Confronted by a group of students and faculty over "the invisibility of women" in his encyclical Laudato si', "Christian ecofeminism," and the role of women in the Church, Francis was challenged as rarely before, especially from the left.

The Pope tried to rise above it, displaying his usual warmth, simplicity, and good humour.

But no sooner had he stepped off the stage than the university's president issued a statement expressing "her incomprehension and disapproval of the position on women's role in the Church and society."

So what exactly did the Pope say that was so shocking? In truth, not much. For Francis, "a woman is a daughter, sister, mother. Just as I am a son, brother, father."

It's a broad enough definition for everyone to find their place.

He reminded the audience that "it's relationships that express our being in the image of God, men and women together, not separately." This is essentially a paraphrase of Genesis.

He emphasised that "women and men are persons, not individuals" and that they are "called to love and to be loved."

In short, it was a sermon in clichés.

However, the Pope may not fully grasp how deeply our culture believes that each person defines their own origin, purpose, and standards.

Contrary to what he preaches and hopes for, the individual has overtaken the concept of the person.

Those who advocate for intersectional struggles may agree with his notion that "everything is connected"—racism, sexism, poverty, the ecological crisis - but they cannot accept that men and women should be defined by their relationships with one another.

A society where gender issues are increasingly central

So, what's the solution to this disconnect?

There are two possible paths—two dead ends, really. One option is to double down on appeasement, which only accelerates the very secularisation the Church seeks to prevent.

A soft Catholicism is a silent Catholicism. It will always be criticised for something until it becomes nothing at all—and even after that.

The other option, retreating into a defensive identity, leads to a different kind of marginalisation. The Church would become a small, pious society, a sect as closed off as it is esoteric, muttering truths that only make sense within its own bubble.

In the history of Christianity, one thing has remained constant over 2,000 years: there's no mission without witness, but no evangelisation without cultural engagement.

While the faith should never be watered down, the language of the times must always be taken seriously.

A Pope can no longer assert, as Francis did somewhat nonchalantly, that:

"women are more important than men, but it's ugly when a woman wants to be like a man" or that "women are about fruitful acceptance, care, vital devotion," or that "the Church is a woman," or even that "women are at the heart of the salvation event," citing Mary.

These clichés do not address the fundamental questions of younger generations.

In a society where gender issues are increasingly central and where male dominance over women is being questioned everywhere, the incident in Louvain should serve as a wake-up call.

Thinking about women the way St. John Paul II did is no longer possible; we must now think with women.

The Magisterium must listen, and theology must humbly return to the drawing board.

• Jean-Pierre Denis, a veteran journalist and editor, is the publisher of La Croix International.
• Article first published in La Croix

Most of my fellow students at the University of California Berkeley went to Ivy League schools as undergraduates. They were well read, articulate and confident.

When they asked where I went to school, I responded, "St. Louis," and they presumed I meant Washington University, and I had to specify St. Louis University.

"Isn't that a Catholic school?" I was asked. My response was, "Worse yet, it is Jesuit."

As a result, I always felt like a tortoise among the hares. The only advantage I had was that I was older and knew I was not a genius.

Not knowing

One of the dangers of being young and smart is that you think you have all the answers.

Aaron Wildavsky, one of the smartest teachers I ever had, once asked a class, "What are the hardest three words to pronounce in the English language?" His answer, "I don't know."

In political, academic and ecclesial life, saying "I don't know" is the equivalent of committing professional suicide.

It is an admission that you do not have all the answers.

If you don't have the answers, why should anyone listen to you. We will move on to the person who claims to have the answers.

For a doctor, politician, scholar, columnist or priest to say "I don't know" is so humiliating that they will often give a "nonresponse response" that hides ignorance in a fog of words.

Better to pretend certitude than acknowledge ignorance. And if you later discover you were wrong, never admit it. Plow forward and pretend your new position is consistent with everything you said in the past.

Gender debate - certainty or uncertainty

I have been thinking about plowing forward and pretending recently in the context of the debate over dealing with gender dysphoria. That's the term given when the gender you identify with is different from the gender you were assigned at birth.

Most people in the debate speak with utter conviction and certitude.

Would that we had more voices that said, "I don't know," or at least said, "It's complicated."

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support gender-affirming care.

This care may include medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, as determined by shared decision making between the patient and physician.

On the other hand, European countries, who were the first to do gender-affirming care, are now backing away from it, especially for children. New research has questioned earlier studies that supported gender-affirming care.

England's National Health Service (NHS) has banned puberty blockers for youth after a review found a lack of evidence that medication helped gender dysphoria.

For adults, it will allow prescriptions only via clinical trials or for existing patients.

The British approach is a reasonable effort to follow the first principle of medicine: "Do no harm." It is also a positive effort to gain more information through clinical trials.

Those who prioritise personal autonomy and choice above all other values will see such restrictions as an assault on personal freedom.

Those who think gender dysphoria is not real will see even clinical trials as an assault on human dignity.

Both sides have their "experts" and spokespersons. Both sides present anecdotal evidence and research that supports their views. What should be a conversation about medical treatment has become fuel for the culture wars.

I am a member of the "I don't know" and "It is complicated" club.

Research matters

The NHS approach sounds reasonable to me. I worry about people, especially kids or their parents, making decisions that will seriously impact the rest of their lives

Clinical trials will help discover what works and what does not, who should receive treatment and who should not.

I question anyone who does such treatments without serious follow-up studies.

On the other hand, telling people in pain to "stand by until further notice" seems heartless.

Those opposed to gender-affirming care must follow the example of Pope Francis and welcome and love the transgender people in their communities.

Experiencing discrimination and isolation only makes matters worse.

In addition, they should be helped by dealing with the maladies that often accompany gender dysphoria such as depression. One cannot deny gender-affirming care without offering something else in its place.

Being a member of the "I don't know club" means you will be attacked by both sides.

It does not mean you have nothing to say.

It means you should ask the questions that need to be answered. There is no such thing as a stupid question; there are only stupid answers.

• First published by Religion News Service
• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS

Neither has an answer. There is only silence.

I re-entered Catholicism with some trepidation, overpowered by a longing I could not name.

Intellectually, I understood that what had exiled me in the 1980s had not changed. Popes come and go but misogyny remains entrenched.

I came back anyway, drawn by light through stained glass, by beautiful and inspiring music, by pews filled with goodhearted people who reflected our city neighbourhoods, not just in ethnicity and colour but in shades of gender, sexuality, physical abilities and gifts.

In the decades of my absence it seemed the church had gotten much right.

But not the whole gender equity thing.

On that the hierarchy remains frozen. Intransigent. Unyielding. Unhearing.

I entered in the autumn months, among displays of departed loved ones commemorated through the month of the dead. And I returned amid conversation which harkened some movement on the issue of women's equal dignity and participation.

A deacon proposed reviving the dialogue around female deacons.

I attended a preliminary meeting but soon became uncomfortable with both the inadequacy and inequity.

Why such incremental change? Why not full and immediate recognition of women's equality? Why do we continue to placate, to cater to embedded misogyny within a church to which we look for inspiration, enlightenment?

From that initial meeting sprang a coalition of women who asked these questions aloud.

At the time it felt liberating, exhilarating. A flurry of activities and meetings unfolded; plans were proposed and refined. Then COVID-19 hit and we retreated to our screens.

Over time and distance further shifts occurred.

A merger of parishes distinct in outlooks and practices, a new pastor charismatic and unyielding in his opposition to our goals.

Our group statements and announcements were censored, no longer welcome in the parish bulletin. We were encouraged not to be "disruptive" to parish unity.

And over time our voices muted, demands softened to polite entreaties. The focus became education, not action.

We sponsored presentations on the historical role of women in the church. This was more palatable, more easily digested by those uncomfortable with change.

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, pro-life announcements crept into our liturgies, enjoying full access to the bulletin.

Despite the overwhelming opposition to the Supreme Court ruling by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, despite its tragic and highly publicised impact on women's lives, no one raised objections.

In the name of conciliation and non-offense, the women's group softened its rhetoric.

Once again we discuss the possibility of female deacons. Someday. Somewhere down the historical road. Read more

• Geraldine Gorman is a clinical professor at the College of Nursing, University of Illinois Chicago. She also practices as a hospice nurse with Unity Hospice. She lives on the North Side of Chicago and is the mother of three, grandmother of two.

Fighting the ban, Mike and Catherine "Kitty" Burke (pictured) turned to liberty group Becket Law who have filed a federal lawsuit on their behalf.

The lawsuit seeks to prohibit Massachusetts from using LGBTQ accommodations to decline issuing foster care licences to religious applicants.

It also asks for the Burkes' application to be granted and for them to receive "nominal and compensatory damages" from the defendants.

Catholic beliefs and the State

The lawsuit specifically claims the State of Massachusetts restricted the Catholic couple from fostering children in the State. This decision was based on the Burkes' adherence to Catholic teachings on gender, sexuality and marriage.

"After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents," the Burkes say.

"We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home."

The lawsuit claims the State listed only one reason for denying the Burkes' foster care application: they "would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA."

The lawsuit goes on to say: "As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home.

"They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality."

The lawsuit names several defendants, including the Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary and the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families.

It also includes a copy of the State's letter telling the Catholic couple their application to be foster parents had been denied.

The letter says to be licensed as a foster/adoptive parent, applicants must demonstrate their ability "to the satisfaction of the Department".

Quoting the State regulations for Standards for Licensure as a Foster/Pre-adoptive Parent, the letter reads:

"(d) to promote the physical, mental and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity

"(e) to respect and make efforts to support the integrity of a child's racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious background"

The CF Foster Child Bill of Rights also says every child "shall be treated with respect by DCF staff, foster parents and providers without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and/or disability".

The Massachusetts Health and Human Services and the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families have not responded to requests for comment.

Source

• Fox News

Gender is something that belongs to humans; God is beyond gender.

But because we believe in a personal God, and people are gendered, some of us can't help but envision God as having a gender.

Throughout Christian tradition, believers have leaned heavily toward depicting God as male.

Lord (Ps. 6:2; 23:1), King (Ps. 10:16; 24:8), and Father (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2) are among the most dominant images.

However, while there is biblical support for these images, many biblical texts also envision God as female. For example:

• Moses warns the Israelites not to forget "the God who gave you birth" (Deut. 32:18).
• When Israel is being rebirthed after the Babylonian exile, the prophet Isaiah speaks of God as being like "a woman in labour" bringing the Israelites to new life (Isa. 42:14).
• Further, Isaiah speaks of God's tenderness toward Israel like that of a mother consoling her child (Isa. 49:15; 66:13).
• Both Isaiah and the psalmist portray God as a midwife, helping the renewed Israel come forth from the womb (Isa. 66:9; Ps. 22:10-11).
• In several gospel parables, Jesus speaks of God and himself as being like a woman who hides yeast in bread dough (Luke 13:20-21), who searches for a lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), or who confronts an unjust judge and demands justice (Luke 18:1-8).

All the language we use to speak of God is figurative and can be metaphorical, analogical, or symbolic.

A metaphor compares two things that are similar yet different, by making a statement of equivalence: for example, "God is a rock" (Ps. 18:2).

God is perhaps solid and dependable like a rock, but God is not literally a rock.

Analogy is a comparison of two distinct things, with a focus on how they are alike. An example is a statement such as "God is good."

God is not the same thing as goodness, but we can understand God through understanding goodness. Symbol (from the Greek synballo, "to throw together") is something that stands for something else.

It matters what metaphors, analogies, and symbols we use for God and God's gender. Continue reading

The church's General Synod has, however, clarified that it will not abolish or substantially revise any of the currently authorized liturgies.

Nonetheless, this news made headlines and brought up questions of how religions refer to God. Is God male? What pronouns should be used to refer to God?

As a Catholic feminist theologian who runs a women's center at a Catholic university, I understand the impact of the pronouns Christians use for God.

Historically, Christian tradition has recognized many pronouns for God, including "he/him," "she/her" and "they/them."

This is partly because God does not have a gender.

Despite the diverse images used for God in Scripture and Christian tradition, male language and images predominate in contemporary Christian worship.

Many images for God

When we speak about God, we do so knowing that what we say is incomplete. All images for God reveal something about God. No image of God is literal or reveals everything about God.

For example, while Christians can refer to God as a king, they must also remember that God is not literally a king.

Calling God a king expresses that God is powerful.

However, it is not expressing factual accuracy about God's gender or implying that God is human.

Referring to God with many titles, descriptions and images invites many of us to recognize the mystery of God.

God is like all of these things but also more than all of these things.

Thomas Aquinas, an influential 13th-century Catholic theologian, asserted that individuals can talk about God in ways that are true but always inadequate.

Aquinas explained that our language about God affirms something about God, yet God is always beyond what we can express.

We express truths about God in human terms and constructs, but since God is mystery, God is always beyond these categories.

Scripture is filled with multiple images of God.

In some of these images, God is depicted as a father or male. Jesus teaching his disciples to pray the "Our Father" prayer is perhaps the most well-known example of a male title for God.

In other parts of Scripture, God is female.

The prophet Isaiah compares God to a nursing mother in the Book of Isaiah.

A mother hen gathering her chicks is an analogy for God in the Gospel of Matthew.

The Book of Wisdom, a book in the Catholic Bible, depicts wisdom personified as a woman.

Wisdom 10:18-19 states: "She took them across the Red Sea and brought them through deep waters. Their enemies she overwhelmed." This account presents God as female, leading Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.

Depicting God as female in Scripture speaks to God's tenderness as well as strength and power.

For example, the prophet Hosea compares God with a bear robbed of her cubs, promising to "attack and rip open" those who break the covenant.

Elsewhere in Scripture, God has no gender.

God appears to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus 3, defying all gender categories.

The Book of 1 Kings presents a gentle image of a gender-neutral God.

God asked the prophet Elijah to go to a mountain.

While there, Elijah experienced a strong wind, an earthquake and fire, but God was not present in those.

Instead, God was present in a gentle whisper.

The creation stories of Genesis refer to God in the plural.

These examples emphasize that God has no gender and is beyond any human categories.

The social impact of male pronouns

Pronouns, like "He/Him" in the Christian tradition, can limit one's understanding of God. It can also make many individuals think that God is male.

It is not wrong to refer to God with male pronouns, but it can have negative social and theological consequences to refer to God with only male pronouns.

Feminist theologian Mary Daly famously stated, "If God is male, then the male is God."

In other words, referring to God only as the male gender has a significant social impact that can exalt one gender at the expense of others.

Referring to God only as a male can also limit one's theological imagination: Using many pronouns for God emphasises that God is mystery, beyond all human categories.

The Church of England is not only responding to modern questions about gender, but also continuing a long tradition within Christianity of referring to God as male, female and beyond gender constructs.

• Annie Selak is the Associate Director, Women's Center, Georgetown University, United States
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission

New research has revealed that the gender pay gap begins earlier than most of us could have imagined: in childhood.

"This report is the product of two of our strongest passions: improving children's financial literacy skills and eroding the gender pay gap," says Helen Bierton, chief banking officer at Starling Bank, who commissioned the research.

"We've worked closely with Prof Tim Jay [who conducted the study] and his brilliant team at Loughborough University for a few years now, and one day he mentioned that parents talk to boys about money and maths from a younger age than they do to girls," she says.

"We knew there was something further to explore here - and unfortunately, our hunch was correct."

So, what exactly did they discover?

Gender inequality around money runs deep

Well firstly, Jay and his team confirmed that the gender pay gap - or the "play gap" as they're calling it - does indeed start in childhood; with boys receiving a whopping 20% more pocket money a week, on average, than girls (£3.00 v £2.50).

But worryingly, the disparity in how girls and boys are treated when it comes to money doesn't end there.

Boys are more likely to have their pocket money assessed via academic performance (14% more boys are assessed this way).

Girls, on the other hand, are more likely to receive pocket money if they have completed their chores (12%), and are more likely to be rewarded for good behaviour (6%).

Furthermore, the way boys and girls receive their pocket money is also different, with girls more likely to receive theirs in cash (15%), and boys more likely to be paid into a digital bank account and card (8%).

"The degree to which traditional gender stereotypes are at play within childhood astounded us," says Bierton.

"What starts as pennies and pounds for young girls can multiply to tens of thousands of pounds for working women."

The findings are based on two quantitative surveys of a representative sample of 4,106 parents across the UK with children aged four to 11 - and is the largest known study of its kind to date.

The results were then assessed against the respondents' children's financial literacy development to determine correlations between parents' pocket money approaches and children's skills.

In addition, the Loughborough University team also analysed the prices of 450 toys sold by retailers who segment their offering by gender - and once again found that girls were getting a raw deal.

"Products targeting girls are on average 5.48% more expensive than products aimed at boys," the team explains in its Make Pocket Money Equal report.

Adding: "A ‘pink tax' was also discovered, with pink toys and games costing an average of 5.16% more [£9.98] than those marketed as gender neutral [£9.49]."

"As a parent, it's something I've seen myself, and our research found that more than one in four parents with daughters have noticed this too," says Bierton.

"But we weren't expecting toys to cost 5% more at such a systemic level - and we weren't expecting so many retailers to segregate toys by gender either."

Does financial inequality in childhood really matter?

As a busy parent, with more than enough already on your plate, you might be wondering if this is an issue that really needs your attention - but both Bierton and Jay are clear that it is.

"The ways that children learn about money, the ways in which they receive it and how much all have an impact on their financial literacy skills," says Jay.

"An inequality of this scale, at 20%, is one that we must raise awareness of in order to help parents check any unconscious biases they may have."

"Bierton adds: "Does it matter that men earn higher wages?

"Of course it does - and pocket money is no different, and for so many reasons.

"How much less you earn affects your sense of worth. If children can earn their money in the same way, it can help to equalise their expectations for the workplace and their careers."

So that being said - what can parents do to rectify the situation? Continue reading

Countless revelations about sexual misconduct by clergy have shaken public confidence. The accumulation of negative publicity in very recent times has been remarkable: Dilworth School, Gloriavale, Destiny Church's antics, Arise Church's leadership woes. The list seems endless, the latest issue being Simon O'Connor lauding the US Supreme Court's verdict on Roe v Wade.

To any neutral observer, it might well seem that the Christian churches stand for utterly regressive social and gender policies and all too often for the scandalous abuse of power.

So it's been quite a turnaround for us churchgoers. In my student days at Otago, the churches were at the forefront of radical action. The first anti-nuclear march in Dunedin was largely church-led.

In the 1980s, larger-than-life personalities like John Murray (Presbyterian) and George Armstrong (Anglican) were prominent in the anti-Springbok tour campaign and the emerging nuclear-free movement. Catholic peace and justice activists worked side by side with Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Quakers for years before David Lange cemented our non-nuclear stance.

The core values which undergirded this new thinking about national security and biculturalism stemmed to a significant extent from Maori and Pakeha church sources. Brilliant composers Shirley Murray and Colin Gibson wrote the battle hymns for these momentous struggles. One thinks, too, of the key roles of Cardinal Tom Williams and Archbishop, later Governor-General, Paul Reeves in turning around Pakeha attitudes.

Today all that seems forgotten.

Rather there is widespread bemusement about Christianity. How can otherwise intelligent people keep trundling along to these outdated church services, people ask.

I still encounter the assumption that we live off a diet of hell-fire sermons, though in what is now a long life I've never encountered a single one, whether here, in Scotland, Germany, Australia or the United States.

It's bizarre, this almost willful ignorance. Continue reading

The initial phase of listening drew nearly 220,000 people across Australia and 17,500 individual and group submissions.

These submissions were distilled into the six national theme papers and then further distilled again into the working document and finally the agenda.

Momentum for the Plenary Council ebbed and flowed during this process, which has been disrupted by the pandemic.

By and large, there has been considerable goodwill, enthusiasm and even a sense of hope for the future of the Church in Australia in the post-Royal Commission period. Robert Fitzgerald who - among other prominent roles - is the new Chair of Caritas Australia, once enthused that the Plenary Council is the only game in town.

For a country of about five million nominal Catholics, the initial response was quite remarkable.

Perhaps, for many of the disenfranchised, it is the last throw of the dice. I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, though.

Some of you might have heard or even attended the first of the three convocation series organised by the Australasian Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (ACCCR).

There were 3,000 participants, including myself.

We heard a powerful and inspiring address by Sr Joan Chittister.

Catholicism "must grow up", she said, "beyond the parochial to the global, beyond one system and one tradition, to a broader way of looking at life and its moral, spiritual, ethical frameworks."

That is the kind of stretching of the imagination and dreaming of the transformation of the Church that many Catholics are thirsting for.

Few Catholics have any appetite left for cosmetic changes, mediocrity or worst, restorationism dressed up as renewal.

We have struggled under the weight of the old ecclesial paradigm of the clerical order, control and hegemony with a penchant for triumphalism, self-referential pomp and smugness.

We yearn for a Church that commits to a God-oriented future of equal discipleship, relational harmony, wholeness and sustainability.

The revitalisation and convergence of many lay reform groups in response to the Plenary Council is no small development for the Church in contemporary Australia.

It is a sign of the "growing up" that Joan spoke about.

Australian Catholics are growing up beyond the passive, subservient to the co-responsible agents for the transformation of the Church.

In Germany, there is a lay body called Central Committee, which plays a key role in their Synodal Assembly, including having one of its members as co-president of the said structure.

Perhaps this unique feature is part of the legacy of the Reformation in the German Church.

Is the Church in Australia in pole position for deep reform?

The Church in Australia is uniquely positioned to move into a new fresh future.

Yes, it is true that we have been humbled and reduced to near irrelevancy by the sexual abuse crisis.

The Royal Commission, though being the lightning rod, has also served as a necessary wake-up call for Australian Catholics.

Indeed, no other country in the world has conducted a similar national inquiry, which is as comprehensive in its scope as ours. This has brought about a heightened level of consciousness and an unprecedented momentum for deep reform.

In many areas, Australia punches above its weight.

• Could we be a leading light in the struggle for a more fit-for-purpose Church in this place and in this time?
• Could Australian Catholics rise to the challenge and co-create the synodal Church that Pope Francis has envisaged?

While the Plenary Council may not address all of the issues of importance, it is certainly worth the effort in discerning the roadmap for the future.

Recently, Cardinal Marx of Germany tendered his resignation in a personal gesture to take responsibility for sexual abuses by priests over the past decades.

In Chile, the bishops after a period of discernment offered to resign en masse for similar reasons.

This collective act of contrition is totally unprecedented, and it shows the depth of the crisis in the Church.

Whether or not we bishops of Australia should make the same radical gesture remains an open question.

However, what is indisputable is the need for deep institutional change that will restore confidence and trust in the Church. Nothing less than a root-to-branch reform that will align our minds and hearts to the Gospel will do.

What the Church needs is not simply a renewal or an updating of methods of evangelising.

Rather, what we desperately need is an inner conversion, a radical revolution in our mindsets and patterns of action.

Gerald Arbuckle speaks of refounding as opposed to renewal. This refounding means going to the very cultural roots and a hope-filled journey into the paschal mystery for mission under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Unless we genuinely repent of institutional failures and unless we convert to the radical vision of Christ and let it imbue our attitudes, actions and pastoral practices, we will not be able to restore confidence and trust in the Church.

Conversion is one of the key areas on the agenda of the Plenary Council.

It is framed in terms of our openness to learn and meet the needs of the world we live in.

As a result, the questions revolve around our engagement with First Nations peoples, with the marginalised and the vulnerable.

However, one wonders if conversion needs to be framed not just in terms of our openness to learn and meet the needs of others but also in terms of our examination of the Church's attitude and treatment of racial minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals and others.

Until we have the courage to admit the old ways of being Church, which is steeped in a culture of clerical power, dominance and privilege, we cannot rise to a Christ-like way of humility, inclusivity, compassion and powerlessness.

There is a sense in which the Church must change into a more Christ-like pattern of humility, simplicity and powerlessness as opposed to worldly triumphalism, splendour, dominance and power.

Christians in the post-Royal Commission are like the Jews after the exile.

The future of the Church, like the New Jerusalem that the exilic prophets often speak of, will not be revitalised by way of simply repeating what was done in the past.

It will not be simply a restoration project or doing the old things better. Rather, we must have the courage to do new things; we must be open to the Spirit leading us to new horizons even as we tend to revert to the old ways.

Change of era and new way of being Church in the world

Many Catholics hope that the Australian Plenary Council of 2020 will see a change in a number of priority issues such as greater inclusion of the laity, the role of women, clerical celibacy et cetera.

While it is important that there is an openness and boldness to discuss these matters, what is more important is to envision a new way of being Church in the world.

The model of the Church based on clerical hegemony has run its course. Insofar as it is deeply embedded in patriarchal and monarchical structures, it is incapable of helping us to meet the needs of the world and culture in which we live.

We have long moved out of the Ancien Régime and the age of absolute monarchs.

We are on this side of the secular state and the rise of democracy.

Yet it seems that the deeply entrenched patriarchal and monarchical structures of the Church have failed to correspond with our lived experience.

For the Church to flourish, it is crucial that we come to terms with the flaws of clericalism and move beyond its patriarchal and monarchical matrix.

What is urgent is that we need to find fresh ways of being Church and fresh ways of ministry and service for both men and women disciples.

New wine into new wineskins!

The new wine of God's unconditional love, radical inclusivity and equality needs to be poured into new wineskins of humility, mutuality, compassion and powerlessness.

The old wineskins of triumphalism, authoritarianism and supremacy, abetted by clerical power, superiority, and rigidity are breaking.

It is worth noting that at the recent Synod on the Amazon, the synod bishops say they consider it "urgent" for the Church to "promote and confer ministries for men and women in an equitable manner.

"It is the Church of baptised men and women that we must strengthen by promoting ministeriality and, above all, the awareness of baptismal dignity," they state.

Beyond these generic statements, it remains to be seen how women can share in the decision-making power and institutionalised ministries in the Church.

The Church cannot have a better future if it persists in the old paradigm of triumphalism, self-reference and male dominance.

• So long as we continue to exclude women from the Church's governance structures, decision-making processes and institutional functions, we deprive ourselves of the richness of our full humanity.
• So long as we continue to make women invisible and inferior in the Church's language, liturgy, theology and law, we impoverish ourselves.
• Until we have truly incorporated the gift of women and the feminine dimension of our Christian faith, we will not be able to fully energise the life of the Church.

In the world where the rules are made by the strong and the structures of power favour the privileged, the Church must be true to its founding stories and responsive to the living presence of God.

It must find ways to promote a community of equals and empower men and women disciples to share their gifts for human flourishing and the growth of the Kingdom.

Our founding stories are those of emancipation and liberation.

• It is the story of Moses and the movement of the new social order against the tyranny of empires that lies at the heart of the prophetic imagination.
• It inspires Mary who sings of the God who overthrows the powerful and lifts up the lowly.
• It is the story of Jesus who washes the feet of his followers and subverts the power structures that are tilted towards the strong.

This narrative of the new reality that envisions radical reordering of human relationships was in fact the hallmark of the earliest Christian movement.

The Church must continue to embody the alternative relational paradigm.

This alternative relational paradigm turns the world's system of power structures on its head because it is rooted in the biblical narrative of the new social order of radical inclusion, justice and equality.

The Church cannot have a prophetic voice in society if we fail to be the model egalitarian community where those disadvantaged on account of their race, gender, social status and disability find empowerment for a dignified life.

Towards a Church of co-responsibility and synodality

Martin Luther King, Jr famously said that the arc of history is bent toward justice.

The parallel statement I want to make is that the arc of the Church is bent towards co-responsibility or synodality. Let me explain.

The way of being Church has evolved over the centuries.

When, after the early centuries of persecution, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the early tradition of egalitarianism gave way to a more clerical and hierarchical governance system that actually took on many features of the Empire.

Throughout the long reign of Christendom and up to the Second Vatican Council, the Church often understood itself predominantly as a perfect society. Its institutional functions and dynamics were steeped in clericalism.

Ministries gradually became the domain of the ordained.

They were all subsumed under a very cultic priesthood (set apart for the sacraments). Even the ancient ministry of deacon became a casualty of the process known as the "cursus honorum". This means that no one could begin "the course of honour" unless he is destined and qualified for the priesthood (no married and certainly not women!).

The shift towards the celibate priesthood as the normative form of ministry effectively deprived the Church of the richness of ministries as attested by the New Testament.

At the Second Vatican Council, there was a shift in the Church's self-understanding.

The dominant metaphor of "a societas perfecta" gave way to a more biblical image of a pilgrim people.

The priesthood of faithful was rediscovered along with the affirmation that the working of the Holy Spirit was granted not to the ordained only but to all baptised. Ecclesial ministries were understood in such a way as to fully honour what Paul says, "everyone is given the grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ".

Pope Paul VI accordingly suppressed the minor orders and opened some of these ministries to the lay faithful.

Now some 60 years later (talk about the glacial speed of change in the Church), Pope Francis took a step further with two recent important decisions.

In January this year, he opened to women the "installed" lay ministries of lector and acolyte, previously restricted to men.

Then just a few weeks ago, he responded to an idea that sat untouched since the Council and established the installed ministry of catechist.

The Pope called for "men and women of deep faith and human maturity, active participants in the life of the Christian community, capable of welcoming others, being generous and living a life of fraternal communion."

Pope Francis affirms that ‘this path of synodality' is precisely what "God expects of the Church of the third millennium."

He gave new impetus to the doctrine of the sensus fidei fidelium, stating that the path of synodality represents an indispensable prerequisite for infusing the Church with a renewed missionary impulse: all the members of the Church are called to be active subjects of evangelisation and "missionary disciples".

The Church has entered a new era that is characterised by a crisis of a top-down centralised ecclesiology.

With Vatican II, the ressourcement and aggiornamento led to a more biblical paradigm of a pilgrim People of God, called to be the sacrament of the Kingdom and the prophetic witness in the world.

The emphasis on the superiority of the ordained gave way to an ecclesial communion based on common baptism.

Pope Francis has applied a critical lens through which the Church is renewed for the sake of its mission for the poor.

The Church is helped to decentralise and impelled towards the peripheries.

The Church, the People of God, should walk together, sharing the burdens of humanity, listening to the cry of the poor, reforming itself and its own action, first by listening to the voice of the humble, the anawim of the Hebrew Scriptures, who were at the heart of Jesus' public ministry.

Conclusion

The COVID crisis, the Pope says, has exposed our vulnerability.

It has revealed the fallacy of individualism as the organising principle of our Western society.

It has given the lie to a "myth of self-sufficiency" that sanctions rampant inequalities and frays the ties that bind societies together. If we want a different world, we must become a different people.

I wonder if the crisis in the Church today could be framed in analogous terms.

In fact, we are at a point in history where all the indications point to a perfect storm: sexual abuse crisis, near-total collapse of active participation, loss of credibility, shrinking pool of clerical leadership et cetera.

Some have likened the state of the Church to Shakespeare's state of Denmark.

It is hardly an exaggeration!

This monumental crisis above all has exposed the weakness and indeed the unsustainability of the clericalist model.

Hence, if we are to emerge out of this, we will need to boldly embrace a new ecclesiology from below that has regained momentum thanks to the prophetic leadership of Pope Francis. We must take up the call issued to St Francis, "Go and rebuild my Church that is falling into ruins".

It is not only possible; it is the most exciting time for us to construct a new future.

It humbles us to know that God is with us in the mess and even in the perceived irrelevancy of the Church.

It comforts us, too, to know that the Church was not at its best when it reached the heights of its power in what was known as Christendom.

It was the Church of the Catacombs that shone forth its best rays of hope ironically when it was poor, persecuted and powerless.

Christendom and for the most part of history, we have tried to be great, powerful and dominant.

It was no coincidence that Dom Helder Camara and many of his Latin American colleagues chose to make the so-called "Pact of the Catacombs" as a way to return to the roots and foundations of the Church.

They weren't just letting the fresh air of the Second Vatican Council blow away the cobwebs and the manacles. They were determined to recapture the original and radical spirit of the earliest Christian movement.

It may be a long and winding road to a vision of the poor, humble but empowering and leavening force in the world. But as Teilhard de Chardin wrote: "the only task worthy of our efforts is to construct the future".

I pray that this historic once in a generation Plenary Council may be an expression of such effort.

May we have the courage, boldness and parrhesia to move from the old paradigm of triumphalism, power and splendour to the new ways of being Church that will convey the freshness of the Gospel.

• Most Reverend Vincent Long Van Nguyen OFM Conv DD STL, Bishop of Parramatta - Dom Helder Camara Lecture.
• First published by Catholic Outlook. Republished with permission.

According to some recent estimates, around 4 in 10 millennials and members of Gen Z, a group that comprises those born after 1980, do not identify with a religious tradition.

In comparison, only about a quarter of baby boomers indicate that they are religiously unaffiliated.

Social scientists are only beginning to explore the demographic factors that drive individuals who no longer feel attached to a religious tradition.

But as someone who follows the data on religious trends, I note one factor appears to stand out: gender.

Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male.

Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the "new atheism" movement as evidence of a "boys club." Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

Men are more likely to be nones

According to data from the Nationscape survey, which polled over 6,000 respondents every week for 18 months in the runup to the 2020 election, men are in general more likely than women to describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular.

The survey, conducted by the independent Democracy Fund in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles, was touted as one of the largest such opinion polls ever conducted.

However, tracking the gender gap by age reveals that at one point the gap between men and women narrows. Between the ages of 30 and 45, men are no more likely to be religiously unaffliated than women of the same age.

But the gap appears again among older Americans. Over the age of 60, men are 5 to 8 percentage points more likely to express no religious affiliation.

Moreover, older Americans - both men and women - tend to be far less likely to identify as "nones" compared with younger Americans, according to respondents of the survey.

The ‘life cycle' effect

What may be driving this pattern of young women and older women being less likely to identify as nones than their male counterparts?

One theory in social science called the "life cycle effect" argues that when people begin to marry and have children, some are drawn back into religious circles to raise their kids in a religious environment or to lean on support structures that religion may provide.

But once kids grow up and leave the house this attachment fades for many. I make this point in my forthcoming book called "The Nones."

The data on gender and those with no religious affiliation could indicate that this drifting is especially acute for men.

One explanation could be that men are more likely to be religious when they are part of a family unit, but when children grow up, that connection becomes weaker. Unfortunately, the survey does not offer a direct test of this hypothesis.

But it would fit with survey research over the past five decades that has consistently found that Christian women are more likely than men to attend church.

One word of caution about the data is necessary.

The survey is just a single snapshot of the public in 2019 and 2020. It's possible that this same pattern would look different if data were collected 20 years ago or 20 years from now.

Either way, it offers a small window into how age and gender interact with the religious lives of Americans.

• Assistant Professor of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

The country's Catholic bishops recently launched a two-year summit aimed at "newly assessing" long-held Catholic beliefs on sexuality, love and priestly life, including how women are included or excluded by the Church.

The "synodal process" began with an assembly held Jan. 30 through Feb. 1 in Frankfurt, Germany, setting the agenda of the controversial topics they aim to discuss for the next two years, from married priests to the recognition of same-sex couples.

But in a country with a long tradition of outspoken theologians, one of the most persistent voices challenging the Catholic Church's current position will come from outside the synod.

"We need a kind of woman church within our church where women can discover and live their own strengths, abilities and charisms — in the sense of empowerment," said Agnes Wuckelt, vice president of the German Association of Catholic Women (referred to as KFD), in a recent interview with Religion News Service.

She noted that in the absence of representation, many women are leaving the Catholic Church.

Wuckelt's KFD has submitted a proposal to the German bishops' assembly to promote the appointment of women to leadership positions at all levels of the local Catholic Church, with the goal of paving the way to female ordination to the priesthood.

Pope Francis needs to include women in his frequent calls for broader recognition of the rights of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people.

Wuckelt described this process as "a transition to a gender-appropriate church."

Though German bishops have already voted to increase the proportion of women in leadership positions in their dioceses to 30%, the KFD has demanded that it be increased to 50%.

But this is only a small part of what the theologian sees as necessary to promote gender equality in the Catholic Church. Wuckelt argues for women to be allowed to join the ranks of the diaconate, which would allow them to preach, distribute the Eucharist and officiate at weddings, baptisms and funerals — everything but hear confessions or consecrate the Eucharist.

"The biggest obstacle lies in the sacramental understanding of the diaconate," Wuckelt said, which the church views as an initial step toward becoming a priest, not as an independent ministry.

But ultimately, the theologian concedes, she hopes the effect of women deacons will be that "more and more bishops can imagine women as priests."

Four years ago, Pope Francis established a commission to study the female diaconate, but little apparent work has been done since, and the commission's discussions and conclusions have been kept private.

In "Querida Amazonia," a document released last week (Feb. 12) wrapping up last fall's Vatican synod on the Amazon region, Pope Francis made no mention of women deacons or married priests, even though these topics were strongly debated by bishops during the summit.

Francis' approach to women's issues has caused many Catholic feminists to regard Francis with ambivalence.

"On the one hand, he repeatedly emphasizes the high importance of women for the Church. He wants women to participate fully in all decisions in the Church," said Wuckelt.

"However, he rather represents a classic image of women, as it has been represented by Rome for decades."

Given the chance, Wuckelt said she would advise Pope Francis to include women in his frequent calls for broader recognition of the rights of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people.

This also means an "official and sacramental recognition," she said.

She would also encourage the pontiff to invite female and male theologians to counsel him on "finding a wise approach to the theological arguments for the priesthood of women."

Wuckelt quoted a reading by St. Paul, which states that "there are no more Jews and Greeks, not slaves and free people, not male and female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ."

She said that while these words have "been forgotten time and again in the course of the Church's history," she believes that "it still challenges male and female Christians alike."

Wuckelt isn't the only one looking for more definitive signals from the pope.

A powerful lay group that is co-managing the German synodal process, the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZDK), said in a statement about "Querida Amazonia" that Francis showed a "lack of courage for real reforms."

But Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Münich, who recently announced his intention to not seek a second term as the head of the German episcopacy, took a more optimistic approach, saying that the papal document offers a "framework for reflection" and that the topics discussed during the synod are "by no means off the table."

Wuckelt agreed that "Querida Amazonia" is not "dismissive of the diaconate of women," adding that if the German bishops submit a very strong vote on the matter, the pontiff might "get involved."

The German bishops' deliberations have provoked mistrust among some Catholic conservatives.

Progressive bishops in Germany are viewed in some quarters of the Vatican as a sort of rogue episcopacy, threatening to send a theological and moral shockwave through the Catholic Church in the West.

Traditionalists are already working to minimize the impact of the German bishops' conclusions, arguing that, because Catholicism is a global reality, the bishops of all countries must reach a consensus on the issue of women before any decision is applied.

"In my opinion, this is just an excuse to protest against change and the sharing of power and a feeble means of self-defense," Wuckelt said.

Wuckelt argues that the future of the Catholic Church depends on expanding the role of women.

The German synod was born partly out of a reaction to a 2018 report showing thousands of cases of sexual abuse by clergy over the past six decades.

According to Wuckelt, appointing more women in decision-making positions might help tackle this epidemic and restore popular credibility to the Church.

"We need to discuss this issue from a gender perspective," she said, adding that studies must be made to discover whether female inclusivity could help prevent and detect abuse cases."

"In any case," she added, "it must be assumed that the just participation of women in all services and ministries will change the Church."

After two years of discussion, German bishops will vote on the hundreds of proposals, including the KFD's, and submit those that pass a majority vote to the Vatican and Pope Francis. While remaining hopeful, Wuckelt said that theological discussions are likely to "take a long time."

"Perhaps our great-granddaughters will achieve this goal," she said.

• Claire Giangravé - Vatican Correspondent RNS. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

According to this thinking, the procreative compatibility of male and female reproductive organs is a type of microcosm and symbol of the compatibility between man and woman as a whole.

This argument has three general parts:

1. It is only because men's and women's genitalia and reproductive organs are different that they are able to co-operate in the creation of new human life;
2. This anatomical difference serves as symbol and revelation of the sexual differentiation that extends across the depths and breadths of human personhood—men, as people, are different from women in the way that penises are from vaginas (meaning all men are different from all women in the same uniform and sexually distinctive ways), and
3. Because only sexually different people can procreate and because this sexual difference symbolizes the difference between men and women as people, only sexually different people (that is, only men and women) are capable of the type of compatibility aka complementarity required to be in a relationship of sexual love and fidelity.

In summary, the argument goes, just as it just "doesn't work" to have two women or two men try to conceive a child, it is similarly impossible for there to be a relationship of sexual love and fidelity between two men or two women.

Think here of trying to cut meat with a spoon or eat soup with a fork.

A relationship between two men or two women, they argue, is both not really possible and not really able to contribute to the flourishing either of individuals or of society.

If you are thinking that this argument depends on the type of rhetorical sleight-of-hand discussed elsewhere at WIT, you would be right.

Similarly, if you are skeptical about the veracity of sexual complementarity in general, in other words, if you don't really think that that every man is (and should be) masculine and every woman is (and should be) feminine in the way the magisterium says they are and should be, then I also would agree with you.

However, for the purposes of this piece, let's grant the existence of sexual complementarity between men and women and that it is a prerequisite for "the flourishing of family life"

I guess this would mean that men would have certain personality traits-assertiveness, leadership, ability to acquire a well-paying job, knowledge of sports, affinity for playful rough-housing-and women another set of traits-deference, kindness, patience, generosity, receptivity, a desire to bear children?)and of course let's not think too deeply about the centuries-old example of single-sex and sexual non-complementary communities of monks, nuns, and priests whose holiness the church holds in unparalleled esteem.

Even if sexual complementarity were true, it would not be an argument against same-sex relationships.

There are many types of complementarity, which are proper to particular types of relationships. The fact that same-sex couples lack the type of complementarity thought to be proper to heterosexual couples is not an argument against same-sex relationships. Continue reading

• Katie Grimes proudly hails from the great city of Marion, Ohio. Her favorite theologian is Tupac Shakur, and she currently holds the position of assistant professor of theological ethics at Villanova University.
• Image: YouTube

When his instructor said reports must only refer to the patient - or "client" - by the sex that person identified themselves as, the doctor says a discussion took place among the medics about the "fluid" nature of gender.

"I said that I had a problem with this."

The National Health Service doctor says his right to freedom of speech has been denied and he has been classed "unfit" to work for the department because of his religious convictions. Read more

last week Samoa's Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi declared he was adamant there would be no same-sex marriage in Samoa after it was recently allowed in Australia. Continue reading

"For us, everyone is the same and this has also been addressed by the Pope, who made special reference to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and intersex (LGBTI) community," he said.

The archbishop is one of a number of church leaders in Fiji who have spoken out about the need for transgender women to be treated with respect and dignity.

A recent case of a 22-year-old transgender woman, who was raped and burnt to death in Turkey earlier this week, has highlighted the dangers faced by the transgender community all over the world.

The Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma's secretary for communications Reverend James Bhagwan said no one, regardless of gender, ethnicity or religion deserved to be treated in this manner.

Methodist Church president Reverend Tevita Banivanua said this fear and prejudice for people who were different were shameful.

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji's media relations officer Kamlesh Arya said the organisation believed every human being was entitled to the rights of freedom, human dignity and freedom of association.

Sulique Waqa a transgender feminist and indigenous Fijian said,"Although we are seeing a marked increase in public awareness about transgender people, we are still part of a community that experiences high rates of unemployment, poverty and violence."

Waqa said certain venues and public spaces in Fiji were hostile areas for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersexual and queer community (LGBIQ).

She has worked on LGBIQ community issues of the Pacific region for over 15 years.

Waqa founded the Haus of Khameleon, a transgender led feminist movement that is lobbying, campaigning, organising, researching, training and advocating for transgender equality in Fiji and the Pacific.

Source

• fijitimes.com
• fijitimes.com
• htransrespect.org
• Image: 4.bp.blogspot.com

Cardinal Robert Sarah did this during a speech at National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, on May 17.

The Guinean cardinal spoke of a religious persecution and threat being visited on families through a "demonic gender ideology".

He called this a "deadly impulse that is being experienced in a world increasingly cut off from God through ideological colonisation".

Cardinal Sarah spoke of the challenges posed by individualism, the exclusion of the poor and the "despicable" discarding of the unborn and the elderly.

The greatest challenges, however, he said, are the challenges facing the family.

Quoting Pope Francis, Cardinal Sarah said that proposing less than what the Church teaches on marriage proposes less than what Christ offers the human person.

"This is why the Holy Father openly and vigorously defends Church teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, the education of children and much more."

Cardinal Sarah referred in his speech to the physical persecution suffered by Christians in many parts of the world.

But he added "violence against Christians is not just physical, it is also political, ideological and cultural".

"This form of religious persecution is equally damaging, yet more hidden. It does not destroy physically but spiritually."

The "violence" of cultural and ideological pressure seeks to separate the Christian from his or her conscience and blend them into society.

The cardinal said the devil wants to destroy the family in order to make it harder for people to hear "the Good News of Jesus Christ: self-giving, fruitful love".

He said divorce, cohabitation and gay marriage "cause damage to little children through inflicting upon them a deep existential doubt about love".

Cardinal Sarah called on Catholics to respond to a multitude of threats by being prophetic, faithful, and prayerful.

Sources

• Catholic News Agency
• Catholic Herald
• Image: Lifesitenews

The College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts and the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco (USF) will have the gender-inclusive housing policies for the 2016-17 academic year.

The USF recently updated its gender-inclusive housing description to indicate that students should develop their own understanding about gender identity.

This includes recognition that "human beings are not necessarily male or female as ascribed by their assigned gender at birth".

Holy Cross explained that its new housing policy is "required by applicable law" in its area.

Pope Francis has denounced gender ideology several times.

Continue reading

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: "XY" and "XX" are genetic markers of health - not genetic markers of a disorder.The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female.

Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident.

The exceedingly rare disorders of sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design.

Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child's subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward.

People who identify as "feeling like the opposite sex" or "somewhere in between" do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.

3. A person's belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.

These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).

The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved. Continue reading

Sources

• American College of Pediatricians
• Image: YourNewsWire.com

Some religious conservatives expressed sympathy to Jenner personally but joined most of their colleagues in criticizing her decision to live as a woman and undergo gender reassignment surgery.

I'm increasingly of the belief that the state of Catholic teaching on these issues is more unsettled than at first it might appear. It's true that a few bishops — including Pope Francis — have offered negative appraisals of "gender theory," which is popular in transgender circles.

But this is a very new issue and I'm not sure one can appear to a clear and consistent teaching on the matter that has been universally held for a long period of time. The Catechism is pretty much silent on the matter.

The question as I see it is whether a person with a gender identity that is at variance with their chromosomal/physical gender necessarily violates the moral law if they choose to live according to their gender identity and (although this is a separate question) ultimately undergo gender reassignment surgery.

The argument that is usually offered against the idea that these actions could be morally licit is some version of the "divine will" argument.

In this case, the argument is that a person's chromosomal/physical gender represents an expression of divine will and that living contrary to that chromosomal/physical inheritance is contrary to God's will.

I think this argument quickly runs into some problems. There are many aspects of our lives as human beings that are expressions of our genetic inheritance.

Not all of these are positive and some (e.g. a genetic predisposition to juvenile diabetes) are potentially lethal. I'm not aware of the Church ever holding that it would be illegitimate to treat such a condition simply because we were born with it. Continue reading

• J. Peter Nixon is an award-winning Catholic writer whose work has appeared in America, Commonweal, U.S. Catholic, and elsewhere.

An "outline document", produced by a panel of female consultants to the Pontifical Council for Culture, comes ahead of an upcoming assembly devoted to women's issues.

The document, titled Women's Cultures: Equality and Difference, warns that procedures such as facelifts and tummy tucks can become a form of "aggression" that threatens female identity.

Cosmetic procedures motivated by vanity are "one of the many manipulations of the body that explore its limits with respect to the concept of identity" in the modern world, the document says.

Surgical alterations in appearance, the document states, can "amputate the expressive possibilities of the human face, which are so connected to empathic abilities".

Such changes "can be aggressive toward the feminine identity, showing a refusal of the body in as much as it is a refusal of the 'season' that is being lived out".

One woman is quoted who said: "Plastic surgery is like a burqa made of flesh."

The paper presents an analysis of challenges facing women today, both in society and in the Church.

It concedes that despite abundant rhetoric on the importance of women, to date they have largely been excluded from leadership roles in the Church.

"Why, with their great presence, have women had so little impact on the Church's structures?" it asks.

"In pastoral praxis, why are we giving women only those tasks of a somewhat rigid scheme, the fruit of ideological and ancestral left-overs?"

The document acknowledges that women work as top managers in other walks of life, but often have no corresponding decision-making role or responsibility within their Christian communities.

"If, as Pope Francis says, women have a central role in Christianity," says the document, "this role must find a counterpart also in the ordinary life of the Church."

The document stresses that "there's no discussion here of women priests, which according to statistics is not something that women want".

But it does highlight the fact that the image of womanhood that the Church has does not correspond to reality.

"Today women no longer spend their afternoons reciting the rosary or taking part in religious devotions," it states.

Sources

• The Independent
• Crux
• Pontifical Council for Culture
• Image: The Guardian