Given the upcoming episcopal consecrations by the SSPX and their return to excommunication and full schism, the matter of misogyny among the Latin traditionalists has again raised its ugly head. (A popular Catholic woman commentator was essentially told to keep to her place and to stay off social media when she voiced her opinion against their intransigence and prospective act of rebellion.) While they might claim otherwise, many of their apologists regularly denigrate women by clearly designating them as inferior to men. This mindset frequently images women as either mothers or whores. Certain SSPX publications have criticized the entry of women into higher education and into the general workforce. The patriarchal vision keeps the woman at home as a domestic— having babies, cooking, cleaning and always ready to please her husband.
The late Bishop Richard Williamson, who was expelled from the SSPX as an antisemitic holocaust denier, even denounced the Church’s honoring of women as doctors of the Church. He argued that females should never have authority over men. Despite his excesses, he well summarize the position of many Latin traditionalists that nothing should distract women from their primary purpose as mothers. It is argued that women are conditioned for submission. They are told that they must acquiesce to the ideas and decisions of their fathers and later their husbands. Women are judged as too emotional in their deliberations for leadership, except for maybe over small children. Historically, even women religious were subjugated and sometimes looked upon with suspicion. While we may have a fond nostalgia based upon the movie, “The Bells of St. Mary’s” with Bing Crosby and Ingrid Bergman, in truth many parish schools employed the consecrated women religious teachers as slave labor. They wore men’s shoes because they were lasting and tough. Hours were long, convents were alternately cold or hot, and food was often gifted from generous families. Parochial schools were inexpensive because the nuns were not paid. No one heard complaints because the long-suffering women embraced it as spiritual mortification and sacrifice. I recall years ago a community of cloistered Dominican nuns that struggled to remain solvent and literally sustained themselves from the leftover scraps of food discarded from the local House of Studies where the religious priests resided. The archdiocese became aware of their dire straights and gave them the job microfilming confidential documents. The accompanying small income gave them back something of their dignity. Speaking for myself, one of the best spiritual directors I ever knew was a religious sister who was hired as a cook for my college seminary. She proved to be a wise and compassionate sage who quietly and unofficially saved the priestly vocations of boys growing into men. She also made the best bread pudding!
While I certainly believe in modesty, for men and women, I would leave the intricacies of dress to them. It is unseemly for men to orchestrate such matters, as if women are paper dolls to be attired as we wish. In practice, dress codes can be quite strict: chapel veils or head coverings in church, wearing skirts or dresses instead of pants, and covering bare shoulders. Clergy used to joke that Irish brides were covered from head to foot while the Italians had visible cleavage threatening to burst free.
While the late Pope John Paul II affirmed the male-only priesthood, all hell broke loose when girls were given formal approbation as altar servers. A number of critics still denounce women who function as readers at Mass and who assist as extraordinary ministers. While I would also lament the inclusion of female servers or acolytes, we should never demean these handmaids of the altar who give of themselves much as the Blessed Mother did as a child in the temple.
Where do I stand in all this? I have long argued for a distinction between secular feminism and a Christian variation where women are prized for their feminine genius. Within their maternal love, they contribute a unique receptivity, sensitivity, and charity to human congress. There is no need for competition or war between the sexes. However, there should be a profound collaboration with respect for the gifts given them by God.
- We should not confuse feminine empathy with being emotionally unstable. There is nothing weak or diminutive about gentleness and compassion. A failure to appreciate the difference likely speaks to the arrogance that saturates so many of the deliberations and stances of the SSPX and other traditionalists to the living Magisterium.
- We should not confuse feminine physicality with being weak in body and mind. Indeed, given the potential for motherhood has given women a higher tolerance than men for pain. Women know a unique tenderness but even the Blessed Mother did not shy away from Calvary when most of Christ’s apostles were in hiding. The Christian woman is strong, enduring her own pain and facing the hurt of others.
- We should not confuse feminine sensitivity and passion with a lack of mental sharpness. The list of women who have contributed to faith and western culture is impressive, names like Edith Stein, Elizabeth Anscombe, Sigrid Undset, Flannery O’Connor, Dorothy L. Sayers, Dorothy Day, etc. Indeed, even Alice von Hildebrand, who argued for traditional women’s roles, was herself groundbreaking as a professor of philosophy.
The post-Vatican II Church has rightly been responsive to the contributions of women even as society parades a false freedom that coarsens relationships behind manipulation and vulgarity. One of the fruits of this new sensitivity is the acknowledgment of women as Doctors of the Church: Saint Teresa of Ávila, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux and Saint Hildegard of Bingen. The late Pope Benedict XVI had a special fondness and esteem for Saint Hildegard.
Advocates for women in holy orders often wrongly speak about it in terms of entitlement and social justice. But the gift of ordained ministry belongs entirely to Christ and his Church. It can be given but can never be taken or merited. Granted that Jesus never appointed any women as his apostles, we are not at liberty to make a change that would jeopardize holy orders, the forgiveness of sins and the Eucharist. While men are called as pastors over faith communities, why cannot the laity, men and women alike, assist with administration, theological reflection and even in governance? The Vatican itself has moved in this direction with the leadership of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and the governance of the Vatican City State. Women today serve the Church as chancellors, business managers, canon lawyers, bookkeepers, secretaries, teachers, liturgical directors and musicians, extraordinary ministers, readers, servers, ushers, etc. Altar Guilds populated by women care for our churches and set up for Masses. Some continue to answer God’s as nuns and religious sisters.
Of course, how could any Catholic be anti-woman when the greatest “human person” who ever lived was the Virgin Mary?
Filed under: Feminism, Misogyny, Uncategorized, Women, Women Priests | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Faith, God, Jesus | Leave a comment »
Blogger Priest 