Sundry bad feels about being a Catholic woman

[Dymphna]

6 hours ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

What - the Body of Christ has no appendix? 😉

Actually, the appendix does important work for our immune system, although we can live without it it's by no means superfluous 😉

[Lady Grey, Hot]

On 6/8/2022 at 12:05 PM, caterinaquinas said:

One other note: God has fullness in Him, and we are all made in His image. There is no characteristic that is owned only by men, nor characteristic only owned by women. All virtues are good, and all virtues should exist in both genders. Don't struggle with it!

But aren't we imperfect images? (I think I've heard the metaphor of badly developed photographs.) Or, to put it another way, don't each of us only represent some aspects of God's fullness - perhaps men some and women others?

[Lady Grey, Hot]

On 6/9/2022 at 6:53 AM, gloriana35 said:

I hadn't intended to post any reply - but I must say that I read through the original post more than once, and I don't understand where you got these ideas. Is your difficulty entirely that you cannot be ordained?

Sorry for my delay in replying - I wanted to do your question justice.

I would not say that the matter of ordination is even most of the problem. Not that it isn't kind of a bitter pill to swallow - even when I was much younger, I would hear about the priest shortage and feel totally helpless, because if I were a guy I would have at least been willing to give seminary a shot. But as it was, I felt (I feel) like there was nothing I could do for the Church that would really matter. Even if someone became a priest because of my prayers, that would only be important because of his priesthood. I want to make it clear that I don't reject the teaching, but that doesn't mean I don't grapple with what an inherent exclusion from the most necessary function in the Church means for me as far as having any sort of worth goes.

That said, there was a time when I still had the impression that even if I couldn't be ordained, I could do anything else. My current issue is centered more around my newer impression that women don't get to be any of the good things - or if they do, they must necessarily be them in a soft, fiddly, delicate way. We can't celebrate Joan of Arc's courage as a good thing in its own right; rather, we have to spin it as being an example of her "spiritual maternity."

I think part of the trouble is that during the past three years, I have found myself in the thick of a Catholic peer group that is more conservative than any I have ever been exposed to before. In particular, there is a heavy emphasis on "authentic masculinity" and "authentic femininity" - with all the accompanying rhetoric about strength and courage and leadership (for men) and beauty and being relational and not striving (for women). This is probably illustrative: the parish book studies going on right now are on Wild at Heart and Captivating. These ideas obviously have to come from somewhere, and I have a nagging fear that they hold more weight than I would like them to. (On a side note, gender roles according to this model aren't why I don't want to marry, but I must say they're a convenient bullet to dodge.)

I'm not brilliant or courageous or heroic, but I'd like to work on that. It breaks my heart to think that God wants less than that for me. But I have to wonder if He does. I'm reluctant to bring it up in prayer because I'm afraid I'm going to be told that the things I want run contrary to my nature - that all He has in mind for me is for me to get on my pedestal, look decorative, and stay out of the way. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

2 hours ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

I think part of the trouble is that during the past three years, I have found myself in the thick of a Catholic peer group that is more conservative than any I have ever been exposed to before. In particular, there is a heavy emphasis on "authentic masculinity" and "authentic femininity" - with all the accompanying rhetoric about strength and courage and leadership (for men) and beauty and being relational and not striving (for women). This is probably illustrative: the parish book studies going on right now are on Wild at Heart and Captivating. These ideas obviously have to come from somewhere, and I have a nagging fear that they hold more weight than I would like them to. (On a side note, gender roles according to this model aren't why I don't want to marry, but I must say they're a convenient bullet to dodge.)

Books like this and Catholic peer groups are NOT the same as official Church teaching, though. You are 100% free to say "ehh, no thanks, I'll pass" on books like Captivating.

2 hours ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

My current issue is centered more around my newer impression that women don't get to be any of the good things - or if they do, they must necessarily be them in a soft, fiddly, delicate way. We can't celebrate Joan of Arc's courage as a good thing in its own right; rather, we have to spin it as being an example of her "spiritual maternity."

Again, not true--we can totally celebrate St. Joan (my Confirmation saint!) for her courage as such.

Also, the Church--as in the actual Church, not book groups at your parish--does have a long tradition of celebrating the "manly" virtues in women. The early virgin martyrs in particular were noted for their courage, and often their stories include details about how they put the men around them to shame. St. Catharine of Alexandria was a philosopher who converted male pagan philosophers with her brilliant knowledge of the faith before she courageously faced martyrdom. 

[caterinaquinas]

9 hours ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

But aren't we imperfect images? (I think I've heard the metaphor of badly developed photographs.) Or, to put it another way, don't each of us only represent some aspects of God's fullness - perhaps men some and women others?

I am not sure I fully understand the question, because it seems to me you are talking about two things.

Regarding our imperfection, we are imperfect images insofar as we are distorted by sin. But we are all called to be more and more perfect. While it is true that we as creatures always have room to become more perfect, by proactively cooperating with God's grace, it is possible to achieve a state where we enter into union with Christ. We live solely (or almost solely) in Him and through Him in this state of union, therefore we become perfect by participation. If we remain in this union, we become saints.

I believe both genders are called to be drawn into God's fullness in terms of virtue. Here is how virtue works: God does not give talents and virtues to all equally, some are naturally good at fortitude (or courage), some others prudence, some others faith, so on so forth. The ones you are naturally good at are called your principal virtues. But as you grow in your principal virtues, once you reach a certain level, it will cause you to grow in every other virtues as well, since all virtues in their highest perfection are essentially one. This is the view of both St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am sure there are plenty of saints who would agree with them. This is also my personal experience. St. Thomas Aquinas actually believes that if you acquired one virtue in its perfection, you acquired all. It doesn't matter which gender you are. You are called to possess all virtues.

Now the same virtue can have different expressions based on the person's spirituality, personality, cultural background, state of life, etc. But it doesn't really matter as long as it is a virtuous act. There may be a higher proportion of men than women who express their fortitude by being brave soldiers, but women like St. Joan of Arc may choose a similar form of expression and that is totally fine. Then again you have women who would never go to war themselves, but their fortitude can be even greater than most of the soldiers, such as the earliest virgin martyrs, St. Catherine of Siena (who scolded her spiritual director and convinced the Pope to go back to Rome), Mother Teresa (who performed great acts and endured many hardships), and Our Lady (who willingly embraced the greatest suffering). It doesn't matter. It is the same virtue. 

I also want to point out that priesthood is not the most important thing. Priesthood is an indispensable media through which God's grace enters into the world, but still, it is only a media, and it is only one among many. In fact, the contemplative orders are called the heart of the Church, and many would think of the heart as the most important organ of the body. But still, you need all the organs in order for the body to function. We are all pens. You are a pen as good as the priest. If through your prayers someone enters into priesthood, what matters most is not his priesthood, but the love you poured out for God throughout the process, and the love so many more people will pour out because of it. Because you and the priest and the many other people who will benefit from this are all united with Christ, you become one, therefore anyone's gain or glory is everyone's gain and glory. 

It could be that you are not called to any contemplative order or teaching order, which is why you find them unsatisfying, and that is totally fine. But before making any conclusion, you have to first be able to appreciate the beauty and importance of women's vocations, so you can make the judgment with clarity of mind. Also keep in mind that there is a great diversity between different communities, even between different communities of the same Order. In some communities, the women can be vastly different from each other. There is a place for every kind of personality. It could also be that God is not calling you to the religious life, because He desires you to serve Him in the world, like Bl. Conchita, or G.E.M. Anscombe (she is a hard-core Catholic and a tough one! You should check her out). You simply need to trust Him. Because ultimately, it is not glory or usefulness that we desire, but Him, solely Him, He who is our love and our soul. The path He chose for you will be the easiest path for you to achieve the greatest intimacy possible with Him.

[Lady Grey, Hot]

8 hours ago, caterinaquinas said:

But as you grow in your principal virtues, once you reach a certain level, it will cause you to grow in every other virtues as well, since all virtues in their highest perfection are essentially one.

So does that mean you should only work on cultivating your principal virtues, with the expectation that the others will follow?

[Lady Grey, Hot]

On 6/13/2022 at 1:16 AM, caterinaquinas said:

It could be that you are not called to any contemplative order or teaching order, which is why you find them unsatisfying, and that is totally fine.

Actually, neither is unappealing to me - life in a religious order is something I would almost certainly be willing to at least try (though there are compelling reasons why I think some communities would be reluctant to have me). Still, I think my implicit attitude is that vowed life would be the best that I could do as a woman, but that I could do better if I were a man. Someone once told me that in the spiritual life men are like straight trees and women are like crooked trees. Many crooked trees will grow taller than many straight trees, but the tallest straight tree will always be taller than the tallest crooked tree - i.e., men ultimately have a higher potential for holiness. (The person who told me this claimed this was Aquinas, but I could never verify that. Maybe it sounds familiar to someone?) Christ was incarnate as a man. Doesn't that indicate a definite preference - or, if not that, does it not make at least make those who are better natural images of Him rather more noble?

I also can't get past what feminine vocations say about women. Something I sometimes heard about women religious is "What matters isn't what they do, but who they are." That is, the most important part of the equation is the fact that they are in a particular sort of relationship with God. Their actions (beyond choosing that relationship) are pretty incidental. Physical motherhood is the same. A woman ideally consents to becoming pregnant, but from that point the process just kind of happens to her. By contrast, the priesthood (just as the easiest male example), is very emphatically about what priests do. Exactly how far are we supposed to take the sexual metaphor of men being generative and women being receptive? Is it supposed to apply in every single situation/interaction? Do women, by their very nature, only exist to be acted upon - to not have their own actions really matter? That bothers me a lot.

[sr.christinaosf]

On 6/12/2022 at 3:42 PM, Lady Grey, Hot said:

Sorry for my delay in replying - I wanted to do your question justice.

I would not say that the matter of ordination is even most of the problem. Not that it isn't kind of a bitter pill to swallow - even when I was much younger, I would hear about the priest shortage and feel totally helpless, because if I were a guy I would have at least been willing to give seminary a shot. But as it was, I felt (I feel) like there was nothing I could do for the Church that would really matter. Even if someone became a priest because of my prayers, that would only be important because of his priesthood. I want to make it clear that I don't reject the teaching, but that doesn't mean I don't grapple with what an inherent exclusion from the most necessary function in the Church means for me as far as having any sort of worth goes.

That said, there was a time when I still had the impression that even if I couldn't be ordained, I could do anything else. My current issue is centered more around my newer impression that women don't get to be any of the good things - or if they do, they must necessarily be them in a soft, fiddly, delicate way. We can't celebrate Joan of Arc's courage as a good thing in its own right; rather, we have to spin it as being an example of her "spiritual maternity."

I think part of the trouble is that during the past three years, I have found myself in the thick of a Catholic peer group that is more conservative than any I have ever been exposed to before. In particular, there is a heavy emphasis on "authentic masculinity" and "authentic femininity" - with all the accompanying rhetoric about strength and courage and leadership (for men) and beauty and being relational and not striving (for women). This is probably illustrative: the parish book studies going on right now are on Wild at Heart and Captivating. These ideas obviously have to come from somewhere, and I have a nagging fear that they hold more weight than I would like them to. (On a side note, gender roles according to this model aren't why I don't want to marry, but I must say they're a convenient bullet to dodge.)

I'm not brilliant or courageous or heroic, but I'd like to work on that. It breaks my heart to think that God wants less than that for me. But I have to wonder if He does. I'm reluctant to bring it up in prayer because I'm afraid I'm going to be told that the things I want run contrary to my nature - that all He has in mind for me is for me to get on my pedestal, look decorative, and stay out of the way. 

Have you read JPII's document,  Mulieres Dignitatem?

[Lady Grey, Hot]

1 hour ago, sr.christinaosf said:

Have you read JPII's document,  Mulieres Dignitatem?

A good deal of it, at least (I often mix it up with his Letter to Women). I know many Catholic women feel affirmed/empowered by it, but I honestly don't get that. It still seems very intent on putting women in a specific box defined by motherhood (physical or spiritual) and "softer" attributes. Even where strength is evoked, it is (as I noted about Joan of Arc) spun as being about maternity rather than about strength in itself.

Edited June 18, 2022 by Lady Grey, Hot
Edited to add a final sentence

[Norseman82]

On 6/12/2022 at 3:42 PM, Lady Grey, Hot said:

Not that it isn't kind of a bitter pill to swallow - even when I was much younger, I would hear about the priest shortage and feel totally helpless, because if I were a guy I would have at least been willing to give seminary a shot. But as it was, I felt (I feel) like there was nothing I could do for the Church that would really matter.

I think you need some spiritual direction.  However, I see a theme that you feel like there is nothing useful you can do for the Church.  Two possibilities that you should revisit / discern based on what you are eligible for: 

1)  Discern religious life as a nun.   

2)  Even if you do not desire marriage,  please be aware that there are many men out there that are in search of a good compatible Catholic wife but can't find one.  You may be that wife, and that could be the greatest service you could provide to the Church right now.

[Antigonos]

On 6/9/2022 at 1:54 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

Well, you don't actually need a priest to baptize, either! In a case of necessity, anyone (Catholic or not, ordained or not, woman or man) can baptize as long as they use water and the correct formula. . 

As a nurse-midwife, I have myself baptized several newborns, born in imminent danger of dying, when there was no time to have a priest summoned.  We were instructed in the correct procedure by a priest when we were student nurses, and on those occasions when I performed a baptism, a priest was later consulted and was told no further baptism was needed.

[gloriana35]

Sound spiritual direction is very difficult to find - so it's hard to say 'find a spiritual director,' when I myself am having a hard time doing so since my own retired (and I was 46 before I found him - I miss his insight terribly.) Yet I really hope you do, because you have a lot to sort here. 

Perhaps my vision is clouded, because anger clouded my own vision (and caused many a spiritual problem) for me in the past, but I cannot help but sense that you have excessive anger to work through. Anger, in the very devout, is difficult for us to see, because it often is a flip side of a strength. 

I'd never heard of the books you mentioned, in your reference to the book group - I looked them up, and just the summaries made me see how narrow and exasperating the material must be. 

This year is my fortieth anniversary of consecrated life (and I got a later than average start, for that time.) Some brilliant Religious I knew got so totally focused on their 'oppression' during the 1970s that they took offence at everything - some sounded like brats. It sometimes led to contempt for others. I was annoyed by what I saw as a lack of integrity (and, with hindsight, there was a good deal in my view that was valid), but I got so wrapped up in my anger that too much was distorted. 

 

[Lady Grey, Hot]

3 hours ago, gloriana35 said:

Sound spiritual direction is very difficult to find - so it's hard to say 'find a spiritual director,' when I myself am having a hard time doing so since my own retired (and I was 46 before I found him - I miss his insight terribly.) Yet I really hope you do, because you have a lot to sort here. 

Perhaps my vision is clouded, because anger clouded my own vision (and caused many a spiritual problem) for me in the past, but I cannot help but sense that you have excessive anger to work through. Anger, in the very devout, is difficult for us to see, because it often is a flip side of a strength.

"Find a spiritual director" is a very trendy thing to say in some Catholic circles these days (I hasten to add I am not impugning the motives of anyone on this board), so I appreciate that you appreciate that they can't just be bought on Amazon. That said, I am reluctant to seek one out. Given that I am not likely to come to anything, I think spiritual direction would probably be wasted on me. I feel badly enough for needing a regular confessor; asking for anything else would be excessively burdensome. This, as much as anything, factors into my discontent. I desire the period of intense formation, mentorship, and camaraderie which I am told are part and parcel of seminary life, but I am never going to do anything significant enough to justify my needing that period. 

Re: anger - you are the second person to mention this, which I find very interesting. My immediate instinct would be to say that the experience is much more informed by an intense sadness, but perhaps there is something I am not seeing. Things to think about. 

[Feankie]

Trendy?!  I've been a certified SD since 1999 and have a very active list of directees.  If I had more time (and energy) I would probably take on new directees. May I ask.....why do you feel you would not receive any benefit/s from seeing a SD and would be reluctant to see one?  What I'm hearing you say is that you've pretty much already made up your mind SD is useless for you.  Why not give it a try?  You might be surprised.  SD's are here to serve....not to judge.  To suggest...not to demand. And we're  not therapists. Many of us consider this a ministry and don't charge a fee.  No one or nothing is a waste of time,  The worst things are (if you can call them that) is you're uncomfortable with either a particular SD or you're uncomfortable with what you've discovered about yourself and simply stop attending sessions.  Yes, that does happen.  SD has to be a 2-way street.  

I've had directees from across the board.....those wanting to deepen their spiritual life, confused, mad at God, angry at being told they have no vocation to a certain Order/Monastery/priesthood/etc., feeling stuck "in a rut", you name it and I've probably dealt with it. SD's  pretty much hear it all and refer out to competent therapists when appropriate,

It's not a quick fix or an easy process by any means.  It takes time, work, commitment, and a letting go of one's ego in the process to let God work in and through you. And SD is never wasted.  There is always something to be learned about yourself in the process.  

[JHFamily]

I also think "trendy"? What about all those saints who recommended spiritual directors? I recently read a letter from St. Francis de Sales that made me chuckle (and agree all at the same time). He recommended the book The Spiritual Combat to pretty much everyone he met. He told one man to use it as his spiritual direction. The man responded by saying, "I thought you said everyone should have a spiritual director!" To which our saint wrote, "Yes, I did indeed say that. However, I also said that a good spiritual director is one in a thousand. Until you find him, use the book."

But, yes, I think spiritual direction and some old fashioned catechism is in order here. I am perceiving a lot of misconceptions that have been formed by well-meaning but ill-formed people (which is the norm and not the exception).