Pope Francis speaks of creating a “theology of women.” I’m not sure what he’s done towards achieving
that end other than saying he thinks it’s really important but he has at least
said that. Also under Francis’
leadership, the Vatican conducted a survey about marriage, divorce and birth
control. Since Francis repeatedly says
women are a priority, and he seems all "into" surveys, I thought I could suggest
another survey for the hierarchy. This survey would only be taken by women and
it would be based upon the questions used to identify emotional abuse.
Why should the hierarchy conduct a survey about emotional abuse of
women? Psychologists say that emotional
abuse can be as much or even sometimes more damaging than physical abuse because it attacks our
self-image and can prevent us from becoming who we were meant to be. It can allow falsehoods and stereotypes to
define us, violating our mind and soul.
It is the raping of one’s psychological core being.
Clearly we want no evidence of this clouding the creation of a “theology
of women” lest we create it based upon labeling falsehoods as truths.
Beyond that whole pesky matter of truth, we also have to concern ourselves with the downstream
implications of sustained emotional abuse, one of which is “learned
helplessness.” According to Dr. Martin
Seligman, learned helplessness arises from a combination of not having control
over something and experiencing sustained negative outcomes. Over time people alter their behaviors based
upon altered expectations of themselves due to a perceived sense of
powerlessness. In a nutshell, they just
give up and say, “This is just the way things are; I can’t do anything about
it.”
Emotional abuse can contribute to or cause learned helplessness because
it creates a false impression of a person’s capabilities, potential and
worth. It is a sustained mechanism to
manufacture artificial negative outcomes or create a false impression of
limitations.
If institutional emotional abuse of women does actually exist in the
Roman Catholic Church then there is a very high probability that there is
institutional learned helplessness amongst women. If that is the case, then that would skew survey
results about emotional abuse because women with learned helplessness would
give up and just say, “The way things are is the way things are; it doesn’t
matter.”
I do acknowledge that some ego- and ethnocentric women whose vocations perfectly align with what the hierarchy says a woman's vocation should be will respond that they do not feel emotionally abused. I respect their opinion but I suspect it is a minority viewpoint. However, I also suspect many women operate with learned helplessness.
So we either need to eradicate the learned helplessness or factor it
into our analysis of survey responses.
Eradicating institutional learned helplessness is a tall order for one
little blog article but I will offer some tips based upon some that appeared in
a Chicago Tribune article about Dr. Seligman’s work. The article suggests the following approaches
to overcome learned helplessness:
- Believe that change is possible. If you believe change is not possible, you have a terminal case of learned helplessness.
- Think big and without limitations. Things you think are limitations might just be artificial barriers constructed from the bricks of falsehoods fused together via the mortar of emotional abuse. One way to move beyond artificial limitations is to think of what you might do if you could change the rules, rewrite the rules, or ignore the rules. After all, rules are human-made and can be changed, so why not unfetter your imagination from the rules? It might help clarify which rules are worth keeping and which ones need to be changed…which ones are founded upon emotional abuse…which ones are founded on truth.
- Get perspective outside of your insulated organization. This will help you realize what are real versus artificial limitations and also help expand your understanding of the realm of the possible.
- Set goals. Build a roadmap of practical steps that will deconstruct artificial barriers.
- Achieve success. This is related to setting goals. Your roadmap needs to be practical but also in snack-sized chunks so that you can see progress. Eliminating institutionally constructed artificial barriers is usually a big undertaking and thus takes a long time. Human nature can get discouraged easily if success takes too long. However, if goals are set as a series of small steps, then you create a sustained path of small successes that you see leading to ultimate deconstruction of artificial barriers.
- View barriers and setbacks as temporary things – as opportunities to innovate and exercise your creativity. Changing your outlook from that of defeatist to that of healthy skeptic channels your energy into constantly assessing your roadmap and making appropriate adjustments rather than throwing up your hands in defeat at the first sign of difficulty.
With those concepts for overcoming learned helplessness in mind, women
could complete this survey to assess the presence or absence of emotional abuse
endured by women within the institutional church. The following survey is modified from a questionnaire I found on PsychCentral.com.
I have taken the liberty of providing responses I would give were this
survey actually conducted by the Catholic hierarchy.
Women perform upwards of 80% of church ministry and are more than 50% of regular church
goers. If they feel they suffer
institutional emotional abuse at the hands of the hierarchy, they have the
power to change things either individually or as a group. Individually, a woman always has the option
to leave the institutional church if organized efforts at change prove
too slow or fruitless. But, if a woman
feels the church emotionally abuses her, she has options beyond the shoulder shrugging
complying resignation associated with learned helplessness.
What is the extent of emotional abuse towards women in the church? How should it be addressed? What role do both men and women play in eliminating emotional abuse within the church?
One of the first steps in overcoming abuse is to name it. So, if doctrine, Canon Law and hierarchical practices are emotionally abusive, let us name them as such so that we can begin to fix them. Embarking on writing a "theology of women" without doing this will just result in additional emotionally abusive doctrine put into practice and enforced via church law. It will only serve to scour existing searing wounds with a pumice stone and firmly apply a poultice of salt and gravel via a strangulating tourniquet. In other words, don't expect a lot of healing to result from it.
Before someone with a few favorite priests in mind jumps down my throat, please note that I answer based upon what is in doctrine and Canon Law as well as general behavior trends. Kudos to those priests who try to treat women with as much dignity as the hierarchy and church processes permit.
P.S. I would recommend conducting a similar survey for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy. The physical and sexual abuses they endured are compounded by the emotional abuses they encounter as they try to heal. As long as the emotional abuse continues, the church will not move beyond the sexual abuse scandal even if not one more child is sexually assaulted from now until eternity. I tip my hat to the sexual abuse survivors for teaching the rest of the church how to avoid learned helplessness.
Emotionally Abusive Behavior Pattern
|
Comments
|
|
1. Humiliation,
degradation, discounting, negating, judging, criticizing
|
||
a. Do hierarchy members
make fun of women or put them down in front of other people?
|
Yes
|
Some do. This occurs via written and spoken language
in formal doctrine and informal interactions.
|
b. Do hierarchy members
tease women or use sarcasm as a way to put them down or degrade them?
|
Yes
|
Some do. For example: the emerging trend of Men's Clubs and Men's Conferences seem rampant with sexist and misogynistic humor that goes unchecked.
|
c. When women complain do
hierarchy members say that “it was just a joke” and that women are too
sensitive?
|
Yes
|
Often.
|
d. Does the hierarchy
tell women that their opinions or feelings are “wrong?”
|
Yes
|
Regularly via homilies,
interpersonal interactions, doctrine and Canon Law.
|
e. Do hierarchy members
regularly ridicule, dismiss, or disregard women's opinions, thoughts,
suggestions, and feelings?
|
Yes
|
Regularly via homilies,
interpersonal interactions, doctrine and Canon Law or just outright ignoring
them.
|
2. Domination, control,
and shame
|
||
a. Does the hierarchy
treat women like children?
|
Yes
|
Regularly via homilies,
interpersonal interactions, doctrine and Canon Law or just outright ignoring
them. Women at some point always have
at least 2 levels of male hierarchy over them: bishop and pope. Increasingly in my country clergymen use
their positions of power lobbying to wrest control of women's bodies from
women. They believe women incapable of
making moral decisions and so try to legislate them via civil law.
|
b. Does the hierarchy
constantly correct or chastise women because their behavior is
“inappropriate?”
|
Yes
|
"Radical feminist
nuns", lesbians, women using birth control/hormone therapy, women in
troubled pregnancies and women seeking ordination experience this the most.
|
c. Do women need to "get permission" from a clergyman before making even small decisions?
|
It depends upon the
clergyman in charge but there is no recourse if this is the case. On some matters, a woman absolutely must
get permission from a clergyman.
|
|
d. Does the hierarchy
control women's spending within the church?
|
Yes
|
Only if they give money
to the church. But in general, yes,
clergymen have ultimate say in how church monies are spent.
|
e. Does the hierarchy
treat women as though they are inferior to them?
|
Yes
|
This is in doctrine and
Canon law. The hierarchy justify this by saying that male or female laypeople
are inferior to them. However, since
all ordained people are men, this says women are always, always, always inferior
to clergymen.
|
f. Does the hierarchy
make women feel as though the hierarchy is always right?
|
Yes
|
This is in doctrine and
Canon law and reinforced by clergymen's practices.
|
g. Does the hierarchy
remind women of their shortcomings?
|
Yes
|
Many clergymen's favorite
hobby is reminding others of their sins but of late many clergymen especially
focus on what they believe are women's sins associated with reproductive health, sexuality and
vocational calling.
|
h. Does the hierarchy
belittle women's accomplishments, aspirations, plans or even who they are?
|
Yes
|
This is in doctrine and
daily practice. The hierarchy seems to
believe that by saying women are wonderful but then following that with
unfounded belittling statements about women, they revere women. Many women find this even more belittling
than direct belittlement due to its dishonesty.
|
i. Are women the target
of disapproving, dismissive, contemptuous, or condescending looks, comments,
or behavior by hierarchy members?
|
Yes
|
This varies but it is
present.
|
3. Accusing and blaming,
trivial and unreasonable demands or expectations, and denies own shortcomings
|
||
a. Does the hierarchy
accuse women of things contrived in their own minds that are untrue?
|
Yes
|
This varies but it is
present in things like the "radical feminism" claims against the
nuns.
|
b. Is the hierarchy
unable to laugh at themselves?
|
Yes
|
But, some can.
|
c. Are hierarchy members
extremely sensitive when it comes to others making fun of them or making any
kind of comment that seems to show a lack of respect?
|
Yes
|
Many hierarchical leaders
while inhibiting the religious liberties of others scream "religious
liberty." Thus as a group they
demonstrate low tolerance for criticism.
They use attack dogs such as the "Catholic League" to bully
their critics.
|
d. Do hierarchy members
have trouble apologizing?
|
Yes
|
Apologies from clergymen
are a near extinct entity.
|
e. Do hierarchy members
make excuses for their behavior or tend to blame others or circumstances for
their mistakes?
|
Yes
|
The woes of the hierarchy
and the Church are blamed on secularism, modernism, and all sorts of phantom
"isms" except the sexism and clericalism that actually plague the church.
|
f. Does the hierarchy
call women names or label them?
|
Yes
|
The hierarchy believes some labels they place on women are respectful but many women find them
extremely disrespectful. However frequently labeling women as "bitter", "angry", "feminist", "emotional", or "liberal" is the way clergy justify ignoring women's concerns as though these women's core beings are unreasonable and therefore not worthy of consideration.
|
g. Does the hierarchy
blame women for its problems or unhappiness?
|
I think the hierarchy
blames many things for the Church's woes and unruly women might be a part of
that but not necessarily the focus of the hierarchy's blame game.
|
|
h. Does the hierarchy
continually have “boundary violations” and disrespect women's valid requests?
|
Yes
|
Increasingly the
hierarchy in my country is using its lobbying powers to violate boundaries
when it comes to women's bodies. It
wrests control of women's bodies from women and legislates its care.
|
4. Emotional distancing
and the “silent treatment,” isolation, emotional abandonment or neglect
|
||
a. Do hierarchy members
use pouting, ignoring, withdrawal or withholding attention?
|
Yes
|
This is one of the
hierarchy's primary ways of dealing with women's concerns.
|
b. Does the hierarchy not
want to meet women's basic needs or use shunning, neglect or abandonment as
punishment?
|
Yes
|
The hierarchy doesn't
even know what women's basic needs are so cannot meet them. Rather than treat women as adults and speak
to them about their needs, the hierarchy assumes they know best what women
need. However, from many women's
viewpoint, they severely miss the mark.
|
c. Does the hierarchy
play the victim to deflect blame onto others instead of taking responsibility
for their actions and attitudes?
|
Yes
|
But this is directed at
more than women. They also blame
homosexuals, modernity, secular culture and a host of things other than
taking responsibility.
|
d. Does the hierarchy not
notice or care how women feel?
|
Yes
|
If the hierarchy does
notice how women feel, it tells them that they have the "wrong"
feelings.
|
e. Do hierarchy members fail to show empathy or ask questions to gather information about women?
|
Yes
|
Most do not and
institutionally this rarely if ever happens.
The rare occasions it has occurred, the question becomes one of
properly synthesizing that information.
It always seems to have to go through a clergyman's filter.
|
5. Codependence and
enmeshment:
|
||
a. Do hierarchy members
treat women not as individual people but as an extension of someone else such
as their husband or father?
|
Yes
|
This is written in
doctrine and increasingly expressed as part of "natural law."
|
b. Do hierarchy members disrespect or fail to protect women's personal boundaries?
|
Yes
|
See comments for 3.h.
|
c. Do hierarchy members
disrespect and disregard women's requests and instead do what they think is
best for women?
|
Yes
|
See comments for 3.h,
4.b, 4.d and 4.e.
|
d. Does the hierarchy
require continual contact with women because they haven’t developed a healthy
support network among their own peers?
|
Actually the opposite is
the case. The hierarchy has such a
tightly knit network that many hierarchy members seem to take for granted
that 80%+ of church ministry is done by women.
|