Do priests "get" women?
An insightful (if devastating) commentary on the remarks of the new secretary for the Congregation for Religious, Joseph Tobin, about women religious by Eugene Cullen Kennedy at NCR. Tobin's appointment was greeted with some relief by U.S. women religious because he might offer a more sympathetic ear in Rome, especially as the visitation of U.S. women religious continues.
Kennedy, a psychologist and former priest, however, notes that Tobin still reflects a clerical culture that is incapable of dealing with women as equals:
"The voice of the cleric is heard in the land as [Tobin] explains the origins of his fresh approach. 'I've worked all my life with women religious ...' They taught him as a kid, he continues, and his mother's family was close to the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters. 'I've preached women's retreats and listened a lot to them over the years.' No doubt the archbishop-to-be cannot hear what we can overhear, a classic cleric's viewpoint on why he understands women in general and women religious in particular. Why, he had them in school and he's preached to them and listened a lot to them. Would it be more reassuring if he told us that he once loved a woman or that he knows the depths of a real relationship with a woman who was not looking down at him at his school desk or up to him in a pulpit?"
Kennedy is a little more complimentary to Tobin than that, but his point that a life in an almost exclusively male environment, and 12 years in the sheltered and distilled clerical culture of the Vatican, is not the best environment to experience women as professional equals, much less superiors. To be a priest who reports to a woman in a professional capacity is a rarity indeed.
Though I have no doubt Tobin intends to be encouraging, I can see how some might hear his comments as partronizing, though one hopes Tobin gets the benefit of the doubt, and U.S. women religious thus far seem hopeful.
male-female friendship
By Jennifer (not verified) on Friday, August 27, 2010This is a really good discusison.
To the many who commented on freidnship between men and women, you might be interested in a new book on intimate, but chaste, friendship between men and women "Sacred Unions Sacred Passions" by Dan Brennan. He's an evangelical, but interacts with Catholic authors very well in the book.
Here is a link to Amazon's page for the book http://tinyurl.com/28ahgtk
Dan is a great resource
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, August 27, 2010... and your friendship is a testament to my experience of friendship with me. Jennifer, I am thrilled to "read" you here and to see Dan's book at Amazon. I communicated with you and Dan last winter, on his blog about cross-gender friendships and loved the exchange. I am spending this Christmas with the family of my best friend and closest spiritual friend: a grandfather of seven who has been married to the love of his life for 34 years. Our friendship pre-dates my discernment of religious life and has been, in fact, the forum and greatest support for my discovery of this new path: God's presence in our chaste and celibate yet deeply loving friendship taught me the possibilities of a life commmitted to God and all that God would bring into my world. These friendships of which we are all writing are a beautiful gift. Thanks for the link to Dan's book. J
How wonderful! Sounds like
By Jennifer (not verified) on Friday, August 27, 2010How wonderful! Sounds like you will have a great holiday. :-)
Dan's book is a serious interaction with scripture and history. I think anyone considering these themes would enjoy it. No one is writing better on this topic.
Jennifer - that description
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, August 27, 2010Jennifer - that description of the book makes it sound even more enticing. in this current culture, in which we have become so comfortable with talking about and having sex, i am still not convinced that we are reallly all that comfortable with ourselves as sexual beings, in the sense that we are beings with many aspects - our sexual selves just one of them. Now I know what to get my friend for Christmas now. Maybe my blogging-buddy here will check it out, too. Thanks again. J
I read Professor Kennedy's
By Joan Krebs. Glenview, IL (not verified) on Sunday, August 15, 2010I read Professor Kennedy's NCR article in a different mindset. Previously I read John Allen who projected unadulterated hope Fr. Tobin's appointment would heal all wounds & rancor of curial investigations of U.S. religious women. My reaction to Allen's article was "Whoa. Not so fast. Sure this is a ray of hope, but only so. Fr. Tobin seems a nice enough person, but he's going to live and work in Rome exclusively for goodness sake!" The main reason for not prematurely idolizing soon-to-be Archbishop Tobin is a problem (some say "sin") of centuries of clerical culture. Although a man-woman divide is huge, the divide between church with a small "c" and Church with a capital "RC" is even greater. Fr. Tobin's major problem is that he has, with best of intentions, accepted an appointment to a curial post in an institution that wants to turn the clock back to pre-Vatican II. I've heard of the Power of One, but in my mind that One can only be the Holy Spirit, not Fr. Joseph Tobin. Bottom line: I agree with Kennedy's thesis and for the same reason he stated it.
please don't conflate issues unnecessarily.........
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 20105% of priests abused children. the importance of that should never be minimized: it is a horror.
but it is also true that that leaves 95% of priests who did not abuse children.
can we please stop trying to understand the sexuality of the 95% as if they are the 5%?
the corollary here, of course, is do women (and women religious) "get men"?
it is an obnoxious and reductive question to begin with.
do men have to sex with women to "get" them?
that is a wildly disrespectfully statement about women and, by the way, plays right into the oldest pick-up line in the book...
and, even more importantly, presents a very deep and serious challenge to the Gospels as I understand them: we can understand each, perhaps even best understand each other, as children of God.
if we cannot accept that that can be true for priests, then there is no logical foundation for believing it can be true for religious women.
i know that challenges many agendas for change within the Church (many of which I support) but our wishes do not change what is true.
Men and women will never "get" each other
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010I'm a married husband and father. You bring up a valid point with the corollary question, "Do women "get" men?" I am firmly convinced that it is impossible for men and women to understand each other except as fellow human beings. The feminist movement was necessary to gain women the civil rights they did not have but its assertion that there are no fundamental differences between men and women except the physical was and is untrue. Men and women are VERY different and will never "get" each other. Before the feminist movement this was generally accepted by both sexes. After, it is still known by men as a "duh" but many women sincerely think they understand men. This "understanding" usually boils down to how simple, basic and clod-headed we are supposed to be. During the women's movement men who claimed to understand women is a similar way were properly set straight but many women seem to think it's an OK "understanding" of men for them. Women's current "understanding" of men seems to have come from equating equal civil rights with gender equality to the point of rejecting inherent differences between the sexes. All that said, I think a man who has a long term sexual relationship with a woman as in marriage understands women better than a man who doesn't. They still have only half a clue but it's more than a man who only knows women casually.
anon - i agree with almost
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010anon - i agree with almost everything you say here. the suggestion that women can "get" men in a way men cannot get "women" is nothing short of profound gender-based (and sexist) arrogance on the part of some feminists and many women. (and i just buy it that being a mother to men confers some absolute knowledge of men. it provides another experience of men just like being a father to women provides another experience of women. and no the relatve difference in the amount of time mother spend with sons as compared with the amount of time men spend with daughters stiil does not mean that women "get" men. they may observe a greater number of difference due to simple exposure but that is NOT the same thing as "getting" men).
continued below
my one disagreement is this
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010my one disagreement is this and i think it is more than semantics: you say that men who have a long-term sexual relationship with women likely understand women better than men who know women "casually".
i have several long-term close friendships with heterosexual, married men (who have never cheated on their wives) and, though those friendships have never been and never will be sexual, those friendships are by no means "casual". as a consequence of those very intimate friendships, we both "get" the other gender so much better than we would without these non-sexual relationships. though my own marriage ended in divorce, my husband and i remain friends in large part because my male friends taught me to appreciate my husband as a person and not just my former sexual/marriage partner and friendship with me enriches their understanding of their wives and other women in their lives as women. two men who are becoming part of my inner circle of friends are two priests - straight and celibate and chaste. friendship between men and women can be every bit as deep (and chaste) as marriage can be. but it requires that we start with connecting with each other, first and foremost, as human beings - as your rightly say.
thanks for talking...
Good Point
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, August 14, 2010That's a very interesting and valid point you make about mothers. I'd never thought about it but you're probably right that mothers understand boys and men better than women who are not mothers or fathers understand daughters. I have two teenage boys who drive me crazy but I basically understand them having been a hell raising male teenager myself. My 10 year-old daughter is as "girl" as it comes and I'll never understand her the same way. She is much more animated than my wife and cracks me up with her "girl attitude" moves which I thinks she gets from the Disney Channel. I should add that she is very modest and probably the most religious of us all. As far as the sexes understanding each other in nonsexual relationships do you think that having had a sexual relationship with your ex-husband (sorry about your divorce) gave you added insight to your non-sexual friendships with men? I would think so. It's interesting to me that you have close friendships with priests. I thought that was discouraged. None of my business but could it possibly be because of your age? I would think it would be considered more appropriate with older women than younger ones. But thanks for your perspective. It got me thinking which for us men is hard to do ;-#


