The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF version'Free God language': fired parish worker's thesis
'Let's not make idols of certain limited metaphors of God'
Mar. 20, 2009
James Andrews
In the same way that God acted to save the Israelites from captivity, God is “acting now to free women from their captivity” and to free “God language from the captivity of patriarchy,” wrote Ruth M. Kolpack, the pastoral associate recently fired by Madison, Wis., Bishop Robert Morlino, in an academic paper six years ago.
Central to the firing earlier this month was Morlino’s claim that her views of Jesus were “off base,” according to Kolpack’s account of their 10-minute meeting, as well as his concern about the thesis that she had written. According to Kolpack, the bishop said he had read “bits and pieces” of the paper.
The document in question actually comprises three papers totaling 51 pages of text and footnotes that investigate a comprehensive examination topic under the heading, “Inclusive Language for Naming God: Challenge for the Church.”
The papers, dated January through March, deal with the subject, respectively, from the perspectives of scripture, systematic theology and moral theology. The papers were written to fulfill requirements for a master of divinity degree at St. Francis Seminary.
Read Ruth Kolpack's thesis: Inclusive Language for Naming God: Challenge for the Church (undertaken in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Divinity Degree at St. Francis Seminary, Milwaukee, Wis., 2003)
Arguing that no language is adequate for naming or describing God, Kolpack said that we can use only metaphors “based on what we know about God and yet all the metaphors we employ will not exhaust the description of God. When we limit the metaphors used for God, we make the metaphors our idols.”
Kolpack mines Second Isaiah for its use of feminine imagery, “the only place in the Old Testament where God is explicitly compared to a mother.” The maternal images – pregnancy, carrying a child in the womb, birth and breastfeeding – used in the text “provide us with images of intimacy and closeness different from that generated by male images. … Second Isaiah did something that no one else has done in the Old Testament. He brought us into the intimacy of God through the use of maternal images.”
Such images are significant, she writes, because “language shapes what we consider to be reality, in this case, the reality of who God is.” In that sense, the language of the Mass, for instance, owes a great deal to the patriarchal language of classical theism. Patriarchy, she notes, comes from Greek words meaning “father” and “ruler.” “Socially, it means that men are the rulers. If men are the rules, it follows the women are the ruled.” What results, she writes, is “the separation of females and males and the superiority of males over females.”
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
When God is referred to in predominantly male terms, people are led to “accept male dominance,” she writes. Early church thinkers were part of a “pattern of patriarchal anthropology,” she writes, noting that Augustine held that “woman alone … is not the image of God, … the male alone, he is the image of God.’ Aquinas accepted Aristotle’s definition of woman as being a ‘misbegotten male’ and so declared woman inferior in body and mind as well as morally. Woman’s only value was in procreation.”
Aquinas, she continued, considered male superiority part of the natural order. Luther held that “woman had original equality but lost it through the Fall and became inferior as her punishment.” Theologian Karl Barth believed that man “is over woman” as a matter of “divinely ordained order.”
If language continues to “maintain the inferiority of females, there will be no chance that female images will be acceptable language for God. Calling God ‘She’ would bring us face to face with our own sexism.”
Male only language for God distorts God’s image, she writes, because it is exclusive and “God cannot exclude. God cannot be less than whole and naming God with exclusive language that eliminates women’s experience from expressing who God is limits God.”
If God is vested only with male images and qualities, believers are left with “a God who excludes and discriminates against a significant segment of ‘his’ own creation.”
That exclusivism, she reasons, becomes one of the “religious evils” in the same category as Christian preachers attacking Islam as a false religion or claiming that God doesn’t hear the prayers of non-Christians; Muslim extremists promising paradise for suicide bombers; or “the Catholic hierarchy’s claim that only males were chosen by Jesus to be apostles and so only males can be ordained.”
She cites as an example of the “evil of literalism,” the late Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacredotalis.” The document, she writes, is an example of “dual anthropology” that often is applied to women in the church,. “Women are ‘necessary and irreplaceable’ in the church as ‘martyrs, virgins and mothers.’ On the one hand, John Paul is accepting women’s role in the church but, on the other hand, is relegating them to the home to be physical mothers or to religious life to be spiritual mothers.”
In the document, John Paul three times mentions that the church cannot ordain women because Christ chose only men and only 12 men. “If this literalism were followed through in every way,” she writes,” there would be only twelve priests in the church and they would all be Jewish Middle Eastern men.” The purpose of such a “literalist argument … appears to be to exclude women from ordination,” she said.
Still, Kolpack finds “signs of hope” for “advancing a fuller recognition of the dignity of women” in the church. She sees it in some church documents and the work of theologians.
Since the Second Vatican Council, she writes, church documents have incorporated language “about equality and the participation of women in public life,” including the right to work and to be involved in cultural, economic, social and political life.
She noted that in the late 20th century, “the United States bishops explicitly named ‘sexism’ a sin and that the Quebec bishops, in a statement on domestic violence, accepted “on behalf of the church partial responsibility for violence against women’ because of counseling women not to leave an abusive marriage.”
Feminist theologians, she writes, are increasingly pushing the church to expand its scholarship to move beyond exclusive patriarchal interpretations of scripture and to advance the cause of inclusive language in church texts and prayers.
“Vatican II emphasized that the Word of God was entrusted to ‘the entire church’ but feminists are asking ‘how that Word can be heard and proclaimed if the people of God are not listened to or even consulted?’”
Other stories:
Wisconsin parish worker fired for feminist views
Kolpack letter to her parishioners explaining her dismissal
Bishop Morlino noted for orthodoxy, controversy
Roberts is NCR Editor at Large.
"He who sees Me sees the
"He who sees Me sees the Father."
"I and the Father are One"
Yeah, I guess somebody needs to go back and tell Jesus how out of touch He was.
This article just confirmed that there is nothing interesting on the internet today.
Did you bother to read the
Did you bother to read the thesis? If you did, are you willing to suggest that Elizabeth Johnson be required to make a profession of faith and loyalty, and to recant all of her writings?
I just find it humorous how
I just find it humorous how people nowadays focus so much on trying to abolish any mention of sex in God from spoken language to the Bible itself. For two thousand years, nobody had a problem with how God was spoken of. People who make such a big deal about it now just seem... misdirected.
"For two thousand years,
"For two thousand years, nobody had a problem with how God was spoken of."
If that were true, then what was the Council of Nicea about? Or the Protestant Reformation? Or Vatican II? Those are the big examples, but there are plenty of smaller ones. Christians have always been in conversation about how God should be defined, or if God should be defined at all. Christianity has always been a faith in transition, a faith that adapts to various times and places while keeping the Gospel at heart. Ruth Kolpack's thesis is merely another chapter, however small, in Christianity's ongoing history of transformation.
I was talking about people
I was talking about people today worrying about God and gender.
But the point is that you've
But the point is that you've become accustomed to seeing God in a certain way, and that's not necessarily how generations before you saw God, and it's not likely to be how generations after you will see God. It's an ongoing process, and discussions about gender are simply another step in that process.
"and that's not necessarily
"and that's not necessarily how generations before you saw God"
- Actually I'm fairly sure that generations previous didn't raise a stink about the Church not refering to God in the feminine.
The whole issue seems to be people forgetting how and WHY previous generations saw God as the Bridegroom of the Church (like He Himself declared.)
The Bridegroom and the
The Bridegroom and the Bride.
Ecclesia (Church), the bride of Christ, nursing members of the Church.
Detail of the Apocalypse Window in the ambulatory of Bourges Cathedral, dating from c.1215-25.
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/france/bourges-cathedral-photos/slide...
Bourges Cathedral is a cathedral dedicated to Saint Stephen. Construction on Bourges Cathedral began on in 1195, the same time as Chartres Cathedral. The choir was completed by 1214 and the nave was completed in 1225-1250. The west façade was finished in 1270. The architect was Paul-Louis Boeswillwald and the master builder was Philippe Berruyer.
The Gothic Cathedral of Saint Etienne, begun at the end of the twelfth century, is listed as a World Heritage Site. It is considered the earliest example of the high gothic style of the thirteenth century.Bourges is a commune in central France on the Yèvre river. It is the capital of the department of Cher and also was the capital of the former province of Berry.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/635
Will the Bishop of Madison tear down this Cathedral too for its Stained Glass Window depicting the Bride of Christ (ther Church) nursing its members?
Actually, the good bishop
Actually, the good bishop would have no problem with the window; it is Ms. Kolpack who would be more likely to want to put a brick through it. What? The Church depicted as Christ's "Bride"???? Why, that suggests some sort of gender-role, doesn't it? That emphasizes that Jesus Christ was (gasp!) a MAN! Oh, no; we can't have any of that in our Brave New World of inclusive language! We must instead shun such icky, sexist terms as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (clearly, that sexist Jesus made a mistake in using such a phrase --but don't worry, we forgive him, just this once) and come up with far more modern and correct and *inclusive* terms for the Trinity in place of the errors of that Christ guy. This is what Ms. Kolpack tells us from her authoritative position as a "scholar", which she thinks means entitles her to directly reject the magisterium of the Church on a spectrum of things ranging from proper baptismal formulas to valid ordinations.
Thank you, Ms. Kolpack, but if we must have infallible pronouncements being made, I see no reason to think they are being made by yourself...
Well, of course previous
Well, of course previous generations didn't discuss gender. Only one gender was allowed into the discussion!
But we're now living in a world in which both genders are participating in the discussion. So it's inevitable that questions that weren't raised before will be raised now.
There's nothing new about Christians questioning the assumptions of previous generations. It's part of the Christian tradition.
And what's to stop people --
And what's to stop people -- men or women -- from becoming/being "One with God?" Or what's to stop people from seeing God in another/others? Isn't that the work of the Holy Spirit; a result of professing and having a relationship with Christ as the Anointed One?
Kolpack has "blasphmied"
Kolpack has "blasphmied" (according to the Bishop).
Kolpack has written:
MEN are "TEACHERS" and women are "LEARNERS"
Besides, Kolpack cites the book:
Kimball, Charles. When Religion Becomes Evil. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
The Bishop DID NOT have to read the entire dissertation.
Just these few pages were TOO MUCH for him.
Page 33 of dissertation:
"Other examples of evil manifested by absolute claims of truth are: the Catholic hierarchy‘s claim that only males were chosen by Jesus to be apostles and so only males can be ordained."
Page40-41 of dissertation:
"Vatican officials, questioning the process of consultation with women, asserted that Bishops are teachers, not learners; truth cannot emerge through consultation. This same process of consultation was used successfully for two previous documents. This raises the question of why consultation was an issue at this time. One could conclude that it was because of who was being consulted and the opinions that were voiced."
"Was religious evil present in this process?"
"Yes, there is religious evil here in the fact that the bishops claimed absolute truth in stating that truth lies in them and not in the experiences of the women consulted. The bishops have used their position as religious leaders to crush the spirit of the women consulted for this document. They diminished the experiences of these women as irrelevant and rendered them to their proper position as learners, dependent on those who claim to have the truth within them to teach them."
Sounds to me like she is just
Sounds to me like she is just being truthful. All of these things are the truth. It is unfortunate the truth casts such an ugly shadow on the leadership of the church, but, truth is what it is. Perhaps if the leadership spent more of its energies on their own integrity, less on silencing the voices of those who expose their corruption, her thesis would not have been such a problem.
The truth hurts those who are trying to hide their corruption.
You are absolutley
You are absolutley right.
There is nothing interesting on the internet today, except:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13441413/Ruth-Kolpack-Thesis
Gorbachev
Craziness!! Time (NO REALLY)
Craziness!! Time (NO REALLY) for the leadership of the Catholic Church to get their heads out of their collective.. self interests (yes that too) and wake up. Out of touch. Out of humanity. Sure, let's ensure that millions more African innocents die because men can hide behind Christ's teachings ( or dope from the Pope if you will) and claim virtue in not wearing condoms. Sure abstainance... works every time... or is thatacceptable losses for the greater "good"?
The view of the role of women in the Church.. as enlightened as their view on celibacy for priests.
Outrage. The Church is ex-communicae. Out of touch.
I'd love to chair Vatican III... or see the movie.
Funny that our "out of touch"
Funny that our "out of touch" Church has maintained those disciplines for 2,000 years and yet we continue to thrive. It's amazing isn't it? Why, you'd think we were left in the hands of the Holy Spirit or something!
This is a fine article that
This is a fine article that points out the sad state of affairs of women in the church today. Many women work hard for the church and are trampled on by insensitive men such as Morlino. These "ordained" bullies act out of fear, as do all bullies, and the consequences are just as devastating. One of the consequences is that few, especially women, take seriously the church's stand on abortion, even those who agree that abortion is wrong. If you factor in those who accept abortion in the case of rape and incest, those who find abortion morally acceptable is the vast majority, not just a simple majority. If the church wants to change attitudes about abortion (including attitudes of Catholics), it must change its own attitude about women. Abortion will not change in any other way. No matter what the church says about women in its documents, as long as it treats women as less than equal members of the body of Christ, its teaching about abortion will not be accepted as authentic. Rather, the teaching will be seen as nothing more than a man's attempt to keep women in their place--barefoot and pregnant. The church cannot have it both ways. It either treats women as equal members or it accepts the reality of abortion.
Since the first wave of
Since the first wave of women’s movements, the Popes have been conscious of the restiveness of women.
In his encyclical, "Pacem in Terris"(1963) Pope John XXIII assessed the women’s movement as one of three significant signs of the time:
…"it is obvious to everyone that women are now taking a part in public life… Since women are becoming ever more conscious of their human dignity, they will not tolerate being treated as more material instruments, but demand rights befitting human person both in domestic and in public life."
Pope John spoke of ‘domestic’ and ‘public’ life.
However in Church life in l962 when the Second Vatican Council began in Rome all participants were male except for 23 women auditors with no voting rights. One Cardinal asked ‘Where is the other half of humanity?’ (Quoted in America Jan 17, 1976 p. 23)
"True, 15 women among 2,500 bishops was hardly a 'quota,' but it was a beginning," wrote Loretto Sister Mary Luke Tobin.
(http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21051)
More recently Pope John Paul II observed:
It is… urgently necessary to take concrete steps by providing room for women to participate in different fields and at all levels, including decision-making processes, above all in matters which concern women themselves.
(Post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Vita Consecrata, l996)
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II emphasizes that “[the role of women] is of capital importance . . . for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.’(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, 6: AAS 69 (1977), 115-116. Quoted in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, no. 3.)
"Still, the face of the Church reveals the pain that many women experience. At times this pain results from the flawed behavior of human beings—clergy and lay—when we attempt to dominate each other."
(http://www.usccb.org/laity/women/bondsofpeace.shtml)
"A Church that is deepening its consciousness of itself, that is trying to project the image of Christ to the world, will understand the need for ongoing, prayerful reflection in this area.One example of the need for ongoing reflection concerns the use of language. While inclusive language is becoming a concern in many areas of the world, it has a particular importance in the English.speaking world, especially in North America. Our conference of bishops continues to be engaged in the study of scriptural, doctrinal, and liturgical translations, a highly technical and complex task."
(http://www.usccb.org/laity/women/bondsofpeace.shtml)
Oops. Bishop Morlino just
Oops. Bishop Morlino just fired (second) Isaiah.
The Bishop had no choice but
The Bishop had no choice but to fire her.Her questions are too lucid. Too challenging. Too demaning of answers that don't yet exist because to recognize them results in more challenging questions that would start the 'fire' Christ brought. Instead of "Crucify Him, crucify Him." It's "Fire her, fire her." Wear the mantle of prophet honorably.
Interestingly, I come in contact with numerous women in their 70s and 80s that have been Catholics since birth. 90% of them agree, using different words, with what Kolpack has written.
And if we take the variation of that well known cynicism of war: The victors write the history. Men wrote history 2000 years ago so why is it so unusual or unorthodox to ask or wonder about their influence on the writings of the day? Could it be we still have much to learn?
Kolpack and her pals should
Kolpack and her pals should read "The Myth of Male Power" and books on the feminization of the Church. You can find them in Amazon.
My grandmother always used language that, nowadays, Kolpack and her crowd would consider "non-inclusive". But grandma always knew that her language included women.
So-called "inclusive" language is really segregated language: "he or she" instead of "he"... or worse "s/he"...
Grammatical gender is not indicative of actual gender. In other languages this is pretty clear. In Spanish, for example, "giraffe" is always feminine (la jirafa) regardless of the actual sex of the animal involved. The same with "panther" and plenty of other animals... and even things ("the mountain" = "la montaña"). Of course, some of them are referred in the masculine.
I wonder if Kolpack would object to people speaking of "Mother Earth" or "Mother Church" or "motherland".
Bottom line: Contemporary feminism is just the latest version of old-fashioned nagging.
I'm not at all surprised you
I'm not at all surprised you chose to post that anonymously. The "feminization of the Church" has nothing to do with nagging, little to do with grammar, and everything to do with a deepening of spirit in the Church.
Dear "Perla", I always post
Dear "Perla",
I always post anonymously. I could also choose a pen name... or simply my first name. It wouldn't make any real difference.
What matters is the argument.
Check out "The Myth of Male Power" and other books by the same author.
And GIVE ARGUMENTS. Otherwise, you're simply NAGGING.
I don't have time to read the
I don't have time to read the book Anonymous. Present to us here your findings from "the Myth of Male Power" and quit your nagging and give arguments.
I don't want to judge the book by just its name, but it seems the Title itself is practically a dead give-away of a lie that somehow the author believes there's no such thing as male power. Obviously there is nothing but male power speaking for the entire Catholic Church, which is not accounting for the voice and concerns of women.
Would you happen to be a male?
While we are trading literary
While we are trading literary references, this particular "anonymous" might consider reading: "Misogyny, the world's oldest prejudice", by Jack Holland.
Here is the fallacy with
Here is the fallacy with that. When the church says "All men are called to love." I am supposed to know that that includes me. When the church says, "Men of good moral character who desire to follow Christ in ordination to the priesthood may apply to seminary I am supposed to know that does NOT include me. Also - when God is imaged as exclusively male it leads to the circular arguments that I see being made by some here: God is male therefore his priests must be male. Priests define God and keep the hierarchical power- therefore they can define God as male ( and fire those who think differently.)
When the Church says those
When the Church says those things, she says them in Latin. And in that language, it is painstakingly clear when she is referring to males, and when she is referring to all people.
So, what you are saying here,
So, what you are saying here, is that the church is choosing to translate to English so that women will think they are left out when they're really not?
Grandma may not have read
Grandma may not have read this "Strengthening the Bonds of Peace: A Pastoral Reflection on Women in the Church and in Society" by the USCCB in 1995:
http://www.usccb.org/laity/women/bondsofpeace.shtml
"We know that women’s gifts have tremendously improved the quality of parish ministry. Looking to the future, we especially want to encourage women to pursue studies in Scripture, theology, and canon law, not only that the Church may benefit from their skills in these areas but that they, themselves, may benefit from their own scholarly efforts."
"An important issue for women is how to have a voice in the governance of the Church to which they belong and which they serve with love and generosity. This can be achieved in at least two ways that are consistent with church teaching: through consultation and through cooperation in the exercise of authority."
"As recently as July 1994, Pope John Paul II reiterated the need for the consultative expertise of women, saying: “Qualified women can make a great contribution of wisdom and moderation, courage and dedication, spirituality and fervor for the good of the Church.”6 We need to seek ways to honor this call at every level of the Church, from the parish to the diocese to the national offices that are involved in drafting official church documents for our conference of bishops. As a specific example of this consultative role, we cite the participation of women in the development of pastoral and missionary statements, as called for in the apostolic exhortation on the laity, Christifideles Laici (no. 51)."
"Consultation is already occurring in a number of ways, of course. Parish and diocesan pastoral and finance councils are vehicles for engaging the gifts of lay women and men as important decisions are crafted. While final decision-making rests with the pastor, the Code of Canon Law urges consultation even in areas not strictly required. We encourage such consultation. We note, too, that Commissions on Women, now present in many dioceses, allow for women’s concerns to be expressed and their expertise to be utilized."
Socalled Inclusive
Socalled Inclusive Language.
Too Bad, Your grandmother (not being a Bishop) was not a participant at the meeting of the Catholic bishops of the United States at their general meeting in November 1994:
"Strengthening the Bonds of Peace: A Pastoral Reflection on Women in the Church and in Society"
developed by the Committee on Women in Society and in the Church.
It was approved by the Administrative Committee in September 1994
"One example of the need for ongoing reflection concerns the use of language. While inclusive language is becoming a concern in many areas of the world, it has a particular importance in the English.speaking world, especially in North America. Our conference of bishops continues to be engaged in the study of scriptural, doctrinal, and liturgical translations, a highly technical and complex task. Moreover, since the Holy Father has indicated that catechetical and pastoral materials that evolve from the Catechism of the Catholic Church could reflect the culture, language, and idiom of a given country, we urge that catechetical and religious materials and hymnals, as well as our daily language and prayer, honor the concerns that shape a more inclusive language, while taking care to ensure that they do not become a source of division, anger, and hurt. This can be accomplished if our conversation within the Church is “full of faith, of charity, of good works, [and is] intimate, and familiar.’(Ecclesiam Suam, no. 113.)
http://www.usccb.org/laity/women/bondsofpeace.shtml
Spoken like someone who's
Spoken like someone who's never felt the pain of systemic exclusion and discrimination - excuse me if your experience isn't helpful.
Old fashioned nagging by the
Old fashioned nagging by the US Catholic Bishops can be read at:
http://www.usccb.org/laity/women/bondsofpeace.shtml
Equality
We reaffirm the fundamental equality of women and men who, created in the image of God, “are called to participate in the same divine beatitude [and] . . . therefore enjoy an equal dignity.”10 What we said of marriage and family life in our pastoral message Follow the Way of Love applies to other expressions of church life as well. In that message we pointed out that equality does not imply sameness in roles or expectations, nor does it mean that two spouses will have identical gifts or character. Rather, they will respect each other’s gifts and identity. In this “domestic Church” we see a spirit and practice of mutuality, a sharing of power and exercising of responsibility for a purpose larger than oneself, that is, for God’s purpose.
The domestic Church reminds us that all women and men must take seriously the need to listen to one another, to try to understand one another, including an appreciation of the different forms of authority. These lessons of the domestic Church, especially concerning relationships, should be reflected in the experience and behavior of the gathered Church. For example, the pastor of a parish has the authority of office, while the lay man or woman will often have a particular competence or knowledge, a specific authority that complements the pastor’s. The challenge is for all authority to be exercised for the well.being of the community and the effectiveness of the Church’s mission.
To meet such a challenge requires a mature spirituality that understands and practices the virtue of humility. We admit that humility is often misunderstood, and we are sensitive to women’s concerns that it not be misused to justify the suppression of women’s voices. We stress that all of us are called to “be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). Humility must be practiced mutually by all the faithful, ordained and lay. This mutuality is rooted in an authentic respect for the dignity of each person and our call to belong to one another in the Body of Christ.
We can say with certainty that discrimination against women contradicts the will of Christ. We are painfully aware that sexism, defined as “unjust discrimination based on sex,”11 is still present in some members of the Church. We reject sexism and pledge renewed efforts to guard against it in church teaching and practice. We further reject extreme positions on women’s issues which impede dialogue and divide the Church. We commit ourselves to make sure that our words and actions express our belief in the equality of all women and men.
Pater Noster
I guess I'll never get a
I guess I'll never get a "church" job as my master's essay is essentially the same topic...also submitted to a seminary MA program!!
In the long run, you will
In the long run, you will likely be healthier and happier in the "world". It turns out to be the more just place to be for women. Strange but generally true. Best wishes.
Forget about Church job, if
Forget about Church job,
if your Thesis addresses
Two "controversial" issues:
"exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood".
"women exposing the incongruity between what the church says and does"
One does not have to read the whole dissertation to find the "controversial" thoughts to "SCARE" all, if not most Bishops in America.
The dissertation ends with:
"The Second Vatican Council not only opened a window for fresh air in the church but it opened a door for fresh experiences in the church. Women were invited to study theology and that was the open door needed for women to bring their experiences to the table. These women and others are exposing the incongruity between what the church says and what it does, and challenging it to take the next step to embrace the full dignity of all people. All will then be set free, including God – no longer bound by the limits of exclusive language."
The Thesis also questions Pope John Paul II on the Ordination of Women:
"According to the definition of religious evil on previous pages, there are the evils of absolute truth claims and literalism.
Four times in this brief document, John Paul claims absolute truth:
1) in accordance with God‘s plan for his Church;
2) Christ established things in this way;
3) in accordance with God‘s eternal plan; and
4) the Church‘s divine constitution.
He is defending the church‘s position on not ordaining women by claiming to continue what Jesus initiated. The evil of literalism is evident in John Paul‘s insistence that a fundamental reason the church cannot ordain women is that Christ chose only men. Again, in this short document, he mentions this three times, the last time saying there were twelve men chosen. If this literalism were followed through in every way, there would be only twelve priests in the church and they would all be Jewish Middle Eastern men. His literalistic argument, in this case, is very weak and not convincing to many. Its purpose appears to be to exclude women from ordination."
I am surprised that such a dissertation (questioning why women are not allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church) was even "permitted" to be presented in a Catholic Seminary in America.
While I don't know that
While I don't know that switching from referring to God as "he" to "she" is really the answer, I agree with the rest of what Ruth wrote (as cited here; I did not read her whole paper.) The separation of men and women in the Church, if not tended to, will at best lead to schism, and at worst, its deterioration. As a woman, I do not feel equal or encouraged by Church leaders at all, and while I have not the courage to speak out, I am heartened by the knowledge that many do. (And the fact that the Church can scare me into silence says a lot about the patriarchal power they weild.)
I know nothing else about Ruth other than what this article cited, but I do believe that we need reformers in our Church. Sadly, if history is any indication, persecution will be their lot until many years later (perhaps hundreds) people look back and realize that they were wise beyond their time.
I also find it interesting to note - as a sidenote - that the Anglican church is dealing with similar issues. They have allowed female vicars and now they are wrestling with the issue of female bishops. While I believe a vote has passed in favor of female bishops, this occured with the provision that men who are not comfortable being under the guidence (read: power) of a woman will not have to answer to a female bishop. So where exactly is the progess in that?
I believe that both of these issues, and many others, point to a global sexism problem. I do not have the answers, but I do think that women being willing (and allowed) to speak out is the first step toward discussion, and hopefully someday, actual equality and acceptance.
I just last night attended a
I just last night attended a talk given by Rabbi Sue Livy Elwell, a renowned scholar on the feminine in traditional Reform Judaism. She spoke eloquently to the miracles that happen when we free ourselves from partriarchal verbiage and tradition, pushing the walls of inclusivity. Noone is threatened but rather men and women meet as equals to explore the wonders of this God who is beyond any human words or image. The words and images help but we cannot put God in a box. This "box" must go...in ALL traditions. We continue to evolve and the feminine in the Catholic Church must ba allowed to stand. Ruth Kolpack states this beautifully in her paper. If only the "idolaters" she speaks of could have been in attendance last night or would open themselves to hear the words of a Sue Livy Elwell that were so profoundly spoken last night...at a Benedictine Monastery!! But then, they have heard fthese words from Ruth Kolpack and the result...to lose her job. This is the real sin!!!
What Ruth writes sounds like
What Ruth writes sounds like rather healthy Catholic theology to me. Maybe her critics need some remedial education.
This is it? And the bishop
This is it? And the bishop even wasted a meeting over this...shame on him.
The remarkable thing about
The remarkable thing about this contretemps is that as late as 2003 a seminary would accept an ma thesis that merely repeats an argument over inclusive language for God that was by then already 20 years old and intellectually stale. The school should have demanded something less derivative from its student and, the bishop should have ignored the thesis as a big who cares.
NCR: Thank you for this. A
NCR: Thank you for this. A reading of "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World" (promulgated by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004)goes into some length to draw out, rationalize, justify and attempt to render as "benign" the patriarchal dimension of the Church's position on women. This document concludes with - "The Soverign Pontiff John Paul II...approved the present letter...and ordered its publication".
Convincing in its authoritative source, scholarly language, extensive references to theology, scripture, sociology, psychology and tradition, this document would comfort many who hold to the Church's position on women.
Personally, I found the document intellectually dishonest, self-serving and an abuse of poety,reason,sociology, psychology,(and I suspect Scripture and theology) as well as in its total omission of the misognyistic history which drives its position.
It is too bad that this issue of Archbishop Morlino's treatment of Ms.Kolpack in its many dimensions and consequences will probably fade in a week and not become the cause celebre that would render the Church accountable for its position on women. It seems to me that the more the Church is required to explain itself the reality of its position is exposed.
How true the old adage that
How true the old adage that "a prophet is without honor in his/her own country". Certainly she is without honor in her own church. The Catholic Church preaches social justice, but it falls far short in the practice of it, especially in Kolpack's case. It would appear that the Church still embraces Aristotle's and Aquinas's notion that woman is a 'misbegotten male'.
My spiritual sisters and I have been studying Joan Chittister's Lenten study "The Cry of the Prophets". This week's lesson on the prophet Isaiah certainly speaks to Ms. Kolpack's case. The prophet has to endure. According to the farmer in an ancient story: "Every day I cast my seeds to the wind. It takes no virtue to cast those seeds, of course, but it does take courage to go on facing the wind." May people like Ruth Kolpack keep on enduring. We need more like her.
Thank you, Marlene! Ruth has
Thank you, Marlene! Ruth has so many supporters, and this case is only one example of the narrowness of those who would remove her from her service. Social justice has gone underground...not being preached by the orthodoxy any longer.
Hmmm.....the orthodoxy not
Hmmm.....the orthodoxy not believing or preaching justice???
If that is true, then why am I the only one to offer a supporting comment on the NCR post about the new president-elect of El Salvador???? I was the ONLY person to comment on that story!
It's too bad that some of the aging hippes on here have a VERY narrow view of what Catholicism is about.
Maybe we should focus our energies on issues of REAL importance, rather than trivial things that happened to one, aging, so-called "Catholic", dissident. Working for the church is NOT a right....it's a privilege.
How can we, as Church, be a
How can we, as Church, be a witness to social justice in the world if we cannot create it in our own church? We must become what we want in the world. Otherwise, our words and work for justice are empty and abuse of power will continue in the world.
No language is adequate for
No language is adequate for explaining God? Get real, our God has revealed "God self" as a part of human history and thus salvation history. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed by God, Himself. Son of Man is an Old Testament image that presages Jesus Christ.
Now for a male priesthood--Jesus Christ, God incarnate was not male by accident. It was intentional on God's part. Jesus Christ is the exclusive High Priest in which the baptized share to a certain extent and the ordained in a sacramental sense. The sacramental image of the priest at Mass?--Jesus Christ the Bridegroom of the Church with is the Bride. The last time I checked, even the Risen Lord in His glorious Body was male and bridegrooms are male--unless you buy into the revisionist theology about all of this and prefer an androgynous form of marriage.
How schismatic and gnostic these radical feminists are! In fact they are pagans and represent not the One, True God, but the pagan gods in all their falsehood. The gig up!
It is precisely this sort of
It is precisely this sort of literalism that ignores the reality that God is beyond full human understanding. It may be comforting to you to assume that God can be so easily pigeon-holed, but I do not believe that the human imagination can fully contain the reality that is God.
you ready to kick Elizabeth
you ready to kick Elizabeth Johnson to the curb?
Seems to me if God wanted to
Seems to me if God wanted to assert the dominance and independence of Himself as solely male, he wouldn't have bothered incarnating through a woman. Jesus could have just popped up in a basket on the Jordan river.
I suppose God knew though, than when push came to shove, most of His Son's male followers would cower in hiding, while the women would stay steadfast. As in birth so in death and so in Resurrection. Which aptly points out the real differences between the sexes, men blather, women do.
In Theology 101, you would
In Theology 101, you would learn that there is 'no language adequate for explaining God.'
No language adequate to
No language adequate to explain God is o so true, but there is also language to explain God that is false, gnostic, heretical, schismatic, pagan and so on and so forth. Unlike our pagan friends and our Christians friends who are not Catholic and therefore have no mechanism in place to call a spade a spade, we Catholics do and I applaud the bishop for doing so in this case. We are of the Judeo-Christian heritage and specifically Roman Catholic. We are not pagans into goddesses and the like.
We do mostly call God by male
We do mostly call God by male names, but that does not mean that God is male. See Theology 101 again. God has no gender, other than the Second Person, who lived a human life as a male. The Catholic Church (Roman, at least) teaches that when we talk of calling God "Father" we are speaking of the relationship of Son to Father, not of the maleness of God.
Once again, we have some
Once again, we have some ambitious, self-righteous defender of some narrow version of "orthodoxy" wielding his big stick to ruin another believer's life and which will only have the opposite effect of what he intends, i.e. yet more people alienated from an institution apparently bent on eating its own most committed and informed membership. Perhaps the bishop should read Pope John Paul's apostolic letter Mulierus Dignitatem for a teaching on the limits of anthropomorphic God-language, including gender-based pronouns. And who will be next on this witch hunt by this self-proclaimed salesman for the business of his truncated version of "truth"? The seminary faculty who oversaw and approved this woman's thesis? We are witnessing all the old and discredited tactics of the Modernist "crisis" period including the delating of suspect church personnel. Before long, this hierarch will appear as outmoded and irrelevant as do Pius X, Cardinal Merry del Val, Garrigou-LaGrange and all the other convinced purveyors of their corner on orthodoxy. A shame these ill-informed bishops never learn from history, even the recent past.
I find no harm in this. God
I find no harm in this. God is no more a "he" than God is a "she." The Spirit of God does not have a biological male reproductive organ.
To point this out raises consciousness of our historical tradition and proclivity toward genderizing everything, as certain Latin Romance and other languages do with "le" and "la" or "El." Our bodies are shells but our souls, in their spiritual essence, are neither woman nor man, Gentile nor jew, servant nor free. We are all made equally in God's image.
For this Ruth Kolpack was fired? Seems very unjust.
Ms Kolpack may have lost her
Ms Kolpack may have lost her job, but she upholds "The Church." It is all the bishops who have separated themselves from the people of God, who have truly left the church.
The bishops have shipped abusive priests around from parish to parish and diocese to diocese, allowing them to attack children, a sin for which THEY should be excommunicated.
The pope's lack of action to remove these bishops speaks to his life experience, formed when he was forced to be a Nazi as a child. Those childhood memories and ideas become part of one's personality - in this case a personality of ruler over others, instead of a true descendant of Peter - a servant of the church.
Because they hid the actions of these priests, the bishops have also failed at their fiduciary responsibility to the church, opening it up to massive lawsuits that is bankrupting the church in the US and has closed parishes. For this they should be fired from their jobs but they will not be fired, because of the incestuous way they are chosen - bishops choosing bishops who are just like them. There is no transparency to the process and the laity have no say in it.
Ms Kolpack speaks the truth. It is the bishops and the pope who have betrayed the People of God and will one day receive their punishment.
ok anti-Catholic evangelical
ok anti-Catholic evangelical protestant.
Um...you do know that the
Um...you do know that the Catholic Church is a church of the Communion (gathering at mass) and not a Church of the Bible. I don't understand what makes you think Ken is anti-Catholic. The faithful are the Church not the hierarchy. Which I suppose brings us back to the fact that the Hierarchy is supposed to be servants to the people and NOT overlords.
SO you reject the Bible??? Ok
SO you reject the Bible???
Ok Anti- Catholic evangelical.....ummm....ummm.....Muslim? Atheist? Government-ist????
Well I can't call you "protestant" because they believe in the Bible
Would that we had many more
Would that we had many more Kolpaks in our church! The bishop's intellectual cynicism, his pitiful indignation, his shrewd distrust blots out the gospel value of the cordial openness of selfless love.
Once again a "teacher" in our church places snobbish careerism and the
tyranny of eccclesiastical correctness above the noble humility of gospel mandate. Pray for him and all who agree with and support him.
Ruth Kolpack was fired over
Ruth Kolpack was fired over this---using inclusive language? She was fired because she pulled out from Scripture feminine descriptions, maternal descriptions of God? Bishop Morlino claimed that her views of Jesus were “off base". Where?
Jesus compared himself to a mother hen (certainly a maternal and feminist description) when he wept over Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing." (Mt. 23:37-38)
But Ruth was fired because she described the difficulty the paternal Church has in thinking of God in feminine terms. Well if the Old Testaments prophets record/describe God in those terms. And Jesus, utilizes a feminine imagery of himself, trying to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem under "his wings". And Ruth is demonstrating this with data and going into the history of the Church---showing how hard it is in the Church utilizing the imagery,
what is Bishop Morlino saying? Is he saying 1) The Prophets never wrote that; 2) Jesus never said this about himself--or Jesus is way off base (that's heresy, Bishop Morlino); or 4) the historical references Ruth used never occured.
The Bishop should have really read Ruth's thesis. In not doing so, and in firing her, he is utilizing the words of one Shakesperean character from "The Tempest" for himself, "I have made a thrice-double ass of myself".
When are you (so-called)
When are you (so-called) feminist theologians going to get it through your head that there are women out there who do NOT want you to push your liberal agenda on the Church. We happen to feel very comfortable in our skin and do not need the likes of you changing scripture to suit your misguided needs. For us, the greatest model we can have as women is the Blessed Virgin Mary. Through her, we have learned to love unconditionally, to practice humility (something lacking in the feminist movement), and obey the teachings of the Church. Personally, I believe that the Bishop was correct and I stand behind his decision.
I think that the women out
I think that the women out there who do not want any change in the church regarding anything about women have made themselves very clear, and I'm guessing that it is in many heads how you all feel. So what? If you are so comfortable, why would it bother you that someone disagrees with you? Stay comfortable. All is at peace. The church will not change in your lifetime.
If you look at some of these
If you look at some of these very nuanced, caring responses and then reread yours I think you will see who is more humble.
God is never, ever addressed
God is never, ever addressed as feminine in the Bible, only as masculine. That's the crucial point the author misses. The Church's liturgy cannot, and will not, ever address God in the feminine. A feminine metaphor can give expression to some aspects of God in relation to us, but that is different from addressing God as feminine. God is Father, Son and Spirit. Jesus taught his disciples to call God and to pray to God as "Father", to do the will of the Father. The author's thesis is selectively using the Bible to promote feminist nonsense. And if she was allowing such a misguided theology to influence her parish work, then good riddance to her.
New Testament or Old
New Testament or Old Testament? You are sooooooo wrong, and Kolpack uses 2nd Isaiah to illustrate femimine descriptors, and let's not forget the Hebrew word shekinah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah
Wrong! In the Wisdom
Wrong! In the Wisdom literature of the O.T., the Spirit is referred to in the feminine.
You miss the point:
You miss the point: grammatical gender references are not the same as direct addresses and grammatical gender has no correlation with masculinity or femininity in the thing that the word represents. God is never directly addressed in the Bible using a feminine reference. Never. Never ever. Yes, "Spirit" and "Wisdom" are grammatically feminine in the Bible, but God is never addressed or prayed to as feminine. That's the difference.
I think that you would have
I think that you would have to consider the issue of the evolution of understanding of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit as Someone-To-Be-Prayed-To in the Christian tradition. That has also changed. The Scripture talks more about the actions of the Spirit within us and on our behalf--than that of us praying to the Spirit. So your point, while well-taken, does not seal the edges on the issue as you would like. The Holy Spirit has never been One to get boxed up.
No. 'Wisdom' is referred to
No. 'Wisdom' is referred to in the feminine, not the Spirit. Wisdom and the Spirit are not identical.
They also are not separate.
They also are not separate. But you would be wrong regarding the Jewish culture of the times, in which the Spirit was considered feminine.
Post new comment