religious gender elitism
Apr. 9th, 2004 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
Date: 2004-04-09 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 11:51 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-04-10 03:09 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2004-04-10 01:13 pm (UTC)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.