Berkley Center

Background: This exchange with Katherine Marshall in June 2010 explores Sister Joan Chittister's path to her present work. Her focus on peace processes and the women’s movement stems from her Benedictine faith; Benedictines, she explains, strive for stability, which goes hand in hand with peace. Her most urgent call is to include women in policy processes at all levels, to hear women's agendas, and then to honor them. She highlights the benefits of a collaborative, consensus decision-making style that characterizes many women's groups. This is a better process, especially in conflict situations, than the taffy pull, tug-of-war style that a decision-focused, male-style process entails. Educating girls and nuclear disarmament are two top priority issues to address. Though many practitioners in the field recognize the imperative to hear women practitioners’ voices in the peacebuilding process, change is slow to take hold. The National Organization of Women and Women’s Nation both can organize women’s groups and make their voices heard, but they are not the norm. What is special about what the women bring to the process is the ability to leave their personal pain and trauma at the door when attending peacebuilding workshops and meetings with women of other faiths and from the other side of the conflict. They are needed in policy decisions to push the women’s agendas that are so often ignored.

In April, you gave a rousing speech at a meeting in Mexico organized by the Nobel Women’s Initiative [established in 2006 by sister Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Betty Williams, and Mairead Corrigan Maguire] and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice. What were the highlights and what was it all about?

It was a profoundly hopeful event, because there was more energy there around women’s issues than I have seen for a long time. The meeting involved mostly young, dynamic women lawyers, jurists, and activists, and gender justice was the central theme. The main topics there were the International Criminal Court and tribunals, but the same issues we are struggling with in the Global Peace Initiative for Women (GPIW) were on their minds: war, trafficking, brutality, injustice, unreconciled hurts. I felt somewhat apart there, coming from a very different perspective, but was deeply heartened to see younger women responding to the same call. And my final, affirming comments were like throwing perfume in their faces.

We felt very much part of the same presence, because of our common conviction that women are totally and absolutely part of the solution to the problems of justice and peace. Religion can throw moats between us and throw theological acid that makes religions puny and dangerous. But what I saw there was that women’s quest is a profoundly spiritual one, whether or not it is labeled that way. I wish we had some way to have more events like that, where women’s voices are truly heard and maximized. I left happy.

I worry, though, as we have discussed before, that the fight and energy in the women’s movement is not what it once was. Women’s voices are not being maximized, with a few exceptions, for example the National Organization of Women, which knows how to do it. But my faith was partly restored by the energy I felt from those young women. People are coming at the problem from different perspectives, in a million voices. I just wish I KNEW how to bring them together in better ways. Until we do, we may not find a better way to create a public agenda on women’s issues. Maria Shriver, with her Women’s Nation, really has come close. She is an honest-to-God feminist, with depth and breadth, and her approach should not raise the antipathy of even the early feminists. She is not man-hating or anti-establishment. And her heart reaches out to women everywhere. But she does not seem to have been able to bring women’s groups to organize to endorse the Women’s Nation. There was a great launch, but I begin to fear that this is a great truck with no wheels.

Looking a bit more broadly, how do you see the present environment?

I’m deeply concerned. At the Global Peace Initiative for Women, we are working to bring the group of contemplative religious traditions together. One priority is to redefine security in ways that will help this group to put the different pieces and elements together. But looking at the problems that face our president now, Washington seems to be in total disarray. Every major topic known to humankind is on the table at the same time. No matter what the president does, he is upsetting some segment or other. It could, if things work out somehow, be the greatest dream known to humanity, but the contrary seems equally possible. We face a major economic crash, ecological disasters all around, and two wars. What this young man faces is incredible, and my heart aches for him. At one level, it’s the most exciting time we have lived in politics for a long time. Tomorrow’s historians will have a field day with what we are living through today. But it is also a time of great danger.

Let’s go back. How did you become involved in the issues of women and peace?

The answer is at the same time very simple and, in its simplicity, phenomenally complex. Purely and simply, it is because I became a Benedictine. I did not come to the issues through the peace movement or the women’s movement; I have never been part of any secular organization. It came through the Church.

The Benedictines are over 1,500 years old. No institution of the Church is older, except perhaps the Church itself. And the Benedictine model has always been about peace, at every and any level. Yes, that means inner peace, and a contemplative bent, of course. But the significance of peace goes far beyond.

The Benedictines as a religious order worked for centuries basically to reclaim Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. That was a time of great insecurity. People were not safe on the roads or in their towns, and there were no soldiers to protect them. Benedictine monasteries served as hospices, each one no more than a day’s ride from the next. We were absolutely the first motels in Europe and offered hospitality for hundreds of years. In many small villages, the central point was the Benedictine monastery, and the town grew up around it. The monastery employed people, taught them to farm, served as the judiciary, educated people, including girls, and served as nurses. In the chaotic Europe of the time, the monasteries were the anchor and the sign of peace at every level. If you look at a map showing the distribution of the Benedictine order, you will see a social and political network that far preceded any inkling of the nation state.

So if you are a Benedictine, peace is on your mind. Benedictines take a vow of stability, not of chastity and poverty. We take vows of conversion, obedience, and stability. That entails a lifelong commitment to a particular community in a particular place. That sense of community is very important to us, and it is how we see ourselves and our social and civic responsibilities. It is right in our DNA.

In addition, we very much see ourselves as a women’s order. Benedictine nuns educated the first women in Europe. They ran the schools. So what happened? When the universities were formed, the earlier Benedictine work was forgotten, deemed unimportant because it was about women. Women were not permitted in the universities, and so the schools of the Benedictine sisters declined, and they were forced to stay within their cloisters.

Moving ahead, and against this background, after Hiroshima and World War II how could we, as an order, not be very conscious and alert to what peace means in our time? I was prioress in the period after Vatican II. We saw it as a call to our communities to change and to act. What else are we here for? Given our concept of a corporate commitment, we felt as a community that we should be furthering the social impact we could have wherever we were. So the corporate commitment of the Benedictine sisters embraced the causes of nuclear disarmament, of ecological stability, and of commitment to the poorest of poor, especially women. For us, these were not separate causes, and we were keenly aware of the linkages. In my monastery in Erie, there is a large, six-foot plaque stating that this is a nuclear free zone. It symbolizes our organic link to the issue of peace.

So the answers to the questions: Why women? Why peace? Why religion? are very simple. I find myself in the middle of these issues, not as something outside, but as the result of a lifelong commitment that is deep and deeply authentic. It is part of the contemplative life: you put on the mind of God so you can see.

How old were you when you joined the Benedictines?

I became a Benedictine nun at 16 years old! That was in 1952, and after I had plagued the prioress, Mother Sylvester, for two years to take me. She hesitated because I was an only child, and she said my mother would need me. So I took my mother to meet her and my mother supported me, telling Mother Sylvester that if I had made up my mind, that was what I was going to do.

Did you have an interest then in women’s issues?

My concern for women’s roles and welfare were very much on my horizon even then, though I did not have the language then to express it.

I saw my mother’s life from a very early age. I do not use the world lightly, but she was truly brilliant and special, but she was totally undereducated. Left a widow at 21 years old, during the Depression, with a child, she could not support herself and never forgot it. My stepfather was a good man (my biological father died when I was three), but she was twice as smart. I saw the distorted division of labor between them and knew that it was wrong. She was the one who was needed, but he had the job and position. My mother was clearly a feminist though, again, she did not use that language. I remember clearly that all my life she stressed that I must study and work hard so that I could take care of myself. It was a life experience that was burned into my mind. I knew from the time I was six years old that life was upside down, and that life was very precarious.

I grew up in an environment where we were on our own and had to fend for ourselves. I was an only child, and we lived some distance from our families. There were no cars, no trains, no cousins, aunts, or uncles. Again, I knew that I was alone in a precarious world.

So when I met the ideas of feminism, I simply said, "Yes, this is right." I did not have to throw off any role or shake off ideas. I just jumped off the high diving board. It was the only show in town that made any sense.

And I certainly did not mix up this understanding with religion and the encrusted ideas about women. I was at a wedding yesterday where the reading brought out the old idea that wives should obey their husbands. I never believed that, as it made no sense. God made women with a brain, and it was never part of my understanding that God intended women not to use it.

Skipping through many chapters in your life, how did you come to be involved with the Global Peace Initiative for Women? When did you meet Dena Merriam?

It really came out of the blue and turned around the year 2000 Millennium Summit of Religious Leaders at the United Nations. I was invited to participate and, with Kofi Annan, the secretary-general, behind it, I planned to go. But then I learned that the Dalai Lama was not permitted to attend. I simply could not see how you could have a major meeting of religious leaders and not include him. In that case, I did not want to be part of it. I truly could not understand how the organizers could be pressured to accept that he not be part of it. So I did not attend and heard nothing further.

Then, some two years later, I got another letter, again quite out of the blue, this time inviting me to a women’s meeting. I was committed to speak in Chicago at that time, so was on the verge of saying no, but some other sisters were excited by the idea of a meeting of women religious leaders from around the world, and they insisted that I try to rearrange things to make it possible. I called the Chicago people, they found a solution, and I went off to the meeting in Geneva.

There, I was one of the opening speakers in a distinguished group. And I participated actively, then went home and did not think much more would come of it. I received a nice brochure about the meeting that Dena Merriam put out, opened it because the cause was a good one, and found myself listed as a co-chair. And, as they say, the rest is history. I have been actively part of the Global Peace Initiative for Women ever since.

What stood out for you at the Geneva meeting of women spiritual leaders?

I loved the interfaith model. There were women there from every tradition, every denomination and spiritual bent, from many countries. But all of them knew that the national and denominational boundaries, barriers, and stereotypes were ridiculous. We spoke the same language, which was deeply spiritual, and we came in many ways from the same background. The women did not bring the legacies of conflict into the room, no matter how much pain they had lived. There was a great spiritual feeling, a great hope, and we all felt part of a real spiritual movement.

What have you done since then with the GPIW?

I’ve been everywhere, with GPIW, including meetings in Bangkok, India, and many other places. The India meeting was truly remarkable, seeing the Hindu women taking leading roles. And the meetings of Israeli and Palestinian women, so very hard to organize, have been remarkable in their authenticity and willingness to grapple with the real problems.

I met you first in Chiang Mai, at a meeting on women and religion that was organized by the Peace Council. Was that an important focus for you?

The Peace Council, which was formed in 1995, was very much in the spirit of the 2000 Millennium Summit, and it had a special focus always on women. I am not sure, though, what has become of it. I was a founding member, but the group has not met for some time. I suspect that it is a victim to funding problems, as the overhead of gathering the group is so large.

My sense with such groups tend to be “build it and they will come.” If the idea is good and the organization is sound, there will be a way. But seed money is very difficult, and there are many causes. This is one that did great things in the early years, for example in moving essential supplies into North Korea. But it seems to have foundered on financing.

And what about the central question that the coming meeting is addressing: why should we focus on women’s roles for peace?

I am completely convinced that until women are more than token members of any movement and institution, there will never be peace or action on environment or real action on poverty. Women bring real differences in terms of style, goals, agendas, presence, and real skills in conflict resolution. The fact that existing institutions do not deal with women in any systematic fashion is a real issue. No one in governments or international institutions sits down with women’s groups as they consider major legislation and other measures. But that is what they should do.

Our societies are nowhere near as egalitarian as we think they are. People are sincere in thinking that there has been progress. But there are real differences biologically and spiritually between men and women. The prevailing attitude is that if you have a man, you really have both, because the man will know what is good for both men and women. There is simply not a recognition that we are a bipolar species, not enough recognition that there is a missing link. What I have seen in my lifetime is that far too many people have drunk the Kool-Aid. There is 2,000 years of male-defined and dominated religion to overcome. That will not change until we have reinstitutionalized religion to include women on an even and equal basis. And I fear that that will only come about incrementally.

Have you seen situations where what you imagine is actually working? At a societal level?

That is not easy to answer. Perhaps it is working in Scandinavia, which is far more advanced than most other places. They really have reinstitutionalized the systems. There is a very different attitude and among the women a very different sense of self. But the change is not complete anywhere.

Many churches, if not most, are trying, but even there it is not really embedded yet. It will take a couple of generations. What we need is for it to become part of the human fabric of thought, so that it is truly lived and passed on to our children.

In the Global Peace Initiative for Women, what have you found most interesting or surprising?

In the meetings of Israeli and Palestinian women, the authenticity, integrity, and genuine effort they showed were off the charts. They had lived through every trauma and agenda, but still reached out and kept reaching, kept looking for help from each other. This is despite a situation where the systems are so much against them that even finding a place to meet is a major challenge. How you can make peace by boxing people in, separating them from each other, is beyond me.

Even so, despite the fact that we do not see clearly where we can go with the initiative, I have great hope in this civil society work for the Middle East (as well as for other regions). The women are the ones who can reconnect this place.

Where do you see the need for action? Where should we be exploring and pushing as we move ahead?

The most important advice is that we have to tap into the women’s agendas, through women’s groups, and then honor those agendas. Women simply must be included.

When the United Nations passed resolution 1325, calling for the inclusion of women in work for peace, I was encouraged. It was something we had been talking about and pressing for for a long time. Suggesting that women be at the peace table brought reactions as if we were hallucinating. Who would want to do that? That was the implicit question. So 1325, what a prophetic call, and from such a prophetic dais. So we cannot give up.

We also need to work to model the kind of decision-making and policymaking that is women’s style, and that is quite different from the traditional, "Daddy knows best" approach.

I remember well a meeting with a wonderful Benedictine abbess. We were sitting at a huge table, and she, as the abbess, had great authority and presence. She looked at me at one point, and said, “My dear Sister Joan, what would you ever want that Father Abbott would not do for you?” I almost had to stand on the table to answer her, but that is the kind of attitude that is so entrenched and that we need to counter. The idea is that the man is the strong one who will take care of us. I do not want a strong man behind me. Women need to be able to speak and act for themselves. They need to be at the table. This is not cosmetic or trivial; it is crucial. It is what we are saying also about racial issues: look at how Obama’s presence has made a huge difference in the self esteem of African-Americans. It’s the same for women.

The prejudices go very deep. The abbess is a perfect example. She was trained by men, very well, to understand that men were really the holy people in the Church. They were the authorities. And she knew her place.

What differences do you see in approach and style between women and men?

You see differences everywhere, in the tone and agenda of discussions, everything.

To take one example, when I was at the [Leadership Conference of Women Religious, LCWR], a priest was asked to be a consultant on some organizational issues. He was someone whose style was to get things done, then tell others how to go about the next steps. After the first meetings with the LCWR he was ready to quit because the style he found was so different. Everything was done by the group. It was a group decision-making process. He told me he could not handle that, but I asked him to stick with it, and he did. Six months to a year later he came back and told me that the LCWR way was the right way to go about it, that it was a good way to decide. The women just did not allow him to come in and take over, and he came to see that he was not thus diminished, and that the work was energized as a result of the process.

I have seen more than one man go through a similar process of learning, and I admire that they talked about it afterwards and perceived the difference. It is a different way of going about life. Often it is an approach that has not even been tried. The male model of decision-making is fast and seems effective, but, understandably, it is immediately rejected by the other side. It becomes a taffy pull, a tug-of-war. The cooperative decision-making process, in contrast, engages all personally so that they want to get the work done. It slows down decisions in most instances, but it does it better. The LCWR adopted the consensual method in its communities long ago. That is one of the things Rome is investigating.

This approach is comfortable for women, but not all women work that way. Especially the women who came into leadership positions in the 1970s and 1980s tend to have adopted more hierarchical, male decision-making approaches. But they don’t work in many situations, especially where there is conflict and complexity.

What about bridging divides between the religious and secular worlds? Is it something you see increasing or decreasing? How wide is the gap?

In the United States, Europe, and Australia, secular habits and institutions are pretty well established. And the divides can be quite yawning. And I understand them. I understand why religious women are skeptical about the feminists and vice versa. Their respective images, of bra-burning feminists and insensitive priests and nuns, have been formed in the historical patterns of past decades. For the Church, the environment that fostered pedophilia and autocratic approaches is real, not fiction.

Until the mid-1960s, within the Church it was simply unthinkable that a nun would question a priest. The nuns had little knowledge and no capacity to do anything about what was happening in terms of how the Church worked. If the father told someone to do something, no one would dare to question it. There was no women’s authority and no women’s agenda. At a meeting once, a lay woman from St. Joan’s Alliance, stood up and refused to participate until the nuns left. I was the youngest nun in the room and was shocked by her anger at us and her insistence, when I asked why she wanted us out, that she said: “because you nuns have said ‘yes, father’ all your lives and taught every generation of women after you to do the same.” I began to realize that women were angry at us for not enabling them to become full adults. The pattern that was fostered was one where women were encouraged not to think for themselves.

I came to my commitment to women’s issues through religion, and through the women in my life, including wonderful nuns. But some women have to leave religion to be able to come to the confidence and understanding that will allow them to think for themselves. I think it may be necessary for nuns to be able to hear these voices outside the religious systems. They can become healers between the systems. I don’t know of any other way to do that, unless religion begins to look more women-friendly.

Many of the denominations are truly trying to change. There are prophets in the churches. The Anglicans are very vocal, and most Protestants know better than what they have done in the past. They know that it is a Gospel and a moral issue.

In other faiths, there is a mixed picture. The Hindus and Buddhists have never believed in one image of god. There are a million ways of saying there is no one way. So, they are more inclined to see women as spiritual figures. Everyone sees a different side of God. But when religion becomes institutionalized much of that spirit is lost. When the boys put on the robes and signs and blessings, the women’s roles begin to disappear. So the spiritual leaders among women can bring a new sense of public presence.

Women have to take up women’s issues, in the religious world and in the society, and more and more they can work together to open doors. What door is completely open? We have to keep pushing.

What are issues that you suggest the symposium and the project take as its focus?

We have to keep looking at nuclear disarmament. The topic is an old one, but it is more urgent than ever. We are skating very near the edge, as weapons can go rogue. This is a terribly high priority.

We need to keep working for women in high positions, women in policymaking positions. I know the process is basic and slow, but that is what makes the real difference.

And in the meantime, I urge that there be clear, parallel processes. Whenever the bishops meet somewhere, women should meet in a commission right across the street. They should discuss exactly the same agenda and at the end publish their recommendations, so there can be a comparison of where each comes out. This is not flip: it’s a serious recommendation, because we need women’s political inputs on every major political issue there is. Giving voice is of the first importance.

In poorer countries, there really is no substitute for education. Where the educational level of women is so low, there is little hope of bringing them into the decision-making process in meaningful way. You have to have an educated populace. And so we have to work to lift the barriers that stop girls from going to school, even to the very practical level of addressing the fact that when a girl starts to menstruate she stops going to school because they don’t have toilets for girls. We should never mask that crucial question about what it takes for girls to go to school and stay there.

And we have to keep finding ways to tap into women’s agendas, through women’s groups, and to honor those agendas. If this world is ever going to change, if this world is ever going to have peace, women must be involved.