|
|
BOOK REVIEW
Women Saints:
365 Daily Readings by Madonna Sophia Compton with Maria Compton
Hernandez and Patricia Campbell, (The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York),
2006, 531 pages. ISBN—10: 0-8245-2413-6 and 13: 978-0-8245-2413-5.
Review by Mary C. Sheridan
I must be honest.
Initially, I missed the forest for the trees in approaching and reading
this book. I started by reading a saint
a day; and while many people may find such an approach in a book very helpful,
it’s not really “my cup of tea.” I
thought, “another inspirational book.”
Then I picked up Women Saints again and began to see
the “forest”—the grand, marvelous work Compton and her fellow authors[1]
have written. Specifically, the
diversity of women saints she has found is “wow-ing.” This book is truly a book where women
(and men) can find an honestly ecumenical, timeless, cross-cultural, and
cross-racial group of women of holiness.
The female saints in this book lived in Old Testament times and in every
century up to and including the twentieth century. They include many cultures and races. Thus, this book is one that is rarely
found: Compton practices what she preaches,
including in this work women representative of all times, races and
groups, without prejudice, in this book.
Now let me be specific:
I almost find myself saying, where do I start in explaining what I like
about her book. So, I am going to
illustrate what I like about her book by choosing only a few of the
women Compton has found in the “groups” I am going to mention; I have chosen
the women that caught my attention, seemed particularly important women
(admittedly to my own prejudices), and/or are not women who in my opinion would
generally be found to be considered saints.
These are my choices; they may not be your choices. But my recommendation then, is for you,
reader, to pick up this book and find those women who stand out for you. And there is no doubt in my mind that you
will find them in this book that is as close to all-inclusive as its authors
can make it.
I am using the words “groupings” or “sections” in discussing
this book. However, all these words,
“groups,” “groupings,” and/or “sections” are really misnomers as this is a book
of readings for every day of the year.
The saintly women mentioned are listed by date, and no attempt is made
by the authors of this book to “group” these women. It is I who have done the “grouping” because
it was only after I “saw the forest rather than the individual trees” that I saw
the wonderful array of women that populate this book. So, be aware that this review contains my own
peculiar approach to this book. However,
I appreciate (and wish to help the readers of this book appreciate) the major
endeavor, the scholarship, and the beauty of the initial idea that went into
the writing of this book of daily meditations.
But it was only when I saw it, so to say, from the “top down” when I saw
it as inclusive of so many “groups” of women that I saw the beauty of this
book. This, I admit, is my
limitation. I have also arbitrarily
opted to list page numbers for references rather than dates. Page five of the introduction includes a
discussion of the problem of dating related to the various calendars in use
(Roman, Celtic, Byzantine, and Russian).
Page numbers for references avoids all such problems for this review.
A note on scholarship:
One important aspect of these vignettes on each of the women saints was
the wealth of solid scholarship behind these stories, and for which I longed to
see references. Yet, I can understand
why such references were not included.
This book is meant to be a kind of “abbreviated liturgical breviary” (p.
3), and references would be out of place in such a work. In order to facilitate the “liturgical”
aspect of this book of saints, accompanying a short biography of each saint are
readings and prayers (or collects) that maybe used in fulfillment of the stated
intention in the introduction to simulate a kind of “breviary” for each
day. In addition, a number of women
included in this book are not officially declared saints. Compton explains the reasoning for choosing
women who are not officially declared saints by noting: “Some would suggest that we must reconsider
whether our heavenly patrons and miracle workers would not actually prefer to
be imitated rather than venerated, for the latter is a much easier thing to
do.” Who can dispute this statement?[2]
Section One: Compton
includes women from the Old Testament to the twentieth century.[3] This group of women has several
subsections. The oldest saint Compton
includes is Miriam, sister of Moses.
Compton notes she is the “first person in the Hebrew Torah to be given
the title of prophet” (p. 250). Other
Old Testament women Compton includes are Ruth, a “heroine for the marginalized
woman” (p. 438); Sarah, Abraham’s wife; and Hagar, an Egyptian concubine of
Abraham who, Compton notes, was “the only woman in the Bible who gives God a
name (Èl-roi, or the God who sees me)” (p. 73); and Hannah,
mother of the prophet Samuel, who “originated inward prayer” and whose words
“became the basis of the Magnificat” (p. 455).
How often, if ever, are the women of the Old Testament considered
saints? Yet Compton and her fellow authors
have had the wisdom to include them.
Among the New Testament women, Compton includes: Junia, who for about eight hundred years,
Compton notes, was “redacted out of Romans,” and whose name was changed to
Junias, implying she was a man (p. 487).
Compton lists her as an “apostle” (p. 26) along with Mary Magdalene (pp.
310-311); Nympha (p. 123); Photini, the Samaritan Woman at the Well (pp.
148-149); Phoebe (pp. 367-368) who is honored as the first deaconess; Prisca
(p. 65); and Tekla, companion to Paul (pp. 394-396). Compton calls Tekla one of a number of “
‘transvestite’ nuns, or women who dressed in male attire to hide their
identity” (p. 394), a bold, innovative, yet modern use of this term. Other New Testament women are Veronica (pp.
100-102), the woman of the sixth Station of the Cross and who in Russia is
thought to be the hemorrhaging woman who wanted to touch Christ’s garment (p.
101); and Martha and Mary (pp. 248-249).
Compton does not slight two woman who are, most of the time, simply
overlooked: Joanna (p. 233) and Mary of
Cleophas (pp. 174-175); these women are mentioned as being at the
Crucifixion and as bringing myrrh to anoint the body of Christ.
The latest saint I could find was (to my amazement) Thea
Bowman (pp. 161-162) who was born in 1937 and died in 1989. Thea, who is not a declared saint,[4]
was a woman who before she was twelve decided to join the Roman Catholic Church
and then at age sixteen joined the Franciscan Sisters of LaCross,
Wisconsin. Her “passion was teaching,
especially black culture and spirituality.”
She “enthusiastically” proclaimed “a black Gospel.”
Compton also includes women from every century, from the
first and second centuries through every century to the twentieth.[5] I have only touched on the time span Compton
includes in her book. One must peruse
and read thoroughly her book to get an appreciation of the saints mentioned
through twenty centuries.
Section Two: Compton
is truly ecumenical in her choice of women saints. She notes that among the three authors,
herself, Hernandez and Campbell, all three religions, Anglican, Orthodox, and
Roman Catholic (to list them alphabetically) are represented. Compton gives a short review and history of
what, for purposes of simplicity, I’ll call attempts over the last seventy plus
years at what might be loosely called an “ecumenical movement.” For all the fits and starts and aborted
efforts among officialdom at such ecumenicism, these three women authors have
achieved in practice, a book that is truly ecumenical.[6]
Some of the women these authors included that caught my eye
as being representative of a true ecumenicism are the following:
--Edith Stein was Jewish, converted to Roman Catholicism,
became a Carmelite nun, and was martyred in Hitler’s attempt to exterminate the
Jews (pp. 333-335).
--Mary Sumner was an Anglican. She originated the Mother’s Union to help
give mothers “preparation and support…for the vital role of
child-rearing.” She realized the need
for mothers to learn to “nurture children emotionally and spiritually.” This Mother’s Union is in existence in the
Anglican Church today (pp. 335-336).
--Mother Ann Lee was the founder of the “Shaking Quakers”
and was instrumental in the Shaker movement coming to America. Mother Ann was their leader (pp. 327-328).
--Anna Dengal founded the Medical Mission Sisters in
1925. Anna was an Austrian doctor who
worked in India among Muslim women where the “custom of purdah
prevented” women from being seen by male doctors. Anna organized “an international religious
community of women health care professionals to offer medical assistance to
these destitute women” (pp. 184-185).
--Isabella Gilmore was an Anglican woman who “organized the
first Order of Deaconesses, which was formulated along the same lines as an
ordained ministry.” Isabella was an
ordained deaconess who trained “deaconesses for seven other dioceses.” Compton notes that the order of deaconess
that existed in the Church for almost eleven hundred years was revived in the
modern era because of Isabella’s dedication to this work (pp. 184-185).
----Mother Mary Skobtsova was “born a Russian autocrat in
1841.” She was an “ ‘unorthodox’
Orthodox nun, one who lived, tonsured, in the world,” a scholar who “mingled
with great Russian thinkers…Bulgakov…Berdayev,” yet worked “a soup kitchen for
refugees, alcoholics, and other street people,” became “immersed in the Jewish
Resistance Movement in Paris,” denounced the Nazis, and who is believed to have
“died in Ravensbruck where she took the place of someone condemned to the gas
chamber” (pp. 159-160).
To keep this list from getting too long and to offer
incentive to readers to get their own copy of this valuable book, let me simply
mention a few other woman included in what I am calling this ecumenical group:
--Margaret Fell, mother of Quakerism (pp. 401-402).
--Mary Pandita Ramabai, a poet and scholar in India, who
translated the Bible into her native language and who “set many psalms to Hindu
music” (pp. 168-169).
--Sojourner Truth, born a slave in New York, secured her
freedom, joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Abolitionist
movement, worked for the social gospel, and joined the women’s rights movement
(pp. 245-246).
My tendency is to list even more women in this group, but
you will have to check out these wonderful women yourself. I will say that I have left out many
of my “favorites” in favor of trying to give a balanced overview of the many,
many wonderful women these authors have included in this book.
Section Three:
Included in this book is a marvelous “section” of “Mary Feasts”; a
remarkable “section” of celebratory days for the Theotokos Icon is also
included. Compton and her associates
include twenty “Mary feasts” and fourteen feasts celebrating a Theotokos Icon;
one individual day is set aside for celebrating what the authors call a
Theotokos feast which commemorates both the Tikhvin Icon and a day of special
reverence for the Theotokos.
Counting both the Mary feasts and the Icon feasts, a full
ten percent of this book is devoted to days that celebrate Mary, the Mother of
God. Compton has a discussion of the
“sensitive task involved in any discussion of Marian theology as it has “been a
source of division” among the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the
Protestants for centuries. Compton notes
that the Orthodox Churches affirm teachings about Mary in their liturgies,
referring to these teachings as “mysteries,” while the Roman Catholics call
them dogma. The Protestants, “especially
in women’s circles” are “reclaiming Mary as universal Mother” while exploring
“the sacred feminine mysteries that she embodies.” (All quotes from p. 11.)
Again, true to what was mentioned above, Compton and her
associates achieve in practice a true ecumenism in celebrating
Mary. I ask: In practice does it really matter if a
particular consideration of Mary is called a “dogma” or a “mystery”? Does such distinction actually make a
difference in one’s spiritual life?
Compton gives a thorough explanation of the Roman Catholic “apparitions”
of Mary vis-a-vis Orthodox Icons. (See
pages 12-16.) Icons are considered
“miracle workers” (p. 15). Thus,
the Icon becomes a personification of the Theotokos. I wonder, therefore, if there is that much
difference between an “apparition” and an Icon.
These feast days of Mary, whether East or West, deserve careful
meditation—especially the days celebrating Icons deserve special attention by
Roman Catholics and the days celebrating apparitions deserve special attention
by the Orthodox. (My presumption here is
that each group knows less about the other groups’ feast days.)
There is one aspect of this book I found somewhat difficult
to accept. In many of the vignettes,
especially of those women who lived in early times, I found the terminology of
hagiography somewhat off-putting. For
instance, I wonder exactly what is meant by the saying that someone died “in
the odor of sanctity.” Is this a
metaphor for a general demeanor or (and I admit that I wondered this when I
heard this expression as a child) is it an actual smell, indicating
preservation of the body when preservation techniques were minimal? It did seem to me that in quite a few cases
where the only literature available on the saint is from the second or third
century when such terminology was high praise, the authors used the words of
yore rather than being “translating” old-fashioned descriptive words into
today’s terminology. I would like to
read (somewhere/sometime) a modern translation of hagiographical wording.
In addition descriptions of extreme fastings seem eerily
reminiscent of what we now know as anorexia and other severe psychological
problems women often suffer. However,
Compton must be given credit for her discussion and caution against such
drastic practices. A small problem I see
is that the discussion about caution in these matters in the introduction is
far from the actual mention of the practices in the biographies of the women
involved.
Compton
has some very interesting and new ways of seeing old saints in a modern
light. For instance: St. Agnes, an early Roman martyr who was sent
into prostitution, yet was miraculously saved from that prostitution, is noted
as the patron of rape victims (p. 72).
St. Agatha, a martyr in 250 C.E., who among other tortures had her
breasts cut off, is noted as the patron of women with breast cancer, a timely
and very important help for women who may have cancer or be cancer survivors
(pp. 92-93). And I have had another
thought: I can see that the concept of
force involved in Agnes’ life is reason for making her a patron of rape
victims. I wonder, though, why not a
patron saint for women who are prostitutes?
Might both Agnes and Agatha be a beacon of light for these women (and
their families who may worry about them) who are exposed to a life of
prostitution, many of whom surely would opt for another way of life if they
found a way to do so?
There are many women, feasts of Mary/Icon feasts that I had
to restrain myself from including in this review. My inclination was to say to the reader: Oh, notice this fascinating point about this
woman, see what Compton says about this Icon, look at this thoughtful
presentation of this woman’s feast day, etc.
I had to exercise discipline as there were few of these women saints I
wanted to exclude from this review. So I
settled for mentioning just few enough to, I hope, tease the reader into
looking at this book personally.
My approach of “grouping” the women in this book rather than
looking at them individually will not be the approach of readers, and
definitely is not the approach of the authors.
But because my own idiosyncratic mind allowed me to see the “forest” of
this book rather than the individual “trees,” I then saw the vast amount of
scholarship underlying this work, the unique approach of this book, and the
truly ecumenical contribution contained in this book. After seeing the overview of this book, I can
now go back and appreciate the individual women celebrated in these pages and
use the book as it was intended.
I recommend this book to several groups: women as a whole, anyone (women and men)
interested in the areas of women’s studies, ecumenism and Mariological issues;
and those looking for a daily prayer one might link to the official prayer of
their Church will find a treasure trove of daily inspiration and prayer that is
also based on solid scholarship.
[1] I should
note that while Madonna Sophia Compton is noted as the primary author, Maria
Compton Hernandez and Patricia Campbell are listed as secondary authors. In the introduction the plural pronouns “we,
our” (indicating the authors of this book) are consistently used. But for the sake of convenience and
readability, I will sometimes refer only to Compton rather than Compton,
Hernandez, and Campbell or even Compton, et al.
[2] For the
authors’ discussion of “Definitions of Sainthood” see pages 16-20.
[3] It
should be noted that all the women included in this book are deceased. While women still living may be living holy
lives, “saints” by definition must be dead.
Also, while admittedly we are now in the twenty-first century, we are
only in the first decade of the twenty-first century; thus, presumably the
reason why no saints from this century are included.
[4] See pp.
16-20 for a discussion of “Definitions of Sainthood.” Compton, et al., include a discussion of how
the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics define sainthood.
[5] While I
freely admit that I did not check to see that a saint from every single one of
the twenty centuries was included; as I read through the book, I was amazed at
the diversity of time periods and could only conclude that no time period was
omitted.
[6] Perhaps
when ecumenicism is realized in the lives and hearts of real people, as is
obvious with these three women, officialdom will follow.
|
|
BACK TO CURRENT ISSUE
|
|
