Women in Comparative Societies

Catholicism

Sloyan begins his chapter with the “neutral” question of whether Christianity has helped, hurt or been neutral toward women, women’s status.  It assumes that everyone will accept as evidence references to the Torah and Bible and Church teachings

Uses Mary and the lives of the Saints as evidence “canon” “text” as well

Sloyan clearly coming from the Catholic SACRAMENTAL tradition - sacraments the link between God and man, man and man, man and woman.  He speaks of “all the baptized” as the only people who can be agents of change in the Church - sacrament as the gate keeper

Hierarchy  God over man, man over woman, man and woman over children.  The only model, the only possible conception of life, ordering of life.  World order based on power over (most evident in work of St John Chrysostom 169-170)

The Sloyan chapter, on the other hand, takes a historical-developmental approach starting with pre-Christian and early Christian eras as its starting points.  Its framing of who women are is clearly circumscribed by Biblical references and Church teachings on women.  It immediately makes the connection between women and sexuality, women and marriage, in other words, women are defined in relation (sexual relation) to men and family, not as independent, discrete agents. Likewise, one could aruge, man is defined in reference to God.  At times, it does imply that perhaps Christian teachings have had something to do with women’s disempowerment both in the Church and in the world, but it also argues that Chrisianity strengthened women’s status by protecting them from male initiated divorce, by allowing widows to practice some forms of ministry, and saving women’s children from abortion/infanticide.   It credits Christianity with serving to “protect” women (from men’s abuse, throwing them away, shirking their responsibilities).  It has much less to say about how it has harmed women.  In fact, every instance of the Church sanctioning unequal treatment of men and women is justified by saying “that’s how they did it then anyway.”  Is the Church merely reflecting existing custom or is it perpetuating and/or constructing gender roles, norms???  Think of some examples to support your answer either way.

Sloyan doesn’t considers how the “protection” afforded women in marriage is based on a notion of women as dependent upon men and as inherently childlike beings.  In other words, the whole treatment is paternalistic toward women.  While this treatment may be beneficial for some women, it reflects a very specific notion of “gender justice,” one that is considerable different from the one articulated by Ellison.

Sloyan says that democratic momentum is building in the Church and in the world but its a long slow process.  Structural changes in power will not happen until the men at the top decide its okay, reinterpret existing texts, customs in a new light.  Has to come from the bishops (176);  says that it’s only been this centralized for about 150 years implying that the pendulum will swing back in a more decentralized direction eventually.

Clear that no radical break with the past is possible.  Will continue to be a very literal, text-bound interpretation of woman, sexual relations, gender roles.

Based on the stark differences observed what is the likely starting point for Inter-Faith Dialogue on the status of women??

Is there any common ground here?  Room for collaboration, collective action?
 

Ends with some words about democratization in the Church, that women will soon demand more participative role.  He makes an interesting point that both men and women laity are without voice, implying that this revolution is not really about women’s lack of voice, but all Catholic laity.

As a professor, I find his citations from Timothy barring women from teaching (prophesying) particularly disturbing.  How are we to reconcile these kinds of proscriptions in the Bible with how we live today???
 

How does Sloyan answer this question? ? [Basically, he says that in reality women laity are playing a wide variety of ministerial roles already e.g. presiding at funerals and distributing communion gifts from previous celebrations of the Eucharist.  So, in his view women already have the power to “invoke” the sacred.  Represent the sacred (i.e., received the sacrament of ordo, become ordained, he thinks this is most unlikely to change - cites unbroken tradition, and that a lot would have to change in terms of gender equality BEFORE this could happen.  Do you agree that cultural change must precede change within the Church?])