Sex Discrimination in the Church?

[JamesCaruso]

Note 1: I was taught by nuns in grade school. They finally abandoned our parish because they were forced to live in unacceptably crowded conditions for a long period of time and finally despaired of anything being done to correct the problem. I don’t have any inside knowledge of this and cannot make a proper judgment as to whether they were fairly treated.

Note 2: I met an ex-nun last month who related a story of why she left the religious life. She claimed that the nuns where she lived would act as cooks and servers for the priests, serving them formal steak dinners. Then, their work done, they would return to their convent and eat tuna fish sandwiches for their dinner. This was her example of what she felt was pervasive in the Church.

I have always pooh-poohed the idea that there was any great degree of sex discrimination in the Catholic Church. Usually, those charges are leveled by those outside the Church who do not understand, or want to understand, the reason for the all-male hierarchy of the Church, and the prohibition against female ordination. But when I heard the story of the ex-nun, and remembered the nuns who taught me, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask CA posters what their experiences have been, positive or negative, I would not want this to become a Church bashing thread, but if there is a problem it would be good to get it out in the open, and if there is not a problem, it would be good to put my mind and others’ minds to rest.

I loved the nuns who taught me. They raised me in my faith. I hope the Church appreciates their contribution in more than just words.

 

[Auntie_A]

Yes, it is true. Women religious have often had the short or humble end of the stick. Priests had their own ROOMS, while nuns had cells or wards, priests had their own car and money, nuns were more communal and shared a station wagon. The Poor Sisters of Clare did the laundry, ironing, and mending for the clergy.

So did my mother do the cooking, laundry, ironing, and mending for our family, while she already had a job outside the home. My mother did not have a union pension as my father did. So did many women in society. That has begun to change in the last 50 years. In some situations, women are getting more equal pay and treatment; in other situations, women are still struggling.

Many nuns are getting minimal support for longterm care while a priest might have been able to pay for long term care insurance and can choose a better place to live out his retirement. In some cases, family has stepped in to care for their religious family member but it is truly sad that the women who taught us, rarely had withholding taxes to cover Social Security. I don’t know what other countries have done.

I don’t bash the Church but I do see that the treatment of women has been poor. There is no dogma promoting mistreatment of women; it just exists as a practice, reflecting society as a whole. And Catholics do not have a monopoly on this; check out the whole world.

 

[Nelka]

A priest is not the same as a nun, a monk is more like a nun and they live in cells with meagre rations.

Don’t forget people choose to be nuns and monks, nobody is forced to by the job centre.

I think they all do a great job.

Also, I am sure different countries and even cities may vary slightly.

I have known a priest live on bread and butter, soup etc. and another would eat better meals than that.

 

[1ke]

Note 1: I was taught by nuns in grade school. They finally abandoned our parish because they were forced to live in unacceptably crowded conditions for a long period of time and finally despaired of anything being done to correct the problem. I don’t have any inside knowledge of this and cannot make a proper judgment as to whether they were fairly treated.

The priests in my old parish lived in a ramshackle falling down rectory. Leaking roof, etc. For whatever reason the pastor (who was there for 16 years) did nothing about it, and the associate priests had to share cramped quarters and deal with numerous inconveniences in the rectory as far as disrepair. The new pastor came in and immediately addressed the issue and they ended up building a new rectory.

So, really, this is not something that you can say universally would be a problem with the nuns being female/discriminated against. Perhaps their superior just didn’t attend to their needs. Perhaps there were financial circumstances you were unaware of.

Who knows.

Note 2: I met an ex-nun last month who related a story of why she left the religious life. She claimed that the nuns where she lived would act as cooks and servers for the priests, serving them formal steak dinners. Then, their work done, they would return to their convent and eat tuna fish sandwiches for their dinner. This was her example of what she felt was pervasive in the Church.

Secular priests take no vow of poverty. If they want to eat something nice for dinner, well so be it. If they can purchase these things from their spending allowance, then they can have them.

I cannot speak to the sisters cooking dinner, but probably their order was being paid to be housekeepers, which was common back in the day. Of course the sisters did not receive the money, their order did.

Religious sisters and religious brothers/priests do take such a vow of poverty. You don’t know their order, so you don’t know the rule laid down for them by their superior. You seem to be thinking that they ate tuna because they were women, and that doesn’t make sense. They ate what they ate b/c that is what their superior in the order established that they would eat and how they would live out their vocation.

The ex-religious sister who complained is an EX for a reason-- perhaps not one who was meant to live by the rule of an order and give up such things as steak. But to be jealous of those who did not voluntarily profess to live by such rule and to throw aspersions towards them because of that-- well sounds like sour grapes to me and probably good that she is an EX religious.

 

[1ke]

Yes, it is true. Women religious have often had the short or humble end of the stick. Priests had their own ROOMS, while nuns had cells or wards, priests had their own car and money, nuns were more communal and shared a station wagon. The Poor Sisters of Clare did the laundry, ironing, and mending for the clergy.

That isn’t the “short end of the stick”. That is called religious life. Monks and religious order priests also live communally and do not have possessions. That is what they voluntarily choose by becoming a religious priest/brother or sister.

Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the difference between the vocation to a religious orders as priest, monk, sister, or nun and a vocation to the secular priesthood.

 

[JamesCaruso]

A priest is not the same as a nun, a monk is more like a nun and they live in cells with meagre rations.

Don’t forget people choose to be nuns and monks, nobody is forced to by the job centre.

I think they all do a great job.

Also, I am sure different countries and even cities may vary slightly.

I have known a priest live on bread and butter, soup etc. and another would eat better meals than that.

A priest is not a nun? Oh, is he better than a nun? C’mon, that remark is totally off the mark. Such thinking is at the root of the problem. Thank God for Pope Francis who has discarded the robes of clerical royalty whenever he has had the opportunity.

They used to use your argument with teachers back when they received low pay. They would say, “Nobody forced them to be teachers!” Don’t forget, religious life is a vocation. One does not just shrug it off because of the working conditions, but that does not mean it’s fair.

If you want a model, let priests treat nuns as Jesus treated his mother and the other women who followed him. I’m sure they darned his socks, if he wore socks, and mended his garments, served his food, and kept the places they stayed at swept and clean, but I cannot imagine him treating his mother, or any of the other women, as second class or as servants. Role differentiation is one thing; shabby treatment is another.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The priests in my old parish lived in a ramshackle falling down rectory. Leaking roof, etc. For whatever reason the pastor (who was there for 16 years) did nothing about it, and the associate priests had to share cramped quarters and deal with numerous inconveniences in the rectory as far as disrepair. The new pastor came in and immediately addressed the issue and they ended up building a new rectory.

So, really, this is not something that you can say universally would be a problem with the nuns being female/discriminated against. Perhaps their superior just didn’t attend to their needs. Perhaps there were financial circumstances you were unaware of.

Who knows.

Secular priests take no vow of poverty. If they want to eat something nice for dinner, well so be it. If they can purchase these things from their spending allowance, then they can have them.

I cannot speak to the sisters cooking dinner, but probably their order was being paid to be housekeepers, which was common back in the day. Of course the sisters did not receive the money, their order did.

Religious sisters and religious brothers/priests do take such a vow of poverty. You don’t know their order, so you don’t know the rule laid down for them by their superior. You seem to be thinking that they ate tuna because they were women, and that doesn’t make sense. They ate what they ate b/c that is what their superior in the order established that they would eat and how they would live out their vocation.

The ex-religious sister who complained is an EX for a reason-- perhaps not one who was meant to live by the rule of an order and give up such things as steak. But to be jealous of those who did not voluntarily profess to live by such rule and to throw aspersions towards them because of that-- well sounds like sour grapes to me and probably good that she is an EX religious.

The convent was extremely overcrowded and the rectory was huge by comparison considering only two men lived there. The nuns’ order pulled them out after it had complained for many years because it was just not fitting for their nuns to live in such conditions. It was the only area in the parish that seemed to go completely unattended. OTOH, the school was insufficient for the numbers that were admitted, which does show a scarcity of funds, but that only added to the poor conditions of the nuns, as my class had sixty students with one teacher who taught the entire day, every day. Can you imagine a teacher with sixty students on her feet all day long, teaching and enforcing classroom discipline? God bless our nuns!

I can’t speak for the specifics of the ex-nun’s situation, but the flavor I got was that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of her order, and everything to do with priestly privilege. She did not seem to be a complainer, but since she was well to do, she was not trapped in a life she felt unacceptable. Another nun, true, might take it as a cross and benefit spiritually from it, but that would not negate the fact that it was an unfair situation. But you might be right on all counts, it’s just that I would not want to be dismissive of what might be a pervasive problem in the Church (hopefully not), so that’s why I posted the thread. I would just like to hear the facts from people’s experience and not guesses why everything is probably okay. We used to be dismissive of problems in the priesthood in other areas, and that mushroomed into a huge scandal. We should learn by our mistakes. I love the priesthood and I, too, believe they do a fine job, and where I am, an extraordinary job. But discrimination against women has been a longstanding societal problem, not just here, but throughout the world. Until it started getting some attention, it just went on unabated. Because the Church is not in the public domain, it is not subject to the same scrutiny as public schools, for example, because the media has limited access to its inner workings and Church religious and priests seem to follow a code of silence, except hopefully to their bishop.

I would like the result of this thread to demonstrate that sex discrimination is not a problem in the Church, but only an occasional happening here and there. I do not like it when my Church is accused of any wrongdoing, but I am willing to take it on the chin when we are in the wrong. I understand the well-intended symbolism in grand residences and ornate robes and finery fit for a king, but like Pope Francis, I like a Church that is poor and attentive to the needs of the common man… and woman. If it’s not a problem in the Church, glory be to God! I love my Church to always stay in the right and walk in the light.

 

[1ke]

The convent was extremely overcrowded and the rectory was huge by comparison considering only two men lived there. The nuns’ order pulled them out after it had complained for many years because it was just not fitting for their nuns to live in such conditions. It was the only area in the parish that seemed to go completely unattended. OTOH, the school was insufficient for the numbers that were admitted, which does show a scarcity of funds, but that only added to the poor conditions of the nuns, as my class had sixty students with one teacher who taught the entire day, every day. Can you imagine a teacher with sixty students on her feet all day long, teaching and enforcing classroom discipline? God bless our nuns!

Again, not a function of being a sister or priest, a function of parish finances. The rectory might have been large because at one time there were more priests serving the parish. And now there are only two who must attend to the needs of all.

Yes, I can imagine being a teacher in a large class all day on my feet, because I have been such a teacher in a public school.

I can’t speak for the specifics of the ex-nun’s situation, but the flavor I got was that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of her order, and everything to do with priestly privilege.

This is an entirely false premise.

A secular priest eats what they want because they have their own money and assets with which to buy whatever food they choose.

Religious sisters do not have their own personal money and they eat communally, and the sister in charge of the groceries buys whatever she does with whatever money is given to her by the order with whatever direction is given by the order (which is run by the FEMALE superior).

The parish priests do not have any control over what the sisters eat or don’t eat.

It has NOTHING to do with priestly privilege. It has to do with how much money their order gives them, what the rule of the order is, and what the sister in charge of meals decides. If they didn’t like tuna, they should have talked to the sister in charge of meals or their superior.

Another nun, true, might take it as a cross and benefit spiritually from it, but that would not negate the fact that it was an unfair situation.

Um, I seriously don’t think you get it. A religious sister takes a vow of poverty. That is the whole point of being a sister. It is not an “unfair situation” it is what the sisters signed up for by becoming a sister in the first place.

But you might be right on all counts, it’s just that I would not want to be dismissive of what might be a pervasive problem in the Church (hopefully not), so that’s why I posted the thread.

I would suggest you learn more about religious brothers and priest, what they eat, how they live, and the rule the live by in their orders. These are equivalent to religious sisters as they live in community and take vows of poverty.

Diocesan priests (secular priests) take NO such vows.

But discrimination against women has been a longstanding societal problem, not just here, but throughout the world.

The religious orders are run BY women. It is the women superiors of the orders making the rules. Men do not run religious orders of females. So, you are barking up the wrong tree to say that somehow men are discriminating against women religious.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Again, not a function of being a sister or priest, a function of parish finances. The rectory might have been large because at one time there were more priests serving the parish. And now there are only two who must attend to the needs of all.

Yes, I can imagine being a teacher in a large class all day on my feet, because I have been such a teacher in a public school.

This is an entirely false premise.

A secular priest eats what they want because they have their own money and assets with which to buy whatever food they choose.

Religious sisters do not have their own personal money and they eat communally, and the sister in charge of the groceries buys whatever she does with whatever money is given to her by the order with whatever direction is given by the order (which is run by the FEMALE superior).

The parish priests do not have any control over what the sisters eat or don’t eat.

It has NOTHING to do with priestly privilege. It has to do with how much money their order gives them, what the rule of the order is, and what the sister in charge of meals decides. If they didn’t like tuna, they should have talked to the sister in charge of meals or their superior.

Um, I seriously don’t think you get it. A religious sister takes a vow of poverty. That is the whole point of being a sister. It is not an “unfair situation” it is what the sisters signed up for by becoming a sister in the first place.

I would suggest you learn more about religious brothers and priest, what they eat, how they live, and the rule the live by in their orders. These are equivalent to religious sisters as they live in community and take vows of poverty.

Diocesan priests (secular priests) take NO such vows.

The religious orders are run BY women. It is the women superiors of the orders making the rules. Men do not run religious orders of females. So, you are barking up the wrong tree to say that somehow men are discriminating against women religious.

I understand your points, but a vow of poverty does not mean you cannot eat steak, as my Jesuit friends will attest. It only means that you cannot have possessions of your own. Everything is community property. I have had occasion to dine with Cabrini sisters in one of their orphanages on more than one occasion, and if food is a determining factor in a vow of poverty, then these sisters are in grave spiritual danger.

It may be true that the ex-nun’s specific order would not allow them to eat steak, but I doubt it. It may be true that the parish paid the order sufficiently to feed them better than tuna fish sandwiches, but I have doubts about that. While I see possibilities in your arguments for putting a good construction on what happened, that was not the purpose of my mentioning them. They were not accusations, as you have taken them to be, they were events that prompted me to question whether there is a problem in the Church with sex discrimination, not necessarily in those two instances, but as many have alleged since Vatican II (beyond the Church’s teaching on the male priesthood). You act as if I am accusing the Church of something. I am not. But there is no eleventh commandment never to think something might be amiss in the Church. Haven’t recent scandals shown us the error in that kind of thinking? And look at the precipitous decrease in the number of nuns in the Church today, more so than priests.

Like you, I try to put a good construction on things, but this thread is not about those two instances that may or may not be valid. Perhaps you are right, but I wasn’t asking for evaluations of scenarios that might go either way if the facts were known.

The question stands, “Is sex discrimination a problem in the Church, and what are your observations and experiences that might help answer that question one way or the other?”

.

 

[Auntie_A]

That isn’t the “short end of the stick”. That is called religious life. Monks and religious order priests also live communally and do not have possessions. That is what they voluntarily choose by becoming a religious priest/brother or sister.

Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the difference between the vocation to a religious orders as priest, monk, sister, or nun and a vocation to the secular priesthood.

If you read my words “short or humble end of the stick” you might have understood that I realize what is religious life. My choice of “humble” should have conveyed that; my choice of “short… end of the stick” was to convey the secular view of the humble religious life which is the viewpoint which usually prompts these questions of discrimination.

But I agree that there is a lack of understanding of differences between vocations. For example, I always thought that nuns and brothers were included in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It would make sense to me since the life is consecrated to Jesus, but I was not taught the difference. I also did not understand the recent statement that Pope Francis is our first “religious” as pope.

I live in an area where our bishop gave his home to the nuns and resided in a smaller and humbler apartment. So I think in this thread the answers to such questions might relate to time, place and person: In what era have the religious women been discriminated against? In what region of the world? And by which person? I’m not expecting great specifics but rather think that the answer to the thread question might involve the mention of those elements of influence.

 

[1ke]

If you read my words “short or humble end of the stick” you might have understood that I realize what is religious life. My choice of “humble” should have conveyed that; my choice of “short… end of the stick” was to convey the secular view of the humble religious life which is the viewpoint which usually prompts these questions of discrimination.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for explaining what you were trying to convey. I didn’t interpret it that way, and you know that written posts can be that way sometimes. I appreciate the follow up.

live in an area where our bishop gave his home to the nuns and resided in a smaller and humbler apartment.

That was quite nice of him. However, we must remember the sisters were able to accept his offer because their superior allowed it! Even though offered, the superior might have rejected it and required the sisters to remain in their humble quarters.

 

[1ke]

“Is sex discrimination a problem in the Church, and what are your observations and experiences that might help answer that question one way or the other?”

I think this is a terribly broad question, almost to the point of meaningless. What does "in the Church’ mean anyway?

Men and women are equal under Church law, all the faithful have the same rights and obligations.

I think speaking of discrimination “in the Church” is really misplaced.

Have individual people make arbitrary, capricious, and possibly discriminatory decisions about another person-- male or female-- in hiring, ministry, or what-have-you? Yes, of course, because they are human and make poor decisions or have their own biases and prejudices they bring from their own upbringing and life experiences.

Is the Church herself discriminating against women? No.

 

[1ke]

I understand your points, but a vow of poverty does not mean you cannot eat steak, as my Jesuit friends will attest. It only means that you cannot have possessions of your own. Everything is community property. I have had occasion to dine with Cabrini sisters in one of their orphanages on more than one occasion, and if food is a determining factor in a vow of poverty, then these sisters are in grave spiritual danger.

Again, sisters, brothers, and priests can eat what their superior and their rule allows them to eat.

For example, the Rule of St. Benedict is quite strict, allowing one meal a day in certain times of the year, and two meals a day in other times, and it prohibits flesh meat.

Benedictines are not Jesuits are not Cabrini sisters.

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what the particular charisms of the religious order are, what their rule is, what their superior instructs.

We cannot say what the particular group of sisters in your OP were given as a rule or what their superior gave as guidance or allowance.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Clericalism is a terrible thing.

Grousing (former) nuns are no great thing either.

The Church is in the process of reform. It might look a mess over the past few decades but great things are underway. Much good is coming to be. I have plenty of hope. The truly devout remain. The “progressive” goofs and the “trad” pharisees are slowly coming around, leaving, or passing on to their eternal rewards. We are headed in the right direction towards faithfulness and a good balance of tradition and reform.

 

[FAB]

Again, sisters, brothers, and priests can eat what their superior and their rule allows them to eat.

For example, the Rule of St. Benedict is quite strict, allowing one meal a day in certain times of the year, and two meals a day in other times, and it prohibits flesh meat.

Benedictines are not Jesuits are not Cabrini sisters.

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what the particular charisms of the religious order are, what their rule is, what their superior instructs.

We cannot say what the particular group of sisters in your OP were given as a rule or what their superior gave as guidance or allowance.

Ike I cannot support you more in your comments
The OP and a number following are just not getting the point and are not understanding that the sisters, God love them, that do work for priest do so as part of their vow and is a personal choice.
The OP indicted that she served steak to the priest then went and ate a sandwich. If this is true, it sounds more like a woman who lost her own faith direction and want to blame external factors for her disillusionment. But the point is that she agreed to a different lifestyle than did the priest and has nothing at all to do with discrimination.