Dear Pope Francis, regarding mercy and forgiveness...

Dear Pope Francis,

First, I have to rescind rescinding my offer for you to visit my home while in the U.S.  Turns out I’ll be here in the U.S. that Saturday and Sunday after all!   I can take you to a very special U.S. “religious” event – an American university football match on Saturday.  I have 2 extra tickets for that day’s game at my alma mater so you can even bring a friend.  Saturday doesn’t work?  How about Sunday dinner?  I’ll try my hand at making empanadas.  Travel an issue?  No place to park the “Shepherd One” aircraft or your pope-mobile in my humble town?  Say the word and I’ll fly to see you in Philly and even try practicing my Spanish so we don’t exclusively communicate in English.  I’m very sincere in all my offers.

Anyway, with that expression of hospitality done, allow me to comment on something.  Francis, forgiveness, true forgiveness, does not emerge from believing you are the “better” person but from realizing that you are “no better” person - likewise for extending true mercy.  To “forgive” or show “mercy” based upon a presumed position of superiority reflects condescension more than forgiveness or mercy.  Such “forgiveness” and “mercy” devolves even further when that sense of superiority invents the shortcomings being “forgiven” and the process for obtaining "forgiveness." 

Maybe this hypothetical example helps illustrate my point.  Let’s say I declare people must eat at my home or they suffer eternal damnation.  Let’s say I also declare that switching football team allegiances constitutes a grave sin, accuse you of committing this sin, and then forbid you from eating at my home because of it.  However, in my “benevolence and concern” I declare you are still welcome to visit my home but just not eat because starvation might inspire you to realize how wrong you are.  Small side note: Hypothetically let’s also say I myself have vowed to never become a fan of any football team.  I don’t even like the game of football.  Instead, I’m a cricket fan, am actually team captain…and have changed cricket teams numerous times.

Though I switch cricket teams more frequently than most people change smoke detector batteries, to receive my forgiveness for switching football team allegiances, I create rules that you must first submit a 13-page application for my forgiveness explaining why you were so misguided as to do this.  You must also pay me a $200 - $1,000 application processing fee, have four sworn witnesses submit corroborating justification for your limited mental faculties resulting in this behavior, and be interviewed by a panel of my friends who mostly also have vowed to never become football fans and are sworn cricket captains who have changed teams several times.  As a matter of fact, most members on my panel of judges have never participated in a football match in their entire lives and, like me, know almost nothing of the game. 

Once I receive all this paperwork, I will notify your former football team that you are filing for forgiveness and ask them to respond.  If they don’t respond, then … maybe we can proceed with your forgiveness application…it just depends….  If they respond and don’t support you seeking this forgiveness, then…well…it sucks to be you…because this could drag out for years and I might never forgive you.  If they respond and do support your application for forgiveness, then depending upon the ruling of my panel of mostly football ignorant judges, you might receive preliminary approval for forgiveness in 12-18 months.  Final approval depends upon a second panel of equally unqualified judges reviewing your entire application.  That could also take months.  Please be patient though. We are all praying for you!!

Now imagine that someone announces he is simplifying this process, making it more merciful.  Yet, all of the above must still occur with these noted exceptions:  Your application fee is reduced to cover only true processing costs, your forgiveness verdict does not need a second panel of judicial review, and final judgment for forgiveness comes from one judge who must have vowed to never be a football fan.  Are you feeling the mercy and seeing the simplicity yet?  Me neither…

Yet, what I just described greatly parallels your motu propio modifying the marriage annulment process.  Currently in the U.S., to receive an annulment the petitioner must complete a 13-page form, pay $200 - $1,000 depending on the diocese, secure witnesses and have them submit forms, be interviewed by church personnel, have their former spouse be contacted for response, and all this paperwork submitted to a tribunal of mostly clergy judges (men who have vowed never to marry yet who consider their vocation as a “marriage” with their parish…and subsequently change parishes several times in their career without needing to seek an annulment from previous parishes) who will provide the initial ruling regarding the nullity of the marriage.  That ruling is required to undergo review by a second tribunal of mostly clergy (more men who have vowed never to marry yet who have changed parishes to which they are “married” several times). 

Your edict removes the requirement for the second review and suggests lowering the fee to cover only true administrative costs.   However, it also states that judgment must now come from a single tribunal judge and this person must be a cleric, unless I misunderstand this statement: “The constitution of a single judge in the first instance, who shall always be a cleric, is placed under the responsibility of the Bishop, who, in the pastoral exercise of his own proper judicial power shall guarantee ...”   

That last change has been overlooked by most people perhaps because they assume all tribunal judges are already priests.  Yet, currently females can serve as tribunal judges. Why do you say you want more important roles for women but your actions here do the exact opposite?

I thought you despised clericalism and felt too many powers lie exclusively in the clergy’s hands already. Why add to the list?  Why insist that avowed unmarried people are the only qualified people to rule on marriages?  Here’s just one example giving cause to my concerns about placing all annulment powers in clergy hands.  Just two weeks ago, I sat through a homily by a clueless priest laughing, yes laughing, as he said he counseled people suffering in abusive marriages that they should consider the abuse a blessing because God was teaching them patience and charity.  How many women continue to suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse because clueless priests like the one I just described make them feel too guilty to leave abusive marriages?  Issuing that misplaced guilt is beyond shameful; it is sinful.  Chastise the abuser not the abused seeking refuge, if you must chastise someone.  You seem to take a merciful stance with Syrian refugees who are being abused… 

I went through the annulment process almost two decades ago, receiving my annulment in what I’m told was record time (about 7 months).  Frankly, I’m underwhelmed by your changes.  I assume since I resemble your target market on this, you’d appreciate my feedback.  Therefore, here are some things that I would have found truly merciful simplifications. 

1. Stop using communion as a treat for people you consider well-behaved…for any reason.
2. Require divorced and remarried people to undergo the same process that priests require when they divorce one parish and remarry another…. Oh, that’s nothing?  O.K.  Sounds simple, merciful and equitable, to me.
3. If you retain an annulment process, how about requiring married people to act as judges?  Better yet, how about requiring that the judges be people who have received an annulment themselves?
4. Permit clergy to marry and then only married clergy can be marriage tribunal judges. (By the way, with women's increasing earning power, this might save the church a bundle.  Wife makes more than priest spouse...they are devout...priest doesn't take a salary from the church...doesn't need healthcare benefits...they can pay their own housing and food bills...priest car allowance not needed...auto insurance paid by wife's income, etc....  The exact opposite situation for going to strict unmarried clergy now exists.  Originally the move occurred to protect church property from being divided amongst priests' heirs.  Now, women can actually relieve the church's material requirements for supporting priests.)
5. How about shortening the application form to one page?  I’d even be happy with a reduction to 5 pages. How about putting the form online and allowing it to be submitted electronically with automated workflow and cognitive analytics that provide the recommended ruling?  Thus the judge only needs to review the recommended ruling and justification – tremendously expediting the process and introducing a high degree of ruling consistency.
6. Fees?  Eliminate them completely, even the “administrative” ones.

Anyway, in the meantime while you consider my suggestions, please stop calling minor alterations to an invented process for an invented infraction penalty “merciful” or “simple.”  And please stop calling anything “merciful” when you act from a position of superiority versus equality.

Hope to hear from you while you’re in my country but if not, I wish you safe travels, an unvarnished view of my country, and the wisdom and courage to do and say what God desires.

Yours in Christ,

The “ewe”

As an aside to my blog readers: sorry for the long lapse in writing.  I've had an abnormally intense global travel schedule in the past few months.  

The results are in...

Remember that brief 39 essay question survey the Vatican issued a few months back? You know… the one soliciting opinions about the church’s teachings on human sexuality and marriage to act as input to this October’s Synod on the Family.  Well, the Vatican has compiled and released its preliminary findings from the survey in a document called an instrumentum laboris.  Literally translated from Latin as…and we know the Vatican is all about literal Latin translations… granting us, O Lord, we pray, to hear about impoverished Jesus having an oblation in a gallant chalice held by his holy and venerable hands on a regular basis…  But, I digress.  Literally translated, instrumentum laboris means “instrument of labor”, basically a tool.

If you don’t want me to spoil your pleasure reading the 85 page report yourself, then stop reading now.  However, if you don’t want to invest numerous irretrievable hours of your life reading a report that could have been written without surveying a single person, you might prefer reading this summary instead.

When it was first issued, I wrote this about the survey in a November 2, 2013 blog article, “…do not place too much hope that the Vatican seeking your opinion means the Vatican will actually heed your advice.  It might again just inspire the Vatican to write another really long document in Latin explaining why you are wrong.”

It turns out that statement was prescient other than the Vatican crowd did disappoint by writing the original report in Italian rather than Latin.  Don’t despair.  We can still hope that some dreadfully long academic admonition in Latin emerges from the Synod itself.

To be fair, amidst the 85 pages of “We are right so how do we get these stubborn, misguided idiots to follow us…”, there were 2 entire sentences acknowledging the hierarchy’s lack of credibility as a moral authority since its culture enables criminal sexual abuse of children (paragraph 75).  And there was a half sentence which came dangerously close to acknowledging cultural sexism, “In some places characterized by a somewhat sexist cultural tradition, there exists a certain lack of respect towards women…”  (paragraph 55)

Don’t fret though.  The guys in Rome were not speaking of their own overt institutional sexist culture but the “somewhat” sexist secular culture in certain geographical regions only.  Vatican-originated sexism seems to be getting brasher as the idolized pope Francis recently boldly evaded Italian journalist Franca Giansoldati’s compelling questions about women by making sexist jokes.  For example, Giansoldati was trying to get Francis to be specific about these greater church roles for women he often touts by asking if Frank might appoint women to lead any Vatican departments.  Francis felt that serious question merited this response, “Well, priests often end up under the sway of their housekeepers.” 

Help me understand, Francis.  What message were you trying to convey about women and why did you think evoking the image of a stereotype rooted in both sexism and clericalism would convey it?

Anyway, here’s a summary of the report.  Brace yourself for the insightful void of insight:

1. Unmarried, childless, clerical men, often lacking healthy intimate relationships, who like to parade in bejeweled gowns, know more about relationships, marriage, and child rearing than people who are actually married or have children.
2. Said men are right, were right and will always be right.
3. If you disagree with the hierarchy, you must be ignorant, stubborn or misguided and will be labeled “lost” even if you have a better grasp of the gospel messages than hierarchical leaders and consider them lost.  Please see item (2).
4. Any information you provided through the survey was just to help them help you by “enlightening” you about your sinful ignorance in more “loving” and effective ways.  See item (2).
5. If people have difficulty accepting what the hierarchy teaches, it must either be a problem of how the hierarchy expresses its teachings or how you receive it because the teachings themselves are, did I mention this yet….”right.”  See item (2).
6. Gender studies that unmask the hierarchy’s sexism and misogyny are evil due to them inspiring people to question item (2).
7. Information and facts are your enemy unless they are filtered through Vatican approved spin-doctors.  They cause you to realize when the hierarchy is wrong and again, please see item (2).
8. If anything inspires you to question item (2), it is evil.
9. By studying science and nature, people have figured out that the hierarchy’s invented “natural law” notion is, much like this term, qui fabricati (fabricated..made up).  Since this is confounding the hierarchy’s ability to confound nature, rather than correct themselves…because please see item (2) above…they might need to consider inventing a new slogan.
10. Life situations that do not align with the hierarchy’s romanticized, academic, theological musings must be miserable because if they aren’t, it might lead to contradicting the immovable premises set forth in item (2) above.
11. Model your marriage after the Holy Family….you know, the family that procreated without having sex.
12. If the hierarchy feels you are unworthy to receive communion because of your marital and/or sexual practices, you need to just accept that they do this for your own good and overlook the hypocrisy of the sexual escapades and/or crimes of the men consecrating the hosts and ordaining the men who consecrate the hosts.
13. Despite the gospel indicating Jesus came for the sinner, the hierarchy perpetuates the notion that communion is only for the worthy, and hierarchical leaders will, of course, define who is worthy…please see item (2). 

I offer this as food for thought.  The morning my mom died I asked her what she wanted for breakfast and she responded, “I want…I want…oh, what is that thing called…I WANT THE CHILD THAT IS MEDICINE!!!”  That woman could barely breathe or think clearly but she about blew my hair back barking with fierce certainty that she wanted the Eucharist…the child that is medicine.

Gentlemen of Rome, please take note from my dying mother.   Communion is medicine for the misbehaving (that is all of us) not a treat for the well-behaved.  Who then that desires communion should be denied it?

By the way, I’m not surprised by the report; I could have written it last November before the first response was submitted.  I would call it a vastate labore (wasted effort) rather than instrumentum laboris (instrument of labor).

As I mentioned in my previous blog article, the hierarchy thinks it is married to the church (the people of God).  With this example of the hierarchy’s unhealthy marital relationship “dialogue” practices…asking questions for the sole purpose of gaining ammunition to prove your spouse is wrong…should the hierarchy  perhaps gaze in the mirror or at theology and Canon Law more than at T.V.s, newspapers, the internet, gender studies, secular governments, science or smartphones when pondering the underlying causes of strained interpersonal relationships? 

Marriage isn’t about who is right and who is wrong.  It is not a True/False quiz.  It is about learning, sharing, bending and being together in love.  My dear brothers in the hierarchy, as long as you set yourself above and apart, how can you be credible examples of or proponents for marital love?

Marriage and the Hierarchy

How about we do a marriage assessment today?  Don’t worry single people; you can participate too because you won’t assess your marriage to someone with whom you exchanged rings and vows.  Rather, you will assess your marriage to the Roman Catholic clergy. 

In case you’re unaware that you’re married to the clergy, here’s a quick summary of the church’s teaching.  The clergy believe they wed the church because they think this is required for them to imitate Christ whom they believe married the church.  You might be wondering, “Isn’t it polygamy when multiple men marry the spouse of the person they’re imitating?”   However, the answer to that is either “it’s a mystery” or “twice the square root of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin simultaneously.”  I forget which.

You also might wonder, “Do they really believe they’re married to the church?”  I think the answer is, “yes” based upon doctrinal writings and hierarchical utterances.  For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in his November, 2011 General Assembly address to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “I look out at 300 brothers each of whom has a ring on his finger, because we're spoken for, we're married.”  Tim definitely thinks he and his brother bishops are married; just look at their rings.

Since the church is the people of God, that means they are married to you and me.  When did this marriage take place?  Well, that is not clear but from the time you are baptized, you’re kind of “in” so let’s say you entered this marriage at your baptism. 

If you’re like me, baptized as a newborn, you probably pulled out your copy of Canon Law and started rattling off all the Canons that are broken by an infant entering this marriage.  However, just in case your life is too interesting to read Canon Law, let me share a few highlights with you here. 

• Canon 1063: both parties must understand the holy state of matrimony before entering it
• Canon 1065: both parties need to have been confirmed
• Canon 1083: minimum valid marrying age is 16 for a boy and 14 for a girl. 
• Canon 1095: marriage is invalid if either party in the marriage lacked reason, or consent
• Canon 1096: both parties must understand marriage’s permanency
• Canon 1103: marriage is invalid if either party is forced or coerced into marriage

Violation of any of these establishes grounds to annul a marriage. Yet, all of them are violated by pulling an infant into this mystical marriage with the clergy by baptizing them as members of the clergy’s spouse, the church.      

Even if the hierarchy thinks the faithful enter this mystical union at Confirmation, it violates several Canons.  Regardless, let’s not get caught up in Canon Law.  After all, we all know how forgiving the hierarchy is when it comes to rules that don’t suit their interests. 

Let’s just play along and say we are validly married to the clergy because if we don’t, how can we take this nifty quiz the USCCB has called “Grade Your Marriage.”  What fun!  We can grade the hierarchy as our spouse…using the hierarchy’s very own standards for good marriages!  I’m sure they’d love for us to do this because they are huge advocates for strengthening marriages.  Therefore, I’m confident they want to strengthen their marriage with you, the people of God so as to set a good example.

The quiz asks each spouse to rate their partner on a scale of 1 to 10 in 15 areas.  I’ll relax the rules and permit a 0 to 10 scale, but please, no negative numbers no matter how tempted you may be.  The specific assessment areas are listed below.  Remember, you are to rate the church hierarchy as your spouse.  Therefore, I added some contextual description associated with the clergy / church marriage. 

1. Shared Values: How well do your and the clergy’s values and priorities align?
2. Commitment: How committed are the clergy to you?
3. Communication: How well does the hierarchy communicate with you?
4. Conflict Resolution: How skilled are clergy members at resolving conflicts with you?
5. Intimacy/Sexuality: Let’s ignore the sexual dimension on this one.  How much interpersonal intimacy do you have with the clergy?
6. Spirituality/Faith: How well do the hierarchy’s faith and spirituality align with and support yours?
7. Money Management: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s management of money?
8. Appreciation/Affection: How well does the clergy express appreciation towards you?
9. Lifestyle: How compatible is the clergy’s lifestyle with supporting your lifestyle needs?
10. Recreation: How satisfied are you with the leisure time you spend with clergy?
11. Decision Making: How satisfied are you with the hierarchy’s decision making practices?
12. Parenthood: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s parenting skills and support for raising your children?
13. Household chores / gender differences: Remember, no matter your gender, in this marriage, you are the female church.  How satisfied are you with the gender roles and division of labor between you and the hierarchy?
14. Careers: Is there adequate support from the clergy for your career?
15. Balancing Time: How well do the clergy balance time when it comes to their relationship with you?

The instructions say any assessment area rated at 8 or above is in good shape while anything in the 4-7 range is considered to be in a danger zone.  The instructions then say to total scores for all 15 assessment areas and declare any total score higher than 100 as being an “A” for the marriage overall. 

I can’t help noticing that if you scored your spouse an average of 6.66 out of 10 (66.66% or a “D” on most grading scales) on every single question (solidly in the “danger zone” for every question), that results in a total of 100 and an “A” for your marriage overall on the hierarchy’s scale.  Evidently in “bishop math” fifteen “D”s = one “A", a phenomenon closely related to Jesus’ loaves and fishes gig.

I will not influence your assessment by providing mine here.  I do hope you take the survey and discuss it with your hierarchical leaders.  If people send me their responses, I can tally them and provide stats in a subsequent blog article or send them to the USCCB.  However, based upon listening to people, I think the results will indicate the hierarchy needs some serious marriage counseling with their spouse.

Survey aside, I have a few other thoughts regarding the clergy’s marriage to the people of God.  What’s up with excommunication?  The hierarchy should never set aside their spouse via excommunication.  The official viewpoint is that excommunication is “medicinal” versus a “divorce” but, how many of you stop feeding your spouse if they disagree with you?  “…You don’t want my mother visiting???? I think you can bloody well go without any food until you change your mind.”  And how many of you consider withholding nourishment as an acceptable form of “medicine?”  “…You’re sick, dear?  No food for you until you’re healthy…it’s for your own good, honey.”  

Canon 1135 says there’s equality between marriage partners, but that isn’t the case when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is it?  In a healthy marriage, both parties make amends and forgive, recognizing they both err.  However, with the hierarchy, those of us constituting their wife are always the erring party, always the ones needing to confess, always the ones receiving penance, always the ones needing forgiveness…and from them.  “We’re equal, sweetie, it’s just that you’re always the one to screw up.  But don’t worry because I’m here to forgive you for all these screw ups.”  There are marriages like this where the husband is always right but they are typically categorized by one word, “abusive.”

Finally, what’s up with Canon Law calling me a “subject” if I’m married to the hierarchy?  Have you ever heard a wedding end with, “I now pronounce you man and subject?”  If Christ is king, then his bride is queen, not “subject.”  If the clergy fancy themselves princes, then we’re their princesses, not their “subjects.” 

Do you think the hierarchy is married to the people of God?  Do you think the marriage is healthy?  If not, do you think it can be saved?  What kind of marriage therapy might work?

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?”