Today I had to stand up and defend something that I say I believe. I didn't really want to have the conversation, but I was boxed into a corner and knew that if I didn't take the stand, no one would. So in the name of fighting relativism and "I'm okay, you're okay," I took the bait and I spoke up.
At our "mandatory" meeting with our rector this morning, after all the standard "we got a new bulletin board" and "don't forget to recycle" part of the meeting, our rector showed us a short film made by some former ND film students. The film was about a woman who wanted to be a Catholic priest. It was done in a documentary-style, but the supposed main character was filmed from the priest-side of an anonymous confessional, as if she were confessing her desire to be a priest as a sin. I don't think it's a sin to feel a call to serve the Church, so I was a little put off by the way that was done, cinematographically. I was glad to see that the woman’s take on it was at least one of deference to the Magisterium, and not one of starting a revolution or leaving the Church. She confessed to wanting to be able to administer sacraments and to be fully a priest, but that she remained in the Church, doing what she could as a married woman with an MDiv.
The film interviewed several people from the ND community, including my rector who is a consecrated religious, a CSC priest, and a history prof who focuses on women in the Catholic Church (happens to be my boss.) Though those interviewed had different perspectives on women in the church, as a whole, the film was clearly pushing an agenda.
After the film, we were asked to stand up and move to different sides of the room, depending on where we stood on the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. I made my way to the “I am opposed” corner. Almost everyone in the room was standing in the “I support women in the priesthood” or in the “I don’t know how I feel” category. Sister asked for us to voice opinions on the various view points, so a friend of mine offered her “I don’t know” opinion, then another friend voiced her “I’m all for it” opinion. Looking around, I could see that no one else was going to say anything. I didn’t want to get into it. But I KNEW that if I didn’t say anything, the true standpoint of the Catholic Church would be ignored and go unspoken, even by the Dominican sister. So I stepped up. I felt the eyes of a whole slew of women on me – all shocked that I was going to actually say what I said. Surprised or offended perhaps that I, a woman, would spout the party line that was (in their eyes) inherently sexist and unfair to women. I wish that I could have better prepared for that moment, or that I could go back and say what I really want to say that may have let them see it in the light of their feminist views.
When I finished what I had to say, the rector asked for a show of hands of people who went to churches where women were ordained or served as ministers. One girl raised her hand and said, “My grandma is a minister.” Of course I immediately felt like she had just said, “My mom is fat” after I made a fat joke. The rector’s final comment was that she was very glad to see a woman preaching the homily at a church she visited in CA. What kind of a message is she sending?
I was mostly offended that this was brought up and forced upon us in a “mandatory” meeting. What purpose will this serve? The Catholic Church has closed all discussion on the possibility of Ordination of Women. It won’t happen. It’s a moot point. No one will grow in their faith from this discussion. People will only be more confused about the Church’s attitude toward women because you didn’t provide a clear voice to present the position of the Church.
I was shocked that I was one of the only people in the room at this Catholic institution who took the Catholic position. But if I say I am a Catholic and live my faith in the public sphere as a leader and as a peer minister and a teacher, I supposed I should be ready to explain my faith and my Church. I was just disturbed that I felt somewhat ostracized for taking the Catholic position at the University of Notre Dame.
1 comment:
Hello -- I have just posted an article on the "Religious Dimension of Sustainable Development." The link is:
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n01.html
Please take a look when time permits. The article is on the left column (white background). I would be grateful for any feedback (positive/negative/in-between). Specifically, what do you think about the linguistic analysis of Genesis chapters 1, 2, and 5 in connection with the original unity of man and woman and the current situation regarding global issues of social and environmental injustice (excerpt pasted below).
With best wishes for a good 2008,
Luis
-------------------------------------------------
EXCERPT
Question: What incentives would motivate religious institutions to overcome patriarchy?
The Baha'is have found the motivation via new religious insights (see the invited article). Other religious bodies may or may not be receptive to new insights. Old habits die hard, and it is not difficult to fabricate rationalizations. The Vatican's abrupt termination (via the publication of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 1994) of the process of discernment about the ordination of women is a case in point. The literalist interpretation of certain scriptural texts are indicative of dubious and antiquated (if not self-serving) biblical exegesis. To add insult to injury, the subsequent ban on further discussion of the issue (clearly, a travesty) appears to close the door to further rational discourse. The continued exclusion of women from imaging God is a tragedy, and one that is already having severe and painful ramifications; for it leads to the delusion that domination by force is in accordance with a God who dominates by force. This applies not only to gender relations, but to all human relations. Other churches have been more open to new insights in human sexuality, and have allowed the ordination of women, but they are certainly paying the price in terms of divisive internal tensions.
Question: What is it that, deep in the human psyche, rebels against women in roles of religious authority?
Answer: Only God knows, but one possibility is the story about the creation of man and woman in early chapters of the Book of Genesis. These are the key texts:
* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27)
* "Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." (Genesis 2:23)
* "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man.'" (Genesis 5:1-2)
The traditional understanding of these texts is that the "man" was male-only and the "woman" was female-only. However, consider the following:
* Genesis 1:27 does not support the notion that "man" was either male or female. On the contrary, the text states that God created one "man" that was both male and female. The same linguistic analysis applies to Genesis 2:22-23 and Genesis 5:1-2.
* Genesis 2:22-23 confirms that the male "man" and the female "man" were not created independently of each other. On the contrary, "woman" was in "man," and only a literalist reading of the text would conclude that the "female man" was in "man" but the "male man" was not in "woman."
* Genesis 5:1-2 reiterates that "man" was a single body-person, a single human being, in which both male and female abide. Sexual differentiation is the necessary culmination of the mystery of creation because it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24).
In brief, a man is a man and a woman is a woman, but there is man in woman, and there is woman in man. Surely, man and woman are mutually complementary, but it does not follow that they are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a man in whom there is no woman (i.e., no anima in Jungian terminology), and there is no such thing as a woman in whom there is no man (i.e., no animus in Jungian terminology). Furthermore, how much his anima influences a man, and how much her animus influences a woman, may have something to do with the propensity to homosexuality experienced by some persons. If so, it follows that homosexuals are perfectly normal persons.
Be that as it may, it would be wrong for secular institutions to force religious institutions to embrace new insights in human sexuality that, for whatever reason, they are not ready to accept. On the other hand, it would be unfair to use tax revenues to subsidize churches that continue to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. They are free to believe what they believe. But it is an injustice to support them with tax funds provided by citizens who know better. All such subsidies should be cancelled, and sooner rather than later. Freedom of religion does not exonerate civil authorities from adjudicating preferential treatment only to institutions that benefit society.
Post a Comment