Sexism in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is often spoken of as one of the last bastions of male power. After all, it lays claim to have been founded by a young man, who chose to appoint twelve males as the top leaders of his new church. Still, in the early centuries, after the crucifixion of Christ, women were frequently ordained deacons and some served as priests in the fourth and fifth centuries. However, the anti-woman Roman laws and culture, which dominated the West at that time, came to permeate Church thinking. This tradition gave pre-eminent position and importance to the male, consigning women to second-rate status. Many would say that this unfortunate sexism continues in Church thinking to the present day. Small groups of Catholics, who advocate for a priesthood that is open to both sexes, similar to what prevails in many Protestant denominations, are shunned by the official church, especially in Rome, where such views are deemed anathema, that is, to be completely rejected by the faithful.

Progressive Catholics tend to view the aging male hierarchy as a major obstacle to needed change in the Church. They shake their heads in disbelief when they hear pronouncements about important moral issues coming from mostly-old men, who have little connection with the real lives of ordinary people. Pope Paul the Sixth’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, is often cited as an example of this disconnectedness. The Pope did not follow the advice of his own Advisory Commission, which included some lay people, to allow the limited use of contraceptives. Instead, he followed the arcane thinking of the traditionalists. The vast majority of Catholics at that time rejected the papal advice; today, forty years later, very few even know what that encyclical teaches.

The clerical abuse scandals that have rocked the Church throughout the world provide a better example of the inadequacy of celibate, male thinking. I am not concerned here about speculating why so many priests and religious brothers engaged in awful, sinful acts with children, whose welfare and spiritual development they were charged with. The question in this article centers on how so many bishops and religious superiors could be so morally blind in dealing with the crisis? Their modus operandi was first to deny the accusation and to protect the abuser, and, then when the behavior continued, to transfer the priest or brother to some other place where he would continue to have responsibility for young people. If women were scattered throughout the power structure of the Church, would they have been so blind and insensitive to those in their care? Would they have moved sick and dangerous individuals from one childcare setting to another?

Of course, many bishops and curial monsignors in Rome are notoriously removed from the daily lives of most people. In Ireland, some of the bishops called their residences “palaces,” stressing their superior lifestyle, completely disregarding their primary role as servants. Many parish priests live closer to the people; they are far more in touch with the daily struggles of their community. In the two recent American presidential elections there were various pronouncements from bishops, mostly directed against the Democratic nominees, because of the ongoing controversy about the Roe v Wade decision. My priest friends and acquaintances who work in parishes suggest to me that most of their colleagues in the priesthood may well have voted for the Democratic candidate in both elections, with issues of social justice trumping concerns about the abortion issue. I am waiting to see a study which would affirm or deny their hunches.

The Catholic schools in America were – and still are to a decreasing extent – major power bases in the Church community. The Sisters and Brothers who taught in and administered these schools provided an excellent service in the community, and because they were not in it for profit, they welcomed all families, irrespective of financial means. So, the hierarchy laid down the law, but the local nuns and religious brothers were seen as the real Church, the people who connected with and sacrificed for the struggling families in the community.

A letter in yesterday’s Irish Times presents a very interesting and different perspective on this issue of sexism in the Catholic Church. The writer argues that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Church "from its inception, was a thoroughgoing feminine institution.” The writer invites us to consider first the core Christian belief of a virgin birth and continues his argument by pointing to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which clearly indicates that her husband, Joseph, lived a celibate life. Also, Mary, alone among humans, is deemed to be immaculately conceived -- a 19th century construct that most people find bewildering. He argues very cogently that these show a decidedly feminine church. The importance of male sexuality is also diminished by the Church’s mandate on clerical celibacy. According to this view, focusing just on the male hierarchical structure provides a very limited perspective on the dynamics of power in the Church.

The official Catholic Church seems determined to continue as a sexist institution, barring women from ministering on the altar and in the confessional. Most theologians disagree with this blinkered approach, but Church leaders continue to assert and justify the mistaken thinking of previous times. And these leaders appoint their successors, men who, very likely, will be selected, based not on their openness to change and renewal, but on their commitment to traditional thinking. The central Christian message is clouded by a determined and intransigent adherence to a conservative mind frame, especially in the area of women’s rights in the Church in the 21st century.