sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-04-09 01:53 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-04-09 01:53 pm
Entry tags:
religious gender elitism
About 100 men and women gathered outside Atlanta's Roman Catholic cathedral Thursday to protest the archbishop's exclusion of women from the Holy Thursday foot-washing ritual.
Contrary to the order from Archbishop John Donoghue, the protesters said the rite should include everyone. Donoghue did not address the protest during Mass Thursday night. He and his staff have refused to comment on the issue.
... In a letter last month to Atlanta priests, Donoghue said they should select 12 men from each parish to represent the apostles who had their feet washed by Jesus at the Last Supper.
from Faithful Decry Foot-Washing Ban of Women
It takes a special closed-ness of mind, and a special hatred of flesh, to think that the "fact" (disputed by some scholars and some non-canonical accounts) that Jesus' disciples were male sets a precedent that only people with penises deserve to participate in the remembrance of this event.
Jesus' message here was about humility, service, and compassion -- and this archbishop (and many before him) has turned it into something exclusionary.
Any mindset that reads the gospels and sees "people with penises" vs. "people without penises" instead of, just, people, is one that dehumanizes and closes the doors of the heart and soul.
Edit. It's difficult not to contrast the foot-washing scene in John, wherein Jesus washes the disciples' feet, with the foot-washing scene in Luke, where a woman (tradition says Mary Magdalene) washes Jesus' feet. If you restrict the remembrance of the scene in John to only male recipients, you are sending the subliminal message, intentionally or not, that it is fine for priests, who follow in the tradition of Jesus, to be served *by* women, but not to give service *to* women.
no subject
They are men only because they stand for the 12 apostles. That they are men is not the point. This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice. That people are protesting this *is* a condemnation of that diocese, but not over gender. It is a condemnation that the diocese has failed to teach these people the meaning of what is going on.
It is not about men and women, it is not about the 12 men. It puts our priesthood in context. It defines their relation, in imitating the actions of Christ, they proclaim their servanthood.
What is at stake here is that the discipline is to select 12 men. Exceptions can be made, but discipline difines the norm, and it does this in part to foster liturgical unity. It is not that women are not worthy of standing in this role .. and those who truly understand Catholicism's Theology of the Body - and yes, the Church has a formal Theology of the Body - understand this with no problem. The problem is defying discipline, in putting our selves and out cultural gender issues before the liturgical unity of the Church. That is the problem here and one of the greatest problems that the Catholic Church faces in western culture. Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicsim teaches us to put the community before ourselves.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can't say that I am entirely without reservation when it comes to assessing the effects of feminism on society. I do wholeheartedly agree with the goals of equal opportunity and equal bodily control and determination. I also firmly believe that what social changes make life better for women will also benefit men. But IMO the jury is out on whether or not society has benefitted from every change brought about in response to feminism.
no subject
Given that, what has occured as a drect result of feminism - that is to say, a semblance of compassion beginning to be given to battered wives and rape victims, a few options for women whove been abandoned with children by their husbands, a bit of recourse for women who are treated like dirt in the workplace, the opening of higher education to women - I can't possibly see as a bad thing. The few small excesses have been short-lived and trumpeted totall out of proportion to their effect on society.
no subject
I have been to churches that do fall short of the goal, but I have never been to one that even approaches being as bad as what you describe as the best of them. But then, I have spent only a limited amount of time in churches outside of my own tradition and none in the part of the country that you are from.
no subject
Looking at a statement like this, I can see someone easily arguing for the arbitrariness of the sign, so that anything should be able to stand for the 12 apostles, so long as it is recognized as standing for them. And though I don't think there is complete arbitrariness in this case — some symbols will require less effort to see as symbols for the symbolized —, still, it doesn't seem it would be so much a stretch to cast a woman as a man, much as men were cast as women in plays throughout history (and continuing into today in some places). Looking at this, it seems the argument for men alone representing the 12 apostles is that they should more readily represent 12 male apostles than 12 women should, though both could do the representation. But going from this, why not require them to paint their faces to any appropriate shade, and wear period dress, and the like, where such expenses could be easily borne?
"Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicism teaches us to put the community before ourselves" (spelling regularized).
Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now? How are things as they are not what Catholicism comes to look like in the end? How long must one wait and keep saying, "Perhaps next year — perhaps next century — perhaps the next millennium?"
I respect your understanding in these matters, and it is why I ask you.
no subject
Actually, it is fairly arbitrary, and I do support the changing of the discipline. There should be no problem with only choosing men, or only choosing women, or choosing both, and some bishops have changed discipline within their diocese - as is their authority to do. However, I do not support the means. This is the Triduum, the highest, most significant liturgy of the whole year. I highly object to distracting from it with protests and demonstrations. I object to the protestors putting their own issues and politics before this holy time.
Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now?
Western culture and catholic culture diverged even before the Reformation - that is largely what necessitated it - and have only diverged more and more since. I would say that in contemporary times, Catholic values and Western values have more points of contention than coincidence.
no subject
This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.
It is not only from the perspective of modern culture or modern super-individualism that one might conclude that the male-stand-ins-only implies denigration of women. The early Christian literature demonstrates that the role of women in the church was a matter of dire contention.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant. Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
That the liturgy calls for only male stand-ins for the disciples may very well reflect this early controversy -- rather than modern notions of "female liberation."
This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue. As I argued in my post, if gender were not an issue, there should be no theological dilemma with having female stand-ins, since the disciples themselves are no longer among us.
no subject
That is the point, that is not the belief. It is merely a practice. That it is somewhat arbitrary and that we are sophisticated enough that we do not the need the stand-ins to actually be men is a good point. But it is our discipline nonetheless.
I see another issue here besides gender. It's not like this is anything new, it's not like the practice has not always been clearly stated, it's not like there is any good reason for them to be surprised. I support changing the discipline, and as discipline it can be changed. But I do not support their means. I do not support simply defying the discipline of our Church. Nor do I support distracting from the Triduum with protests and demonstrations .. especially as such actions are more likely to hinder change than foster it, for exactly the reasons that I stated at the beginning.
Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations. Experience has taught us that defiance on small matters typically accompanies defiance on large matters. I'm happy to see one of our bishops take a stand, even if it is on a practice that I don't necessarily agree with.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant.
Some did, but the early Church in general recognized the differences between men and women and not being irrelevant.
Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
I would say that women are the same in knowledge and dignity. Again, we come down to the idea that the priesthood is about power. But it is not, and it is losing sight of this that causes problems, not embracing the true nature of the priesthood.
I think these scenes have a different implication. They come from works that sought to undercut the theological authority of the contemporary Church. There are few figures to be found in the Gospel tradition to use. I see two implications. Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender. But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue.
You have a certain point there. However, for us, there are far more issues at stake than just those of gender roles.
no subject
Yes, I see your point.
Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations.
It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that doctrine not be affected by frivolous innovations. But likewise I'm concerned that innovations in culture, such as increased individualism, reflect not frivolous selfishness, but actual human evolution. An institution that expects human continuity instead of human evolution cannot account for evolution if or when it occurs.
This is a major difficulty with the prevailing notion in Christianity, that we are just "doing time" waiting for the return of Christ. Under this view, no advancement that reflects human growth or human ingenuity can be truly "the coming thing," but must be simply a distraction or detour. There is no way under this view to account for paradigm change.
Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender.
This was an aspect of it, certainly.
But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.
I disagree. In Pistis Sophia and the Gospel of Mary, other male disciples are depicted as coming to the women's defense. Peter, of all the disciples, is the one in whom we see attitudes change; his vision in Acts 10, for example, reflects the change of heart reflected in his comments during the debate between Paul and James in Acts 15. So the authors of these non-canonical texts may have meant to show Peter in this case as one who had yet another kind of growing to accomplish, in the evolution of his views towards women.
no subject
But a community that embraces revolution over evolution cannot maintain that which defines it.
This is a major difficulty with the prevailing notion in Christianity, that we are just "doing time" waiting for the return of Christ.
I do not see this as the prevailing notion in Christianity .. although maybe in Protestantism. Our whole soteriology and sacramental system is about growth and change. For us, the Paul on the road to Damascus experience is a rare one. Most of us are bound to the path of Peter, that of Grace and doubt, success and failure, imperfection striving toward perfection.
no subject
I would think that simply being moral creatures teaches us to put the community before ourselves. (Yeah, I am being idealistic again.)
I can completely understand the fact that you are upset the the protests are detracting from what is the holiest time of the Catholic year. But these are members of the community who are protesting (I think. If someone is not a part of the Catholic community and is directly protesting this specific incidence they need to stop and think about what they are doing and why). What happens when the disciplines and the needs of the community itself are in conflict?
I understand putting community first. I understand and am more than willing to sacrifice my own needs and desires to bring about a greater good. I will admit that I am not religious enough to understand putting a liturgy above the needs of a community.
no subject
We believe the same, that everyone has an a conscience that will lead them to moral choices if they follow it.
What happens when the disciplines and the needs of the community itself are in conflict?
The disciplines exist to serve the needs of the community. What we are seeing here is one need coming into conflict with another. This community - due to its cultural baggage - finds needing or at least feeling they need - which does not decrease its validity - this variation from the norm. But the norm also fulfills the needs of the community, even if they are not aware of it.
So, a compromise must be made. The needs must be balanced. This is one change that seems quite reasonable to me. But change should not come this way. And it bothers me all the more that this was a surprise to the people protesting. The discipline was no secret, has been this way since the practice was re-established in '55. The ignorance of Catholics of Catholic practices really bothers me, whether it is because of lack of effort on the part of the person or lack of catechesis on the part of the Church.
I will admit that I am not religious enough to understand putting a liturgy above the needs of a community.
The liturgy serves the community in tremendous ways. It teaches, it sustains, it unifies, it edifies, it challenges. Assaults on the liturgy are therefore often assaults on these vital roles that it fulfills in the community. So, it is putting some needs of the community over other needs. The compromise must be found.