Women And Canon Law

[Snowcatpa]

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="#330099"]Greetings phatmassers,

I am in charge of a talk explaining to my Newman Club why the Catholic Church does not allow women priests and a subsequent talk on New Feminism. All issues related to gender within the church are of particular interest to me, and I feel I could defend the prohibition against women priests fairly well. However, there are certain aspects of women and authority in the Catholic Church that I can't yet explain and really want to be able to.

My question is how do you explain to a well-educated, 21st century woman that she has no voice in the real structures of Tradition and Authority in the Catholic Church? As a student of feminism, the main issue that underlies the basis of the whole (democratic) portion of the Women's Movement is that without a voice, your concerns will be lost. No one can effectively make all of the rules without the imput of the other and not in some way at best, overlook, at worst oppress the one without a vote. Hence the movement foremost in the 19th century for women's suffrage.

In explaining true masculinity and true femininity, it is fairly simple (I feel, in comparison) to explain to the conscious choice of Christ for a male priesthood which is so symbolic and powerful and the affirming position of women, in general, in the Catholic Church than it is to explain the lack of female voices as makers of Tradition. Even taking into consideration the true nature of Authority as a service (for the Pope is but the Servant of the Servants of God), that still to me seems lacking as an answer.

The Holy Spirit indeed guides the infallible rulings of the Church through the bishopric,
But in Canon Law, the bishopric (and maybe other priests, I'm not certain on this point) are the only ones who can legislate. This is problematic in my explanation of the power of this authority, which I cannot say has been infallible on various disciplinary traditions.

In their little "t" tradition, the Church has legislated out women and the laity from many roles which the Church recognizes they now can fulfill (after Vatican II and the Revised Code of Canon Law in 1983). These include, for example, serving as singers in the choir, readers, altar girls, etc. That seems to support the contention that without women or laity in the governing position of at least non-infallible little "t" tradition, bias and hindrances will always occur because un-infallible teaching is much more socially conditioned.

That being said, I do acknowledge the valiant effort the Church is making to discern the proper positions of men and women, religious and laity, in the administration of the Church in documents like

- "Strengthening the Bonds of Peace: A Pastoral Reflection on Women in the Church and in Society" - 1994, USCCB
- "From Words to Deeds: Continuing Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church" - 1998, USCCB
- "Consultation with Women in Diocesan Leadership, A Report by the Bishops' Committee on Women in Society and in the Church" - October 2001, USCCB
- All of the work on femininity and masculinity done by John Paul the Great and the New Feminists

However, I still really need some clarification on this matter. Why can't women (religious women or laity, whomever) have an authoritative voice or "vote" in Canon Law?

Much Appreciation,
Snowcatpa[/color][/font]

Edited February 21, 2007 by Lil Red

[Mateo el Feo]

It's a bit easier for me to lean on the writings of others who address this subject. Some places to start:

1) [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp"]Catholic.com: Women and the Priesthood (link)[/url]
2) [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]John Paul II: Mulieris Dignitatem (link)[/url]
3) [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm"]Newadvent.org: Woman (link)[/url]
4) [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5039.htm#1"]St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders? (link)[/url]
5) [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.htm#vi"]Catechism of the Catholic Church: Holy Orders: Who can receive this sacrament? (link)[/url]
6) Last but not least, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/617"]the Phatmass Defense Directory: The Ordination of Women (link)[/url]

Instead of using the language of "new feminism", which often frames issues of gender as a power struggle, your talk may be a good opportunity to focus on some of the wonderful female saints and/or doctors of the Church, such as:
1) St. Teresa of Avila
2) St. Therese of Lisieux
3) St. Catherine of Siena
4) St. Clare of Assisi
5) Blessed Teresa of Calcutta

or, you could focus on American saints like:
1) St. F.X. (Mother) Cabrini
2) St. Katharine Drexel
3) St. Elizabeth Ann Seton

A last woman to consider: Mother Angelica, who founded the largest international Catholic media organization in the world

These women wielded power and authority; but that isn't why they will be remembered. It was the grace they were given by God, revealed in their heroic virtue, their fidelity to the Catholic Faith, and their unique service to the Lord and His Church.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' post='1185964' date='Feb 6 2007, 01:29 AM']

However, I still really need some clarification on this matter. Why can't women (religious women or laity, whomever) have an authoritative voice or "vote" in Canon Law?

Much Appreciation,
Snowcatpa[/color][/font]
[/quote]



Snowcatpa,

Do you want women to vote on Canon Law? Why?

Thanks,
Paddington

[thessalonian]

From what I understand, Canon Law is a compilation of decisions of councils and papal rulings. It is not voted on except in council by the Bishops. A woman cannot be a bishop, therefore woman cannot vote on what ends up as canon law.

[Snowcatpa]

[color="#330099"][font="Book Antiqua"]That's a good question Paddington. I don't know whether or not I want women to vote or have a voice in canon law. I want to do what the Church believes is right, but that doesn't mean I know how to justify it or understand their reasoning. I have thought about this issue for a while now, and have yet to come across a really satisfactory answer, and I do honestly consider myself truly open and searching for one.

Mateo, your suggestion about bearing in mind that its not a power struggle is really helpful and I'll definitely keep that in mind. The grace to do God's will regardless I know that that is an important point. However, from a modern woman's perspective, even in the Church, power is not a factor to disregard. The Church has recognized that for a long time women were kept out of many leadership positions, particularly at the diocesian level, for reasons which have since been rescinded. (this is explained more in the references to women in leadership I mentioned in my last post)

But this still doesn't explain why they can't have a voice. I'm not saying that I want them too - I don't know - but it doesn't explain it. If any woman, including myself, knows that she is joining an institution that does not involve the viewpoints of half the population in all of its major decision-making - it is completely counter-intuitive to everything we have ever learned about human rights and democracy. I agree that morality is not a democracy, which is why I'm not asking for a reason women aren't in the college of Bishops deciding infallible teaching. That I understand and can clearly explain to my fellow females in Christ and to secular women. I also completely understand why there can't be female ordination, and agree with it. (I have read through much of the information from those links before, thank you again though Mateo )

I am seeking why women don't have an opinion/voice/say in church law that is not officially declared infallible. And this is sort of why I brought in the point about the laity as well, so maybe this is a clearer question, particularly in reference to Thessalonian's point:

Why are only ordained bishops capable of helping decide church teaching that is not governed by their own infallibility?

My confusion comes because it doesn't seem to be about true femininity and true masculinity - but about what we as a society and as women have learned about any human institution. The teachings made by the Church as codes of canon law in an un-infallible context are much more socially conditioned, both in their initial inclusion in the Canon and in what they allow. (This is what I was alluding to before with female singers, altar girls, etc.)

If that is the case, even from a religious perspective, it doesn't seem to make sense to not have a diverse body to consult from when formulating these particular guidelines. [/font][/color]

[thessalonian]

[quote]I am seeking why women don't have an opinion/voice/say in church law that is not officially declared infallible. And this is sort of why I brought in the point about the laity as well, so maybe this is a clearer question, particularly in reference to Thessalonian's point:[/quote]

One misconception I think is that the magesterium is about infallibility. Particularly with regard to the papacy, but also with regard to the bishops, the Magesterium is not just about infallibility but about all aspects of discipline and governance of the Church. Jesus says "WHATEVER you bind ...". The Church takes that not to mean just faith and morals but that the magesterium, composed of men has broad authority within the Church. When Jesus says to Peter "feed my sheep...feed my lambs...feed my sheep" the greek as I understand is much broader and deals with administrative and governance of the Church. Papal infallibility is rarely expressed in the positive sense of a declaration (though it does prevent contradictory declarations and in that sense has been used by every Pope). Papal primacy is the more important doctrine and extends beyond faith and morals. The decrees of Vatican I anathema one who does not obey papal directives even if they are not directly linked to faith and morals.

I do think that one needs to look at theology of the body and the God ordained purpose in men and women in this discussion as well. I have not thought about that much. But I am sure that an exploration of it would bear fruit.

If you would like to, you may read the statements on papal primacy.

[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm[/url]

(sorry, linked to a trad site before, channged link)

Of note:
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
[b]not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.[/b]

This is dogma!
I am sure there are similar statements for councils and their authority.
This indicates that the Church is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship of sorts. Woman can have input in an advisory role, but the buck stops at the papacy which has final say. The Church is not just about infallibility. Further that a decree is not infallibly declared per se, does not mean it is fallible and not to be obeyed. Much of the time they are judgements regarding fallible decrees, which the magesterium has the right and responsibility to interpret.

Edited February 6, 2007 by thessalonian

[beatty07]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' post='1186188' date='Feb 6 2007, 09:00 AM']

If any woman, including myself, knows that she is joining an institution that does not involve the viewpoints of half the population in all of its major decision-making - it is completely counter-intuitive to everything we have ever learned about human rights and democracy. I agree that morality is not a democracy, which is why I'm not asking for a reason women aren't in the college of Bishops deciding infallible teaching. . .

. . . . The teachings made by the Church as codes of canon law in an un-infallible context are much more socially conditioned, both in their initial inclusion in the Canon and in what they allow. (This is what I was alluding to before with female singers, altar girls, etc.)

If that is the case, even from a religious perspective, it doesn't seem to make sense to not have a diverse body to consult from when formulating these particular guidelines. [/font][/color]
[/quote]

Definitely a valid question. If I can offer one clarification to begin, the Code of Canon Law isn't voted on by Bishops and doesn't come from a Council. The current Code was instituted in 1983 by the Pope with the apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges. Various people had been working on it since the close of the Second Vatican Council, but I haven't been able to find out exactly who. It seems unlikely that there were NO women involved, for example the Superiors of religious orders. Does anyone know more about that?

I know your question is broader than just Canon Law, but it's a good example. And of course I'm speaking (like you) with reference to the human law, not divine law, included within the Code. So, why not include women in consultation about things like how long a priest's vacation should be, or how often a private chapel must be opened to public use? Of course, when you look at it that way, I'm not sure how many women would be really excited about having a say. But if they are, then it would seem that broad consultation in changeable disciplines is a good thing.

That also sort of dodges the question, since the actual decision would remain the bishops', regardless of who is consulted. Christ's foundation of the Church as apostolic includes governance of the Church. So the women you have in mind probably wouldn't be very impressed by what they'd hear as "we will allow you to speak before we decide."

I really think the biggest problem in this area is a failure to take to heart the Church's idea of the lay state, as layed out very beautifully in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium... Chapter 4 I think. The calling of lay people in the Body of Christ is just really, really exciting. Their mission is to evangelize the world by being saints everywhere they go...in the home, at the workplace, superbowl party, wherever. To make this world better for the poor and sick and to convert souls for the eternal kingdom. Stop abortion. Stop the cycles of the inner cities. Lay seige to Heaven with your daily prayers. Cure AIDS. Raise your daughter to be a saint. Bring hope to someone at work who goes to sleep every night contemplating suicide. Radiate Christ's love so perfectly that your atheist neighbor begins to pray. I just can't believe that, if people really appreciated that vocation, they would get worked up about who's doing what in the sacristy and who's governing the Church's necessary but less exciting beaurocracy.

Maybe I've put it too strongly so that it sounds like Holy Orders are secondary or less exciting. They aren't. But when we limit our vision of the Church's mission to what priests and bishops do, that's when people start to perceive injustice or unfairness.

I hope this marginally helpful and not too rant-y...Good luck with your teaching!

Dcn Steven

[kateri05]

[journeyman]

Did you find an answer?

I'm of two minds/points of view

a. Women hold canon law degrees and licentiates - so they can be involved in the application/interpretation of canon law
b. I believe the Code of Canon law is a positivist system (e.g. a legislated Code) rather than a "common law" or decisional sort of law, so the bishops or the Curia (and its staff(s)) got to do most, if not all, the legislatinig
c. No man in his right mind is going to ignore wisdom, no matter what gender she shows up in - but there is the matter of how to apply it

[Snowcatpa]

[color="#000080"][font="Book Antiqua"]I presented on the issue last week and thankfully no one pressed me on the matter. They were more interested in how an embodied feminist theology would work for stay-at-home dads and hermaphrodites But, in the event anyone else is interested in other reflections on this query, and to bump the category again in case there are new perspectives to be shared, I'll include some other post-talk thoughts on the issue of how to explain women being kept out of the Church's primary legislating process when we live in a democratic - if I don't have a voice, I'm not protected - world.

First, part of female authority within the Catholic Church is based on their vocation to teach and guide men to their fulfillment in Christ. In the home, she is to instruct her husband and family on matters of right conduct and spiritual life in everyday life. In ecclesial life, she should always make sure to hold the men to their highest standard possible, and if they're messing up particularly the ground level directives, she has every right to call them out on it. See St. Catherine of Sienna for an excellent example of this. "She does not will to take over the authority of the hierarchy or the Pope. Rather, her authority is exercised precisely to enable the pope to be pope!" (Monica Miglioino Miller, [i]Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church[/i], 1995, p. 208 - Excellent resource on Female Authority within the Catholic Church, by the way, and completely orthodox. New edition just came out in 2006).

This may include calling the Church to examine the role of the voices of women and the entire laity (as beatty07 mentioned) in decision-making - how to better incorporate their perspectives in councils, etc. I think journeyman's points are another great example of this - being canon lawyers involved in interpretation and application. Application and interpretation is a huge field!! With a lot of wiggle room depending on the issue for a ton of female perspective and presence.

Second, the Magisterium has no need of a representative function for its decisions of truth as democracies do. I know we had sort of brought out this point before, but my fiance gave me an excellent example of this. Democracy needs people representing all parts of society to "check and balance" one another just as the different branches of government "check and balance" themselves. The Church, however, operates on a princple that no human government could ever operate on - that it has only one branch, and that branch will always be right because it speaks for God. Any manipulation of that branch directly counters the way God set it up; consequently, the Church would no longer be speaking [i]for[/i] God but [i]from[/i] humans. In some way, metaphysically, their decisions are protected.

The Church is mysteriously protected by the power of the Holy Spirit against the Abuse of Power in infalliable teachings, and is given the Spirit's protection and direction in all aspects of Canon Law. The Magisterium, then, CANNOT abuse this Power (an assertion of many feminists) in the declarations of infalliable teaching because of God's divine protection. NEITHER can this power be completely miscontrued as to be completely off-based in canon law, even if canon law is adjusted later. Canon law still has a revelatory function and is thus guarded against complete abuse of power. Minor abuse of power/adjustments (??) could potentially still occur (am I right on this? I'm thinking like, Altar Serving, which should be done by boys, yes, but which don't have to be). This is why, I'm guessing, the laity and women are involved in Canon Law interpretation and application as well as formulation through their positions on councils, etc.

I'm hoping to look more into this issue in the future because it's not a simple answer, and I think it's a question that needs serious apologetics to be explained well. If this comes up in your conversations with women, please don't think they're necessarily trying to be radically feminist about it. It goes completely against everything we have been raised to think. I do not think that it should be assumed that women will understand this even once they get a lot of other parts about Theology of the Body or the Catholic faith.

The need for [i]thorough, in-depth[/i] apologetics to explain the difference between the position of women in Church and Civil Government as well as the errors of feminism is vital. And most women aren't trying to be difficult, they're just trying to understand how the world is blue when it's only in focus if they're wearing rose-colored glasses.
[/font][/color]

[Birgitta Noel]

Oooh, this is excellent. I gave a paper on Catholic Feminism a few years back at Notre Dame that I've been meaning to dig out and revise for publication. This may be the motivation I need. Thanks for sharing your insight

Edited April 5, 2007 by The Little Way

[Snowcatpa]

[color="#000080"][font="Book Antiqua"][quote name='The Little Way' post='1230317' date='Apr 4 2007, 10:55 PM']Oooh, this is excellent. I gave a paper on Catholic Feminism a few years back at Notre Dame that I've been meaning to dig out and revise for publication. This may be the motivation I need.[/quote]

Fantastic! Let me know if you do. I'm a collecting pot of New Feminist theory, the little there is of it. [/font][/color]

[Birgitta Noel]

That is quite true! When I find my paper I'll have to send it to you! (It's on a computer somewhere!)