"What do you think happens when women realise that all we are asking is to be allowed to talk about it again?"
By Regina Nagel
I was asked this question by a woman who, like me, belongs to the Women's Forum in the Synodal Path. It is a legitimate question, and the question behind it is: Is the request for a re-examination of the admission of women to all Church offices a success with global significance or far too mild of a minimum request? I remember a statement by Cardinal Marx at the beginning of the Synodal Path in which he said, mutatis mutandis: "A success would be a decision to ask Rome to re-examine the question of the ordination of women." I thought at the time: "Is that supposed to be all? Surely this cannot be true!" It came true. The foundational text of the Women's Forum says: "Because we are 'all one in Christ Jesus', the non-admission of women to participate in the ordained ministries of the Church urgently requires a renewed theological and anthropological review given the current signs of the times." Below, I will explain how it came to this conclusion and why this demand is insufficient from my perspective. I know that I am not alone in my perception and conviction. At the same time, many women in the Synodal Path and the Catholic women's associations consider the adopted foundational text a success with global significance.
How the Women's Forum and its thematic priorities came about
The reason for the German Bishops' Conference (DBK) to ask the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZDK) if it would be ready for a joint consultation and decision-making construct called "Synodal Path" was the MHG study on sexual abuse and sexual violence against children by clergy of the Catholic Church in Germany. The DBK proposed three topics: Power, Priests, and Sexual Morality. The ZDK was willing to cooperate but on condition that the topic of "ordained ministries for women" was also included as a fourth topic area. The DBK generally agreed but softened the topic by renaming it to "Women in ministries and Church offices". I found both formulations problematic from the outset. They prevented a fundamental analysis with a subsequent focus on facts and the need for action regarding gender justice in our Church. In my opinion, the entire planning of the process was rushed and partly unprofessional. Among other things, the ZDK's willingness to give the bishops a blocking minority in the decision-making process rightly led to criticism. Some speak of "participation simulation" in this context. It was clear from the start that much of what would be discussed could only be decided on a world-church basis and that no bishop could even be forced to abide by the decisions regarding the situation of the Church in Germany. It was clear to me, and at the same time, I saw and still see in the Synodal Path project a good opportunity to discuss Church issues in a way that is effective for the public. I was pleased that the Federal Association of Parish Assistants elected me as a delegate.
At the beginning of my work at the Women's Forum, I was asked to contribute to a book about the Synodal Path. I wrote that the work at the Forum would be successful if the Synodal Path decided to demand equal rights for women in a letter to Rome while also considering all ordained offices and clearly stating that the clerical-hierarchical construct of our Church must be put to the test. I wanted more than Cardinal Marx!
A working group was set up to prepare the work of the Women's Forum. It formulated the following main focuses: "(1) The question of the qualification of ministries and offices as "sacramental". (2) The independent significance of the diaconate (also) for women as an office "sui generis" (in distinction from the presbyterate and episcopate). (3) The calling (also) of women to the apostolate and thus to all ministries and offices in the Church." I couldn't do much with that. These needed to be more explicit demands. On the other hand, I found it interesting what reform-oriented Catholics had named as a concern in the run-up to the first synodal assembly. They wrote about their hope for democratisation and gender justice in the Church. The non-admission of women to all offices was no longer acceptable; there was no plausible argument for the unequal treatment of women. The decisive factor is competence and not gender. Many women told stories of hurt as a background for change requests. Tradition and the Magisterium as sources of theological knowledge, on the other hand, were not an issue. The prevailing conviction was that the representatives of the Magisterium were primarily concerned with safeguarding the privileges and power of men as God's will. My impression from the beginning and now, in retrospect, is that the text, in its justifications, rather reaches dogmatists and representatives of the Magisterium and fewer Catholics who are simply concerned about gender justice in pastoral practice and the power structures in the Church.
From the beginning, the main interest of the Forum leadership was to write a theologically and argumentatively relevant text for the global Church. In the Forum itself, it seemed at first glance as if there were only two directions: a minority of people convinced that the Magisterium had made conclusive, indisputable statements on the subject of women and a large group of reform-oriented people. From the beginning, I considered it impossible for a theological-argumentative discourse between these opposites to lead to a common text. Efforts in this direction failed; the convictions and interests were not compatible. Since then, the minority has withdrawn from the Forum.
In the Forum work, in cooperation with other members, I succeeded in having the text begin with the following goal formulation: "To demand gender justice as the basis of all future courses of action in the Roman Catholic Church is the guiding principle of the following statements". The fact that the text as a whole does not call enough for an end to misogyny in the Church is, in my opinion, partly because a broad spectrum of experts was neglected to be consulted. My impression is that there was a thematic hierarchy among the theologians, from dogmatics to exegesis to pastoral theology. More historical-critical exegesis, Church history, possibly religious history, and including knowledge from the social sciences might have broadened the view.
Reflections on opportunities used and missed in the text
I mentioned at the beginning that the central demand, "The non-admission of women to ordained ministry urgently needs to be re-examined", falls short. We should have written that there are no counter-arguments worthy of discussion and that we demand an immediate end to unequal treatment based on gender in the Catholic Church! Of course, the Synodal Assembly cannot make a decision to ordain women, but it could have said what the Pope's decision must be. If we had been bolder here, the text would most likely have missed two-thirds of the majority of the bishops. For many in the Forum, this was a reason to formulate cautiously. I found and still find it a pity that this attitude prevailed. It is possible that a rejected text would have become much better known than the one adopted. In any case, the rejection of the foundational text of Forum IV ["Life in succeeding relationships - Living love in sexuality and partnership"] has attracted so far much more attention than the adopted foundational text of the Women's Forum.
Following the introduction, the text contains chapters on the challenges of our time, biblical aspects, the history of tradition, and systematic-theological aspects and perspectives. I myself deal intensively with the topic of abuse of power in our Church and am in contact with women affected by spiritual and/or sexual abuse. With this background, I contributed to chapter 2.1 "Frightening: Spiritual and sexual abuse and sexual and sexualised violence against women and girls". I very much regret that the planned associated first reading of the action text "Measures against abuse of women in the Catholic Church" was put at the very end of the agenda from the outset in the last Synodal Assembly. When the Presidium decided during the conference which texts would ultimately make it onto the agenda, it got sorted out as less important. Nevertheless, the topic is set, and I hope it will be taken up in order to develop consequences*. In the further course of the second chapter, the topic of "gender justice" is unfolded. In the "Diagnosis: Comprehensive Need for Reform" section at the end of Chapter 2, we could have named many grievances and their consequences in history and the present. Here we should have demanded that the entire structure, organisation and institution of our Church be put to the test based on the Gospel and human rights. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
The biblical-theological part in chapter 3 was more detailed in its original version and exciting to read, especially in its details. However, from the overall concept of the foundational text, it was necessary to shorten it. As a kind of conclusion, one can read the following towards the end of the chapter: "The present biblical foundation, while taking into account the patriarchal context of origin and interpretation, reveals manifold potentials for the equality of men and women as well as the common mission of believers regardless of their gender for the proclamation of the Gospel."
Chapter 4 also contains interesting information, but the selection seems somewhat one-sided to me. Developments in our Church that were disastrous for women, especially in the last and penultimate centuries, are completely left out. For the period between the Reformation and today, the text concentrates on statements from the Second Vatican Council. Chapters 4 and 5 consist largely of theological argumentation, which seeks to justify admission to the ordained offices within the thinking of the Catholic Church. Of course, they are well-suited for a corresponding theological discourse, but they remain system-immanent, and I doubt that the entrenched opponents are interested in them. I also have the impression that the issue of a gender-independent representation of Christ does not play a major role in everyday life of committed Catholics. It is not only women who are increasingly questioning whether the celebration of the Eucharist requires someone who represents Christ in a special way. Partly due to the pandemic, women in convents and other groups have experienced that they can worship without a priest. They read scripture texts, exchange ideas, pray, share bread, and the Eucharist happens. I am glad that this development is at least taken into consideration in the foundational text: "In the long run, no church doctrine will be able to prove itself sustainable and relevant to action which is questioned or rejected altogether by an ever-increasing number of those endowed with a sense of faith and which also cannot be convincingly justified theologically-scientifically and biblically-theologically."
What pleases me is that the following sentence also appears in the comments on the worldwide situation: "It is to be noted, for example, that on the one hand, women worldwide have made and continue to make an essential contribution to the transmission of the Gospel, but on the other hand they have been made invisible in history and the present and have had to and still have to experience violence". I hope that through the foundational text, we will not only be able to bring the admission of women to all offices and the necessary discussion about the theology of offices more firmly into the discussion worldwide. More importantly, I would like our Church to realise that it must become a pioneer or at least a fellow campaigner in ending misogyny everywhere in the world.
The conclusion from my point of view
- Theologically, the text argues at a professional, high level and certainly lends itself to a discussion at that level.
- What bothers me is that the text only calls for the resumption of discussions and a re-examination of John Paul II's statements by the current Pope. I lack a clear statement that the arguments have long been on the table and that there are only theologically-constructed and power-interest-based alleged counter-arguments.
- I also miss a more critical historical view of the development of offices, of the developments in the 19th century and the regressions by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think it is necessary to question the idea of a magisterium that places itself above scientific-theological work.
- We should have made it clearer that there are theologically and pastorally qualified pastoral workers in Germany, many of whom already preach (in the sense of the homily in the Eucharistic celebration), bury and, more recently, baptise. Yes, some women have a religious profession and would like to be ordained as deacons or priests. Given their qualifications, this would be possible without any problems. For many, however, a commission to lead and/or administer the sacraments would be quite sufficient. They do not want to be clergy at all. Their concern is gender justice. In a Church where the ordained ministry is the decisive power factor, gender must not be a reason for exclusion.
- When we talk about gender justice in our Church, it is about more than the text's title indicates. It is about human rights and about preventing the abuse of power. In conclusion, I, therefore, quote another sentence from the foundational text: "Given the horror of spiritual and sexualised violence against women and the continuing marginalisation and discrimination of women in the Roman Catholic Church, an admission of guilt and a change of awareness and behaviour are urgently needed."
Regina Nagel is parish assistants in the diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart and member of the German Synodal Path Forum “Women in ministries and Church offices”
* The text is expected to be presented for first reading at the last synodal assembly in March 2023.