The Institutional Silencing of Women by Natalie Weaver

Natalie Weaver

On July 26, 2013, I had the opportunity to hear Rev. Helmut Schüller speak at the City Club of Cleveland’s Friday Forum.  He spoke to a convened audience of around 150 people, in addition to the much greater broadcast audience, and he responded to questions that ranged from wholly supportive, to sincerely questioning, to highly critical.  I myself sat with a group of vowed religious women from Pittsburgh who seemed enthusiastic about Rev. Schüller’s Austrian Priests’ Initiative, while behind me sat a table of obvious, vocal critics.

Rev. Schüller’s initiative, now represented by over 400 priests, began in 2006 as an effort to mobilize priests to lead the way for change in the Catholic Church in at least four crucial areas: women’s ordination; married priesthood; same-sex marriages; and lay participatory voting in the election of their bishops.  Of course, Catholics have been having these conversations long before the Priests’ Initiative.  What makes Father Schüller’s work different is that it is an “insider job.”  He argued that the laity have done their part, and now it is time for the clergy to speak, even at some personal and professional risk to themselves.

I respect Father Schüller’s work, if in no other way, in the fact that he has elected to use his position of privilege in order to speak.  For, I have read and heard from lay theologians much more persuasive theological arguments for ecclesial change than those warrants that Schüller himself offered.  The difference here, however, is that Schüller is speaking as an activist reformer-priest.  This means he speaks with institutional voice and not as one categorically exempted from the official conversation.

As I reflect on the talk, I am reminded of an egregious omission I have observed for years as a regular parishioner at a Jesuit parish.  The omission reflects the androcentric bias characteristic of the institutionally voiced (however well-meaning).  For over a decade, I have heard rich and nuanced dialogue about the poor, social justice, and solidarity with those who suffer.  Yet, those suffering poor always seem far away, located south of the US boarder, and never explicitly identified as women.  Now, it should be noted that I here am saying nothing at all about material poverty in Central and South America.  I am, rather, noting that such discourse about poverty per se is ideologically different from direct discussion of the specific conditions of women’s poverty – local and global.

For, discussion of the specific conditions of women’s global impoverishment would identify such aspects as:

1)     severely disproportionate unpaid labor burden on women worldwide;
2)     gross economic disparity in paid labor;
3)     a modern, global, neo-feudal structure in which women own almost none of the resources and property upon which they labor for no or unequal pay;
4)     profound risk and common experience of sexual assault, domestic battery, and even murder; and
5)     historical and ongoing exclusion of women from participation and leadership in the political, ecclesial, and educational institutions that – despite women’s exclusion- nevertheless define women’s lives.

The Roman Catholic Church cares about poverty.  Catholic Social Teaching makes explicit seven core guiding principles, inspired by the Gospel message and understood as the moral duty of all Christians today.  These principles poignantly mandate a Christian option for the poor and for solidarity with the world’s suffering.

Catholic Social Teaching, moreover, relies heavily on the principle of “subsidiarity,” which teaches that people should be empowered at the individual and/or most local organizational levels of society to take care of themselves.  The Church would strive, then, to address poverty by helping the poor to help themselves, offering a “hand-up” rather than a “hand-out.”

It is here that I would like to suggest that since poverty is experienced most intimately by women (and the children women care for), then the Church has an obligation to name poverty as such.  Moreover, Church leaders need to name and identify in unambiguous terms those conditions of women’s lives (including ecclesial conditions themselves) which contribute to and compound women’s material poverty and lead to institutionalized, ideologically reinforced, and systematically experienced vulnerability in nearly every aspect of women’s life.

I would moreover suggest that, in light of the subsidiarity principle, the Church ought strive to do everything in its power to help women themselves to shirk the disproportionate burdens of poverty through a widespread initiative aimed at empowering women to voice their experiences, speak their truths, and securely live in the goodness of God’s creation.  While the Church in its Vatican II documents does speak plainly to non-discrimination against women, it does so in such a way that continues 1) to place women within a demarcated, essentialist sphere interpretively purposed for women by God and 2) to require women to rely on men’s voices to speak for them in all matters of formal, ecclesial being.  Both qualifications, I believe, continue to sacralize the very conditions that ensure women’s poverty, and the latter qualification specifically militates against the principle of subsidiarity for poor women.  Women, at best, are ecclesially stuck in a well-meaning paternalism, dependent on man’s generosity, guidance, tolerance, and welcome.

So, in conclusion, I appreciated the energy and vision surrounding Rev. Schüller’s talk.  I also appreciated very much that he sees his work not as idiosyncratically, personally constructed but rather as a representation of the organically raised concerns of his parishioners.  However, while I am encouraged that some priests are using their privilege to speak in matters of ecclesial reform for those who are formally, institutionally voiceless, such a need for them to do so at all sorely illustrates that many of us are still remanded to sitting at the children’s table, waiting for the occasional invitation to say something, or even better, perhaps, to have a taste of wine.

Natalie Kertes Weaver, Ph.D., is Chair and Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Ursuline College in Pepper Pike, Ohio. Natalie’s academic books include: Marriage and Family: A Christian Theological Foundation (Anselm, 2009); Christian Thought and Practice: A Primer (Anselm, 2012); and The Theology of Suffering and Death: An Introduction for Caregivers (Routledge, 2013). Natalie is currently writing Made in the Image of God: Intersex and the Revisioning of Theological Anthropology (Wipf & Stock, 2014).  Natalie has also authored two art books: Interior Design: Rooms of a Half-Life and Baby’s First Latin.  Natalie’s areas of interest and expertise include: feminist theology; theology of suffering; theology of the family; religion and violence; and (inter)sex and theology.  Natalie is a married mother of two sons, Valentine and Nathan.  For pleasure, Natalie studies classical Hebrew, poetry, piano, and voice.

Categories: Activism, Catholic Church, Catholicism, Church Doctrine, Feminism, Gender and Power, General, Justice, Patriarchy, power, Sexism, Women in the Church

Tags: , ,

10 replies

  1. Schuller’s initiative sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. I wonder if the Vatican will punish him further or de-frock him. It is very important that feminist and other lay voices are joined by the clergy in calling for reform in the RC Church. I’m sure the rat-zinger would have loved to have been able to have stopped him. PS I am among those who have been prohibited from speaking on Catholic ground, in my case a girls high school in Sydney, Australia, by Cardinal Pell, whose action put me on p. 3 of the Sydney Morning Herald and doubled my audience! Good work Cardinal Pell.


  2. And what does Rev. Helmutt Schuller’s “PI” have to do with salvation? In that disobedience is the prime ingredient of the fallen nature of Man, just how would following the PI “Call to Disobedience” actually lead anyone any closer to God in Heaven?

    Where has it been shown in Salvation History that disobeying the authority and teachings of Christ’s assigned authority on earth, to whom He gave the “keys,” would ever lead the Faithful closer to God and salvation?

    How would it help for the same American Catholics who voted in an abortion-loving, fornication-promoting President to also begin voting in bishops who are supposed to be consecrated to God? Are you seriously supporting this possibility?

    Your article misses two fundamental ingredients which will solve the problem of so-called poverty of which you write: 1) God; 2) obedience to God. All of the solutions would follow these two “ingredients,” not the facades of so-called “reforms” led by an unauthorized priest who can not lead because he does not follow and therefore does not accept the Christ-appointed authority of the Church – that it is the Holy Spirit Who directs that authority. In disobeying Church authority, He disobeys the Holy Spirit – God.

    “…many of us are still remanded to sitting at the children’s table, waiting for the occasional invitation to say something, or even better, perhaps, to have a taste of wine.”? What if Jesus Christ Himself told you to be quiet and sit down? Would you obey Him? Do you really think He would not command you to do something which your rebellious spirit detests? Pray on this.


  3. Good luck to you and Fr. Schuller and all your allies. I hope you can stand up to almost 2,000 years of history and privilege in a church whose hierarchy seems to me to have become meaningless. I hope you can give your church some true meaning.


  4. Sounds like Fr. Schuller is doing good work. To bad you could only dedicate 1/3 of a post to someone actually working for change. On the other 2/3 of the post. Why should we only care about the half of the population that is women? 99.9% of the worlds population, men and women, are in the same boat. The 0.01% difference in the % of men with power vs % of women with power is irrelevant to 99.9% of people. Do you really think that a few hundred men with power is good justification for ignoring and marginalizing the 99.9% of men that don’t have power?


  5. I’ve never met 99.9% of men who don’t have power ever die in childbirth, after being raped by a male relative. I’ve never met these so-called disempowered men ever mention having to endure a rape filled marriage, mutiple forced childbirths, and double time at paid work and the extra shift of home care that is routinely the lot of hetero women globally. And I’m sure Jesus, when he tells these men in power to cease and desist, they of course shut up and listen to him.

    The reason the Catholic church continues to oppress men, is because women still cling to it, still support it, and still undermine genuine feminist revolution. The male bastion would collapse when women walked out of it, never to return, collapse of its own dead preditory weight, collapse of its child raping predilections. And marriage and war would collapse when women stopped producing the next generation of oppressors and soldiers… the game would be up the minute hetero women stopped serving these oppressors, and I ask myself day in and day out, when are hetero women going to cease serving these lords, masters and manics? When?


  6. Catholic church is based on desempowerment of women. It´s one of the most patriarchal institutions in the world and it has been so for the last…2013 years. Maybe this priest has good intentions. But reality shows us that a deep change of mind is needed to achieve an actual revolution within the church. Are they in the Vatican going to accept this? Are catholic people willing this change for real?


  7. Hi i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anywhere, when i read this post i
    thought i could also make comment due to this brilliant article.


  8. Excellent way of telling, and fastidious post to take facts on the topic of my presentation topic, which i
    am going to deliver in school.


  9. I blog often and I seriously appreciate your information.
    This article has really peaked my interest. I am going to take a note of your website and keep checking
    for new details about once per week. I opted in for your RSS feed as well.


  10. Heyɑ i am for the first timе here. I сame acгоoss
    tҺіѕ board аnd I find It reallƴ useful & it hellƿed me out a lot.
    I hope to give sօmething back and ɑid otheгs like you helped me.


Please familiarize yourself with our Comment Policy before posting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: