Take this message to my brother...

It’s snowing today although it’s Spring so people are talking excitedly.  But in a few days, the typical warmth of Spring will return and people will forget about it.  This kind of reminds me of last week’s brief flurry around Pope Francis’ desire to form a commission to study women deacons in the early church.  However, instead of blowing snow on a Spring day, it seemed to be a chinook wind bringing warmth in the deep of winter.  It seemed a remarkably rapid thaw after about 1,200 years of winter.  But, within days, the Vatican weather vane twisted again and the climate resumed its typical frigidity..."no, no, that's not what we mean..."

I hope people are not too disappointed or disheartened.  The pope’s statement contained weasel wording a la a marketing pitch.  He merely said he wanted to study women deacons in the early church.  He didn’t say he wanted to ordain women.  People jumped to that conclusion, because it’s justified and logical…but justice and logic are not strong suits amongst many churchmen. 

My guess was Francis suggested the study either to relegate women to some non-ordained sub-deacon status (oh, we already have that….), declare women were never ordained (though neither were any men originally…) and so we must continue marginalizing women and ignoring the Spirit, or offer women deacons as a small, picked over bone to women in hopes people will stop talking about women priests. 

If the commission happens, rest assured, it likely wouldn’t contain any women with a vote anyway.  And after recently discussing female biology with a soon-to-be-ordained seminarian who thought all birth control pills aborted conceived children rather than prevented conception via preventing ovulation (as in there is no egg to fertilize), I don’t hold a lot of hope for a commission of ordained men coming to any reasonable conclusions about women in the church.  So, I’m not sure I care if they hold this commission or not and I’m quite sure I care even less about their conclusions. 

You see, my dear ordained brethren, "You don't know me but I'm your brother," as in your sibling, your equal.  Yes, I am your sibling yet, "you don't know my kind in your world." (Doobie Brothers, "Takin' it to the Streets"). Opting to operate in a world that isolates you from women makes you far from experts about women.  It makes you one of the most ignorant groups of humans on the topic, in fact.  And when the topic of spirit inspired female leadership arises, the collective lot slinks into the vestment closet, fondling your silky robes like children with their security blankets, sucking your thumbs and crying, "Go away! You can't come in my imaginary fort! You have cooties!"

It’s Pentecost but the clergy’s fancy robes seem to shield them from being touched by the Spirit.  Mary announced the gospel’s first good news proclaiming the resurrected Christ to the brothers but women cannot even read the gospel at Mass. “Apostle” means “one who was sent” and Mary definitely was sent by Jesus.  But John Paul II who even admitted she was seen as “an apostle to the apostles” started the adamant, increasingly angry and uncharitable derision and excommunication of women following the Spirit’s call to ordination.  It’s Pentecost but the hierarchy is afraid of the Spirit.

No worries, people are not waiting for the Vatican to acknowledge the Spirit they see in women.  At an accelerating pace, Catholic women are being ordained in defiance of feebly constructed bans against it.  They are simply "takin’ it to the streets" because they are tired of ordained men tellin’ them the things they’re gonna do for them (a)…that don’t connect with history or reality.  They ain’t blind and they don’t like what they think they see so they are sending a message to their brothers (a).

Let the Spirit blow where it may.  Walk without fear, and don't wear such heavy robes that the Spirit cannot touch you.

As a side note, I have no desire to be ordained.  However, the prohibition against ordaining women drilled into the core of my being as a youth because it opened my eyes to marginalization of women, in the church and in society.  It is degrading, demeaning and discriminatory, but most of all ill-founded.

(a)    Loosely based upon the Doobie Brothers’ song, “Takin’ it to the Streets.”

"Do you have eyes and not see?" (Mark 8:18)

I recently finished a three month Peace Corps Response assignment in Ghana.  Being in Peace Corps required refraining from political commentary and this blog danced along a line regarding that stipulation so I suspended writing during my assignment.  However, I’m back. 

I actually began writing this article on the plane flying home, having just watched the movie “Spotlight” again.  This is the movie about the Boston Globe’s investigative journalism that blew the lid off the systemic nature of the church’s sex abuse scandal. 

After spending three months in a culture that has extensive unreported sexual exploitation issues largely facilitated by cultural taboos against pursuing legal action…much like those the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team exposed in the Archdiocese of Boston…I find myself even sadder for the Church than the first time I watched the movie.

The movie ends by listing 203 dioceses around the world that have had major sex abuse scandals exposed.  A few more have been exposed since the film’s September, 2015 release.  I believe there are probably many, many, many more dioceses that continue enabling abusive priests, especially those in regions with cultural taboos acting as accomplices like in Africa. 

Spotlight portrayed the privileged status Boston’s Catholic hierarchy enjoyed which permitted priests to abuse and bishops to cover it up.  Beyond even Boston priests’ privilege, many African priests enjoy outright demagogue status.  They are untouchable.  They are not to be questioned.  They are in prime positions to abuse without accountability.  I pray that somehow the lid gets blown off of any sex abuses occurring in African Catholic Churches. 

Before I re-watched that movie, I intended to write about attending Mass at the Papal Nuncio’s residence.  He opens his residence every Sunday to anyone who wants to attend Mass – a nice diplomatic touch.  The Mass was lovely, the people were friendly, and I was even asked to join the choir.  The Papal Nuncio is a Francis appointee and works the crowd greeting people and he even engaged in a meaningful discussion with me…more on that in a bit. 

However, he celebrates Mass on his outdoor patio and Mass goers sit staring at the glass patio doors of his residence, the Vatican Embassy.  Clergy abuse issues in every country filter through the Papal Nuncio’s office.  So, although friendliness floated in the air, I kept getting a sick feeling in my stomach wondering how many sexually abusive priests this man knowingly leaves in service in Ghana. I would hope that number is zero but I am skeptical.

Re-watching Spotlight, I was sad for my church that chooses to not see what it does not want to see.  It prevents us as individuals and an organization from achieving our full potential.

By the way, my discussion with the Papal Nuncio was about three points associated with the “Doubting Thomas” gospel reading. 

1.        I am very tired of people preaching about Thomas’ character flaws.  He was the only one not in the locked room paralyzed in fear.  He was brave enough to be out and about. 

2.       People say Thomas doubted because he did not see.  And yet, the reason those in the room believed was because they saw. They saw and believed; Thomas saw and believed – but - most homilies portray Thomas as the only one who had to see to believe.  Whom Thomas doubted was his fellow humans, not God.

I mentioned these two concepts to the Papal Nuncio and he initially said, “Yes, yes…of course” in a dismissive way that feigned interest. 

That was not the case when I mentioned point 3.

3.       In his homily he repeatedly referred to “the apostles” and “the guys.”  I held the gospel reading in front of him and pointed to it saying, “It actually says disciples not apostles; there were women there too.” 

I wish I had a camera for the stunned look on his face.  He laughed and said, “OH MY GOD!  I NEVER SAW THAT BEFORE! THAT IS FANTASTIC!”

His reaction pretty well sums up some issues in the church.  A passage that is used to justify marginalizing women from ordination clearly says disciples not apostles, but he did not read what it actually said.  He read what he wanted it to say.  Things that clearly exist in front of people are not seen because they do not want to see it – whether it is sexual abuse of children, reprehensible reshuffling of abusive clergy by bishops so they can abuse other children or unjust marginalization of women based on not seeing what is clearly written in scripture.  How do we fix willful blindness?

Side note: There were many women disciples.  Jesus breathed on the disciples present, told them to receive the Holy Spirit and if they loosed or held sins, they would be so loosed or held in heaven.  This is a pivotal scripture passage used to withhold ordination from women because hierarchy leaders read “apostle” of which they believe there were only 12 male ones.  This passage is considered instituting the sacrament of reconciliation, granting powers to absolve sins only to male apostles. 

Side note 2: Thomas, an apostle who was not present, did not get hit by this holy hot air yet is considered a full apostle and predecessor to priests and bishops.  However, the women disciples who were present?  The hierarchy evidently believes they had their Star Trek matter/anti-matter shields fully operational and deflected any such holy hot air from touching them. 

I was in Ghana working on girls’ education and empowerment.  As part of that I taught a session on “Finding Your Voice.”  It is a mini workshop I conduct to help people realize their ideas and opinions matter, and to help them cultivate their critical thinking and expression skills.  The Boston church found its voice.  I found my voice. How can we help others find their voices on children’s and women’s rights, especially in the church?

Please don't blame your sexism on Jesus...

I understand some hearts are aflutter after Cardinal Sean O'Malley's recent interview on the US television show "60 Minutes."  During the interview Sean hinted that he felt convicted-criminal-for-failure-to-report-child-abuse-and-active-Opus-Dei-bishop-of-Kansas-City, Robert Finn, maybe shouldn't be an active bishop anymore.  Rather than rejoicing, I find myself disillusioned that a) O'Malley is the first of the more than 5,000 worldwide bishops to open his mouth on this...over TWO YEARS AFTER Finn's conviction and b) this STILL has not been addressed by the pope. Talk about a "no-brainer" action to take...

In Roman Catholic Clergy time, perhaps two years is the equivalent of breaking the sound barrier for speed, but to me, it seems slow and underwhelming.  After all, I repeat: Finn is still the active bishop of an entire diocese despite Sean's groundbreaking public criticism. If Finn had ordained a woman, he would have been relieved of his duties before the sun set on the next day.  It doesn't speak well to papal priorities that the welfare of children is something to ponder for years before acting.

Sean also said the Vatican's handling of the US nun's visitation was a "disaster."  Thanks, Sean...Glad you caught on to that one too, albeit a little slower than the Finn situation.

But what really caught my attention were Sean's statements about women and Jesus. Here's a synopsis:

Reporter Norah O’Donnell asked if excluding women from the hierarchy was “immoral.”  O'Malley replied, “Christ would never ask us to do something immoral. It’s a matter of vocation and what God has given to us."

He went on to say, "Not everyone needs to be ordained to have an important role in the life of the Church...Women run Catholic charities, Catholic schools …. They have other very important roles. A priest can’t be a mother. The tradition in the Church is that we ordain men."  (Note the touch of "Venus envy" in that statement..."guys can't have babies so we need to prevent women from doing something men can to even the score" kind of mentality.)

Then in true "Happy Projection and Passive Aggressive Day" form, O’Malley smiled and uttered this humdinger, “If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests. But Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different.”

You see, Sean tells us it's not him and the rest of the clergy who are sexist; evidently it's Jesus who is.  Sean really, really, really and I mean a million times really wishes he could ordain a woman but gosh darn it, even though Jesus said Peter could hold whatever he wanted loosed or bound....there was a disclaimer written in invisible ink only discernible by clergy eyes that says something like this, "except when it comes to ordaining women, approving of homosexuals or using birth control...there I draw the line guys...and I mean the 'guys' part literally..."

Sean, Christ didn't ordain anyone and didn't ask anybody to ordain anybody in Scripture. So, what you said on national television...Prime Time at that, was a falsehood.  Ya broke the 8th Commandment on that one, my friend.

Scripture does record Jesus naming some "apostles", a word that simply means "one who is sent."  And scripture also does record Jesus deliberately sending a woman...Mary the Magdalene...so she was by definition an apostle.  She was sent to announce the original "gospel" / "good news" of Jesus' resurrection.  And, Sean, in Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II acknowledged that she was an apostle.  So, it seems you've got at least two strikes against you in the truth department.

Furthermore, Sean, riddle me this....how come the first proclaimer of the gospel/good news of Jesus' resurrection was a woman but you and your band of brothers don't let women proclaim the gospel during Mass...at all...ever?  What happened to all that "we can't deviate from scripture" malarcky that you chaps like to repeat until it clangs against my ears like a noisy gong when it comes to excluding women?  You seem to forget that rule when it comes to including women.

But, I think the most offensive thing that you said, which I know you're just parroting what other sexist clerics have said before you, is the bit about blaming your and the clergy's sexism on Jesus.  I must insist you all stop doing that.  Please own your sexism and stop using Jesus as your scapegoat. Christ didn't give us an all-male priesthood.  The men and their male hegemonic culture gave us an all-male priesthood. Truly, for heaven's sake, own your discrimination; own your sexism.

Sean also prattled on about the abundant leadership roles women have.  Since my last blog article which introduced the idea of clergy key performance indicators (KPIs) was such a hit, I thought I'd define a few more clergy KPIs to measure equality.

Here's what I'd like Sean and all the other clergy to disclose so that the statistics can demonstrate just exactly how "important" they find women:

Number of priests who report to male leaders (R):_____
Number of priests who report to women leaders (r):_____ (I think that number is 0 but please humor me and fill it in.)
Number of men leading Curia offices (C):_____
Number of women leading Curia offices (c):_____  (Pretty sure this one is 0 too...)
Number of doctors of the church (DOCS):__35___
Number of female doctors of the church (docs):__4___
Number of saints (S):_____
Number of female saints (s):_____
Number of people who get to vote on bishops and popes (V):_____
Number of women who get to vote on bishops and popes (v):_____ (I know that number is 0 but again, please fill it in to take ownership of your responses.)
Number of doctrinal documents (D):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women (d):_____
Number of doctrinal documents actually referenced (REF):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women actually referenced (ref):_____
Number of people you talk to on a typical day (P):_____
Number of women you talk to on a typical day (p):_____
Number of people who advise you (A):_____
Number of women who advise you (a):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from people (F):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from women (f):_____

The Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) is calculated by dividing "r" by "R" and adding that to the result of dividing "c" by "C".  The closer that number is to zero, the lower the leadership roles for women.  I believe currently the SGCI is precisely 0.  That would be a ceiling that rests firmly on the floor with exactly zero millimeters of height.  Sean, your story is crashing to the ground and rests upon all those women leaders you tout.

Doctors of the church and saints aren't named until after death so we will handle them in a different category of posthumous indicators.  The At Least We Value Dead Women Indicator (ALWVDWI) is calculated by adding "docs" and "s" and dividing that by the sum of adding "DOCS" and "S". The closer that is to 0.5, the more equitable value of women in the church.  We know the number of doctors and female doctors of the church and in a previous blog article I reported that about 16 out of 100 saints are female.  So, we can actually calculate this one ourselves.  (4+16)/(35+100) = 0.148  Hmmm, 0.148 seems a lot smaller than 0.5....Sean, your story that crashed to the ground is now digging its grave.

The Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) is calculated by adding v and d and dividing it by V+D.  This number should be 0.5 or higher if the female church actually has a feminine voice because voting and dogmatic writings are two of the official voices in the church.  A number of 0.5 or higher means the church's voice consists of at least as much female-originated content as male-originated.  However, this number is actually very, very low...approaching zero.  Thus, our female church's voice has a breathtakingly masculine sound.

The Deaf to Women Indicator (DWI) is a little bit more complex to calculate, so I'll break it into steps.  Multiply f by a and add the product to the sum of p+"ref".  This will be divided by the result of multiplying F by A and adding the product to the sum of P+"REF".  For the math geeks out there the formula is: ((f*a)+p+"ref")/((F*A)+P+"REF").

An example might help.  If a bishop typically talks to 50 people in a day and 5 of them are women and 1 of his 20 advisers are women and he receives advice from the woman 1 time per day while receiving advice 30 times per day overall and he typically references zero doctrinal documents written by women but 10 written by men per day, the result would be ((1*1)+5+0)/((30*20)+50+10) or 6/660 or 0.009.  If women and men are consulted equally then the DWI is 0.5.  The closer the number is to zero, the more deafness towards women.  "Aaaaaaaay, what did you say?..... I can't H-E-A-R you....."

Sean, I really wish you and some of the guys would complete this assessment and send it to me.  And, then, if the numbers do not support your claims about women leadership and importance in the church, I'd like you to go back on "60 Minutes" and say, "I'm sorry; I was very badly mistaken about that women leaders / women are important thing.  Jesus, I'm sorry I blamed my sexism and male hegemonic blindness on you."  Please let me know when this will air as I will not want to miss it.

In the meantime, until your Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) approaches 2, your At Least We Value Dead Women (ALWVDWI) and Deaf to Women (DWI) Indicators approach 0.5, and your Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) exceeds 0.5, please stop spouting this fairy tale about women in leadership filling important roles.  Otherwise, you will leave me with no other option than to call "bullshit!"

 

Some "theology of women" from a woman

Today is my mom’s birthday and were she alive we’d be having some sort of combined St. Patrick’s Day / birthday celebration.  Since she has started the eternal chapter of her life, I’ll instead honor the day by offering some “theology of women” thoughts based upon witnessing her faith for over 40 years.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy seems to assert that Jesus’ sexual organs are his most important body parts.  Why do I say this?  The hierarchy asserts that a priest must “naturally” remind people of Jesus’ physical body and only other men can do this.   The most differentiating physical attributes between a male and a female are sexual organs.  So, it’s easy to surmise that the hierarchy believes Jesus’ most important physical attributes are his sexual organs if they are required to evoke recollection of the man. 

This is curious in its own right because the hierarchy further asserts that Jesus never used his sexual organs for their natural intended purpose so why are they so all-fired important…but I digress.  Regardless of the hierarchy’s generous willingness to tell me what my thoughts and feelings should be, I know what they are.   The person who most reminds me of Jesus’ physical person is my mom. 

No, I wasn’t raised by a “mom” who was really just a man dressing in drag.  I wasn’t raised by a woman who later had a sex change operation either.  I was raised by my natural mother who was female all her life.  Yet, she reminded me physically of Jesus more than any other person I’ve encountered.  You might ask, “Why?”

Even if you don’t ask, “why”, I will elaborate because that …and maybe a little jetlag following my return from Southeast Asia find me awake in the wee hours of her birthday.

Jesus fed his flock, not by knocking out 80 hour weeks and turning over his paycheck to his wife so she could buy groceries that she would later cook and serve as meals to the flock.  Rather, he fed the world by offering himself, his own body.  No man I know does this but mothers do it all the time. 

My mother fed me and my numerous siblings from her very body. She fed us when we were in utero, where a mother’s body sacrifices nutrients to her child even to the detriment of her own body.  After we were born, she continued to feed us from her body, nursing us each for several months post-partum.

Jesus also welcomes us to enter into his Body.  Thus, we become part of the Body of Christ.  I think maybe this is Jesus’ way of saying, “I love you so much that I will make myself vulnerable so you can enter my body…”  This is a profoundly deep expression of love.  Women as wives and mothers welcome others to enter their bodies also, through sexual intercourse or through pregnancy.  My mother welcomed me into her body via her pregnancy carrying me.  She made herself vulnerable to allow me to enter her body and be a part of her body, even when I was no longer a physical resident of her body.

Thus, I readily see Jesus, not only in my mother but in many mothers whose greatest joy comes from making themselves vulnerable to allow others to share their body so that they may have life.

People say Jesus is our “brother” but my brothers never permitted me nor did I ever want to enter their bodies.  There’s nothing that poured forth from my brothers’ bodies that I found suitable for consumption or nourishment.  There is no part of their flesh that fed me.  Yet, there was from my mom as there is from Jesus.

Since the hierarchy asserts that physical recollection of Jesus is required of the person leading a Eucharistic celebration of the Mass lest we sacrifice sacramental validity, then it would seem that hierarchy would need to also assert that this person must be a mother.  No other type of person has sacrificed their body to give life to others.  No one else intimately knows what is involved in feeding others from their own flesh.  How curious that only one man did what many women do, and how comical to say only ordained men understand and portray it.  Donning effeminate garb does not fool me into thinking a male priest has the slightest clue about sacrificing his body to feed me like my mother did or Jesus does.  It was not the superficiality of my mother’s clothes that fed me.  It was the fiber of her physical being.  When I became a mother myself, I better understood the profound life-giving, sacrificial, deep love my mother expressed.  It became my inspiration to try to imitate her and Christ as best I could.

The experience of feeding another from one’s own body is beyond the experience of every man in history except Jesus.  At best, other men can observe others literally feeding others from their own body, but they cannot do it themselves.  Maybe because men are incapable of this primary life-giving experience, they suppress or discredit the expressions of those who do.  Maybe this is why women’s voices are so often ignored in the church unless they echo the experiences of men. 

The bottom line is that I didn’t live in the time of Jesus so didn’t see his physical body and thus, I have never seen his sexual organs.  Believe it or not, even if I had met Jesus face-to-face in his time, I sincerely doubt his sexual organs would have been my focal point because it’s not my focal point when meeting men today.  I just don’t say, “There’s a guy; he sure reminds me of Jesus because they have the same standard sexual equipment package.” 

I can imagine that this fixation on a priest having the same sexual organs as Jesus might be especially offensive to survivors of clergy sexual abuse; it is to me and I was never sexually assaulted by a priest.  If Jesus’ sexual organs are so important to remind us of Jesus, how dare they be used for sexual violence?  How dare anyone tolerate that, enable that or minimize that?  Quite frankly, this is a no-brainer: people who use their flesh to violate others or who minimize another’s use of flesh to violate others do not remind me of Jesus.

Conversely, it’s just a no-brainer that my mom’s or any mom’s holy, joyous sacrifice feeding her flock from her own flesh physically reminds me of Jesus.  Active use of her body parts to feed others reminds me of Jesus far more than the male clergy's passive non-use of body parts.

Correcting the "theology of women" that currently exists...

Rumors are circulating that Pope Francis might visit the U.S. next year.  He is most cordially welcome to visit my home and even stay here – no charge.  In addition to walking side-by-side with him and the economically challenged in my area, I’d like to discuss this “theology of women” concept with him.  Maybe I’ll send him a letter extending a sincere invitation.  But, just in case he doesn’t accept my offer, let me discuss some things here. 

1.  We’re not going to get anywhere with a “theology of women” if the hierarchy’s emotional abuse of women continues.   So all this stereotyping of women as fluffy, delicate, glowing, wispy, cookie-baking, child-bearing, child-rearing, walking uteri needs to stop.  For instance Francis needs to stop saying stuff like this about women:

• “The gifts of delicacy, of a special sensibility and tenderness, which are a richness of the feminine spirit, represent only a genuine force for the life of the family, for the irradiation of a clime of serenity and harmony, but a reality without which the human vocation would be unrealizable.”
• “How is it possible to grow the effective presence [of women] in so many ambits of public life, in the world of work and in the venues where the most important decisions are adopted, and at the same time maintain a presence and a preferential attention, which is extremely special, in and for the family?”

Francis, as the song says, “I can bring home the bacon; fry it up in a pan and never, never, never let you forget you’re a man…’cause I’m a woman…w-o-m-a-n.”  Heck I’ll probably even wind up washing the darn dirty pan.  That’s some of my “special sensibility and tenderness.”  And, you do realize you just said that the most important decisions occur outside the home.  That's not a ringing endorsement for the value of families.

2.  “Theology of women” can’t merely consist of a bunch of unmarried men telling women what it means to be female.  Hierarchy members are lesser authorities on what it means to be a woman than pretty much any female on the planet.  As the character Gracie Hart says in the movie “Miss Congeniality”, “I can’t talk girl talk with a guy in my head.”  So, Francis also needs to stop saying stuff like this about women’s roles, “In this process, the discernment of the Magisterium of the popes has been, and is, important.”  No, really, on this one, it’s not important.  Actually, what is important is making the extensive corrections needed to previous popes’ flawed writings about women. 

3.  Stop telling me I’m supposed to imitate the Virgin Mary just because we’re both female.  She said “yes” to God.  That’s great for men and women to imitate.  But there isn’t anything about Mary’s female life that resonates with me.  She got pregnant without having sex.  She remained “free from the stain of sin” because she remained a virgin.  She was born perfect and raised a son who is sinless and God.  I share no common experiences in that string.  I have to believe raising one perfect son whilst one is perfect themselves is considerably easier than being born imperfect and raising multiple imperfect children.  Mary’s motherhood was purposely abnormal, so I have no desire to emulate it. 

4. Stop telling me my primary purpose is to be a mother.  On average women have about 15 years of peak fertility.  Against a 74 year average life expectancy for women globally, that’s only about 20% of their lives.  Even if a woman had children in the first and last of her 15 peak fertility years that would mean about 33 of her 74 years involve raising children – less than half her lifespan.  Why disregard more than 50% of women’s lives? 

Similarly, stop this hypocrisy wherein “good” fathers should work outside the home but “good” mothers need to prayerfully consider it like they are contemplating entering the bowels of an operating nuclear reactor.  Women and men should work outside the home as called by God.  Good parents will be good parents regardless of if they stay home or not provided they align with God’s will.  That goes for mothers and fathers. 

5.  It is dehumanizing to reduce femininity to a mere metaphor, especially when it is used to mask male hegemony.  The “church’s anthropology” asserts that Jesus, a male, marries the church, a female.  Priests celebrating Mass in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) are supposed to continue this marriage celebration of Jesus to the church. Since the church is “female”, the hierarchy teaches that priests must be males lest they provide a same-sex marriage example. 

However, doctrine also asserts that priests act both in persona Christi and in persona ecclesiae (in the person of the “female” church).  Thus you rightly could claim that every time clergy alone celebrate Mass they actually do perform a symbolic same-sex marriage, but the hierarchy will quickly tell you that the metaphorical “female” church is there.  You see, the hierarchy feels the male role is so important that it must be played by an actual human man.  However the female part is so inconsequential in this marriage that it can be reduced to a metaphor played by anybody – male or female.   That teaching really accentuates the hierarchy’s devaluation of women.

The document, Inter Insigniores, outright admits the hierarchy’s long history of devaluing women, “It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavorable to woman..."  However, that document goes on to explain that these “unfavorable prejudices” did not impair the hierarchy when conjuring up dogma about women.  I think that is an impossible thing to do.

6.  If you balanced the Vatican Library on a fulcrum and then moved all the dogmatic writings by women in it to one side and those by men to the other side, the library will topple to one side.  Women’s writings drown in a sea of men’s voices.  Yet dogmatic writings and the male hierarchy form the “female” church’s official voice.  How can a “female” church have such a decidedly masculine voice?

It’s not that women have been mute.  It’s that they have been largely ignored unless they parrot what the male hierarchy says.  This systematic suppression of the “female” church’s actual female voices and replacement of them with male voices also makes a very strong case that the hierarchy’s marriage example is of a male-male same-sex union with the “female” church being played by male “queens.”

This suppression and exclusion of the female voice deprives the church of truth by denying the Spirit’s work through women.  This cannot be tolerated.  Indeed, with the increasing exodus of women from the church, it’s not being tolerated.  Until this is fixed, no “theology of women” will be taken seriously by the majority of women in the church.

7.  The current “theology of women” rests upon flawed biology and is basically a protracted, hyperbolic romantic fantasy based upon that flawed biology, written by men with limited, healthy intimate relationships with women.  The hierarchy must step away from the arrogance and flawed logic of “but we always thought this…” Clinging to teachings based upon flawed premises and institutionalized sexism unacceptably sacrifices truth in favor of protecting the status quo.

Before we can define a “theology of women” we must purge ourselves of these rampant inaccuracies.  Women are best qualified to analyze existing teachings about women, highlighting and correcting the many errors.  To not permit women to do this is like saying, “Italians are not credible experts on life in Italy.  We better have some Americans write about it instead.”

Once we correct what a “theology of women” isn’t, we can begin to expand upon what it actually is.

What is our role correcting the flawed “theology of women?”