Seeking Substance in a Patriarchal Structure
In second grade, I started referring to God as She. When my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer, causing her to be in and out of treatments daily, I found solace in the idea of God taking on a motherly form. While at the time, I was not intentionally taking on a stance in opposition with major Catholic teaching that perpetuates a patriarchal structure, it was in and of itself a testament to the ideological framework of Christianity, that promotes the otherness of femininity. The hierarchy that gives maleness prominence in leadership of the Church not only alienates theologically devout women as subordinate but holds back the movement for women’s liberation. Dismantling this structure will take more than just placing women in prominent leadership roles. It will take a real commitment by women seeking substance in their faith to seek out those leadership positions and undergo an ontological revolution that asserts an equilibrium of the sexes.
Reforming and revolutionizing are two things the Catholic Church is not well equipped to handle. For centuries, leadership has upheld a male superiority complex which isolates theologically driven women in an effort to maintain a structure that actively benefits men. Ironically, theologians, church leadership, and devout men in general, cannot come to a consensus or a well-reasoned belief behind the subordination of women in Catholicism, they just reiterate that it should be maintained. That is not to say every person who perpetuates these ideas is a misogynist, but they are accustomed to the normalization of male domination. When asking a priest why women cannot be leaders in the Church, I was met with a statement too ideologically disturbing to unpack completely: “Priests are married to the Church and the Church is a Her, so priests must be men.” Are nuns not then married to the Church? Are deacons who can get married to those outside of religious life, not then married to the Church? Why does the Church even have a gender and who has the authority to make that decision? Perhaps even more confusingly, I was met with a different answer years later. When consulting another priest on the matter, he replied, “Priests represent Jesus in the Church. Jesus was a man, so priests cannot be women.” This justification is particularly troubling as it paints Jesus as the model in which we should live, not from the perspective of his teachings, but sets a precedent of ontological perfection that can only be achieved through maleness.
Living by these models set into practice through the lens of a male-driven society, actively oppresses women. Not only does it imply an otherness in women but forces us to alter ourselves to fit in a society not built for us. As Mary Daly, an American feminist specializing in philosophy and theology, states in her book Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation, “it is necessary to shrink the self in order to imitate a model.” If women did not have to conform to a mold that will never fit but were able to carve out their own space within Church leadership, devout women could find a more fruitful experience within their theological practice and live more fully the Christian experience. These models imply that women will always be a step behind in seeking enlightenment and perfection through religious guidance. They allow men to emulate and represent the believed Son of God, while women can never step into that space and exist in the same way. In actively preventing women’s liberation, male-dominated leadership prevents female flourishment within the Church and holds them back from complete devotion.
This oppression is particularly damaging for young women growing up attempting to seek a fuller understanding, but not seeing themselves represented within a system. To allow women to feel more fully connected with the Church, enrich their experience with faith, and better their devotion, models of maleness should be denaturalized to allow for female leaders to take on prominent roles. Devout women in particular need to take a stance against complicity with these models of maleness and work towards leadership. As Mary Daly points out when discussing the dismantling of patriarchal systems, there cannot just be a shift in who steps into which roles. There needs to be an ideological transformation in order to make actual change towards more inclusive and equitable structures.
Daly also argues that most models or systems are patriarchal within their nature, so it is then impossible to even exist within these structures without contributing to the oppression of women. I believe that is too narrow of an understanding. Representation makes a difference in the way one feels connected to or finds fruition within a system. If this line of logic is to be followed, then one could argue that no structures could ever become equitable or be on a path of progression, which we know to be false. Increasingly, the representation of women in established patriarchal structures, such as the Senate or Congress, has had a great impact on society and continues to inspire women to participate in those structures. Creating a completely separate system not based in any preconceived ideas or history of male dominance that resembles that of a Church or governmental structure, would be virtually impossible and further implies that sense of female otherness. Women should not have to create an entirely new space for themselves. We need to have the ability to step into the spaces that were not created for us and discover our positions within those systems.
For women working toward more representation in these areas and defining their own model of Christianity, we can find a richer experience. Indeed, finding meaning and purpose is an incredible component of theological practice, but it is difficult to take part in this when the examples being followed are ones dominated in maleness. When attending an all-girls high school, I had the experience of Kairos, a religious retreat that focuses on the understanding of self and one’s relationship with God. On that trip, I spoke in depth with classmates who were defining their own connection with theology and in doing so, discovered a fuller experience with their own practice. Speaking with women, both my age and older, who had found themselves through religion, was something enlightening and allowed me to understand devotion on a deeper level. The retreat was conversation based, consisting of speeches and group debriefs that allowed for fruitful dialogue surrounding religion and personhood. Doing this in an all-girls setting, allowed for even greater discoveries about what it means to be a woman in a patriarchal system. Stepping outside of the typical religious structure of maleness and defining what it means to exist in a personal model based on one’s own experiences, was an incredible testament to how women can create their own space within these institutions.
Once women carve out space for themselves and others within Christian leadership, feminine representation can be normalized and progress the movement for women’s liberation. Women can only truly be free when not just the structures, but the attitudes of a sexist world are dissolved. In order to achieve this, we need to be willing to seek out a more meaningful experience in faith and actively advocate for this representation. Mary Daly stresses that “Women have the option of giving priority to what we find valid in our own experience without needing to look to the past for justification.” There is a real power in having the ability to set our precedent and deepen our ontological understanding of womanhood without having to account for other historical models of morality. Finding meaning and purpose from our experiences gives strength and intentionality to women’s theological practice.
In discovering these experiences and taking steps to understanding our own relationship with faith, it is important to continue to validate one’s own experience and not conform to other models set around them. Faith is driven by our own traumas, triumphs, and trials. We are constantly battling for a deeper understanding of the world around us. So, to imply that there is one model for men and one model for women would invalidate all other experiences, further perpetuating this cycle of systemic oppression. Daly pushes us to reject models as “[…] the very concept of model, as commonly understood, is one of those conceptual products that either should be rejected as not applicable to persons or else made into a new word by being lifted out of its old context.” Models by definition imply there is only one way to live, and all others should be rejected. In lifting these ideas out of their context and re-defining what it means to live an individual theological experience, women can find a more fulfilling understanding.
A major component of defining one’s experience is having the ability to engage with every piece of a structure. Women need to have the opportunity to step into these roles of leadership as Priests, Deacons, Cardinals, Popes, or Bishops, in order to truly live, not just exist, within a faith. While men have dozens of roles to fill within the Church, women are offered some measures of participation including taking part in Masses, becoming a nun, or taking the life of a lay person. These roles are meaningful and important; all of this is not to say that those components are not necessary elements of Christianity. However, for the highest roles in the hierarchical Christian structure to be reserved solely for males with little to no consensus on reasoning, prevents women from taking an active role in larger decisions impacting Church life. The very act of exclusion from elements of any organization makes complete inclusion impossible. If the goal of Christianity is to live and love as Jesus did, then why can only men symbolize the Son of God on earth through priesthood? Women need to be allowed to step into these roles and emulate the virtues and values that define Christianity. In preventing women from dismantling this patriarchal structure, current Church leaders perpetuate a system that actively holds back the advancement of women which could serve to expand, not shrink, the faith.
In holding back this movement, Church leaders are upholding a self-serving system of male dominance that limits what the Church can be. While religiously devout women need to take a stand and fight for their space, Church leaders also need to be held accountable for complicity in these issues and fight alongside women seeking equity in Christian life. It is also up to women to demand accountability. Daly asserts that “It is still not unusual for Christian priests and ministers, when confronted with the issue of women’s liberation, to assert that God ‘became incarnate’ uniquely as a male and then to draw arguments for male supremacy from this.” She points out that this line of logic implies a specific divinity that can only be attributed to males and otherwise cannot exist within women. This perspective of male supremacy is supposedly justified in Church teaching and structures, which disregards Christian ideas of equality and the belief that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God. A hierarchy of personhood is dangerous, self-serving, and actively oppresses those who wish to find a more faith-filled existence.
Structures that have been in place for thousands of years are not typically subject to change. When said structures are maintained by self-serving male supremacy that actively benefits those who have the power to make a change or push reform, it becomes even more difficult to evoke a revolution. We need to understand that dismantling thousands of years of male dominance does not happen overnight. However, women have the opportunity to now carve out their own space and understanding of Christianity. In turning away from basic models shrouded in maleness and rejecting the implication of feminine otherness, we can live based on our own valid experiences that promote a deeper understanding of self and theological practice. In doing so, women can find a more fruitful experience within religion and come to understand what it truly means to, as my Salesian high school put it, Live Jesus. Living Jesus is not to follow discriminatory or oppressive structures. It is to find one’s own understanding and live it fully, with love, grace, and compassion. To do this, women need to not only demand a seat at the table but pull up a dozen other chairs for others. If women are not allowed a proper opportunity to engage in every facet of religious life and are not given equal opportunity in the will to serve God, then there is no equity within that structure. Representation, understanding of womanhood, and equal opportunity are necessary for women to discover a truly fruitful experience of religion. Without these elements, ironically, we are left in a state of otherness and a lack of belonging in a religion founded on love and justice. Once this is rectified and male dominance is denormalized, women can find their own place within that structure and define what their experience means to themselves and God, Herself.
