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

[badsede.livejournal.com]

This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

An institution that expects human continuity instead of human evolution cannot account for evolution if or when it occurs.

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.