religious gender elitism

[sophiaserpentia]

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.

Comments

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

That would explain all the celibacy! Anyone that high up the ladder would have a dangerously large erection that most women would gladly stay away from! ::smirk::

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a bit more cynical than I am (usually) prepared to take things. But I have often wondered what it is, specifically, about men or masculinity that leads various cultures to develop the tradition that only men are to be seen as effective religious leaders.

Is it something to do with some "magical quality" that the male body possesses? Or is it a "deficiency" that supposedly exists in the womb or female body? Considering that intersex and transgendered have not generally been considered male priest substitutes in male-dominated cultures, it must be the former.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Is it something to do with some "magical quality" that the male body possesses?

I can give you the Catholic answer. In Catholic theology, men and women are equal in dignity, but they are not the same. They were created for different roles. Unlike contemporary American culture, in Catholicism equal does not mean the same.

Not all religious leaders are priests. When the laity leaves all of the religious leadership to its priesthood, when it leaves all of its theological and doctrinal growth to clerical theologians, it is a sign that the laity has lost sight of Catholic belief, not that it is embracing it. We are all called to be a priestly people. The primary role of religious leadership within the Catholic Church is parenthood. Parents are the first catechists and the first religious guides. And women, due to their more intimate relationship with their children through childbirth and physically nourishing fulfill this role in an exceptional sense.

And, always remember, St. Catherine rebuked the Pope.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

On what basis are the various equal but not the same roles prescribed? What is the rationale behind who does what?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Some of it is biological, but we believe the biological is because of the roles we were created for, not the other way around.

The rationale is really based on discovery and revelation. We do not believe that we established the roles but that God did.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It's turning out that many aspects of the traditional gender roles are reflected in brain differences between women and men. What's still not clear, is the extent to which brain development is guided by nurture instead of nature.

To my way of thinking, this makes a difference because it is ethically wrong to raise people in ways that keep them from living to their utmost potential.

I have no ethical objections to the idea of gender roles, provided that they are "loose" instead of "strict" -- that is, the simple observation that people of a particular gender are more likely to be better at certain things, shouldn't lead to the presumption that therefore only someone of a given gender should be given a particular task -- this is not a conclusion that is logically implied by the observation.

This is a personal issue for me, as I have never clearly fit into either category. Attempting to live out the "proscription" of the male gender role has been an absolute disaster for me.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

What's still not clear, is the extent to which brain development is guided by nurture instead of nature.

I think that what studies so far have shown is that there is not a hard and fast line between the two.

the simple observation that people of a particular gender are more likely to be better at certain things, shouldn't lead to the presumption that therefore only someone of a given gender should be given a particular task

I believe that both are the case. I do beleive that there are some few roles that are tied to our gender. However, there are many more roles that our gender makes us more suitable for, but that are not determined by gender alone.

[theodora.livejournal.com]

I'm certain that you've faced this question n+ times already, so, if you can, be patient in answering - how do you address the idea that, as a man, espousing essentialism, in a tradition that, eloquent apologetics aside, has in practice been rather sexist (I'm a girl, raised Catholic. I have the baggage), you are...doing something rather cruel?

It's one thing to say, intellectually, that women should feel "equal." But...just by being a Catholic you also understand that we aren't just intellectual creatures, we process information in more ways than just intellectually. So. When the experience of women in the Church is, in so many ways, one of cruelty, one of being banned and barred and excluded, how can you give your explanation of the choice of men only with such apparent simplicity and ease?

It is very simple to say, "oh, how silly of you to be in pain." But that doesn't make the pain less real. It just punishes doubly the person who's in it.

What steps do you take to ensure that your answer holds also compassion, not merely tidy explanation?

Again, I don't mean to...I mean, I know, how often this must have been put to you before! But, that St. Catherine rebuked the Pope is of cold if any comfort to the women of Africa who have AIDS because of their husbands, &c, &c, &c.

There's a difference between the humility that one chooses and the humility that is imposed & enforced. The Catholic Church, in my observation, prefers the latter. Especially with regard to women.

Humility, magnaminity, teaching, these are power relations that...are not made more beautiful when the power is abused.

I type, obviously.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

how do you address the idea that, as a man, espousing essentialism, in a tradition that, eloquent apologetics aside, has in practice been rather sexist (I'm a girl, raised Catholic. I have the baggage), you are...doing something rather cruel?

If by sexist you mean that it distinguishes between genders, then it is. If by sexist you mean that it denigrates one sex, then it is not .. at least not inherently so, even if it has been unfortunately effectively so. I would say that the cruelty is our culture which continuously bombards us with the notion that there should be no differences between the genders, that we must be the same in order to be equal. Such a notion is utterly foreign to Catholicism and I see this notion as the cruelty.

So. When the experience of women in the Church is, in so many ways, one of cruelty, one of being banned and barred and excluded, how can you give your explanation of the choice of men only with such apparent simplicity and ease?

Since I disagree about the source of the cruelty, there is no way to answer this question. But when I look to make sense of it, my mind is always drawn to the simple reality of motherhood. Men are incapable of motherhood, incapable of bearing children and that intimate nurturing which to women comes as a natural course of biology.

What steps do you take to ensure that your answer holds also compassion, not merely tidy explanation?

Through engendering through my actions and my attitudes the respect and honor that all vocations deserve. But also through not attributing to some vocations more exclusive attributes than they possess. Though only women can be mothers, that does not mean that only they can be nurturing or loving. Though only men can be priests, that does not mean that only they can be religious leaders or only they can be theologians or that only they are responsible for establishing the direction that our Church will go.

I know that I often fail at this goal of compassion, but I try, and as in all goals, I won't let my failures change the goal to one easier to attain.

cold if any comfort to the women of Africa who have AIDS because of their husbands, &c, &c, &c

I do not understand this sort of critique. This trajedy is the result of deviation from the Catholic ideal, not the embracing of it.