Jadranka Rebeka Anić is a nun and a Franciscan school sister from the Province of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Split. She holds a Doctorate in Catholic Theology and serves as a scientific advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences in Split. We discussed with Sr. Rebeka various topics, including the (in)equality of women in the Church, Mary Magdalene, gender prejudices, feminism, and homosexuality.
The topic of your doctoral dissertation, under the mentorship of the distinguished pastoral theologian Paul Zulehner, was the role of women in the Church in Croatia during the 20th century. The understanding, position, and role of women in the Catholic Church continue to be subjects of vibrant debate today. How do you view the state of this debate both within Croatia and beyond, and how do you assess the current position of women in the Catholic Church?
In the Church in Croatia, there is currently a lack of discussion regarding the position of women, as well as research on their working conditions, job satisfaction, and opportunities for advancement within church institutions. In contrast, such research has been conducted in other Western European countries since the 1980s. Similarly, bishops in Germany actively and systematically promote gender equality, supported by research on the professional integration of women, including their working conditions, advancement opportunities, and the obstacles they encounter. Special emphasis is placed on exploring the potential for women to assume leadership roles within church institutions. Many (arch)dioceses have published plans on their websites aimed at promoting gender equality in employment and workplace conditions within church institutions.
When it comes to gender equality, there is still a significant silence here in Croatia. More and more women are working in church institutions and holding important and responsible positions, but the challenges they face are not being investigated. The Church insists on differentiating between women and men in terms of their identities and roles but fails to consider how this difference impacts the concrete lives of both genders. It behaves, I would argue, as if only one (male) gender exists within the Church. There is a notable similarity between the communist principle that there is no women’s issue, only a class issue, and the principle followed by our hierarchy: there is no women’s issue, only a lay issue. According to this view, once the issue of class, or the laity, is resolved, the issue of women will also be addressed. However, this is impossible in a hierarchically structured institution where power is tied to ordination—a process from which women are systematically excluded based on their gender. The need to address these problems systematically is supported by research from other countries that I mentioned earlier.
The month of May is dedicated to the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is regarded in Catholicism as the ideal woman and mother. However, the way this ideal is often interpreted in the Catholic Church can sometimes repel women rather than attract them. Can Mary, for all believers and especially for women, be an ideal that liberates rather than confines?
Certainly, it can be done, but it’s challenging to provide a brief answer. For some people, the figure of Mary, as depicted in popular piety, holds significant meaning. When pilgrims at Marian shrines are asked what Mary means to them, they most often reply that she is a mother who offers protection, comfort, warmth, and understanding. The issue arises when the image of Mary as an idealized virgin mother is equated with the role of a woman in a patriarchal family and society, and imposed as a universal ideal for all women.
Personally, I find myself much closer to the Mary we encounter in the Gospels. I believe that such a portrayal could resonate more profoundly with people in their everyday lives. In short, rather than promoting the image of Mary as passive, suffering, and solely focused on family care, it would be more meaningful to represent Mary as one who thinks, engages in dialogue with God, embraces the risks of the divine calling, observes her Son growing into his own person, and shares both moments of closeness and distance with him. For instance, the scene where Mary and Jesus’ brothers come to take Jesus away because they believe he is out of his mind, and Jesus’ refusal to comply, reflects the complexities of family relationships. It highlights the uniqueness of each individual and their freedom to pursue their own calling, even if it means stepping away from family myths or traditions. I can relate to Mary as someone who seeks and endures the uncertainty of a divine adventure. She inspires me, and I often ask her in my spiritual life, “How will it be?”
Instead of presenting Mary as merely silent, suffering, and caring for her family, it would be more effective to portray her as a woman who thinks deeply, engages in dialogue with God, embraces the risks of the divine adventure set before her, and observes her Son growing into a person she has yet to fully understand. This portrayal would highlight not only the intimate moments they share but also the distance that naturally exists between them.
Among other topics, you address the issue of gender. In 2011, the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences published your book, How to Understand Gender? A History of the Discussion and Different Interpretations in the Church. Why is there so much tension surrounding the understanding of this term within the Church? Could you elaborate on this in more detail?
First, let me briefly clarify the terminology. In discussions about gender, “sex” refers to biological characteristics, while “gender” pertains to the cultural and social meanings attributed to those biological characteristics. Often, there are misconceptions within the Church that gender studies deny biological facts and promote the fluidity and performativity of gender. However, gender studies do not deny the existence of biological differences; rather, they examine how much of what we ascribe to women and men is rooted in biology and how much is socially constructed. It has been observed that concepts of masculinity and femininity, as well as the roles associated with them, vary across socio-cultural contexts and even change over time within the same context. The complexity of these concepts is further evidenced by research showing that different understandings of masculinity and femininity can even be found within the Bible.
The Church faces challenges with the concept of gender, but it shouldn’t, as gender stereotypes—the division of traits and roles into male and female categories, which some in the Church fear deconstructing—originated in Aristotelian natural philosophy. Deconstructing these stereotypes essentially liberates Christian anthropology from its reliance on Aristotelian philosophy and its confinement to the frameworks of modern sociobiology. This shift opens the door for dialogue with contemporary natural science research, which questions traditional interpretations regarding differences in male and female hormones and brains.
I believe that sometimes the Church fears the gender perspective in theological research because such research reveals how crucial gender is to the Church’s maintenance of its hierarchical structure. I will provide a few examples. During my theological studies, I learned that humanity is made in the image of God, and I understood that this applied to both men and women. Only later did I discover that, until the twentieth century, women were entirely denied the status of being made in the image of God, with the term “man” being equated exclusively with males. In the Liturgy of the Hours, there is an invocation: “Lord, look at your sons.” This invocation is also repeated by nuns, who, at that moment, are addressed as “sons,” although they are actually “daughters.” The Church thus places them under the umbrella of the male gender.
Pope John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitatem, distinguishes between the apostolic-Petrine (male, hierarchical Church) and Marian (female, lay) dimensions of the Church. This distinction effectively places lay men under the feminine gender, and the Church, as an institution without gender, is assigned a feminine role. The complementary gender model from the anthropological level is transferred to the institutional level, creating church positions and offices based on gender stereotypes: the Marian aspect of the Church receives, follows, and listens (stereotypically female roles), while the hierarchical aspect leads and manages (stereotypically male roles). Thus, the Church, which rejects gender as a reflexive and critical category, simultaneously naturalizes historically developed church structures. Consequently, the question of justice in ecclesiology becomes subordinate to the issue of naturally given heterosexuality. This indicates that the fear of the destruction of Christian anthropology is, in reality, the fear of deconstructing the existing hierarchical church structure built over time, in which women are nominally recognized as human beings but do not enjoy the same rights as men. Denying rights based solely on gender is defined as sexism.
Another term that often generates tension is ‘feminist theology.’ Could you explain this concept to us, and discuss its legitimacy and necessity within Catholic theology?
Feminist theology emerged as a response by women to theological arguments that have historically positioned them as secondary and of lesser value. While it is often considered to have developed in the 1960s, works by women challenging theological misogyny have existed throughout Christian history. Feminist theology is not just necessary but crucial, as it deconstructs theological misogyny. Its contributions are significant, as it examines all areas of theology through the lens of justice for women. For example, I previously discussed the concept of women as the image of God, which is a key theme in feminist theology. The German theologian Elisabeth Gössmann identified a tradition of women who, for centuries, argued theologically that women are not merely a partial image of God but represent the full image of God. However, their works were largely forgotten and did not impact the theology taught in universities.
In 2017, in Lucerne, Switzerland, you received the Herbert-Haag Foundation Award for Freedom in the Church. In this context, the question of intra-church dialogue, both domestically and internationally, arises. Could you describe the main challenges you perceive, as well as the signs of progress?
I wouldn’t say that there is a true theological dialogue taking place here; rather, it seems to be a dialogue within closed circles of like-minded individuals. Pope Francis is encouraging us all to engage in conversation, which I consider very positive. The synod initiated by the Pope can be likened, figuratively speaking, to cleaning the blood vessels in the body of the Church. The Church is not only a hierarchy but includes every believer. At a seminar on leadership in the Church, the leader emphasized the importance of utilizing the brainpower (including gifts, life experiences, etc.) of each member of a community. For me, dialogue becomes challenging when it involves individuals who claim to be engaging in dialogue but come with pre-formed attitudes that they are unwilling to change, only seeking to impose these attitudes on others. It is particularly frustrating when these attitudes fail the test of the gospel but easily pass the test of maintaining a comfort zone and the privileges it affords to their proponents.
Why should Christians feel threatened by LGBTQI people? Why would the Church oppose them? Doesn’t the Church have a mission and an obligation to share the good news of salvation with everyone, including LGBTQI individuals? Shouldn’t the Church be working to save them from the social isolation and exclusion they often face from family and society?
The issue of homosexuality within the Church is a topic of considerable public, intra-Church, and social interest. In this context, stereotypes come into play, and in our country, there has been a perception of a cultural war that Christians are expected to engage in. Could you describe your experience with how Catholic theologians abroad engage in interdisciplinary dialogue with other sciences on this matter?
Your question requires a comprehensive answer that cannot be fully addressed here. For me, the central issue is this: Do we view LGBTQI individuals as created in the image of God? Do we apply to LGBTQI individuals the words of Jesus that we will encounter Him in every person? If not, how do we justify this stance? A literal (fundamentalist) interpretation of the Bible may support homophobic attitudes, but such readings are condemned by the Church. The Church cannot indefinitely hide behind the term “gender ideology” and will eventually need to address the issues of LGBTQI relationships and the recognition of their full humanity and human rights.Additionally, the term “culture war” is used in our country without questioning its meaning. Its purpose is to instill a sense of threat and panic by homogenizing people, making them easier to manipulate for various agendas. Why should Christians feel threatened by LGBTQI individuals? Why would the Church wage a battle against them? Does not the Church have a mission and obligation to share the good news of salvation with them as well? Shouldn’t it also strive to save them from the social exclusion and isolation imposed by family and society?
As a long-time member of the Croatian section of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR), what has been your experience of collaborating with female theologians both within Croatia and internationally? In recent years, what topics has your section focused on, and what issues and tasks do you consider to be crucial at this moment?
I became a member of ESWTR in 2001 while pursuing my doctoral studies in Vienna. Upon returning to Croatia, I sought to establish the Croatian section of ESWTR. I approached almost all female theologians with master’s or doctoral degrees, but only a few showed interest. It was evident that some were concerned that membership in the Society might label them as feminists, potentially jeopardizing their careers or leading to career difficulties at theological faculties. Despite these fears, a few brave individuals did join.
Our society is ecumenical and interreligious. The Croatian section was officially registered as an association in 2009. Since then, we have organized one domestic conference and one international conference, translated and published two books (Eve as Different and Women Around Jesus), and several articles on feminist and gender topics. We also participate in international conferences and in the governing bodies of the Society at the European level, organize online theological discussions, and more. Given the limited resources available in the libraries at our theological faculties, particularly regarding feminist theology, we requested book donations from ESWTR members. We received approximately 500 books, a portion of which was donated to the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, and another portion to the University Center for Protestant Theology Matthias Flacius Illyricus at the University of Zagreb. At our meetings, we explore various theological topics from a gender perspective, including the contributions of women in theology, philosophy, peace work, pastoral care, gender-based violence, and violence against nuns.
In collaboration with Irena Sever Globan, you published the book “Mary Magdalene: From Jesus’ Disciple to a Movie Whore: A Theological-Cultural Analysis”. Could you briefly explain how her character has been misunderstood in Christian tradition and summarize the conclusions of your research?
The figure of Mary Magdalene, as we know her today and as she has been embraced by literature, fine arts, and film over the centuries, was gradually shaped through the merging of various female characters from the New Testament. These include Mary of Magdala herself, the unnamed sinner who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair, Martha, the sister of Lazarus, unnamed women who anoint Jesus’ head, sinners caught in adultery, and the Samaritan woman. This amalgamation may have arisen from the desire to create a “biography” of a woman about whom the Gospels provide little information, yet who is of great significance to Christians due to her role in witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, apparition, and mission to proclaim the joyful news of the resurrection.
The character created, marked by (sexual) transgression, conversion, profound love, and loyalty to Jesus, was well-suited for sermons. This figure played a significant role in church history, particularly during the Counter-Reformation, but was also exploited to undermine the role of women in the Jesus movement and the early church. Although Mary of Magdala is depicted in Western Christian legends as a preacher who converts pagans and performs baptisms, the prevailing memory of her as a penitent sinner has persisted. This has contributed to the notion that women who followed Jesus were not considered disciples or apostles, despite meeting all the criteria set by Jesus for discipleship. Additionally, the New Testament acknowledges the apostle Junia.
—Source: https://zvona-ri.org/tekst/papa-franjo-nas-sve-gura-da-medusobno-razgovaramo
