Disrupting Disruptions: Charting and Challenging Notions of Gender in Philippine Feminist Theologizing

Philippine Feminist Theologians

There are already several feminist theologians in the Philippines. Some of them who are also members of the EATWOT and the EWA have gathered in a conference in 2010 (Brazal, 2019: 3). Among them are Virginia Fabella, Fe B. Mangahas, Felice Imaya Calingayan, O.S.B., Arche L. Ligo, Remedios Ignacio Rikken, Carmelita M. Usog, Leonila V. Bermisa, M.M., Lydia Lascano, I.C.M., Auring Zambrano, I.C.M., Judette Gallares, R.C., Agnes M. Brazal, Jeane Peracullo, Aurora Javate de Dios, Niceta Vargas, O.S.A. Some conference papers also talked about other Filipinas feminists like Mary John Mananzan. (Brazal and Fabella, in press) Aside from these, there are more feminist theologians such as Estela Padilla, Grace Nono, Rosario Battung, Elizabeth Tapia, and Kristine Meneses (Battung, 1998; Brazal, 2019: 1; Justaert, 2015; Navarro, 2014; Nono, 2013).

This article specifically focuses only on three Catholic Filipinas feminist theologians. I have selected these three because they are among Filipina theologians who have written many works in the Philippines and belong to different generations. Each was born around a decade apart from each other. Sr. Mary John Mananzan, O.S.B. was born in 1937. Sr. Judette Gallares, R.C. was born in 1947, and Agnes Brazal was born in 1960. These three provide perspectives from several stages of the development of Philippine feminist theology and thus reflect the various resources and perspectives which might help interrogate the place of gender in Philippine feminist theology.

All three theologians have various pastoral, teaching, and advocacy work, and they may have more specific personal opinions, but their published writings are the primary basis of this study.

Using a Threefold Schema to Study Three Philippine Feminist Theologians

Sharon Bong reviews “Christian feminist movements which inform and nourish different Asian feminist theological approaches” (Bong, 2014: 182). In doing so, she maps out three different approaches Asian feminists have used to contend with misogyny and patriarchy in the Christian tradition: (1) “inclusion/addition approach” seeks more representation for women without necessarily interrogating the notion of complementarity between male and female, (2) “deconstruct and transform approach” attempts to expose the limits of “traditional” ways of thinking and propose new ways of understanding based on various resources while generally remaining within binary ways of thinking, and (3) “critique, reject, start again approach” aims to articulate new theologies by dismantling the “heterosexual matrix” and going beyond it (Bong, 2014: 186–189).

The first approach, which Bong calls, “Inclusion/Addition Approach,” is a response to the claim that “male-stream” theologizing has been gender-blind. It aims to assert and represent women’s perspectives and experiences which dominant theological discourses have often marginalized and silenced (Bong, 2014: 186). Bong mentions the Women’s Desk of Asia Bishops’ Conferences like the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) and the Women’s Commission of the EATWOT as organizations that exemplify this approach. Like these two examples, most of these organizations are women’s desks, committees, or commissions adjunct to the major organization. While this approach emphasizes women’s concerns, it can also communicate women’s concerns as merely a “special” or side-issue added on to mainstream theology (Bong, 2014: 186). This approach has somehow helped introduce inclusive language and, in some church groups, secure more spaces for women; however, it has not sufficiently challenged more deep-seated issues concerning gender such as the belief in sexual complementarity or the rejection of women’s ordination (Bong, 2014: 187).

The second strategy, which is the “Deconstruct and Transform Approach,” responds to an understanding that prevalent theological paradigms have inherent patriarchal biases so that merely building on past frameworks does not introduce new possibilities for women. Hence, feminist theologians using this approach interrogate and deconstruct existing perspectives, propose changes, and chart alternative ways of theologizing and becoming Church. For Bong, the AWRC and EWA are among the groups that have used this approach (Bong, 2014: 187). This second approach confronts the structures that cause systemic violence and oppression that take place against women and challenge the sexual complementarity (Bong, 2014: 187). Some feminist theologians utilizing this approach provide ways to transform theology through developing alternative ways theologizing that “counter-discourses” or employ “feminist-postmodernist theoretical concepts” (Bong, 2014: 188).

Bong calls the third approach “Critique, Reject, and Start Again Approach” and responds to an understanding of traditional theology as entirely insufficient given contemporary feminism so much so that it is necessary to transform theology from its very roots rather than just try to remedy existing structures and worldviews. Hence, rather than merely seeking to take down sexual complementarity, it challenges perceived correspondences among sex-gender-desire known which Judith Butler calls the “heterosexual matrix” (Bong, 2014: 188; Butler, 1999: 9, 23–24). Bong mentions some individual Asian theologians who have produced works in queer theology, like Yuri Horie, Yip Lai-Shan, Davy Wong Mei-Fung, Josephine Leung, and Rose Wu, as examples for this strategy (Bong, 2014: 189). None of her examples are Filipinas.

Bong favors this last approach and concludes her analysis with an appeal:

Where much of Asian feminist theologizing is heterosexualized, given the due emphasis on gender-based violence experienced by women in Asia, queer theologizing in the twenty-first century is a clarion call for the Church to reinstate the inherent dignity and sacredness of all human persons, created in the image of God, regardless of sexualities. (Bong, 2014: 189)

Her many other works explore how LGBTIQ+ experiences, which she views from a feminist perspective combined with postmodern and postcolonial lenses, challenge, transform, and queer religious theoretical frameworks built on heteronormativity (Bong, 2007: 234–245, 2011a: 49–56, 60, 2011b: 649, 663–664, 2019a: 70–76, 2019b: 86).

Heteronormativity is a presupposition of what is acceptable or “natural” based on a binary understanding of identity in terms of being either male or female (Peracullo, 2020: 144). Sexual complementarity, which presupposes heteronormativity (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2003: 369, 372), prescribes and limits men’s and women’s roles, which are asymmetric in patriarchy. A heteronormative worldview or anthropology leads to heterosexism, which promotes the male–female binary as a dominant or hegemonic discourse that invalidates other discourses. Acceptance of the sex binary as a standard produces heterosexual privilege (Peracullo, 2020: 144). Queer theologizing challenges theology, and even feminist theology, to go beyond heteronormativity, which is also an oppressive structure so that this can truly be liberating. This is in line with Althaus-Reid’s take on theology:

What Queer theology questions is the frightening assimilation of theology into heterosexuality and the potential of dissident, marginalized epistemologies in thinking about God . . . . In a way, theology in general has reached a stage when the fracture of identity (and systematic theological identities) can no longer be ignored. (Althaus-Reid, 2005: 271)

Peracullo explains that the work of Althaus-Reid is a form of subversive resistance that has a destabilizing effect because it disturbs heteronormativity and offers alternative directions based on gay and lesbian discourses (Peracullo, 2020: 144). However, Kwok explains a cause of hesitation among feminist theologians. According to her, “The heterosexual framework in theology is so deep-seated that it will require paradigmatic shifts for feminist theologians to think about gender and sex in non-traditional ways” (Kwok, 2001: 13).

Bong has used the threefold framework to map out the different ways Asian feminists have been doing theology so far and concluded with a motivation to move beyond heteronormativity as most clearly exercised by the third approach. She mentions some organizations that involve Filipinas in the first two approaches but does not mention anyone from the Philippines for the third strategy. To arrive at a closer look at how key Filipina feminists have done their theology concerning gender so far, we will use Bong’s schema to map out the theologies of Mary John Mananzan, Judette Gallares, and Agnes Brazal.

Mary John Mananzan, Judette Gallares, and Agnes Brazal

Mary John Mananzan began to theologize using a Theology of Struggle, which employed liberationist hermeneutics, after her baptism of fire brought about by being in solidarity with the workers of the La Tondeña strike during Martial Law in the Philippines. She later awakened to a feminist perspective while working with women’s groups and seeing how women from various parts of the world have similar experiences of oppression because of their gender. Her feminist perspective in liberationist theology grew while she was a member of EATWOT, where she also became an active member of its women’s commission (Fabella, 1993: 80–81; Mananzan, 1988: 48–49, 2012: 53).

Judette Gallares belongs to the Religious of the Cenacle, a religious congregation that focuses on spiritual accompaniment and retreat giving. She received her training in biblical spirituality in the United States. At around that time, she found radical feminism unattractive. However, when she returned to the Philippines and experienced facilitating Bible sharing for a group of women, she saw how women had concerns, struggles, and potentials that she needed to prioritize. This, along with experiences of working with migrant women, prompted her to emphasize a liberationist and feminist approach to reading Scripture. Her organizational involvement includes the Office of Consecrated Life of the FABC (FABC-OCL) and EWA (Gallares, 1992a: ix, 2015; Sanchez, 2018: 64–67).

Agnes Brazal is a lay feminist theologian. She has been engaged in social activism since college and was among those taken in by authorities for questioning during the time of Marcos’ Martial Law. She later studied theology in the Maryhill School of Theology and then later, in Leuven (Brazal, 2016: 146). Her theologizing comprises a liberationist-postcolonial method that uses vernacular resources. Although she gives importance to Philippine culture, she explicitly seeks to avoid nativism by also exposing essentialist cultural assumptions using postcolonial critical hermeneutics (Brazal, 2010b: 46–56, 62, 2019: 2).

Judette Gallares: Beyond Inclusion/Addition, Deconstruct, and Transform

Gallares does not explicitly discuss her assumptions about gender, but we can glean this from some of her writings. For Gallares (2011),

Although the bible affirms that women and men are of equal worth and have complementary and essential contributions to make within the life of the whole community, there is no doubt that women throughout history have been relegated to a subordinate category in the church and in society. (p. 29)

Gallares is very much against the relegation of women to a lower status and promotes the equality of women with men, but she does not question the very notion of sexual complementarity. She quotes Marcello Azevedo to describe how she envisions the pursuit of feminism:

We “should not try to masculinize women in order to free and advance them. This is one of the most frequent errors of some ‘feminist’ movement for which men continue to be in fact the norm to which women must conform . . . what is important and fundamental is the effective recognition of differences, leading women to accept men as different and at the same time being consistently conscious of feminine identity and dignity.” (Azevedo, 1987: 166–167; Gallares, 2000: 31)

While Gallares does not directly reject sexual complementarity, she is nevertheless very critical of how sexism, patriarchy, and unjust structures cause various forms of oppression against women (Gallares, 1995: 250). She says, “feminist theology attempts to consider every aspect of religious practice and thought as it critiques patriarchy and how it has affected women’s lives throughout history” (Gallares, in press). She also incorporates how other oppressive structures impinge upon one’s identity. Filipinas do not just belong to a marginalized gender category but also belong to a nation that has suffered through “centuries-long experience of foreign domination and exploitation” which “has had a negative effect on people’s self-concept and self-esteem” (Gallares, 1998: 69).

Although she does not reject the sexual binary outright, she seeks to interpret it in a more flexible way that expresses an acknowledgment of femininity and masculinity in both men and women. She says, “. . . part of the goal of every person’s growth is the integration of one’s polarities—the masculine and the feminine within the self” (Gallares, 1992a: 5). She proposes that theologians tap into local resources like stories, myths, symbols, and images. Alternative ways of understanding oneself can emerge from these. For instance, “These myths in fact would seem to be an improvement on the Genesis account, as they focus on the superiority of the brown race and the equality of man and woman” (Gallares, 1992b: 159, 162).

Sharon Bong mentioned women’s desks like that of FABC among her examples of the “inclusion/addition” approach. Gallares was part of a different office that was also under the FABC. It must have been a challenge to write with a feminist perspective with a dominantly male organization, and yet she has done so by maximizing the promotion of ways women’s rights without openly contradicting church teachings. As a member of EWA, another organization Bong refers to in her discussion of the “deconstruct and transform” approach, Gallares has shown openness to explore and engage more deconstructionist feminist perspectives.

Gallares’ discussion about gender fits the characteristics of the inclusion and addition approach in the sense that she seeks to maximize women’s roles within complementarity, but she also subtly attempts to go beyond this by softening the dichotomy between men and women through the notion of finding masculine and feminine polarities in both and by exposing how women’s secondary status is a product of structure rather than nature. Without directly confronting church teaching, Gallares can hint at its limitations, which could pave the way for using the “deconstruct and transform” approach.

Mary John Mananzan: Deconstruct and Transform

A feminist theologian who can exemplify the “deconstruct and transform” approach is Mary John Mananzan. She exposes the patriarchal biases that underlie religious assumptions and human anthropology. As mentioned, Mananzan was a member of EATWOT women’s commission, one of Bong’s examples for the “inclusion/addition” approach. Nevertheless, Mananzan’s theological writing reflects the “deconstruct and transform” approach more closely because she seeks to dismantle assumptions behind mainstream or malestream thinking.

Mananzan articulates the Woman Question which she defines as “the fact that there is subordination, discrimination, exploitation and oppression of women as women, varying in kinds and degree but cutting across class, race, creed, nationality. It is an ideological, a structural, and a global question” (Mananzan, 1999: 3). Mananzan attributes The Woman Question to unjust social structures and recognizes how gender expectations are a product of history and culture. Social structures influence how people understand gender and interact with different social factors like race and class. Due to the socialization implemented in social institutions including religion, women themselves also learn to imbibe a secondary status (Mananzan, 1991: 28–32, 1995: 21–23, 1997: 23, 1998a: 180–183, 1998b: 11, 1998c: 99; Sanchez, 2018: 196–197). She has retraced the subjugation of Philippine women in history to the period of Spanish colonization. The colonial project domesticated, restricted, and taught the value of virginity to the Mujer Indigena, or native women. Native women learned to live up to Iberian ideals, patterned after the Virgin Mary and the Spanish woman of the Siglo de Oro (Golden Age). Spanish colonization discredited women spiritual leaders recognized by indigenous communities known as Babaylanes along with the introduction of Christianity, a religion that also imposed patriarchy (Mananzan, 1997: 4, 2005: 6).

Mananzan is therefore critical of the “complementarity model of relationship,” between men and women, in which her retracing of Filipina women’s history has shown that it has not always been this way (Mananzan, 1996: 63). She believes, along with Indian women theologians, that theologians need to challenge the romanization of “the long suffering patience and compassionate beauty” attributed to mothers (Mananzan, 1996: 78). She has written against “gender-blind theology,” the need to unravel “sexist and patriarchal” ways of thinking and behaving even among theologians (Mananzan, 1996: 80). Her view of gender influences her theology. For instance, she dismantles the so-called necessity and Christ’s maleness and its ontological underpinnings by interpreting it as merely functional: “In working for the emancipation of women, I have transcended Christ’s maleness, realizing that his maleness is not essential but rather functional” (Mananzan, 1993: 41). While it was not necessary for Jesus to be male, by being a male person who related to women differently, Jesus has challenged androcentrism and showed how else “male-female” relationships could be (Mananzan, 1993: 41). ²

Hence, for Mananzan, gender, whether in terms of social expectations or theological implications, is not something that is natural but socially constructed and distinct from sex. However, she tends to speak of male-men and female-women in terms of pairs, not as complementary pairs but as equal counterparts who should engage in dialogue. For example, she says, “I believe that women theologians have come to the stage where they can engage their male counterparts in a dialogue between equals” (Mananzan, 1996: 81).

Mananzan does not explicitly challenge the heteronormative assumptions behind the call for women’s equality with men but seems to be an ally of LGBTIQ+ persons. While she has not focused on this matter in her academic writings and interviews, some of her political statements have expressed her commitment to supporting their quest for respect and equal rights in society based on human dignity (Placido, 2019).

Agnes Brazal: Beyond Deconstruct and Transform, Toward Critique, Reject, and Start Again

Like Mananzan, Agnes Brazal seeks to dismantle the patriarchal and sexist assumptions that underly religious claims and human anthropology. Moreover, she offers alternative ways of thinking using postcolonial vernacular hermeneutics. Hence, she exemplifies a “deconstruct and transform” approach while also beginning to “critique, reject, and start again.”

Brazal discusses and criticizes how sexual complementarity limits women’s and men’s roles. She says the following about work: “Complementarity presupposes fixed roles with one group filling up what is lacking in the other” (Brazal, 2010a: 37). She admits that throughout time, the notion of complementarity between men and women in church teaching has also gone through some developments such as a growing recognition of women’s social contribution rather than merely seeing them as belonging to the home. Nevertheless, making society more just for women requires more changes:

However, the rigid dual anthropology advocated in the church teachings which casts women as primarily responsible for child rearing in the family ironically becomes the very ideology that makes women in-demand in the service sectors, especially for domestic and care-giving abroad . . . It is also used to justify the differential treatment of women and men in the workplace. (Brazal, 2010a: 40)

Brazal attempts to re-inscribe gender by reinterpreting the Philippine creation myth of Malakas (Strong/Powerful) and Maganda (Beautiful) to portray gender in more mutual and fluid ways for Filipinos rather than through rigid binaries. In the myth, the first man and woman came out of the first bamboo together. According to Carolyn Brewer, this myth first offended Spanish colonizers who favored the Yahwist creation account which conveyed women as created after the man to be man’s “helpmate,” because it expressed men and women coming out together, similar to the Elohist creation narrative (Brewer, 2004: 40). However, Brazal admits that there is also a hypothesis that it was the Spaniards who named the first man Malakas and the first woman Maganda to “impose a complementary and dualistic gender ideology” (Brazal, 2014: 72).

While aware that Filipinos and their colonizers have interpreted the myth in various ways throughout history, she offers her reconstruction and proposes Lakas-Ganda to re-conceive gender (Brazal, 2010a: 41). She appeals to how Filipinos have used the words malakas and maganda. She observes that Philippine usage of these terms goes beyond the typical association of malakas to men and maganda to women. For example, in Filipino, malakas ang loob which is inner strength or courage is an attribute that applies to either gender. Also, magandang lalaki or “beautiful man” means that a man is handsome (Brazal, 2010a: 41, 2014: 73–74). This shows that society can appreciate being malakas and maganda in everyone, rather than merely assign these qualities to a specific gender. She, therefore, proposes that rather than use complementary discourse such as masculinity and femininity, using lakas-ganda enables a more fluid gender construction (Brazal, 2010a: 46). Brazal’s views on women’s roles exhibit this more fluid notion of gender. For instance, she asserts that Philippine women play an important role in nation-building, but this need not be through motherhood. Women contribute to society in various ways, and some even do so by limiting their reproductive capacities (Brazal, in press).

Another aspect of Philippine culture Brazal seeks to recover is the Babaylan. Babaylanes were shamans who were healers and religious leaders in precolonial communities. They were often elderly women and some effeminate men. Brazal taps the image of the Babaylan in feminist theologizing, such as when she and Anicia co-associated Miriam, who was also a leader of community celebrations with the babaylan (Brazal and Co, 2003: 173). She describes the value of the babaylanes in Philippine feminism:

The precolonial babaylan (shamans who are mostly female, and a few crossdressers), however, is the iconic symbol of female power and leadership in the Philippines. While male leaders who stood to gain from the new patriarchal religion seem to have more readily capitulated to the Spanish colonizers, it is the babaylanes who persisted longer in the resistance. (Brazal, 2014: 74)

Brazal somehow goes beyond that “deconstruct and transform” approach in that the postcolonial reading of power beauty offers a more flexible understanding of gender that opens the possibility of putting heteronormativity and the heterosexual matrix into question.

In her recent work, she says the following about the future trajectories of Filipina feminist or bai theology:

In the future, bai theologizing needs to engage more in dialogue with Muslin feminists, continue its ecofeminist thrust with special focus on the issue of climate change and related disasters, and address LGBTQ issues that theologians continue to evade even as Filipino social scientists have already started probing into these formerly taboo issues. (Brazal, 2019: 3)

Nevertheless, Brazal’s work does not yet follow through with an explicit dismantling of the heterosexual matrix and a paradigmatic shift that would exactly characterize the “critique, reject, and start again” approach. However, because of her creative reconstruction of gender and her acknowledgment of the need to address LGBTIQ+ issues, it may be possible that while her works are still generally silent about queer perspectives, which interrogate binary and hierarchical assumptions about sex, sexuality, and gender (Marinucci, 2010: 53) and even the experiences of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LBT) women, for now, she could engage these more in the future.

Challenging Notions of Gender in Philippine Feminist Theologizing

Bong’s schema has helped expose the assumptions three different Filipino feminist theologians have about gender, even when they are not always explicit about these in their writings. While these theologians come from the same country, have shared histories, and agree on many things, the analysis of their works revealed that there are fine differences in their conception of gender and how they employ theology to respond to sexist discourses. The mapping out of the ways by which three different feminist theologians in the Philippines do theology has also exposed the limits of Bong’s framework. The three approaches identified by Bong are not always separate, and they often overlap. While Gallares’ works can exemplify an “addition/inclusion” approach, she goes beyond this by talking about unjust structures being women’s oppression that tends toward the “deconstruct and transform approach.” Brazal’s theology exemplifies a “deconstruct and transform” approach by directly dismantling and proposing alternatives to how society can understand being men and women. While she does not yet engage in queer theology which the “critique, reject, and start again” approach entails, she recognizes the need for it and had opened doors for more flexible conceptions of gender. The theoretical frameworks used by these three theologians still retain heteronormativity, but they recognize the need to go beyond this as expressed in political statements, such as with Mananzan, and the exploration of alternatives to the predominant anthropology, such as with Brazal.

This analysis is also limited in that we studied the works of the three theologians as a snapshot of the whole, while it is possible for theologians to develop their thoughts over time. We have carried out the study in the preceding manner for the sake of simplicity, so we can compare the three theologians with one another. Some of these theologians’ later writings are new, while some are edited publications of older articles or a combination of articles in book form. We can therefore appreciate Bong’s schema as markers in a complex and growing process rather than strict categorizations.

Nevertheless, the analysis of the three theologians’ approaches even when considered as a whole also reveals a pattern. They move from one approach to the next. This shows that feminist theologizing is a very dynamic activity that adapts and responds to new ideas flexibly.

The Babaylan as a Root Metaphor for Women and LGBTIQ+

As seen in the trajectories and pattern of feminist theologizing from the three Philippine feminist theologians based on Sharon Bong’s framework, feminist theologizing has slowly been integrating an openness to including LGBTIQ+ concerns. However, some reluctance remains. Kwok attributes this to the deep entrenchment of the heterosexual framework in theology that requires a paradigm shift (Kwok, 2001: 13). In the Philippines, an issue that brought the tension between women and LGBTIQ+ to the fore is the maltreatment of a transgender woman who wanted to use the women’s bathroom. Some expressed that this was a threat to women’s safe space, while others point out that transgender women are also women (Casal, 2019; Cervantes, 2019; Talabong, 2019).

An important principle that would challenge women to consider “other” as fellow women is solidarity. This has already been a key principle among women that has enabled women even of different racial backgrounds and social classes to struggle for feminist issues and check for justice even among their ranks (Krolokke and Sorensen, 2006: 10). Sollicitudo Rei Socialis describes solidarity as

This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. (John Paul II, 1987: 38)

Taking solidarity seriously means recognizing how this communal responsibility for one another also includes LGBTIQ+.

Such solidarity can emerge out of women’s profound realization of the interconnection of their experiences of oppression and the exclusion of LGBTIQ+. Feminism, in its various forms, and queer theorizing both share a common concern for marginalized identities and resist the structures that normalize an unjust view of sex, gender, and sexuality (Marinucci, 2010: 131).

Fostering solidarity among feminists and LGBTIQ+ is both a necessity and a challenge. One way by which feminist theologians can grow in solidarity with LGTBIQ+ in the Philippines is through a shared reclamation of the image of the Babaylan. This image has been a powerful source of empowerment for feminists, but this has also been a symbol employed by some who advocate for Filipinos who belong to the bakla community. English speakers often translate the term bakla to “gay,” but the word encompasses transgenders and other queer identities (Anderson, 2006: 50–51). For instance, a well-known student organization at the University of the Philippines that advocates for gender equality and offers support for LGBTIQ+ students has the name “UP Babaylan” (UP Babaylan—iskomunidad, 2013).

The Babaylan has become a popular term for precolonial shamans in the Philippines. Since the archipelago had various indigenous groups before Spanish colonization, priests called the priestesses of tribal spiritualities by different names such as babaylan in the Visayan region and katalonan in the Northern or Tagalog regions. Colonizers have displaced and demonized these indigenous leaders and called them witches upon the spread of Christianity among the islands (Brewer, 2004: 93–95). Feminist movements in the country picked up and reclaim the term babaylan, which sounded close to babae which is the Tagalog term for “woman,” as expressive of the spiritual power and heritage of Filipinas (Brewer, 2004: 85–86; Miclat-Cacayan, 2006: 70). Nevertheless, recent studies also show that these early shamans were not all female. Some of them were also male, often “cross-dressing” males (Brewer, 2004: 127). Mananzan acknowledges this saying, “A man who wanted to perform the ritual was allowed to do so on condition that he word the dress of the babaylan” (Mananzan, 1997: 4). Neil Garcia who has studied bakla culture has explained that early Spanish colonizers encountered local men who were “cross-dressers” and “gender-crossers” which they referred to as bayoguin (Garcia, 2013: 53). The term bayog or bayoguin was also used to refer to cross-dressing male babaylanes (Brewer, 2004: 28). Thus, the Babaylan is an image that can underly the narratives or vernacular reclamations of some members of both groups (Tan, 2001: 127–128; UNDP and USAID, 2014: 8).

Developments in the discipline of history and gender studies provide caution regarding equating the Babaylan to the precolonial shamans whose history has been hard to recover due to a lack in their literature and the violence colonialism has also done to them and the way people remember them. Romanticizing the babaylanes or portraying them in an idealized homogeneous way would also be inaccurate because the precolonial people in what would later be the Philippines did not have one organized religion but various spiritualities and conflicting tribes. Rather than equate contemporary reflections, reconstructions, and meaning-making with the shamans of history, I propose that we consider the Babaylan as a root metaphor.

A root metaphor is an image that functions as a wellspring of meaning that continues to provoke understanding beyond just its original meaning. A metaphor is not a literal claim but is true on a more profound level. According to Sandra Schneiders,

A root metaphor is one that, like the root system of a tree in relation to the nutrients of the soil, draws together in a living synthesis numerous diverse cognitive and affective elements and nourishes ever new growth in meaning. (Schneiders, 1999: 32)

Considering the Babaylan as a metaphor avoids equating the figure of the babaylan with the actual precolonial priestesses of the past literally. This avoids romanticizing the past or making anachronistic claims. Considering the Babaylan as a metaphor enables us to acknowledge the complexity of the past and our inability to recover it completely but also allows us to remember and connect to the Babaylan in creative and relevant ways that continue to produce new meanings for people who share an affinity to the image today.

Both women and LGBTIQ+ can reconstruct shared memories and alternative futures around the image of the Babaylan. The story of the Babaylan is a narrative that involves latent power, oppression, and resilience. This metaphor conveys the experience of not fitting into recognized spaces of power, worship, or identity but being able to thrive in liminality where mutually transformative encounters can take place (Brazal, 2019: Introduction) because the Babaylan performs rituals in between the realm of the spiritual and the ordinary and in between what is daily acceptable and special. The figure of the Babaylan is also a source of hope because it expresses healing and wholeness (Miclat-Cacayan, 2006: 69–70).

Pushing Feminist Theology Toward the Direction of Greater Gender Inclusivity and Fluidity

Pushing feminist theology toward the direction of greater gender inclusivity and fluidity enables this way of theologizing to become more consistent with its principles such as

From the perspective of Filipino women committed to authentic womanhood and societal transformation, we interpret and judge texts, events and realities as in accordance with God’s design when they (1) promote authentic personhood of women, (2) foster inclusive communities based on just relationships, (3) contribute toward genuine national sovereignty and autonomy, and (4) develop caring and respectful attitudes not only among human beings but towards the rest of creation as well. (Battung, 1998: 55)

Authenticity to commitments such as these also requires feminist theologies to accommodate critique and updates to be more responsive to the signs of the times (Second Vatican Council, 1965: 4). It may entail letting go of some essentialist notions of “authentic womanhood” to “foster more inclusive communities based on just relationships” (Battung, 1998: 55).

Enriching Catholic theological discourses on gender also enables feminist theology to contribute to the Church’s discernment in response to the realities and concerns of LGBTIQ+ among its members and in its mission work. Pope Francis, in an interview concerning gay priests, has said, “If someone is gay, and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? We shouldn’t marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society” (Donadio, 2013; Massingale, 2016: 170). Moral theologian Bryan Massingale believes that this remark “manifested a genuine doctrinal shift” in that this reflects the Pope’s attempts to speak of same-sex relationships in a less negative and condemnatory way that also earned reactions from more conservative sectors in the Church, although he also recognizes that “to be sure, many in the LGBT community judge to be inadequate” (Massingale, 2016: 178–182). Francis retains the following statement by the bishops in Amoris Laetitia: “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (Francis, 2016: 251). Aside from retaining restricting teaching about homosexual relationships, Pope Francis has often applied his “progressive” perspective as a Latin American pope in a “conservative” way regarding gender in that he criticizes the ideological colonization by Western countries but lumps “ideological colonization” with gender ideology or gender theory, as evidenced in his in-flight press conference from the Philippines (Brack and Paternotte, 2016: 149; Francis, 2016: 251). The Church’s regard for LGBTIQ+ persons is ambivalent. Filipina theologians like Mananzan, Gallares, and Brazal have openly challenged gender expectations in the Church and society for the sake of women (Brazal, 2010a: 32–45; Gallares, 2000: 22; Mananzan, 1991: 29–32). While women’s struggles continue, present ecclesial teachings and debates show that aside from women, and even including some women, other members of society are marginalized because of limited notions of gender.

The systemic oppression and marginalization of women and LGBTIQ+ are also evident in Philippine society, which Philippine feminist theologies have long made efforts to transform, with some successes. Philippine sociologist John Andrew Evangelista has discussed how macho politics and hetero-patriarchy have harmed women and queer identities under Duterte’s administration and long before it (Evangelista, 2017: 255–259). Evangelista highlights the important role of feminist and queer movements in disrupting the oppressive systems (Evangelista, 2017: 260). Despite this opportunity for solidarity, which some women like Mananzan have taken by supporting the SOGIE Equality Bill and speaking out against all forms of gender discrimination (Hontiveros, 2019; Placido, 2019), “solidarity” remains contentious also precisely because of machismo and patriarchy, as in the case of arguments about women’s comfort rooms wherein both cis-gendered women and transgender women have varying opinions and advocacies. Karl Castro, in an essay for Tinig, the opinion column of the School of Humanities, offers the following analysis:

The cruel pitting of women versus LGBTQIA+ in the wake of the Farmers Plaza controversy is the patriarchy in action precisely. It weakens the collective resistance and enlightenment that has been wrought through generations of struggle, all in favor of the male-centric status quo. (Castro, 2019)

Situations such as these make research into the disruptions and continuities queer experiences and queer theory offer to feminist theology and praxis both urgent and relevant.