It is generally accepted that the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition form the three foundational “pillars” of Catholic faith. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that the relationship among these three pillars of Catholic faith is not only in transition but actually in crisis. The gap between the lived tradition of the Catholic Church and the Magisterial promulgation of the doctrines of that tradition is growing wider and wider – with the engagement scripture becoming an isogetical rather than an exegetical activity. The impact of this crisis between rhetoric - the official teaching - and praxis - the lived faith of the Church - has again been clearly recorded in the recent document Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus.
The document Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus takes as its specific focus the participation of Women in the Australian Church. However, the findings have far broader implications and this paper seeks to explore two of these implications.
Firstly, the data collected in this report makes it clear that the experiences, concerns and problems Australian Catholic women face in relation to their religious tradition directly effect not only the vitality of that tradition but its very survival. For a couple of decades Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has been using a catch phrase from the Redstocking Manifesto - the second wave of the American feminist-womanist movement - as a touchstone or critical rhetorical device to keep the Church focused on the radical truth of Christianity’s claim to universal salvation and wholeness. She claims that:
“Justice will not be done and humanity will not be whole until the poorest, most despised woman is free.” [1]
In other words, Schüssler Fiorenza maintains that until the Christian tradition commits itself to the liberation of the most dehumanised, exploited and poorest person on earth the Church fails in its mission. Schüssler Fiorenza names the ‘poorest most despised person on earth’ as a woman in light of the sociological statistics that identify women as those who occupy the bottom rung in the social, economic, political, educational and religious strata of almost any given culture – Eastern and Western. Consequently, gender inequality and the alienation of women within the ecclesial structures of the Catholic Church cannot be viewed as just an “issue pertaining to women.” Rather, it is something that concerns the whole Church. [2]
Secondly, the dominant ecclesiology found to be operative within those who are “satisfied” with the current level of participation of women in the Church appears to be rooted in a “pre-Vatican” mindset. This ecclesiology evidences a call to return to the ghetto mentality that views the world as ‘”hostile” and understands ordained ministry in terms of power and status.
The data contained in this report centred around four key questions and was collected from five diverse sources: 2,500 written responses - including group and individual, local and national many from both informal and formal groups at local and national levels; 4,457 from the Catholic Church Life Survey; A series of Public Hearings which received 500 presentations; 50 targeted catholic groups and associated institutions; and 79 catholic education, tertiary, health and welfare institutions. [3] The key questions were as follows:
1. What are the various ways in which women participate in the Catholic Church?
2. What assistance and support are currently offered to women to participate in the Church?
3. What are barriers to women’s participation in the Church?
4. What are some ways in which women’s participation in the church can be increased? [4]
Summary of the Catholic Church Life Survey
The data from the Catholic Church Life Survey (CCLS) was gathered at Sunday mass from randomly selected parishes around the country. The demographics of this group showed a median age of around 52. (national catholic average 38) with less than 20% of participants under 34. (national catholic average 40%). Over 50% of the respondents were either retired (26%), involved in family responsibilities (19%) or students (8%). There was a ratio of 3 women for every 2 men - with a more equal ratio in the youngest and oldest age category. The widowed were over represented - double the national catholic average - while the single, separated and divorced were under-represented - under half the national catholic average. The level of tertiary education was high 19% (nca.10%) but when excluding the youngest category the overall level of tertiary education of women was lower.
Of the five research approaches used to collect data for this report only the CCLS indicated any real level of satisfaction with women's participation in the Church (80%) This satisfaction was not evenly distributed across the age groups - the greater the age the greater the satisfaction. Motherhood and family care were the dominant roles this group considered women participated in that Church with education in faith being the activity that received the most support. The two areas which received the least support and or encouragement were in adult theological education and social justice. [5] It must be noted here that over 66% of regular mass goers do not participate in parish ministry/activities. And although few respondents reported having experienced barriers to women’s participation in the Church a substantial minority (25%) claimed to have observed barriers to women’s participation at work. The three most frequently identified barriers – which interestingly were identical to the barriers identified by the other survey groups – were named as: Church practices favouring men; the exercise of Church authority; opposition/lack of support from priests. [6] It is also interesting to not that even within this group of “satisfied” Catholics over 50% of the respondents had at least “some to much difficulty” accepting the Church’s teaching authority. [7] Across the age groups women had more difficulty with church authority than men. The rejection of the current teaching on the ordination of women was four times as high as the rejection of the Church’s teaching authority in general. The teachings on contraception, divorce and remarriage were seen as discouraging rather than encouraging participation. Prayer (27%) and the inclusion of women in more of the decision-making processes (19%) were the two most commonly agreed on ways to increase women’s participation in the Church.
Summary of the written responses, public hearings, targeted groups
In summarising the written submissions, public hearings, and the (2) target the report concluded that the “dominant feeling of participants in the groups was one of pain and alienation” [8] As opposed to the CCLS findings - where age/gender more clearly separated the various levels of satisfaction and acceptance of Church teaching – this sense of “alienation and anguish” was not characteristic of any particular group. While the respondents considered that the majority of those who participate in the life of the Church are in fact women, their roles are described as voluntary, unofficial, and ancillary and the work done by women was categorised as informal and lacking in authority. The concern here was not the amount or the diversity of the ways in which women participate but the value and authority ascribed to the work they actually do. [9] Even the traditional role of women as catholic wives and mothers was seen to have been devalued - with many of the more marginal single and divorced mothers feeling the most alienated. [10] Respondents saw little in the way of authoritative formal structures in place to support and assist women’s contributions. In being so informally constituted support for women’s participation relies on the personal commitment of individuals/groups and so can be fragile and prone to dissipation.
The report noted that the lack of women’s participation “arises not because the demands of serving the Gospel and the Church are too great” or because Catholic women lack the skill or willingness to contribute but rather because there “are too few and too limited ways to be of service in the decision making, leadership and ministerial roles of the Church.” [11] “Church structures and practices” were identified as the greatest barrier to women’s participation in the Church with “the process of decision making, the exercise of authority, practices and beliefs that favour men, and opposition or lack of support from the clergy” named as the most common expression of this barrier in all five groups. [12] These barriers were seen as “inconsistent with the person and message of Jesus Christ, and failed to take into account the developments in social sciences and changes in the role of women in society.” [13] Respondents considered the “sin of sexism” and the gap between gender equity and social justice issues in the wider society and the Church was seen as a scandal. [14] This has served to institutionalise this gender bias and promote a male-dominated ecclesial culture that is not open or responsive to contemporary women.
The lack of credible role models or incentives for young Catholics – especially women - to become involved in the Church was a major concern among all these groups – including the CCLS. The high level of theological education among Catholic women was contrasted with the low level of women who participate in ministerial, managerial, or leadership roles in both Catholic institutions and the more public face of the Church. Particular attention was given to the question of the ordination of women and much attention was given to the engagement of scripture and the ministry of Jesus. This was accompanied by a call to re-examine the nature of ministry itself - particularly ordained ministry and priesthood. Serious attention needs to be given to the reformation of beliefs and practices that do not promote the full equality of men and women was seen as an essential co-relative of this re-evaluation of ministry.
Church structures and practices were named as the fundamental barrier to women’s participation in the Church with, the exercise of authority, practices and beliefs that favour men, and opposition or lack of support from the clergy identified as the most common expression of this barrier in all five groups.
Although the report acknowledged that a wide variety of models of church were both implicitly and explicitly operative [15] when the different responses from all the five groups are categorised and compared the results show two very different foundational approaches and theological understandings at work.
|
|
|
|
Call for a return to the traditional teachings, piety and values of the Church. |
Call to renewal based on the vision of Jesus and the Gospels. |
|
Stress obedience to the Pope. An emphasis on the hierarchical nature of the Church. |
Stress the vision and spirit of Vatican II; Emphasis the Church as the ‘People of God’. |
|
Refer to Church documents – especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church. |
Refer to Scripture and the Early Church Communities. |
|
Stress the need to accept the authority and doctrine of the Church. |
Stress the need to engage contemporary biblical and theological scholarship |
|
Are concerned that tolerance undermines truth. |
Value unity in diversity and the breakdown of discrimination. |
|
Highlight the traditional role of women as wives, mothers and in consecrated life. |
Highlight the increasingly varied contribution of women to society and Church. |
|
Concerned that men and boys are not sufficiently present or active in Church life. |
Display feelings of pain and alienation concerning the limitations of women’s roles in the Church. |
|
Emphasis concerns about secular pressures, consumerism and the secular culture. |
Experience as a scandal that the wider community is leading the way in concern for the equality of women. |
|
See the Church as being in conflict with a hostile world. |
Lament the failure of the institutional Church to read the ‘signs of the times’. |
|
Express concerns regarding the lack of catholic ethos and sound teaching in catholic education. |
Identify the value of the large group of theologically educated women. |
|
Perceive that women seeking ordination seek power and status. |
Perceive that women seeking ordination wish to be of service to the Church. |
|
Believe that feminism is incompatible with Church teaching. |
Value moderate feminism. |
|
Are comfortable with exclusive social language and religious imagery. |
Call for the use of inclusive religious language and imagery and inclusive social language. [16] |
So, what does all this say about the future of the Catholic tradition
Building on the work of Yves Congar, Terrence Tilly maintains that traditions are – by their very nature – historically embedded, inculturated communicative practices. [17] Tilly gives emphasis to the orthodoxy of understanding traditions as dynamic and fluid in nature with a quote from the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio where it is stated:
“Therefore, if the influence of events, or of the times, has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposits of faith) these should be appropriately rectified.” [18]
Here there is a clear understanding that tradition is not an immutable object but a process that is necessarily open – and therefore responsive - to “the influence of events, or of the times” – the social, historical, cultural and political context. Within this understanding however, the “deposits of faith” cannot be completely isolated from the traditioning process. The content of a tradition - tradita - is inextricably caught up in the context and so implicated in the transmission of the tradition - traditio. Both the content and the transmission of tradition remain in a hermeneutical contextual relationship of mutual interpretation and correction. To separate either the content or the transmission of the tradition from the context in which it is articulated and understood distorts the tradition itself. And to collapse the transmission of tradition into the content is as dangerous as collapsing the content into the transmission. [19] I consider this is what lies at the heart of the findings of the document Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus. Because the content of the tradition has been separated from its context the whole traditioning process of the tradition itself is in crisis.
Accordingly, living traditions are not fixed or stable – they cannot be conceived of as immutable, carriers of objective doctrinal truths or even deposits of faith. Living traditions cannot allow the relationships among their content, their context or their transmission to become separated or isolated. If a tradition “is to be authentically received in a new context” then faithfulness to that tradition often requires “extensive reworking” not only in relation to the traditio – the transmission of the tradition - but also of the tradita - the content of the tradition. [20] Tilly warns that traditions within which communities or institutions offer no place where possible changes can be proposed and developed cannot endure indefinitely. Canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy underscores this point when he warns ‘living dynamic communities cannot be governed by static immutable laws – either the communities will break the laws or the laws will break the communities.’
Bishops Response
Many women who participated in the report Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus were concerned these findings would “go nowhere.” [21] However, on 24th September, 2000 - Social Justice Sunday - the Australian Council of Bishops issued a statement outlining the practical steps they would take in response to the report.
In their response the Australian Bishops officially promise Australian Catholics they will both explore and implement policies aimed at improving: the balance of women and men in national professional, leadership and advisory positions; employment prospects for women; women's theological education and ministerial preparation; opportunities for broadening women's liturgical participation; the pastoral dissemination of “difficult” Church teaching; and the liturgical and ecclesial contributions of Australian indigenous Catholics. The prime focus in many of these areas is expressed as a “commitment to foster research” and “study”.
The preamble of the Bishops response indicates that the terms of reference drawn up for this broader research project – including the CACW - will not engender the foundational changes required for the well-being of the tradition. The report Woman and Man clearly noted that the greatest barriers to women’s full participation in the contemporary Church were fundamentally connected to the hierarchical structures and ungrounded attitudes the Church has about women. The report stated:
the fundamental barriers to women’s participation in the Church were related to “Church structures and practices including the process of decision making, the exercise of authority, practices and beliefs that favour men, and opposition or lack of support from the clergy.”
If all the research and study into the concerns identified by the report must be conducted within the “divinely ordained structures” of the Church the possibility of transformative foundational change occurring is very low. The response states:
Our practices and policies are not always the same as those of civil society because they arise from our faith in the Church as a communion of life in God with a divinely ordained structure, though they must express the equality of all within that communion.
Take, for example the concern both the report and the response have to foster and support the theological education of women. The level of theologically literate women in the contemporary Australian church is actually very high already. The Report noted that almost 74 percent of undergraduate and 64 percent of post-graduate students engaged in theological and religious education are women. However, the Report also noted that present church structures and attitudes about women appear to prevent this incredible theological resource from being properly utilised. Accordingly, the commitment of the bishops to the education of women for fuller participation in leadership and liturgical roles is meaningless as long as the Church continues to uphold “divinely ordained structures” that restrict the liturgical and ministerial leadership of women because of their gender rather than their qualifications. In other words, there is an obvious tension in the commitment of the ACBC to foster and “promote the equality and dignity of women” within an institution that, by virtue of its divinely ordained structure, reinforces hierarchical attitudes of gender exclusion. In effect, it is precisely this gap between the rhetoric and the praxis that engenders the frustration and hopelessness experienced by many Catholic women and clearly articulated in this report.
The bishops response also commits to the pastoral dissemination of “difficult” Church teaching – a necessary commitment given that over 50% of even regular mass goers have some to much difficulty with current Church teaching. However, the Church is very adamant that “difficult” church teaching is not “open for discussion.” It can be safely claimed that the question of the ordination of women is one such difficult church teaching. The response of all participants in this area - even the CCLS – highlights that this church teaching needs to be discussed rather than pastoral disseminated. The Report makes it clear that the “question of the ordination of women has not been resolved in that it has not been received by the faithful of the church as expressive of their Catholic faith.” While the conversation about women’s ordination is one that does need to take place, it is more fundamentally an expression – or manifestation – of the need for a much broader horizon within which to explore ecclesial ministry. Put another way, the refusal of the Catholic Church to discuss the question of women’s ordination is more a manifestation of patriarchal attitudes and structures than the cause of them. More pertinently, there is a need to radically re-examine the whole nature of ministry itself - both ordained and non-ordained ministry. But if the basic framework for this discussion is not broadened then the radical re-examination is not possible. For the ongoing life and health of the church it is becoming increasingly apparent that contemporary Christian life needs a whole new framework within which to understand the contours and distinctions of all Christian ministry - not just ordained ministry.
One very practical step undertaken by the Australian bishops is the establishment of a Commission for Australian Catholic Women (CACW) designed to promote the participation of women in the Catholic Church in Australia. The purpose of the Commission is twofold. It has a mandate to:
1. act as a focal point for ongoing dialogue and integration of ideas pertaining to women and their participation in the Catholic Church in Australia, and
2. assist in the implementation of the decisions and recommendations arising from the Plenary Meeting of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference in May 2000 concerning the participation of women in the Catholic Church in Australia.
Again, however, we seem to be encountering a very similar problem to that above. On the one hand the Australian bishops desire to support and encourage new relationships between the Church and women while being either unwilling or unable to think outside the existing relational framework which caused the fundamental problem in the first place. To dialogue and integrate “ideas pertaining to women” would suggest that the old prescriptive attitude to women - an attitude that really goes against the grain of the Report itself - is still a foundational driving force within any study or research on the Church does on “women's questions” or “women’s issues.” As mentioned above, gender inequality and the alienation of women within the ecclesial structures of the Catholic Church cannot be viewed as just an “issue pertaining to women.” Rather, it is something that concerns the whole Church. [22] The overwhelming response of those who participated in this report was that, for the first time in centuries, catholic women were able to tell their own story. So after years of the Church prescribing the experiences, the concerns and future desires of women the women themselves were able to describe all their own experiences, concerns and future desires.
Authentic Christian faith only survives when it is a lived faith – when it is concretised in lives that give witness to a loving, just merciful God. This means that the deposits of faith and the indefectibility of the Church towards its end goal rest upon the eschatological promise of a living God – “Yes, know that I will be with you; even to the end of time.” The continuity of such a tradition – its connection with past truths, present experiences and future hopes – is not therefore guaranteed by a constancy of formulations. Indeed, insisting on the use of specific phrases or formulae’s can actually hide a lack of continuity in a tradition. Rather both the authenticity and the continuity of this tradition demand that it be constantly reworked, regrasped in order to be relived in response to the influence of events, and the influence of the times. As outlined above, the findings of document Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus suggests that in the Australian context, this is not happening.
[1] Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Patriarchal Structures and The Discipleship of Equals’ in A Critical Ekklesia-ology of Liberation 231
[2] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 394
[3] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, xii
[4] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, xii
[5] Ibid., 149
[6] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 165
[7] Ibid., 145.
[8] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 375
[9] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 379
[10] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus 320
[11] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 394
[12] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 391.
[13] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 381-382
[14] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 382
[15] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 373
[16] Ibid., 392.
[17] Tilly Inventing Catholic Tradition, p. - 29
[18] Unitatis Redintegratio no.6 in Abbott The Documents of Vatican II, 350.
[19] Tilly, Inventing Catholic Tradition, 9ff
[20] Tilly, Inventing Catholic Tradition, 29
[21] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 62.
[22] Macdonald et al, Woman Man: One in Christ Jesus, 394
Anne Tuohy is a Lecturer within the School of Theology, McAuley Campus.
