Vatican City, Mar 6, 2017 / 05:05 pm (CNA).- To mark International Women’s Day, the Vatican invited women from across the globe to discuss not only their work as peacemakers in a conflict-filled world, but their contributions to the Church as well.
“Women understand, intuitively and by experience, that other people need their attention,” Dr. Scilla Elworthy, co-founder of the organization “Rising Women, Rising World,” told CNA March 6.
This intuition is seen concretely in how women interact with their children, their families and the communities they are a part of, she said. This ability “is what makes them such incredible peacemakers and peacebuilders: that ability to step into the shoes of the other in compassion, and to actually listen.”
“You’ll notice that some women have this lovely presence that makes them very alive and very engaged and engaging,” which isn’t just the result of their intuition, but also of the five characteristics of what she called “feminine intelligence.”
A term coined by Elworthy and her organization, feminine intelligence, or, as she calls it, “FQ,” is something that represents the specific qualities that stand out in women, but that men can learn through observation and practice.
Defined by Elworthy, “feminine intelligence” first of all consists of compassion, as well as inclusivity, referring to the sense that “no one is left out.”
Another quality is nurturing, which means “looking after (and) caring for” people, she said. Finally, the characteristic that stands out for Elworthy as the most important is the ability to really listen to others.
“We all think we’re good listeners, but most of us are not,” she said, adding that “that’s the greatest gift we can give to another person, is to hear them, and it’s the fastest, most effective way to resolve conflicts.”
“To listen to the person we’re in conflict with, feed back to them what they’ve said, check if they’ve got it right, and then ask them to do the same with us” is one of the most secure ways to end misunderstandings and confrontations, she said.
Elworthy was one of four panelists at a March 6 press conference on the Vatican’s annual Voices of Faith (VoF) women’s conference, held every year on March 8 to coincide with International Women’s Day.
First held in 2014, the VoF conference was established in response to Pope Francis’ call to “broaden the space within the Church for a more incisive feminine presence.”
Gathering women from around the world, this year’s VoF will take place at the Vatican’s Casina Pio IV and will gather women from around the world, including Syria and Burundi, to highlight the role women play in building a culture of peace within a world at conflict.
In her comments to CNA, Elsworthy, who is not Catholic but will be a panelist for a discussion on the topic of “Building Effective Leadership for Peace,” said the unique qualities women have at times risk of being lost in a society which, at various levels, often pushes them to be more like men.
“In corporate life, women are definitely expected to adopt a male, aggressive, competitive (attitude) and it doesn’t suit them, they get very stressed,” Elsworthy said, noting that “a lot of them are packing it in, they don’t like it.”
Politics is another field that can be “very harsh” for women, she said, explaining that women need to look for what she called a “deep inner power of the feminine,” but which is “not feminism.”
Instead, for Elsworthy this “feminine power” involves the five characteristics of her notion of feminine intelligence as well as “also the ability to self-inspect.”
This, she said, is where religion comes in, “because all the great religious traditions…demand that we spend time every day in silence.”
Also present at the news conference was Marguerite Barankitse, founder of the Maison Shalom foundation, which she established in response to the aftermath of the 1972 and 1993 genocides of both the Hutu and Tutsi tribes in Burundi as a means of ending the country’s cycle of violence.
In comments to journalists, Barankitse said that for her, even while the mass killings of Tutsis were taking place in 1993, being a Christian and going to Church “was more important than being Tutsi.”
She recounted that at one point during the genocide she had gone to the archbishop’s house in her village to seek refuge, thinking that because of Christianity’s emphasis on forgiveness, members of her parish community would be more balanced, but instead found that the people were filled with hatred.
After this experience and seeing the prejudice coursing through the country at the time, Barankitse said she decided to become teacher after genocide, because in doing so “I can teach children love and compassion.”
Barankitse said that some 60 percent of her family were killed by Hutus during the genocide, but that instead of retaliating, she wanted to establish the Shalom foundation in order to “create a new generation.”
Chantal Gotz, founder and organizer of VoF, also spoke at the news conference, telling journalists that part of the reason for establishing the organization, in addition to giving women a platform in the Church to highlight their contributions, was to break a somewhat negative image of the Church when it comes to women.
When VoF was founded, she said, a journalist had mentioned to her that while more space needed to be created for women in the Church, particularly when it comes to leadership roles, “we have no idea what Catholic women are doing in the Church.”
“The fact was also that four years ago, the image of the Catholic Church was always viewed in a quite negative way, nothing was highlighted on what is the Church doing in a positive way,” she said, adding that they are hoping to “bring new stories” to light showing what women already do.
Media is key in sharing these stories, she said, explaining that they hope to “highlight the positive, not just in Catholic press, but we also need secular press to spread the message of what women are doing and the great work that they’re already doing.”
Kerry Robinson, founding executive director and global ambassador of the Leadership Roundtable, was also present at the news conference. Founded in 2005 after the sex abuse crisis broke, the roundtable is made up of professionals from various fields and is dedicated to promoting best practices in the fields of management, finances and human resources in the Church.
In her comments to journalists, Robinson said she sees Pope Francis as “a reason to be hopeful” given his emphasis on mercy, the poor and his general closeness to people.
When it comes to women, she said one of the “signature motivations” for work of the roundtable is to ensure that their daughters and other young women have more of a voice and a stronger place in the future.
However, she said the push for women’s priestly ordination (which continues to be advocated for despite the fact that Pope Francis has already definitively closed the door) can be distracting from other initiatives that actually help women.
“The ordination question stops every other creative idea that could be implemented right away and nothing happens,” she said, explaining that “unless we bracket it,” none of the ideas for how to enhance the role of women in the present will be possible.
In her comments, Gotz said that finding ways to highlight the role of women and build them up within the Church is something that everyone should be responsible for, not just Pope Francis.
“We expect a lot from just from one person, from Pope Francis, and he was calling to all of us to bring in ideas of new initiatives,” she said, and pointed to VoF as an example.
The organization has not only enjoyed strong success, but also has the support of the Pope, she said, stressing that “we have to trust and we can support him in bringing in new ideas and not expecting that he has to change all of it by himself.”
Similarly, Barankitse said many wait for Pope Francis to act, “but what are the women doing?”
If we constantly wait for something to come “on a silver platter, we will never get it,” she said, adding that “it’s up to us women to support this extraordinary Pope, who is a blessing for our century, and we stand tall.”
But for Robinson, the discussion limited to just women, but involves the laity as a whole, including lay men, whose presence is also frequently missing from within the Vatican ranks.
She told journalists that as far as the Roundtable goes, it’s primarily a movement “to help the Church leaders, ordained and religious, avail themselves of the talent of laity, and that is very intentionally women and men.”
“That’s really our signature: to recognize that the talent and expertise of lay Catholics is an under-utilized resource that the Church can benefit from.”
In comments to CNA, Robinson said the “diversity” of having men and women work together “is a gift, and often we tend not to ensure that there’s true diversity at the tables of deliberation and decision-making.”
“Leadership Roundtable is about helping Church leaders avail themselves of the talent of laity, whether it’s laity who are CEO’s or captains of industry, or its emerging leaders like the talented young adults who are in colleges all over the world who love the Church and want to continue in a meaningful leadership way,” she said.
She stressed that “in no way would I want just women to be running things,” but instead it ought to be “our collective wisdom and experience that matters. It informs a better discussion and a better outcome.”
However, Robinson said she’s happy to see women “claiming their own” and stepping up in leadership roles in various sectors and professions, but noted that there’s still “a long way to go.”
Particularly in the Catholic Church, she said, opportunities need to be sought which ensure that “women and men together are seen as leaders, contributing to the discussion, being models of faith and excellence for younger generations.”
[…]
So what was once the Synod of Bishops will now be Synods of Bishops, Priests, Sisters, Car Salesmen, Teachers, Financial Advisors, HR Directors, Assistant Principals, Cashiers and Truck Drivers…
Remind me. Is this the Catholic Church we’re talking about, or the Rotary Club?
Agreed brineyman. Synodaling is not Catholic. Synodaling abuses the God-given authority of the hierarchy to destroy the God-given authority of the hierarchy. As such, Synodaling is a suicidal form of clericalism.
Synodal Superlodge.
Indeed. But why so negative?
After all, the geographic “contexts” of new-layer regional and continental bureaucracies will surely polyhedralize the merely diocesan bishops who, however, are a higher kind of “context” as successors of the Apostles.
But, still, “we” might converge globally on a very unifying theological question. And even a Q & A query updated from the rigid Baltimore Catechism…That is:…who the hell are all these people, and “from whence have they come and whither are they synodalling?”
Mark Twain held that the only folks justified in using the editorial “we” are newspaper editors and people with tapeworms.
You forgot the person in the pew. What the heck! They have opinions too I just came from a Mass where the choristers occupied the major pert of what used to be the Sanctuary and gave us virtually non-stop pop entertainment. The Eucharist was in a niche on the side altar. Attendees passed within five feet of the tabernacle. Not one person genuflected of even nodded their head. The applause and cheering at the end was huge. It was the last regular performance in a Parish that is closing. Not enough priests or regular Parishioners to keep it going. I wonder why.
what state or country, if you don’t mind?
Baltimore, MD is the site. They are shuttering some 30+ parishes in the City. The Church I was in will now have a Mass on a rotating basis with about 6 others. I raised my family around that Parish for nearly 50 years. All my children went to the school. The Whoopie Mass I attended would have been unintelligible back then. Demographic change is a part of the Parish problems/issues, but a ‘modern Protestantish worship’ service overlaying the ‘new’ liturgy surely cant help.
Bernard, that blasphemous mockery of the mass was perhaps your last? We all have a breaking point at which we seek Traditional Latin Mass and wonder why we waited so long…
When Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury (ca. 1533) and the chief architect of the nascent Anglican Church he forced worshipers to receive Communion in the hand and he hoped thereby to destroy belief in the Real Presence in one generation. (see The Life of Newman by Velez). It is about one generation since the practice began in today’s Catholic Church. Enough said.
That wouldn’t be as bad as inclusiveness including the unrepentant traffikers, drug dealers, pimps, abortionists, depraved theologians, and corrupt politicians, oh, sorry, I already said pimps.
We read: “The pontiff added that the general secretariat of the synod and the Vatican’s dicasteries will assist him in this task [‘listening, convening, discerning, deciding, and evaluating’].”
With due and genuine respect in these complex times, this is a most challenging next task—now from the focus group recommendations—to precisely lift out the baby, yes, from the bathwater, also yes, so as to not contradict other elements of the existing ordinary Magisterium.
Recalling in another and interreligious context that it’s only an Islamic principle to actually “abrogate” what came before by what comes afterward. Listening, too, to the Catholic layman St. Thomas More, speaking in yet another context only of king’s and laity: “Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”
That “quote” is from A Man For All Seasons, and not actually from St. Thomas More. There is no question whatsoever (based upon overwhelming scholarly evidence) that in the entire West during his era, and even the two millennia preceding his time, that the roundness of the Earth was common and universally-accepted everyday knowledge as understood by all of society. Since the opposite claim (which is pure nonsense) is so commonly mobilized for anti-Catholic historical propaganda purposes today (“stupid backwards Medieval Catholics”), I just wanted to get that out there.
Yes, Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons,” 1960). Also, this, possibly referring today to a few heroic backwardists:
“If we lived in a State [etc.] where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we’d live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all…why then perhaps we must stand fast a little–even at the risk of heroes.”
Well, my deed will be to conclude this was all a fraudulent waste of time and money.
My opinion of this Vatican can’t get much lower. Sad.
But like all communist governments, the Vatican will declare it a great success.
Thank God it’s over. The People of God can now attend to their collective headache which this papacy has no difficulty at all provoking.
The choices of the Pontiff Francis and his “synod-cultists-of-apostasy-and-queer-neo-pagan-Rupnik-abuser-church” do not involve the whole Church, they pertain only to their own hermetically sealed cult.
I am not as optimistic. Although the authors of the document (which I forced myself to read in its entirety) refer to the Vatican II and make themselves its heirs, to me they are the heirs of the so-called “spirit of the Vatican II” about which pope Benedict discoursed in his ‘Milestones’. He wrote with a palpable astonishment about what was going on: a theological madness, triumphant denial of an apostolic tradition, destruction of beauty, chaos in minds – in a word, a phenomenon which he and his collaborators had never envisaged. I will add to this a disregard of “people of God” under the mask of doing it for them (this is what is happening now as well). I truly believe that what we have now is a legalization of that “Vatican II spirit” and nothing else. If before one could try to appeal to a tradition, Church’s life as it was before now it is impossible because only “synodality” matters. And anyone can call “synodality” anything he wants, as long as it fits into a general vague agenda of a mutual petting of the ego. Being stripped of all verbal fluff, “synodality” boils down to a motto “if you see me as nice, I will see you as nice and will glorify you and you will glorify me”. It is easy to see that God (who is to be adored and glorified) must go because He is in the way of the cult of self-adoration.
Thus, the whole thing is very insidious and very far from being “sealed”. “The things” will find a response in people’s ego and will go on. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for improving interpersonal relationships within the Church (Rupnik’s case being a symbol of wrong models of interpersonal relationships), throwing away misogyny or any disrespect of others but it is not what is happening. Paradoxically, they throw away the only measure which can help in that, Jesus Christ. You are against misogyny? – Good on you, write an encyclical which is drawn on how Our Lord had dealt with women. Make theological-psychological treatise and oblige all to implement it, in their own minds and parishes. Make study groups. I am sure it is done, there will be no need to throw in populist “empowering women” whatever.
Anna –
You are certainly correct about my words saying that “Pontiff Francis and his synod-cult” are “hemertically sealed.” That was poorly stated by me.
And I, like you, see no reason to be optimistic about the faithfulness of the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the intention of most of the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the Pontiff Francis, and it seems most Cardinals and Bishops and “Team-Francis-celebrities” I can observe in Europe, North America and South America) is to apostasize and de-capitate the Body of Christ (I am using the decapitation metaphor employed by Fr. Robert Imbelli).
I guess the only thing I can say is that I am not an apostate, and that since they are, they are excommunicating themselves from the Body of Christ. Where that leaves people like me (and you and others) is I guess where the men and women of the Ordinariate are: they have not apostasized, but their Church, the Church of England, has already formally apostasized, and they (the Ordinariate) are the dwindling remnant of the faithful who sought refuge in the CAtholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI.
My only hope is in the one who desrves our hope: Christ our King. And my only communion is with those who worship and obey and profess him as the head of his Church, the Body of Christ.
Chris, I share your position fully.
Years ago I began noticing the utmost banality in what was happening so the words “the banality of evil” kept popping up in my mind.
What can be more banal (and absurd) than swapping theosis (man to become God, to be with Christ in love) with an inflated reflection of oneself in a narcissistic mirror held by others, a pathetic attempt to become a little god! The New Banal Church is, in essence, a place where each person holds a flattering mirror for the other and vice versa endlessly; altogether they create a maze of reflections, an endless corridor in which they “journey” in perfect “mutuality”. Those reflections merge and this is their “unity” which exists only in a mirror, instead of true unity via Christ.
Even when I was an atheist in my youth, who did not identify with the concept of sin, I still recognized personal evil, which is self-evidently self-worship. It was a mystery to me that the religious people I met did not seem to grasp such an easy concept. I realized their “religion” had to have declined to a place of systematically reinforced disassociation from the principles they claimed.
Thank you Anna.
Among the petitions of the Anima Christi, one resounds in these days: “Passion of Christ…strengthen me.”
The Holy Spirit strengthen you, and me, and all of us, as one Body, with the mind and heart of Christ our King.
Anna, There are a great many astute comments posted here at CWR.
Congratulations on posting one of the all time best.
The “spirit of Vatican 2” is often an excuse to not really knowing and doing the truth of Vatican 2 – and often rejecting the latter out of a genuine caution towards “fundamentalism.’ The Democrats often attempt to not follow the Constitution by appealing to doing the “spirit of the Constitution” as well for the same reasons. And so the pendulum swings too far towards “spirit.” How about we do both the spirit of Vatican 2 and the substance of Vatican 2, but if the spirit contradicts the substance, let go of one’s interpretation of “spirit” because we could be following the wrong spirit. Forget pendulum swinging. We are supposed to walk the middle path.
Dear Fred
I think you’ll find the term “Freemasonic Spirit of Vatican II” explains everything.
Kind regards
Mr C.N.
Yeah, that’s right up there with “Babylonian mysticism”. Sigh.
Which is it?
“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.””
“…guide for the mission of the Churches, on the different continents, in the different contexts…”
As the Ordinary Magisterium exercised absent of agreement with pontiff and bishops on a definitive teaching of faith and morals – in this instance it’s not infallible. As Francis says the final document is a guide.
Nevertheless the pronouncement by Pope Francis appears to give the bishops and lay participants an independence in development of guidelines that potentially become doctrine. Whether doctrine can be developed independently of the Roman pontiff and the universal body of bishops [referring to bishops and cardinals who are not participants] is problematic.
A sure sign of intelligence is simple profundity.
So what were once Synods of Bishops will now be Synods of Bishops, Priests, Sisters, Car Salesmen, Teachers, Financial Advisors, HR Directors, Assistant Principals, Cashiers and Truck Drivers…
Remind me. Is this the Catholic Church we’re talking about, or the Rotary Club?
Reform? In what sense? To correct error and sin, or to “re form” into a new entity? Whatever their intent understand “reform” as further mutilation.
These theatrics have no credence.
James, always in delighted agreement with your very succinct comments.
But, eh, about reform and the “new entity,” why be so non-inclusive? If one were to fumigate the termite-infested sectors of the Vatican, surely multiple new infestations would spring up in each of the substitute continental assemblies or entities (plural).
If these up-to-seven mixed-company town hall meetings ever presume synodally to be more than what they are, why surely you could agree that even this polyhedral outcome is still biblical…
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits [!] more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation” (Mt 12:43-45).
QUESTION: Like the Synod on Synodality, now will the “hot-button” study groups also offload their hot-potato themes, geographically?
We are all Protestants now
Am I allowed to protest that comment?
How so are we all Protestants? I am a Catholic who accepts that the Pope is Francis. Pope Francis says make a mess. I say Synodaling is a suicidal form of clericalism. Is that opinion messy enough in your opinion for you to agree that I am being a faithful Catholic?
Note that I never commented during previous pontificates. Should the next Pope return us to clarity on matters of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and should said Pope ask us to refrain from making a mess, I will gladly cease throwing peanut shells from the upper gallery.
Dear Fool!
Your comments from the peanut gallery are the silver lining of this Synodolytrous Bergoglian fiasco! (Am I right in thinking that “fiasco” is an Italian word?)
And they are amusing enough that I cannot honestly say that I wish there had never been a Bergoglian papacy.
Glad we are together in the peanut gallery. My understanding is that fiasco is the Italian word for flask or wine bottle from medieval Latin. Perhaps the Bergoglio family made wine bottles long ago in Italy? The Asti region where they are from is known for wine. 🍷 So maybe this is how we are supposed to make a mess?
Wikipedia adds to your definition: A fiasco (/fiˈæskoʊ/, Italian: [ˈfjasko]; pl.: fiaschi) is a traditional Italian style of bottle, usually with a round body and bottom, partially or completely covered with a close-fitting straw basket. The basket is typically made of sala, a swamp weed, sun-dried and blanched with sulfur. The basket provides protection during transportation and handling, and also a flat base for the container. Thus the glass bottle can have a round bottom, which is much simpler to make by glassblowing.[1] Fiaschi can be efficiently packed for transport, with the necks of inverted bottles safely tucked into the spaces between the baskets of upright ones.
Note the basket is made from SWAMP WEED, blanched with sulfur. Now we know the origin of the bad smell.
Exercising his atheistic mind as he does affects crimes against humanity. Not a laughing matter. And can a criminal pope retain the papacy?
God’s Fool,
Actually is quite a mess to say that “the Pope is Francis;” the different and less autocratic expression is that “Francis is the Pope.” Hence, the mess of the so-called Francis Magisterium.
As a forwardist, making my own little mess in the year 11 AF, I prefer to acknowledge the illustrious messy autocracy of the personal magisterium of Francis.
Distinctions are so BF (Before Francis).
Happy Halloween!