I’m Not Cheering

In the women’s supplement to the May issue of L’Osservatore Romano, Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet calls for more women in seminaries!

But it’s not for the good of the women, though I would be happy if more academic jobs were made available to women theologians. No, this is for the good of the seminarians. I’m not cheering that.

Why more women? They are better at discerning male vocations to the priesthood: “we need a woman’s opinion, their intuition, their ability to grasp the human side of the candidates, their degree of emotional or psychological maturity.” Do you get the irony? We’re not allowed to discern our own vocations, but our “maturity” makes us better at discerning theirs.

Further, “collaborating with women on an equal level helps the candidate to envisage his future ministry and the way in which he will be able to respect women and collaborate with them. If you do not start during their training, a priest risks living his relationship with women in a clerical manner.” I guess that helps women, in a way; certainly less clericalism is a worthy goal.

Romilda Ferrauto, the interviewer, asks if Ouellet wants “a cultural revolution? Perhaps, a change in mentality?” Good for her, I guess, and he says yes. But it is sad that training priests to respect and collaborate with women can be seen as revolutionary.

The interview goes on; Ouellet says, “women represent danger!” “this is what we must radically change…it is important that there is contact, confrontation, and exchange. This helps the candidate to interact with women, in a natural way.” If not, “this is when they can lose control” when confronted with “brutal reality,” not exactly the way I’d characterize sexual attraction. But I like Ouellet’s emphasis here because it places the responsibility on the priest, not the woman. I’m happy being welcomed to contact, confrontation, and exchange with a person who has a “balanced” affective personality.

Two articles follow this up by interviewing women who teach in seminaries. Again, I love the French. In LaCroix International, Celine Hoyeau reports that four diocesan seminaries have one woman among the seven or eight men on the formation teams which vote on whether candidates advance. She addresses governance as well as teaching.

Florence de Lacombe, 49, at Saint Sulpice, who is also on the formation team at this national seminary, says, “The priests chose me precisely to add another, complementary perspective, as a mother of five children and a parishioner.” Oh, did you have to say complementary? “I’m expected, above all, to take a look at the kind of men and collaborators they will be. To me, the spiritual and intellectual aspects are not enough. Relational qualities are indispensable for a future diocesan priest.” I have no doubt that she correctly evaluates her contribution.

The other French example is opera singer Sophie Leleu, who “was barely 30 years old at the time she took up the assignment to teach classical chant and public reading,” also at St. Sulpice. “ ‘Some seminarians were very reluctant for me to make them work on breathing and to make them aware of their bodies…!’ she recalled about those early days. ‘I’m very conscious, of course, of keeping a fair distance, far from any seductive relationship,’ she said.”

She does provide “her ‘human female perspective’ on the seminarians in her classes” to the formation team.

Elise Anne Allen in Crux interviews three women teaching in American seminaries: Dawn Eden Goldstein, Mary Healy, and Melanie Barrett. I would not say they are leading the revolution, though all spoke convincingly about the priesthood of the baptized. I read this article first and was appalled by their focus on women’s greater maturity, intuition, nurturing, etc., just as the French women did. Essentialism survives. Each supports Ouellet’s position that better priests would be turned out if there were more of these qualities in seminaries; I would modify their strong comments to say “whether presented by women or men.” After all, where do some of those priests wind up? What are collegial relationships like?

I conclude that sexuality is going to be an issue for a long time. Complementarity is alive and well in Catholic seminaries. Women faculty members are not enough; women students need to rub shoulders—oops—and ideas with their age peers as well.

Ferrauto’s last two questions are “How do you respond to Catholic women who are irritated by the exaltation of the female genius, by certain stereotypes about femininity? It has been written that we have moved from misogyny to positive mythification!” and “The predominance of women among those who actively participate in the life of parish communities is now proverbial: where, then, does the idea that the Church is a masculine reality come from? Perhaps because the ordained ministry is reserved to men and this creates an inferiority of women in the Church, relegating them to less “noble” tasks?” I like the questions much better than Ouellet’s answers, and I applaud Ferrauto for asking them. I’m cheering her.