Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Catholic On-line ran a story the other day about a conference of religious superiors meeting in India. The theme of the conference was “gender justice.” The term “gender” is the first to give one pause, because all too many use this term to suggest that sex differences are nothing more than sociological constructs (though they will admit men cannot yet have babies…but they are hoping science will solve that “problem” soon).
After reading not too far into the story, my fears began to be confirmed:

The church understands the need for gender justice, but does not know how to insure it, Montfort Brother Varghese Theckanath told the national assembly of the Conference of Religious India (CRI), of which he is national president. “Gender-sensitive church” is the theme of the five-day program here in southern India. Some 575 major superiors representing 125,000 Catholic men and women Religious in the country are attending the event.

It was a large group of people these conference goers were representing. The theme of the conference, justice, is a good one. The idea of promoting equality between men and women is especially important in many cultures. I was hoping to hear about strategies that they might have for helping to change the way women are too often treated in Indian culture. That topic did not come up…in the article any way:

“As far as gender justice in the church is concerned, the die is cast. But dilemmas remain, bordering on double speak,” Brother Theckanath remarked in his keynote address. The Catholic Church remains “one of the most patriarchal of institutions,” he said, despite “profound, egalitarian and nondiscriminative” responses and statements from the hierarchy. The 48-year-old religious described the assembly theme as “timely, spirit-inspired, prophetic and future-oriented” with its focus on bridging “the gaps” between the vision and practices in the church.

The more threatening concern for women in India, rather, is the “patriarchal” Church. There seems to be a disconnect, in these folks minds, between what the Church says and does. Well, as in the U.S. it is the religious folks to the rescue. My palms start getting sweaty, my eyes start bulging, and I start turning red (no wait, that’s Shelray) when I hear the terms “prophetic” and “future oriented.” These words always seem to mean that the Church is wrong and we are here to set things a’right.

Gender justice within the church and society would help end discrimination against women, he acknowledged. But it also would help the church to become collaborative and to “discover the relational character of humanity, affirm unity in diversity and connect all to the whole of creation.”

These are some significant terms: the relational character of humanity, unity and difference… Understood from a Trinitarian hermeneutic, these concepts identify the way toward a reconciliation between a monist reduction of human personhood into one unisex human nature and a dualism which sees men and women as two separate species. Maybe that is where he is going (hint: don’t hold your breath):

He cited liberation, inclusion and celebration as the marks of a collaborative church.

Uh huh, and I thought the four marks of the Church were One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I guess ICEL never got this newer version out before the big clean-up arrived at their door step.

“We are looking forward to an ideal situation where we can create a level playing field for women as much as for men through policies to redistribute resources – both material and spiritual – responsibilities and rights in all spheres of social life,” said Brother Theckanath, superior of his Montfort Brothers’ Hyderabad province. He said women continue to be denied access to decision-making in the church even after repeated discussions on this.

How does one redistribute spiritual resources? Are we talking some new type of sacramental system?  Is the redistribution of responsibilities a cloaked call for women’s ordination? (two guesses).

As an example of “double speak” on gender justice in the church, he cited the late Pope John Paul II’s Pastor Bonus (“Good Shepherd”), the 1988 apostolic constitution on the reorganization of the Roman curia. According to Brother Theckanath, the document categorically states that “matters requiring the exercise of power of governance be reserved to those in holy orders.” Even official recognition of minor orders, such as lectors and acolytes, has been banned for women, the brother noted, adding that this “shows where we stand.”

Brother Theckanath has a fundamental confusion over the nature of holy orders and the structure of the Church. Holy Orders is not the corporate elite and the Church is not a corporate or political organization structured in terms of power, whereby justice means power-sharing. It is a multi-faceted family which has as its spiritual leadership, those who are sacramentally configured to Christ in His priesthood.

He charged that the church uses the biblical imagery of the bride and bridegroom to justify an unequal relationship between men and women in the church. “We must admit that there cannot be a participatory church with gender justice as long as the church retains the assumption that female humanity is ontologically different and secondary to male humanity,” he asserted.

Now this is just plain unfair. The Church is resorting to low tactics by using basic biblical texts and imagery found throughout them, and taught throughout 2000 years of Church history, to try show why equality between men and women does not mean sameness. After all, those folks do not have any of their own Revelation which shows that Church to be a democratically elected, egalitarian, pluralistic, do whatever feels good, society.  I do admit that there cannot be a participatory Church, in the sense that the Brother understands it any way, as long as we have the correct understanding of anthropology, Sacraments, and ecclesiology. However, there are several denominations that do share his reductionist view of the same, and I would be glad to point him toward them. It is question begging to say that because men and woman are ontologically different, that the Church teaches women are secondary. Again, his phrase that suggests if women and men are ontologically different that there must be a separate humanity for men and women is a false dichotomy. Sex differences are in the realm of relation not substance. Analogous to Trinitarian Relations, which are Persons, human relations allow for ontological difference between men and women while remaining in a unity of human nature.

Brother Theckanath…called on women religious to lead the campaign to change the misconceptions about women through a theological and political agenda. This will lead to a more gender-sensitive church, he added.

I do wish that India would not follow the US model in everything. While economically it is proving successful for them, in terms of religious orders, the Marxist model of the Church adopted by too many venerable religious orders in the U.S. has reduced them to life support and near extinction in the West.

Sister Roshni, provincial of the Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary, maintained that “meaningful collaboration of men and women” would strengthen the church. She added that women religious are also “equally responsible” for the church’s patriarchal mindset. “Jesus showed us how to fight injustice. But we are scared to fight. We should be honest about it. Changes would come only when we force changes,” she said.

It looks like the Sisters of Charity are marking their doom as well.  The Marxist model it will be.   It appears as if Catholic India may just be entering a U.S. late 60′s early ’70s phase.  If so, pray for them.  They have a long, scary road ahead.