Approaching Pope Francis' Commission About Women Deacons With Cautious Optimism

I promise part three of "The Talk" is still coming, but something pretty amazing has happened that needs a bit of a spotlight right now...

Phoebe the Deacon!! Find her in Paul's letters.

We interrupt your regularly scheduled program for this breaking news: Women served as deacons in the early Church, and for the first time in forever, there is a new spark of hope that they'll be able to
serve in that role once again.  Someday.  Maybe.

Here's the deal.  During their triennial meeting with the Pope in Rome, the members of the International Union of the Superiors General (the leaders of the various women religious orders in the world), posed this question to Pope Francis:

"Consecrated women already work so much with the poor and the marginalized: teaching the catechism, accompanying the sick and the moribund, distributing communion, [and] in many countries conducting the common prayers in absence of priests and in those circumstances pronouncing the homily. In the church there is the office of the permanent diaconate, but it is open only to married and non-married men.

What impedes the church from including women among permanent deacons, just as it happened in the early church? Why not construct an official commission that might study the question?" (http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-create-commission-study-female-deacons-catholic-church)

In answer, the Pope said that "he had spoken about the matter once some years ago with a “good, wise professor” who had studied the use of female deacons in the early centuries of the church. Francis said it remained unclear to him what role such deacons had.

“What were these female deacons?” the pontiff recalled asking the professor. “Did they have

Pope Francis with members of the IUSG

ordination or no?"“It was a bit obscure,” said Francis. "What was the role of the deaconess in that time?”

“Constituting an official commission that might study the question?” the pontiff asked aloud. "I believe yes. It would do good for the church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this."

“I accept,” the pope said later. “It seems useful to me to have a commission that would clarify this well."" (http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-create-commission-study-female-deacons-catholic-church)

Now, obviously, this is super exciting news, and could lead to some pretty historic, groundbreaking events as a result.  If women are able to be ordained into the permanent diaconate, they would be able to preach openly at Mass, and conduct marriage ceremonies as well as funerals and baptisms.  Women would be able to participate in the sacramental life in the Church in a way that hasn't been possible for them since the early Church.  This could, down the line, open up an even larger conversation about women's ordination into the priesthood (but let's not get to ahead of ourselves here...one step at a time)!

However, while I'm very optimistic at this prospect and the possibilities this conversation could have for the Church, I remain cautiously optimistic.  A tiny part of me, a cynical part that's been knocked down again and again, and has seen these and related concerns pushed into the corner or systemically ignored over and over, is a bit skeptical of how far this conversation will actually go.  Here's the thing: This question has been asked before.  Many times.  By clergy, by religious, by lay people, by scholars...the question of whether or not women should be permitted into the permanent diaconate is not a new one.  What's new and exciting about this whole situation is that this is the first time the question has been asked, and a conversation has been allowed to happen rather than the subject being immediately shut down.

Yay Pope Francis for being open to the dialogue and listening to the concerns of the women that posed the question!

That doesn't mean anything's going to happen beyond the commission, however.  The risk is that the commission will come to the conclusion that, no, women can't be deacons, and we'll be right back where we started.  Worse, because it will be even harder to restart the conversation again.  It's a necessary risk, don't get me wrong, because we'll never get anywhere without the commission and the conversation to begin with, but it's a gamble all the same.  So, a few things have to happen to ease my skepticism and convince me that this discussion is going to get the fair, honest treatment it deserves.  First off, the commission cannot be made up solely of clergy.  Perspectives from outside the Church's hierarchy are essential in order for the dialogue to be fully formed.  Second, notable theologians and scholars must be included, and a good chunk of them need to be women.  In his discussion with the UISG, Pope Francis acknowledged that women need to be included in the decision-making processes of the Church, something that they have been routinely excluded from because of their exclusion from ordination.  This would be the perfect opportunity to show that the Church is really moving towards that greater inclusion.  In order for a real decision to be reached about this vitally important issue, women's voices must be included.  And third, the voices of the people on the ground, the Church, must also be heard.  The regular people living out their faith day-to-day, witnessing the work that is being done in parishes, in schools, in hospitals, etc.  Work, primarily done, but good, faithful women.  Their witness should be a component of the overall discussion, and their work taken into account when deciding what it means for women to serve the Church.

So, yes, this is an exciting time in the Church, and an exciting opportunity for women's voices to be heard in a way that has been permitted in much of the Church's history.  However, even with a Pope like Francis in the lead, the hierarchy is still the hierarchy, with thousands of years of patriarchal doctrine and exclusion of women within its ranks weighing it down.  Major change like this will only happen if the Church as a whole makes it voice heard, so I encourage any of you who believe this to be the right direction for the Church to head in to speak up.  Talk to your local priest, write to your bishop, even write to the Vatican if you can (I've handily included Pope Francis' mailing address below)!  Let the hierarchy know that women deacons is something our Church not only wants, but needs.  We need to make our voices heard so that it's not the same few people making the same decisions over and over again.  Think about it, pray about it, and let the Spirit guide you, but whatever side of this question you fall on, don't hesitate to make your voice heard.

Until next time,
Erin B.

P.S. As promised, Pope Francis' mailing address:
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City  

It's Time to Have "The Talk" - Part Two

When I was in middle school, I remember we had a special guest speaker come in to talk to us about chastity.  This wasn't a surprising thing for a Catholic school to do, and the speaker was charismatic and entertaining.  He used such romantic language as "true love", "princess", "happily ever after", and so on and so forth, making it sound like such a fairy tale to stay "pure."  By the end of the talk, most of my class willingly signed a "purity" card, promising to wait until marriage to have sex.


Years later, I'm thinking back on that talk, and realizing how screwed up it really was.

Let me begin by saying that this is not an anti-chastity post.  Chastity, truthfully defined as "the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of [a person] in [his or hers] bodily and spiritual being", is a good thing (CCC, #2337).  It's an awareness and respect of one's own sexuality, and an understanding that sexuality is an integral part of the wholeness of the person.  It's a gift, and one that should be used responsibly.  Unfortunately, that's not what most people think of when the topic of chastity is brought into conversation.  Most people think that it is interchangeable with "virgin" or "pure", when it is in fact a term much more complex than either of those words.  But, you'll most likely come away from any chastity talk today with the idea that "chastity = not having sex", which, at the end of the day, has more potential for harm than good.

So, am I saying that the Church should do away with chastity talks?  No, I'm not.  What the Church does need to do, however, is reflect on and change the language that is used during those talks and the actual message that young people who hear them are receiving.  Specifically, the use of the word "pure", and the intensely gender-divided lessons.

When talking about chastity, what does it mean to say someone is "pure"?  Well, you're knee-jerk thoughts might be that that person is "clean", "wholesome", "unsullied", and "untouched".  But, digging a little deeper, what exactly does all that mean?  What are we really saying about someone when we call them "pure"?  To put it simply, pure = virgin.  Someone who has never had intercourse (even if they've done other stuff) is considered to be "pure" in the Church's eyes.  By that definition, then, the flipside would mean that non-virgin = used, dirty, unclean, sullied, broken, etc.  In other words, a non-virgin is automatically less of an ideal person than a virgin.

Let's pretend for a moment that you are a girl in high school, and a speaker comes to talk to your class about chastity.  You hear some things like "stay pure", "true love waits", "stay true to your future husband", "dress in a way that won't tempt guys" and so on.  Maybe the speaker uses some kind of imagery, like a white rose.  They hold up the rose and say that it's a representation of you when you're pure, and then squish it in their hand.  When they have another student try to straighten the squished petals out (and they obviously can't), they say that that's what happens when you give up your purity.  Maybe they take it one step further and compare women (yes, specifically women) to a clean, white piece of cloth, which they then get dirty.  They offer it to a boy in the crowd and ask if he would want to clean his hands with the dirtied cloth, and he naturally says no.  What's the lesson?  Guys don't want "dirtied" girls.  Super duper.

If you're a virgin, this might all sound just dandy for you.  But...what if you aren't?  What if you've already had sex?  Maybe you willingly chose to do it...maybe you were unwilling.  Either way, the message seems pretty clear: You're dirty.  You're used.  What respectable guy will ever want you now?  You don't think a young, impressionable high school girl who is bombarded daily with criticisms of herself from the media and society at large is going to come to these conclusions?  Sure, you can commit herself to "purity" from this point onwards...but the damage is done.  Instead of being uplifted, instead of choosing to wait because you know how important sex really is and why the Church considers it so sacred, you just feel more weighed down by guilt and fear.  Which, believe me, high school girls feel enough of in their day-to-day lives.

Even if you are a virgin, however, this language can still have negative consequences.  You come away from the talk with a fairy-tale understanding of how relationships work.  All you have to do is stay "pure" and you'll find your prince charming.  There's nothing about how naturally difficult relationships are, how much work goes into even the most successful ones.  And there sure as hell isn't any talk about how much work the sex part of a relationship will be, especially if you're completely ignorant of that area.  How will you shake the negative thoughts and ideas that you have about sex if you do get married and want to have it?  Won't you always see that part of your married life as a little bit dirty?  Plus, how is this talk going to color how you view girls you know have had sex?  Will you think less of them?  Will you avoid them, because you think they're bad or dirty?  Will you start judging others, instead of loving them?

Let's switch it up!  Now I want you to pretend you're a high school boy listening to a chastity talk.  Is what you hear going to have as big of an impact on you as it does the girls?  Are you going to feel as guilty, as dirty as a non-virgin female classmate?  Probably not.  Why?  Because while girls are most often told they need to remain pure to find love and get married, putting all the pressure on them to keep themselves "intact", boys are cast into the "prince charming", "true man", or protector role.  They are told the best type of girl to be with is a "pure" one, who will need to be protected.  There's nothing about mutually supporting each other in a relationship or partnership.  Boys are told that "pure" girls are delicate little flowers, and it's their job to make sure nothing "sullies" them.

Sure, this might not sound that bad at first glance, but these messages do nothing to empower young people, especially girls.  They're not keeping themselves "pure" because they have a right to control what happens to their own bodies, or a right to embrace their sexuality in the way they think is most wholesome.  No.  They have to stay "pure", or they will never find true love.  And for the boys?  When they say they need to be "true men", it's a very specific understanding of what it means to be a man.  Tough, strong, masculine, non-emotional, aggressive, take-charge...you get where I'm going with this?  Not all boys are going to fit into this mold of what it means to "be a man", and this is far from the only way to "be a man"!  However, when the Church is presenting it's understanding of what it means to be "pure" to young men and women, these deep gender divides in the language used and lessons taught feed into a much larger social problem.  This kind of divide leads to women who are opinionated and aggressive being labeled "bossy" or "bitchy", and for men who

display the same characteristics to be labeled "driven" and "assertive".  It's the divide that pressures men to keep their emotions buried, and for the norm for women to often be seen as "overly" emotional.  It's the divide that slut-shames girls and criticizes their bodies and the way they dress, while it's almost expected of men to engage in promiscuity (at least while young) and views those men who don't want to live up to that expectation as "unmanly".  It's the divide that makes certain men believe they can make decisions regarding women's bodies without involving women in the conversation at all.  It's the divide that leads some men to believe that it doesn't matter if a woman says no...

So what can we do instead?  What can the Church do to make chastity talks a more empowering, educational experience that the poorly-veiled guilt trips they really are?  Language is key here.  The language needs to change.  The word "pure" needs to be removed from the equation completely.  Just because a person is a virgin, does not mean they are "pure".  Just because a person has had sex, does not mean they are "impure".  Not all girls need to fit into the "delicate flower" mold, and not all boys need to fit into the "tough, emotionless, manly" mold.  People are complicated, men and women are complicated.  Chastity talks need to acknowledge the complexity of humanity, take into account the very different experiences of people, and recognize the spectrum of sexuality.  They need to switch the view from "stay pure and your life will be great" to "here's why your sexuality is important, and here's how taking care of it can make you a more holistic person."  The Church as a whole needs to rethink it's approach to the subject of sex, and a good place to start is rethinking the message that it's giving to young people through its chastity talks.

Stay tuned for Part Three of "The Talk", where I'll offer an alternative to "abstinence-only" ministry.

Until next time,

Erin B.

It's Time to Have "The Talk" - Part One

Let's talk about sex.

Wait, before you run from your computer screaming "inappropriate", let me ask you this question: Why might talking about sex on a faith-focused blog make you uncomfortable?

Is it because you have this idea that sex is somehow "dirty" and "sinful"? That you think a blog like this is only going to talk about abstinence, or why people shouldn't use birth control? Maybe it's because, in all reality, you've never actually received a helpful, enriching sex talk before, and were either told "just don't do it" or "here's how not to get an STD"? If you're a person of faith, have you ever heard anyone give a positive, well-rounded talk about sex in the Church? My guess...probably not.

So, we're going to talk about sex, because the Church is not doing a great job of it.

Take some advice from Salt-N-Peppa

Don't get me wrong, it's not just the Church that has a problem. Our society, especially in the United States, has this weird, unhealthy way of addressing sex. It's like a terribly kept secret - you know it's there, reference it subtly in some settings and blatantly in others, but ultimately condemn it when there's an attempt to bring it out into the light of day. I could go on for hours and hours about how the United States specifically needs to reevaluate its views on sex, but I digress. We're not talking about that right now. Today, we're focusing in on the Church.

Now, before anyone gets too excited, I'm not going to present any arguments for or against sex outside of marriage, or birth control, or anything of that nature...not today at least. This is a very broad topic, so to narrow it down a bit I'm going to work specifically from within the Church's officially teachings, meaning sex within the context of marriage.  What I want to talk about today is specifically how the Church talks about sex, and why the current rhetoric is so damaging, even for those couples who follow Church teaching and do wait for marriage.  For you unmarried folks reading this, don't worry.  There's plenty in here for you as well!

I once heard of an exchange between a priest and a young male college student.  The two were talking about the student's relationship with his girlfriend.  They were living together, and were having sex.  The priest and the student basically got into an argument about the situation, and the priest later spoke about how he was so shocked by how "blinded" the young man was to his "wrongdoing."  When I heard this, I was extremely upset, but not because of the young man's actions, or because of the priest's opinions.  I was upset with the way the priest handled the situation.  Instead of using the conversation as an opportunity to talk about the positive things the Church does have to say about sex, and engage with the young man to explore his choices, the priest was completely focused on what he viewed as the young man's "blindness" and "wrongdoing."  A wonderful opportunity for conversation and ministry was wasted, and a pointless argument took place instead.

This exchange perfectly illustrates how poorly the Church has talked about sex throughout the years.  What most people are hearing from the Church in regards to sex is "it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong."  Not only does this way of addressing the topic not keep people from having sex, it does a lot of damage in regards to how people feel about sex.  Guilt, frustration, shame, anger, confusion...they feel all this towards themselves, towards their Church, sometimes even towards God.  Many rebel against the anti-sex, abstinence-only rhetoric they hear from their priests and ministers.  Some view sex as sinful, and the stigma remains even when they are married and "allowed" to be intimate with their spouse.  A lot of people, especially young people, feel so uncomfortable talking about sex openly with anyone, mostly adults, that they either refuse to learn anything about it until they're "allowed" to have it, or they have unsafe, unprotected sex because they don't know any better.



Let me break this down into a more specific scenario to make my point.  Let's say a young couple gets married.  They've done everything "right" in the Church's eyes, having engaged in very limited physical intimacy until they tie-the-knot.  Unfortunately, this also means that they've made no effort to learn much of anything about sex, other than what was told to them in school years and years ago.  For both of them, sex has always been a bit of a taboo subject, because they've been told their not allowed to have it, so they've avoided it in order to stay "pure."  As a result, they know nothing about their own bodies, their own desires, or what to expect of themselves or their partner when they're together.  The expectation is that they simply flick the switch from "sex is bad, sex is bad, sex is bad" to "it's okay now" on their wedding night.  But it doesn't work that way.  It's not that easy to go from years of negatively-tinged thoughts about sex to a mindset that it's a vital part of their married relationship.  They don't understand that their physical relationship isn't going to magically click together right away and be awesome.  When it ends up falling short of expectations, that can lead to strain on the relationship, and the desire to have sex, to practice and explore that aspect of the relationship, can plummet.

Do you have to have sex before marriage to gain this knowledge?  No.  Most of the hang-ups that couples who have waited can end up having in the bedroom can easily be avoided by simply taking the time to actually talk about and learn about sex.  "But Erin, won't talking about, reading about, and learning about sex just make it harder for them not to have sex?"  Maybe for some, but not if the Church is doing its job right (which, hint hint, it's not).  For those couples who are dedicated to waiting to have sex until marriage, it's important for them to understand that sex is a really, really good thing.  They shouldn't be embarrassed to ask questions and try to figure out, to some extent, what might work best for them as a couple.

There is some really positive teachings within the Catholic Church regarding sex, but it seems that it is rarely talked about in the day-to-day life of the Church.  Despite the wide-spread misconception (which was at one point, admittedly, fact) the Catholic Church does not view sex as simply for baby-making.  There is a real emphasis on the bond it creates between spouses.  The Catechism says such things as "the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion", that sex "is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such" and that God wants spouses to "experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them" (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm).  Unfortunately, unless you've actively studied or pursued answers to this topic within the Church, you most likely haven't heard anything in regards to the spiritual, emotional, and physical bonding that can happen during sex, and the assurance that God does actually want you to enjoy it. 

The Church needs to change its strategy in how it talks about sex.  Its needs to stop fearing that if it says anything positive about sex to people, especially young people, they're going to go out and copulate like crazy rabbits.  Instead, the Church needs to open the doors to conversation, talk about why sex is good, and why the Church teaches that God wants individuals to wait.  Will this keep people from having sex outside of marriage?  No.  People are going to make their own choices, whether to wait or not to, and that's up to them.  What the Church can do is hold up the spiritual as well as the physical importance of sex, allow people to explore the topic without embarrassment, and realize that it is beautiful.  The Church needs to talk more about why sex is good, why it is holy and sacred, and deserving of respect rather than stigma and guilt.  It will only continue to drive people away and damage their perceptions of sex if it maintains its negative rhetoric.

There's still a lot to talk about with this subject, so I'm breaking it down into three parts.  In Part Two, I'll talk about why the language used to talk about sex needs to change, and why women are the ones receiving the most negative messages about their sexuality.  In Part Three, we'll focus specifically on young people, and how to minister about sex in a positive, uplifting way without ever having to use the word abstinence (whaaaaaat???).

Stay tuned!
Erin B. 

A Simple Irish Blessing

For this week's post, a simple Irish blessing for anyone who is grieving a loved one's passing.

Tis only we who grieve
They do not leave
They are not gone
They look upon us still
They walk among the valleys now
They stride upon the hill
Their smile is in the summer sky
Their grace is in the breeze
Their memories whisper in the grass
Their calm is in the trees
Their light is in the winter snow
Their tears are in the rain
Their merriment runs in the brook
Their laughter in the lane
Their gentleness is in the flowers
They sigh in autumn leaves
They do not leave
They are not gone
Tis only we who grieve
If only we could see the splendour of the land
To which our loved ones are called from you and me
We’d understand
If only we could hear the welcome they receive
From old familiar voices all so dear
We would not grieve
If only we could know the reason why they went
We’d smile and wipe away the tears that flow
And wait content.
Anon

Erin B.

(This prayer and others can be found at http://www.naturalendings.co.uk/funeral-poetry/)

What Wonder Woman and Mary Magdalene Have Taught Me This Easter Season

Two things occurred this past weekend that, at first glance, might seem to have nothing in common.  The first was that Batman vs. Superman opened in theaters everywhere, and the second, of course, was Easter.  Now I know what you're thinking, how could I possibly connect Batman vs. Superman with Easter?  Well, never fear, I have a trick up my sleeve.  I'm going to do it by magically using two figures that you might not have thought of: Wonder Woman and Mary Magdalene.

(Here's a teaser of the movie in case you live under a rock and don't know what I'm talking about)

First though, I little context for my thought process.  Over the weekend, I was brainstorming ideas for posts for this shiny new blog.  I was doing research, looking up counter arguments, making a list of everything I want to eventually talk about.  However, I kept catching myself doing the same thing over and over.  Every time I read an article, a post, or a document from an opposing viewpoint to see what points were being made (several of these, I'll admit, were documents written by members of the Church's hierarchy itself), I found myself automatically thinking things like "Oh, that's right.  That'll never change," or "Maybe I am being a little irrational", or "I don't think I have enough knowledge to counter these points", and even "Well I guess they at least made an effort to be inclusive...kind of", and on, and on, and on.  I found myself constantly hesitating, constantly doubting my own abilities, my own knowledge, and my own experiences.  Why?  Well, part of it is because I continue to hold this idea that the authority has the knowledge, the final say, and that ultimately I can't push back against it.  In this specific case, the authority is the patriarchal hierarchy of the Church.

So, I was feeling a little hopeless, a little deflated.  I was rethinking this whole blog idea, and wondering if it would make any kind of difference anyway, or if I was just wasting my time.  Easter Sunday came, and the Gospel was John 20:1-9.  Obviously it was about the resurrection, but this telling highlights Peter and "the other disciple" more so than Mary Magdalene's role in the whole thing, so that wasn't really very helpful to me (don't worry, though, she's going to make a comeback).  So, I left Mass still a little down in the dumps about what I was going to do, whether or not I could actually make my voice heard, and if I could ever make any real difference in the Church and the world.

Then, the next evening, I went to see Batman vs. Superman.

(I promise, no actual spoilers)

Now, whether you are a fan of superhero movies or not, or if you enjoyed this movie or not, there is one part of the film I think everyone can agree on: the awesomeness that is Wonder Woman.  She is a fascinating figure in the DC Universe in general.  She's a powerful, Amazon warrior princess who could go toe-to-toe with Superman in a fight.  She's a founding member of the Justice League, fiercely independent, and doesn't take shit from anyone. 

So much fierceness.

Why hasn't there been a live action movie made about her (until now, obviously) with so many years of superhero-hype in Hollywood?  Some say because she's a woman, filmmakers have passed on her because they don't think a Wonder Woman movie would be as profitable as a movie with a male star.  Others say, however, that the idea of making a Wonder Woman movie has been such an intimidating feat (you don't want to mess up a movie about the one woman who is arguably on the same level, maybe higher, as Superman and Batman in skills, strength, intelligence, authority, and respect) that no filmmaker wants to take it on for fear of doing it wrong (we will see if they've managed it when Wonder Woman comes out next June).

There's something about the way Wonder Woman is portrayed in Batman vs. Superman, however, that is especially notable.  Maybe it's just that Gal Gadot, the actress who plays her, is simply amazing in the role (which she is), but I think its also the sense of worldliness that Wonder Woman possesses in this portrayal of the character.  Wonder Woman is always shown as a super-powerful and incredibly skilled warrior who never backs down from a fight, but she is also often been depicted (depending on the writer that takes her character on) as being fairly new to the larger world outside of her home of Themyscira, and so a little innocent and naïve.  What's striking about Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman is that she is so far from innocent and naïve to the larger world, that she's almost cynical of it, which gives her an edginess and also creates an internal struggle as she debates whether or not to get involved in the mess between Batman and Superman.  When she does step in (and this is not a spoiler, because the trailers show her fighting), it's pretty clear that her skills in battle are superior to the other two.  Once she's in the fight, there is no hesitation, no sense of fear or feeling that she doesn't belong there.  She doesn't defer to the powerful men around her.  She's confident in her skills, knows that she's good at what she does, and dominates in the battlefield.  At one point, she's thrown to the side by Doomsday (again, not a spoiler because he's shown in the trailer), but instead of crying out or looking on in fear, she freaking smirks, as if to say "Finally, a challenge worthy of me."  That single moment is one of the most badass of the whole movie.


All right, so you're probably thinking, "Great Erin, Wonder Woman's awesome, but what does this all have to do with Easter or Mary Magdalene?"


I'll tell you.  It wasn't until Tuesday in the Octave of Easter (the day after seeing the movie) that Mary Magdalene's role was really emphasized.  In John 20:11-18, we find Mary Magdalene outside of the empty tomb, weeping.  When she looks inside the tomb, she finds two angels who ask her why she was crying.  She responds that the body of her Lord has been taken and she doesn't know where he's been laid.  When she turns back around, she comes face-to-face with the risen Christ, but she doesn't immediately recognize him.  She mistakes him for a gardener, and demands to know if he took the body and if so, where he put it so she can retrieve it.  When Jesus says her name, she instantly recognizes him as her Teacher.  He tells her to take a message to the other disciples, that he will soon be going to his God and their God.  She goes and announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord, and then reports to them everything Christ told her.

Not gonna lie, I'd be freaking out.

There are a few things in these verses that are pretty significant, not least among them the fact that the risen Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene first before even any of the twelve apostles.  However, that's not the detail I want to focus on (right now anyway).  I want to focus on Mary's surprising boldness throughout these verses.  When she looks into the tomb and finds angels inside, there's no sense of a freak-out happening on her part.  When they ask her why she is crying, she doesn't hesitate to answer, even though SHE IS TALKING TO FREAKING ANGELS!  Then, she encounters Jesus, who she mistakes for a gardener.  Now, she doesn't simply ask him if he took the body from the tomb (again, she doesn't know she's talking to Jesus yet), she demands to know if he took it, where it is, and then follows that up by saying she'll go retrieve it herself.  Finally, he speaks her name and she recognizes him, and unlike the apostles who down the line won't truly believe it's him until they see his wounds (John 20:19-31), there is no hesitation in her acceptance of the risen Christ.


That's the amazing part.  Mary has such incredible confidence in her love for and in her relationship with Christ, that there's no room for doubt when she finally recognizes him.  This is completely unique among Christ's followers.  No other disciple believes that Christ is risen until they see his wounds.  Mary doesn't need to.  And she also doesn't hesitate to go to tell the others that Christ has returned, without fear of backlash or disbelief, even though she is a woman bringing them incredible, unbelievable news.


So, what do Mary Magdalene and Wonder Woman have in common?  Their unwavering confidence.  Their lack of hesitation.  Their ability to overcome obstacles, whether internal, social, or mystical in order to get the job done.  Wonder Woman's confidence in herself, her abilities, and her intelligence is mirrored in Mary Magdalene's confidence in her love and in her relationship with Christ.  Both women have unshakeable foundations from which they are able achieve amazing deeds.  Wonder Woman defeats monsters and goes toe-to-toe with superhumans, and Mary Magdalene brings the amazing truth of the Paschal mystery to the other disciples, and through them, to the rest of the world.


It was the lucky double-whammy of encountering these two figures, one from comic books and one from the Gospel, so close together that restored my own confidence, and made me see that my hesitation and uncertainty was a direct result of years of feeling I have no real place to speak in my Church, or in my society.  I realized that sometimes there is no space for my voice, but I can't give up, and have to make the space myself.  Even if I come to doubt myself, I have to hold onto the goal I'm working towards and know that I can't let other voices beat me down and convince me I'm not capable of achieving it.  I might not be as strong and skilled as Wonder Woman, or as strong in my faith as Mary Magdalene, but I have gifts and abilities of my own that I can overcome any obstacle with.  And so, happy reader, do you.  So have confidence, have faith, and go out and change the world, because it's not going to do it itself.


Until next time,

Erin B.       

Just a fun little treat to get you hyped for the Wonder Woman movie next year!

Welcome to Prayers of Sophia

It's not easy being a woman in the Church, especially in the Catholic Church where old patriarchal traditions continue to exist. If you're a woman involved in ministry, the potential joy you feel in your work is often dampened by the knowledge that you can only do so much, say so much, and have to live out your faith in sometimes less-than-fulfilling ways. Women do not have many outlets for their voices, for their frustrations, or for their prayers and reflections. Our sharing is limited, what defines us as women is often limited, and yet there is such a deep love within us for our Church and our God that we put up with all the extra baggage and crap. We do the best we can with what we are able to have. Sometimes, though, it's not enough. When we don't have the opportunities to share our faith, to share our voices, that deep love we possess is in danger of turning into bitterness. So that's what this blog is. It's a place for women of faith to speak, to be heard, to share their stories, prayers, reflections, frustrations, and joys. It's a place for us to explore our faith, to show what's in our hearts, and to find support in our work, whatever that may be. Some posts may be serious, some may be funny, some may be frustrating, others joy-filled, but they will be honest representations of the women who write them.

Personally, I will share my own story, but I will invite others to join me because I cannot speak for everyone by myself. I think it's fitting to kick off this blog during Holy Week, with Easter mere days away. This is a time of renewal, a time to reflect on where we are as individuals, as a community, and as a Church. With so much darkness, pain, and overall craziness in our world right now, I think it's important that we come together, peacefully, respectfully, but honestly, to talk about our experiences. So welcome to Prayers of Sophia. To kick things off, I want to share a reflection that I had the privilege to give at a communion service yesterday, March 22nd. The reading was from the Gospel of John 13: 21-33, 36-38. In this reading, Jesus and his apostles are at dinner, and Jesus singles out Judas as his eventual betrayer, though no one seems to understand what he is trying to say. Shortly after that, however, Jesus turns his attention to Peter, and tells him that he will deny him three times in the end. Below is the short reflection I wrote based on this Gospel reading:

When I was a kid, I remember this animated video series I used to watch called The Greatest

Adventures: Stories from the Bible. I don’t remember that many of them, but there is one that has remained stuck in my head ever since I first watched it. It was the video about the Easter Story. Now, every time someone talks about the Passion, the images from that movie pop into my head. For a kids’ movie, some of them were pretty vivid. I don’t remember a ton of details, but two scenes are still very clear to me. The scene where Jesus is whipped, and the scene where Judas kisses Jesus in the garden, completing his betrayal.

 We hear about Christ’s final days every year during Holy Week. The Passion is read, in full, and I’ve heard and read it so many times myself that I can at least recite the order of things pretty perfectly (I don't know it word for word because it's about a million pages long). I know the story, I know the meaning behind the actions, and I know the legacy that those actions left. At this point in my life though, and not to belittle the significance of the Passion itself, it’s the days leading up to the final days that I find the most fascinating. In those days, during that time, Jesus knew what was coming. He knew who would betray him, knew what he would be forced to endure, the suffering he would face, but he continued forward. He didn't stop, he didn't run like anyone else in his position would most likely have done. He stayed on the path that God had laid out for him.

Can you imagine the anxiety he must have felt? To just have to wait, knowing exactly what was coming for him? Those final days as they crawled by must have been agony, a torture he continuously suffered, and the only way out was going to be just more pain. And it was a suffering he endured alone. 

Whenever I am feeling anxious, or dread, or know I have to do something that I really don’t want to do, I’m torn inside. Part of me desperately wants to reach out, to unburden myself on someone, to have someone support me and sympathize with my pain. Another part of me, and the part that usually wins in these situations, is determined to face whatever I have to do alone. It’s my responsibility. It’s my burden. Nobody else should have to carry it for me. And yet, sometimes I find myself dropping small hints. Reaching out to those around me in subtle ways, too afraid to ask for help and support outright, but desperate for something. That’s what I think Jesus was doing with all of his hints and suggestions to his disciples. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus eluding to his inevitable death again and again, never quite saying it outright, but reaching out again and again to his disciples. To me, that’s Jesus subtly seeking that support, that help, that companionship that would ease the weight of his burden, if only slightly. He could never give up what he was destined to do, could never pass it to another, but to just have someone know, to understand, to confide in, I imagine would have been such a relief. Yet, his followers never seem to get it. They always misunderstand him, or even deny what he is telling them. It’s as if they are so afraid of what he’s saying that they refuse to face the truth, but in that denial, they are isolating Christ. Forcing him to face the inevitable alone. When he singles out Judas, and even when he singles out Peter, it’s as if to warn them. You will betray me…you will deny me…two of my closest friends will cause me the greatest pain.

 It's interesting that in the same night, Jesus points out Judas as his betrayer, though no one understands, and warns Peter that he will deny him three times. Which betrayal is worse? Yes, obviously Judas' betrayal may seem the worst because of the suffering that Christ endures as a result, but Judas is always portrayed as shady, and Jesus knows that he has to die in order to fulfill his mission on earth. His suffering most likely would have happened with or without Judas. Peter, on the other hand, is not just another apostle but one of the most loyal, and one of the first to follow Christ. I imagine that Peter wasn’t just a follower of Christ, but a true friend of Christ. Yet, in the moment Jesus needs him the most, Peter will deny that relationship. Will act as if they don’t even know each other in order to protect his own life. Peter, the apostle he hold up as a leader, as a teacher, as the first Pope, arguably betrayed Christ in a worst way than Judas. Judas was never a true apostle…Peter was the apostle. His denial of Christ, his abandonment, left Jesus more alone at the end than he’d ever been in the days leading up to his death.

What's my point? Christ died for the salvation of humanity. Holy week is a time of both solemn remembrance and joyful anticipation of the resurrection. Jesus fulfilled his mission as the Son of God, but let’s not forget that he was also a man. Fully divine, fully human, with all of the complex emotions, responses, and reactions that come with that existence. I want us to remember, as we continue through this week, that the image of Jesus stepping from the tomb, having defeated death and opened the pathway to the Kingdom of God, is only part of the story. The other part is the image of a man, alone because he’s been misunderstood and abandoned by his friends, and afraid because he knows exactly what he must suffer to do God’s work. Yet, he remains determined to stay the course that God has given him, to fulfill his destiny and save the world. So, as we continue through this week and we remember the Passion of Christ and the glorious resurrection, let us praise the divine, but also remember the person. Because, it is in Christ’s complete humanity that we ourselves learn how to be human, and how to be in relationship with God even with our fears, our flaws, and our failings.

Amen.
Erin B.