More realistic Christmas Carols

Merry Christmas!  I hope everyone is enjoying this joyous season.   

One aspect I love about the holiday season is the singing.  However, I have to admit that it bothers me how unrealistic Christmas carols are.  They paint some romanticized picture of Jesus’ birth wherein Mary does not break stride or even a sweat to deliver her baby.  They conjure images that are absent the various bodily fluids or physical sensations of human childbirth.  Yet, many Christmas homilies will emphasize the very important theological facet of Jesus being fully human.  Why then do we sing songs that omit the human realities of birth and go so far as to paint a false picture of what it was like for Jesus to be born a human child?

The lyrics to Silent Night were written by Josephus Mohr, an Austrian priest.  Let us pause for a moment to estimate how many priests throughout history have witnessed human childbirth from labor to delivery.  Let us also estimate how many current Catholic hierarchy members have ever seen the inside of a delivery room.  Were we counting on our fingers, we wouldn't need to use both hands, possibly not even all five fingers of one hand.  Suddenly, the propagation of unrealistic, romanticized, sanitized lyrics of Christmas carols becomes clear.

Let’s also pause a moment to offer some contextual information regarding childbirth since some folks reading this might also be unfamiliar with the realities of childbirth.

• Bloody bodily fluids flow abundantly … to the point that many a modern day father who attends their child’s delivery must sit lest they faint from the shocking sight.
• Contractions produce varying amounts of discomfort from mildly intense pain to what is called “back labor” where the child’s head is turned where its skull scrapes along the mother’s backbone with every contraction.
• When the mother begins pushing for the ultimate delivery of the child’s head, it is called “bearing down.”  This carries similar involuntary intensity as having an urgent yet constipated bowel movement only it lasts much longer.  It is of small wonder that during this process, some mothers have a bowel movement which covers the child as it is being delivered.
• Most women delivering their first child will experience vaginal tearing; their flesh will rip open, sometimes all the way to the anal wall.  In modern times and medical facilities, this can easily be repaired with numerous stitches that will make sitting and performing excretory functions extremely uncomfortable for several days but prevent the mother from bleeding to death.  However, in Jesus’ time, this along with other common complications are what made childbirth a leading killer of women.
• The baby emerges covered in blood and a waxy substance
• Nursing a child for the first time is very painful for most women.  Though the little darling you just delivered is toothless, he/she has very hard gums and chomps down on the mother’s nipples with gusto.  Many mothers will bruise on their nipples, something they likely never knew was possible.
• Though now some of the pains associated with childbirth can be dulled, Mary did not have the benefit of these pharmaceutical marvels.

Instead of portraying these realities of the mess, pain and danger of childbirth, Christmas carols draw imagery of Mary without her veil or possibly dress ever moving out of place.  They also fail to acknowledge the physical danger into which God placed Mary by impregnating her whilst being betrothed.  In her times, betrothals occurred often when girls were quite young followed by fully consummated marriage around age of 14 or so.  Betrothal was a strong commitment as sort of a non-consummated marriage and a woman found to be pregnant by someone other than her betrothed was considered guilty of committing adultery, an offense punishable by stoning. 

As an aside, I find myself contemplating possible connections between birth control and abortion, and fixations on the Annunciation story where an angel tells the Virgin Mary she’s going to be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit which will impregnate her.  The story is often preached as Mary saying “yes” but if you read the actual scriptural text, there is no question presented to Mary.  The angel says, “this is gonna happen.”  Mary agrees but that does not seem to matter.  Her body is going to be exploited for reproduction regardless of her consent.  Herein seems to lie a foundational element of theology objectifying women by viewing them primarily as passive receptive vessels for bearing children.

Pope Francis’ annual Vatican Curia Christmas excoriation this year included his wishes for increased respect for women.  That needs to include revisiting and correcting centuries old theology which objectifies women as mere tools of reproduction.  It also needs to include stopping the dehumanizing propagation of unrealistic understandings of women’s key experiences such as childbirth.  Therefore, I decided it was a timely moment to write more realistic lyrics for a few songs associated with Advent and Christmas.  I hope you enjoy them.

Immaculate Mary II (to the tune of “Immaculate Mary”) – a song sung during Advent, especially for the Feasts of Our Lady of Gaudalupe and the Immaculate Conception

Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing

But they want women docile so turned you into a wimpy thing

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave Ave Maria

You got impregnated while you were betrothed

Though you knew you’d be stone if ever exposed

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave, Ave Maria

But you’ve been reduced to a dainty little vessel

Despite being tough as a mortar and pestel

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave, Ave Maria

“Stressful Long Night” (to the tune of “Silent Night”)

Stressful long night, holy night

Push baby out with all of your might

Vaginal tearing to thy anal wall

Lots of pain with no Demerol

Pleas for this pain to cease; Pleas for this pain to cease

Stressful long night, holy night

Shepherds quake at the sight

Blood just streams as if hacked with an axe

Holy Infant covered in blood and wax

Christ the Savior is born; Christ the Savior is born.

Stressful long night, holy night

Son of God nurses with a bite

Radiant pain from chest to bottom

Shooting pains you previously did not fathom

Jesus Lord at thy birth; Jesus Lord at thy birth

“Away in a Stable” (to the tune of “Away in a Manger”)

Away in a stable, no hospital bed

Mary labors ‘mongst critters instead

The stars in the sky are the only light

By which to deliver her baby that night

The cattle are lowing and wafting their smells

But who really notices as Mary yells

She squats and bears down and out comes some dung

Along with the baby from her which is sprung

Be near her Lord Jesus, I ask you to stay

To re-humanize her and aptly portray

Your mom as a person of strong grittiness

And not a docile vessel who simply said “yes.”

With whom the pope meets...

The soap opera around, "Did he? Didn't he? Did she? Didn't she" seems to be fading as the Vatican claims Pope Francis' meeting with Kim Davis did not endorse her behavior refusing to issue same sex couples marriage licenses.  And now his meeting with an openly gay man and that man's longtime partner are paraded before us as evidence to refute any political intentions on Francis' part by meeting with Kim.

Whatever....  I think the pope can meet with whomever he wants.  Jesus met with all sorts of people: saints, sinners and social pariahs all the time.  I applaud anyone willing to receive any human being with Christ-like, humble, non-judgmental hospitality.  That we could all have genuine warmth towards all people...

That being said, I do question why, despite requests, he did not meet with Catholic women ordained as priests.  Why didn't he meet with any of the plethora of sanctioned and excommunicated people in this country - enduring marginalization due to their support of women priests?  Just curious....

I also question Francis' dismissive and patronizing statements about women made during his homeward flight press conference.  On one hand he calls for and lauds conscientious objection while in the same press conference he repeats his unwillingness to engage in his signature "dialogue" activities regarding women's ordination...with some of those pesky conscientious objectors to unjust hierarchical edicts.  Irony...or perhaps hypocrisy.

He repeated his call for a "theology of women" and joked about not having done a darn thing about it like actually reviewing the compendium of female theologians' works that already begin to describe such a theology.  He found time to meet Kim but not meet with any one of the many outstanding female theologians living in the U.S. who could help him make his wish about a "theology of women" a reality.  Elizabeth Johnson, Joan Chittister, Mary Hunt, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Elisabeth Scussler Fiorenza are a few who come to mind.  Many live in the very geographic localities Francis visited.

Perhaps he prefers talking to regular folk versus professional theologians.  I did extend multiple invitations to meet and discuss this very topic beginning with a request in my Christmas card last year...which I know arrived because I got a nice impersonal acknowledgment of its arrival.  Yet, his schedule evidently was too packed to spend time with such women though he claims they are more important than men in the church...so important that he could not squeeze in one meeting on the topic...  

There is a saying that people show their true priorities by voting with their time...  Women and their theology are so important that Francis admits to spending zero hours working on it in the two or so years since he said it was so gosh darned important.  Oh....ok, I see very clearly now how important it is.  Thanks.

It makes me wonder if his encounter with Kim went something like this, "Little daughter, be glad you live in America rather than my country.  I expel conscientious objectors and refuse them the bread of life.  Here you only get a few days in prison, some press, and many wealthy right-wing friends...look, you even get a meeting with me, Mr. Papal Popularity!  Trust me, I do not meet with people who conscientiously object to laws of my organization.  Look at my schedule...not a one on the list."

"But, do not worry; in my country you would not be allowed such a position of authority anyway.  We only let men dressed in medieval gowns, many of whom are gay and have longtime homosexual lovers but pretend to renounce sex, living emprisoned by centuries of flawed understanding about human sexuality, make such important decisions.  You would not be troubled by having to make such big decisions in my organization.  Maybe you want to lessen your stress and move to the Vatican where the biggest decision you will have to make is what brush to use to scrub our toilets, or what broom to use to sweep our floors.  One or two ply toilet tissue? Percale or jersey sheets for the beds?  Coffee or tea?  Snacks or no snacks for the meeting?  See how easy it is?"

"Anyway, we in the Catholic hierarchy are masters at professing one thing and doing the opposite.  Here, let me get you the names of some clergymen; they can give you some nice lessons and tips on how to live in duplicity.  But, seriously give it some thought to move to my country."

I look forward to the day Francis engages in meaningful dialogue with conscientious objectors to Canon Law.  I would happily rearrange my calendar for such a discussion.  

As a side note, I work for one of the top companies for women and this week, one of my daughters' employers was also named as one of the top places for women to work.  Maybe Francis could consult with award winning secular business leaders for advice on treating women...

Second side note before the die-hard Francis fans complain, acknowledging his short-comings around women does not negate his good works with the poor.  However, his good works around the poor do not negate his flaws dealing with women either.

Happy Irony Week!!!

Boys and girls, a strange week it is indeed, and it’s only Monday.  First, I read an article by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh in “America” magazine touting the Catholic Church as superior in offering career advancement opportunities for women as compared to secular industries.  Then I gazed upon the bizarre female bondage artistic choice for the cover of the Pontifical Council on Culture’s working document regarding women. (see image below...) 

It must be “happy irony week” in the Catholic Church because what else explains all this? 

Let’s first enjoy the "America" magazine article’s irony in and of itselt.  However, I will preface my comments with this thought: I work in the secular world as an executive and I’ve also done a lot of volunteering in the Catholic Church.  “Career advancement opportunities for women” just has never been a phrase I use when describing the Catholic Church…never…not once. 

Sr. Mary Ann’s article highlights statistics indicating the percentage of women CEOs for Catholic affiliated organizations such as hospitals is higher than for secular companies.  She fails to mention that those institutions cannot call themselves “Catholic” without the approval of the reigning bishop, the CEO of the local diocese.  How many of those bishop/CEOs are women?   The answer is “the empty set.”

Furthermore, many of those Catholic institutions were created by religious sisters – the same women who of late have been labeled by the reigning (male) hierarchs as being “radical feminists” as though they suffer from some incurable terminal disease.  So, I’m trying to get this straight… Women who lead Catholic institutions are not radical feminists when they can be used as decoys for diverting attention from the church’s stifling sexism and discrimination?  But when those women try to act in any way with which the local bishop/CEO disapproves, then they are labeled “radical feminists" and fired?  Way to showcase those female leadership opportunities the church offers…

There’s also irony that an article about the virtual cornucopia of church female leadership opportunities appears in “America” magazine, a Jesuit periodical…because the Jesuits have precisely zero women in their organization.  ‘Tis true; the Society of Jesus…an organization named after a guy whose society carried signature inclusion of women…does not itself permit women to join.  Instead they adhere to a pre-US civil rights era segregationist’s mentality of “separate but equal.” 

And then there’s the irony that the woman who wrote the article takes a check working for the Society of Jesus.  But then Sr. Mary Ann also works as the Media Relations Director for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops…another group which has had precisely zero female CEOs.  Therefore, in both of her communications roles, Sr. Mary Ann answers to men.  I guess it’s actually more a case of tragic irony than comical irony that she whose public voice requires male approval wrote an article boasting about the church’s advocacy for women.  That perhaps signifies the extent to which male hegemony can impact some people’s thinking.

But, the most exquisite irony comes from the timing of the article’s publication - the same week that the Pontifical Council on Culture holds a four-day Plenary Assembly to discuss women’s culture.  The council’s members include how many women?  Oh, that would be zero again!  See, women have advanced so far in church leadership that a Pontifical Council can gather...completely straight-faced...without women members and feel they are qualified to make decisions about women.  Nothing says “we really value you gals” like excluding them from the pontifical council that’s going to discuss them. 

I don’t mean to complain or be fussy but let me just give a quick demographic run-down on the council’s members and you decide for yourself just how in-touch these guys are with women around the world…  There are 13 Cardinals, 5 Archbishops, 8 Bishops, 1 Monsignor, 1 Rector (yes, he’s a priest; did you even need to ask…) and 3 Laymen.

Since these guys are…well guys…and they wanted to get together for four days and do nothing but talk non-stop about girls…they had a bright idea.  No, it was not to invite women to join their council as members…what, are you drunk?  No, they had some Italian actress make a video asking women to submit one minute or shorter videos about who they are…because evidently they believe nothing of importance about women requires more than a minute to explain.  By the way, I sent them a link to my blog but I did not get an invitation to participate in their meeting. 

The irony of the 31 all-male membership writing the following statement as the opening salvo of their working document about women just kind of says it all…“In our Plenary, the invaluable contribution of our Members and Consultors will allow us to gather some aspects of women’s cultures in four thematic stages, in order to identify possible pastoral paths which will allow Christian communities to listen and dialogue with the world today in this sphere.”  You see, they’re going to “listen and dialogue” about women by not listening to or dialoging with them.  This is clearly miracle fodder. 

That’s really the high-point of the working document.  It just goes downhill from there with sexist ideas and language.

In fairness, I must mention that 7 of the 35 Consultors are women – 2 religious and 5 laywomen.   So the members are 31 men and then there are 28 more male consultors bringing the male attendee count to 59 as compared to 7 women consultors.  I just have this sneaking suspicion that those 7 women have been carefully vetted and chosen based upon their parrot-like ability to repeat what the hierarchy says about women.  I am not expecting them to contribute in a way that represents me or women like me or pretty much the majority of women in the world.

The four themes they will discuss are:

Theme 1: Between equality and difference: the quest for equilibrium

Theme 2: “Generativity” as a symbolic code

Theme 3: The female body: between culture and biology

Theme 4: Women and religion: flight or new forms of participation in the life of the church

As a woman, albeit one whose voice is not desired to contribute to this discussion since we have those 31 male council members who are way more qualified to talk about being female than me, the themes tell me more about the men who wrote them than about women.  Are you really struggling with the concept that equality can exist within a diverse population?  Do you really think that women who leave the church (often with the kiddies in tow) are forming a new way of participating in church when they say, “this place has a toxic sexist culture that I can’t tolerate anymore?”  By the way, there are women who are doing this; they’re called women priests.  You’re not too keen on them the last I recall.

The theme regarding the female body doesn’t mention anything about correcting the mountains of theological conclusions drawn from scads of inaccurate understandings about human biology.  Instead it talks about that really pressing woman’s issue…plastic surgery???  And quite frankly, I’ve read and re-read the section about "generativity as symbolic code" and it truly beats the ever-loving shit out of me as to what that’s supposed to be about.

So, I wish the council well in its discussions.  I imagine its meeting outcomes will be more a source for entertainment than theological insight about women because it begins on faulty ground: it’s a meeting about women called by men in a council with exclusively male membership to provide guidance to an exclusively male clerical population.  If this truly were about listening to and dialoging with women, it would be led by women, with a majority of council members as women.  It would consider new ways of being church including female ordinations.  It would talk about more substantive topics related to female human biology than plastic surgery.

Well, I better get off this merry-go-round of irony lest it make me any more dizzy than it already has. But my parting thoughts are these.  What were you thinking when you chose the headless woman's figure with breasts and pubic region tied up in ropes as your report cover artwork?  Just exactly what message are you trying to convey?  Are women's minds so inconsequential to you that a beheaded woman was ok provided her reproductive parts were on full display?  Could I please get a psychological analysis read-out on each council members' attitudes towards women because that image on your report cover makes me wonder if you all start from a very, very twisted sick mental attitude towards women.

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?