Joan Chittister: Bad Ass Catholic Feminist

With very popular Pope Benedict XVI’s recent visits around the U.S., of course there has been a lot of talk. And what’s been most interesting to me is that some of the feminist Catholic voices are coming up for some media air! Namely, Sister Joan Chittister (who lives in a Benedictine Monestary in Erie, PA) was on NPR this morning expressing her relief that the Pope is confronting the Church’s child-molestation “scandal” head-on.

While browsing for more information about the Catholic Feminists, which show up in the news from time to time for protests and outcries about subordinate female roles in the Church, I came across a smack-down analysis of a Vatican document written in 2004 by Sister Joan Chittister in the National Catholic Reporter, in which she is a regular columnist. It’s called “To the ‘Experts in Humanity’: Since When Did Women become the Problem?” , and totally worth sharing as an example of how bad-ass these women can be! As for making this post a bit more expanded into a look at Catholic Feminism in general, I’m afraid that my senses are too delicate this morning to continue perusing all of the misogynist Catholic websites out there run by priests and other men–where they call feminism a hate group and develop curriculum for young men on how feminists are liars and cheats. So I digress into an excerpt of Joan Chittister’s 2004 column:

“First, the document waffles between two anthropologies, two theological world views, and tries, in vain, to satisfy both.

It reinforces the notion of a dual anthropology — that men and women are essentially different creatures as a result of their sex organs — and it blurs it at the same time.

Women, it assures us in one segment, are fully “human” and made in the image of God. Women have their own unique role to play in the economy of salvation, in other words. Men and women are, therefore, equally responsible to nurture and take responsibility for the human enterprise.

In another place, however, the other anthropology is equally clear. Sex — femaleness — not personhood, not the nature of what it means to be human, determines our roles in life, the document argues. The natures of men and women are determined by their sex, it says unequivocally, and women are, therefore, determined to be the caregivers of the family and the partner most responsible for the success of family life. A “boys will be boys” theology of marriage, which for centuries kept women in damaging relationships, lurks threateningly near the surface here.

A second ghost hovers around the edges of the thesis, this one the blaming, warning, whipping ghost aimed at women who dare to speak up and make decisions about their own lives. Here, the document reveals its underlying disregard, even diminishment, of the motives, meaning and issues of women by asserting that the feminist “tendency” is to emphasize subordination in order “to create antagonism” in women, to make themselves “adversaries of men” and to ’seek power.”

These things, the document says, “lead to opposition between women and men in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other.” Not a hint is given in this document, of course, that this has already been the case for 2,000 years as men lorded it over women in every aspect of society, including the legal ownership by men of the very homes of which women were said to be “the queens.”

Then it blames feminism for homosexuality, same-sex marriages and the criticism, rather than the “development,” of sacred scripture.

Finally, it identifies the dispositions of Mary for “listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting” as reasons for barring women from the priesthood, a theological leap of immense proportions.”

Why I Love Her: Anita Hill

Anita Hill is particularly well-known for her 1991 sexual harassment testimony against then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. She had worked for him on several different occasions ten years earlier, and her testimony was graphic.

What is undeniably clear about this case is that the courts made Thomas’ case about race, and Hill’s case about sex. And by a narrow margin, 52:48, Clarance Thomas won. His testimony was filled allegations that Hill’s testimony were a subversive way of attacking him because he is black, and were related to previous discrimination he had felt as a black man acquiring power in politics. For shame that he created that possible relationship, thereby diminishing the validity of previous experiences of racism . He openly chastised the court for questioning his behavior towards Hill, using the race card to intimidate the white men into sacrificing a woman’s right to emotional and physical safety for a pat on the back for transcending racism.

Anita Hill is an example of courage, strength, and resolution, who continues to carry with her the stigma some have placed onto her: a liar or a deviant perverted crazy woman who was in love with Thomas to begin with.

During the hearing, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee had refused to let any expert testimony on sexual harassment enter the case. She was questioned as to why she would ever talk to such a man again, if her testimony were true. As June Jordan puts it in here essay Can I get a Witness?: “The senators didn’t seem to notice or to care that Thomas occupied the office of last recourse for victims of sexual harassment. And had the committee allowed any expert on the subject to testify, we would have learned that it is absolutely typical for victims to keep silent.”

Last year, When Thomas’ memior came out, and all of his supporters (including people who think Anita Hill is a liar or crazy person, and including people who think sexual harassment is a fairytale made up by manipulative women–i.e. misogynists) and all of his rage about the case came out into the public again, Anita Hill was faced with the question of whether or not to reengage with the debate that she officially lost in 1991. She courageously stepped up again to defend herself, and ultimately all women. You Go Girl!

It should also be noted that Anita Hill did not originally volunteer her testimony of being sexually harassed by Clarance Thomas. She was pointedly questioned by the FBI for that information, and she was simply telling the truth and following the law by providing the FBI with the information they wanted. Because of her courage, the U.S. culture around sexual harassment took a monumental turn towards exposure and empowerment for women to stand up for themselves.

It’s a shame that almost 20 years later, a lot of us still don’t know what or how to stick up for ourselves and each other when sexist comments and harassments are made. Many are passed off as jokes or harmless. Others are dismissed as unimportant because they are made by strangers we don’t plan to have to deal with ever again.

I believe that woman and men have a significant challenge to expose these things and deny them room in discourse and behavior. Between strangers, colleagues, and even friends and partners.