In this episode, KT and Mary discuss Abigail Favale’s book The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory, including whether women are just as much a part of the tradition as men, issues surrounding the notion that men image Christ and women image the Church, and thinking about what women contribute beyond motherhood.
I read Abigail Favale’s “The Genesis of Gender” a little under a year ago, so I really appreciated being able to hear your thoughts. You both brought up some very good points. For example, it is odd how we have a term to describe male theologians who have formed Church tradition as “Church Fathers”, but how we don’t have an equivalent term to describe similar female theologians and saints, like “Church Mothers”. There are four women who hold the official title “Doctor of the Church” alongside men such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and St. Hildegard of Bingen), but I certainly do not hear about them as often as male theologians.
It is also really interesting that it’s been your experience that of optional feasts and holy days, priests tend to select the days of other priests to venerate and gloss over lesser known female saints, and how the call for men to imitate saintly women is often absent. I remember reading an article from FemCatholic when Kerry Alys Robinson became the first laywoman CEO of Catholic Charities USA (Sister Donna Markham was the first female CEO of CCUSA). In an interview she gave, Robinson mentions how the Sunday liturgy itself often omits significant passages of Scripture that pertain to women (e.g. the story of Deborah, the entire books of Ruth and Esther, and the story of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene risen). So, of practicing Catholics who attend church on Sundays, they never have a chance to hear about these women from the liturgy itself. I also read an essay by Ruth Fox, titled “Women in the Bible and the Lectionary”, where she highlights the same issue in greater depth. It’s shocking how there seems to be a significant liturgical oversight which has led to an omission of women. I'd love to hear if anyone has thoughts on this:
(I had some quibbles with the essay, but found it to be insightful. Also of note is that it was originally published in 1996, so since then, St. Mary Magdalene's memorial has been elevated to a feast day, and St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1997) and St. Hildegard of Bingen (2012) have also been named Doctors of the Church. There also might be other changes I am unaware of.)
Thanks for sharing this article. I'm going to try to have some self-discipline and not read it until my schoolwork is done for the week, but maybe it will get an episode!
It would be interesting to do a comparison of what you hear if you go to daily Mass versus only Sunday Mass. I noticed earlier in the year (or maybe technically last) that in the rotation of daily Mass readings Ruth gets one day (and thus most of her story untold), but whatever other obscure OT book was next got a week. You could say: well the other book is probably talking about prophecies of the Messiah and showing the plight of unfaithfulness to the covenant. But for Catholics, Ruth is just as much divine revelation as any of the other books. If we don't see as direct of a connection to what we're ready to recognize as important, maybe we should do more spiritual and intellectual work trying to figure out why God wanted all the faithful for all of time to know about Ruth.
Knowing about women in the Bible besides Mary shouldn't be only for the Catholics who go to Mass during the week. It should be part of the basic instruction of all believers. This is more striking if you sit down and read each of the Gospels straight through, because especially Mark and Luke make it clear that women were the only ones who fulfilled what they understood to be the definition of discipleship (e.g. for Mark: following Christ to the cross). In a culture and society that deemed women to be barely even human, all the Gospels acknowledge that the risen Christ appeared first to women--the least authoritative witnesses he could have chosen. God isn't dumb. He did that for a reason.
Popping in just briefly to note that the Bergsma Pitre intro to the OT goes through each book of the OT and at the end, notes where the book shows up in the Mass cycle and I think also where it shows up in the liturgy of the hours.
Wow, definitely no obligations, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the essay/article! I'm interested to pay more attention in Mass now to what readings are selected, as well as what is highlighted in each homily. I care deeply about women in the Church, so I have to remind myself that that’s a bias I have when examining the liturgy and faith at large. In general, there are a lot of OT readings we don’t get to hear on Sundays, and even weekdays. Some are omitted for timing, and others are omitted for prudence if they are difficult to understand. I think I get concerned not because I suspect any malice behind the omission of certain readings, but because when particular readings are chosen over others, it frames the way we view our faith in ways most people won’t be conscious of. To highlight one example, why is it that on Easter Sunday each year, if the Gospel reading of is John is chosen, it only covers John 20:1-9? I think it’s very odd that we don’t include the appearance of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene in the continuing verses (v. 10-18), given that Easter Sunday is supposed to be about proclaiming Christ as risen. And of course, it also omits a beautiful story about a heroine of the faith when a lot of Catholics are actually attending Mass. I think that a consequence of the liturgy not including certain readings that pertain to women on Sundays (and other widely attended holy days) is that a lot of women miss out on hearing the ways that God has chosen to form relationships with women, as well as the diversity of feminine vocations.
Something that’s shaped my perspective on God and my faith is my understanding of the Bible. I read the entire Bible a few years ago, and I’ve also read the Gospels straight through a few times now. One thing I notice about my experience when I talk to most Catholic women is that there is a knowledge gap in our understanding of Biblical women. For example, it’s not uncommon for me to run into other women who are unaware that there were female prophets in the OT (and NT), or that Jesus had a group of female disciples in the NT. Even my mom didn’t know that Jesus had female followers who traveled with Him, and she’s a lifelong Catholic in her mid-fifties! She was stunned when I pointed out Luke 8:1-3 to her (and the implications of Mark 15:40-41/Matthew 27:55-56), because she had never remembered hearing about a group of Jesus’s female followers who had accompanied Him not only at Calvary, but also in His ministry and all the way to the cross. Of course, all of these stories of real women functioning throughout salvation history are technically in the Bible, but it does concern me that a great number of Catholics might not be aware of them.
"When particular readings are chosen over others, it frames the way we view our faith in ways most people won’t be conscious of."
This is key. And omitting pretty much all the readings about women from the Sunday cycle of readings implies that those who get to make those decisions (all men) don't think about how it might negatively impact the more-than-half of people in the pews on any given Sunday to see all men on the TV screen when the pope is elected, all men in the sanctuary, and hear about all men in the readings. None of the people making the decisions know what it feels like to grow up in/live in/worship in a Church where people like you seem to be erased. Not talking about women of the Bible in the liturgy most definitely frames the way we view our faith, especially the way we as a body and community of believers--what is considered to pertain to our collective identity and shared life rather than private devotion--think about the integral wholeness of the faith. If thinking about women in the Bible is 'only for women' and doesn't matter for people (note: mostly women) to hear on Sundays, why did God put it in the Bible? Especially: why did he put it in the New Testament?
I read Abigail Favale’s “The Genesis of Gender” a little under a year ago, so I really appreciated being able to hear your thoughts. You both brought up some very good points. For example, it is odd how we have a term to describe male theologians who have formed Church tradition as “Church Fathers”, but how we don’t have an equivalent term to describe similar female theologians and saints, like “Church Mothers”. There are four women who hold the official title “Doctor of the Church” alongside men such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and St. Hildegard of Bingen), but I certainly do not hear about them as often as male theologians.
It is also really interesting that it’s been your experience that of optional feasts and holy days, priests tend to select the days of other priests to venerate and gloss over lesser known female saints, and how the call for men to imitate saintly women is often absent. I remember reading an article from FemCatholic when Kerry Alys Robinson became the first laywoman CEO of Catholic Charities USA (Sister Donna Markham was the first female CEO of CCUSA). In an interview she gave, Robinson mentions how the Sunday liturgy itself often omits significant passages of Scripture that pertain to women (e.g. the story of Deborah, the entire books of Ruth and Esther, and the story of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene risen). So, of practicing Catholics who attend church on Sundays, they never have a chance to hear about these women from the liturgy itself. I also read an essay by Ruth Fox, titled “Women in the Bible and the Lectionary”, where she highlights the same issue in greater depth. It’s shocking how there seems to be a significant liturgical oversight which has led to an omission of women. I'd love to hear if anyone has thoughts on this:
https://futurechurch.org/women-in-church-leadership/celebrating-women-witnesses/women-in-the-bible-and-the-lectionary-by-ruth-fox-osb/
(I had some quibbles with the essay, but found it to be insightful. Also of note is that it was originally published in 1996, so since then, St. Mary Magdalene's memorial has been elevated to a feast day, and St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1997) and St. Hildegard of Bingen (2012) have also been named Doctors of the Church. There also might be other changes I am unaware of.)
Thanks for sharing this article. I'm going to try to have some self-discipline and not read it until my schoolwork is done for the week, but maybe it will get an episode!
It would be interesting to do a comparison of what you hear if you go to daily Mass versus only Sunday Mass. I noticed earlier in the year (or maybe technically last) that in the rotation of daily Mass readings Ruth gets one day (and thus most of her story untold), but whatever other obscure OT book was next got a week. You could say: well the other book is probably talking about prophecies of the Messiah and showing the plight of unfaithfulness to the covenant. But for Catholics, Ruth is just as much divine revelation as any of the other books. If we don't see as direct of a connection to what we're ready to recognize as important, maybe we should do more spiritual and intellectual work trying to figure out why God wanted all the faithful for all of time to know about Ruth.
Knowing about women in the Bible besides Mary shouldn't be only for the Catholics who go to Mass during the week. It should be part of the basic instruction of all believers. This is more striking if you sit down and read each of the Gospels straight through, because especially Mark and Luke make it clear that women were the only ones who fulfilled what they understood to be the definition of discipleship (e.g. for Mark: following Christ to the cross). In a culture and society that deemed women to be barely even human, all the Gospels acknowledge that the risen Christ appeared first to women--the least authoritative witnesses he could have chosen. God isn't dumb. He did that for a reason.
Popping in just briefly to note that the Bergsma Pitre intro to the OT goes through each book of the OT and at the end, notes where the book shows up in the Mass cycle and I think also where it shows up in the liturgy of the hours.
That would be very helpful! It's definitely been difficult for me to piece together the liturgy in relation to the biblical text.
Wow, definitely no obligations, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the essay/article! I'm interested to pay more attention in Mass now to what readings are selected, as well as what is highlighted in each homily. I care deeply about women in the Church, so I have to remind myself that that’s a bias I have when examining the liturgy and faith at large. In general, there are a lot of OT readings we don’t get to hear on Sundays, and even weekdays. Some are omitted for timing, and others are omitted for prudence if they are difficult to understand. I think I get concerned not because I suspect any malice behind the omission of certain readings, but because when particular readings are chosen over others, it frames the way we view our faith in ways most people won’t be conscious of. To highlight one example, why is it that on Easter Sunday each year, if the Gospel reading of is John is chosen, it only covers John 20:1-9? I think it’s very odd that we don’t include the appearance of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene in the continuing verses (v. 10-18), given that Easter Sunday is supposed to be about proclaiming Christ as risen. And of course, it also omits a beautiful story about a heroine of the faith when a lot of Catholics are actually attending Mass. I think that a consequence of the liturgy not including certain readings that pertain to women on Sundays (and other widely attended holy days) is that a lot of women miss out on hearing the ways that God has chosen to form relationships with women, as well as the diversity of feminine vocations.
Something that’s shaped my perspective on God and my faith is my understanding of the Bible. I read the entire Bible a few years ago, and I’ve also read the Gospels straight through a few times now. One thing I notice about my experience when I talk to most Catholic women is that there is a knowledge gap in our understanding of Biblical women. For example, it’s not uncommon for me to run into other women who are unaware that there were female prophets in the OT (and NT), or that Jesus had a group of female disciples in the NT. Even my mom didn’t know that Jesus had female followers who traveled with Him, and she’s a lifelong Catholic in her mid-fifties! She was stunned when I pointed out Luke 8:1-3 to her (and the implications of Mark 15:40-41/Matthew 27:55-56), because she had never remembered hearing about a group of Jesus’s female followers who had accompanied Him not only at Calvary, but also in His ministry and all the way to the cross. Of course, all of these stories of real women functioning throughout salvation history are technically in the Bible, but it does concern me that a great number of Catholics might not be aware of them.
"When particular readings are chosen over others, it frames the way we view our faith in ways most people won’t be conscious of."
This is key. And omitting pretty much all the readings about women from the Sunday cycle of readings implies that those who get to make those decisions (all men) don't think about how it might negatively impact the more-than-half of people in the pews on any given Sunday to see all men on the TV screen when the pope is elected, all men in the sanctuary, and hear about all men in the readings. None of the people making the decisions know what it feels like to grow up in/live in/worship in a Church where people like you seem to be erased. Not talking about women of the Bible in the liturgy most definitely frames the way we view our faith, especially the way we as a body and community of believers--what is considered to pertain to our collective identity and shared life rather than private devotion--think about the integral wholeness of the faith. If thinking about women in the Bible is 'only for women' and doesn't matter for people (note: mostly women) to hear on Sundays, why did God put it in the Bible? Especially: why did he put it in the New Testament?