The general assembly of the synod on synodality made headlines Wednesday when it released the Letter to the People of God, repeatedly mentioning the importance of including and listening to laypeople - both men and women - in a synodal Church.
> With news about Rupnik’s incardination making headlines in every major Catholic publication on the day that the synod released its Letter to the People of God
Between this scandal erupting here in the last full week of October, and the outbreak of war in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago,it has really been made apparent just how absurd this whole exercise of the Synod is in comparison to real issues in the Church and the rest of the world. While bishops, laypersons, and others debate theological impossibilities like women's ordination and other pet projects, others are dealing with real problems, such as protecting their own lives and the lives of their families. Meanwhile, as this article rightly points out, the hypocrisy of everything is on full display given how much has been made at the Synod on listening to women in the Church.
Since many of the Synod's supporters like to talk about the Holy Spirit speaking in the Synod, without much justification being offered, perhaps I can offer my own speculation that maybe these events overshadowing the Synod is the Holy Spirit's way of speaking to the Synod and the Church.
I am all for the church “listening to women,” but I find the “sitting at the feet of women” metaphor problematic. The church should only sit at the feet of the Lord.
I don't think that's a fair comparison, dear Bridget.
It's one thing to set an example of service as Jesus did in washing the disciples' feet. But this quote didn't strike me as referring to the Church serving. It sounds more like a recommendation that the Magisterium subordinate its doctrinal authority to the laity.
If not this role reversal, then what exactly is the goal of having the Church sit at the feet of women?
Maybe this Ghanaian theologian Nora Kofognotera Nonterah is doing us a favor by pulling back the curtain. Maybe a synodal Church willing to sit at the feet of its members, is a Church that pegs its doctrine to the opinions of the members. I'll pass on that sort of Church.
Yes, it is not a fair comparison. When I have an extreme reaction to something, it is good to take a moment for introspection, asking God for light into my interior (he knows what's going on in there but sometimes I don't, particularly in the depths, and he knows what he wanted to point out which isn't always directly related to the exterior event that set the interior reactions in motion. Maybe I should say "usually isn't" instead of "isn't always"; I'm not sure.)
We have a few doctors of the Church now who are women (this is also not a fair comparison) and we should probably take a moment to be shocked about that too.
Beyond Rupnik (which is not just "not listening to women" but also "not listening to anyone with a conscience"), what would one need to see to believe they are listened to by the Church? Obviously I would count a consistently effective response to abuse as one way, but there has to be more to the claim. I would have liked this analysis to be a bit broader in scope to do the topic due justice.
Exactly. This is the classic “give me everything I want immediately whenever I want it and without any protestation, or else I’m not being listened to/accompanied/welcomed/etc.”
It’s the same tactic used by LGBTQ activists in the Church - the only way they’ll “feel welcomed” is if the Church says it’s ok to have gay sex, get “married,” have relationships with minors, and mutilate their bodies to transition.
I have every reason to believe the author is writing in good faith and not camouflaging a discipline/doctrine agenda with calls for listening.
There surely are legit ways different groups within the Church don't feel heard, especially in the area of transparency - e.g. the TLM folks not getting much if any explanation for TC (but even that may not be group-specific - I dont attend TLM, and I'd sure like to know)
I recall a time relatively early in Francis' pontificate, when he was asked about potential discipline of the bishops who moved abusers around. He said something like "I expect they cried a lot."
Until the response to such gross neglect of duty (and breach of canon law, and abandonment of victims, and...) is more along the lines of deposition and defrocking than charitably assuming there were tears, we will continue to have a culture of bishops who find it easier to busy themselves with anything other than the demands of justice.
The declarations of the pope against clericalism ring hollow when Rupnik is rehabilitated by actions from “the highest levels of the Vatican.” If that’s not clericalism and the “good ol’ boy” Jesuit network making sure hineys are covered then I don’t know what else would describe it.
They think “clericalism” is when laypeople kiss the clergy’s ring and when pastors actually assert their authority in a parish.
Meanwhile, they protect criminals and abusers, deceive the public, form little cabals of high-ranking clergy to exert influence over the universal church, and more.
They call out a splinter while ignoring the beam in their own eye.
No they don't. Abuse of women in religion (and men living to a rule of life too) through ties of obedience is treated as nothing. The Rupnik scandal saw the Pope give this
response of studied and insulting indifference his imprimatur. Ms Nonterah must be an eternal optimist with her 'encouraging and inspiring.'
Never mind Rupnik and his stomach churning abuse. Pope Francis is firmly opposed to clericalism and scandals such as..... Young priests buying lace vestments. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Answer to the question- NO I want no one sitting at my feet! If the church will not listen,it’s time for women to STOP listening to the institutional church and proceed as Jesus would have us do. Walking with- yes,let’s get at it!!!
If the Church really wants to listen to women, I would like to suggest that they institute something similar to the Dallas Charter for bishops. When my own bishop was falsely accused of abuse, he promptly went public with the charges and welcomed the public vindication he received from the family of the deceased. Shining the light on a situation is the best way of clearing it up, one way or the other. The goal should be the truth and bringing all the members of the Church to heaven.
I come back to what I said to Cardinal Mahoney in a deanery meeting back around 2004 when the scandal broke in Los Angeles. The Church is here to help us understand the Gospels and to navigate what can be a morally complicated world but if it can't get the easy questions of morality right, how can it expect people to trust their guidance on the more complicated issues? I also told him that in many ways he was more culpable than the abusers because there is a reasonable chance that at least some of them were mentally sick individuals (or even prior victims of sexual abuse themselves) but by covering up their sins and crimes to protect himself and the institutional church, he robbed the victims not only of their faith but had committed the ultimate blasphemy because both the crimes and the cover-ups were all done in the name of God. The fact that 20 years later, this level of corruption and cover-up is still going on is demoralizing to say the least.
I don’t want priests “sitting at my feet.” That’s just reverse clericalism. I want priests to be bold, holy men.
I want them to hear they young women who who quietly sit in the pews at adoration and try to bring their kids to mass. I want them to hear to cloistered nuns. I want them to hear to women teachers, social workers and doctors in our poorest schools and communities. I want them to hear women who find themselves single and unable to have the family they most desperately wanted. I want them to hear women who have had men abuse them, whatever their state in life. I want them to hear women who try to live the Church’s hardest teachings.
They don’t need to listen to Jan from the Parish Council bang on about female clergy, contraception fixing everything, their homilies being too long, or the weekly parish bingo tournament is the most essential parish function and no they can’t move it for an RCIA class.
Maybe this is a Jan is a stereotype but she seems to be all I hear when talking about women’s issues.
Those men in charge of Rupnik’s case are rotted. They care about themselves, only. Unfortunately, the Church has dozens of that type. Those same men are now trying to pretend they care about victims, but their actions show otherwise. Public outrage is the answer to that kind of abhorrent behavior. We need to do this out of respect for the victims and for the thousands of honored priests who work hard to serve the Church.
Can we at least admit that the past 40+ years of the Church has pretty much been dominated by women? Maybe not at the level of the Roman Curia, but since the 1980s the Church at the parish and (often diocesan level) has been a feminine affair. Women became almost exclusively the the bulwark of parish/ministry/apostolate volunteers, council members, staff, financial supporters, and butts-in-pews. The absolutely precipitous decline of men involved in Church life over the past 40 years is ghastly.
That’s why I find it humorous that people say the Church needs to “listen to women,” when women have often been the ones running our churches!
"Doing all the work in our churches" vs. "running our churches" can be two separate things, though. I certainly agree that women have been doing the large majority of the heavy lifting. The question is whether they are truly partners in ministry, and whether their often very wise voices are heard. And yes, the participation of lay men is ghastly. But clerics (and some lay men) hold almost all positions of decision-making and real influence. I know that's true in my local Church, and appears to be so in the worldwide Church as well.
> With news about Rupnik’s incardination making headlines in every major Catholic publication on the day that the synod released its Letter to the People of God
Is this the Pachamama moment? (cf. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/is-this-a-pigeon / https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pumpkin-spice-birthday-and-a-pachamama )
Between this scandal erupting here in the last full week of October, and the outbreak of war in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago,it has really been made apparent just how absurd this whole exercise of the Synod is in comparison to real issues in the Church and the rest of the world. While bishops, laypersons, and others debate theological impossibilities like women's ordination and other pet projects, others are dealing with real problems, such as protecting their own lives and the lives of their families. Meanwhile, as this article rightly points out, the hypocrisy of everything is on full display given how much has been made at the Synod on listening to women in the Church.
Since many of the Synod's supporters like to talk about the Holy Spirit speaking in the Synod, without much justification being offered, perhaps I can offer my own speculation that maybe these events overshadowing the Synod is the Holy Spirit's way of speaking to the Synod and the Church.
I am all for the church “listening to women,” but I find the “sitting at the feet of women” metaphor problematic. The church should only sit at the feet of the Lord.
That quote shocked me. That dopey woman seems unfamiliar with the Gospel.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the least), are we more or less scandalized than Peter in John 13?
I don't think that's a fair comparison, dear Bridget.
It's one thing to set an example of service as Jesus did in washing the disciples' feet. But this quote didn't strike me as referring to the Church serving. It sounds more like a recommendation that the Magisterium subordinate its doctrinal authority to the laity.
If not this role reversal, then what exactly is the goal of having the Church sit at the feet of women?
Maybe this Ghanaian theologian Nora Kofognotera Nonterah is doing us a favor by pulling back the curtain. Maybe a synodal Church willing to sit at the feet of its members, is a Church that pegs its doctrine to the opinions of the members. I'll pass on that sort of Church.
Yes, it is not a fair comparison. When I have an extreme reaction to something, it is good to take a moment for introspection, asking God for light into my interior (he knows what's going on in there but sometimes I don't, particularly in the depths, and he knows what he wanted to point out which isn't always directly related to the exterior event that set the interior reactions in motion. Maybe I should say "usually isn't" instead of "isn't always"; I'm not sure.)
We have a few doctors of the Church now who are women (this is also not a fair comparison) and we should probably take a moment to be shocked about that too.
Well, don't be too self-deprecating, Bridget!
I can't say I've read a single of your comments that wasn't thoughtful and generous.
Beyond Rupnik (which is not just "not listening to women" but also "not listening to anyone with a conscience"), what would one need to see to believe they are listened to by the Church? Obviously I would count a consistently effective response to abuse as one way, but there has to be more to the claim. I would have liked this analysis to be a bit broader in scope to do the topic due justice.
Exactly. This is the classic “give me everything I want immediately whenever I want it and without any protestation, or else I’m not being listened to/accompanied/welcomed/etc.”
It’s the same tactic used by LGBTQ activists in the Church - the only way they’ll “feel welcomed” is if the Church says it’s ok to have gay sex, get “married,” have relationships with minors, and mutilate their bodies to transition.
I have every reason to believe the author is writing in good faith and not camouflaging a discipline/doctrine agenda with calls for listening.
There surely are legit ways different groups within the Church don't feel heard, especially in the area of transparency - e.g. the TLM folks not getting much if any explanation for TC (but even that may not be group-specific - I dont attend TLM, and I'd sure like to know)
I recall a time relatively early in Francis' pontificate, when he was asked about potential discipline of the bishops who moved abusers around. He said something like "I expect they cried a lot."
Until the response to such gross neglect of duty (and breach of canon law, and abandonment of victims, and...) is more along the lines of deposition and defrocking than charitably assuming there were tears, we will continue to have a culture of bishops who find it easier to busy themselves with anything other than the demands of justice.
The declarations of the pope against clericalism ring hollow when Rupnik is rehabilitated by actions from “the highest levels of the Vatican.” If that’s not clericalism and the “good ol’ boy” Jesuit network making sure hineys are covered then I don’t know what else would describe it.
They think “clericalism” is when laypeople kiss the clergy’s ring and when pastors actually assert their authority in a parish.
Meanwhile, they protect criminals and abusers, deceive the public, form little cabals of high-ranking clergy to exert influence over the universal church, and more.
They call out a splinter while ignoring the beam in their own eye.
No they don't. Abuse of women in religion (and men living to a rule of life too) through ties of obedience is treated as nothing. The Rupnik scandal saw the Pope give this
response of studied and insulting indifference his imprimatur. Ms Nonterah must be an eternal optimist with her 'encouraging and inspiring.'
Never mind Rupnik and his stomach churning abuse. Pope Francis is firmly opposed to clericalism and scandals such as..... Young priests buying lace vestments. You couldn't make this stuff up.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-speaks-at-synod-on-synodality-clericalism-defiles-the-church
Don’t forget cassocks! He likened priests who wear cassocks to men who wear women’s dresses.
Truly the shining example of forgiveness and charity!
would love an update now that the pope says he will pursue canonical justice
Answer to the question- NO I want no one sitting at my feet! If the church will not listen,it’s time for women to STOP listening to the institutional church and proceed as Jesus would have us do. Walking with- yes,let’s get at it!!!
> If the church will not listen,it’s time for women to STOP listening to the institutional church
What a strange notion.
If the Church really wants to listen to women, I would like to suggest that they institute something similar to the Dallas Charter for bishops. When my own bishop was falsely accused of abuse, he promptly went public with the charges and welcomed the public vindication he received from the family of the deceased. Shining the light on a situation is the best way of clearing it up, one way or the other. The goal should be the truth and bringing all the members of the Church to heaven.
I come back to what I said to Cardinal Mahoney in a deanery meeting back around 2004 when the scandal broke in Los Angeles. The Church is here to help us understand the Gospels and to navigate what can be a morally complicated world but if it can't get the easy questions of morality right, how can it expect people to trust their guidance on the more complicated issues? I also told him that in many ways he was more culpable than the abusers because there is a reasonable chance that at least some of them were mentally sick individuals (or even prior victims of sexual abuse themselves) but by covering up their sins and crimes to protect himself and the institutional church, he robbed the victims not only of their faith but had committed the ultimate blasphemy because both the crimes and the cover-ups were all done in the name of God. The fact that 20 years later, this level of corruption and cover-up is still going on is demoralizing to say the least.
Looks like this post is having its desired effect - scorching the ears of the highest reaches of the Hierarchy. Action has been taken.
There is a distinct pattern that has emerged:
Catholics hear about a bishop or well-connected priest who committed or covered for sexual abuse.
Those clerics who ought to investigate and punish instead try to cover and rehabilitate.
Catholics get really irritated and upset and scandalized.
Catholic media and secular media spend half a year or more shouting about the miscarriage of justice.
Those clerics who ought to investigate and punish decide that maybe they should, in fact, do that.
Many expect that those clerics finally doing what they are publicly having their arms twisted into doing is an act of virtue and everything is OK now.
The same series of events recurs with a different abuser, since the hierarchy is exactly as much a group of unjust hirelings as they were before.
I don’t want priests “sitting at my feet.” That’s just reverse clericalism. I want priests to be bold, holy men.
I want them to hear they young women who who quietly sit in the pews at adoration and try to bring their kids to mass. I want them to hear to cloistered nuns. I want them to hear to women teachers, social workers and doctors in our poorest schools and communities. I want them to hear women who find themselves single and unable to have the family they most desperately wanted. I want them to hear women who have had men abuse them, whatever their state in life. I want them to hear women who try to live the Church’s hardest teachings.
They don’t need to listen to Jan from the Parish Council bang on about female clergy, contraception fixing everything, their homilies being too long, or the weekly parish bingo tournament is the most essential parish function and no they can’t move it for an RCIA class.
Maybe this is a Jan is a stereotype but she seems to be all I hear when talking about women’s issues.
Those men in charge of Rupnik’s case are rotted. They care about themselves, only. Unfortunately, the Church has dozens of that type. Those same men are now trying to pretend they care about victims, but their actions show otherwise. Public outrage is the answer to that kind of abhorrent behavior. We need to do this out of respect for the victims and for the thousands of honored priests who work hard to serve the Church.
Can we at least admit that the past 40+ years of the Church has pretty much been dominated by women? Maybe not at the level of the Roman Curia, but since the 1980s the Church at the parish and (often diocesan level) has been a feminine affair. Women became almost exclusively the the bulwark of parish/ministry/apostolate volunteers, council members, staff, financial supporters, and butts-in-pews. The absolutely precipitous decline of men involved in Church life over the past 40 years is ghastly.
That’s why I find it humorous that people say the Church needs to “listen to women,” when women have often been the ones running our churches!
"Doing all the work in our churches" vs. "running our churches" can be two separate things, though. I certainly agree that women have been doing the large majority of the heavy lifting. The question is whether they are truly partners in ministry, and whether their often very wise voices are heard. And yes, the participation of lay men is ghastly. But clerics (and some lay men) hold almost all positions of decision-making and real influence. I know that's true in my local Church, and appears to be so in the worldwide Church as well.