Women, Again

Pope Francis made news this week with a promise to add two women to the committee that considers the appointment of bishops around the world.  This conversation with Philip Pullella of Reuters has the typical Francis off-the-cuff airplane feel; he says they’re “opening up a bit.”

Cindy Wooden for CNS notes that there are several roles on the committee; right now, there are “only cardinals and bishops as members and five bishops and two priests as consultants.” Plus staff. We will watch where the two women wind up, and whether one or both are religious women. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; there’s just something missing if no one is “in the world,” as they say. Wooden also gives a thorough explanation of the process, in case you’re interested in volunteering.

So does Loup Besmond de Senneville in La Croix International; he adds that “Until a few months ago, such a change was unimaginable in the eyes of several senior Vatican officials with whom La Croix spoke.” I can’t imagine anything else!

In NCR, Christopher White refers to a conversation with one of those Cardinal members, Blase Cupich of Chicago: “Following the publication of the new constitution in March, Cupich told NCR that the Vatican’s constitution now makes clear that ‘we’re not just having clerics involved in the selection of bishops, but we’re involving laypeople.’” That linked article has a few gems from others as well, including Natalia Imperatori-Lee.

In the Washington Post, Stefano Piterelli finds more skepticism. Theologian Cettina Militello at the Marianum, a pontifical institute in Rome, says: “It should’ve been obvious, as the [whole] people of God should be included, just like in the ancient church.” She fears that conservative women will be preferred. So does feminist and former Vatican journalist Lucetta Scaraffia, who focuses on the preliminary local part of the process, noting that “written statements are required of many people, including bishops, priests and male notables. But only rarely the opinion of women is ever elicited. Even if they’re Superior Generals, nuns who would know the candidate well, and would also be freer to talk, as they’re not their competitors.” Point well taken. Not competitors yet, anyway.

In Reuters, Francis also muses about what might be appropriate dicastery appointments for women: “for lay people, I don’t know. I’m thinking about education, culture, the library.” Why not on laity? Only these “softer” operations?

Wooden remembers: “Coincidently, Cardinal Kevin J. Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, told the Jesuit-run America Magazine in late June, ‘I believe I could be the last cleric in charge of this dicastery.’” She notes that “the two undersecretaries are women: Linda Ghisoni, who heads the section for laity; and Gabriella Gambino, who heads the section for family and life.” As she lists other Vatican women, I realize that, except for the woman deputy governor of Vatican City State, Sister Raffaella Petrini, all are in roles that require communications, social work, or process expertise. That is what we bring, but not all we can bring.

The church is more than a bureaucracy. I am fearful that Francis is a prisoner of the analysis that suggests that the people who are currently excluded from seeking ordination because of gender want only power. Give them offices; they’ll be happy. NO. In a sacramental church, exclusion is more than symbolic. Ministry is the heart of the church and at the heart of what women want to be able to do in the church.

This is now roiling the Plenary Council in Australia, and I have the feeling that I am wandering into a continent I really don’t know at all. But has that ever deterred me?

Like the German Synodal Way, the Australian church has gathered lay women and men, including religious, with clerics, including priests and bishops. But, according to Christopher Lamb, a Plenary Council develops “legislation and decrees that will be binding on the local church,” once approved by the Pope. In contrast to a Synod, “It is a more formal process, and it is expressly focused on discernment and action.” Voting is separated; to pass, a decree needs two-thirds of both the “consultors” and of the bishops, whose vote is “deliberative,” or decisive. What else is new?

On Day 4 the assembly easily passed legislation on church governance and integral ecology. Day 3 had been something else. About sixty members walked out over these proposed decrees on the theme of “Witnessing to the Equal Dignity of Women and Men,” as reported by La Croix International:

a. ensuring that women are appropriately represented in decision-making structures of Church governance at the parish, diocese or eparchy, and national level, and in Church agencies and organisations;

b. ensuring, through formal policies and intentional practice, that the experiences and perspectives of women are heard, considered and valued. This is particularly important for matters which affect them distinctively;

c. ensuring that dioceses and eparchies value more publicly, recognise and, where necessary, remunerate more appropriately those women already leading and serving in the Church in various ways;

d. reviewing actions taken to address the findings of the research report Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus (1999) and identifying where further action is appropriate to progress the commitments made in the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Social Justice Statement, Woman and Man: The Bishops Respond (2000);

e. women engaged in ministry sharing with the Australian bishops their experiences and reflections on ministry, and reporting to Pope Francis’ reconstituted Study Commission on the Female Diaconate;

f. considering women for ministry as deacon – should Pope Francis authorise such ministry in light of the findings of the reconstituted Study Commission on the Female Diaconate;

g. presenting scriptural and theological formation and catechesis on the dignity of women at the parish, diocesan, and national level.

What is controversial about this? Steering Committee member, Monica Doumit, says that “In listening to people’s reservations… they weren’t saying that they wanted to take the material about the female diaconate out, or to reject the conversation about women in leadership in governance in the church… What they were saying is that only represents a very small measure of the desires of some women and how some women serve.” Apparently, that is one thread of the controversy; some delegates want more emphasis on women’s traditional roles, especially in marriage and motherhood. Another thread, which seems not to be in the final documents, is specific recognition of LGBTQ+ persons, but I am at a disadvantage as the deliberations are continuing as I write. I hope to be proved wrong. Finally, I wonder whether some bishops did not vote to approve because they would be required to actually implement these moves to equality. In any case, the previously-pacific assembly erupted as most of the women and some of the men stood up in protest? horror? frustration? Sorrow? The bishops decided to redraft the resolutions rather than leave the theme out of the final document.

By the time you are reading this, it’s scheduled to be settled. I encourage any Australians in our audience to post updates. I may do so myself. But I will say now that I am in awe of this process and the courage of the Australian church to implement genuine speaking and listening.  Maybe a woman from Down Under will be appointed to the dicastery to select bishops. She’ll have a good idea of how they think.