Statue of Mary at the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Houston, Texas (photo by Rachel Elisa Gardner)
The Glass Ceiling
Last Sunday I attended mass at the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Downtown Houston. I was in town for a wedding, and the 11am mass at the Co-Cathedral just happened to work for my day. It turns out that day they were having a beautiful special ceremony to honor the city’s fire fighters, celebrated by an Archbishop.
After honoring the fire fighters, the Archbishop began to preach on the Gospel reading of the persistent woman who receives justice, even though the judge “neither fear[s] God nor respect[s] any human being” precisely because she keeps asking. Jesus says that if we, too, “pray always without becoming weary,” God will likewise “secure the rights” of those “who call out to him day and night.”
The Archbishop used this story as a lens through which to honor another group of people – the persistent women who have fought for equal rights for centuries. The Archbishop spoke about the reality of the injustice that women face when they are denied equal pay for equal work, saying this was an issue of basic justice. He mentioned the “glass ceiling” that women often face in the workplace. His respect for the struggle of such women was palpable and authentic, and it was affirming to hear the passion with which he spoke.
Then the Archbishop began to talk about women and the Church. He spoke of the many women whom he works with, recognizing their vital role in the Archdiocese. The Archbishop then likened the fact that women could not be ordained to a “glass ceiling” that wasn’t going to change. He also spoke of an idea he and others had discussed starting a few decades back that could possibly give women more “power” in the Church – by separating a type of juridical power from holy orders, ie letting lay people and women sign decisive documents within the Church. He gave the example of signing the dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, referencing a woman who works high up in the Archdiocese, but who can’t ultimately sign the dispensation because she isn’t ordained.
In that moment, the Archbishop’s words communicated to me precisely what is off about the way some currents of thought address women’s role in the Church.
That the Catholic Church does not ordain women as priests is not a glass ceiling. It is a recognition of the order of being of woman. It is an affirmation of the “theology of womanhood” as an organic part of the theology of humanity. It is a celebration of her unique vocation, just as the ordination to priesthood is a celebration of man’s unique vocation. The glass ceiling analogy is based on the assumption that not being ordained is a limitation, and on the assumption that women are following the same “route upward in power” as man but must stop before reaching the higher floors reserved for men.
Woman is not following the same path as man, nor vice versa, because each must follow their own path according to his or her order of being. And there is no limit to the height which a woman can reach when she follows her soul’s ordered nature to God, just as there is no limit for man when he follows that which God has likewise written into his soul.
So what about this buzzword, “theology of womanhood?” Pope Francis recently brought it into the public light during his interview on the flight home from Rome:
“A Church without women is like the Apostolic College without Mary. The role of women in the Church is not only maternity, the mother of the family, but it’s stronger: it is, in fact, the icon of the Virgin, of Our Lady, the one who helps the Church grow! But think that Our Lady is more important than the Apostles! She is more important! The Church is feminine: she is Church, she is spouse, she is Mother. But women in the Church… a woman’s role in the Church must not end only as mother, as worker, limited. No! It’s something else!…Paul VI wrote a very beautiful thing on women, but I think we must go further in making the role and charism of women more explicit. A Church without women can’t be understood, but active women in the Church, with their profile, which they carry forward. I’m thinking of an example that has nothing to do with the Church, but it’s an historical example: in Latin America, in Paraguay. For me, the Paraguayan woman is the most glorious of Latin America. Are you Paraguayan? After the war, there were eight women for every man and these women made a rather difficult choice: the choice of having children to save the homeland, the culture, the faith and the language. In the Church, it must be made more explicit. I think we have not yet made a profound theology of woman in the Church. She can only do this or that, now she is an altar server, then she does the Reading, she is president of Caritas. But there is more! A profound theology must be made of woman.”
The Pope recognizes that the role of women in the Church isn’t about one by one giving her more duties or jobs (like altar server, president of this or that function). It is not about giving her bits of juridical or administrative power piecemeal, because that does not change the paradigm, but merely chips away at duties which are seen as having power according to a masculine, political and external definition of power. In this way it would seem to reinforce the paradigm of women gaining power by imitating men, or worse, by receiving the scraps that men decide they can relinquish.
Rather than measuring a woman by the yardstick of the charism of man, and saying that she is not being given enough “power,” we must grasp what the dialogue about the role of women in the Church is precisely about: as Pope Francis says, understanding in an explicit way “the charism of women.”
The Charism of Woman, ie, a Profound Theology of Womanhood
How could we describe a theology of womanhood? All I can do is offer two people who have shaped my own personal theology of my lived experience of being a woman: Fr Joseph Kentenich, and Gertrude von le Fort.
Fr. Joseph Kentenich, Founder of the Schoenstatt Movement, worked in women’s formation extensively in his pastoral service. Not only did he found two communities of consecrated women, and work closely with them throughout their development, but he also gave retreats and conferences for lay women (and for lay married couples) decades before it was an accepted or usual practice. Herbert King introduces a sample of Kentenich’s teachings on the masculine and feminine soul by saying that Kentenich was careful to illustrate that he was not “inclined to be rigid in attributing certain qualities to the two sexes. They fall somewhere along a continuum…Nevertheless, there are certain typical tendencies in the two sexes, so that we can talk about the “being” of man and woman. Since people are so insecure today, these questions often give rise to heated feelings, I would ask you to read the following text very carefully and not get stuck too quickly with on or the other statement.” *
Fr Kentenich then talks about four elements of the order of being of woman, through the mind, the will, extroversion/introversion, and the heart.
First, to paraphrase, Fr Kentenich says that we can speak of the mind of the woman saying that she thinks intuitively, or has more intuitive intelligence. She sees things in a circular rather than linear way, organically connecting the different components together in one picture, or two pictures, or more. With this intuitive feminine way of thinking, the heart is often emphasized over the will (but of course, not always nor in all cases), so that love is the motivating force behind actions, rather than willful resolutions. Second, in regards to the the will of woman and leadership, woman is also more inclined to guide others than to dictate to them. Women “know how to lead a soul slowly, simply, without overpowering anyone.” Third, she is more inclined to be introverted, not meaning by shy but meaning “more inclined to look inwards.” Last, in describing the heart of a woman, Fr Kentenich says, “She has the inner urge to give herself in a complete way…If a man surrenders, he gives something. If a woman surrenders, she gives herself.” *
Fr Kentenich talks about the order of being of women as being expressed through the giving of soul to the world, which is the giving of self, through surrender. Being inclined in an inner way, and intuitively grasping the inner connection of things, it is woman’s role, her order of being and vocation, to give this inner life to the Church. It is part of women’s vocation to connect people in this inner way, as well. How many women are really at the quiet epicenter of their parishes and communities! Through the bonds which they organically create with others, community is born – ecclesia itself (church) is born.
Gertrud von le Fort, theologian and author in her book The Eternal Woman, also speaks of surrender, 
silence , and inner mystery as being the radically active (not passive!) components of the role of women. She says that “Surrender as a metaphysical mystery, surrender as a mystery of redemption is, according to Catholic dogma, the mystery of woman.”** le Fort and Fr Kentenich both suggest that the life of the Church, of culture and and society depends on woman knowing and fulfilling her call to be a deep of pillar inner life. le Fort says, “The essentially spiritual life of the Church is hidden…Woman, by her apostolate as mother, comes into most intimate relationship with the inner life of the Church. She does this by means of her own hidden nature, for in the Church the apostolate of woman is first of all one of silence, and it is in the central enclosure of the sacred place that the religious character of women necessarily carries its strongest emphasis. The apostolate of silence means that woman is called upon above all to represent the hidden life of Christ in the Church.” And it is this silence and mystery, says le Fort, that “remains hidden but transforms everything.” ***
Conclusion
Lest you misinterpret this inner, hidden way as powerlessness, as often happens when people measure woman by man’s scale; lest you misunderstand surrender as wholly passive or totally weak; lest you think that men are the ones who solely determine the course of the Church and the world through visible and external power, Gertrud von le Fort reminds us all:
“The scales are still trembling. The profound consolation that woman can give mankind today is her faith in the immeasurable efficacy also of forces that are hidden, the unshakeable certainty that not only a visible but also an invisible pillar supports the world. When all earthly potentialities have exhausted themselves in vain, and this in the present distress of the world is nearly the case, then, even for a humanity largely grown godless, the hour of the other world will strike again. But the divine creative power will break forth from heaven to renew the face of the earth, only if the earth itself responds again with the religious force, with the readiness of the “Be it done unto me.” The hour of God’s help is always the religious hour, the hour of the woman, the hour of the creature’s cooperation with the Creator. God grant that woman may not miss her approaching hour! On the agonizing way between heaven and hell along which humanity is traveling today, the same guides to whom Dante entrusted himself are needed. The poet…unfolds the vision of all the abysses and steps of purgation in the world of being; but he finds the way to Paradise only when he meets the loving woman whose eyes rest in God.“ ****
* Fr Joseph Kentenich, The Masculine and Feminine Soul (1963).
** Gertrude von le Forst, The Eternal Woman (p 11)
*** (p102-103)
**** (p 65-66)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Every rationale for a male-only clergy rings inauthentic – as if the arguer knows the conclusion he or she wants (that women should not be ordained) and then has to go through convoluted logic or stories to get there.
Why don’t we just admit it? There is no rational reason to prohibit women’s ordination other than because we’ve not done it in the past. It’s tradition to have an all-male priesthood, and tradition is worth something.
The ancient Christians had male priests because the ancient Jews had male priests. It’s nothing more complicated than that. In ancient times the priest or priestess was usually (not always) the same sex as the god or goddess. And the Old Testament god was male.
Nowadays we don’t think of God as male or female, so there is no reason to keep a male-only priesthood except for institutional inertia and tradition. (And institutional inertia and tradition count for something. Whether they justify maintaining this prohibition is a matter of debate.)
Further, the ancient Mediterranean cultures were mostly patriarchal – there were no women caesars – and men held positions of authority – which the Christian priesthood became, especially after Christianity became the state religion.
It’s not a mystery why we have an all-male priesthood. Given how slowly the Church changes I don’t expect women priests in my lifetime. I just wish we wouldn’t have to have a tortured justification as to why it’s RIGHT to have only men. Or the dodging of the question that comes with “women can contribute in other ways” – different charisms. Of course they can contribute in other ways; so can men.
Hi DanC! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply and share your thoughts. I’d like to respond to each of the points that you made.
You first mention often women aren’t ordained solely because “we’ve not done it in the past;” but the Church has done many things it has not done in the past! Vatican II, the change from Latin masses to colloquial languages, the ecclesial movements in the Church, female altar servers, lay readers and Eucharistic ministers, etc, are all examples of things that weren’t done in the past; so the Church doesn’t preserve tradition just for tradition’s sake.
You say that “nowadays we don’t think of God as male or female.” God, in the form of Christ, is male, but that is not a perception – he was a man, not a woman. I understand that as one of the main reasons that males are ordained priests, because men as priests stand in for Christ.
You also mention that most cultures back then that men held positions of authority. That is part of why Christianity was so revolutionary, and still is. “Catholic dogma has pronounced the most powerful declarations ever made about women…she has proclaimed a woman has Queen of Heaven, she has called her Mother of the Redeemer.” (Gertrude Von le Fort). Through Mary, God gave womenkind an incredibly exalted example of vocation, just as he did with Christ and man. Granted, all women must also seek to be Christ-like, and men who learn to love and live in a Marian way may find a fulfillment that otherwise would be lacking. But to say that women must be ordained to have power in the Church, is to deny the vocation God gave to women – it is to deny her nature, and validate the nature of man only. So in the end, demanding woman ordination to me seems to reinforce viewing women through a male lens, which robs her of her innate dignity and true, inner power.
Thank you again for your thoughts!
Yes, the Church changes (slowly) although if you look around the internet you can find conservatives upset that we now have female altar servers and Eucharistic Ministers (of either sex) and who advocate a return to an all-male server corps and having only ordained ministers distribute communion.
But, sure, the Church changes, and 200 years from now there probably will be women priests. Just not in our lifetimes.
This is not something I get too upset about. I’m just saying the rationales people put out there are unconvincing. Allowing a few women to be ordained would rob the entire female sex “of her innate dignity and true, inner power.” I don’t think so.
And yes, the priest stands in for Christ. Why does it matter what sex the priest is? Was maleness somehow one of Christ’s most important qualities? Priests come in many varieties: tall, short, fat, thin, black, white, old, young. Is sex somehow more fundamental than these traits? As St. Paul taught us in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek…”
Anyway, I am not too upset about this issue, but I just wish people would stop going through intellectual gymnastics to backward explain and justify a tradition that started in ancient times.
Thanks again for the reply DanC! It’s important that you notice that you aren’t satisfied with the rationale that you hear. To that I would say, keep digging! Read the depths on both sides (it is a practice I do my best to keep!).
If it helps, I do not feel like I’m doing intellectual gymnastics. Writing what I did in this blog was an organic outflow of how I understand women and vocation.
And yes, I think gender is somehow more fundamental than tall, short, fat, thin, black, white, young, etc.
When St Paul said “no Greeks or Jews, no woman or man,” he was saying that we all belong to God, no one is left out of God’s family: “27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” He was not saying that differences cease to exist. What a boring world if we were all the same! We have complementary callings, equal in dignity and rich in diversity.
St Paul develops this metaphor further in Corinthians:
“For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a partof the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?”
That goes with what I felt while the Archbishop was preaching, and what I often feel when people talk about ordaining women. Like I’m a hand but the world says I should want to be a foot, or that being a foot is the only real form of power or influence or vocation. Rather, both hands and feet should return again to the depth of their own dignity, and look to their inner, complimentary nature to discern how God calls each to work for His kingdom.
Speaking candidly for myself, there are so many amazing callings out there for hands, and such a desperate need for hands that fully live out their missions, I can’t see why any hand would ever want to be a foot!! 😀
Thanks again DanC!
Amen! Beautiful and rich, clear and detailed! I need to re-read this, I know it…
Thank you Josue! Rather than re-read my blog, read dear Gertrud! Her book, The Eternal Woman, isn’t very long (although it is rather dense). And it is fantastic formation, for men and women!
Hello. I have been an avid reader on this blog site for some time now. A caveat: I am not Catholic. I am a former United Methodist pastor who now serves as a Pastoral Counselor in private practice. I say that because I read these blogs as a “privileged guest”, having learned so much from the beauty and profundity of the Catholic faith and from my dear Catholic brothers and sisters.
This is the first time I have felt compelled to respond to a blog. While, I am in no position to make any judgement or rationale of why the Catholic Church should or should not ordain women, I at least want to offer perhaps a different perspective on the issue from my own tradition.
First, I want to say how beautifully written Rachel’s piece is. A Theology of Womanhood is vitally needed and she did a great job in articulating and expounding on it.
So, I won’t get into the “logic” or “rightness” of this issue. That is sort of a “male” argument style anyhow:).
But I do want to share my experience as a UM pastor who served alongside women pastors for nearly ten years. For one, I rarely encountered a fellow woman pastor who wanted “the power that men have”, or went into that vocation wanting more roles or duties.
Rachel is right, more roles and duties are mere crumbs and miss a larger point.
In fact, a great deal of them were very reluctant to go into the ministry at all because they didn’t want or felt the need for that kind of power. And many of them had served in other positions on their churches for years, to paraphrase Rachel, “the quiet glue”. Some were over seventy years old. The reason they entered was because they felt a deep call from God for the particular vocation of ordained ministry. And they went with a lot of humility and often initial confusion. I wasn’t a “cause” at all for them. And they understood and appreciated the different “charisms” that men and women have. There was no confusion there….
An example: I remember once at a meeting of pastors (we had a lot of those!) where we males were getting into our “linear” logic about one thing or another and using the “male” model of logical arguments, scriptural backing, etc. etc. We were getting nowhere. The room got very silent (out of frustration largely) and we looked at a female colleague who remained very calm and quiet through the whole meeting. She smiled and asked “have you ever thought about finding some common ground and a place to build from rather than just arguing about the “soundess” of your points or where you differ?” She said it with strength, love and dignity. And quietly. But it was heard loud and clear.
It was at that moment that I (and my fellow male colleagues) felt myself humbled, moved, and yes, “transformed” by the power and dignity of woman. And I felt the spirit of God in the room. It was then where I began to learn that “surrender” is a powerful position, not a weak one. It was then that I learned of the quiet, profound dignity of woman. Yes, the Theology of Womanhood.
I am going to be honest. If my female colleague had not served with me, gone to school with me and shared some of the same painful, slow growth experiences with me, I might have been compelled to take her less seriously. And I am not proud of that. And that in itself is not rational for ordination. But it is true. And I considered myself “progressive” on women’s issues! God grants us all those sorts of opportunities to be humbled…
No, I don’t know if women should be ordained as Priests in the Catholic Church. What I do know from my experience is that women being ordained in the United Methodist Church TRANSFORMED me and other men and women and transformed the vocation in my own tradition. The pastorate became more balanced, more dynamic, less emphatic about authority and more truly pastoral. The kind of message that Pope Frances talks so powerfully about. The Church as servants, not as instruments of power.
The example set by the teachings of Jesus Christ was that he completely turned our human notions of power and authority on its head. “The Upside Down Kingdom”. Women serving beside me turned my notions of power and authority on it’s head because they taught me about being a true servant of God and not a wannabe CEO of a large corporation which just happens to be a church.
So please don’t take this as an argument for the ordination of Priests. I don’t want to make that presumption at all. I don’t pretend to be “right” about this.
Thank you for letting me share my perspective and grace and peace to all of my Catholic brothers and sisters.
And thanks for the wonderful blog, Rachel.
Thank you Mark for the thoughtful comments, and for your words of peace and dialogue. I appreciate you sharing your insights from your ministry. You illustrated so beautifully the complementary dynamics that men and women bring into ministry, into the Body of Christ, the Church. As you said, we need both dynamics – we need some form of external structure (as you point out, not CEOs or tyrants but pastors, servant leaders) and inner life (the surrender, dynamism and ability to connect that you described). I also appreciate your humility and honesty. Without humility and honesty, surely none of us will grow, or be able to dialogue. Thanks for the comment, Mark!
Beautifully written and well said, Rachel! I’m excited to hear and read what Pope Francis will inspire with his call to further develop the _Theology of Women_. It is certainly an exciting and dynamic time in the life of the Church! Thanks for sharing your gifts, insight, and passion.
Peace, friend!
Thank you! I’m excited too – and we’re only at the very beginning of Francis’ time with us! I feel like all we have seen from him thus far is only a small glimpse, a glimpse that hints at a much greater depth. He really is the man chosen for this hour, in these dynamic times, as you said!
Peace to you too, friend!