Discerning Paradox: Why We Should Care About the Synod

by Eric Clayton

Let’s be honest: Christianity is built on seemingly irreconcilable paradoxes. God becomes human. Jesus is both God and man. Death brings life. And we’re all called to be last so that we might be first.

It’s a lot to take in — and that’s why we should all be particularly interested in this week’s extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family. There’s a lot of paradox — a lot of seemingly irreconcilable difference –and we get a front-row seat to watch the Holy Spirit work.

Any cursory glance through Catholic news reports and blogs over the last few months will show you what I mean. We’ve seen journalists at each other’s throats trying to interpret Pope Francis’ intentions. (Check out our own Mike Hayes’ predictions here.) We’ve seen arguments upon arguments about what makes a valid marriage. We’ve even seen cardinals quarreling in public.

Really, what we’ve seen is conversation and dialogue, which in reality is what we should be hoping for. Such conversation leads to good discernment and allows impossible paradoxes to become moments of creativity. (After all, not so long ago, having a retired and active pope living in the Vatican would have been considered such a paradox.)

Here are five paradoxical points of dialogue we should be attentive to during these days of conversation.

1.    Pastoral vs. Doctrinal Approach

There’s a lot of talk of streamlining the annulment process and reevaluating how the Church cares for those who are divorced. German Cardinal Walter Kasper has articulated a new way forward that would allow those who have gotten divorced and remarried to receive Communion after a period of penance, focusing more on the pastoral realities and needs of individuals without changing doctrine. Yet, can there be a pastoral approach that does not mirror doctrine? Shouldn’t our actions be reflections of our beliefs?

Here we will see the Church grappling with the nitty-gritty realities faced by so many people around the world. Here we may also see the “Francis Factor” on full display, bringing lofty language and theological concepts into the realm of everyday people. But, will this be a one-sided dialogue?

2.    Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Pope Francis shocked the Church last October when he asked that all Catholics be surveyed regarding issues affecting the family. Though it was a drastic change in Church governance — asking for input from the grassroots — the 39-question survey was unwieldy in its wording and implemented haphazardly from one diocese to the next. While some bishop conferences made it available widely, others failed to do so. And there continues to be apprehension as to how the answers will factor into the synod discussion.

How, then, can so many voices be heard? Will the airing of so many opinions be possible — or wanted — amidst the bishops’ own opinions?

3.    One Church vs. Big Tent

Some say the Church is a big tent welcoming all, even those of differing views; others say there is just one way to be Catholic. We’ve most likely heard this before, but rarely have we seen such adamant and public arguments between cardinals, bishops, and other church leaders putting this statement on display. While Cardinal Kasper expounds upon his ideas for reconciling divorced and remarried Catholics, American Cardinal Raymond Burke publicly denounces his plan. Five cardinals have also co-authored a book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ, to dismantle Cardinal Kasper’s proposal. This is a particularly pertinent paradox, as Pope Francis himself is particularly taken by Kasper’s theological approach.

Can these differing — and disparaging — views find common ground? More importantly, will the pastors themselves? The pope has plans to be actively involved in the discussions throughout the synod — unlike his predecessors. We will see how his leadership style navigates these treacherous waters.

4.    Global vs. Local

As church, we’re to make Christ known throughout the world, yet the Church looks very different depending on where in the world we are. This goes beyond giving local bishops more influence. This means that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church must relate and react to the reality of different cultures, geographies, and governments. In thinking about issues affecting the family, Catholics in the United States often default to issues like contraception, gay marriage, and divorce. But what about interreligious dialogue, conflict, poverty, migration, or forced and child marriages? The bishops will need to develop a pastoral plan that accounts for the entirety of the Church’s needs, not just respond to a few hot-button issues.

5.    Continuity vs. Change

In the years since Vatican II, we’ve heard a lot about continuity and discontinuity — was the Church actually changed or simply renewed? Is change even possible when we’re tasked with carrying Christ’s message through the ages? We’ve seen this same conversation continue during Francis’ papacy: Has he broken with his immediate predecessors or simply changed the tone and emphasis of his teachings?

Regardless, this will certainly serve as a paradoxical backdrop to the proceedings of the synod, as doctrine cannot change but emphasis can. Working within that dichotomy, what new work is even achievable?

So, why should we care about the synod? Because we’ll see what a discerning church looks like under Pope Francis. In the end, it’s the Holy Spirit’s game — and we must allow the Spirit to work, in the Church and in ourselves. The synod begins the conversation that will culminate at the World Meeting of Families next year in Philadelphia.

That means we have a whole year for dialogue, discernment, and paradox

Pope Francis bashing is all the rage

By Scott Alessi|

blog Vatican

Poor Pope Francis. No matter what the guy says or does (or doesn’t say or doesn’t do), people are bound to use it to further their own ideological arguments. Francis’ openness to dialog and his willingness to frankly discuss touchy subjects has been taken up by those who call for change in the church as ammunition in their arguments. And for those who worry that Francis is complicating their own agenda, he’s become a common target, held up as an example of exactly what the church needs to avoid.

In the wake of the Synod on the Family, Francis bashing seems to be reaching new heights. Cranky Cardinal Raymond Burke has seemingly taken every opportunity to criticize the pope, even granting an interview to Buzzfeed of all places, in which he said Francis has “done a lot of harm.” Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island, who has in the past expressed his disappointment in Francis, wrote on his diocesan website that the pope has succeeded in “making a mess.” Coincidentally, Tobin praised Burke in the same post, calling him a “principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the church” while condemning Francis for putting the church in “danger of losing its courageous, counter-cultural, prophetic voice.”

Robert Mickens writes at Commonweal of an unnamed bishop saying Francis’ much talked about Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) could have been written by a simple peasant. Mickens cites an article in the Italian daily La Stampa that talks about “enemies of the pope” who do not criticize him with respect, but who “go as far as to denigrate him.” La Stampa’ s Vatican Insider also reports that Cardinal Gerhard Mueller may or may not have snubbed the pope publicly after a tiff between the two (Mueller denies the snub, though he doesn’t dispute reports of an argument).

But fear not—you need not be a high ranking church official to take shots at Francis. Just ask Pat Buchanan, who threw his support behind Francis’ critics and warned that the pope is dangerously close to heresy. “And as it is Catholic doctrine that the pope is infallible,” Buchanan wrote, “that he cannot err when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, this would imply that Francis was not a valid pope and the chair of Peter is empty.” So not only can you criticize the pope, but you can suggest that if he isn’t on your side then his papacy may not even be legitimate.

The arguments from Catholics in the camp of Burke and Buchanan are nothing new, except that now they have adopted Francis as the face of their fears. But the pope isn't the one creating divisions or introducing radical ideas, he's simply bringing to the surface internal debates that have long existed and putting those arguments out in the open. Clearly that makes some people very uncomfortable. Perhaps that's because it shatters the illusion that the church is a unified body whose teachings are clear, unambiguous, and never changing, as opposed to a church that evolves in its understanding and application of age old teachings.

Francis seems to know what he's doing, and so far, he doesn't seem rattled by the criticism. He appears to be more concerned with improving the church than winning popularity contests, and suggestions that he's a heretic who is dooming the church aren't making him change course. Don't expect the personal shots at Francis to stop any time soon, but don't expect the pope to get too worked up over them either. After all, I hear he's not one to judge

Seven lessons from the Vatican’s wild and crazy Synod on the Family

(RNS) Pope Francis and senior Catholic leaders wrapped up their two-week Vatican summit on the challenges of modern family life on Sunday (October 19) without reaching a consensus on a number of hot-button topics. So where does that leave Francis’ papacy? And the church?

Here are seven takeaways:

1. Hard-liners won the battle

A midpoint status report on the debate among some 190 cardinals and bishops was described as a “pastoral earthquake” because of its unprecedented (for Catholic churchmen) language of welcome of and appreciation for gay people, as well as divorced-and-remarried Catholics and cohabiting couples.

The media tsunami over that apparent breakthrough panicked conservatives, who waged an intense public and private campaign to make sure none of that language—apparently favored by Francis himself—made it into the synod’s final report. They succeeded, and even the few watered-down paragraphs on gays and remarried Catholics did not reach the two-thirds threshold needed for formal passage.

Hard-liners claimed victory, and headlines spoke of Vatican “backtrack” and a “resounding defeat” for Francis that left his papacy “weakened.”

2. Reformers may win the war

That could be a Pyrrhic victory, one that cost more than it was worth. If the controversial passages did not reach the two-thirds benchmark they nonetheless won strong majorities. In addition, a growing number of reform-minded bishops say they voted against the contentious proposals because they did not go far enough in emphasizing the church’s welcome, respect, and value for gays and lesbians.

“I didn’t think it was a good text because it didn’t include those words strongly enough, so I wasn’t satisfied with it,” British Cardinal Vincent Nichols told The Telegraph.

Many other synod participants, including Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky., head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also made a point of using the language of welcome that had been rejected. Controversial efforts to alter church practice to allow remarried Catholics to receive communion are also still in play, prominent church leaders said.

Francis himself also made it clear at the end of the meeting that he wants the church to be open to “new things,” and he ordered that the “defeated” proposals still be included in the text. It is likely that over the next year or two he will also appoint more like-minded cardinals and bishops who will push for changes.

3. Change is hard

Change is especially hard for the Roman Catholic Church, which likes to present itself—and its teachings—as immutable. But history shows that doctrine has changed (or “developed,” as theologians say) and many synod participants reiterated that teachings could, and should, be adapted for today’s new family realities.

Still, finding the theological language to justify such shifts, and the pastoral mechanisms to carry them out, is difficult. The bishops meeting in Rome (those who weren’t opposed to any changes) were all over the map when it came to specifics, and it may take time to settle on acceptable solutions, if there are any.

4. Catholicism is ‘flirting with an Anglican moment’

That’s a phrase New York Times columnist Ross Douthat used on Twitter in discussing the resistance of African bishops to what they saw as the synod’s focus on Western concerns like divorce and homosexuality, and efforts to adapt church teaching on those issues in ways that the African churches would not accept.

The Anglican Communion is the global network of 38 autonomous member churches with some 80 million members—including the 2 million-member Episcopal Church, its U.S. branch. Anglicans have been divided almost to the point of breaking as African churches have rejected moves by Western members to open the sacraments to gays and lesbians.

That dynamic is also a risk for Rome, as African Catholicism is also growing in size and influence. Two key differences, however: About 16 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics live in Africa, whereas well over half of all Anglicans are from Africa, and they have a far greater say in the future direction of Anglicanism. In addition, Catholic proposals to be more welcoming to gays are a far cry from the changes pursued by some Anglican churches.

5. Speech is free

Amid all the lobbying and armchair analysis, it’s important to step back and realize that in the three decades before Francis was elected pope, bishops, priests, and theologians could have been investigated, censured, silenced, or fired for many of the ideas that were being openly discussed at the synod. That is perhaps the real earthquake, and it’s one that Francis himself wanted.

6. Talk is cheap

On the other hand, be careful what you pray for. Francis has long urged Catholics to say what they think without fear of reprisals. Opening the synod, he again reminded the participants that he had just one condition for their talks: “Speak clearly. Let no one say: ‘This you cannot say.’“

And by all accounts they did, with great passion inside the synod hall, but even more sharply in the press. The various interest groups seeking to influence the discussions were often much less diplomatic. As one cardinal put it to the Catholic news site Crux, at a certain point open discussion becomes “chaos.”

7. Francis is the “Pope of Process”

That’s what Grant Gallicho of Commonweal magazine called the pontiff. Francis and his fellow Jesuits might prefer to characterize his method as “discernment.”

Either way, it means that this synod was not the end, but the beginning. Nothing has been decided, and nothing is off the table. There will be another longer, and larger, synod next October, and between now and then Francis says he wants everyone to continue to debate and discuss. Which they are already doing.

In the first week of November, Catholic University in Washington will present a lecture by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog and an outspoken opponent of the proposed reforms. Three days later, the campus will host another German theologian, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a leading proponent of reforms and Mueller’s chief sparring partner.

Pull up a chair. Discernment can be entertaining as well as enlightening.

Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time

October 26, 2014

Click here for scripture readings

The love of God, neighbor and self is a triple mystery that defies analysis.

So let me humbly offer three pieces of the puzzle that you may fit into your picture of love.

First piece.

In recent years we have transferred our allegiance from a judgmental God to a parental God.

That is good, since the greatest revelation of God is as Father.

But, as in many things, we took a good thing too far and distorted it.

Along with no-fault insurance and no-fault divorce we want no-fault love.

No way.

Love is done on purpose with aforethought.

God does find fault with the way we love and intends to do something about it.

Indeed, something quite specific.

God clearly said: "If you do not take care of my people I will kill you!"

That=s serious.

So serious that we protest, we demure.

We say that the Israelites had a simple, nomadic economy that depended on personal chanty whereas we are covered by welfare.

We say that in an agrarian society at the time of Jesus responsibility was easily traced; whereas in our global economy we are too far from the seats of power to be held accountable.

This is only partially true.

We may not make final decisions on child labor, food distribution, debt reduction and genocide. But neither are we illiterate, powerless peasants.

To the extent that we have money, votes, education, leisure and access to decision makers, we are responsible for the world we inhabit.

My guess is that God is very angry at the shape we have allowed our world to take.

And while we try to excuse, explain and deny responsibility for the incredible suffering of the poor, there God stands with sword in hand.

Second piece of the puzzle.

Love is ordered, has priorities.

We speak of love of God and neighbor and self as if they were equal. But they are different kinds of love because they have different objects.

In that sense, love of self is not precisely love since your self is not an object.

Call it self-concern or self-responsibility.

And though it is a profound experience, it should not be mystified.

Call it self-preservation.

And besides an instinct for survival,

humans have an innate tendency toward Goodness and a drive to be joined to everything good.

We call that goodness "God" and that longing "Love."

We also have an in-built passion to know and do the truth:

to know the meaning of life, how the world works, what is the proper relationship among fellow humans.

That is close to love of neighbor.

These are separate loves with separate objects.

Love of self is responsibility for survival of self;

love of neighbor is responsibility for the survival of neighbor.

Love of God is the desire to be united with God on a personal basis: to know and love what God does.

But though these are separate acts of  love in theory that are united in practice,

Love of self demands interaction with others, so we love them.

Every neighborly love is at the same time love of God whether or not we intend it. So much is love of one piece.

Third piece of the puzzle.

Love is inclusive.

"Love me-love my dog is not just homey wisdom -- it is profound psychology.

It is much the same with love of God----but it is much complicated by the fact that God has billions of dogs, many of us mongrels.

The problem becomes acute when we intensely dislike someone.

It doesn't matter if we are justified; the demand of love is absolute.

Sometimes we simply cannot deal with them person-to-person so we take it to God, our first love.

We say to God: "Let us,  you and I,  get our love straight first."

And that request reveals our deepest human problem, what the poet called "the error bred in the bone, not just to be loved but to be loved alone."

Although we know that God loves others as much as He loves us, we don't want to think about it.

We like to think we are special.

But God says: "Sorry, I don't have private affairs."

That is when we discover that eternal love is eternally binding.

The Old Testament God threatened: "If you do not love your brother or sister, I will kill you";

the New Testament God reluctantly sighs:

"If you cannot love your brothers and sisters, I will have to live without you."'

29th Sunday Ordinary Time A

October 19, 2014

Click here for scripture readings.

Try as the Pharisees might, they could never pin a label on Jesus.

Here is the emperor's coin, Jesus -

are you pro-God or pro Caesar?

Here is a woman caught in the act of adultery, Jesus -

do you support the Law or do you favor leniency for criminals?

Here are the two commandments of the Law, Jesus

what side do you come down on, God or neighbor?

Were we able to quiz Jesus ourselves in own our time and place, we might very well ask him all kinds of questions that we desperately seek answers to:

Jesus, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Are you a socialist or a capitalist?

Liberal or conservative?

Which is more important: jobs or the environment?

Come on, Jesus, tell us, where do you stand:

Gun control? Nuclear weapons? Gay rights? Prayer in school

(ah, Jesus, you gotta be for prayer in school, right?)

But, considering how Jesus responded to the Pharisees, it's a pretty good bet that Jesus wouldn't bite.

Because Jesus comes not to speak to issues but to human hearts.

Jesus' agenda is not one of politics and power but the reign of God -

a reign in which compassion, reconciliation, justice and mercy are the coin of the realm. Jesus comes not with answers but with a vision for approaching those questions.

In response to our many questions, Jesus would probably say something like:

What good is it to be pro-this or anti-that, when children are starving, when families are in crisis,

when the world's wealth is in the hands of a few, when innocent people are persecuted and abused because of their skin color or the place where they were born or what they call God?

I'm calling you to something greater than labels.

I'm asking you to see the world as my Father sees it,

to understand God's dream for the world.

It's a dream that begins with what you see and feel and believe in your heart, the place where my Father's spirit dwells within you.

The confrontation over Caesar's coin is not the definitive answer to any church-versus-state controversy

nor an all-purpose formula for dealing with life's big questions.

While we yearn for clear answers to complicated questions and complex problems, the real purpose and meaning of life are found in the intricacies of our consciences and the values we hold in the depths of our hearts.

Jesus appeals to us to look beyond the simplistic politics and black-and-white legalisms represented by the emperor's coin ---

and realize that we are called to embrace the values centered in a faith

that sees the hand of God in all things

and recognizes every human being as being part of one human family under the providence of God.

Vatican stuns Catholic world with greater openness toward gays and lesbians

By Josephine McKenna| 

Article Sex and Sexuality Vatican

c. 2014 Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The world's Catholic bishops on Monday (Oct. 13) signaled a move toward greater tolerance of gays and lesbians, an about-face so unexpected that leaders of the church's right wing called it a "betrayal."
Noting that gays and lesbians have "gifts and qualities" to offer the church, the midpoint assessment reflected the impact that Pope Francis seems to be having on the two-week Synod on the Family as he pushes for a more open, less doctrinaire approach.
"Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities?" said the communique from the nearly 200 bishops and lay delegates. "Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home.
"Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"
While they reaffirmed their opposition to gay marriage and same-sex unions, the bishops' groundbreaking document nonetheless said homosexuality called for "serious reflection" and described it as an "important educative challenge" for the church.
The bishops also foreshadowed a simpler approach to marriage annulments and responding to cohabitation.
The document was presented to the media by Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo, the synod's relator general, flanked by other cardinals.
While no decisions or doctrinal changes were announced, the report was described as an "earthquake" by John Thavis, journalist and author of the best-selling book, The Vatican Diaries.
The approach provoked an angry reaction from a dozen bishops before they left the synod hall and a fiery debate between the church's right and left flanks.
"This is a stunning change in the way the Catholic Church speaks of gay people," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit author and editor at large for the Catholic magazine America.
"The synod is clearly listening to the complex, real-life experiences of Catholics around the world and seeking to address them with mercy, as Jesus did."
While reinforcing marriage between a man and a woman, the bishops noted that gay partnerships had merit—moving toward the more inclusive approach signaled by Pope Francis when he famously responded "Who am I to judge?" when asked about homosexuality.
The shift in tone for a 2,000-year-old institution that officially maintains that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" surprised Marianne Duddy-Burke, head of DignityUSA, the country's largest Catholic gay and lesbian organization.
"The specific language used about lesbian and gay people is astonishingly new," Duddy-Burke said from Boston.
"The recognition that 'homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community' is a far different starting point than saying we are 'disordered,' which has been the mantra for almost 30 years. That positive language is more hopeful."
The progressive group Call to Action said it was encouraged by the report, describing it as the "breath of fresh air" that Francis had brought to Rome and that has inspired many to hope for change.
"We pray that this positive shift in tone and language will also mean changes in hurtful and dated policies," said Call to Action Executive Director Jim FitzGerald.
The document—and the real or implied changes that may or may not materialize—stunned church conservatives. The Catholic group Voice of the Family, which represents 15 organizations in eight countries, called the document a "betrayal."
"Those who are controlling the synod have betrayed Catholic parents worldwide," said Voice of the Family co-founder John Smeaton.
"We believe that the synod's mid-way report is one of the worst official documents drafted in Church history. Catholic families are clinging to Christ's teaching on marriage and chastity by their fingertips."

Does the church need a new theology of women?

Pope Francis himself has stated that the church needs a "new theology of women." But what does that mean, exactly? And who might write it?

By Emily Reimer-Barry, assistant professor of theology and religious studies at the University of San Diego. 

[Sounding Boards are one person's take on a many-sided subject and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of U.S. Catholic, its editors, or the Claretians.]

.

A traditional Chinese proverb teaches that “women hold up half the sky.” Women also hold up half the church.

This truth may have been on Pope Francis’ mind when he told reporters in July 2013, “I think that we haven’t yet come up with a deep theology of the woman in the church.”

A few months later, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, he elaborated that women make indispensable contributions to society but also that “we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the church.” Pope Francis argued that the presence of women must be guaranteed in the workplace “and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the church and in social structures.”

The pope is exactly right: The church does need a deep theology of the woman, but the question we have to ask is: How do we get there? Are these just words, or are church leaders finally ready to begin to implement a more gender-inclusive agenda?

Is the church ready to construct this deep theology of the woman without running it through the clerical male filter? A new theology of women cannot and should not be authored by men. Rather than a new theology of women written by men, it is time for women in the church to have a voice in the construction of the church’s theology of women.

Some might object to this proposal by arguing that the bishops are the authentic teachers of the faith, that this is part of their job description. But you can’t teach what you don’t know. Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are all male. Bishops cannot speak from experience about what it means to be a woman in the church. So they must listen to and learn from women.

If differences between the sexes matter—and in current expressions of Catholic theology they do—then the bishops should recognize their obvious limitations in this sphere of human experience and should welcome the voices of women.

But how can we fruitfully structure this conversation? We need a global consultation, led by female theologians and women religious, tasked with listening and learning from stories of everyday women and the social data that provides the context for those personal narratives. For this major undertaking to be successful, the women leading this process should adhere to the following five rules.

1. Consult widely.

Even the female researchers who might lead this project need to learn from other women.  We can’t speak about “women’s experiences” in the abstract. No two women are exactly alike, and when we recognize differences of citizenship, ethnicity, language, age, class, sexual orientation, and all of the other distinctive ways in which women’s experiences are formed and shaped, we then realize the difficulty of talking across these areas of difference. So one of the most important considerations is that global consultation is necessary, across all of the barriers that seem to divide us.

As researchers consult widely, it will be especially important for them to listen to survivor stories, so they may learn from women abused in intimate relationships; women who have lost children to war, starvation, curable disease, or gang violence; women in vowed religious communities who have been told that they are in grave error and in need of reform; women whose labor is valued less than their male counterparts.

Ask these women—indeed, ask all women interviewed—what they need to thrive. What do women, all around the globe, say they need to be the fully flourishing human beings that God created them to be?

2. Don’t reinvent the wheel.

The idea of a global consultation is certainly daunting, but we should remind ourselves that we would not be starting from scratch. Women have been a part of the church from the beginning. And our faith tradition contains stories of many remarkable women who shaped and passed on the faith, even if most of their stories were told by men.

The researchers who undertake this project should receive the fruits of the theologies that have already been developed by women in the church. Some of these women identify as feminist, while some prefer other descriptors. For example, many black women prefer the term coined by Alice Walker, describing their work as womanist theology, while many Latinas prefer to call their work mujerista theology.

Women have learned that doing theology from the perspective of women is life-giving, challenging, and liberating work. The task of feminist theology, as it emerged in its second and third waves, is not just to offer critical perspectives of past theologies or to uncover the lost stories of women but also to construct a way forward that is empowering of all. 

Feminist, womanist, and mujerista theologians have been doing this work in university classrooms, academic conferences, women’s spirituality prayer groups, and in publications like this one. Unfortunately their contributions have often met resistance from church leaders instead of open engagement. If we are to seriously develop a new theology of the woman, this new theology must incorporate what has been learned in this scholarship over the past 50 years.

3.  Seek common ground.

It would be tempting to focus exclusively on the particularity of each woman’s story and the differences among women’s experiences globally. But this task force should model cross-cultural engagement rooted in a process that seeks to build consensus around contested issues.

We should use our reason to reflect on our human experiences in order to draw norms about what is right or wrong. This is the natural-law approach to Catholic social teachings, which are addressed to all people of good will. The new theology of women should try to build bridges of understanding between women in different parts of the world and should seek common ground.

Some issues might remain controversial for some time. It might not be possible at this juncture to come to universal agreement on how to promote women’s leadership in the institutional church, or how to best empower women to make good choices in sexual relationships. But there are some issues which should not be controversial. If women in the task force can emphasize areas of agreement, these can be a fruitful foundation for further collaboration.

A good starting point in this area is to combat violence against women and the cultural expressions of this misogyny and disrespect: for example, attention to sexual slavery and human trafficking and the victimization of women in the pornography industry.

Other possibilities for building common ground include making childbirth safer for women globally, equal access to primary and secondary school education for girls and boys, and equal pay for equal work as women work alongside men in most sectors of the economy.

4.  Substantiate claims with evidence.

It might sound obvious, but this is an important rule for this global consultation task force. Researchers should consult data beyond the publications of the previous popes and councils. In crafting their new theology, the authors should cite from a range of sources, build a case, and substantiate their claims with evidence.

Too often Vatican documents on women contain simplistic stereotypes (like the nurturing mother), platitudes (like the feminine genius), or unsubstantiated claims (like the claim in Evangelii Gaudium that women possess more sensitivity and intuition than men). If the descriptive claims and normative conclusions of this new theology of women are to be taken seriously, they must be defended, not simply asserted.

Those who are tasked with constructing this new theology of women should avoid proof-texting from the scriptures or cherry-picking from the popes. And avoid at all costs the phrase “As we have always taught, ….”

5. Write in an open and dialogical tone.

Finally, the authors of the new theology of women should acknowledge the limitations of whatever new theology emerges and should encourage others to build on their work. A new document is not to immediately become the last word on the subject but would instead be a new point of conversation, a new jumping off point.

If scholars write in an open, inviting tone, nuancing their claims and not overstepping their legitimate authority, this new theology is more likely to be well received by a broad audience. When this new theology is presented in a popular form, it should be distributed widely, using the mass media as a pulpit for teaching.

Let’s creatively use social media and the mainstream press to build awareness of the equal dignity of women and the important contributions women can make to society and the church.

If women do indeed also hold up “half the church,” it is time to invite them to collaborate in the construction of theology. Enabling and empowering women to construct the new theology of women would be a good place to start. It is time to craft a process by which women are at the table, speaking from their experiences, constructing a more adequate theological anthropology that takes into account the voices of diverse women across the