The 2015 Global
Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum shows that the Philippines is the
seventh among the top ten countries in which the gap between women and men is
narrowest specifically in terms of economic opportunity, educational
attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Philippines
ranks first, followed by New Zealand and Australia.
Although the Philippines is one of the
better places in the world to be a woman, especially to be a college-educated and
wealthy woman, there are many poor Filipinas whose opportunities are very
limited in our predominantly Roman Catholic country. Discrimination and violence against poor
women persist, partly because of age-old cultural practices and prejudices that
institutional religions have somewhat ignored or reinforced.
According to a local proverb, “A mirror and
a woman are fragile valuables.” Another
proverb goes further, “once broken, a woman, like a mirror, can never be put
together again.” In 2008, the DaKaTeo (Catholic
Theological Society of the Philippines) organized a Conference on sexual
violence against women. That Conference
pondered on the persistence of sexual violence, and how families and
communities, Church and theology, help or hinder in the healing of survivors and
in holding accountable perpetrators like, among others, predators in clerical
clothing.
Thru the centuries and in our times, how
has Church and theology promoted, neglected, or rejected the belief that women and
men are equally valuable and equally fragile?
How has Church and theology helped or hindered in the healing of women and
men who have been broken, if not shattered, by sexism and patriarchy? Or using words from the DaKaTeo vision
statement, have Church practices and pronouncements been fair to women and
inclusive of them, and what can be done to bridge persistent gaps between women
and men in terms of opportunities to share gifts for the good of the Church and
its mission?
For a specific example, how should we
interpret those portions in Amoris
Laetitia, the latest apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, in which he
speaks of the necessity of the “feminine genius” and “feminine abilities” of
the mother and the “clear and serene masculine identity” of the father in order
to create “the environment best suited to the growth of the child” (A.L.
173-175)?
While the papal document admits “a
certain flexibility of roles and responsibilities” between the mother and the
father, should we welcome the suggestion that there is some immutable essence
to gender identity in the Christian household, which is the ecclesia domestica, the Church in the
home, and if so, what are the implications for the mission and identity of the
laity, the majority faithful? These are
among the many questions about which pastors, theologians, and leaders among
the majority and minority faithful have to engage in sustained dialogue.
