Reflections on our Mission

A philosophical investigation into the restoration of the feminine perspective in Theology and its implications for humanity.

I was just sitting around looking at our blog, when I really started to take a look at that subtitle you and I made up when we first created this. We sort of created the statement in a hurry, but not too much of a hurry that we didn't conciously know and choose the words that we wrote. However, now that we're sort of settled in, I think it warrants an examination of those things we are specifically trying to do.

A Philosophical Investigation

From an outside perspective, it might not appear that we are quite as textbooky 'philosophical' as could possibly be, but our goal was to really examine these questions that philosophy poses at the heart of itself - meaning, being, existence, purpose and God. And that many times philosophical examinations and ways of thinking about such things are quite limited in their scope because of the particular masculine bias perhaps inherent in what is considered philosophy, philosophical discourse and relevant philosophical components. What you and I wanted to do, was investigate a little more into what philosophy was and has been, and what it could be, if it indeed can be more than it already is. That philosophy is in some way, we feel in our guts, missing something that we can't always even accurately put our fingers on.

Some of it may be related to the handling of mysticism, to non-pointed, abstracted, delinated approaches, to the exclusion of the relationships,concrete, and personal, or just to the de-emphasis of a particular way of thinking about the way to examine who we are ourselves.

So then the first part of our goal, is to examine our own ways of knowing in as open and complete a philosophical manner as possible.

Into the Restoration

We are clearly then working under the assumption with this phrasing that the perspective we are trying to rediscover for ourselves has indeed, at one time, existed. For this to be the case, it could either have existed because others in the past explored it to such a depth already, or, as is more likely the case in my opinion, because it always existed from the beginning of time, only waiting to come to full realization of its potentiality.

Of the Feminine Perspective

Here we are definitely asserting that there is such a thing as a feminine perspective, which may vary from individual to individual, but is a certainty in this world under God -- that we are created "male and female", and that this itself has particular significance for both our philosophical investigation and any 'restoration' we are attempting to make. As classifying the perspective as feminine, we are also giving it sexual attributes, or a gender connotation. This might pose as a complication because there are many who would point out to us the social construction of gendered terms like 'feminine'. But I think that you and I would posit that we speak in reference to the feminine as encompassing all that a female in her dignity in the image of God is called to be, both in her specific aspects (your and I's feminine perspective) and the general aspects (the perspective of 'woman', which, as we believe there is a distinctive quality and dignity of woman as there is of man, can be assessed in that general sense).

The word feminine is then attached to the noun 'Perspective' -- literally meaning, 'to look through' something, a way of looking at, all around, through and of something. Our endeavour again is completely tied back to this notion of our ways of looking and understanding.

Our ways of looking and understanding are valuable to know in isolation, but it is also crucial to put them to some purpose, as follows in the subtitle:

In Theology

In particular, you and I are specifically concerned with what this means in the Catholic Church's traditions and teachings, Christian philosophical understandings, and how it plays out in the world - all crucial components of "the Study of God". We want to, in general but not always necessarily, gear our philosophical investigations about the feminine perspective to this subject which captures your and I's hearts and motivates us to do what we do - that we have the motivation, desire, and impulse (and hopefully the grace) to learn what we can for ourselves and what other use we can put it to.

We also seem to be asserting here that Theology for at least some part has lost these components of the feminine perspective that we are trying to restore in it (again, even if they only existed in Theology in its broadest inclusion of potentialities). Whether that be because of the development and history of the subject and the discourse, its subjects, its speakers, etc. can certainly also be a subject of discussion.

And its Implications for Humanity

This last part is my favorite, for I am always looking for the context and the implications of these abstracted concepts and ideals. What does this mean in real life --- for you, for me, for my mom and dad, for your best friend, for the little girl in India and the old man in Peru, for your great-great-great-grand niece not yet born and my great-great-great-uncle who has since passed away. The word as we're using it is literally referring to all the folds and complexities of life, for us "to involve, tangle, and connect closely". (hehehehe, it's going to be fun :D )

And also, what does it all mean and how it will it impact, not just the world, but Humanity. Humanity as understood as men and women in not just our bodies, or souls, but entire being past, present, future and eternal under God. This word is so important for us, I think, in light of what the Catholic Church teaches -- that woman is the model for all humanity, and the Virgin Mother as the whole of humanity in perfection. :)

Ideas on Mystical Theology

"For women, then, poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action. Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought."
-Audre Lorde


If, one uses more mystical language to predicate ones concept of God, this then expresses the same reality of the "science of God" and is then, of course, a genuine Theological school, if not more so, for it in some way grasps the beauty and provides an apprehension of the fullness of God insofar as the mind is capable, having the capacity to be just as close to truth as technical semantical language, if only from a different and no less true perspective, and hence should not be dismissed as mere Mysticism.

St. Thomas - Vir est principum mulieris et finis

"Man is the principle/source and end of woman."

I would like to clarify here what I think St. Thomas means when he calls man the principle and end of woman. First of all, a principle is that from which something else follows. Thus it signifies that woman was made from man. It signifies further the principle as primary and that which follows as subordinate. (The term that Paul used, that man is head of woman, corresponds to the Thomistic concept.) The "end" as St. Thomas uses it means, first of all, that to which another strives, that wherein it finds peace and fulfillment; hence this signifies that the meaning of the feminine being is fulfilled in union with man. End signifies further that for whose sake another exists. Thus, it means that because man needs woman to fulfill the meaning of his being, she was created for his sake. It does not seem to me that this means that woman was created only for the sake of man; for every creature has its own meaning, and that is its particular way of being an image of the divine being. Also, if the sexual relation is not justified by its own meaning and value, it was very possible indeed to assure human propagation by other means. nor do I understand that woman is denigated by having been created "for man's sake" unless it is misunderstood as it very well could be after the degeneracy of both sexes as a result of the Fall, i.e., that she is to serve man's won ends and satisfy his lust. That was not intended for the companion standing side by side with him over all other creatures. Rather, by her free, personal decision to be his helpmate, she enables him to becomes what he is intended to be. For "man is also not without woman," and that is why he must "leave father and mother in order to cling to his wife."

St. Edith Stein, Problems of Women's Education

Shekinah, the glory of God, Revealed in the Body

There is so much confusion around us about what love really is. After all, for many people, saying "I love you," is really just a way of rationalizing the notion that it's okay to have another sexual fling. And, for many other people, saying "I love you," is primarily an attempt to take someone's emotions hostage, making the person some sort of psychological prisoner.

We can learn what real love is by looking at the God who is love. God's love gives. That's what love does. God gives us life, gives to us all of the created world, and then gives us the freedom to choose to give ourselves to one another.

This is the criteria we're going to use in all of our relationships to determine what is and is not love. Love gives and never uses. No form of using, not even mutually agreed upon using, can ever approximate or in any way contribute to bringing about real love.

For some of us this is hard to imagine, because our culture tells us that our sexuality is almost synonymous with the urge to use each other. But that kind of sexuality can only lead to shame and remorse and the death of love.

None of us can ever be fulfilled or happy so long as we look in the mirror and see a user looking back at us. None of us can be happy lying down next to someone who thinks that we can be reduced to an object to be used.

Using violates the very language of our bodies. Our bodies do in fact have a language. We can read the purpose of our creation in the language of our bodies because of the redemption which Christ has won for us. We can look upon our own bodies, and upon each other's bodies, and recognize in a certain sense what Adam and Eve saw when they looked upon each other's bodies in the Garden, naked and without shame.

What they saw, what we are capable of seeing, is that their bodies made it possible for them to make a gift of themselves to each other. They recognized that each was in a way made for the other, that they were in fact called to become one body. They recognized that they had the capacity to give themselves to one another in a way that would make them partners with God in giving life. And they were not ashamed, because were not tempted to use, but only to give.

Shame entered the garden with sin, when they realized that they were now prone to selfishness and using in the way they treated one another's bodies. But because of the gift we have in Jesus, we can see past that shame, past that sin, and recognize the truth of the human body. No human being can ever find fulfillment in using, but only in giving, and this fact is written not only in our consciences, but in the language of our bodies.

Here we have one of the most profound and effective ways for us to share the Gospel message with this culture, in this new millennium. Everyone, no matter how secular, is capable of discerning the fundamental truth presented here.

Our bodies are not objects to be used. We were made to give and to receive love. Using never leads to giving. Reject using, choose to give, and we will attain the desires of our hearts.

As we go forward in dating and courtship, we should continually strive to discern whether each relationship is truly giving, or has descended to the level of using--for using is the death of love.

Next, before we delve into the essence of truly love-giving relationships, we're going to take a moment to do an autopsy on the sort of dead relationship which is most prevalent in our culture.

Exam 1: Theology of the Body Midterm

"Marriage is good and holy, holy continence is better, virginity is best of all." Explain the reasoning behind Augustine's defense of this hierarchy, with particular focus on his views regarding sexuality. How would you criticize Augustine's theology of the body from your own standpoint? Does anything in Augustine's theology ofthe body retain relevance today?

Augustine's view of holy continence, or voluntarily refraining from sexual union while in the married state as a great "gift of God" is an understanding originating from Saint Paul. Augustine phrases his view as such, "(Paul) tells us that this gift (of continence in marriage) is from God; although he classes it below that continence in which he would have all men be like himself... When these are shown to be gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from him if they are not already possesed." In this we see a construction of Augustine's hierarchy of goods and that he understands it as best for those already married to pursue this marital state. He takes Paul's view that living without a spouse in virginity in the sole pursuit of God as the highest good. As Paul says, "I would that all men were even as I myself."

Women and Leadership:

I found it intriguing to note that the following article stresses not that women cannot hold leadership positions, but that women should not sacrifice who they are as women when it comes to a career. The particular skills of a woman can and do contribute greatly in the work force. How interesting that even secular sciences give full credit to the essential differences in the male:female approach to everything, especially in leadership.

[I do not intend to imply that hence, women should take over the Magesterial Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church ;) Simply, I find it interesting and important to note that women can be and often are quite skilled and effective leaders. ]




5 Ways Women Make Better Leaders
By Jo Miller, Women's Leadership Coach



As a young recruiting consultant in Australia, my first job was working for a female boss. She took any criticism, even constructive criticism, as a personal attack on her position of power, and would wait weeks before launching a counter-attack on an unsuspecting subordinate. The experience was so unsettling it almost discouraged me from wanting to become a manager, and made me think twice before accepting the next job working for a woman. My former boss, like many women, felt it was necessary to be tough to compete in a man's world. Given this background, I was somewhat skeptical to learn about the ways that a woman's style of leadership differs from that of a man. It has often been said that women are better with the soft skills of management, like listening and communicating, while men excel at the hard skills such as analysis and decision-making. Conventional wisdom holds that a feminine leadership style would employ empathy rather than aggression, foster team-building instead of competition, and lead by consensus rather than by directing.In the late '80s and early '90s, management books coached women to break through glass ceilings by acting more like men. Corporate women were advised to wear shoulder pads and use sports and military analogies to "play hardball" and "divide and conquer." But it was never proven that acting like men made women more adept leaders. In six studies completed in the past decade, researchers in the United States compared the abilities of executive men and women. The methodologies varied widely, and included performance evaluations, questionnaires, observations and peer evaluations. Research confirmed conventional wisdom, that women did indeed excel at many of the soft skills of management. Conventional wisdom says that women lead better in these areas:

1. Team-Building

Women are good at encouraging participation and facilitating groups. A 1999 study by Lawrence A. Pfaff and Associates in Michigan found that one of the many ways women rated higher than men was in facilitating teamwork, a skill stereotypically feminine.

2. Empowering

Women are more likely than men to utilize facilitative leadership, a style that enables and encourages others (Porat, 1991). Facilitative leaders empower and motivate people rather than lead by reward and punishment.

3. Communication

Women working in education were found to use a more open communication style that came from their focus on relationships. As a result, they communicated more frequently than men with their colleagues, stakeholders and subordinates (Connor, 1992). In the business world, open communication encourages feedback and sharing of information and power.

4. Consensus-Building

Women are talented collaborators and support contributive, consensual decision-making (Porat, 1991). Team members appreciate knowing their contributions are valued. However, consensus building can have pitfalls for women. An over-reliance on this method of decision-making can make a leader indecisive and too dependent upon the opinions of others. A true leader knows when to stop conferring and propose a decision.

5. Almost Everything Else

But women's strengths are not limited to these skills alone. Of the six studies, five indicated that female bosses scored higher than men on a majority of leadership skills measured. In the sixth study, men and women ranked evenly.In the study by Lawrence A. Pfaff and Associates of more than 1000 managers in 211 organizations, women outranked men in soft skills such as communication and teamwork, but also in areas not traditionally considered female, such as planning, goal-setting and facilitating change. In areas traditionally considered male, such as decisiveness, women ranked on par with men. In Business Week, Shirley Ross, an industrial psychologist who oversaw a study for Hagberg Consulting Group, was quoted as saying ''Women are scoring higher on almost everything we look at". Evidence has mounted that if you are a woman, then statistically speaking, your natural, authentic leadership style is working just fine. Yet women try to be more like men, while men are unencumbered by such thoughts, and get ahead simply by being themselves. Can you imagine a male chief executive rising to the top job by pretending to be someone other than who he is? If you are a woman and want to be a better manager, don't try to lead more like a man. Lead like a strong woman, with confidence and backbone.





Jo Miller is a Women's Leadership Coach who helps managerial and executive women realize their potential as leaders.

Reading at Mass

I love to read out loud, and I especially love to read at mass. A lot of people I've met have a fear of speaking in front of crowds, but it never bothered me quite as much. And it's nice to be complimented on something you really like to do that also lets you share God with other people.

But it's kind of sad too... :( As I've become more orthodox in my beliefs I am beginning to realize that, yes, it's ok that I'm reading, but...ideally...I never should have to. (At least not in the church mass proper). Because ideally...men serve their priestly vocation by leading the mass and women serve in many other vitally important ways, during and outside church... I know that it's not out of a deficiency on my part that I shouldn't actually in an ideal world be a reader at mass, but it is kind of sad to me because I love to do it.

I keep trying to think...the sacrifice of something that small, and really (if I'm honest with myself) that vain, is infinitely worth it when we see how it all actually does fit together to help us understand and give greater glory to God. Similiarly, maybe this can be applied on a larger scale with the changes in society that, as orthodox Catholics we should endeavour to make, that initially seem unfair, or insignificant, or even not our place to say anything about at all.

I think maybe it's hard to see why to take away or change certain things - the removal of which would anger not only radical feminists but also many women who have just happened to have grown up in a world with so many opportunities and certain expectations. It's hard to realize that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should...and that the cumulative effect of all the little things in our 'equal', liberal, and relativistic society is what can be the most despirate and most despairing.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons and the General Apathy of the English

While some might say that studying in England as an American doesn't necessarily give me the best perspective for cross-cultural comparison, in the realm of religion, I, surprisingly, would have to disagree.

The thing that strikes me the most is how very unreligious a people the English are. I am of course saying this as a generalization and there are many faithful people I am sure. But in combination with the English Studies we're doing as part of a Humanities course here and in my personal conversations with those around me...it is very different, yet very interesting to understand. My one flatmate described his country as "a nation of atheists, really". Most people, if forced to chose, check the box marked "C of E" on the census...but so few practice, and far fewer believe. Those that do appear to believe in something, and have faith of some sort, but not in any devout sense that would we think of it.

How could a country that, even in the early modern era, was a fervently religious country...become the victim of so much cynicism, disbelief, and pure apathy? Does it have something to do with the technological revolutions, various philosophical movements, or something inherent in the British national character that interplayed with them?I contrast this especially with of course America, but also other devout nations in the world. My flatmates and I had a 7 hour conversation last night about the differences between America and England and religion played a part for at least an hour of it. One of them talked about the decline of Christianity and it's status as a "dying religion" in Britain.

This last part struck me in relation to how the orthodoxy of a faith impacts the followers, or lack there of. Religions that are orthodox, that have truth, that have rules, are the ones that people seem to stick more closely to and believe in more fervently than any sort of relativistic, ever-changing, liberal version of any faith. Islam is a case in point: its followers have a strict set of unchanging beliefs from the Quran and a set of truths that can never and will never change. Compare that with Catholicism and Orthodox Christians - that appeal is similiar in all three. (one can also make a case for Pentecostal Christians, I am told, who assert a similiar belief in unchanging truths). Contrast that with the rather ambigious faiths of believers who either do not know the orthodoxy of their faith, reject it, or lack it intrinsically in their denomination's dogma (cafeteria Catholics, the American and British followers of certain Protestant denominations etc.).

It is a fascinating correlation.