Madam, – Paul Kokoski (July 20th) cites anthropology in his defence of the recent statements by the Vatican concerning the roles of women. What will we see next – alchemists citing microchemistry, astrologers citing astrophysics, creationists citing evolutionary biology? It seems one can pick and choose to support your argument, taking from modern science when convenient, and discarding it when not, while all the time relying on internally inconsistent ancient texts. I am all for engaging in discussions on these matters, but some rigour and consistency from the religious would be welcome. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Coincidentally, the revisiting of the never-ending Mary v Martha debate (Thinking Anew, July 17th) came in the same week as the Vatican’s typically confused expression of its systemic confusion about women. Had the Holy See tried to enter the World Cup competition, none of the opposing teams would have had to lift a boot. So ineffable, unfailing and infallible is the said Holy See’s capacity for scoring PR own goals.
One has to be very careful not to be anachronistic when addressing the Gospel reports of events in the life of Jesus. Not to read into them our own experience and concerns. Written nearly 2,000 years ago, they have been translated through several languages – and countless interpretations. The four “official” Gospels emerged from a process of editing, censorship and “spinning”, rejecting a great many competitors. All the more reason, paradoxically, for taking these four “officials” very seriously. Because they are about what we are allowed to know – and think about, whether or not they are “journalistic” factual reports – or invented instructive fables.
In the relatively few, (very short and simplified), Gospel accounts of Jesus’s encounters with women, the most striking impression is how informal he is. How relaxed! How one might almost think that he regarded, (regards?), them as equals. To be treated as “persons” in their own right. Not exactly as mindless chattels. Or cattle. When he meets the Samaritan woman, (John 4:9), she points out Jews do not communicate with Samaritans. But he “allows” her what even in the 21st century could be construed as impertinence.
And, as he probably guessed she would, she rounds up the men to come and listen.
At Cana, Jesus and his mother were guests. Things go horribly wrong and the wine runs out. Mary turns to her son and expects him to sort it out. Jesus attempts, somewhat feebly, to say that it is none of his (or her), business. Mary does not argue with him but simply tells the servants to do whatever he says. End of discussion.
We look at this and other incidents which we have been allowed to know about. We contrast the apparent inclusive respect, (Dare one suggest “affection”?), which the Gospel Jesus had for women with the practice of the present institution. What is one to think? Could it be that the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of the 21st century is in some kind of, not de jure, but de facto heresy? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – At present the cyclical ado between the Vatican and the feminists about the ordination of women is generating much attention. In view of relatively recent worldwide revelations, I am at a loss to understand why any modern woman would want to be a priest or a bishop in the first place. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Canon Stephen Neill is wholly wrong to suggest that the Vatican has equated women’s ordination with paedophilia (July 20th).
The document Normae de Gravioribus Delictis has updated the church’s response to sacramental and moral offences; in particular the way the church deals with priests guilty of paedophilia, and is a much needed reform.
Sacramental offences, which Canon Neill lists, such as female ordination are not viewed by the Vatican to be of a similar nature or gravity as the abuse of children; as Monsignor Charles Scicluna (Vatican’s prosecutor for paedophilia) has stated. To suggest that because the church excludes individuals who break canon law that the church views their sins to be of equal gravity is nonsensical. All institutions have rules which if broken, result in exclusion. Just because different incidents are not compatible with the Catholic priesthood, doesn’t mean that they are viewed as being equally grave.
If a business sacked one employee for lack of punctuality and another for assaulting a colleague; nobody would suggest that the business owner was equating being late with being violent. Civil authorities would respond to an assault, but clearly not to the lazy employee. For a business however, recurrent lateness and violence are both incompatible with being an employee, though not equivalent.
The document, which is available online in English, should be viewed as a positive reform of canon law; toughening the church’s response to priests who are guilty of the most heinous of crimes. Female ordination is a separate debate, though as the Church doesn’t support the ordination of women, one must not be greatly shocked that those who do break the rules of an institution are reprimanded. – Yours, etc,