The New Feminism?–My Column
April 7, 2008, 3:17 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
The preceding issue of Commonweal has a column by me on “The New Feminism? Pope John Paul II and the 1912 Encyclopedia.”
Grant has very kindly taken it off the restricted list, so that it is available even to those who don’t subscribe.
There is an interesting discussion of the issues I raised going on at Mirror of Justice, a blog dedicated to Catholic legal theory. But since they don’t ordinarily take general comments, I thought I’d open the discussion here, and then respond after a bit. In chronological order:
Here’s a comment by Rob Vischer, of the University of St. Thomas Law School.
Here’s a comment by Richard Myers, of Ave Maria Law School.
Here’s a comment by Lisa Schiltz of the University of St. Thomas Law School.
I believe discussions about feminism don’t get very far. Firstly, it a question of the word itself. What does it mean? It is the opposite of something that should be called masculinism? Is it not all very academic – schoolroom discussions? Giving students something to write term papers about?
Then consider the word “gender”. It is a term of grammar. It leaves in suspense the “neuter” gender. Who are they?
Then there could be a good question – what has the vote achieved for women? It seems to me that it has been used as an excuse for such continuing male-machism which could be summed up in “Well, you got the vote. What more do you want?”,
I am reminded of the doctor who loved being a doctor. His wife felt neglected. A divorce ensued. She took, and without demur, he gave everything – the apartment, the house in the country, the art collection, the two cars, the stock portfolio. He wanted to be what he was – an exceedingly good doctor.
Cathy: Any suggestions for a quick introduction to the philosophical/theological arguments for complementarity? I find the biological argument to be very thin. Yet, Lisa Schiltz seems to be suggesting something more than the kind of complementarity that is often referenced in theology of the body writings. I would value knowing what that might be.
To anticipate any discussions to which such discussions might give rise, how in the world might one argue for such complementarity?
First, hats off to Grant for the thread and an even bigger tip of the hat to Cathy for what I told my wife was the best article in the current isue!
It’s easy (since 1912) to note some complimentarity in the working together of spouses, many of whom are both working, caring for a child (children) but the role differentiation is so much smaller than what old guys like me experienced in our 50′s youth -forget 1912.
Forget for a moment “complimentarity” and Mulieris Dignitatem and define “equality” of women in the light say of Poplulorum Progressio.
Let me display my ignorance, but I’d like to see a Pew survey of Catholic women on their views of the theology of the body – the question being what credibility is given to it in terms of the lived experiences of people.
If what Cathy cites from 1912 sounds clearly antiquated, will the theology of the body seem equally quaint 100 years hence?
Do lawyers and Rome share the inclination not “to cut to the chase?” I guess while in Rome, do as the Romans do. How else explain the great patience Cathy has with this subject. Of course, the patient approach is the recommended path of Common Ground. Common Ground is laudable, of course, but one wonders whether this keeps people dangling forever. The opposite is that conflict and lack of rapproachment go on forever.
In the absence of plain language, some on Mirror of Justice wonder whether Cathy agrees with the pope. Seems like she is saying draw your own conclusions but only one seems possible.
What I find amusing is that everybody claims to have race figured out or at least declare that it matters. While gender perhaps should not be brought up since enough women feel they have made it so why fight for something you have really achieved?
I have great reservation whether the boys in Rome know much about gender. But I am amazed how we let them phrase the conversation. I suppose they are all we have but….
Most people would be laughed at if they proffered conclusions without the anthropology to support it. Yet Rome gets away with it.
Why can’t we insist that they make sense?
Doesn’t the Catechism adequately lay down what is expected of all of us, men and women, to lead a decent Catholic life?
Why is there such special emphasis placed on women? I don’t see any corollary attention placed on how men should be. Though if anyone from the Vatican would care to call, I have some suggestions …
I am not sure it’s any more helpful to have theories about the “complementarity” of man and woman as it would be to have theories about the complementarity of races. Complementarity to me seems to be a way to define the places men and women (but primarily women) should stay put in. It’s a way of setting up barriers.
Why would the same line of reasoning as in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 lead to any different conclusions today than it did almost a hundred years ago?
I believe that men and women play complementary roles in the sexual reproduction of the human race. Granted that reproduction of the species does not exhaust the meaning and purpose of sexual differentiation, I remember learning that human beings ought to be considered psycho-somatic unities–that I don’t simply “have” a body but “am” a body, as the saying went–which has always led me to infer that complementarity might go beyond the merely biological and reproductive. So I’m puzzled as to why it would be considered “thin.”
It seems to me there is no problem in talking about the complementarity of the sexes descriptively, and of course especially when it comes to the biology of reproduction. (Although of course technology is changing that.) The problem is when it becomes prescriptive. The entry on “Woman” in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 would strike almost anyone as seriously dated, as would the article on the Negro Race . . .
. . . or the article on the Jewish Religion . . .
How can people (and especially men) be sure they are dealing in timeless truths when they pontificate (pun intended) on the complementarity of the sexes as opposed to attempting to carve in stone as God’s plan for humanity current stereotypes? What will the Catholic Encyclopedia of 2012 say of the complementarity of the sexes?
Here’s a quote from the “Critisms” section of the Wikipedia entry on the new feminism:
I’d just hope we’d deal with the issues raised here seperately, viz. the role of women (or as Jean rightly underscores) men.
-Then, the role of comlementarity between them – is it basically a matter of reproduction?
-what does it mean to speak about the issue of “equality” between them?
-what has been the historical development in the perception of these matters? (e.g. didn’t the Church in the early 19th century consider women’s status below children and disabled? Then we got the 1912 view. Also, haven’t we moved beyond the Augiustinian bona, especially bonum prolis as the biggie? Don’t we place far more emphasis on the relational? How much?
Not only does the patriarchal structure purport to tell women what it is like to be a woman, but per the article, with regard to the 1912 and the more recent pronouncements on the nature of women, “both view the Virgin Mary as the ideal woman.”
1. The concept of an “ideal woman” disregards or even denies the status of women as individual people.
2. That the ideal is the Virgin Mary comes close to seeing women as little more than a tool to allow men to achieve their goals and purposes.
Extolling the virtues of women is not the same as letting those virtues contribute towards establishing the norms within the organization. Glorifying those virtues that can only be described as self-sacrificial to a degree men are unlikely to even conceive of in their own lives just highlights the chasm between how the church expects men and women to live.
Before I leave a really bad impression, let me add that I think this concept of “self-sacrifice” gets filtered through the lives of people (priests) who really do make personal sacrifices, and that is why, I think, they are so often baffled at this kind of criticism. The point is the difference in expectations between men and women, and the concept of an ideal that many women would find strangling their individuality.
Cathleen’s original editorial seems (to me, anyway) to point out implicit fears among some of the church higher-ups that women are somehow changing, through the effects of modernity and reproductive technology, into something, well, something NOT women. Maybe those “sterile, fun-loving Amazons” Gore Vidal wrote about in “Myron.”
Cathleen asks that the heirarchs clarify whence those fears and exactly how women have blurred the lines of complementarity. And the three commentators cited above amplify her ideas.
While I think that clarification would be interesting, I don’t know how it might change life for those of us married people down here in the trenches. In the daily grind of fixing the busted rain gutters, dealing with underemployment, deciding when the poor dog needs to be put down, and making sure we’re passing on Catholic values to our kid, I can’t imagine waking up some morning and saying, “Honey, I’m worried we’ve lost complementarity in our marriage.”
In any case, and maybe I’m really cynical here as I have been on any number of occasions, my sense is that discussions of feminism, women’s roles, and complementarity, especially that which goes beyond reproductive biology, ultimately isn’t so much about women but about adding to the framework that upholds the tradition that priests and deacons must be men.
This thread is bringing back memories of when I was an undergraduate at Georgetown and seriously considering joining up with the S.J.s. My Old Testament professor (an S.J.) could not understand why I went out of my way to avoid referring to God in masculine terms. “But YHWH is clearly a masculine noun!,” he would object. “My point exactly,” I would reply. Then, there was my advisor who told me that while he did not disagree with the central claims of feminist theology, he said of feminism in the most serious of tones,” I do not think the Catholic Church will survive it.” My advisor also told me that if I became a priest I would be able to write many more books than if I had a family. On this, he has proven almost certainly correct (although it is possible that my total would be zero in both scenarios). However, he also told me that being a priest was a higher calling than being a husband and father. Here, we disagreed.
The ongoing fear of feminism in some Catholic circles takes me way back to the days of “Sic” in the National Catholic Reporter. (Surely I am not the only one old enough to remember “Sic?”)
This little gem from so long ago seems to fit now as then:
“Ladies, Ladies, soon you’ll agree
This altar girl crumb from the Holy See
Gives truth to the adage that you’ll always be,
Rarely the dog, but most often the tree.”
It is certainly a tribute to the power and glory of the Vatican that we still take John Paul II seriously on women. http://books.google.com/books?id=VicUjlNT-tQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Sister+who+confronted+the+pope+first+visit+of+john+paul+II+to+the+united+states+confronted+by+sister&source=web&ots=9S3qO1-mRN&sig=jzFX5SaEbgstZ8lFnAXcWn2ljyA&hl=en
“both view the Virgin Mary as the ideal woman.”
Why don’t we say the Virgin Jesus, Virgin Joseph, Virgin Benedict, Virgin Augustine etc.?
Something happened in the 1960s that was a very good thing. Catholic women realized that they are not second class if they are not virgins. As a result tens of thousands of nuns left. These religious women have led reform in the church as ordinary Catholics.
Virginia Woolf, a pioneer for women’s equality said that a woman would have written Shakespeare if she were not forbidden to write. Here are some of her quotes:
“For most of history, Anonymous was a woman….As a woman I have no country. As a woman my country is the whole world…. It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple: one must be a woman manly, or a man womanly.”
In fact some do believe Shakespeare was a woman.
http://www.noendpress.com/adarrah/sweet_swan_avon.php
Independent women in Shakespeare.
http://www.marysidney.com/pages/froward.html
Bill, I think there are better representatives of feminism and female oppression than Virginia Woolf, who liked to go around talking about the repression of women, but who did pretty much what she damn well wanted to. While I don’t deny there were (and still are) double standards, the real tragedy of Woolf’s life was mental illness.
Given all that, it’s very difficult for me, I think, to understand the baggage that cradle Catholics might bring to this discussion, so I’ll butt out.
I believe Joseph is right — we are hylomorphic beings, and as such there’s a unity of body and soul which makes the complementarity transcend ‘mere’ reproductive functions. A woman will be a woman forever, just as a man will always be a man. And men and women are different. This should not be a surprise to anyone with different-sexed children.
I also believe that Barbara’s comment is misguided regarding the role of the Blessed Mother, Mediatrix of all grace, Coredemptrix, and the crown jewel of all creation. Viewing Our Lady as a “tool” is quite un-Catholic (and downright offensive, if I may say so). Perhaps Barbara needs a refresher on De Montfort’s True Devotion or perhaps needs total consecration to the Blessed Virgin? Tool indeed!
Regarding Bill, we don’t say “Virgin Augustine” because he wasn’t a virgin. Read up on the saints already! As to why we attach the title to Mary, the Queen of Heaven, it’s because there has never in the history of humanity been another virgin mother. She was and will always be both virgin and mother, ever unique in her place as daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit. This aspect of Catholic theology highlights Mary’s place as the New Eve, Mother of all the Living, and if you don’t understand how the emphasis on her virginity would do so then maybe you should stop talking about things you don’t understand and spend some time reading Marian theology. The teaching is there for those willing to learn.
Now….Cathy…do you intend to answer the question put to you by Mr. Meyers? Namely:
“Cathy’s more important point though is about the anthropology the Pope uses. That view emphasizes the complementarity of men and women. I’d like to ask Cathy a question or two. Does she disagree with the view that “the genius of women” is needed in all areas of social life or is that phrase of Pope John Paul part of the paternalism to which she objects? Does she disagree with the CDF’s view of human nature that celebrates “the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman”? If Cathy doesn’t disagree with JP II or the CDF in these areas, then what is her concern?”
God Bless
Thanks, all. I am planning to respond–this afternoon, after teaching, when I get a fresh cup of coffee and a minute to think.
What does it say that women are meant to chase an ideal of a being who is “ever unique in her place as daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit”?
That they are inadequate by definition and their individual talents and skills unworthy of the task. The point, which you have so finely made by example, is that Church imagery and rhetoric can be extremely problematic when it is formulated as a model of and for female experience. In other words, rather than addressing the issue from the “bottom up” the Church has been content to apply a “top down” message without regard to individual variation in the population.
Ferdinand Mary,
Aside from the obvious physical differences, what are the differences between men and women? And once they have been defined, should they be enforced? Are these differences present in persons who are conceived but who die so early in gestation that sexual differentiation has not yet taken place?
I think you evade Bill’s question, which I take to be, “Why is virginity apparently so prized in women but not in men?” Is there something more to virginity, applying only to women, than never having sexual intercourse? There are many women saints who are identified by the phrase “virgin and martyr,” but who are the male saints who are remembered for being celibate?
I think you also miss the entire point of Cathleen Kaveny’s piece, which is that Pope John Paul II’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912, and almost anyone would find the conclusions of the encyclopedia about the role of women in society to be objectionable. So what exactly are the sexual differences he is talking about, and what does that mean in practical rather than theoretical terms?
Barbara,
Mary is a model for us all, not just women. A fair reading of Church teaching ought to bear that out readily. We are the Bride of Christ, and in relation to God we are all feminine – Eucharistic theology presents this forcefully, as God-made-flesh substantially enters us from without at every mass, which is the wedding feast of the Lamb and the consummation of that union. Additionally, were you to reject this rather clear Church teaching, Christ could likewise be viewed as the model for the “male experience” (to use your terminology). Is that an attainable standard for fallen humanity? I’m afraid you’re approaching this from a flawed (perhaps excessively embittered?) perspective….
David,
To work from the bottom up, I’m sure I did miss the point of Cathy’s piece – and I’m not alone. Mr. Meyers is likewise befuddled. This is the point of his questions, and the point of my repeating them.
Second, I think it’s a fair question as to why male virginity isn’t as highly prized as female. I would submit that the answer is to increase the emphasis in importance of male virginity, not diminish the importance of female virginity. To the extent we don’t identify male Saints as “virgin and martyr”, I think we do them a disservice. This analysis, however, does not impact the Blessed Virgin’s title as such — it’s emphasized for more Christological and eschatological reasons.
Finally, the differences are psychological (psychosomatic?) as well as physiological. Women think and relate differently than men, and this isn’t a mere cultural difference. Countless studies (in addition to common practical experiences – go listen to any comedian) demonstrate this to be the case. Further, this difference (since we are hylomorphic beings) significantly impacts the character of the soul. This is an eternal difference, not just temporal. It is transcendent. And as for whether this exists prior to sexual differentiation in nascent development, I would assert that it does. The body/soul connection works both ways – it’s not a one way street.
God Bless,
FM
David,
Oh – as for enforcement… Hard cases make bad law. Generalities ought to be the general rule, though exceptions ought to be customarily recognized. Nonetheless, they remain exceptions.
Married couples have a primary vocation to share in God’s creative activity. Motherhood and fatherhood are vocations, not self-willed roles, and our acceptance of these vocations ought to be embraced with the fundamental mindset of doing God’s will for us whether we like it or not — in fact, especially when we don’t. There are practical difficulties associated with motherhood not shared by fathers, and we ought not ignore or dismiss the impact of these requirements for mothers or families. Blurring the lines damages everyone.
God Bless,
FM
Responding specifically to Barbara, who said:
Not only does the patriarchal structure purport to tell women what it is like to be a woman, but per the article, with regard to the 1912 and the more recent pronouncements on the nature of women, “both view the Virgin Mary as the ideal woman.”
1. The concept of an “ideal woman” disregards or even denies the status of women as individual people.
gsk notes: MD very specifically notes that Mary is to be admired on two levels — as an archetype for the whole human race, and as an individual who responded to a personal invitation (MD, par. 4).
2. That the ideal is the Virgin Mary comes close to seeing women as little more than a tool to allow men to achieve their goals and purposes.
gsk notes: Ferdinand Mary pointed out the indignity of this comment, but on another level, if Mary allowed God to achieve his “goal and purpose” of reconciling humanity to Himself, then being a “tool” is an honour. In that sense, Jesus was a “tool” as well — which should show that humbling oneself out of love for others is a decent thing, worthy of emulation.
Extolling the virtues of women is not the same as letting those virtues contribute towards establishing the norms within the organization. Glorifying those virtues that can only be described as self-sacrificial to a degree men are unlikely to even conceive of in their own lives just highlights the chasm between how the church expects men and women to live.
gsk notes: Two clarifications ought to be made. MD doesn’t ever use the word “feminism” — so we cannot adequately say that JP2 was trying to est. a “new feminism.” The word is hotly debated, and its effectiveness is disputed. I personally us “authentic femininity,” to avoid the pejorative and laden term. Secondly, JP2 doesn’t talk about feminine virtues, he commends feminine gifts, which he knows are indispensible to the world. In this sense, he praises the receptivity of women to the human person, which reflects physiology, but also a spiritual reality that motherhood disposes each woman to relate in a rich and unique way to the souls entrusted to her. I find this highly respectful.
Now, responding to Cathy, I find it disingenuous to hint that since JP2 praises motherhood and the 1912 Catholic Encyclopaedia praises motherhood, that JP2 may be a closet mysogynist. Of course this may be an exaggeration of her concerns, but the comments above lead me to believe that JP2 is lumped in with narrow-minded souls because of his conclusions.
The major difference, to me, seems to be that the CE of 1912 was based on social convention as supported by tidy Church governance, whereas JP2 allows for none of that. Rather, he creates a new prism called the theology of the body, he dissects all that has gone before, grounds it in personalism, philosophy, and a unique reading of Genesis — and (lo, and behold) says: motherhood is still the essence of the feminine vocation.
He never speaks of parameters (women at home, men in the workplace). Rather, he says that children are entrusted to their mothers, who have unique gifts by which to help unfold their personalities, women have a particular regard for the suffering of others, the feminine genius is essential to the life of the world, and please, my dear sisters, don’t trade this for some misguided envy of masculine traits. That’s all.
If motherhood causes any woman to shrink, then she must ask herself why. Many people shrink from the oblation inherent in it, from the burden it places on those who want to pursue other things, and it is filled with suffering. JP2 isn’t promoting “barefoot and pregnant” to 51% of the human race, only beseeching the world to take a second look at the tremendous beauty of spiritual and physical motherhood.
Yes, men and women are different. Yes, anyone who spends time with 2-year olds will realize this truth. Let’s even go with a scenario that assumes that these differences are in fact the reality behind gender stereotypes which assume males to be independent, assertive, and physical, while women are cooperative, nurturing and social.
Now let’s consider the natural male child who repeatedly bashes his toy truck into a wall, screams and yells, and otherwise acts aggressively. He will be gently corrected. His “natural genius” will be trained so that he can contribute productively to society, drawing on both traits that may be inherent in his gender, and traits that may not naturally be inherent to his gender. Any responsible parent would do this much.
On the other hand, consider the female child who arranges dolls in rows and has them talk to each other while sipping imaginary tea. This is an expression of her natural feminine genius. All well and good. The problem with the general logic of “feminine genius” is that it doesn’t include any vision of how she also requires training in behavior that may not be inherent in her gender, so that she might most fully contribute to society. Any suggestion that a female child might require training in assertiveness, independence, a sense of bodily strength tend to be rejected as “trying to make her like a man.”
Continuing to focus on “gender complementarity” and the “feminine genius” will leave us with no clear understanding of how both genders need to draw on a variety of traits — innate and acquired — in order to follow the example of the saints that came before them.
Any suggestion that a female child might require training in assertiveness, independence, a sense of bodily strength tend to be rejected as “trying to make her like a man.”
Oh, but if St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctor of the Church, could reply…
God Bless,
FM
Genevieve notes “The concept of an “ideal woman” disregards or even denies the status of women as individual people.”
Yay, Genevieve! This whole notion of “ideals”:is one of those unfortunate Platonic notions that has plagued Catholic theology. Contrary to what the great Greek thought “woman” and “man” are mere abstractions which leave out all of the wonderful possibilities which individual persons are capable of in actual, individual circumstances. . Christ is not”the ideal” becausee He actualized *all* of the best of human potentials. There were many things He was not. He is the best because He did the most actual, individual good acts and loves God the most. And what was “the good life” for Mary was not some pie-in-the-sky ideal life that would be good for all of us women to live. Granted, all women are similar in some ways, as are all men, and we are all similar in being human. But it is in our actual, concrete lives of choosing among different choices that virtue is to be found.
Down with Plato. Garumph.
Ann,
Genevieve was quoting Barbara’s statement, and largely disagreed with Barbara’s conclusions.
God Bless,
FM
Sorry: I’m limited in how I can snip and paste. Mulieris Dignitatem, I repeat, is specific in how it offers Our Lady as “paradigm” (different than “ideal”) and still an individual to be honoured, like any saint.
The personalism JP2 offers is founded on the relationship necessary between God and any unrepeatable individual. While Christ redeemed all, every one must respond personally to the creation-wide invitation to union with God. And the beauty of the need to be “reborn’ assumes that a mother is needed for rebirth. Hence, the Church as mother, in whom every woman finds her essence. And there is enough latitude therein for every woman to respond without losing herself.
Geneviewe Kineke writes:
I have very deep disagreements with this, and before I identify those disagreements, I want to address a more fundamental problem; namely, how is disagreement on this matter adjudicated? That is, to what should one appeal in an effort to show that one’s position is more rational?
Now, for the disagree. The notion that the “receptivity” of women is reflected in their physiology is, for me, positively creepy. Now, I realize that this is not the most academic of critique, but it seems to be a classic case of grounding a human virtue in a biological fact that is only very thinly at best related to the virtue. That is, relating the virtue to the biology is a non sequitur, and therefore, establishes only an arbitrary relationship.
Second, there is an appeal to the spiritual reality of motherhood, a reality that enables a “rich and unique” relationship to the souls (presumably children, and maybe elders) entrusted to them. What is this spiritual reality? What gives us reason to think it exists?
These questions are not just academic ones for me. My wife is a full time emergency medicine physician. We have three sons. I provide a clear majority of care for the boys, and for the family as a whole. I do not feel like less of a male because of this situation, I do not think that my wife is less of a female, and I certainly do not think my children are missing any special opportunities for their personal development.
Each of us has “rich and unique” qualities that we can share with others. If no good reason is given to believe that these qualities are gendered, then, by Ockham’s razor, the assumption is that they are not.
Sorry Barbara and Genevieve for misreading who was saying what.
Genevieve — I think JP II’s dinstinction between an “ideal” and a “paradigm” could be a very useful theological one. Could you tell us more about his notion of a paradigm? Does he define the term?
It seems to me that talk of the *essence* of woman is ambiguous. Does “essence” in JP II there mean by “essence” the specifying substantial aspect of a female human? That would be nonsense in the philosophical tradition JP II was talking out of. Neither “male” nor “female” specifies a human person as human. As Aristotle put it in a burst of poetic vision not typical of him, male and female are like two parts of one flower, Still a legitimate notion of complementarity does follow from this insight, but — and this is crucial –the complementarity is only biological in flowers and us. Whether there are spiritual complementarities which are not socially determined is an entirely different question.
Contemporary psychologists and neuroscientists have discovered some psychological differences, e.g., men on average are better at spatial thinking and women are on average more efficient at verbalizing.. But since both male and female both think spatially and both verbalize, the differences are only matters of degree — not something flowing from “the essence of male” or “the essence of female”, Furthermore, those differences hold only *on average*. Some men are extremely verbal and some women are fine at geometry. So what we have are statistics without any predictable differences in individual men and women. Remember also that within the male and female cohort there are vast differences among individuals within each cohort.
If you want to claim that within the female cohor there are certain combinations of characteristics that are more likely to be found in individual women (e.g., Suzie is nurturing and verbal), well, maybe there might be something to that. Who really knows? Until we have more science about the matter it seems to me that both the Vatican and the super-feminists should both be quiet.
Joe: God bless you. I don’t know how to respond to “creepy,” but please recognise that the theology of the body allows room for the way you and your wife structure your family life. That’s between the two of you and what you both determine is in the best interest of your beautiful boys. In your family circle, there is love, there is life, and there is a mutual giving and receiving of gifts — what more could be sought?
Ann: I don’t have the intellectual formation to answer your question. Nothing close! But for the data you cite, science can only point to certain traits and leave it for us to chew on. The essence that JP2 wants us to ponder is this: everyone is called to a complete gift of self. That gift is fruitful when offered in spousal love (which has myriad expressions). For fruit to be borne, there needs to be a bride and a bridegroom. Woman’s essence is found in bridal imagery — and there is tremendous breadth and freedom therein.
That is the nuptial backdrop to creation. What we do with it is found in our combination of human freedom and gratitude for the gifts. Anything less is unworthy of us. Mary is the one who showed us how to say Yes. How it plays out from life to life is part of the mystery.
Ferdinand Mary,
Thank you for answering in such detail.
I am still wondering, though, if you or anyone can tell me what this actually means when you get down to individuals. Or does it mean anything?
Does this mean that everyone is a mix of “male” and “female” traits, that men tend to have more male traits and women tend to have more female traits, but that individuals must follow the path that is right for them? That would not be very controversial!
Or does it mean that women (or most women) are not cut out to be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, or politicians, or airline pilots, or theoretical physicists, and those who are looking in that direction should be pointed elsewhere?
And, as I asked before, when people 100 years from now look at what’s being said, will they smile (or frown) at how quaint the notion of women’s roles was in 2008, the way we do when we look at the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912?
In the 1950s, my mother used to carry–but not wear–a pair of doeskin gloves to church every Sunday. When I asked her why, she answered that a lady doesn’t go anywhere without her gloves.
I hope Cathleen gets that cuppa joe pretty soon and comes back to explain all this to me.
I’m simply trying to monitor and learn, but I can’t really decipher any number of comments here.
FM says that “there are practical difficulties associated with motherhood not shared by fathers, and we ought not ignore or dismiss the impact of these requirements for mothers or families. Blurring the lines damages everyone.” Like what difficulties? What’s getting ignored or dismissed? Blurred? Who’s getting damaged?
Genevieve assures Joe his family structure is just fine (though I don’t think Joe was necessarily asking that) because “woman’s essence is found in bridal imagery — and there is tremendous breadth and freedom therein.” What bridal imagery would that be?
I don’t mean to pick on FM or Genevieve; others have made equally vague statements that leave me wondering, “So this affects me as a woman, wife, mother, worker, sister and daughter how?”
Wow, this discussion has really taken off –which is good, because today’s crazy at ND. But here is something I wrote a couple of years ago for the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64112-2004Aug13?language=printer
Cathy: I think the following text from your WaPo article identifies the central problem with complementarity, and also articulates David Nickol’s concern:
I have not yet seen an answer to this problem from those seeking to defend the notion of complementarity. Without an answer, the concept is either empty or a free pass to arbitrarily assign whatever traits one wishes to the different sexes.
Joe: why do there have to be character traits?? If the Church attempted to teach such a thing, she would be pounced upon as ridiculous. And she doesn’t (because it would be ridiculous) and you think she’s being remiss.
Vocation is not a question of character traits, but of a divine calling. Men are called to image the bridegroom (and lay down their lives for others as he did) and women are called to image the bride, who harbours and nourishes his seed (manifest in various ways) giving flesh to those who would inherit the Kingdom. The bride is one with the bridegroom, sharing His mission, and likewise oblating herself for the other.
How it plays out is far more freeing that you’re trying to make it. The point is nuptiality. The goal is union through collaboration.
Genevieve,
But it is the Church’s position that two men or two women can’t have a complementary relationship because that requires a man and a woman. So it seems that a man (and all men) must have something manly and lack something womanly, and a woman (and all women) must have something womanly and lack something manly, in order for it to be necessary for only a man to be a complementary partner to a woman, and only a woman to be a complementary partner for a man.
Any two suitably matched people can achieve union through collaboration.
Maybe actuality and potentiality? Maybe seed and womb? Maybe there’s more to chromosomes than we understand? To proceed in docility (and awe) is a good thing. There are a few building blocks in place, and the Church proceeds cautiously. Remember all that went on in past centuries concerning other facets of truth that were once hazey and then came somewhat into focus. We’ll never understand all of it, but it may be on the level of teaching the Israelites about the One True God, in order to prepare their hearts for the Messiah, Whom later we learn is three in one. What takes root in our understanding, is a product of our attitude and what barriers exist — and don’t exist, Grasshopper (said with smile, for sounding so unintentionally nebulous!).
Joe,
It is difficult to blur lines nobody will draw! (Although maybe they’re better left undrawn.)
David,
Quite a good reply — thank you for that.
Now, to answer your question, yes (nearly) everyone has both male and female traits, yes these qualities vary in matters of degree among both men and women, and yes everyone must follow their own path. Nothing controversial so far…
But leaving it at this doesn’t fully inform the discussion. Male and female He created them, and by being authentically male and authentically female we flourish. Attempting to arrogate for oneself another gender is as disastrous as seeing equality with God something to be grasped at — indeed, it’s quite the same. God has directly created each man and each woman’s soul. It is a pure usurpation of authority for us to seek to “correct” His work and it attempts to set ourselves as equals with Him. Blurring the lines damages everyone. (That’s for Jean.)
Perhaps by way of example we might look to the current flap over the “pregnant man” given so much attention recently. She mutilated herself (i.e., surgically removed perfectly functioning parts of her body) and otherwise artificially engineered her body to resemble a man’s, but still wanted to retain “motherhood”. Could one seriously argue that such a person is (1) well balanced and/or (2) living an authentic expression of the dignity of their sex (either one she claims)?
So what does this mean for those of us not so far removed from living actual sexuality? I think this is a good question, and (as Cathy and Genevieve have pointed out) rather difficult to address in concrete terms.
…That said, I believe it is written in our hearts. There is something distinctly *male* St. Thomas More and St. Francis of Assisi, and something distinctly *female* about St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Therese of Lisieux. Are they cookie-cutter molds of each other? Hardly! Does the presence of independent or assertive characteristics belong solely to one gender? Not at all. Yet there remains something difficult to articulate which makes confusion between the sexes utterly impossible since they are inextricably intertwined with the definition of the persons themselves.
So can women be CEOs or Physicists? Sure. But they must do so in an authentically feminine way. Can men be stay-at-home caregivers? Of course, but they must do so in a way reflective of their role as father and not mother. Each must flourish according to the nature and dignity of his own person. Again, as you pointed out, this would facially appear non-controversial…until you reach examples like the one I cited above.
Jean,
Regarding difficulties: it’s not called “labor” for nothing. ;0) It involves a difficulty (and associated grace) that I, as a man, can never know. The day after my child was born I went right back to work. The same cannot be said of my wife. All that’s to say what everyone should already know — there are practical requirements associated with motherhood which men simply don’t share. Add to that the very wise decision to breastfeed and you’ve got another task I am categorically unable to perform, and a coupled opportunity for intimacy with the child I cannot share. Since we, as humans, are created for intimacy (JPII), I find this instructive regarding our relative (to use the term) roles in family life for those who are called to such. Does that clarify anything?
God Bless,
FM
UPDATE: I think the following is a rather worthwhile treatment – Eve of Deconstruction: Feminism and John Paul II
Ferdinand Mary,
I would have thought that the existence of people who are unalterably convinced they are males trapped in female bodies or females trapped in male bodies would actually support the notion that men and women are complementary in some way other than their reproductive organs and functions. They could be unfortunate cases of the external not matching the internal. What’s to say people cannot be born with a male body and a female soul/mind, or vice versa? There are, of course, a fair number of babies born with ambiguous genitalia. There are also, rarely, true hermaphrodites (XX/XY). It seems overly simplistic to assume a person’s gender is always a matter of his or her sex organs.
David,
We’re not a ghost trapped in a machine. You don’t just have a body, you are a body. That’s part of what being a hylomorphic entity means.
I’ll have to speak to the rest tomorrow – apologies.
God Bless,
FM
Ferdinand –
About going to work the day after a child is born. There is a story in my family which is told about my great-grandmother whose home was right on the Mississippi River, with a levee in between, of course. The story is that when she was a child (about 150 years ago), she saw a lone Indian woman come paddling down the river, then get out of her boat, deliver a baby, get back into the boat with the child, and paddle away.
The reason that she could go back to work so quickly obviously was not because she had a male body (the kind that would permit you to go back to work the next day), but because she had a superior female body. In other words, the ability to go back to work the next day is not an essentially male characteristic, one lacking in women.
FM, thanks for your reply.
I do understand the biological differences between men and women regarding childbirth. Having had three pregnancies (two of which were miscarriages), I would argue that there are sensibilities that women have, both when the baby dies and when it comes to term, that men do not–perhaps cannot–share. Though I’d hate to make a generality about this.
At the risk of exhausting your patience, I would be interested to know how you jump from those differences in biology and sensibility to “ignoring or dismissing the impact of these requirements for mothers or families” and “blurring the lines.”
Who is doing the ignoring and dismissing? How are lines being blurred? And how are people damaged? What do you see as the primary problems here?
All women are by definition authentically feminine because they fall somewhere on the spectrum of behavior that is exhibited by women. Same thing regarding men being authentically masculine.
In the absence of actual traits borne out by some coherent theory linking said traits to immutable differentiation between women and men, the concept of an ideal and authentic woman amounts to little more more than a desire to impose preferred social structures on individuals who don’t, won’t or can’t conform.
Why is it so important for the Church to go down this road when it is so incoherent and so embedded in cultural constructs?
Barbara asks: “Why is it so important for the Church to go down this road when it is so incoherent and so embedded in cultural constructs?”
The Church must go down this path, because the vocation of the Church is to make manifest the truths of God. For 2000 years, she has responded to the questions of her day, whether they pondered the hypostatic union, the trinity, or the Virgin Mary. In the 20th century, the world began to question anew, “male and female He made them.” Fine, said the Church. You ask, we answer — based on the foundation previously laid.
Obviously, there had been no adequate response to date, because the question hadn’t been raised. Social constructs did their part to guide families, men and women, but now we find them insufficient. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer, but only that now is the time to go deeper, to create a body of reliable knowledge on the truth and meaning of human sexuality.
Interestingly, I took part in a recent congress in Rome to tackle these questions, and remarkable people (mostly women, but not all) gave presentations from their perspectives: anthropology, sociology, theology, philosophy, political science, history, psychiatry and personal experience. It was fabulous, and yet raised more questions in the process.
The Church is not a heavy-handed dictator afraid of discussion or debate, but a patient mother trying to form an understanding based on revelation and shared experience. We trust that there is some deeper meaning behind our sexuality, but we cannot know it all. What we must do is show respect to the established parameters, and then see what they foster in growth.
Fyi, the site is http://www.laici.org and the papers are being published, They should be available quite soon.
Isn’t the whole question about the role of women and what they should be allowed and not allowed to do? In the Catholic Encyclopedia, the article “Woman” is about women (“The position of woman in society has given rise to a discussion which, is known under the name of the ‘woman question’”), but the article about “Man” is about the human race (“Includes sections on the nature of man, the origin of man, and the end of man”). The “woman question” is basically this: Since women are subordinate, just how subordinate should they be?
My last take on this thread is that I found Cathy’s article to be balanced and forward moving.
There are those here who post who are convinced that the theology of the body is the final word and who focus almost exclusively on biological happenings.
I need to say that their view of historical devlopment in the Church is (to borrow a phrtase) thin and rather flacid arounfd issues of equality and relational matters.
I would hope we return to this topic later thgis year after further discussuion by the legal pundits.It’s hard for me to beleive we’ve reached a final word on these matters.
In the Greek-Latin Seminar room in Mullen Library at Catholic University, there is a frame holding five photographs of men (a bishop, a Jesuit, a secular priest and two lay doctors). It says “Editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia.” Why they are so enshrined I don’t know, except that CUA Press published the Encyclopedia. They also publish many volumes of chant, based on a method of chant notation pioneered at Solesmes–a method that is no longer used, even at Solesmes–as well as a book in which I had an editorial hand which makes the rather dubious claim that Heidegger read Kant through the American pragmatists, and many original and fine books. And the Fathers of the Church series. In short it’s a university press that published an encyclopedia.
The photo collage could just as well have been taken of the editors of Origins, or The Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, or The History of Vatican II. The Encyclopedia (as I usually only have to tell neo-cons) is not a magisterial document. This is just one area of several in which Kaveny is mixing apples and oranges.
Another unsatisfactory juxtaposition is the comparison of the then-popular idea of Natural Law and Pope John Paul’s. Neo-scholasticism tended towards an atomistic view of human action. This is entirely foreign to the thought of Pope John Paul. For him, to be is to be-with. You don’t take a woman, isolate her, and list her characteristics. Instead, you observe the way she loves. She reveals her feminine genius by the way she lives in relationship to others, complementing them, being complemented by them.
Being a woman is a very dynamic process. At least that’s my experience. For all I know men are the same way.
“The Church is not a heavy-handed dictator afraid of discussion or debate, but a patient mother trying to form an understanding based on revelation and shared experience. We trust that there is some deeper meaning behind our sexuality, but we cannot know it all. What we must do is show respect to the established parameters, and then see what they foster in growth.”
Genevieve –
We seem to agree that our view or “image” of women (I would prefer “definition”) ought to be one based on revelation and shared experience . And your point that no one can know it all is well taken.
How do you think the Church should proceed to form that image? By appealing to many sources? By using the testimonies of the writings of men and women in all cultures, past and present? Using the tools and conclusions of contemporary scientific investigation? Using the tools of contemporary linguistics to interpret revelation?
Most important, what should the Church do when the testimonies, scientific findings and linguistic conclusions are contradictory — when the experience/images/definitions of women are not shared by all women? Why must the Church favor one image/definition/set of experiences over another at this point in the history of the Church?
Ann (my oldest daughter’s name, and thus a favourite): revelation always trumps experience — can we agree on that? Revelation, I believe as a Catholic, includes Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Now after that, I have never found that honest data contradicts that.
Foundational truths that come to mind that would bear on the “definition” of femininity include:
a. the inborn call to intimacy/communion,
b. the nature of the human person and the best means of formation,
c. physical realities (i.e. the body is built for complementary sexual union and fidelity), and
d. sacramental realities.
What flows from this? What is missing? I only mean it as a start?
Cathleen, I thought your column was fabulous. Brava. Thank you.
Genevieve,
I don’t know how in the world it is possible to say the body is built for fidelity!
Biologically, our bodies are not that much different from other primates, and yet most primates are not monogamous. An exceptions seems to be gibbons, in which male and female couples bond for life, the female is the dominant partner, and the male frequently “cheats.”
I might have no quarrel if it were argued that God somehow “designed” humans to be monogamous and faithul. But I don’t see how anyone could say our bodies are built for fidelity.
From Wikipedia . . .
I didn’t include examples because I thought it was obvious — and increasingly so. To be graphic, there is growing data on the physiology of intercourse, showing how the woman’s hormonal fluctuations incline her towards certain partners (if she’s not masking the hormones in various ways), how the male imprints himself on her via his semen, how multiple partners for a woman plays havoc with her immune system, and then of course there are all the std’s that are expanding and multiplying. Of course, those who embrace environmentalism in myriad ways have no compunction about tinkering with nature when it comes to human reproduction, and yet those interventions are now playing out disastrously in breast cancer, cervical cancers and many other dark diagnoses (physical and psychological).
Certainly, the male is less impacted by infidelities, but he is not unaffected. But when revelation encouraged families to safeguard their daughters, there was more than honour at stake. Now that we’ve abandoned the familial constraints on promiscuity, the fallout is quanitfiable.
And of course this doesn’t take into account all the pathologies associated with fatherless families, from which many comunities are suffering…
Genevieve makes some good points about the psychological and physical dangers of promiscuity, particularly for women, though I’ve never heard of men imprinting women with semen, and I think I could probably die happy never hearing about it again.
Aside from taking issue with some of the apocalyptic language (“we’ve abandoned the familial constraints on promiscuity”–sorry, but my family hasn’t), I would point out that environmentalists are realizing that the amounts of hormones from both human and animal sources that have leached into drinking water is cause for concern.
And women seem to be paying attention to the dangers of hormonal manipulation; when research showed that HRT increased the risks of breast cancer and showed no real gains in preventing heart disease or osteoporosis, thousands of women threw their pills away.
I’d like to think that Catholic notions of women would focus on the positive aspects of aging and help women view menopause as a natural and productive time of life instead of a disease that makes your wrinkled and stupid.
Genevieve,
Is your meaning here that those who claim to embrace environmentalism are inconsistent because they don’t embrace it when it comes to reproductive issues?
I will have to look into the issues you raise, but my first impression is that there must be people out there bending science to further religious ideas. There are many aspects of modern life that theoretically we would be better without–in some ways, at least–such as dense population and easy international air travel. It sets us up for the easy spread of relatively exotic diseases. But I am not sure moral arguments against population density or air travel would be taken seriously.
Also, in arguments about sexuality, one would have to decide which was more important, the individual or the species. In nature, I think it’s fair to say that it’s the species that counts, and not the individual. So if nonmonogamous behavior among humans is detrimental to the individual but advantageous to the species, how do you decide which is “best” in purely scientific terms?
I’ve made it clear that revelation has priority in my approach. Lifeboat scenarios are specious and dangerous. It’s very hard to discuss this with folks who are not going to agree one 1. whether God spoke; and 2. if we have an authoritative way of discerning His will.
Thanks to all of you for a very interesting discussion! I’ll address some of the main questions, though the length and complexity of the thread prevents me from addressing everything.
1. What Was the Structure of My Argument?
In a nutshell, I’m running a pretty standard philosophical consistency argument, which runs like this:
a) the Pope makes a set of statements about the nature of men and women, and the role of women that are not, in fact “new.” They were pervasive in the past.
b) And in the past they were very frequently used as premises in arguments justifying distinct spheres of operation for men and women, which entailed significant limitations on the role of women outside of the domestic sphere.
c) So what has changed? Where did the old arguments go wrong? What new premises (moral or factual) have been added to the mix?
Philosophically, it’s a pretty standard move; you can find it in Platonic dialectics as well is contemporary analytic philosophy. If two thinkers (or groups of thinkers) share essentially the same premises, and an earlier thinker draws one set of conclusions (set A) from them, and a later thinker draws another set of conclusions from them (set B), you can ask the later thinker to explain the difference in his argument. Is there a new premise that has been introduced? Is there a difference in reasoning that hasn’t been explained? Did the old group draw the wrong conclusions? Why?
Answering any or all of these questions would be a way of differentiating the Pope’s position from earlier positions, and so alleviating the concern that advancing his premises would or could take one to unacceptable outcomes on the role of women. In this long thread, I’m not sure I’ve seen anybody tackle these questions, which, if done successfully, would diffuse my entire point. For example, one might say (“Oh, the issue was purely pragmatic–time-management. That was written in 1912, when women didn’t have labor-saving devices; now they can take care of the kids and family and work too, all thanks to Kenmore!” Now, I don’t think that’s right, but that would be a way to say that the 1912 Encyclopedia had a suppressed factual premise that no longer holds true.)
Just saying (as Professor Myers does) “don’t worry about it, the pope doesn’t teach that now” doesn’t work – at least for people who are interested in the relationship between premises and conclusions, who have some familiarity with the history of ideas. Arguments have a certain independent gravitational force. Read Jean Bethke Elshtain’s Public Man Private Woman to see why. One of the things that’s not clear to me is how and why the Pope justifies the presence of women in all spheres, whereas the older complementarity had a divided sphere approach.
More broadly, we’ve got the question of how to talk about development of doctrine. Can we separate a core from historically conditioned applications. As several of you asked, what will seem outmoded 100 years from now. My sense is that the gentlemen who wrote the 1912 encyclopedia did not predict they would be seen as outmoded–they probably saw themselves as articulating enduring truths about male and female relationships.
2.Why Be Interested in the Question?
This could merely be an academic question, of interest to those of us who teach theology and philosophy. The thesis of the column is that it is precisely because many people associate the pope’s anthropological premise with positions they believe to be repressive of women that the reception of JP II’s new feminism has been at best lukewarm. (Mrs. Kineke, he uses the term “new feminism” in Evangelium Vitae; see Glendon’s article here http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0004.html)
But I do try not to do columns on merely arcane academic questions. If you are an activist interested in defending the “new feminism” and expanding its adherents you might want to address what seems to me the hard question. Now you might not care–you might be happy with the crowd you’ve got. And if you are a Catholic woman– or a man –with some queasy sense about the new feminism, without knowing why, this column might help you articulate your inchoate worries.
3. Why the Old Catholic Encyclopedia?
I could have drawn from many other sources. It was a good illustration of the arguments from a reputable source, not the focus of my concern per se. The arguments used by Pope John Paul II on the nature of women are not unusual; they were pervasive in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the English-speaking context they are found in Protestant accounts of the cult of domesticity. In Catholic contexts, one can find them in early 20th century manuals of moral theology. I cited the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia because 1) it is readily available online, so everyone can go look at it for themselves (as opposed to some microfiche material I’ve worked with); and 2) it gives a good picture of safe, solid, Catholic opinion at the time. It was not univocal opinion–but it was prevalent.
Kathy’s point about the Encyclopedia not being authoritative teaching misses the point It sees itself as a blend of authoritative teaching with “common sense” (prudence?) to address the issues of the time. The problem is with the arguments themselves, read in light of the history, not the authority. Good solid Catholics believed that premises similar to the pope’s led to positions we would find deeply objectionable today. From a logical point of view, it is reasonable to ask where they went wrong. (You could argue, of course, that they didn’t go wrong–but then I’m off the page, then, and my guess is many other Catholic women are too).
4. What is My View on Complementarity?
Prof. Pettit hit it exactly right. I believe in complementarity, but an epistemologically humble form of complementarity. I myself have come across no attempt to specify the qualities attributable to men and women that does not result in a type of stereotyping, on either the Catholic or the Protestant side Quite frequently, what happens is men define themselves first , and put women in to fill in the gaps (Read Karl Barth–men are A, and women are, well B.)
What about JPII feminists In my article dealing with JPII feminism and the theology of the body http://www.whedon.info/What-Women-Want-Buffy-the-pope-the.html,
I quote a passage from Gloria Conde that attempts to parcel out traits:
The “masculine” is equivalent to the objective, analytical, active, inclined to thought, rational, indomitable, interfering, one who obstructs, independent, self-sufficient, emotionally controlled, and self-assured. With his mind, the man distinguishes, analyzes, separates, and perfects. The “feminine” corresponds to the subjective, intuitive, passive, tender, sensitive, easily influenced, docile, receptive, empathetic, dependent, emotional, and conservative. Her mind picks up relations, she possesses intuitive perception of sentiments, and she tends to unite rather than divide.”
To Rofessor Schiltz, I would say, if we believed this, how would we stand before our classrooms of first year law students; –men and women– how do we even set and grade our analytical questions fairly? I don’t see how stereotypes of this sort can play in a world in which we have a woman Secretary of State, a woman presidential candidate, and women heads of state around the world. And unfortunately, I do not see what inherent tools the papal feminists have to block those stereotypes, other than to say, “Well, the Pope didn’t mean that!” Why not? Mary Ann Glendon wrote the introduction for this book. I would ask her the same questions I am asking you.
To answer another of Professor Myers’s questions, I’m not sure what content to give the phrase “feminine genius.” I can say I find the language off-putting, because it seems sentimentalizing, and possibly essentialist. Is the feminine genius necessary in all areas of life? Well, I think women can make contributions in all areas of life. But their contribution shouldn’t be defined only or primarily by how they are different from men. Male law professors and female law professors have a lot in common– we demand excellence, analytic precision, and subtle, flexible minds from our students. I fear the language of feminine genius can be used to obscure the commonalities. (I once had a student come to me upset about a grade–I wouldn’t change an A- to an A so that he could get honors. I couldn’t do it. He left in frustration, saying “You’re a woman. You’re supposed to be NICE!” He thought I was supposed to be nurturing, rather than judge him.
5. What Literature is Helpful?
To be honest, in response to Prof. Schiltz’s question, I don’t find Prudence Allen to be terribly helpful from a philosophical point of view, in part for reasons suggested by at in the title of the book–The Concept of Woman. I think her work presupposes that what we need to do is find the essential, ahistorical core of the “concept” of woman–in the writings of philosophers and theologians–and that by analyzing the concept, we will understand the reality. I see three problems here. First, I think it presupposes an idealist approach to philosophy I don’t think is correct. Second, and relatedly, I don’t think it accounts for the manner in which human beings are both essentially social and essentially beings who live in history, something that the Second Vatican Council attempted to do. Third, I think it doesn’t account for the systemic distortions of sexism throughout the centuries.
What I think would best serve those who advocate new feminism best would be willingness to enter into a broader, respectful conversation. What strikes me, and perhaps I’m wrong, is the intentional isolation of much papal feminism from other cognate bodies of philosophical, theological, and sociological studies – including Catholic feminist contributions to those fields. Most of the writing in the field of papal feminism isn’t academic. But even the academic material I’ve seen doesn’t seem to engage differing viewpoints, other than as straw men (e.g., the book edited by Michelle Schumacher)
So when I see the program for the conference you highlighted by Lisa Schiltz on MOJ, I wondered why there aren’t any http://www.avemarialaw.edu/conference/
any Catholic feminists adopting a different perspective. Why not invite a Lisa Cahill or a Margaret Farley? Why not read Elizabeth Johnson on Mary in conjunction with the Pope’s mediation? Why not invite Susan Parsons who is an English feminist and a Catholic? Why not invite a smart, critical-but-sympathetic secular feminist to speak with? Why not engage their writings–say Margaret Farley’s discussion of body, sex and gender in chapter four of her new book on sexual ethics. I don’t expect papal feminists to agree. It would make for a tougher conference. But if they want scholarly credibility, I do think they need to engage arguments of Catholic non-papal feminists. Dismissing them simply won’t do. Who has the more persuasive and compelling philosophical anthropology? Why?
Okay, that’s my two cents–and then some. 2,000 lira, if lira there still were.
Okay, 2,000 lira and 50.00 usd will get you . . . not much.
My colleague, Professor Kathleen Cummings, has a wonderful course she teaches at Notre Dame on Women and American Catholicism on these issues. Here is her syllabus. I’ve learned a great deal from her.
http://www.iupui.edu/~raac/downloads/0506SYL/Cummings.pdf
Cathy,
Thank you for taking the time to challenge us with the above post which can well serve as an outline for an entire conference on the subject. Your students are fortunate to have such a professor. This stuff we have to bottle or proclaim more loudly. The article in the WP was also nifty in that it showed how Ratzinger’s thought has developed on the subject.
“Foundational truths that come to mind that would bear on the “definition” of femininity include:
a. the inborn call to intimacy/communion, b. the nature of the human person and the best means of formation, c. physical realities (i.e. the body is built for complementary sexual union and fidelity), and d. sacramental realities.”
Genevieve –
(I love that French form of your name! The English form is ugly — nasal and thumpy, but the French is beautiful.)
I agree that your foundational principles are all relevant in discussing what “femininity” is, but they apply equally well to men. There is no way to derive from them the specifcs of what makes male and female different, though your third principle does imply that there are physical differences. I’m certainly not one to deny the differences. Vive la difference!
For instance, it’s also my opinion that given the fact that males’ upper bodies are more powerful than females,’ while females have stronger lower bodies, it makes sense to understand women’s superior verbal abilities as having evolved as a means of defending themselves against male aggression. We can sometimes argue our way out of trouble with men, e.g., convince a caveman that he needs us to care for his cave and cook his bacon. (Huh? :-) I think these are real differences (the strong upper body and the superior verbal ability), but I wouldn’t call them *complements* — the latter is a *defense* against the former. But I admit I can’t prove this. It’s just an hypothesis that fits other apparent facts.
I also agree that Scripture and Tradition cannot be cancelled out or negated by any non-religious claim. But in the classic Thomistic tradition to which I belong all true statements are consistent so there is no question of one trumping another. But maybe you’re saying that when an *interpretation* of Scripture or Tradition conflicts with non-religious counter-claims, then the religious nterpretation must be the truth of the matter?
There, I suspect, is where conservatives and progressives part company on many many issues. Conservatives think that if as a Catholic you believe that a pope (say, John Paul II) had an interpretation of Scripture and Tradition which is the true interpretation, then all counter-claims must be discarded regardless of the evidence for them.
But we progressives then have to ask conservatives *why* do you choose the teachings of one pope over the conflicting teachings of a different pope? Say Pius IX over John Paul II?
It seems to me my last question requires us to look into an even more foundational can of worms — issues of theological certainty. What I’m saying is that there are theological problems which are largely due to conflicting explanations of *how* the Church reaches theological truth. For instance, *how* do we know which pope(s) to trust? These epistemological questions need to be addressed before the hot button issues of the day (such as “what does ‘woman’” mean) can be settled. But that’s a whole different thread.
It seems like it doesn’t take much for “the concept of woman” to turn into a discussion that gets mired in biology, and from Cathleen’s long post above, I distilled the following sentence, which I think describes a lot of my frustration with the Church’s approach to the enterprise:
“Well, I think women can make contributions in all areas of life. But their contribution shouldn’t be defined only or primarily by how they are different from men. Male law professors and female law professors have a lot in common– we demand excellence, analytic precision, and subtle, flexible minds from our students. I fear the language of feminine genius can be used to obscure the commonalities.”
This is what bothers me: the insistence on the search for difference, when commonalities abound. In many ways, it’s an answer in search of an underlying rationale that is not at all evident.
All – I apologize for the delay. I wrote a lengthy reply yesterday (which may now be irrelevant given the trajectory of the discussion) and before I could submit it my computer crashed. Such things happen. Perhaps it is for the best.
Barbara,
You said: “It seems like it doesn’t take much for “the concept of woman” to turn into a discussion that gets mired in biology”.
Given that we are hypostatic beings, why do you appear to place so little importance on the biology? If we’re introspecting, ought not our introspection be brought to bear on our physical nature to determine its (to use the term) compenetration with our spiritual nature? It appears to me that many on this thread appear all-too-willing to disclaim the biology in the analysis of self when no self can be adequately analyzed without it.
Interested in your thoughts.
God Bless,
FM
Cathy,
First, thank you for a rather insightful reply. It is obviously the product of much thought on the subject.
Second, I’m still left with the following questions (as articulated by Mr. Meyers):
I’d like to ask Cathy a question or two. Does she disagree with the view that “the genius of women” is needed in all areas of social life or is that phrase of Pope John Paul part of the paternalism to which she objects? Does she disagree with the CDF’s view of human nature that celebrates “the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman”?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would suffice for each — or, if you must, a ‘yes, but…’ or ‘no, but…’. Perhaps I’m a bit off-kilter, but it seems to me that phrases like “an epistemologically humble form of complementarity” (humble to the point of agnosticism?) and “Catholic non-papal feminists” (what does that even mean?!? It almost sounds like papist non-papists, which is a bit odd and rather in tension with CCC892…) obfuscate more than clarify, and the Socratic questionanswers you give (perhaps the unwitting product of too much time teaching at NDLS?) don’t appear to actually be answers at all.
Bluntly, and hopefully not offensively, I’m a rather simple fella’ and I appreciate simple answers. No oversimplification required, just a simple statement which would serve as a key for me to decipher your piece.
Thanks in advance.
God Bless,
FM
As I sit here drinking my coffee with espresso shots added (I must discuss Kant with Intro to Ethics students in about 3 minutes!), I am quite certain that my sense of self has significant relations to my body. However, I am also inclined to think that my relations are idiosyncratic until proven otherwise. Certainly, I have no reason to think that general normative conclusions can be reached for all humans or all males. Also, the argument can work both ways. That is, someone could try to make a case for conclusions that you would find quite wrong, yet they were conclusions drawn using the same method you suggest. The question then would be, “How do we decide which case is closer to the truth?”
Robert Egan makes the case for Women’s ordination in the present issue. This might need a separate thread. He is very kind to Sara Butler, my neighbor (I live across the street from St Joseph Seminary), who wrote a book of the subject. Formerly an advocate of women’s ordination, Butler’s main argument for prohibiting it now is that Jesus chose males. Sara Butler is a very gifted individual. This is a clear example where magisterium thinking can fry anyone’s brain.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2184
Joe,
I’m afraid my level of involvement today will be rather limited – I have a job as well. ;0)
But before I take a brief respite, I’m wondering if you could elaborate a bit more when you get a chance. You said:
I am quite certain that my sense of self has significant relations to my body. However, I am also inclined to think that my relations are idiosyncratic until proven otherwise.
My questions are as follows:
1. Which relations are you speaking of in the second sentence? Relation to self through body? Relation to others? Relation to body in a subsistant character, i.e., you have a *special* form of hypostasis? I’m simply unclear as to your meaning.
2. By idiosyncratic do you mean that your relation to yourself through your body is specific to you? That could hardly be disputed and one wonders why it would need saying — which is why I’d like to ask for clarification. Do you mean, instead, that no one could help inform you how you ought to relate to your body? If so, that would put some psychologists out of business and appear to grant blanket approval to bulimics, anorexics, self-cutters and algolagniacs — which I think you would agree is problematic. Or do you simply mean it in a sexual sense (which might also have its myriad associated difficulties)?
God Bless,
FM
Joe,
I hope I’m not being overly combative, but I also have a question about something else you said:
Certainly, I have no reason to think that general normative conclusions can be reached for all humans or all males.
Isn’t a “general normative conclusion” reached when you use the words “all males”? Does not the use of the words “masculine/male” and “feminine/female” presuppose such conclusions? If not, one wonders about the future of “feminism” as a word, much less an ideology…
God Bless,
FM
If you want to divide everyone in the world into two categories–male and female–you have to agree on a definition. Individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) are genetically male (XY), but have external female genetalia and are, for all intents and purposes, women (although they cannot have children). There are other genetic anomalies (or perhaps I should say variations) that make it difficult to be absolutely certain a person is one gender or another. When gender testing was done for the Olympics, around 1 in 500 or 500 athletes had a problem with the test.
Is this important? I think so.
That should have been 1 in 500 or 600.
Ok, David, I’ll bite. What importance do you attach to this, specifically?
God Bless,
FM
Just want to second Bill’s idea of making a new thread of Robert Egan’s piece on women’s ordination in the current issue – not so much for its discussion of that specific topic, but for its methodological view, which underscores the divide in the conversation here.
While I’m sure that we’ll keep batting around notions of change in the Church and the importance of historical perspective, I must admit I’m turned off by the mantra”revelation trumps experience” in dusccussing theology of the body.
Strikes me we need a lot more precise definition of what’srevealed – and maybe that’s still another thread.
David,
Perhaps to help clarify my question (and please leave this alone if it’s not helpful), what conclusions can you draw about cars and trucks by the existence of the el Camino?
God Bless,
FM
I am sorry that I don’t have a great deal of time to continue. However, my viewpoint is different from David’s. And that is, if one were to look at the biology of men and women, I think that you would conclude that 95% (if not more) of what is required to survive can be done by either. Men are better at heavy lifting, but then, people have lived in groups for a long time, so even this is a debatable point as it pertains to survival. I have no doubt women could be good hunters and men would be more than adequate gatherers, and I would be surprised if, in fact, these activities were not nearly as differentiated as we all seem to think they might have been.
Of course, reproduction requires two halves to make a whole, but it’s not really the biology of the human female that impels human social organization, but the biology of the human infant, which requires a great deal more intensive care than the young of other species. And yet, you will find, even now in the developing world, that a great deal of infant care is provided by older women and older siblings to free up the mother for economic activity. Very few places in the world can forego the economic productivity of its female members. And yet it is usually the presumptive difference between men and women that justifies limiting the range of economic opportunities for women.
In that light, I would say that I see the search for “difference” more as the search for continuing justification of preferred social arrangements than much else.
Ferdinand Mary,
I will make an attempt to answer. I’ve been wishing someone else had the same idea and would do it for me!
I would say that “car” and “truck” are useful classifications, and that there are some vehicles that everyone (or almost everyone) would agree are cars, and some that everyone would agree are trucks, but the el Camino reminds us that “car” and “truck” are just human concepts, because the el Camino may be thought of as both a car and a truck, or neither a car nor a truck, but something in between. There is no idea car to which every car can be compared to see if it is a car, and the same for trucks.
“Man” and “woman”–and particularly “masculine” and “feminine”–are also human concepts. For those of us who believe in evolution, “human” and “nonhuman (as in “prehuman ancestors”) are also concepts, and not two distinct groups, but rather two areas on a continuum with something in between that is neither entirely one nor the other. Genetic variations remind us that perfectly neat categories don’t exist in nature, but classification is a human attempt to impose order. So I would say that you can’t make a comprehensive definition of what a woman is without looking at all women, but you can’t look at all women without deciding who falls into the category “women.” So it’s kind of a catch 22.
This would not be important if the Catholic Church did not insist that women cannot be priests, or same-sex couples cannot have a “complementary” relationship. This is going beyond plausible generalizations about males and females, and saying that there is something about every woman that disqualifies her from being a priest, and there is something about every possible combination of two men or two women that makes a complementary relationship impossible. It is to imply that “the genius of women” is not something women tend to have more than men, like empathy or intuition, but something only women have–something as yet unidentified in this discussion.
The question for me is does the church of today see women as it saw women in the past century? Does it really change anything in the church’s opinion of women’s role because Pope John Paul used the wonderful word “genius”? Or was the word choice an astute savvy public relations inspiration so that women would not “change brands” and would stick with the church’s brand of feminism.
I’ve looked throughout his writings for an explanation or definition of what Pope John Paul means by feminine “genius” and this is all I could come up with.
In (SOCIETY AND CHURCH NEED GENIUS OF WOMAN, Pope John Paul II, Angelus, July 23, 1995) state the following. In referring to the Marriage at Cana,
Pope John Paul states, “And to avoid the spouses’ joy becoming embarrassment and awkwardness, she did not hesitate to ask Jesus for his first miracle. THIS IS the “genius” of the woman! May Mary’s thoughtful sensitivity, totally feminine and maternal, be the ideal mirror of all true femininity and motherhood.”
Is this is the definition of feminine genius? Is sensitivity our genius! I have to use my feminine genius like Mary, our model in all things, to prevent the “spouses’ embarrassment and awkwardness”.
Could he be saying women should not outshine men and cause them embarrassment and awkwardness, particularly their husbands or priests? Instead, they should play the stereotype of the docile woman who plays dumb, flatters the male and has many children and thus demonstrates his virility? I know the Pope didn’t mean that intentionally, but I do believe some women think that’s what he is saying. (See CatholicTeenTalk web site, and the discussion under Topics about the Church, wedding vows and the entry by daughterof mary on Mar. 26, 2008. The subject was the marriage vow of obedience. to quote one part,
Men and women are equal before God. They are both made in His image. Nothing has happened to equality. We are all equal in dignity Women and men were made with different roles though, and these roles go on to apply in marriage. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people…
To quote Catholic Culture, “For Christians, Peter and Paul codified the authority of husbands. But these men did not come up with the idea themselves, nor did they write out of misogyny or first-century prejudice. Rather, they wrote from a thorough understanding of God’s plan for the family, a plan that can be seen in the very first marriage. When Adam and Eve sin (by disobedience, lest that point be
overlooked), it is Adam who comes in for the greater condemnation. Not only did he eat of the forbidden fruit, he also let his wife lead him, something which God finds very displeasing: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree . . .” (Gen. 3:17). His punishment, and ours, too, is toil and death. Then God turns his attention to Eve. Her distress in child-bearing is increased, and then God adds: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16).
Now that I know the Pope’s definition of the female genius is, I wish the Pope or someone would tell me what the male/masculine genius is. I’ve yet to find it. Is the male genius the ability to 1.Define women, and then 2. Tell women what to do, after a little flattery of course. If women by their nature already possess this “genius”, it might be smarter for the Church to try to develop this “genius” that is sensitivity, in men. Maybe the church should tell them that sensitivity makes them “Heroes” of Masculinity.
No, I don’t believe the church has not basically changed its idea of the role of women. At lease many of its members act as if it hasn’t. .I also wonder what the increase in the Spanish population and its ideas on the role of women will have on the church’s thinking on the role of women.
Thank you, Clara, for that appalling quotation from Pope John Paul II, which clearly illustrates why abstract notions of “feminine genius” are invitations to projecting onto others the fantasies we have about them, and not true and faithful descriptions in themselves.