Hey, y’all. Amid all the hubbub about this whole survey thing (which, by the way, is kind of amazing), many of us missed the gathering of women that took place a few weeks ago on the 25th anniversary of Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Woman), JPII’s oft-cited encyclical that explored the concept of the unique vocation God has given to women. For more on the conference and the American response to it, here’s NCR’s coverage. I was pleased to see it took place, as Pope Francis appears to have expanded a bit on his thoughts on women and their role in the church. He has been quoted as saying that there is a need for “a profound theology of women,” and during the conference referred to Mulieris Dignitatem as a “profound, organic reflection, with a solid anthropological basis illuminated by revelation.” Opinions on Mulieris have been split ever since the document was published; while many have been thrilled with JPII’s insistence on the profound dignity and beauty of women, others chafe at the emphasis on the complementarity of the sexes, which could be interpreted as a “separate but equal” justification for the restriction of women’s rights. The encyclical has also been foundational to the continued refusal to open the question of women’s ordination, as it insists that the inherent, God-given differences of men and women preclude the possibility of a woman taking on the specifically male role of priest.
Now, my love for our new pope is well documented in a previous post. I think he’s great. And I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, his suggestion that we need a new “theology of woman” makes me…uneasy. First of all, I’m not quite sure what that phrase even means, and what a theology of woman would provide the Church. Are we looking to formulate a greater understanding of just what, exactly, a woman is? Is Francis calling for an expanded examination of what women should be doing in the world? Or is it the other way around, a clarion call to the world to reexamine the way it engages with women?
One of my challenges here is that I’m an American. The Catholic Church in the US has a very unfortunate habit of assuming that its thoughts and feelings are the thoughts and feelings of the Church as a whole. And that’s just ridiculous. Not only is the US Catholic community not at the center of the Church at large; we actually make up a tiny portion of the global Church, clocking in at a measly 7%. The majority of Catholics reside not in the US, not in Europe, but in the two-thirds world. This fact challenges me to step aside from my handy toolbox of beliefs and values and try to see at least a bit more of the forest, even when I’m sorely tempted to focus on the trees. The global church does need a strong affirmation of the human dignity of women, without doubt, and the central issue to asserting that dignity is not the question of whether women should be ordained. It’s a question of seeing women as holistic, legitimate human beings with rights and dignity established within them by the work of God. There are, tragically, far too many places in the world where this concept is rejected wholesale, where women are attributed approximately the same rights as highly valued livestock. Even in first world countries, the abuse and repression of women is clearly evident. The appalling realities of human trafficking, genital mutilation, forced marriages, domestic violence, wage inequality, and abuse and suppression of women’s freedoms absolutely demand a response from the Vatican. And given the current rockstar status of our incredibly popular new Vicar of Christ, there’s never been a better time for him to step up and condemn any and all practices that compromise the dignity of women.
All that being said…I’m still wary of this idea of a specific theology of women, especially if it’s using Mulieris Dignitatem as its foundation and springboard. Full disclosure: I’m not a fan of MD. I appreciate the fact that JPII saw fit to affirm women’s dignity, but the emphasis on complementarity is a very slippery slope, which can lead to some pretty unpleasant places. I’ve seen it used as a way to justify a “separate but equal” mentality, in which women are assigned certain roles and characteristics, and any woman who steps outside those boundaries is branded as a sinner going against the will of God. Gendered theological statements, by and large, place women in a subservient role. Being a wife and mother is absolutely a dignified vocation, and one that should be greatly appreciated and revered in our society by men and women alike. But that is not the only vocation women are called to pursue. In fact, other vocations would suffer greatly if deprived of women’s presence, and many currently can’t reach their full potential because women are pushed aside or left in the cold.
Furthermore, I don’t see the role of wife and mother being looked down upon in American society. Even in secular popular culture, there seems to be no greater glory for a woman than getting married and having babies. I will grant that there is an unfair perception of women who chose the profession of full-time caretaker of children as weak or anti-feminist. I know stay-at-home moms, who work incredibly hard all day and all night, who regularly have to resist the temptation to violence when other women tell them, “Oh, you’re so lucky! What do you DO all day?” The role of caretaker of the family is woefully disrespected by much of American society, and that needs to be remedied. Still, wifehood and motherhood themselves don’t seem to suffer from much disrespect; on the contrary, they are still very much revered by our culture as the high points of a woman’s life. From US Weekly’s proclamations of Kim Kardashian’s baby joy, to the wedding-dress pornography displayed on “Say Yes to the Dress,” traditional conceptions of the all-consuming importance in a woman’s life of marriage and childbearing seem to be alive and well, at least to me.
So whither the great anxiety from the Vatican about all the anti-mother sentiment? I’m guessing at least some of it stems from the divorce rate, which has clearly soared in recent decades, and whose practical impact is often felt much more keenly by the ex-wives than the ex-husbands. But that concern implicates men at least as much as women. In fact, if there’s a case to be made for a contemporary gender identity crisis that needs to be addressed, I would be more likely to address it to men, not women. Women’s successes in academics and in the professional world seem to be growing, while men’s seem to be shrinking. It would seem in many ways, women are adapting to the new ways of the world with greater aplomb than men are. And again, using popular culture as an indicator, the “Peter Pan” syndrome of young men who refuse to grow up and embrace adult life and responsibilities has been practically beaten to death by the media. I think most of us have had our fill of Judd Apatow’s seemingly endless exploration of the phenomenon of the modern man-child. From where I’m standing, there are more than a few indicators that we could use a theological examination on how to be a man, particularly in the context of a post-industrial world where women work alongside them.
And my final issue (after this I’ll stop, I promise)…Pope Francis references the anthropological approach taken by JPII in MD. I think if the Catholic Church is going to address people where they are (a project that Pope Francis seems to be advocating in his papacy), then we simply cannot ignore the vast wealth of wisdom and research brought forth by the academy, whether we be looking at biological or social sciences. The Catholic conversation about gender should not take place in a vacuum; we need to engage the greater conversation about gender that is taking place outside the specifically Catholic realm. And that would be some pretty messy work. In this theology of woman, is there room for discussion of lesbianism or bisexuality? What about transgender issues? Not to mention questions of gender in the context of race, ethnicity, age, class? I feel like the classic Catholic response to those questions is to simply quote the catechism, encourage the heteronormative standard of sexual practice, and dismiss any experience or orientation outside that normative as disordered, sinful, or at best, “the cross God has given you to bear.” These responses may be justified by certain interpretations of doctrine, but they don’t allow for dialogue. They shut the conversation down, and thus shut those people, and their experiences, out.
I think that Pope Francis is aware of this, though, and I have reason to believe that he will engage in this project of a theology of woman with greater sensitivity to the varieties of human experience than some of his predecessors showed. The very fact that he’s meeting with rooms full of woman theologians to hear what they have to say about women in the Church is a pretty good sign, in my mind. And I’m curious to see what happens with this whole survey thing. Pope Francis seems to want to walk with the people, rather than lead them from the top down. As a Catholic woman I am, for the most part, cautiously optimistic. I guess we’ll see where things go.
God Shuffled His Feet 