codes enforce strict ideas of gender roles. Covering of the face hides and minimizes individuality.
To take it to an extreme, I’ve seen people on Regnum Christi blogs arguing that women shouldn’t wear pants, and should interpret male headship literally.
If you want an argument against, well, pants, well, here you go. http://www.catholicplanet.com/women/dress.htm He’s nothing if not consistent.
=
Cathleen–
I should clarify that when I referred to the put down of my guy, I meant Lisa’s put down of JPII, which I think was over the top. Rhodes is not my guy—I don’t know anything about him.
It’s obvious that we approach the whole concept of women’s role in the Church from completely different mindsets. I think a woman sees the occasional rough justice, even from Doctors of the Church, and has her antenna up. That gives her better insight but also, perhaps, a tendency to judge a bit harshly. A man is probably more objective, but likely to be a bit insensitive and perhaps even oblivious to real injustices. As to which perspective is more fruitful, I suppose God only knows. I will admit that, generally, one gets closer to the truth by consulting those more emotionally engaged.
Here is an interesting addition to this discussion and the role of women in the church today:
link – http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/
Highlights:
“The trouble with all the power struggles around EWTN is this masks a fundamental injustice in the Church concerning women. Angelica was well aware of being a pawn in the power games of male clerics and refused to take that assignment. In this respect she stands as a model of, dare I say it, empowered secular feminism. Women have a right to lead, to speak, and to stand independent of male supervision. Angelica knew that, EWTN proved that, but she also knew she had to have the protection of the Vatican men, or her authority as a voice for Catholic purity would, in fact, be shut down. In the end, her dream only goes as far as her orthodoxy and her compromised relationship with her father will let it. It stops at the door of the Vatican and therefore perpetuates the dream of male control over women.
This is unfortunate because now that same Vatican is using other non Catholic women ministers as pawns in a power struggle in another area. The Vatican is reinforcing the devastating consequences the paternal meta dream has on women through out the world.”
From the opinion page of the NYT’s today: (related to part three of the feminism definition from the Commonweal article – link between feminism, racism, etc.) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02mon1.html?_r=1
“if we want to build a better society, one in which everyone has opportunity, gay or straight, black or white, we all need to concern ourselves with mean-spirited attacks on any targeted minority. Even when we don’t happen to belong to that particular minority. We’re not going to build the society of which our founders dreamed as long as we permit these attacks to go unchallenged whenever and wherever they occur.
I’m struck, too, by a report on the Clerical Whispers blog about a 26 October hearing at which representatives of the Catholic archdiocese of Washington, D.C., addressed the D.C. city council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They did so to argue against recognition of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.
According to the report at Clerical Whispers, central to the case that the archdiocese of D.C. presented at this hearing was a letter from Williams and Connolly law firm, which argues that acceptance of same-sex marriage by civil society will result in litigation that will threaten Catholic coffers. Clerical Whispers states that the D.C. archdiocese augmented this argument by the law firm with opinions from “six prominent legal scholars” who concur with the viewpoint pushed by Williams and Connolly.”
Not exactly a gospel message by our church leadership.
“Jean–Actually, the light-heartedness was the manly Munley thing, which was taken literally.”
Naw, that wasn’t “light-hearted.” That was a figurative yank on the pigtails in hopes of getting us girls all huffy. Perhaps, like many pigtail yankers, you had an older sister you resented. Or perhaps you have trouble talking to girls, in which case here’s a helpful Web site:
http://www.wikihow.com/Talk-to-Girls-As-a-Teen
Hello Cathy (and All),
“St. Augustine denied that a woman, on her own could be made in the image and likeness of God. St. Thomas saw women as defective males. Women were equal only in the task of reproduction–the only task, Augustine says, that a man would prefer a woman for. Otherwise, why not simply hang with his friends (my description.)”
I have a pair of questions that are admittedly tangential but I think that all here would be interested in your answers: When a doctor of the church or a bishop or pope makes a claim that is later repudiated by a pope or an ecumenical council, then was said doctor of the church, bishop or pope in fact not speaking on behalf of the entire Church? Or can we say that Church teaching has evolved (or even improved)?
You give some interesting examples from Augustine and Aquinas. I think there are some equally striking examples regarding applications of the natural law, some of which are familiar to you but maybe not to all here. Aquinas approves of capital punishment for persistent heretics, which is clearly incompatible with Chapter I.6 of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty. Many popes before Leo XIII issued statements that slavery is acceptable under certain circumstances. At least two popes in the 12th century stated that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances so long as the victims do not die as a result. Augustine, while of course condemning all extramarital sex, maintained that legalized prostitution is tolerable (and if I am not mistaken prostitution was at times legal in the Papal states). All these statements are incompatible with Chapter II.6 of Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. And as you well know, there are even more striking examples in John Noonan’s recent book. Do these examples imply that Church teaching was simply less well-defined in the past than in our time? Or maybe that sometimes popes, bishops and doctors of the church speak on behalf of the whole Church and sometimes they don’t?
Jean-
I could have really used that link 30 years ago.
Mark,
I hate to say this, because I enjoy having people agree with me, but if you thought you were agreeing with me above, you were not paying close enough attention! It looked to me more like you were desirous of changing the subject. But since we’re talking, let’s take up the point you raise.
I have to admit, I find a comparison between the BVM and Sgt. Munley completely ill-chosen. While I’m happy that you love the Blessed Mother and all, it doesn’t speak well of your common sense that you should find the virtues of these two women alike. In fact, it seems like an example of just how poorly a certain kind of mindset fits us for perceiving significant differences, individuality, and diverse gifts among women.
I raise this point because real women in their particularity are often rendered “invisible” by certain “pious” ways of thinking. They either are beyond the pale or they blur into “the eternal feminine” and are perceived no more as who they are. Mary herself becomes a kind of screen on which we project an image, and women either fit that image or we don’t really see them.
A more apt comparison for Sgt. Munley’s courage might be that of Jael, driving a tent peg into Sisera’s head, or St. Joan of Arc’s while riding into battle. But that’s not the point.
The point I was after is that Catholic feminists who stand their ground are brave. They are. That’s probably why Cardinal Rode thinks they are a problem.
“I will admit that, generally, one gets closer to the truth by consulting those more emotionally engaged.”
Mark, now you are starting to see the light which is your choice to pursue further.
Grant – I wasn’t complaining about snark, I was copping to it.
As for the main point, it is so very sad that folks cannot see or appreciate how the Church is seeking and has sought to show the inherent greatness of woman, how the Church has a soaring conception of woman, rather than being tied down to earth by the heavy anchor of politics and ideology.
What I am saying is — LET GO OF THE ANCHOR! Let go of the worldly anchor of politics and ideology, and open yourself to the transcendent.
As for how the Church being pro-woman even prior to the birth of Her Founder, again, let go of the narrow idea of the Church being merely a human invention consisting of self-interested political actors who act merely according to subjective and worldly whims. The fallen sinners who inhabit the Church and who, because of the rupture of relations between humanity and God and man and woman resulting from Original Sin and leading to millenia of oppression of women, are not the Church Herself, who is the eternal Bride of Christ, One Body with and in Him. But even those fallen sinners in the Church have recognized the instrinsic genius of woman from the very beginning, most especially in the Mother of the Church, who gave birth to Her Founder.
I know I’m talking Greek here. I know you’d rather cling to your political conception of the Church and the Faith. But make no mistake, that is what is holding you down. That political conception, including that counterfeit feminism of modernity, is what is weighing women down.
Let it go, and open yourself to the joy of the inherent and transcendent greatness of woman as taught by the Church.
By the way, just so you know that I’m an equal opportunity admonisher of politics in the Faith, “Inside Catholic” has banned me multiple times for similar sentiments I’ve made there.
“The point I was after is that Catholic feminists who stand their ground are brave.”
Rita–That statement is so general that it’s hard to disagree with, but it’s also hard to know what to make of it. If you mean that nuns who have embraced the secular culture and have seen their ranks decimated, yet who are doing all they can to refuse the help the Church wants to offer them, then I would not call that brave, I’d call that obstinate and uncooperative.
Hello All,
“If you want an argument against, well, pants, well, here you go. http://www.catholicplanet.com/women/dress.htm He’s nothing if not consistent.”
I thought it might be relevant for participants here to know also that the moderator of this web community is also quite frank about his opposition to female alter servers, female lectors and female extraordinary Eucharistic ministers. I know this because I am close to a member of this web community. I suppose visitors to this site are permitted, but some time ago the moderator required all the regular participants in the moderator’s web community to take an oath of loyalty to Roman Catholic Church teaching because the moderator was concerned that participants were not sufficiently orthodox.
Given the moderator’s opposition to modern dress, female alter servers, female lectors, female extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, and a number of other practices I also approve of and are also not matters of Church doctrine or moral teaching, I utterly refuse to visit this web site. (Even if I did, I would surely be locked out immediately upon the moderator’s learning of some of my views.)
Hello again All,
First, I hope my last post did not come off as sounding like I discourage others from visiting the site to which Cathy pointed us. Cathy is a wonderful colleague and friend of mine in addition to being our moderator, so my apologies if I gave the impression that others here should ignore part of her post.
Secone, I realized I was a bit unclear before. The reasons I stated before are not the only reasons I will not under any circumstances frequent this web site. The moderator also encourarages belief in the literal truth of certain reports of private revelations that have not been approved by the Church. No Roman Catholic is required to believe in any claims of private revelation, including those the Church has declared worthy of belief. I happen not to believe in the literal truth of any of the claimed private revelations the Church has approved. But rightly or wrongly, I want nothing at all to do with claims of private revelation the Church has not approved.
Thank you, Peter, for highlighting historical evidence of discrimination against women in the church. (And to Cathy K for the post.)
As to Peter’s questions: Do these examples imply that Church teaching was simply less well-defined in the past than in our time? Or maybe that sometimes popes, bishops and doctors of the church speak on behalf of the whole Church and sometimes they don’t?
I propose it is simply that the church was wrong, just plain wrong, mistaken, and in error. The inability to acknowledge that certain teachings were so is a major credibility problem.
Torture, slavery, usury, capital punishment, the condition of women, Magdalen as prostitute, limbo, you name it. The verbal gymnastics and torturous reasoning often engaged to uphold a paradigm of the church as always right in everything is truly offensive. More humility and uncommon common sense are desperately needed.
“As we’ve always taught” just is not so, and what is wrong with admitting it? Unless creeping infallibility has so enmeshed all doctrinal (not dogmatic) pronouncements, the truth goes a long way.
A glance through much of Ute Ranke-Heinemann’s, “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality, and the Catholic Church” exposes countless inanities and horrifying examples of callous disregard of women from medieval through modern times by bishops/cardinal/popes as to even whether they lived or died. They had no say whatsoever.
No wonder my mother insisted on going to a non-Catholic hospital to have me.
It was not so many decades ago that women seeking annulment had to go to a church-affiliated gynecologist and sit in warm water for an extended period to be sure that upon examination of the hymen the woman had not hidden its rupture. My God, what humiliation!
So, feminism is an F word I happily endorse. Rode’s fear of it is typical, and speaks more about him than any sisters.
I have Elizabeth Johnson’s Truly Our Sister, some Joan Chittister books, and Carolyn Osieck (Beyond Anger) all waiting for more careful reading. Sadly, I never hear anything similar from the altar.
Peter, you’re right about the website–in one way. I’m not worried that he’ll convert me. But I think things are interesting for a number of reasons. If there is an influx of a number of new tradtionalists–will they think the same way? Ave Maria Law School, famously, had rule that its female faculty couldn’t wear slacks–in MICHIGAN in winter.
I think the reason to know history is that it sets you free from present contingent claims masquerading as absolute claims.
Mark, I couldn’t begin to do justice to Cathy’s response to you.
Here are my two cents: Men and women can both have insight into their own nature and the nature of each other. There is however a big difference between having insight into another and insisting that one has deduced what is “authentic” about the other. Your objection is especially grating given that the Catholic Church systematically excludes female insight about the nature of men or women in any authoritative way. Women can have insight about each other and about men. Where in the Catholic pantheon is that acknowedged or reflected?
As for Bender’s notion that the Catholic concept of women is great, yes, even “soaring,” etc., let me be the first to say: soaring is for birds and women don’t have hollow bones. The notion of a “soaring” ideal of womanhood is enslaving, not liberating because it is as unattainable for most women as being as thin as Kate Moss or as beautiful as — take your pick. It is a backhanded way of insulting actual earthly women and to diminish their actual earthly accomplishments.
Barbara said: The notion of a “soaring” ideal of womanhood is enslaving, not liberating because it is as unattainable for most women as being as thin as Kate Moss or as beautiful as — take your pick. It is a backhanded way of insulting actual earthly women and to diminish their actual earthly accomplishments.
Jean agrees: At my age, soaring sounds like something that would end in tears and a broken hip. I’m trying to follow the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule, which apply equally to all humans as far as I can see.
I presume God is happy to see me at Mass in slacks. In fact, I sometimes think it’s useful to think of God as blind to our outer appearances the better to see the beauty of our souls.
What Tom Monaghan and the Ave Marie crowd might be blind to is a whole other question.
Mark: you write “I think a woman sees the occasional rough justice, even from Doctors of the Church, and has her antenna up. That gives her better insight but also, perhaps, a tendency to judge a bit harshly. A man is probably more objective, but likely to be a bit insensitive and perhaps even oblivious to real injustices.”
I do not recognize myself in your description. Does that make me any less of a woman? Of course not. I have the requisite physical attributes that make me a woman. As to the rest of what defines me, it is that unique mix that makes me an individual similar to no other, a person “whose name is written on the palm of God’s hand”. Not my attributes, “woman” or whatever, but my own individual name. My role in God’s plan is unique and cannot be reduced to the role of a woman, ideal or not. My ideal is not to fulfill whatever ideal feminine image you or any Pope has in mind, but to fulfill my own original role.
So, please drop such generalities.
“Like the lady said, feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ” Loved it, Lisa. And thanks for the reminder that the gains won by feminism are taken for granted by the present generation.
And Barbara, thanks for this: “There is however a big difference between having insight into another and insisting that one has deduced what is “authentic” about the other.” There is nothing more maddening than being told what’s authentic about you, when it does not match your own evaluation, and then not being allowed even to enter into the discussion.
Which brings us back to the nuns and the investigation. There is no group on the planet more concientious about self-examination than nuns, imho. What this investigation is saying is that they got it all wrong. They don’t know themselves. We are going to come in from Rome and straighten them out.
Mark said: “If you mean that nuns who have embraced the secular culture and have seen their ranks decimated, yet who are doing all they can to refuse the help the Church wants to offer them, then I would not call that brave, I’d call that obstinate and uncooperative.” But “help” is clearly not on offer here, if you look at the facts, rather than the spin. If Rome wanted to help the nuns plump up their numbers, this wouldn’t be the way they’d do it, would they?
No, try this instead. The visitation is a disciplinary and punitive venture inspired by denunciations proferred by anonymous sources. The results, as the Stonehill College symposium amply point out, have been already determined. This is not even an “investigation” properly speaking. It’s an exercise in intimidation.
Make that “conscientious” – sorry!
Rita–I grant you it is possible that the visitation may be simply a vindictive exercise in intimidation. Will you grant me that, looking at their declining numbers, it is possible that the nuns have, in fact, “got it all wrong”, and that Church may truly have their best interests at heart?
Barbara and Claire–Though I’m tempted to continue the dialog, I’m afraid anything further I might say would only cause more pain. I appreciate your radically different perspective; you’ve given me something to think about.
Mark Proska: There is no John Paul the Great. There are Leo the Great and Gregory the Great.
Sorry to interject reality here.
Jimmy–Thanks, sometimes I get ahead of myself.
**The notion of a “soaring” ideal of womanhood is enslaving, not liberating . . . It is a backhanded way of insulting actual earthly women and to diminish their actual earthly accomplishments.**
It is a calling for women to aspire to their full potential and the greatness to which they (and all human persons) are called. It is a calling to reject this fallacious idea that freedom = slavery.
“Will you grant me that, looking at their declining numbers, it is possible that the nuns have, in fact, “got it all wrong”, and that Church may truly have their best interests at heart?”
Mark, just to clarify — the nuns themselves are part of the Church, so when you say “Church may truly have their best interests at heart” what you probably mean by Church is the authorities in Rome. This raises an interesting question, which is: What is the credibility of the leadership in Rome at present? I think myself that it is very low right now. Maybe the lowest ebb of my lifetime. If a course correction were necessary, the time to do it is when the credibility of the authorities is high, not when they themselves seem increasingly out of touch with the Catholic people and with the most impressively faith-filled people among us.
Hierarchical systems run on the premise that an unequal distribution of power and authority is just and proper. What threatens the viability of a system such as the one we have is the persistent experience of many people that those who possess greater power/authority are not exercising it in such a way that the whole community flourishes. We trust our doctors, but if we are at the receiving end of malpractice, trust gets eroded. There are a lot of ways that Rome can exert positive influences on religious communities. But I would suggest that this visitation is more than likely to diminish whatever influence it could have for good.
Did the nuns “get it all wrong”? I don’t think so. What I see here is a complex phenomenon, and I am worried that behind Rome’s actions there is a drive to return to the nineteenth century–something which cannot be successful. Whatever we do, we can’t go back.
Hello Cathy (and All),
“But I think things are interesting for a number of reasons. If there is an influx of a number of new tradtionalists–will they think the same way?”
I don’t know, but so far I have seen little diversity among Roman Catholics who explicitly state they are “faithful to the magisterium”, and these people include the moderator of this web community and certain high profile figures in institutions such as Ave Maria University and EWTN that I need not name because they are familiar to all here. In every case I have personally encountered so far in my lifetime, when an individual explicitly says in public she/he “is faithful to the magisterium”, this means this individual is committed to everything the Roman Catholic Church taught and practiced between 1870 and 1962. Every such individual I have encountered is opposed to female alter servers, women entering church with their heads uncovered, the priest facing the congregation, and contemporary music used in the liturgy. Every such individual I have encountered also believes in the literal truth of a number of reported private revelations, though I am not sure all of them believe in the reports of revelations not approved by the Church. And that’s the tip of the iceberg by my lights, for they express a number of other views I find a lot more offensive then the examples I just listed.
So far as I know, I am an entirely orthodox Roman Catholic who is obeying Church teaching on matters of faith and morals to the best of my ability. But I don’t want to say I am faithful to the magisterium because I disagree with so much of the agenda of the people I discussed in the previous paragraph.
By the way, I think they don’t like being referred to as traditionalists. I think they prefer being referred to as faithful Catholics. By their standards I don’t think I qualify as a faithful Catholic.
“Ave Maria Law School, famously, had rule that its female faculty couldn’t wear slacks–in MICHIGAN in winter.”
No joking, I wonder if that was a factor in their decision to relocate to South Florida. Such a rule strikes me as simply unsafe in Michigan’s climate.
Michigan is not exactly the land of Sgt. Preston and King the wonder sled dog, folks.
In mid-Michigan, we have very few days when it gets really cold (below 20) and maybe only two or three when it’s actually below 0. On those sub-zero days, you don’t need to worry about what to wear to work because your car probably won’t start
Walking from your office parking lot into your place of work in a skirt is not going to bring on frostbite if you know how to dress. Most of us wear longer wool skirts, high boots (flat soles with good traction on snow, ice and slush). And there are other tricks to keep warm, such as over-the-knee wool ski socks, leg warmers, and long underwear options that you can write me offline about if you want to come up here in January in a skirt.
Whether women should have to invest in all this expensive protective wear because various entities in the Church say God would be offended by seeing them in slacks is, of course, a whole other question.
Rita–You are correct, of course, the nuns are as much a part of the Church as the Vatican is. Thanks for the clarification.
Now, I don’t think we need to drive the nuns back to the nineteenth century, but it would be nice to get them out of pants! I am also all for eliminating Speedos from men’s fashionware.
JPII and his soaring ideal of womanhood reminds me of this story: At homily time a young Irish priest fresh from Maynooth is waxing lyrical about the “glory of motherhood.” In the congregation one mother turns to another and says, don’t I wish I knew as little about it as he does.
Cardinal Rode’, gowned in red,
Disapproved of the nuns’ new threads.
“Unnatural ladies! You’re a major disgrace!”
Cried he, as he smoothed his skirt of lace.
How many people would be dead if Officer Munley had been told she had to wear a nylons and a pair of pumps?
Clothes should fit the work people do, and if a nun has an active job chasing kids at a daycare or moving bedridden people around, she should get to wear pants. At least until the priests are willing to go back to their dresses (cassocks).
And why all this focus on what nuns are wearing? I don’t hear any griping about brothers who wear street clothes. They’re in just about every issue of St. Anthony Messenger out of habit. And some of their shirts are even plaid!
Speaking of which — for the first time in my life I saw a priest wearing a cassock just last week. I couldn’t help but stare. In Providence, Rhode Island. Weird. It immediately reminded me of the “Don Camillo” movies.
OMG, there are “Don Camillo” movies??? I LOVE that book. It’s been out of print for years, and my copy is held together with a rubber band. I’m running right on over to Netflix.