Reflections on Mary's "yes"...

New Year’s Day brings us a Marian Feast Day, a day upon which many clergy will extol the virtues of Mary’s “yes.”  Calling Mary’s response a “yes” implies there was a question with the possibility of answering “no.”  But, did Mary really have a choice?  

In Luke’s gospel the angel Gabriel didn’t seem to ask Mary a question when he announced her impending pregnancy.  He didn’t say, “Mary, what do you think about becoming pregnant before you get married?”  Or, “Mary, would you be willing to have the Holy Spirit impregnate you even though this could totally screw up the partially transacted business deal of your marriage to Joseph and get you stoned to death?”  He just said it was going to happen and that she shouldn’t worry.  Gabriel’s statements were declarative not interrogative.    

In Matthew’s gospel, the announcement didn’t even come to Mary; it came to Joseph - who according to Mosaic Law did have options…quietly end the betrothal, accuse Mary of being damaged goods or complete the betrothal process and marry her, likely for a lower bride price.   Mary’s religious, social and legal status largely depended upon what Joseph said and did, not what she said or did.      

The non-canonical gospel of James offers some insight into Mary’s early life, telling us Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim, donated her to be a temple virgin when she was about three years old.  If I had done similarly with any of my daughters, I would probably be in prison for child neglect or human trafficking.   However, the church sings the praises of Anna and Joachim, calling them saints.

What is the likelihood a child donated at and conditioned since three possesses sufficient critical thinking skills to realize, assess and exercise any of her options, limited and unpalatable as they may be?   

Some might dismiss this with a hand-wave, saying that those were different times - and they were.  Children and women were considered property with zero to few rights.  They had very little legal voice to oppose authority.   Would she have even thought “no” was a possible response?

According to Luke’s infancy narrative, Mary’s response to Gabriel’s announcement was that things should be done unto her according to Gabriel’s word.  That seems predictable based upon her childhood experiences…pretty ho-hum given the context, some might say.  Personally, I would be more amazed if she had said, “Gabe, Thanks, but no.”  Please note, I’ve not found saying “no thanks” to God to be a consistently reliable technique for God sparing me from things I do not want to endure.  So even if Mary said “Gabe…not gonna lie on this one…not loving your tidings…please tell the Lord to favor someone else” would that have prevented her pregnancy according to her wishes?

More interesting to me than Mary’s “yes” was her referring to herself as a “handmaiden of the Lord.”  In ancient Hebrew culture, a handmaiden’s married female owner could order the handmaiden to sleep with her husband to conceive a child on her behalf if the wife was unable to conceive.  Sarah ordering her handmaiden, Haggar, to sleep with Abraham to bear a child is such an example. 

The husband could not order the handmaiden to be sexual proxy for his wife; only the wife could do this.  Therefore, I wonder if Mary carried feminine rather than masculine imagery of God…in that her response was to consider herself conceiving a child as proxy for God…something culturally she would only do for her female owner?

We actually know almost no facts about Mary.  Over the years, myths evolved adding details based upon supposition and imagination rather than fact.  Eventually some of the details within those myths were declared infallible doctrine by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII - her being conceived immaculately/free from original sin, and her being assumed into heaven - sucked up by a Holy Hoover vacuum cleaner into heaven rather than taking the standard route by dying.  As an aside, her perpetual virginity has never been declared infallible doctrine, although it is doctrine.

Though we know little about Mary, we know a little more about Mosaic Law and the status of women at the time.  In some respects it offered women a degree of financial security not offered in other cultures at the time.  But if you read the various details regarding women’s virginity and legal implications for tampering with it, you see that women get a pretty raw deal.  They are property; they are objects upon which to be acted; their punishments are more severe, etc…  The list of marginalizing aspects is long.

Fast forward through history to today and we see that though some women have progressed in financial and physical security, discriminatory and marginalizing attitudes ingrained over thousands of years are difficult to shed.  Attitudes depicting women as dependent objects lead to practices that make them dependent objects.  For example, many girls around the globe prostitute themselves just to get a secondary or university education because their families believe formal education for girls is frivolous - females are to depend upon their fathers until they depend upon a husband.  Practices like this have led to a disproportionately large percentage of adults in poverty being women.  I have read statistics as high as 70% of impoverished adults are women. 

Pope Francis says he’s an advocate for both the poor and women.  A true advocate for the poor must be an advocate for women because they are to a large extent “the poor.”  A sincere advocate for the poor would also try to help alter the circumstances leading to poverty.  With women, this includes offering education and eradicating attitudes and practices defining women as dependent upon men.  This includes eradicating attitudes and practices that artificially limit women’s chances based upon gender. 

Unfortunately, I have not yet heard Pope Francis acknowledge the connection between poverty and the marginalization of women.  With his supporting institutionalized sexist practices in the church that emerge from its gender-based ideology while at the same time declaring feminists’ efforts at empowering women as “demonic gender-based ideology”, he seems primarily to reinforce regressive attitudes about women – attitudes that jeopardize their financial and physical security – attitudes that place more women in poverty.   Furthermore, Francis can’t seem to speak about women without sexist drivel and/or sexist jokes escaping from his mouth.  It makes his statements about valuing women ring hollow.  Meanwhile, his actions to support his words take a long time to occur and have been underwhelming when they finally do – to the point that they seem largely to be token gestures.

Even in a developed nation with great progress towards women’s empowerment, I am experiencing the downstream effect of the rock-star popular Francis repeatedly making sexist jokes.  For example, Christmas Eve Mass the priest told us the highest ministry a woman could have was to make cookies for a priest…har-dee-har-har.  If an executive made such a sexist comment at my secular job, the executive would be reprimanded or possibly fired depending upon severity.  But there are few people willing to go against the grain and call Francis out for his sexist statements.  This gives a sense of normalcy or invincibility to downstream clergy.  They can make similar sexist comments without fear of repercussions.  This also works against empowering women and ultimately increases their poverty.

Another area causing severe poverty ties to women’s reproductive health – an area where the church increasingly tries to eliminate women’s options, making “yes” the only “answer” regarding conceiving children.  Perhaps this explains or mirrors the clergy’s fixation with Mary’s non-optional “yes.”  Is giving women actual options truly something to fear to the point of restricting them?

Rather than prattle on about Mary and her “yes,” I ask Francis and the clergy to shed the scales from their eyes that blind them from seeing the role church hierarchy’s centuries of gender-based ideology plays in determining women’s economic options.  I ask them to stop the disparagement of feminism and feminist theology that empower women by helping them actually address the causes of poverty via developing self-confidence and independence.  Such theology is not afraid to be surprised by what the Holy Spirit asks women to do as it places no limitations around what the Holy Spirit can or will do.  When I see marked progress in these areas, then I will believe that the rock-star pope is a sincere advocate for women and consequently the vast majority of the poor.

I acknowledge Francis has done some heart-warming gestures in support of giving comfort to the poor.  But, when is he going to address the core issues causing so many women to live with their children in poverty?

A Letter from a Ewe to Pope Francis

This blog is a response to an interview between Antonio Spadaro and Pope Francis.  In the interview, Francis said the following about women in the church:

“I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man.  But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.  Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed.  The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role.  The woman is essential for the church.  Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops.  I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity.  We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church.  We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman.  Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church.  The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions.  The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.”

================================================================

Dear Francis,

I write this as an open letter via my blog because it stands about as much chance reaching you this way as it would if sent via traditional postal service.  Additionally, I make it a public letter because many people tell me they take comfort in reading my expressed sentiments of angst and concern that they share.  So, I think perhaps this letter is mostly for them since the chances of you reading it are slim.

In some ways I feel that you are an answer to concerns expressed in my letter to Benedict XVI sent via my bishop during his February, 2012 ad limina visit and posted to my blog the day before my mother died on February 13, 2012.  When I read her that letter she told me that when she became Catholic she often dreamed that she should forcefully and candidly confront the hierarchy like her namesake, Catherine of Siena.  She continued by saying that perhaps instead, her role was to bear me to bring forth those messages.  Therefore, I write this also in tribute to her and in her spirit.

I read the English translation of your interview with Antonio Spadaro and am encouraged by many things you said but deeply grieved by your words about women.  It is difficult to know where to begin expressing myself because your words violated me so profoundly.  Yet I hold little hope that you will understand why your words abraded my soul because they reflect the male hegemony that is the Roman Catholic hierarchy in which you have chosen to live.  When one dwells within a hegemonic culture, the resulting hegemonic praxes and ideologies are often accepted as “natural.”

Also, you have chosen to belong to the “Society of Jesus”, a group that excludes women from its society though Jesus’ society was noted for the inclusion of women.  This only further reduces my hope that you will understand.  Yet, the Spirit directs me to write despite diminishing hope and so I write you.

Francis, “Who do you say that I am?”

A statement made in another part of your interview belies your approach for answering such a question.  You said, “This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians…”  No, if I want to know who Mary is, I ask Mary.  Then I ask people who are similar to Mary – women and mothers.  Theologians are on my list but pretty far down my list of potential sources for answering that question with any degree of accuracy.  Yet they seem the only inhabitants of your list.

There are some physical differences between male and female humans.  One of them is not the ability to speak.  Thus, please do not invalidate, negate or repudiate the expressions of self-knowledge God inscribes within any person – female or male.  This is their conscience.  It should be your first source for understanding who people are.  Yet historically in the church hierarchy and continuing with your recent words, it does not even rank as high as being the last source the hierarchy consults for understanding women because you often do not consult women at all.  This is an unacceptable violation of women and of God’s Spirit within them.

Your statement about “female machismo” is confusing at best.  I am a computer scientist and engineer by training and trade in addition to holding a master degree in theology from a Jesuit university.  Let me be very clear.  I entered my engineering and theology programs because God instilled gifts in me that God asked me to cultivate and share with God’s creation.   Yet, your words seem to dismiss these pursuits as “female machismo” – as though breaking sexist stereotypes only stems from a woman’s desire to be masculine?  Has it ever occurred to you that women are just plain and simply answering God’s call using the gifts God gave them?   Could the hierarchy please stop trying to re-direct the Spirit in women?  Jesus cites violation of the Spirit as the only unpardonable sin (MT 12:31-32).  Thus, it would be a really good one to avoid.

You say the church needs to ascertain women’s role in the church.  Why would my role be any different than yours?  Why would it be any different than a man’s?  Why do we even need to have this conversation at all?

Men and women have some differences but more similarities than differences.  Why does the hierarchy begin with, cultivate and fixate upon gender differences rather than similarities?  Furthermore, when is a difference just a difference versus a limitation?  In the case of men nurturing and birthing an in utero child, the limitation is quite clear because men lack a uterus.  Perhaps someday God will reveal to humans a way to remove even that limitation but God has not yet done so.  However, it has not been demonstrated that male reproductive organs are necessary to conduct priestly ministry.  Indeed history, archaeology, scripture and present-day examples demonstrate women are very capable in this regard.

If one reads modern biology and psychology or observes demonstrated capabilities, the assumption should be equal participation and equal roles regardless of gender unless proven otherwise.  Instead, the hierarchy approaches women’s roles, especially leadership roles, with the default of exclusion unless proven otherwise.  And then the hierarchy works to prove that the exclusion must stand.  Yet, Jesus praised Mary Magdalene for breaking social and religious gender-based stereotypes.  Can hierarchical members, whose treatment of women deviates so drastically from Jesus’ example, be credible Vicars for Christ?

The hierarchy’s arguments about banning women from ordination cannot stand unless one accepts as foundational “truths” sexist stereotypes or things that are simply not true.  This of course violates the 8^th Commandment so it cannot be tolerated as “truth.”  Per Jesus, we must not break God’s commandment merely to preserve religious leaders’ traditions (MT 15:3). 

Rather than repeat them here I will just provide a link to a previous blog article that summarizes the abundant flaws associated with the hierarchy’s stance on ordaining women.  I ask that you read this article and reflect with humility – with a willingness to say, “Maybe we were wrong” rather than perpetuate the hierarchical arrogant insistence on “We are absolutely right.”

You say one should not confuse the function of women with the dignity of women.  Function and dignity are inextricably intertwined unless you subscribe to a “separate but equal” mentality that has been soundly rejected as sinful with regards to race. 

Where is the dignity for women or children in Canon Law equating the ordination of women with the sinfulness of clergy raping children?  The sexist dehumanization of that Canon rapes my mind and soul.  It has raped the souls of many women who left the church in disgust, unable to subject their souls to any further such violations. 

You say that a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops.  Yet, your publicly acknowledged advisors, whether the bishops’ synod, Curial Dicasteries, or your special group of eight cardinals, are all men.  Francis, who are your prominent female advisors?  Do they look anything like the many women fleeing the church at accelerating pace?  Where is your collegiality with women?    

Canon Law excludes women from hierarchical leadership or voting on any hierarchical leaders.  Please help me understand how disenfranchisement and exclusion from leadership demonstrate women are more important than bishops?  By the way, I do not think women are more important than men or bishops.  I think we are all of equal importance.  When men like you say such things, I think they are just trying to ply women’s egos and pride in hopes of them remaining docile in their marginalized and discriminated state. 

Why does doctrine (Redemptionis Sacramentum) say boys are preferred for altar servers and girls are to be tolerated at the discretion of the bishops?  Please help me understand how this is anything other than sinful sexism.  By the way, my daughters’ first sexist discrimination came at the hands of the hierarchy.  In a previous diocese they were senior servers training all other servers but when they moved to our present diocese they were no longer permitted to serve weekend liturgies simply because they were female.  Imagine yourself in their shoes and then listen to yourself say that function and dignity should not be confused.  They should not be confused as being anything other than intertwined.

Terms like “theology of women”, “feminine genius” and “specific place for women” seem like a smokescreen to hide the internal carnage they cause within the souls and minds of many women.  Rather than repeat myself, please read my blog articles about “theology of women” and terms like “holy femininity.”  Please stop using these insulting terms that only make sense if you assume women are frail, fragile creatures that are mostly different from rather than mostly similar to men.

If developing a theology of women is so critically important to the church as you suggest, how much of your day do you devote to talking to women?  How much room does this occupy on meeting agendas?  How many women are present to represent women when such agenda topics arise?

Does a theology of women require creation, validation or ratification by men?  Unfortunately due to the reality of the Catholic Church's male hegemony, there seems to be a need to gain male buy-in to do what is just with regards to women if one remains within the institution.  Perhaps that is why so many leave.  They have given up all hope that the hierarchy is capable of doing what is right and just.  

Also, please do not dismiss my expressed concerns as "angry rant" if you do not share my opinions.  Few things are as dehumanizing as telling another person how they do or should feel.  I am not angry; I am wounded and unwilling to subject myself to those who don't know or care that they inflict wounds.  Most wounded women leave the Catholic Church but I remain.  However, I have redefined the hierarchy's role in my life because the hierarchy's behavior has earned my distrust.  I am uncertain what they could do to regain that trust which they rightfully have lost  By the way, look at your pew counts and statistics on former Catholics.  I stand with the majority of the church - the people of God.  How has the hierarchy succeeded in wounding so many people to the point of departure?  When will it not only end but when will sincere efforts towards reparation and reconciliation begin?

As you mention, I have asked deep questions that need to be answered.  They appear in this blog and in an unpublished book manuscript of similar name sent to several members of the hierarchy including Benedict XVI.  Though some have acknowledged receipt, none have answered a single question.  I invite you into conversation via my blog to begin discussing these questions.  I also will send you a copy of the manuscript for “Questions from a Ewe to Her Shepherds” if you promise to read it and actually enter into dialogue regarding the questions.

I repeat, Francis, “Who do you say that I am?” If you wonder who I am, I suggest you begin by communicating with me rather than with theologians.   

I will be in Rome this November traveling with the Chancellor of my diocese.  I respectfully request a private discussion on these concerns about women.  I look forward to the favor of a reply though sadly, I do not expect one. 

Know of my prayers for you and those whom you hold dear.  May you walk in the peace of Christ, guided by the Spirit, rendering and receiving God’s love.

Respectfully,

A ewe with a lot of deep questions

P.S.  After I published this letter I reflected more on what might be required for the hierarchy to regain my trust.  You speak in another part of your interview about acting as a father.  Please allow me to describe my real father's behavior by sharing a story.

When I was in school, my father took me to a very large mathematics competition.  While awaiting results of the mathematics test taken by participants, a male participant's father approached my father, pointing at me while saying, "Why did you bring her?  That's like letting a kid take a lick from a lollipop only to take it away.  She won't need math to be a wife and mother."

My father looked the man squarely in the eye and said very calmly and deliberately, "She is here because she belongs here."  It turned out I placed 7th in the competition.  My father found the other father, waved my award in the air, again looking him calmly and squarely in the the eye and repeated, "She is here because she belongs here."

This made a huge impression on me but my father barely remembers it because it is just how he conducted himself with regards to all his children and all women. When hierarchy members are willing to stand and look any critic squarely in the eye while they say, "She is here because she belongs here" about women in any church role, then they might regain my trust and earn the privilege for me to call them "father."

I feel Fr. Roy Bourgeois did this which is why he has earned the privilege of me addressing him as "father."  However, I am sure you are aware that Fr. Roy has been defrocked and excommunicated by the hierarchy simply because he imitated my father by saying, "She is here because she belongs here" about a female priest.  An act of good faith would be to reinstate him and any bishop forced into silence or retirement due to their advocacy for women.

P.P.S
Last night during dinner I read my dad this letter.  Several times he interjected saying, "that's right" to affirm points I made.  When I read him his quote contained in the post-script, I got choked-up and interjected, "Dad that really meant a lot to me" after he had softly but more firmly said, "that's right" yet again in response.  When I finished reading the letter he said, "Il papa should talk to la mamma.  I think someday we will have a 'la mamma' instead of an 'il papa' leading." (As a side note to those reading who don't speak Italian, "il papa" means "the pope" in Italian but it also means, "the dad."  "La mamma" means "the mom.")

I also read him the comment one of his 20+ grandchildren wrote.  You see it below signed by AW.  He solemnly nodded his head in agreement, exhaled another, "that's right" and added one of his most common and powerful parenting lines while switching to a disapproving nod as though addressing you directly as one of his children, "Francis, Francis...show me; don't tell me.  Have you re-instated a single censured person yet?"

What is a "theology of women?"

Sorry for the delay writing.  I have again been traveling due to work.  While I was traveling, Pope Frank was busy traveling too.  Unlike me, he held a press conference amidst his travels when he was returning from World Youth Day.  During that interview he offered some comments about women.

A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.

The role of women doesn't end just with being a mother and with housework ... we don't yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church. We talk about whether they can do this or that, can they be altar boys, can they be lectors, about a woman as president of Caritas, but we don't have a deep theology of women in the church.

On the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed.

I read his statements and didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, roll my eyes in disbelief at the utter stupidity, or undertake primal scream therapy.  I found myself imitating my dad by uttering, “What the hell is a theology of women?”  Yes, just what exactly is a “theology of women” and why do we not hear talk of “theology of men” and why would these be different?   

The word “theology” derives from two Greek words, “theos” meaning “god” and “logia” meaning “words” or “the study of.”  Thus, “theology” means “The study of the nature of God and religious belief. Religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed such as ‘Christian theology’.” 

I’m going to go slowly with this in case the pope or any bishops are reading.  “Christian theology” is the system of beliefs about God from the perspective of Christians.  So, to say “theology of women”, one can assume that this is the system of beliefs about God from the perspective of women.  Frank, just how many women will you be contracting to write the female’s perspective about God?  It seems to me when women undertake such efforts they tend to suffer sanctions unless they echo the men’s perspectives about what they think women’s perspective should be.  Thus the current “theology of women” is really a “theology of men.” 

Let me provide an analogy.  Men writing women’s perspective about God is like asking a Hindu to write the Christian’s perspective about God.  Though it will have some interesting insights, it is unlikely to be accurate or complete.  Maybe this analogy would drive the point home better.  Would you like only women to write the “theology of men?”  

Let us not overlook the other absurd statements Frank made about women.  He packed many in those three short paragraphs to the point it is one of the highest concentrations of absurdities I've seen in a while.

Anita Bryant used to have a famous trite tagline about orange juice in her 11 years as the pitch woman for Florida orange juice, “A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine.”  Frank, were you channeling Anita Bryant with your opening salvo about women?  “A church without women is like a church without sunshine?” 

Anita had another famous trite tagline about orange juice, “Orange juice, it isn’t just for breakfast.”  And later in Frank’s statement this sentiment rang through too, “Women, they aren’t just for housework.”  Anita’s just a few years younger than Pope Frank.  Maybe he’s had a thing for her since their youth?

Anyway, so women can do more than housework and bear children?  Wow, I need to write that one down.  Thanks, Pope Einstein the First!  The words, “Captain Obvious” keep rattling around my head.

Newsflash Frank: it seems women run countries, begin religious organizations, run hospitals, run businesses, play professional sports, write books, invent things, lead militaries, and do just about every job except those of pope and pro football player.  Furthermore, women at least are permitted to play sports though a professional league might not exist for every sport.  Thus, religious institutions seem to be the last if not only remaining stronghold of sexist devaluation of women by excluding them from certain roles.

At this point Frank and those similarly minded typically say that women are actually more important than men by uttering such drivel as he did in his press conference, “A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.” 

O.K. Frank, et al, please explain how exclusion from decision making is a sign of greater importance and stature?  Does the U.S. Congress feel immigrants in this country are more important than them?  Do slaveholders feel their slaves are more important than them?   Do pimps feel their gaggle of prostitutes is more important than them?  No, in each case the people in power look upon the other groups as pawns - low-paid dispensable, easily replaceable workers upon whose backs they profit.   I’m struggling to describe your statement in a way that doesn’t involve using the letters, “B” and “S.”

 A church without women is like the apostolic college without Mary?  The apostolic college does not include Mary and perhaps you say the apostolic club acts only upon Mary’s far-superior directives, but your collective track record indicates power and money are often your major motivators.  Please don’t blame that on Jesus’ mother.  Please don’t blame your lack of accountability with regards to child rapists on any mother either.  If your behavior caring for children is actually guided by Mary, may I and the children I encounter never be so cursed as to have me imitate her.   

Perhaps instead of attributing your actions to an ethereal woman whose directives are only verifiable by your recounting what only you hear in the empire of your own minds, you might try just being accountable for your actions.  Accountability, it isn’t just for breakfast either.  Please don’t blame your sexism and other sins on a woman who when she speaks to me says your words about women flow like diarrhea after eating tainted food.

Finally, I cannot end without commenting on Frank’s statement regarding women’s ordination.  He said the church has spoken and said no.  Frank, read your catechism; the church is the people of God.  They, and thus the church, overwhelmingly say they want women priests.  The hierarchy has spoken and that is a small, shrinking faction of the church.  At last count, the entire clergy numbered around 413,000 out of 1.2 Billion Catholics worldwide.  That’s less than three one hundredths of a percent. 

But even though this small faction of the church monotonously repeats falsehoods and sexist statements to preserve its sexist stronghold of power, Frank’s statement is comical by the sheer fact that in the same interview he offered a 180 degree different viewpoint than Pope Bennie’s views on homosexual priests.  Frank, you know what Mary told me when you said that.  “Frank’s just using an old trick of flattery to try to keep women doing most of the work in the church while he and his pals take most of the credit.”

So, what would the church be without women?  It wouldn’t be like the apostolic college without Mary.  That exists and thrives.  Nor would it be like a day without sunshine.  The church without women would quite simply be non-existent.  Men cannot bear children.  So, a church without women would be extinct.  How long will women continue to enable a small, male minority of the church to dictate and define who God calls them to be?