Gender and Catholicism

[Mary21]

I’m a college student doing a research project on Catholicism and gender, more specifically Catholicism and queerness. I grew up Catholic and spent nine years in Catholic school and four years in faith formation. I’ve had run-ins with bad priests, catholic bigots, and profoundly ignorant faith educators. I’ve been reading some of the threads on this website and I’ve been struck by the barely concealed hatred and blatant arrogance of some commenters on topics like non-catholic religions and LGBT people. I planned to use these comments as evidence in my paper, but I’d like to see how people respond to this first.
I’m arguing, in part, that there is no way to engage with Catholicism on a basic human level. One is either a catholic woman or a catholic man and their role in the church is determined thusly. Unless one subscribes to archaic ideas about men being spiritually superior and fundamentally different from women, the catholic church has no place for them.
In short, there is a catholic man and a catholic woman, but no catholic human.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Men are not spiritually superior but they are fundamentally different than women. They cannot bring forth life from their womb since they don’t have one. Perhaps it is our culture that accentuates gender issues. I personally do not see them as central to Catholicism nor spiritual life in general.

 

[guanophore]

I planned to use these comments as evidence in my paper,

Please bear in mind that people can say things anonymously on an internet forum that they may never say in person. It is also a fact that people can get on a forum and role play an attitude or persona quite different than their real life persona.

That being said, what you have read does represent some actual attitudes that exist, not just among Catholics.

I’m arguing, in part, that there is no way to engage with Catholicism on a basic human level.

What an interesting foundation for an argument! How do you account for so many millions of Catholics? Are we all in denial of our basic humanity? Deceived?

What does it mean to “engage”?

What does “basic human level” mean?

One is either a catholic woman or a catholic man and their role in the church is determined thusly.

What does “role in the Church” mean?

Unless one subscribes to archaic ideas about men being spiritually superior and fundamentally different from women, the catholic church has no place for them.

I am curious how you come to this conclusion.

In short, there is a catholic man and a catholic woman, but no catholic human.

How do you explain away that men and women are not included in what it means to be “human”?

Very interesting topic for research! Glad you brought it here.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Do you have your school and the Catholic Apostolate Catholic Answers ethical approval to use material from this site?

If not , you need to seek it first.

 

[humbleseeker]

Ahh, the boldness of youth. To be 20 again and have the whole world figured out…

 

[Shakuhachi]

Ahh, the boldness of youth. To be 20 again and have the whole world figured out…

Ahh, yes. Don’t you miss it? I don’t. I look back with some shame.

 

[Mary21]

Yeah, I guess that’s pretty vague.
By role in the church I’m referring to the leadership role a person takes in the ritual as well as the social role they assume in Catholic culture. To use an obvious example, women are barred from the priesthood. That implies that women do not have spiritual equality with men. Women have no real decision-making power in the church. What concessions are made are given by male leadership and can be revoked at any time. As I said, I’m also looking at the church’s relationship to queerness, or the blurring of gender lines. By relating gender to spirituality, the church creates an ideal around gender and links one’s success in fulfilling gender roles to their success as a spiritual being. In the church’s rigid gendered structure, people unable to achieve the ideals placed forth have no place, ensuring that Catholicism is not universally inclusive to all.

 

[Mary21]

I don’t have everything figured out.
Rather, I’m seeking to instill in myself a habit of constant inquiring and continually probing the proverbial gray area.
I hope never to reach a state of complacency or to ever become “stuck in my ways.”

 

[humbleseeker]

God bless you and I hope that habit sticks. Based on your posts, at least what I can understand, I’m sure you will do fine on your paper.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

To use an obvious example, women are barred from the priesthood. That implies that women do not have spiritual equality with men.

Not necessarily. But if you can make a case that the Church doesn’t do a good job of making it clear that such is not necessarily the case, then you could have an argument about how the perception of your “implication” has been a hindrance to inclusion in the Catholic Church.

Women have no real decision-making power in the church.

This is your best solid argument. Just keep your evidence verifiable.

By relating gender to spirituality, the church creates an ideal around gender and links one’s success in fulfilling gender roles to their success as a spiritual being. In the church’s rigid gendered structure, people unable to achieve the ideals placed forth have no place,

I would essentially drop this part of it unless you are going to approach it the same way as I stated above about perceived “implications”. I think you could make a “perception is reality” argument here.

 

[guanophore]

By role in the church I’m referring to the leadership role a person takes in the ritual

The role of the priest is sacramental (primarily) acting in the person of Christ, who came to earth as a male (He could have come as a female or any other way He wanted, but chose to come as a man). So let’s stipulate that this role is not open to women.

There is a great deal of leadership that occurs outside the administration of the sacraments, so why are you focusing only on this small part?

the social role they assume in Catholic culture.

How is this role defined, and what is “Catholic Culture”? Who defines that? Is it different in different countries or ethnic groups, as human culture is?

To use an obvious example, women are barred from the priesthood.

Actually, this is not the case. The role of the priest can only be filled by a male (proper matter for the sacrament), just as the role of giving birth can only be filled by a woman because a man does not have a womb. Men are not “barred” from giving birth, it is just a role for which they are not created.

Women have no real decision-making power in the church.

What would constitute “real decision making power”?

What concessions are made are given by male leadership and can be revoked at any time.

Can you give an example of when a woman had “real power” that was “revoked”?

As I said, I’m also looking at the church’s relationship to queerness, or the blurring of gender lines.

It is a very interesting topic for research. Certainly gender is a social construct (as opposed to sex, which is biological). Different cultures certainly have different gender expectations.

By relating gender to spirituality, the church creates an ideal around gender and links one’s success in fulfilling gender roles to their success as a spiritual being.

I am curious how you see that the Church relates gender to spirituality.

This question may be similar to the one above. What does it mean to have “success as a spiritual being”?

You seem to believe that this “success” (whatever that is) should not include one’s gender role? Why would that be?

In the church’s rigid gendered structure, people unable to achieve the ideals placed forth have no place, ensuring that Catholicism is not universally inclusive to all.

I am curious what the “ideals placed forth” are? Are you referring to the ideals of persons who do not fit into your aforementioned gender non-conformists, or the ideals of the Church?

How does being unable to fulfill ones ideals of spiritual “success” get prevented by gender roles?

If this is the case, does that mean no Catholic, since the beginning of the Church 2000 years ago, as been spiritually fulfilled if they felt “trapped” in their gender role?

 

[Vico]

…
In short, there is a catholic man and a catholic woman, but no catholic human.
[/quote]
Physically there are man, woman, and eunuch categories found in scripture, but also those that have made eunuchs and those that have chosen to be non-sexual.

Matthew 19 (Jesus is speaking)

11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Carmelite1983]

So what are you considering bigotry?
Is saying that Gay sex is a sin considered bigotry?
There are actually a lot of gay Catholics in the world and some on these forums.

Just because we have a fundamental idea in what marriage or procreation is doesn’t make us bigoted, so please give me examples (bearing in mind that, yes, jerks come in all shapes and sizes and religions).

And no Catholic truly believes that men are better than women.
Countless saints are women that have brought a wealth of positive change to the Church and the world.
It’s more of an honor to be a canonized saint than a priest.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t have everything figured out.
Rather, I’m seeking to instill in myself a habit of constant inquiring and continually probing the proverbial gray area.
I hope never to reach a state of complacency or to ever become “stuck in my ways.”

This is definitely an idea frame of mind for spiritual growth!

if you can make a case that the Church doesn’t do a good job of making it clear that such is not necessarily the case, then you could have an argument about how the perception of your “implication” has been a hindrance to inclusion in the Catholic Church.

This is an excellent point. This perception is very prevalent, and is a major impediment.

There are actually a lot of gay Catholics in the world and some on these forums.

The Church differentiates between those who have same sex attraction (SSA) and those who have chosen to engage in homosexual activity, but “gay Catholics” is not part of the Church language. It is, however, common secular language, and implies that a person is engaged in genital activity with persons of the same sex, or has their identity centered around their sexuality, rather than Christ.

 

[Carmelite1983]

but “gay Catholics” is not part of the Church language.

Ok I thought “gay” and “having ssa” were interchangeable.
I stand corrected, thank you.

 

[Gertabelle]

As an educator, if a student of mine turned in a paper using public forums as a source, I’d hand back the paper ungraded and demand a rewrite.

If you want a source for Catholic Church teaching, which is what it seems you are actually referring to, make sure you include official Catholic teaching, which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Here’s a link to the index:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/a.htm

 

[Carmelite1983]

barely concealed hatred and blatant arrogance of some commenters on topics like non-catholic religions and LGBT people.

Any specific examples that we can clear up?
I’d hate to be seen as hateful and arrogant. What have you read here?
Anything hateful should definitely be flagged and usually is…
Please specify your concerns

 

[guanophore]

As an educator, if a student of mine turned in a paper using public forums as a source, I’d hand back the paper ungraded and demand a rewrite.

Do you not consider this as a Prime source? Does that mean the Twitter feed of President Trump is not considered a primary source?

I agree that internet fora, being anonymous, do have some limitations, but it is also true that many authentic expressions can be found here.

If you want a source for Catholic Church teaching, which is what it seems you are actually referring to, make sure you include official Catholic teaching, which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

Yes, the OP should be aware that there can be a wide gap between actual Church Teaching and the perceptions of individual persons calling themselves “Catholic”.

The Theology of the Body might also be a good source.

God has created humankind to reflect and reveal Truths about Himself. Thus, the human body discloses ways to understand and relate to our Creator.

 

[Mary21]

I found this site when I was looking for Catholic reactions to the idea of “recovering” Catholics. The comments on that thread were particularly disturbing as they mocked people who experienced trauma, often as children, in the Catholic Church. Some went so far as to say that these people were simply ignorant of the church’s teachings. No. These people were abused by an entity that was supposed to make their lives better, not shatter them. No complicated apologetics can justify that. Those comments probably won’t be flagged, but they were very indicative.

 

[Carmelite1983]

That’s awful.
I think most people on here (from what I’ve seen) would NEVER stand up for or defend someone who has abused anyone.
That’s horrible