quote:

---

New Vatican document to confront feminism

Tomorrow the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will publish a document that attempts to address what the Congregation sees as confusions generated by feminism and so-called "gender" ideology.

The document, published with the approval of Pope John Paul II, is entitled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World.

According to officials, the document confronts some of the most critical consequences of "women's issues."

Catholic World News reports that the text offers the Catholic perspective to two common "distortions of feminism". These are the tendency to see women and men in opposition, and the relegation of sex as no more than a physical difference.

The document sees this second feminist "distortion" as the source of current cultural and politician trends calling into question family and marriage as the commitment between one man and one woman.

According to Vatican sources, the document will only provide "initial reflections" from a biblical and theological perspective on the issue, and will propose a perspective of reconciliation - "active collaboration" - between the sexes, highlighting the difference between man and woman as complementary and not opposed.

---

quote:

---

Pope warns feminists

Bishops told to take hard line on issue of gender

John Hooper in Rome and Tania Branigan
Saturday July 31, 2004
The Guardian

The Pope will call on leaders of the Roman Catholic church today to attack feminist ideologies which assert that men and women are fundamentally the same.

The Vatican is concerned that this belief is eroding what it regards as women's maternal vocation. But a paper on the subject which is due to be published today - the Vatican's third major pronouncement on women's role in the quarter century of John Paul's papacy - has drawn scornful criticism from feminists and academics.

According to a leaked extract, the document accuses feminists of "blurring the biological difference between man and woman".

But it is also understood to break new ground by appealing to governmentsto give help to women so they can cope with their broader modern responsibilities.

It emerged yesterday that the Vatican itself had taken a further step towards incorporating women into the previously all-male leadership of the Roman Catholic church. A nun, who was not named in Italian media reports, was said to be working as a high-level aide to the Pope's "foreign minister", Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo.

The statement of doctrine on gender issues is the first serious attempt by the Vatican to come to grips with a world of working women. But it is just as clearly intended to prevent any erosion of the church's resolute opposition to gay mar riage, the incorporation of women into the priesthood, and trends in gender studies which the Pope has damned as "misleading conceptions of sexuality".

The Vatican's sights are trained in particular on the view that while people's sex is anatomically determined their gender identity and roles are entirely a product of conditioning. In a letter to bishops on the participation of men and women in the church and the world, the Pope's chief theological spokesman, the German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stresses, as the pontiff has done on several occasions, that the book of Genesis is unambiguous on this point.

The letter was drawn up inside Cardinal Ratzinger's Vatican "ministry", the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. However, as a statement of doctrine, it would not have been sent for publication without the consent of the Pope.

The Vatican's letter ack nowledges that the emancipation of women, which the pontiff applauded in his earliest pronouncements on the subject, has given them a vastly increased presence in the labour market.

Recent decades have seen a plunge in birth and fertility rates, particularly in the Roman Catholic heartland of southern Europe, as women struggle to combine jobs with their traditional roles as mothers, homemakers and carers.

Church representatives have argued that this is symptomatic of a breakdown in values, and particularly a greater selfishness among young couples more interested in consumer goods than creating life. Feminists have long held that it is a result of the reluctance of men to share household tasks and the failure of governments to provide adequate support for families.

Cardinal Ratzinger's document appears to have embraced implicitly the feminist view on this point, though in language unlikely to win over many feminists.

According to the leaked extract in the German tabloid Bild Zeitung, his letter to bishops calls on governments to "create conditions that enable women not to neglect their family duties when they enter into a job".

---

quote:

---

Vatican attacks radical feminism

The Pope approved publication of the document
The Vatican has published a document designed to address "distortions" generated by radical feminism.

The document, approved by the Pope, says feminism has "inspired ideologies" that view men and women as enemies, and question family and marriage.

But the Pope has also called for more respect for working women, and taken a first step towards breaking the male hold on the Vatican bureaucracy.

Feminists have condemned the document as a step backwards.

Cultural relativism

The new document is a letter to Roman Catholic bishops entitled On the collaboration of men and women in the Church and the World.


In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied
Vatican letter
It was signed by German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - seen by some as a possible future Pope - and approved by John Paul II.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the document is an attempt by the Vatican to define the place of women in the Church and in the modern world.

It reaffirms the Church's opposition to gay marriage and trends in gender studies that obscure the difference between the sexes.

The letter says there is now a tendency to see women as opposed to men, and sex relegated to no more than a physical difference.

It says feminism's view of equality has inspired ideologies which "call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and to make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent".

---

quote:

---

Code: ZE04073101

Date: 2004-07-31

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the World

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD



INTRODUCTION

1. The Church, expert in humanity, has a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women. In recent times, much reflection has been given to the question of the dignity of women and to women's rights and duties in the different areas of civil society and the Church. Having contributed to a deeper understanding of this fundamental question, in particular through the teaching of John Paul II,1 the Church is called today to address certain currents of thought which are often at variance with the authentic advancement of women.

After a brief presentation and critical evaluation of some current conceptions of human nature, this document will offer reflections – inspired by the doctrinal elements of the biblical vision of the human person that are indispensable for safeguarding his or her identity – on some of the essentials of a correct understanding of active collaboration, in recognition of the difference between men and women in the Church and in the world. These reflections are meant as a starting point for further examination in the Church, as well as an impetus for dialogue with all men and women of good will, in a sincere search for the truth and in a common commitment to the development of ever more authentic relationships.



I. THE QUESTION

2. Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.

A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.

3. While the immediate roots of this second tendency are found in the context of reflection on women's roles, its deeper motivation must be sought in the human attempt to be freed from one's biological conditioning.2 According to this perspective, human nature in itself does not possess characteristics in an absolute manner: all persons can and ought to constitute themselves as they like, since they are free from every predetermination linked to their essential constitution.

This perspective has many consequences. Above all it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male-dominated culture. Second, this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form.

4. In the face of these currents of thought, the Church, enlightened by faith in Jesus Christ, speaks instead of active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman.

To understand better the basis, meaning and consequences of this response it is helpful to turn briefly to the Sacred Scriptures, rich also in human wisdom, in which this response is progressively manifested thanks to God's intervention on behalf of humanity.3



II. BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLICAL VISION OF THE HUMAN PERSON

5. The first biblical texts to examine are the first three chapters of Genesis. Here we “enter into the setting of the biblical ‘beginning'. In it the revealed truth concerning the human person as ‘the image and likeness' of God constitutes the immutable basis of all Christian anthropology”.4

The first text (Gn 1:1-2:4) describes the creative power of the Word of God, which makes distinctions in the original chaos. Light and darkness appear, sea and dry land, day and night, grass and trees, fish and birds, “each according to its kind”. An ordered world is born out of differences, carrying with them also the promise of relationships. Here we see a sketch of the framework in which the creation of the human race takes place: “God said ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'” (Gn 1:26). And then: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn1:27). From the very beginning therefore, humanity is described as articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity, sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared “the image of God”.

6. The second creation account (Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference. Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper.5 This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God's creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. In this encounter, the man speaks words for the first time, expressive of his wonderment: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23).

As the Holy Father has written with regard to this text from Genesis, “...woman is another ‘I' in a common humanity. From the very beginning they appear as a ‘unity of the two', and this signifies that the original solitude is overcome, the solitude in which man does not find ‘a helper fit for him' (Gn 2:20). Is it only a question here of a ‘helper' in activity, in ‘subduing the earth' (cf. Gn 1:28)? Certainly it is a matter of a life's companion with whom, as a wife, the man can unite himself, becoming with her ‘one flesh' and for this reason leaving ‘his father and his mother'(cf. Gn 2:24)”.6

This vital difference is oriented toward communion and was lived in peace, expressed by their nakedness: “And the man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame” (Gn 2:25). In this way, the human body, marked with the sign of masculinity or femininity, “includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and – by means of this gift – fulfils the meaning of his being and his existence”.7 Continuing his commentary on these verses of Genesis, the Holy Father writes: “In this peculiarity, the body is the expression of the spirit and is called, in the mystery of creation, to exist in the communion of persons in the image of God”.8

Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others. “In the ‘unity of the two', man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ‘side by side' or ‘together', but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other'... The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call. But it is not the only one. The whole of human history unfolds within the context of this call. In this history, on the basis of the principle of mutually being ‘for' the other in interpersonal ‘communion', there develops in humanity itself, in accordance with God's will, the integration of what is ‘masculine' and what is ‘feminine'”.9

The peaceful vision which concludes the second creation account recalls the “indeed it was very good” (Gn 1:31) at the end of the first account. Here we find the heart of God's original plan and the deepest truth about man and woman, as willed and created by him. Although God's original plan for man and woman will later be upset and darkened by sin, it can never be abrogated.

7. Original sin changes the way in which the man and the woman receive and live the Word of God as well as their relationship with the Creator. Immediately after having given them the gift of the garden, God gives them a positive command (cf. Gn 2:16), followed by a negative one (cf. Gn 2:17), in which the essential difference between God and humanity is implicitly expressed. Following enticement by the serpent, the man and the woman deny this difference. As a consequence, the way in which they live their sexual difference is also upset. In this way, the Genesis account establishes a relationship of cause and effect between the two differences: when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted. When this relationship is damaged, their access to the face of God risks being compromised in turn.

God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost.

8. Reviewing these fundamental texts allows us to formulate some of the principal elements of the biblical vision of the human person.

Above all, the fact that human beings are persons needs to be underscored: “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God”.10 Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of “uni-duality”, which only sin and “the structures of sin” inscribed in culture render potentially conflictual. The biblical vision of the human person suggests that problems related to sexual difference, whether on the public or private level, should be addressed by a relational approach and not by competition or retaliation.

Furthermore, the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions”.11 It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather “is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love”.12 This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed.

The human dimension of sexuality is inseparable from the theological dimension. The human creature, in its unity of soul and body, is characterized therefore, from the very beginning, by the relationship with the other-beyond-the-self. This relationship is presented as still good and yet, at the same time, changed. It is good from its original goodness, declared by God from the first moment of creation. It has been changed however by the disharmony between God and humanity introduced by sin. This alteration does not correspond to the initial plan of God for man and woman, nor to the truth of the relationship between the sexes. It follows then that the relationship is good, but wounded and in need of healing.

What might be the ways of this healing? Considering and analyzing the problems in the relationship between the sexes solely from the standpoint of the situation marked by sin would lead to a return to the errors mentioned above. The logic of sin needs to be broken and a way forward needs to be found that is capable of banishing it from the hearts of sinful humanity. A clear orientation in this sense is provided in the third chapter of Genesis by God's promise of a Saviour, involving the “woman” and her “offspring” (cf. Gn 3:15). It is a promise which will be preceded by a long preparation in history before it is realized.

9. An early victory over evil is seen in the story of Noah, the just man, who guided by God, avoids the flood with his family and the various species of animals (cf. Gn 6-9). But it is above all in God's choice of Abraham and his descendants (cf. Gn 12:1ff) that the hope of salvation is confirmed. God begins in this way to unveil his countenance so that, through the chosen people, humanity will learn the path of divine likeness, that is, the way of holiness, and thus of transformation of heart. Among the many ways in which God reveals himself to his people (cf. Heb 1:1), in keeping with a long and patient pedagogy, there is the recurring theme of the covenant between man and woman. This is paradoxical if we consider the drama recounted in Genesis and its concrete repetition in the time of the prophets, as well as the mixing of the sacred and the sexual found in the religions which surrounded Israel. And yet this symbolism is indispensable for understanding the way in which God loves his people: God makes himself known as the Bridegroom who loves Israel his Bride.

If, in this relationship, God can be described as a “jealous God” (cf. Ex 20:5; Nah 1:2) and Israel denounced as an “adulterous” bride or “prostitute” (cf. Hos 2:4-15; Ez 16:15-34), it is because of the hope, reinforced by the prophets, of seeing Jerusalem become the perfect bride: “For as a young man marries a virgin so shall your creator marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Is62:5). Recreated “in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy” (Hos 2:21), she who had wandered far away to search for life and happiness in false gods will return, and “shall respond as in the days of her youth” (Hos 2:17) to him who will speak to her heart; she will hear it said: “Your bridegroom is your Creator” (Is54:5). It is substantially the same reality which is expressed when, parallel to the mystery of God's action through the male figure of the suffering Servant, the Book of the prophet Isaiah evokes the feminine figure of Zion, adorned with a transcendence and a sanctity which prefigure the gift of salvation destined for Israel.

The Song of Songs is an important moment in the use of this form of revelation. In the words of a most human love, which celebrate the beauty of the human body and the joy of mutual seeking, God's love for his people is also expressed. The Church's recognition of her relationship to Christ in this audacious conjunction of language about what is most human with language about what is most divine, cannot be said to be mistaken.

In the course of the Old Testament, a story of salvation takes shape which involves the simultaneous participation of male and female. While having an evident metaphorical dimension, the terms bridegroom and bride – and covenant as well – which characterize the dynamic of salvation, are much more than simple metaphors. This spousal language touches on the very nature of the relationship which God establishes with his people, even though that relationship is more expansive than human spousal experience. Likewise, the same concrete conditions of redemption are at play in the way in which prophetic statements, such as those of Isaiah, associate masculine and feminine roles in proclaiming and prefiguring the work of salvation which God is about to undertake. This salvation orients the reader both toward the male figure of the suffering Servant as well as to the female figure of Zion. The prophetic utterances of Isaiah in fact alternate between this figure and the Servant of God, before culminating at the end of the book with the mystical vision of Jerusalem, which gives birth to a people in a single day (cf. Is 66: 7-14), a prophecy of the great new things which God is about to do (cf. Is 48: 6-8).

10. All these prefigurations find their fulfillment in the New Testament. On the one hand, Mary, the chosen daughter of Zion, in her femininity, sums up and transfigures the condition of Israel/Bride waiting for the day of her salvation. On the other hand, the masculinity of the Son shows how Jesus assumes in his person all that the Old Testament symbolism had applied to the love of God for his people, described as the love of a bridegroom for his bride. The figures of Jesus and Mary his mother not only assure the continuity of the New Testament with the Old, but go beyond it, since – as Saint Irenaeus wrote – with Jesus Christ “all newness” appears.13

This aspect is particularly evident in the Gospel of John. In the scene of the wedding feast at Cana, for example, Jesus is asked by his mother, who is called “woman”, to offer, as a sign, the new wine of the future wedding with humanity (cf. Jn 2:1-12). This messianic wedding is accomplished on the Cross when, again in the presence of his mother, once again called “woman”, the blood/wine of the New Covenant pours forth from the open heart of the crucified Christ (cf. Jn 19:25-27, 34).14 It is therefore not at all surprising that John the Baptist, when asked who he is, describes himself as “the friend of the bridegroom”, who rejoices to hear the bridegroom's voice and must be eclipsed by his coming: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn3:29-30).15

In his apostolic activity, Paul develops the whole nuptial significance of the redemption by seeing Christian life as a nuptial mystery. He writes to the Church in Corinth, which he had founded: “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a chaste virgin to her one husband” (2 Cor 11:2).

In the Letter to the Ephesians, the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church is taken up again and deepened in its implications. In the New Covenant, the beloved bride is the Church, and as the Holy Father teaches in his Letter to Families: “This bride, of whom the Letter to the Ephesians speaks, is present in each of the baptized and is like one who presents herself before her Bridegroom: ‘Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her..., that he might present the Church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish' (Eph 5:25-27)”.16

Reflecting on the unity of man and woman as described at the moment of the world's creation (cf. Gn 2:24), the Apostle exclaims: “this mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:32). The love of a man and a woman, lived out in the power of baptismal life, now becomes the sacrament of the love between Christ and his Church, and a witness to the mystery of fidelity and unity from which the “New Eve” is born and by which she lives in her earthly pilgrimage toward the fullness of the eternal wedding.

11. Drawn into the Paschal mystery and made living signs of the love of Christ and his Church, the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin. For Christian spouses, the goodness of love, for which the wounded human heart has continued to long, is revealed with new accents and possibilities. It is in this light that Jesus, faced with the question about divorce (cf. Mt 19:3-9), recalls the demands of the covenant between man and woman as willed by God at the beginning, that is, before the eruption of sin which had justified the later accommodations found in the Mosaic Law. Far from being the imposition of a hard and inflexible order, these words of Jesus are actually the proclamation of the “good news” of that faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness over weakness, over injuries and over the couple's sins. In the grace of Christ which renews their hearts, man and woman become capable of being freed from sin and of knowing the joy of mutual giving.

12. “For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ... there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20).

Male and female are thus revealed as belonging ontologically to creation and destined therefore to outlast the present time, evidently in a transfigured form. In this way, they characterize the “love that never ends” (1Cor13:8), although the temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient and ordered to a phase of life marked by procreation and death. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom seeks to be the prophecy of this form of future existence of male and female. For those who live it, it is an anticipation of the reality of a life which, while remaining that of a man and a woman, will no longer be subject to the present limitations of the marriage relationship (cf. Mt22:30). For those in married life, celibacy becomes the reminder and prophecy of the completion which their own relationship will find in the face-to-face encounter with God.

From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are distinct, and will remain so for all eternity. Placed within Christ's Paschal mystery, they no longer see their difference as a source of discord to be overcome by denial or eradication, but rather as the possibility for collaboration, to be cultivated with mutual respect for their difference. From here, new perspectives open up for a deeper understanding of the dignity of women and their role in human society and in the Church.



III. THE IMPORTANCE OF FEMININE
VALUES IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY

13. Among the fundamental values linked to women's actual lives is what has been called a “capacity for the other”. Although a certain type of feminist rhetoric makes demands “for ourselves”, women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contribute to the growth and protection of the other.

This intuition is linked to women's physical capacity to give life. Whether lived out or remaining potential, this capacity is a reality that structures the female personality in a profound way. It allows her to acquire maturity very quickly, and gives a sense of the seriousness of life and of its responsibilities. A sense and a respect for what is concrete develop in her, opposed to abstractions which are so often fatal for the existence of individuals and society. It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life.

Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women. The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard.17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny. Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation.18

In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear.19 It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”,20 since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings. They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence. It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.

In this regard, it cannot be forgotten that the interrelationship between these two activities – family and work – has, for women, characteristics different from those in the case of men. The harmonization of the organization of work and laws governing work with the demands stemming from the mission of women within the family is a challenge. The question is not only legal, economic and organizational; it is above all a question of mentality, culture, and respect. Indeed, a just valuing of the work of women within the family is required. In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one's own equilibrium and the harmony of the family. As John Paul II has written, “it will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother – without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalizing her as compared with other women – to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age”.21

14. It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible. It is only because women are more immediately attuned to these values that they are the reminder and the privileged sign of such values. But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. In this perspective, that which is called “femininity” is more than simply an attribute of the female sex. The word designates indeed the fundamental human capacity to live for the other and because of the other.

Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.

Without prejudice to the advancement of women's rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love.

On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female.



IV. THE IMPORTANCE
OF FEMININE VALUES
IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

15. In the Church, woman as “sign” is more than ever central and fruitful, following as it does from the very identity of the Church, as received from God and accepted in faith. It is this “mystical” identity, profound and essential, which needs to be kept in mind when reflecting on the respective roles of men and women in the Church.

From the beginning of Christianity, the Church has understood herself to be a community, brought into existence by Christ and joined to him by a relationship of love, of which the nuptial experience is the privileged expression. From this it follows that the Church's first task is to remain in the presence of this mystery of God's love, manifested in Jesus Christ, to contemplate and to celebrate it. In this regard, the figure of Mary constitutes the fundamental reference in the Church. One could say metaphorically that Mary is a mirror placed before the Church, in which the Church is invited to recognize her own identity as well as the dispositions of the heart, the attitudes and the actions which God expects from her.

The existence of Mary is an invitation to the Church to root her very being in listening and receiving the Word of God, because faith is not so much the search for God on the part of human beings, as the recognition by men and women that God comes to us; he visits us and speaks to us. This faith, which believes that “nothing is impossible for God” (cf. Gn18:14; Lk 1:37), lives and becomes deeper through the humble and loving obedience by which the Church can say to the Father: “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Faith continually makes reference to Jesus: “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn2:5) and accompanies Jesus on his way, even to the foot of the Cross. Mary, in the hour of darkness, perseveres courageously in faithfulness, with the sole certainty of trust in the Word of God.

It is from Mary that the Church always learns the intimacy of Christ. Mary, who carried the small child of Bethlehem in her arms, teaches us to recognize the infinite humility of God. She who received the broken body of Jesus from the Cross shows the Church how to receive all those in this world whose lives have been wounded by violence and sin. From Mary, the Church learns the meaning of the power of love, as revealed by God in the life of his beloved Son: “he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their heart... he has lifted up the lowly” (Lk 1:51-52). From Mary, the disciples of Christ continually receive the sense and the delight of praise for the work of God's hands: “The Almighty has done great things for me” (Lk1:49). They learn that they are in the world to preserve the memory of those “great things”, and to keep vigil in expectation of the day of the Lord.

16. To look at Mary and imitate her does not mean, however, that the Church should adopt a passivity inspired by an outdated conception of femininity. Nor does it condemn the Church to a dangerous vulnerability in a world where what count above all are domination and power. In reality, the way of Christ is neither one of domination (cf. Phil 2:6) nor of power as understood by the world (cf. Jn18:36). From the Son of God one learns that this “passivity” is in reality the way of love; it is a royal power which vanquishes all violence; it is “passion” which saves the world from sin and death and recreates humanity. In entrusting his mother to the Apostle John, Jesus on the Cross invites his Church to learn from Mary the secret of the love that is victorious.

Far from giving the Church an identity based on an historically conditioned model of femininity, the reference to Mary, with her dispositions of listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting, places the Church in continuity with the spiritual history of Israel. In Jesus and through him, these attributes become the vocation of every baptized Christian. Regardless of conditions, states of life, different vocations with or without public responsibilities, they are an essential aspect of Christian life. While these traits should be characteristic of every baptized person, women in fact live them with particular intensity and naturalness. In this way, women play a role of maximum importance in the Church's life by recalling these dispositions to all the baptized and contributing in a unique way to showing the true face of the Church, spouse of Christ and mother of believers.

In this perspective one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men22 does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life. Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom.



CONCLUSION

17. In Jesus Christ all things have been made new (cf. Rev 21:5). Renewal in grace, however, cannot take place without conversion of heart. Gazing at Jesus and confessing him as Lord means recognizing the path of love, triumphant over sin, which he sets out for his disciples.

In this way, man's relationship with woman is transformed, and the three-fold concupiscence described in the First Letter of John (1 Jn 2:16) ceases to have the upper hand. The witness of women's lives must be received with respect and appreciation, as revealing those values without which humanity would be closed in self-sufficiency, dreams of power and the drama of violence. Women too, for their part, need to follow the path of conversion and recognize the unique values and great capacity for loving others which their femininity bears. In both cases, it is a question of humanity's conversion to God, so that both men and women may come to know God as their “helper”, as the Creator full of tenderness, as the Redeemer who “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16).

Such a conversion cannot take place without humble prayer to God for that penetrating gaze which is able to recognize one's own sin and also the grace which heals it. In a particular way, we need to ask this of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the woman in accord with the heart of God, she who is “blessed among women” (cf. Lk 1:42), chosen to reveal to men and women the way of love. Only in this way, can the “image of God”, the sacred likeness inscribed in every man and woman, emerge according to the specific grace received by each (cf. Gn 1:27). Only thus can the path of peace and wonderment be recovered, witnessed in the verses of the Song of Songs, where bodies and hearts celebrate the same jubilee.

The Church certainly knows the power of sin at work in individuals and in societies, which at times almost leads one to despair of the goodness of married couples. But through her faith in Jesus crucified and risen, the Church knows even more the power of forgiveness and self-giving in spite of any injury or injustice. The peace and wonderment which she trustfully proposes to men and women today are the peace and wonderment of the garden of the resurrection, which have enlightened our world and its history with the revelation that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8,16).

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Angelo Amato, SDB
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981): AAS 74 (1982), 81-191; Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988): AAS 80 (1988), 1653-1729; Letter to Families (February 2, 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 868-925; Letter to Women (June 29, 1995): AAS 87 (1995), 803-812; Catechesi sull'amore umano (1979-1984): Insegnamenti II (1979) – VII (1984): English translation in The Theology of the Body, (Boston: Pauline Books Media, 1997); Congregation for Catholic Education, Educational Guidance in Human Love (November 1, 1983); Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family (December 8, 1995).

2On the complex question of gender, see also The Pontifical Council for the Family, Family, Marriage and “De facto unions” (July 26, 2000), 8.

3Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio (September 14, 1998),21: AAS 91 (1999), 22: “This opening to the mystery, which came to him [biblical man] through Revelation, was for him, in the end, the source of true knowledge. It was this which allowed his reason to enter the realm of the infinite where an understanding for which until then he had not dared to hope became a possibility”.

4John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988), 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1662; cf. St. Ireneus, Adversus haereses, 5,6,1; 5, 16, 2-3: SC 153, 72-81; 216-221; St. Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio, 16: PG 44, 180; In Canticum homilia, 2: PG 44, 805-808; St.Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum, 4, 8: CCL 38, 17.

5The Hebrew word ezer which is translated as “helpmate” indicates the assistance which only a person can render to another. It carries no implication of inferiority or exploitation if we remember that God too is at times called ezer with regard to human beings (cf. Ex 18:4; Ps10:14).

6John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988), 6:AAS 80 (1988), 1664.

7John Paul II, General Audience of January 16, 1980, reprinted in The Theology of the Body, (Boston: Pauline Books Media, 1997), 63.

8John Paul II, General Audience of July 23, 1980, reprinted in The Theology of the Body, (Boston: Pauline Books Media, 1997), 125.

9John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988), 7:AAS 80 (1988), 1666.

10Ibid., 6, l. c., 1663.

11Congregation for Catholic Education, Educational Guidance in Human Love (November 1, 1983), 4.

12Ibid.

13Adversus haereses, 4, 34, 1: SC 100, 846: “Omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens”.

14The ancient exegetical tradition sees in Mary at Cana the “figura Synagogae” and the “inchoatio Ecclesiae”.

15Here the Fourth Gospel presents in a deeper way an element found also in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt 9:15 and parallel texts). On the theme of Christ the Bridegroom, see John Paul II, Letter to Families (February 2, 1994), 18: AAS 86 (1994), 906-910.

16John Paul II, Letter to Families (February 2, 1994), 19: AAS 86 (1994), 911; cf. Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988), 23- 25: AAS 80 (1988), 1708-1715.

17Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981), 16: AAS 74 (1982), 98-99.

18Ibid., 41, l.c., 132-133; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II, 8: AAS 80 (1988), 96-97.

19Cf. John Paul II, Letter to Women (June 29, 1995), 9-10: AAS 87 (1995), 809-810.

20John Paul II, Letter to Families (February 2, 1994), 17: AAS 86 (1994), 906.

21Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens (September 14, 1981), 19: AAS 73 (1981), 627.

22Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 545-548; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum ad dubium regarding the doctrine of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis (October 28, 1995): AAS 87 (1995), 1114.

---

quote:

---

In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others....

The harmonization of the organization of work and laws governing work with the demands stemming from the mission of women within the family is a challenge.

---

quote:

---

Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others. “In the ‘unity of the two', man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ‘side by side' or ‘together', but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other'... The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call.

---

quote:

---

Recent decades have seen a plunge in birth and fertility rates, particularly in the Roman Catholic heartland of southern Europe, as women struggle to combine jobs with their traditional roles as mothers, homemakers and carers.

Church representatives have argued that this is symptomatic of a breakdown in values, and particularly a greater selfishness among young couples more interested in consumer goods than creating life. Feminists have long held that it is a result of the reluctance of men to share household tasks and the failure of governments to provide adequate support for families.

---

quote:

---

Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man.

---

quote:

---

Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation

---

This is saying there is a lot more to women than marriage and physical procreastion and biological children. As long as women are using their natural gifts, then they can find full realization doing all sorts of things, even if they never marry or have biological kids. Or maybe I just want it to say that.

[ August 02, 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
 

---

Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
 
Theca, I think I agree with that interpretation of that section. *makes little robot babies*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So, just to clarify, women's natural gifts lie in the creation of life, only not necessarily biological life? And that as long as women are serving other people, they can expect to be happy?

[ August 02, 2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
That's kind of one of the messages of Christianity as a whole, Tom, not just to women.
 

---

Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
 
Does anyone else find it slightly alarming that the point of view of the church is that a decline in birth rates is symptomatic of a breakdown in values (as quoted in AR's post above). Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it seems like the Vatican is only going to be happy if populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. Seems to me that the European zero to negative population growth is a good thing, keeps us from getting an overpopulated planet. But maybe the Vatican is more concerned about a decrease in their loyal following. [/cynicism]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And yet, service to others is not identified here as one of the essential elements of the male character, nor essential to male identity.

-------

"Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it seems like the Vatican is only going to be happy if populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates."

Well, that IS the only hope they have of beating the Mormons.

[ August 02, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Kasie - that is bringing the Church into the 21st century.

I've yet to see a theological painting of the world I could really throw myself into.

And I do find it amusing that Italian births are declining, being the heart of Catholic power.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mormonism: Doing our best to outpopulate the papists!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
"We shall overwhelm."

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted August 02, 2004 09:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The document says that men and women are designed to be together."

The document goes farther, and establishes that women derive their identity from service to "the other."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I don't think this is in anyone's best interest.

For one objection, this is a lot of pressure of the men to be just about perfect. If a woman has any identity or self-esteem at all, giving that up to be a shadow and a servant is not something that would be done lightly. If she's going to give up herself, it has to be for someone who's worth it.

There's not one man in a hundred who is worth obliterating yourself for, and that's not likely to change. The only way the average male is even remotely attractive as a superior in everything is if the woman has no self-worth whatsoever. A moment of human weakness, and the woman has made a bad bargain. Who can live up to that kind of expectation? I'm suspicious of any setup that requires one person to have low self-esteem.

It's different than what is promised by the Lord. The Lord says that if you lose your life in his service, ye shall find it. Being the Lord, he has the power and ability to make that true. That doesn't work for a husband - he wants me to lose myself in obedience to him, he'd darn well better have the ability to work miracles to make it worth it.

------------

Added: What I like much, much better is the idea of working together to create something (a family) that needs both of you to happen. That I believe, and that's worth signing up for.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, service to others is not identified here as one of the essential elements of the male character, nor essential to male identity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Savior on several occasions said that the leader is the servant of all. The doctrine and covenants lays what is expected of priesthood holders (that's the men), and I love it. It is service. The priesthood can never be used to benefit themselves, and being a leader means service and responsibility. If it isn't used that way, then the spirit withdraws and the power of the priesthood is gone. I love that - the Lord set things up right. Same thing that serving the Lord means serving each other. It's different from what is described above because service is not the same as obedience.

[ August 02, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 

quote:

---

Seems to me that the European zero to negative population growth is a good thing, keeps us from getting an overpopulated planet.

---

quote:

---

Oh yeah? You want to try your hand at paying pensions for the retiring generation in Italy right now?

---

quote:

---

The document goes farther, and establishes that women derive their identity from service to "the other."

---

quote:

---

but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other'...

---

quote:

---

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

---

quote:

---

Ideally, a constant population would work perfectly in paying for retirees. Unfortunately, most western European countries don't even have this.

---

quote:

---

Most European countries have low growth rates. In the United Kingdom, the rate is 0.2%, in Germany it's 0.3%, and in France, 0.4%. Germany and other European countries' natural growth rate is actually negative (on average, women in Germany give birth to 1.5 children, which is below the number to yield zero population growth, approximately 2.1 children). Germany's natural growth rate of -0.1 can not be used to determine doubling time because the population is actually shrinking in size. It's immigration that brings Germany's overall growth rate up to 0.3%, with a doubling time of about 233 years)

---

quote:

---

The countries are growing, but only because of immigration. An immigrant population, receiving on average minimum incomes, is not going to provide the economic support for an aging demographic.

---

Not to mention the fact that their time working (and thus, paying taxes) in Germany will be much shorter, but the time they spend on goverment support after retirment will be virtually the same.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 

quote:

---

Not to mention the fact that their time working (and thus, paying taxes) in Germany will be much shorter, but the time they spend on goverment support after retirment will be virtually the same.

---

quote:

---

In this perspective one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men22 does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life. Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom.

---

quote:

---

The document goes farther, and establishes that women derive their identity from service to "the other." Whereas men merely rely on women for the future of the race.

---

Heh.

Anyway, the letter is boring. Tedious. The Church loses its power as time passes. Of course, it changes itself every now and then to try to preserve it.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
To continue on with my thinking from above, I think that the Church often runs into problems when they apply their predominantly static thinking to dynamic concepts, like society. There's a claim early on in the letter that the Church is an expert of people. I think that this is patently absurd. They don't understand people as dynamic systems, they understand how they want people to be, as the static model they have fitted out for them.

I think, from the Church's perspective, if they got those crazy feminists to stop all that agitating, then men and women would come back to the Church's way of doing things and that marriages and the relations betweeen the sexes would be great. And therein lies the main problem. This is an idea incredibly divorced from reality and history.

Returning to the Church's view of marriage will exchange the problem we have now with other problems, probably ones like there were when the idea of male dominance was the accepted way of things. And, I'm pretty darn sure, if this actually happened, the Church would again not do anything about these problems, because the ideology of the world would fit with what they wanted it to be.

To put it another way, it wasn't feminists that came up with the idea that being a housewife and washing and cooking and cleaning was degrading and of little importance. This grew out of the male-dominated world that preceded the feminists. Women, and so-called "women's work", were seen as distinctly inferior. It wasn't that a man shouldn't or couldn't do this work, it was that it was beneath them.

Feminists didn't come along and change people's perceptions of women doing these things to them being inferior. They said that there was no reason why women should be prevented into doing those things that society believed were superior to being a housewife. They didn't change perceptions that women were being controlled. Before they came along it was considered only right that women being totally controlled by their men. Feminists changed the perception, not that women were controlled, but that it was right that they were so.

The problem I see is that the current feminists buy into way society sees power and it's importance. They still blieve that no woman would choose to do the housework or whatever and that they would only be oriented towards a career and towards the sort of power that society still values. This is the issue that we should be concerned about and not trying to get women to again believe that the only place for them is in the home.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I would say that the feminists (of the 70s) were the ones to define domestic work as "crap work," but they were doing so coming out of the context of aristocratic life of the early 20th century. Refined ladies of the Victorian era (and this is a wealthy European practice stretching back centuries) hired help to clean up after the basic human needs of them and their families. What started as disdain for the lower class of peasant woman who cleaned up and cooked for her own family translated into contempt for the woman of the large middle class demographic with aristocratic attitudes but middle class resources.

I would venture to say that the reason this is such a debate in first-world rather than developping countries is that we feel superior to any kind of menial labor and have subverted that irritation to bickering between the sexes rather than bucking up and just getting the dirty work done.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I would say that the feminists (of the 70s) were the ones to define domestic work as 'crap work,' but they were doing so coming out of the context of aristocratic life of the early 20th century."

You would be wrong. There's ample literary evidence to suggest that men -- even bachelor men -- considered such work to be petty and "beneath" them, well before the 20th century.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
And we have washing machines and dishwashers and later (historically), microwaves.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Tom, I appreciate your input but I have read a lot on the issue and my opinion is not entirely uninformed. Please don't tell me "you would be wrong." It's a very subjective issue.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, no, it's NOT very subjective. I know you've read Shakespeare; his characters have some very unflattering things to say about women's work and the kind of unmanly men who'd stoop to doing it. <snarky>Shakespeare was written well before 1970, even according to the Baconites.</snarky>

The most you can say about modern feminists is that, around 1920, they stopped arguing that housework WASN'T crap work -- which had previously been their focus -- and then said, "Okay, yeah, you're right. It IS crap work. And we're sick of being demeaned by being associated with it. So we have the right to do other things." And by about 1970, this was gospel.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Annie,
Check out the theological and philosophical writing about the role of women from 13th century Europe. Everything I said is evident in this. The 1200s were also the time where it became accepted Church doctrine that women who stepped out of their place were to be beated by their male relatives, much like in fundamentalist Islam today.

This attitude towards women is evident in many other sources through the years. Consider the rule of thumb, the English law that a man may beat his wife without explanation as long as he used a rod no thicker than his thumb. Treatsies on domistic life from the 1800s specifically defined "women's work" as being degrading for a man to do, it being beneath his dignity. Because of the influence of the Enlightenment idea of the equality of the sexes, some of the American colonies and later states granted women the right to vote, only to have it later revoked because women lacked the ability to decide for themselves what was right and that their place was in the home, not in the world. During the later debates over women's sufferage, many detractors (and not a few supporters) of it claimed that giving a woman the right to vote was the same as giving her husband two votes.

You tell an interesting story, but it's wrong. If you're basing your beliefs on feminists based on your fairy-tale version of how things worked, you're doing both them and yourself a great disservice.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Who was writing and reading in the 19th century, Tom?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Society's concept of women is dynamic and complex. History, literature, art, sociology, and many other factors all contribute to it. To speak for such large numbers of people and incorporate all relevant factors requires either nearly omniscient comprehension of many disciplines (many of which are speculative at best) or gross over-simplification.

I don't pretend to have a complete understanding, but I'm doing my best to read and learn all I can on what I see as a very important and fascinating subject. I wrote two term papers on the subject last semester, and my conclusions are based on many factors. Rather than turning this into a pissing match, let's just acknowledge that there are a lot of factors involved and give credibility to different interpretations of the evidence at hand.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
In my ideal world, people would work their ideal jobs for 4 days a week, and then would do a community job like collecting garbage for one day a week.

I think both men and women should live to serve 'the other'. Strange as it seems, I think that for LDS, giving the priesthood to every worthy male rather than just a clergy, makes men more inclined to serve others because it impresses upon them the need to serve. Okay, I think I might be agreeing with AK here (in regards to the muslim thread)

And I think men and women are different on many levels. I don't think it is conditioning. I was very much allowed to be a tomboy, I went to college studying the sciences and had many good talks with my dad about things scientific. I was always very good at math. I feel out of place with much of what other women enjoy talking about/doing. And yet, I feel very much a woman, and my husband is different from me in ways that I've come to see as very much a part of his gender. There are too many gender similarities through every culture to see it as cultural indoctrination.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Who was writing and reading in the 19th century, Tom?"

Is your argument that we can't trust the historical record prior to the 1900s, Scott, at least on the subject of women, because women didn't write it?
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
I just remembered hearing about what a huge uproar there was in England or America a couple centuries ago when doctors first started giving women pain medicines to take for childbirth. There was some sort of religious basis for believing that women OUGHT to feel the pain of childbirth. So the men said. Ugh.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Does anyone not feel this is leading right into an anti-homosexual-marriage debate?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tom:
No.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
To Squicky:

The middle ages is an interesting period in women's roles, and thus makes the standard "Catholics have always believed X" argument rather simplistic.

I've studied Christine de Pizan and her proto-feminist works, which I believe come out of early traditions of lyric literature and the cult of the Virgin that gained wide acceptance in the 12th century. Prior to the rise of absolute monarchies after the Renaissance, woman's role was very different. The Salic Law, France's infamous policy that prevented women from passing on the royal line or weilding monarchic power, was based on a medieval law from the Frankish period but not re-discovered and instituted until 1372. Thus, oppresion of women that we now relate to the pre-revolutionary period was not standard practice in the middle ages and was far from being the status quo.

You can go further to explore differences in how females were accepted in France versus England. Wheras the Salic legacy promoted a very misogynistic attitude on the continent, British society was much more progressive and by the time Mary Wollstonecraft came along, England was seen as being very advanced and liberal in the field.

My point? Attitudes in the Victorian era can not be expanded to cover "the past." 20th-century "enlightenment" is not unique in history. We have to get over this grossly distoreted view of our own history and stop dismissing everything from the past as barbaric. We're missing some very important ideas and truths when we do so, and systematically shooting me down as uniformed does not bolster your argument.
 

---

Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
 
My goodness, this is the kind of debate that makes me wish I was pagan...oops, too late.

quote:

---

Recent decades have seen a plunge in birth and fertility rates, particularly in the Roman Catholic heartland of southern Europe, as women struggle to combine jobs with their traditional roles as mothers, homemakers and carers.

Church representatives have argued that this is symptomatic of a breakdown in values, and particularly a greater selfishness among young couples more interested in consumer goods than creating life. Feminists have long held that it is a result of the reluctance of men to share household tasks and the failure of governments to provide adequate support for families.

---

I don't see that as a symptomatic breakdown in values, but as more younger people choosing to pro-create at their discretion, or not at all. I have a close cousin who has, as a mutual decision with her spouse, chosen to not have children at all. Her husband is in the military, and as so travels quite a lot. They have chosen not to conceive as neither one of them would want a family where a child would have to deal with the absence of his/her father. My fiancee and I, in our five years together, have decided that we are not ready yet to have any children, although after we have been married for some time and are mentally and financially ready to, we plan to have one and adopt another. These are our choices, they do not have anything to do with being 'selfish', or wanting 'more consumer goods'. The choices I see young people making today are responsible choices, preparing a stable foundation for the household they will in the future have. Perhaps, this is also what is happening in Italy.

However, I also do not agree with the femenist perspective, at least so far as it goes in my relationship. Rick and I do equal work to sustain our living conditions; we both work, he cleans the kitchen and takes care of cooking, while I do our laundry (which really is like a full time job in itself). Rick shares in our household tasks, perhaps he is the exception to the rule, but it is enough to show me at least that not all men are like the description that is given.

Probably the only part of that statement that I agree with is that perhaps governments should require workplaces to provide adequate support for families. Of course that should be done while not singling out and seeming to discriminate against single people or couples without children. I've always felt that corporate America at least has run amuck in maintaining efficiency in the workplace.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Scott: Well, good. So what ARE you saying?

Annie: I would submit that the exceptions you've read about are, in fact, exceptions which prove the rule.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
1) A man works from sun to sun, but a womans work, listed here as crap work, is never done. That is why it was called crap work--because it was necessary, difficult, dull, and boring.

It still is.

And it was completely underappreciated.

It still is.

My hat is off to anyone who does this work.

2) Let me paraphrase the letter.

Yo! We Catholics are loosing the race. All our good European Catholic woman just aren't producing enough babies. Now I don't want to suggest that you are JUST baby machines, nor do I want to stop you in pursuing other jobs, but if we don't start popping out some good Catholic kids, we are going to have to close up shop.

Big problem is all the women are working and not getting married until wel past they are 13. That is bad. It also confuses the rest of us when it comes to marriage.

So here it is.

Women marry men and have children.

Men marry women and help the powerful women have children.

Gay women who don't want to have children, you can be nurses and teachers.

Any gay men who don't want to have children? Join the priesthood where you've been for the past 1000 years.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I'd like to continue in this discussion, but I'm leaving to pick up my little brothers and sisters and do some crap work all afternoon.

It's been lovely.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What records do we have of the poor to lower-middle class cultures in the contested time period?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
We have a few literary records of that time, which don't reflect the idea of the equality of the sexes; we also have records of legal cases which occasionally pertain to the poor, which again don't reflect any perception of equality. Beyond that, there's not an awful lot -- but given that, why believe that the poor were in some way "special" compared to the rest of their society, especially when the few records we have don't suggest this?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
My contention is that the literary classes had the luxury of being chauvanistic.

I'm not sure about the poor-- does a dowry matter much when you're a serf? Or a tenant farmer?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Annie,
You claimed things that aren't true. You said that the idea of women's work being beneath men came about as a result of it being delegated to domestic servants in the 1920s. I tried to show that this idea that women's work was degrading for a man to do and beneath them is evident from literature before that period. This isn't a pissing contest about who knows more. It's about a statement you made that is contrary to the facts I had. I wasn't trying to say "look how much I know", I was trying to point out cases that specifically disagreed with your assertion.

---

As to women's work being "crap work", my assertion is that that was how society viewed it and how society still views it (as dan said). The feminists didn't create this idea. They said, we're not going to do your crap work anymore. I think that the specific problem we have is that society still views it only as crap work, or, on the otherside as this glorious wonderous thing that only women can do. Both of these ideas, I think, are extremely limiting.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Let me paraphrase the letter.

Yo! We Catholics are loosing the race. All our good European Catholic woman just aren't producing enough babies. Now I don't want to suggest that you are JUST baby machines, nor do I want to stop you in pursuing other jobs, but if we don't start popping out some good Catholic kids, we are going to have to close up shop.

Big problem is all the women are working and not getting married until wel past they are 13. That is bad. It also confuses the rest of us when it comes to marriage.

So here it is.

Women marry men and have children.

Men marry women and help the powerful women have children.

Gay women who don't want to have children, you can be nurses and teachers.

Any gay men who don't want to have children? Join the priesthood where you've been for the past 1000 years.

---

quote:

---

Consider the rule of thumb, the English law that a man may beat his wife without explanation as long as he used a rod no thicker than his thumb.

---

quote:

---

7. Original sin changes the way in which the man and the woman receive and live the Word of God as well as their relationship with the Creator. Immediately after having given them the gift of the garden, God gives them a positive command (cf. Gn 2:16), followed by a negative one (cf. Gn 2:17), in which the essential difference between God and humanity is implicitly expressed. Following enticement by the serpent, the man and the woman deny this difference. As a consequence, the way in which they live their sexual difference is also upset. In this way, the Genesis account establishes a relationship of cause and effect between the two differences: when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted. When this relationship is damaged, their access to the face of God risks being compromised in turn.

God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost.

---

quote:

---

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden, 17but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

---

quote:

---

Realize, however, that you are just assuming that to be the case.

---

Bob, how do you leap from your textual analysis to this statement? By no means does the article contend solely on this one point to make its case for balance.

The point of mentioning the positive v. negative command (the analsysis of which isn't nearly as simple as you show here) is that God doesn't just tell us what not to do, he also makes it clear what we should do. The may indicates that there is considerable room left for the exercise of free will; which fruit to eat, when, how much. But it's clear God expects them to eat this fruit.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I thought I made it clear that this was the point at which the article departed into the realm of assumption leading their conclusions.

Sorry if I didn't make that point explicit. It's the first point in the article where they start down this path, not the only or the last.

This is fairly typical of the expository style of the Church. I just wanted to point that out. Make the assumption explicit at this point since from this point on in the article, they are just going to assume that their major premise is proven and accepted.

"We say Genesis means xxx, so it does."
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Additional thought:

If they had said instead:

"One can interpret Genesis 1:16-17 as outlining two balanced commands from God. In that context, we can see that God had in mind a balanced approach to the sexes..."

I might at least be able to follow their argument through to the end and say "yes or no" to whether it makes logical sense.

But the Church will insist on it's authority to speak for God and the Bible's content. I just don't believe it. And they aren't really talking to me, then, are they, but to the millions of faithful Catholics who take the Church as the earthly authority.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
This document is not designed to give an exposition on the possible meanings of biblical passages; it's designed to give a Catholic exposition on an important issue.

I still think your analysis is pretty weak, and I think you've dramatically overstated how much the article relies on this passage.

The article isn't trying to prove the balance doctrine; this is a starting premise for the points made in the article, with hundreds of years of theological writing behind it. It seems as if you're asking them to prove every aspect of Church theology referenced in the article, with each proof going back to first principles. It's a fairly unreasonable request.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Well, shucks, Dag - it ain't unreasonable. Geometry teachers have been expecting valid, logical proofs of mathematical theorems for centuries . . .

And it's perfectly acceptable for Bob to ask us to apply some formal logic thinking to it . . .

I actually really enjoyed going over some of the old greats in philosophy and logic classes years ago - it was good for inspiring thoughtfulness.

Questions are good things.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That wasn't a question. It was extracting a 2-line summary of an idea that probably has thousands of pages written on it, deciding that summary isn't a valid proof, and then rejecting the whole conclusion (edit: of the thousands of pages) without ever addressing the thousand pages of underlying thought.

To extend your analogy, you don't have to include the entire proof of the Pythagorean theorem in every single proof you write that uses it.

Dagonee

[ August 14, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 


I KNEW my geometry teacher was asking for too much . . . .

frankly, I appreciate that folks are willing to even consider anything about this statement -

as for me, I have an inherent distrust of any organization that didn't decide the world was round until the 20th century . . .

although I do like the idea that we might decide to support families more strongly and work to encourage diversity of voices in government and communities . . .
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I have an inherent distrust of any organization that didn't decide the world was round until the 20th century

---

The Church accepted that the world was round well before Columbus' time - in fact, before Gallileo's time. OSC actually summarizes the current types of thinking quite well in Pastwatch.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
My apologies, Dag - I was typing too fast between too many projects. I "meant" the debate regarding whether or not the earth revolves around the sun -you know, that great debate that didn't get resolved prior to the 20th century. Galileo suffered quite a bit under the Inquisition for expostulating upon his views -

I stick to my inherent distrust, however.

[ August 14, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Your distrust is fine. And the apology was in the 20th century; the Church had accepted heliocentrism far earlier.

Here's an account of the Gallileo incident.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Thanks for the link, Dag. It's a rather marketing-based approach to the whole thing, don't you think?

here are some additional links (POV) for those that might be interested -

vatican admits Galileo correct 1992
vatican POV 2003
vatican's turn to recant

Fascinating stuff. Sorry for the derailment. All on board for the normally scheduled discussion - Feminism and the Vatican.

Carry on -
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Still, this is not when the Church acknowledged that the sun moved around the earth, but rather when they decided Gallileo was not guitly of heresy, the facts of which involved more than whether the sun moved around the earth.
 

---