Quote of the Week: Louis Bouyer
The feminine consciousness of humanity is a glimpse — in the bright darkness in which Christian faith is at home — of the prenatal, virginal reality of divine Wisdom as it actually exists in the womb of God, but as having become all creation, completed, saved and transfigured in humanity’s final parturition of itself and of the whole world with itself, which is our history redeemed, recapitulated and consummated by the divine Incarnation.
This is why woman seems to be naturally religious while man must become so — and, a still more difficult thing, remain so by a constant effort of pursuit of indeed to regain lost ground. A rabbi recently explained to me, with humor not devoid of meaning, that the Jewish law prescribes religious obligations for men, while it does not impose anything definite on women, and he observed that, far from supposing superiority on the part of man, it implies quite the contrary: that he would not serve God if God did not take the trouble to recall him constantly to the task, while woman does not need anyone to tell her to do these things.
This, to be sure, does not imply any automatic merit for woman; for her as for man the value comes in the personalization of her gifts.
–Louis Bouyer, Woman in the Church. trans. Marilyn Teichert (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1984), 65-6.
Comments are closed.
It seems to be the theme of the age:
It is better to be a woman.
If you cannot be a woman, then you should at least try to act like one.
John,
That is not what Louis Bouyer said. He in fact made it clear, that a woman’s natural religious status does not make a woman better, just different. That to exercise that natural gift requires a personal action on their part. He has other reflections on what it means to be a man, and how a man, by nature, requires a transcendence to find themselves, while a woman, by nature, finds themselves from within to move without.
It would have taken several pages to really present his position, but I thought I would highlight something which I appreciated, because of its relation to Sophiology (Wisdom of God).
I think I’d like to read more of his writing, but it seems to be hard to come by. I would be interested to see more of what he says on the nature of man and woman.
I did read a longer excerpt of the book you were quoting from, and it does seem to be as I said in my first comment. This is not necessarily a criticism of him; it is discouraging, however, when trying to discover what is the nature of man (male humans), and most everything seems to emphasize either a deficiency in men, or speaks primarily in the negative, i.e., what man is not, as opposed to what man is.
John,
I agree his writings, as a whole, are harder to find; I was lucky to get this one used. But your comment here is interesting, because others might accuse him of the reverse if one read the first section of this work, where he explains why he doesn’t think women can be priests.
If you want an interesting theology of the masculine, I would recommend Sergius Bulgakov; you can find a good discusses on gender in Bride of the Lamb which, I think, does the positive work you are looking for. Bouyer’s interest was to set up the positive side of women which had been lost for sometime, especially after the criticism had been made that Christianity is anti-women for not allowing them to be priests.
Henry,
Thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll try to see if I can find it.
I think you hit on what makes for increased difficulty in understanding what the Church teaches in how God made us as man and woman. The assertion that the Church is anti-woman is specious, yet the Church feels obligated to answer the charge. But in doing so, the Church takes the appearance of defending women by attacking men, or by showing men as deficient in comparison to women. One sees this especially in the writings and works of Pope John Paul II, where he often emphasizes the strengths of women, while highlighting the weaknesses of men. At best, he speaks of ideals of masculinity in the abstract, but in the context of men falling short of these ideals. What he says of women is true and good, but in the context of his entire teaching, it appears he has it out for men.
I readily admit that I may be shortsighted in my view of all this, but I am searching for answers in the interest of seeing this all more clearly.
John, I found your comments of great interest. I think there are many men suffering a sense of neglect. Do you agree? Regarding John Paul II’s theology of the feminine, I think it’s critical to recall that JP II produced this incredibly important work in the context of radical feminism. To my knowledge, he was the only Western world figure who articulated a natural law perspective of women just as the entire Western world erupted with expectations that women would assume the same social and economic success indicators as men. I believe that JP II recognized how this shift ravaged women at their core – and would do so for centuries to come. In that perspective, I do not think he was “highlighting the weaknesses of men” at all, but, rather, articulating the beauty of the feminine design and the unsuitability of masculine strengths for women. It’s wrong to read this incredibly important, cogent theology – which has proven critical to the cause of New Feminism – as unfair to the masculinity. To the contrary, by clarifying and validating the natural design of the feminie, there is hope that the integrity of the masculine will be better recognized and honored.
In working with men and women in my counseling practice for the last 27 years and the advent of new technology enabling us to gain a new understanding of interpersonal neurobiology I have been blessed with an ever evolving understanding of intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics and the powerful unconscious primitive survival mechanisms that influence one’s relationship to self, others and the social institutions that develop from these influences.
Brain structures actually differ in men and women. One example is the area of the orbital frontal cortex which is an area right behind the forehead and is involved in problem solving and responsible for keeping aggressive impulses in check has been shown through brain imaging to be larger in females than in males. Consequently, women are more likely to exhibit greater restraint in aggression and attempt to defuse a potentially violent situation than men. Also, women’s brains have evolved with a larger amygdala which is responsible for detecting danger and triggering the fight or flight response.
Women will also remember emotionally charged situations better than men because of the sensitivity of their amygdala to danger and the hightened chemical response that is necessary for the storage of long term memory.
Women are also have more of a concentration of oxytocin receptors which are associated with bonding behaviors in areas specifically devoted to attachments and give a sense of fulfillment. Whereas, males oxytocin receptors are less in number and spread throughout the brain which may lead to rewarding attachments to things rather than people.
Theoretically, women are more structured for a safe environment that is conducive to the development of rewarding attachments based on mutual caring. Men on the other hand are structured for a competitive environment based on dominance and submission dynamics. Women are then forced to adapt to this dynamic in the systems that influence them.
This is not even the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
Now, when you take into consideration the spiritual aspect of this you may begin to see the story in Genesis 1-3 differently as it relates to the development of the human identity.
JPII seems to have inserted the end of human history into the beginning.
Ronald,
Is there a good book or two on interpersonal neurobiology that you can recommend? What you say in your message above is fascinating.
David, Here are two of the major influences in the field of neuroscience.
The Neuroscience of Human Relationships–Louis Cozolino, PhD
The Mindful Brain–Daniel J. Siegel, MD
I just thought of another one.
Social Intelligence–Daniel Goleman, PhD
They are easy reading and very informative with up to date info.
Fascinating stuff, John and Marjorie. I’ve always been a little bit taken aback by JPII’s theology of sexuality. There’s a tendency in the theology of the past 40 years to write as if theology didn’t exist before, well, 40 years ago. I don’t know; maybe that’s the best approach in a time of damage control.
If there’s one virtue that comes more naturally to men than women, it’s magnanimity. (I’m thinking about Chesterton’s writings here.) I think it suits the male, during this modern crisis of the family, to take it on the chin a little bit as we restore a proper understanding of the family. If masculinity doesn’t get the respect that it should, it’s within the role of masculinity to accept that.
Now, I say that as a non-dad. To be a father and convey to a son the dignity of male gentleness has to be tough. In a society that doesn’t understand it, it’s doubly tough. In a society that seems to detest it, I wonder: does that make it even more tough, or give the male more opportunity to display quiet strength?
Ronald,
Thanks very much. I have ordered the Cozolino book, and I think I may have the Siegel book at home already as a result of buying everything with “mindful” in the title not too long ago. (Not exactly everything, but several things.)
I don’t mean to get off track with these comments, but I’ve always wondered about depth perception and gender. Dr. King, is there a gender-associated difference here? ~my husband patiently insists it is so, for which I am grateful given the dings and bumps on my car.
Marjorie, I am not a doctor. Master’s degree with a lot of experience and education. As far as depth perception, I read an article a couple of years ago stating that a study revealed revealed that males took about a minute less than females to move through a three dimensional virtual reality maze.
You can also tell your husband that women have a larger corpus callosum than men. This bundle of nerve fibers connects both halves of the brain and is primarily responsible for communication of both halves. The male’s stops growing when testosterone is produced in great quantities in adolescence while the female’s continues to grow into early adulthood.
David, You are very welcome.
Very neat comments and pointers in this post –
in my view the sum of it all clearly is pointing to the fact that there is no good reason to exclude women from the priesthood. For example: wouldn’t you Ronald have to conclude from “You can also tell your husband that women have a larger corpus callosum than men. This bundle of nerve fibers connects both halves of the brain and is primarily responsible for communication of both halves.” and “Consequently, women are more likely to exhibit greater restraint in aggression and attempt to defuse a potentially violent situation than men.” that women would make rather good priests. And yes our church will have indeed to bother answering this question over and over again.
In my view the current tack is unsustainable.
Regarding JPII being such a great champion of women. In my view it would have been far more honest to acknowledge and embrace our various gender related differences and than take significant steps to open the church truly to women and the priesthood to the most qualified men and women married or not.
To elate women to the heavens, praise all kinds of virtues and uniqueness’s just to slam the door with even greater vigor does not do the trick for this happily married father.
The churches 1500 year old insistence to exclude women from any priestly position is not healthy and sustainable going forward in my view.
That what the powerful love to do – showering plenty of faint praise on the powerless is cheap – actually taking steps to share power is much harder.
Grega
My problem with the “wouldn’t that mean women would be good priests” is looking at the priesthood in a purely sociological level. I agree that it would make them good pastors, but the sacramental question goes beyond this. I myself think there is room for development of separating priesthood questions from issues like authority/jurisdiction, and think the way Abbesses in Medieval Times held more jurisdictional power should be a way forward (while still wrestling with and really dealing with the sacramental question). I also think, following Eastern tradition, women deaconesses should be approved (and this is happening in Orthodox jurisdictions right now, so, unlike what some would say, it is not a ‘liberal’ thing).
Hello Mrs. Campbell,
Whether many men suffer from a sense of neglect I’m not sure. I tend to think most men don’t think about these things as much as I do, to their credit. I am mainly speaking just from my own perception of JPII’s theology as well as other theologians, understanding that my perception may be quite inadequate. Such as it is, however, it may be accurate to describe it as a sense of neglect of men and of things masculine. When JPII does address a topic relating to men it appears to show up as a sort of apology for men.
I should not be critical of his addressing a theology of things feminine, but he seems to do it by method of showing women as strong compensating for men as weak. Perhaps he was assuming his audience was well aware of the God-given strengths of men, and that there was no need to bring these up. This is, of course, only a conjecture, but if it was the case, I don’t think it was a fair assumption to make, especially not for the Western world, which seems to think of men as a problem and as hopeless, disposable, and unnecessary.
John
I think one of the issues men need to address is our understanding of “strong and weak” in relation to Jesus Christ. What does he show us of those categories.
Henry,
He says that the last will be first, and through St. Paul, “when I am weak, then I am strong.”
But I think there must be a masculine understanding of this, and a feminine understanding of this. If I’m correct, my difficulty is that the masculine understanding of this is inadequately addressed in a positive manner. It seems to me that men are told that they are further on the path of holiness, and more like Christ, when they are more like women. But God didn’t create me as a woman. I believe he created me as a man because he wants me to be a man.
John
Oh, I agree there are differences. My point is that in Christ, we should find our masculinity. It is not that we will be copies of Christ, but our gender nonetheless is manifested in him who is true man, true Adam.
Grega, I am open to a discussion of this without a doubt. Mary forms God into a male human being through unity with the Holy Spirit. Isn’t that the first Eucharist? The Samaritan woman at the well recognizes Jesus as the Savior and brings the town to Him before the apostles know who He is. A woman annoints Him and He then washes the apostles feet at the Last Supper in which He institutes the Eucharistic meal that evolved from Mary’s birthing Him. At the Cross it is women who and John who are actually there for the actual sacrifice and they minister to Him. Women ministered Him and the apostles throughout His mission. He essentially teaches the apostles to minister in much the same way that women ministered to Him. Mary M is the first to see Him after His resurrection and the apostles do not believe her.
What does all this mean?
Mr. Karlson, et al.,
What you said is as useful to me as if you had said “in Christ, we should find our humanity.” It is true, but doesn’t reach where I would wish to reach. To follow your lead, and to be specific, what is it about Christ, if there is anything, that I am called to emulate in Him inasmuch as I am a man, and that I could not emulate if I were a woman?
I wish no one to accuse me, by asking the previous question, of constructing something whereby I can assert the superiority of the nature of man over woman. After all, no one begrudges the fact that a woman can more perfectly emulate those perfect qualities of the Blessed Mother than can a man, and the point is often rightly raised without contention.
By the way, Mr. Karlson, am I right that it is Sergius Bulgakov in the thumbnail that appears at the top of your comments? I found a painting that matches while looking for more info on Bulgakov.
John,
Obviously there is a place in “Christ is a creature, and so all creatures can find their common creaturehood in him.” And there is a “Christ is human and all humanity can find their humanity in him” such as what Paul reflects upon. But there is also the notion that he is a particular human gender, and should say something about it — and I think it is in his relationships we can find it. Bulgakov goes into more detail on this, to be sure. And yes, that pic has St Pavel Florensky and Sergius Bulgakov in it. Bulgakov is one of my favorite 20th century theologians (as is St Pavel Florensky).
This is perhaps a little off the wall, but as we have seen recently in the case of Caster Semenya, gender is not always a simple matter of “he is a male and she is a female.” While the odds are that Jesus was a “normal” XY male human being, there is (and can be) no proof of that. Aside from the fact that he had no biological father, estimates are that 1 percent of babies have some kind of gender anomaly. There is no physical evidence of any kind, and no documentary evidence that Jesus was a male in the same way that I am a male. Perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the maleness of Jesus.
David
While it is true there are distinctions like XXY (among other variants which are rarely discussed), I think the maleness of Christ is both over-emphasized (in some areas) and under-emphasized (in others). Following Bulgakov, Sophiology sees Godmanhood (what humanity is meant to attain) is reflected in both genders. That is something I think all should agree. Bulgakov goes further (and like Bouyer, actually) and points out that the Father (despite the name!) transcends this engenderization, but the reflection of the genders is found in Godhood through the two-arms of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. That the Spirit has a history of being seen as feminine helps bring this out; but also the notion that there is no accident in God and therefore no accident in the incarnation (among other elements) leads him to see the masculine nature of God really is manifest in the Son in Christ.
I will quote a bit of Bulgakov from The Lamb of God. To be sure, his notion is complex and can’t be just quoted simply — it has many levels of thought presupposed. But I think this passages helps see the way he is going. “In other words, the human hypostases have a double Proto-Image which belongs to the heavenly humanity in its two countenances: the Logos and the Holy Spirit. This also corresponds to the fact that man, created in the image of God, was created as both male and female, and the context of Genesis 1:26-27 compels one to see the fullness of the image of God precisely in this bi-unity. [...] Male and female, differing as two distinct images of man, bear, in their unity, the fullness of humanity and in this humanity, the fullness of the image of God: they bear the imprint of the dyad of the Son and Holy Spirit, who reveal the Father. In their ability to reproduce, the contain the whole image of multi-unity that is inscribed in the human race as a whole. Thus, man is an uncreated-created, divine-cosmic being, divine-human in structure by his very origin. He is the living image of the trihypostatic God in His Wisdom.” Sergius Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2008), 140.
In this way, Bulgakov is pointing out that humanity needs both genders, and to really manifest the divine image, they have to come together. Now it is true in the male there is a feminine side and vice verse (even in Christ and the Spirit). And there are complexities such as XXYs. But that further presents the unity in distinction; indeed it shows this distinction is not unimportant but really they serve as exceptions which prove the rule. I think more needs to be reflected upon them to find a full place in the Christian anthropology. Perhaps they represent the “Father” principle? Either way, though I think there are issues with what he presents, I find the way Bulgakov goes is a good step forward in affirming gender in a way very few theologies do, without undermining gender as an accident.
David,
By the same token, there is (and can be) no proof that Jesus wasn’t at least part Martian.
I think you are sincere, but some things cannot be explained (or confounded, for that matter) simply by using X’s and Y’s.
Thank you Ronald, what does it mean indeed?
Change does not come easy that is for sure.
But in my opinion it will come – it has to come -
by the way in my opinion the question of female ordination should be wrestled out of the hands of liberal Catholics like myself.
Honestly I do not see this as a ‘church’ political issue and more as a deeply sacramental/ theological one.
You draw very powerful lines along which future generations of fine catholic men and women should be able to find a path towards a priesthood of the able and charismatic vs. those with the right gender.
Grega, another point that just came to mind is in John’s last chapter when Christ tells the apostles that what they bind and loose on earth will also be bound in heaven. Does this statement give them permission to open the priesthood to women as their understanding of God’s Word frees them from the materialistic viewpoint? In the Lord’s Prayer “…Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven…” is another point of discussion concerning distinctions between women and men. There are no husbands and wives nor Jews or Greeks in heaven. Consequently, there are no gender distinctions nor race or cultural distinctions.
In Ephesians, Paul writes about the Church being a marriage with Christ as the head. Earlier he writes about husbands and wives submitting to each other in singing praises to the Lord.
In another part he writes about the materialist view that men came before women and therefore men are in charge. However, he did not have evidence that we have today that shows that the mitochondria which are the energy and life sustaining molecules in every cell in our bodies, without which we die, only contain the DNA of the female and consequently are passed only through the female.
Eve’s name literally means to live. The Holy Spirit in our creed is recognized as the Lord and giver of Life. Freud warned that we should not underestimate the power of the unconscious mind. Sometimes truth comes out in statements such as the in the creed which indicate a connection that hasn’t been noticed before and could be a point of exploration.
This is the fun part of faith for me.