Why women are needed in the Church

There has been increasing discussion about the place of women in the Church, and I think that this is a good development. The word “church” in Latin is ecclesia, a feminine noun, and the Church has often been described in feminine terms, with feminine attributes attributed to it. This has produced a rich ecclesiology which is frequently linked to an equally rich Mariology when the role of Mary in salvation history is linked with that of the Church.

With all these rich theological considerations, the question needs to be asked about how much they have affected the actual role of real, existing women in the life of the Church. This is the essential question at the basis of present discussions, and it is good that it is finally being asked.

I am not a reporter or a research analyst to study the social effects of the treatment of women in the Church. I am simply a woman religious, and a member of a contemplative Order at that. I do not have the contacts needed to look into social and cultural situations affecting women. My vocation is prayer and “pondering these things in my heart” like Mary.

Perhaps that is why I look at the question of the place of women in the Church, not on the basis of what we do or can do, but of what we are. Action flows from being. To understand the place of women in the Church or in society, we need to look deeply into what a woman is. There is an age-old tendency to impose on women a definition from without.

The Church must proceed differently. We need to look at what the faith teaches, what revelation makes known about women. Only in that way will we come to a deep understanding of who and what we are, and in that way find our rightful place in the Church.

An adequate pondering of this question obviously goes far beyond the parameters of a short article, but I think that we can find a foundation on which to begin our considerations. St. John Paul II based his teaching about the theology of the body on the first two chapter of Genesis, and I propose to do the same for my investigation into the meaning of women. This approach was suggested by a passage from St. John of Damascus who described Adam’s action in naming the animals. It says in Genesis: “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field.” (Gen. 2, 19-20)

In the Bible, to name something is to establish its identity and its meaning in creation. It is proof of the namer’s authority over the being named. Adam’s dominion over creation is shown in his right to name the other beings. He does this action and exercises this power and dominion in his own person.

And yet, something is missing. The passage quoted follows a previous verse: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’” The naming of the animals, the establishment of Adam’s dominion over creation, was intended to fulfil Adam in his own person. Its goal was to provide him with “a helper as his partner”.

But the attempt did not succeed. Adam named the other creatures, “but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.” (Cf. Gen 2, 18-19) This obviously leads to the question: how was the man’s partner intended to help him? What was the “partner” supposed to do that would help the man?

We need to remember that naming establishes someone’s identity and meaning. Adam’s need of a partner did not involve any kind of action. It went deeper. It involved his very identity, the essence of who he was. We know from Genesis 1, 27 that he was created “in the image and likeness” of God, but he was not created in isolation: “in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

In past centuries, the consideration of how human beings are created in the image of God focused on the individual human being. Each human being is said to exist in the image of God because each has an intellect and will and can know and love. Recently, however, the focus has shifted from the individual to what Genesis 1, 27 actually says: human beings were not created as isolated individuals but as beings in a relationship. God is “pure relationality”, as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Caritas in Veritate. Therefore, since we are created in his image, we exist in relationship, and we act as images of God when we act in relationship.

This gives meaning to Adam’s search for a “helper”. He did not need a helper to name the animals. He needed a helper to be human. He could exercise dominion all by himself, but he could not BE himself all by himself. He could be human only in communion with another human being. Just as the three Persons of the Trinity need each other to be relational, just as each of the Persons is fully God and each is distinct, so Adam needed another human being who is both the same as and distinct from himself in order to live in the image of God.

This puts woman in a different perspective. She exists to enable man to live in communion and he exists to enable her to do the same. This goes far beyond any concept of “complementarity”. The Persons of the Trinity do not exist in complementarity. They exist in communion. Each is fully God and each lives and acts in communion with the other two Persons. It is their interaction that makes them a relationality.

This applies also to men and women. As Adam looked at Eve, he saw a being who was as fully human as he, yet who lived that full humanity in some indefinably different way. As with any relationship, the differing humanness is both challenging and enriching.

It is easy to create stereotypes of how men and women should live in communion, but stereotypes in the Church are dangerous. They ignore the mystery that we are called to live. Created in the image of God, created as beings in communion with God and with one another, we are mysteries to ourselves, and when we ignore that mysteriousness, we inevitably fall into purely human constructs. We impose cultural views on what are revealed truths. The cultural focus on the individual is an example. We have seen that Adam as an individual exercised power and dominion. To see this as the male role is to miss the point of the whole passage. Power can be exercised by an individual, and in that case, power is not an act of communion. God is infinite power, and he never acts as an individual person. Everything he does is an act of communion.

This individualistic exercise of power is not simply a male trait. It is a refusal of communion, and both men and women can fall into this trap. When they do, they lose communion. One example of this in the Church is clericalism. Clericalism is the exercise of dominion without communion. It focuses on power and not on people. It works very well as a means to efficiency. There is no essential need for communion in an organization. Communion enhances the organisation and makes working for it more agreeable, but it isn’t essential.

This brings us to the title of this article: Are women needed in the Church? If you see the Church as an organisation, then the answer is No. We are useful but not necessary. All you need in an organisation are individuals.

If you see the Church as a communion, then the answer is Yes. Without women, the Church ceases to be a communion for it rejects the truth of human beings shown in revelation. If we accept that the Church is a communion, the challenge that we face is how we are to live that communion.