Michael Hamar points to a New York Times opinion piece which, contemplating the imminent arrival of married Anglican priests into the Catholic fold, reprises the history of that Church’s treatment of women. It’s well worth the read.
Given this history, I caution the clerical wife to be on guard as she enters her role as a sacerdotal attaché. Her position is an anomalous one and, as the Vatican has repeatedly insisted, one that will not receive permanent welcome in the church. That said, for the time being, it will be prudent for the Vatican to honor the dignity of the wives and children of its freshly ordained married priests. And here, I suggest, a real conversation about the continuation of priestly celibacy might begin.
Until then, priests’ wives should beware a religious tradition that views them, in the words of Damian, as “the clerics’ charmers, devil’s choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death … the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers.”
That’s harsh, allright, but certainly in keeping with Christianity’s traditional teachings about women. Recall this inventory of quotes from the early church fathers:
-
Clement of Alexandria: “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.”
-
Tertullian: “Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags.”
-
Ambrose: “Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam… it is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability.”
-
Augustine: “Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God.”
-
Pope Gregory I: “Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her ‘use’ is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood.”
-
Thomas Aquinas: “[Woman] was made only to assist with procreation.”
-
John Knox: “Woman was made for only one reason, to serve and obey man.”
-
John Wesley: “Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born.”
Now, I don’t believe that even a tone-deaf moron like Al Mohler would say these things aloud today — but that attitude is implicit, embedded within, the whole of Christian thought and teaching. It is what informs the Baptist horror of women pastors, for instance, and the swift discharge from ‘fellowship’ of any church that doesn’t toe the line.
Michael adds, pertinently:
I cannot help but wonder about the mental state of women willing to assume such a detested role. They must be as psychologically damaged and filled with self-loathing as the twisted gay men who inhabit the ranks of the Catholic clergy.
That remark goes directly to what I consider the insurmountable failing of Christian ethical teachings: They rely on the degradation of the believer.
What healthy man or woman believes that to live is to be inherently guilty and unfit to live? But without that teaching, salvation is not needed and Christianity has nothing on offer. No wonder there is such a concentration of sick and deformed human beings leading the churches.
And it can never change. All of (Western) Christian thought relies upon Original Sin and, if you take it away, the whole rickety thing collapses. I won’t live long enough to see it, but 100-years from now, or 200- or 500-years from now, men are going to look back and marvel that such a sick and perverse teaching held sway for so long.
