Three years ago today I launched this blog expecting after a few months
of paltry readership I would find another hobby. I am deeply humbled by the number of e-mail
subscribers, Blogspot followers, other visitors, thoughtful comments and
personal emails I received over the past three years instead. Visitors to date exceed 57,000 and come from
over 120 countries. Though this pales in
comparison to the New York Times’ readership, it is well beyond my
expectations. I feel very connected to
the catholic (universal) church. Thank
you.
The death threats were a little unexpected too but ever since I
switched to moderating comments the trolls that wrote them seem to have found
other outlets for their anger. However,
the angry trolls are a big part of why I began the blog. I do not wish to cede my religion and
religious identity to bullies, especially ones whose views on women deviate
from that of Jesus’.
I do carry some sympathy for the angry trolls, though. They simply reflect attitudes taught about
women by many celebrated “leaders” throughout the church’s history. Some of these “leaders” were declared “Doctors
of the Church”, a distinguished position giving their theological writings
strong influence throughout history. If
you are unfamiliar with their theological reflections on women, here are a few
samples:
St. Augustine (the 4th century bishop who fathered a child
out of wedlock and then abandoned care for the child and mother to become a
priest)
"I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman was not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?"
St. John Chrysostom (the 4th century archbishop dubbed “Chrysostom", a word meaning “golden mouthed” in
Greek, because of the perceived wisdom flowing from his mouth)
"The whole of her bodily beauty is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum, and the fluid of digested food… If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is merely a whitened sepulchre."
St. Thomas Aquinas (the 13th century priest who nearing his death declared his copious theological writings to be “mere straw”)
"There are in the world a great many situations that weaken the conscientiousness of the soul. First and foremost of these is dealings with women. In his concern for the male sex, the superior may not forget the females, who need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin. In this situation the evil enemy can find many ways to creep in secretly. For the eye of woman touches and disturbs our soul, and not only the eye of the unbridled woman, but that of the decent one as well."
“Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind, which is moist.”
I write this blog also in an effort to countermand the false teachings
of men like these Doctors of the Church.
As an aside, the current trend at seminaries is to give greater emphasis to Aquinas’
teachings in general despite being based upon what is now seen as comically flawed understandings of human
biology, psychology, and reproduction.
What influences over time have these writings had on women’s roles in
the church and in society? What
influences do their writings still carry today?
What can and should be done to eradicate any remaining vestiges of their
false teachings?
When I began this blog I think the only readers were people I knew
personally. But now with hundreds of
subscribers many people do not know me other than through the pen name of “Questions
from a Ewe.” I use the pen name because
the questions I ask are not about me or any agenda of mine. I think they are questions shared by many
women (ewes), and men for that matter. So, I
don’t think my name matters as much as simply and sincerely challenging concepts built upon faulty foundations.
I’m not a famed theologian who will gain readership due to
reputation. I don’t seek fame from
writing my questions nor do I seek to make money from posing my questions. My simple hope is that readers come here
because they are searching. I hope they,
like I, find many questions that challenge them towards continued spiritual growth
and appropriate action. I also hope that
my questions give pause to at least a few hierarchical leaders.
Thank you for helping me evolve this blog from a hobby into a
ministry. I appreciate your prayers,
comments, suggestions and encouragement.
I will continue to write as long as discernment of the Spirit indicates
I should.
This blog’s name is similar to that of an unpublished book manuscript that I
wrote in 2008/2009 and sent to several church leaders called, “Questions from a Ewe to her
Shepherds.” The first page of that
manuscript is a lengthy dedication to various people who helped cultivate my
inquiring mind. The last two items in
that litany I will share here as my parting thought today.
This blog is dedicated:
- To all who seek God and dare to question in their search
- Most especially to my daughters that through my, their, and others’ questions, they may see a break in male hegemony in their society and their Church
As an aside, I have been asked and agreed to host a discussion table about
this blog at the Call to Action Conference in Milwaukee on Friday, November 1,
2013 in something called “Wide Open Friday.” I would love to see ewe there.
(A quick shout out to my friend Jack who provided me with some of these interesting quotes and another shout out to my friend Jason who shares the same birthday as this blog.)
