When I was in Saudi Arabia, I had tea and sweets with a group of educated and sophisticated young professional women.
I asked why they were not more upset about living in a country where women’s rights were strangled, an inbred and autocratic state more like an archaic men’s club than a modern nation. They told me, somewhat defensively, that the kingdom was moving at its own pace, glacial as that seemed to outsiders.
How could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?
I was puzzling over that one when it hit me: As a Catholic woman, I was doing the same thing.
I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.
I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.
I, too, rationalized as men in dresses allowed our religious kingdom to decay and to cling to outdated misogynistic rituals, blind to the benefits of welcoming women’s brains, talents and hearts into their ancient fraternity.
I may have to reverse my opinion of Maureen Dowd's writing in the NYT. For some time, I haven't liked a good many of her columns because her writing had become too flip, glib, and shallow to suit me, but this is the second excellent column in only a couple of weeks. Read the entire column. Maureen scores as she points out how the exclusion of women from the highest levels of authority causes dysfunction in the very structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, I will no longer be able to read Maureen Dowd, when the NYT begins to levy a charge to read their online version.
Thanks to Ellie for the link.
"How could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?"
ReplyDeleteI am sorry, I find her words pretty histrionic. I guess I am not as smart of successful as I thought or perhaps I am more subordinated than I realized.
Dear Mimi, you know that I have stayed away or read and have not commented. I love you too much to risk our friendship. I respect that we possess very different opinions here, but I find what Maureen says too over the top.
There are many valid criticisms of the Church; I tend to make many of them myself, I think. No one is forced to stay anywhere, I am where I am by choice, as Maureen is where she is.
Your words have much more heft for me as your experiences in the church were truly horrific based on what you have told me. Use your own words, as you have been. They are words of authenticity and power. Maureen's words are to promote Maureen and to stir the hate pot if you ask me. If you read Maureen regularly - and I mean over many years, you will see she has made a living of making mockery. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
I hope that I do not make myself unwelcome here. I just have to say something sometimes!
Let me close by saying, yes - the Church is f*cked up... as are most institutions. And I certainly don't need Maureen, who is clearly not on the inside, to tell me that.
Believe it's Murdoch's London Times that's going to charge for access, Mimi, not the NYT.
ReplyDeleteFran, You could never be unwelcome here, my friend. NOT EVER!
ReplyDeleteI have a post or two to write on my experiences in the RCC, and I probably should do so sooner rather than later. Whatever her motives, I believe that Maureen is right in that the very structure of the RCC is dysfunctional when half the human race is excluded from the highest levels of authority.
In no way do I wish to demean you or the many others in the RCC who are about the work of the Gospel, serving the people of God. I speak of the exclusive men's club at the highest levels directed by the Vatican.
The RCC is not the only church with problems, and I assure you that I will not hesitate to speak out about what's wrong with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Indeed, I have already spoken out a good deal already.
I'm sorry that what I write or quote gives you pain, my dear Fran, but when the powers in the RCC continue to dig themselves deeper into a hole, it seems that I can't let the subject go. Perhaps I'm wrong to go on and on about the matter, and if I am, I pray that God opens my eyes.
Lapin, Caminante said in the comments to my post on the Times in the UK that the NYT would, once again, begin to charge for its online service.
ReplyDeleteThank you my dear Mimi.
ReplyDeleteI know how you feel and as I said I know that you have your own experiences. Maureen is like poison ivy for me, I break out in a bad rash at the mention of her name. I have for years, after having read her for years.
I will give her this - she complains about and hates pretty much everyone.
Except Maureen!
FWIW, I don't think you going on and on is a right or wrong thing. It is where you are at. I have been there before on other topics and I am sure I will be there again. Be who you are Mimi, it is our mission to do just that. It is how we are transformed and how we transformed the world.
OK, enough blog break, I have to finish my paper that is due tomorrow!
I thought this was an excellent column, too - and I had nearly given up reading Maureen as well. Although my new fave is definitely Gail Collins - what a sense of humor she has!
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Catholics are always so much better than their leaders.
ReplyDeleteCount me among the surprised fans of this article.
Penelope, Gail Collins is one whom I will miss if the NYT makes online readers pay. Frank Rich and Paul Krugman are the two other columnists that I will regret.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Catholics are always so much better than their leaders.
Agreed, Counterlight.
Fran, are you listening?
But of course!!
ReplyDeleteI'm with counterlight.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Fran, we know how to separate GOOD Catholics from the missteps of the hierarchy. And frankly we all know that the pew-sitters are of much higher quality than their hierarchy.
One of the things that PISSES US OFF about this whole crisis is how it insults the loyal Catholics and honest priests who walk the walk. they deserve so much better.
Even though BP and I can no longer be Roman Catholic (BP admits that the Hate Sermon she endured on our wedding day was the final straw; mine was years earlier), we hope that our many,many RC friends can shake some sense into the hierarchy and reclaim their church for the justice and good works it is so capable of doing.
In the meantime, we are sooooo happy in the community we have found, far from the hate-flled RC bishop who tried to deny us marriage. I regret very much that he was the one who confirmed my stepson--I wish so much that he had been admitted to adulthood by a man of tolerance and honor. Eff you, Bp Cordileone.
Mimi,
ReplyDeleteI am a refugee from the RC Church for to many reasons to go into.
However, I made my choice over 25 years ago - so have had space, time and distance to reflect on my journey to becoming an Anglican.
There is much to commend in the RC Church, but more to doubt or to dispute with. Male supremacy in all appears to me to be a hangover born from historical male supremacy as 'Head' of the family. It has not evolved with the times, particularly as it appears to have suppressed the evidence of Ministry by women in the early church.
I must admit to real sadness on the affliction of sexual abuse, empathy for the Victims, not for those who committed these vile acts.
My own experience of Priests and Religious, while in their care as a child gives me evidence of strict, sometimes overbearing control and punishment, but thanks be to God, no evidence or experience of sexual abuse.
I feel that perhaps grass roots catholics have moved on, but the church leadership has failed to keep up - hence the extremely bad way they have handled the current crisis, wherever abuse has come to light.
Other evidence of a declining church in the UK is that last year, only 7 new priests were ordained for the RC Church in England and Wales, while 500 were ordained for the Church of England. What does this say for the survival of a church based on male Ministry and celibacy?
In thinking about GOOD RCs in the Vatican Church, I'm thinking about the example of...
ReplyDelete...Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German Lutheran pastor).
Now, in making the comparison I'm going to make, don't get me wrong: I am NOT saying the Vatican Church is the same as Nazi Germany!
But the example of Bonhoeffer remains. On the eve of WW2, Bonhoeffer had a cushy teaching job at (my alma mater) UTS, safe in the US of A.
What did he do? He left, to return to his sinful native country (that is, HE knew it was sinful!) to stand in solidarity w/ his people's inevitable fate (that is, HE knew Germany would LOSE!)
...but he stood with his native country, in SUCH a way, that got him arrested and killed by it.
I totally respect RCs would want to stay in the RCC---but I want to see more Bonhoeffers among them. Otherwise, staying isn't part of the solution. It's part of the problem. [Needless to say, it's up to the conscience of each individual RC, HOW they want to "Do Bonhoeffer"! And, OCICBW.]
But the question wasn't whether any particular organisation is mysogynist but why women put up with it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do find that question a little naive.
Asking why women in Saudi Arabia are putting up with male rule is a little like asking LGBT people in Africa why they aren't emancipated.
And in the RC there are millions of voices at almost all levels supporting women priests and more recognition of women, and yet, the hierarchy and the structures are so rigid that it's hard to see how change can happen.
Unlike Saudi Arabian women and lgbt people in Africa, RC women could leave the organisation that oppresses them, but that's not really the answer to oppression.
What is?
That's quite some revelation she had there.
ReplyDelete@JCF - you make some very compelling points there. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteNot to veer too far off topic, but I think that it is on-topic in a way...
I have started to re-read a book from one of my theology classes from last year. It is called Meeting Mystery by Nathan D. Mitchell. In the name of full disclosure, Mitchell, like me, is still hanging around. (I may need to write to him and discuss the Bonhoeffer theory. No, I am not being funny.)
In any event, the book is about liturgy and sacraments in the post-modern world. Hierarchies are completely challenged when we all have access to one another in the way that we do. It is part of the revolution that is happening and why the power centers have their fists grabbed tightly around the power.
Anyway, I feel like I have gone off topic.
And thank you all for what you say. I do feel embarrassed, as if I am asking you to cut me some slack. I make my choices, I must bear the consequences. That said, I am glad to be here among you.
If being kept out of one's clergy is a matter of oppression, I supposed I am oppressed as well, being a married man.
ReplyDeleteBut of course I don't see it that way, and most of us "ineligible" Catholics don't. The form of the priesthood exists from ancient and venerable tradition. The point of being Catholic is not to be clergy, but to be a follower of Christ in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
As members of the Church of Alexander VI, those of us with any historical sense understand that institutions move between periods of corruption and purification. So far as I can tell, the current scandals are being addressed, and I am grateful to those who exposed them. I've had no personal experence of these problems, and know no one who has. The closest I've experienced was the disciplining of a priest for failing to run a background check on an 80-year-old nun subbing for a confirmation class. And a story in this week's Santa Fe New Mexican that someone spray-painted "pedophile" and various obscene figures on my parish church, Santa Maria de la Paz last week.
But, for the time being, we can do little but tend our own gardens.
Jesus did not hesitate to call the religious leaders of his day to account, but he remained a faithful Jew until he died. I would not presume to tell anyone in the RCC to leave, but, with JCF, I offer Bonhoeffer is a fine example for concerned Roman Catholics in how to speak the truth to the powers in the Vatican and call for a change in direction. The voices from inside the church carry greater weight than the voices of those from outside.
ReplyDeleteOn my sidebar, you will see the words of Fr Roy Bourgeois, a RC Maryknoll priest who works with the poor and for peace.
Silence is the voice of complicity.
Fr Bourgeois may or may not be excommunicated by now for his participation in the illegal ordination of a woman.
His words on the ordination of women:
“The exclusion of women is a grave injustice and a sin,” the 70-year-old priest told me. “This is a movement whose time has come. It’s not going away.”
"I offer Bonhoeffer is a fine example for concerned Roman Catholics in how to speak the truth to the powers in the Vatican and call for a change in direction."
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'd necessarily pick Bonhoeffer as the best example here. During the war he wasn't speaking out about anything publicly, but was working for German military intelligence, the Abwehr, assisting with the plot to assasinate Hitler.
"Jesus did not hesitate to call the religious leaders of his day to account."
Very true. But there is no record of his having had any problem with the priesthood being restricted to a tribe to which he did not belong.
Rick
ReplyDeleteYou chose to be married instead of becoming a priests. So of course you're not discriminated against.
Women do not have that choice.
If a woman says she does not feel discriminated against, even if she feels God's call to the priesthood, I'm happy with her verdict on her own life.
But it is not a statement you can make on her behalf.
"But there is no record of his having had any problem with the priesthood being restricted to a tribe to which he did not belong."
ReplyDeleteNo, he simply ignored the whole religious system and taught people his own truths to the extent that his followers have left the whole Jewish religion behind them.
Not exactly a good example for religious conformity.
He [Bonhoeffer] was a determined opponent of the regime from its first days. Two days after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Bonhoeffer delivered a radio address attacking Hitler, in which he warned Germany against slipping into an idolatrous cult of the Führer (leader), who could very well turn out to be Verführer (mis-leader, or seducer). He was cut off the air in the middle of a sentence.[8] In April, he raised the first and virtually lone voice for church resistance to Hitler's persecution of Jews when he declared that the church must not simply "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself." [9] Bonhoeffer then put all his efforts in campaigning for the election of presbyters and synodals in July, which Hitler had unconstitutionally imposed onto all German Protestant church bodies.
ReplyDeleteThere you go Rick. Of course, the source is Wiki, so perhaps the story is made up out of whole cloth.
Mimi
ReplyDeleteAn easy but hugely informative biography on Bonhoeffer was written by a family friend, Renate Wind. John Bowden's English translation "A Spoke in the Wheel" is very excellent.
It's available through Amazon.
Erika, thanks for the tip. I've read some of Bonhoeffer's writings, but I have not read a biography.
ReplyDeleteIf being kept out of one's clergy is a matter of oppression, I supposed I am oppressed as well, being a married man.
Rick, you are oppressed, but you just don't realize it yet. :-) Rome has invited married Anglican priests into the RC priesthood, along with their wives and children. Now is that fair? What about the many RC priests who left to get married? Why not invite them back into the priesthood?
I think this is potentially the biggest crisis the Roman Church has faced in 5 centuries. I'm astonished at how tone deaf the hierarchy is to public opinion on this matter. Their moral authority is rapidly going down the crapper, and they seem to think it is all a matter of bad publicity.
ReplyDeleteRome may long have been hostile to modernity, but unless it wants all of its members cloistered, the large bulk of its population, the laity, must live in the modern world and make their way in it, like it or not. It seems to me that there is already a growing cleavage between laity who must live in the modern world, and clergy who don't live in it, aren't raising families in it, and yet presume to tell those who must live in the world how it's done.
And now on top of this is a huge breach of trust and a cover-up of criminal activity that may well go to the top.
I should point out that non-Catholic Christians have a lot at stake in this. Christianity already has a reputation for bigotry and superstition allied with right wing politics. There are legions of people out there burned by Christian institutional malpractice already. A criminal scandal like this affects us all.
The Resurrection Gospel of Christ gets lost in all the squalor.
This is Fran from my work id. I just read this in the status update of a gay Catholic friend and thought that it must be shared here.
ReplyDeleteI am listening after all, I am indeed.
"During these years the Church has fought for self-preservation as though it were an end in itself, and has thereby lost its chance to speak a word of reconciliation to mankind and the world at large. So our traditional language must perforce become powerless and remain silent, and our Christianity today will be confined to praying and doing right by our fellow men." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Counterlight, in your final paragraph, you speak wisdom. All Christians have a stake in what's happening in the RCC and with the religious right. We are all lumped together. Of course, we must keep in mind that that none of the churches are pure.
ReplyDeleteThe Resurrection Gospel of Christ gets lost in all the squalor.
Indeed!
I completely agree with Counterlight's last par as well. I've already had people comment unfavourably to me about Christianity as a whole in reference to the RCC child abuse scandals (and other RCC issues). People who are not Christians do not necessarily see it in terms of denominations.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most important things that Bonhoeffer did, during the war, was work on reconstructing the church (!), after the official German Lutheran church had so (despicably!) sold-out to Hitler. Basically, he and the group of Christians that gathered around them, declared themselves and their church a Hitler-free zone. They refused to comply.
ReplyDelete[As I understand it, Bonhoeffer was convicted and EXECUTED for trying to assassinate Hitler . . . but that conviction&sentence was the work of the Nazi "Justice" system. Whether that was what he was really working for (NB: I refuse to judge against him if he was, no matter my commitment to nonviolence) will probably never been known, this side of Judgment Day. That he was a German who resisted the Nazis (AND any so-called "Christians" corrupted by them), no matter their Power-over, however, is a matter of historical fact!]
most of us "ineligible" Catholics don't. The form of the priesthood exists from ancient and venerable tradition.
ReplyDelete...but not so "ancient and venerable", rick, that the undivided Church didn't have it, for over a thousand years! (the celibate priesthood, that is)
there is no record of his having had any problem with the priesthood being restricted to a tribe to which he did not belong.
See re John 4:21, rick? Jesus was BLOWING UP that priesthood (replacing their sacrifices w/ himself!)
You say "tend your own garden", rick---Counterlight has demonstrated why that's not really an option [I would add, that your "gardeners" keep spending millions of $$$$$$ to take away my CIVIL rights, too. Why shouldn't I want to see {ahem} "that garden taken away, and given to new gardeners"?]
****
The reality that there are "none so blind as those who will not see" continues to astonish: Fr Benedict Groeschel calling for a boycott of the NY Times yesterday---as if he'd never even HEARD the phrase "Shoot the messenger"! :-0
Finally, of course, there is today's Vatican pronouncment: "You SHALL tell the cops." If the Vatican can recognize something's seriously amiss, do ya think the most ardent Popoids will ever get the memo?