This week’s NY Times Magazine carries a question posed to Randy Cohen, who writes “The Ethicist” column, and his answer strikes me as ethically questionable. But first the question and relevant portion of his answer:
“I belong to a Catholic religious order and am in formation to become a priest. As part of my training, I attended a university that was founded by my order and whose president is a priest and a member of the order. Nonreligious students also attend, but we religious students receive scholarships. Is this akin to any other scholarship, like that for an athlete, or is it discriminatory, especially because the order does not admit women? NAME WITHHELD, PORTLAND, ORE.
There’s nothing wrong with a religious order establishing a school for its members… What is at issue, as you suggest, is sex discrimination: your order’s refusal to admit women… You might regard yourself as preparing to be a beneficiary of entrenched workplace discrimination, an ethically troubling position”.
Oh really? Is it inherently unethical to support a men-only clergy?
In the interest of full disclosure, I ask that question as a practicing Orthodox Jew who supports the ordination of women as rabbis. But I also appreciate that mine may not be the only ethical response to honoring both thousands of years of tradition/wisdom and contemporary insight/sensitivity about what is most ethical.
The traditional understanding of any faith which bars women from the clergy would have us believe that men and women have separate roles in religious society not simply because of the physical realities which shaped members’ existence, but because of deep spiritual/psychological/dispositional differences between men and women. Are they right? I don’t know, but scientific research suggests that there is something to that position. Given the deep connection between our minds, bodies, and spirits that should not be so surprising.
But does that knowledge of fundamental differences between the sexes justify not admitting women to full equality in religious leadership? I can only say that the track record of any argument defending “separate but equal” treatment, essentially the one made in all communities which make it their practice to exclude women from the clergy, is not good.
So we are left with a question – how do we balance the need to properly honor men’s and women’s experience, and the fact that too often doing so becomes an excuse for one side’s dominance over the other? Perhaps, we begin by rethinking our definitions of equality. Must “equal” always appear the same to the outside observer, or might it be better measured by gaining a deeper appreciation of the internal experience of those affected?
It seems to me that Randy Cohen was seduced by the same well-intentioned arrogance that animates the question of women’s ordination on both sides of the issue: insisting that when other peoples experience does not match what one side or the other wants for itself, it is because those who differ from them are either less ethical or less religious. But both ethics and religion are bigger than that and it’s high time to integrate that awareness into whatever spiritual practice we follow.
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
posted June 22, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Oh really? Is it inherently unethical to support a men-only clergy?
I’m not certain. Why wouldn’t it be unethical? What makes men more fit for the job? I wouldn’t say that it’s inherenty unethical, but I do think it is unethical to bar people without seriously thought out and defended justification. Since the questioner brought it up himself, it seems like an appropriate answer.
You brought up some interesting points. Are there some people who are not well suited for ordination? Absolutely. Should a religious body do its best to keep those who are not qualified out? Certainly. Can they tell who is qualified and who is not by merely looking at the X and Y chromosomes? Absolutely not.
…seduced by the same well-intentioned arrogance …
Are these really the words of someone who supports ordination for women as well as men? Is it really that important to appear to be balanced that you just wander away, calling “a pox on both your houses?” As far as I can tell there are effectively two arguments for not allowing women to be ordained: “The scriptures as I understand them don’t allow it,” and “We’ve always done it this way.” The claim that women cannot do X is repeatedly disproven, but the ones making the argument refuse to acknowledge that their claim is false. What’s wrong with questioning the ethics of an organization that intentionally discriminates against women, particularly when they resort to falsehoods to defend their discrimination?
posted June 22, 2009 at 2:15 pm
For anyone who may be interested, Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, has a free, 63 minute mp3 file on his web site in which he raises – and refutes – every argument I’ve ever heard put forward for female priests in the Catholic Church. In the process he also discusses the philosophical and theological reasons underpinning the maleness of the Levitical priesthood. The file is located at http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm.
The core of Dr. Kreeft’s talk is entitled “Sexual Symbolism” and a text version of that section is available at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm.
posted June 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The problem of an all male clergy is not anything inherent in the absence of women in certain roles but that all the institutions making the rules and judgments about who may participate in which roles are made up exclusively of men sworn to support the establishment of which they are a part.
I’m not a member of a religious organization that distinguishes between male and female roles, so my comments are those of an outsider, but I believe that if an organization wishes to support the notion that such differences are valid and important they can support their legitimacy only through the explicit support of their “people in the pews” and not by the rulings of an establishment that already requires separate treatment according to identity and whose representatives have benefited from these differences.
If over time the people differ in their judgment from their ecclesiastical establishment, then I would venture my own judgment that the establishment is wrong. I mean, we’re not talking about theological minutiae that reasonably can be expected to be understood by none but the experts. We’re talking about broad strokes ethical judgments of people who have passed their catechism class or equivalent and been confirmed in their faith (or equivalent of confirmation).
Note that I’ve specified difference over time, not the fad du jour kind of difference.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the American voice has clearly indicated over time that they disagree with the establishment on several issues, including the role of women. I don’t know whether Catholics in other countries agree with their clerics on these issues.
posted June 22, 2009 at 6:00 pm
BTW, Mike, I did read Dr. Kreeft’s talk titled “Sexual Symbolism.” It is circular reasoning par excellence.
So female priests are not allowed because Jesus was born male and will be male forever? If that kind of a view of the afterlife floats your boat, you can live by it. But to me and a heck of a lot of people out there, gendering the absolute is anathema, as is the selective rather than inclusive gendering of symbols of the divine. Kreeft’s attempt to attribute concrete symbols to a divine source rather than to human interpretation of humanity’s encounter with the divine is simply a way to avoid responsibility for the ethical ramifications of maintaining the status quo.
Kreeft did not successfully refute anything. Rather, he spent a whole lot of steam saying essentially, if you question the status quo as set by the all male establishment of the RC Church, you are questioning God. But “I speak for God” is the claim of people we should never allow to be the gatekeepers of our religious lives.