JOHN writes:

I wanted to thank you for your excellent analysis of “John Paul II and the Phony Feminine Genius.” I have spent a bit of time studying these topics, and I believe you are 100 percent correct. 

Those who try to defend JPII by pointing out some remarks that may have resonance to conservatives are missing the bigger picture which you are able to see, perhaps because of your work with this website. What is more important than individual statements of one sort or another is the complete absence of what is most crucially required: the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage. Not one word of traditional Catholic marital teaching has been allowed to escape the complete blackout in place for the past 50 years. 

This traditional teaching is contained in both the Old and New Testaments, it was taught by every saint, pope and doctor of the Church for nearly 2,000 years. It was confirmed once again as recently as the lifetimes of many people still living when Pope Pius XI wrote his 1930 landmark encyclical Casti Connubii. Even during the 1930 – 1960 time period the Catholic Church continued to proclaim the whole and entire truth of Christian marriage. 

But since that time popes, bishops and priests have refused to inform their flocks of the truths they need to know for their salvation. They have never said that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. They have never said that wives must obey their husbands and submit to them in all things. They have never said that marriage once contracted is absolutely indissoluble. 

The “new feminism” of JPII is destructive of marriages, families, and souls, not so much because of what he said, but of what he didn’t say. What the conciliar popes haven’t said are all the things that are said here on this blog: the need for modesty, humility and obedience. The hierarchy of the natural order. Since grace builds upon nature, then no one violating the natural order can hope to receive sanctifying grace. That applies to contracepting couples and rebellious wives just as much as it does to homosexuals.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

John is correct: The most significant thing is what is not being said. There is a conspiracy of silence. The Catholic clergy frequently speak out against abortion, and that is very important, but there is little said about the larger phenomenon of feminism itself, which is the real cause and inspiration for abortion. Everyone knows what is happening all around: absentee parenting, female careerism, the overturning of the traditional hierarchy in the family, and the abandonment of children to popular culture. But so little is said. Financial interest seems to play a role here. Who wants to tell families to do with less? That’s a prescription for poverty for the Church itself.

John says, “They have never said that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.”

The Catholic thinker Dietrich von Hildebrand said that the purpose of marriage is procreation and its meaning is love. That’s a good way to put it. Feminism – old feminism, new feminism and future feminism – is contrary to both procreation and love. In order to remain true to its teachings, the Church must explicitly reject feminism. 

                             — Comments —

Kimberly writes:

I’ve got to say, I’m really very uneasy about the pope bashing. I’m fuzzy on all the important details. I’m not sure if you are contradicting the teachings on the infallible authority of St. Peter. I sure hope not. I can’t see you doing a thing like that. I hope you are a Catholic before you are a conservative, even if the Church is currently pretending not to see feminism. I think the Church is doing more to promote full-time motherhood than anyone else. In fact, I chose to become a housewife when I was pregnant with my first child because a marriage prep. teacher told me that JPII said women should stay with their babies.

I’m not saying I disagree with your views. I’ve read writings from very good priests that reject the teachings of theology of the body in it’s current translations, particularly by Christopher West. Just because someone pulls from the beautiful truths of the Church and teaches them doesn’t make them infallible. I have the same problem with things like the apparitions in Medugorje; if the Church doesn’t back it up 100%, neither do I. Neither does God. He might use it for good, but it doesn’t mean we should stake our souls on it.

But why not go after Christopher West? Why bash your Holy Fathers? What good will that do? There are much more respectful angles to approach this matter. One problem I have had for a while is that there is no dress code for mass. We go there to focus on our Lord and have to be distracted by cleavage and mini-skirts. It definitely seems like a money issue. But it’s a fatal mistake. I sure hope something is done to stop it soon.

Laura writes:

The divine office of a pope is separate from his teachings and opinions on social and political matters. The office and his execution of sacred duties are infallible; the man who fills the office is not intellectually perfect. He is still a man though he is vastly holier by virtue of his spiritual authority and personal integrity than I am. In the Catholic view, there is nothing inherently contradictory about recognizing the sacredness of form and the fallibility of the individual. 

Given that I sincerely pray for the pope’s welfare and bow down before his spiritual authority, I do not consider myself disrespectful. To not take the pope’s words seriously on social and political affairs would be a sign of lack of respect. After all, a pope is not a child, and therefore deserves the benefit of intellectual scrutiny. I do not think the pope intended wrong. His errors in the two writings that I discussed were intellectual and possibly involved a desire for appeasement in the face of relentless criticism from feminists regarding the all-male priesthood. His positive remarks about the Beijing conference are especially unsettling. The Catholic Church should distance itself altogether from the U.N. conferences on women because they stand in radical opposition to Christianity.

I am glad to hear you have found encouragement for traditional sex roles in the Church. The Church does emphatically support family values. It absolutely does, in prayer and deed. But the clergy are fuzzy or noncommittal on some of these matters which lie at the very heart of family.

You say, Why bash your Holy Fathers? What good will that do? Catholic commentators are using John Paul’s words to promote feminism. In the Catholic view, it is wrong to remain silent. That is complicity. If I didn’t love the Church, I possibly wouldn’t care less what the pope said or I would bash him indiscriminately and with malice, which is something I have not done. Similarly, I recognize that those who disagree with me may love the Church also.

Kimberly writes:

I wanted to address a point made by John G. I don’t know why he thinks wives have to “submit to their husbands in all things.” That’s just crazy. Yes, women are to be submissive to their husbands, and I think that is a huge point for your argument ( you can hardly be submissive to your husband when he’s competing with your “career” boss). But if what they tell us to do is sinful, say, telling us we need to smoke marijuana or vote for Obama, we don’t have to obey. In fact, we will be sinning if we obey. Maybe he didn’t intend to imply such finality, but that’s what I got out of it. 

I also think he’s wrong about the Church not teaching that the child is the center of the marriage and that we have to be their primary teachers. The Catechism states:

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (CC 1601) 

Now, I have to confess, the only reason I know this is because my husband, my brother-in-law and I invented a Catholic board game and I remember this as part of an answer to one of the questions under the Seven Sacraments category. Lots of Catholics are pretty clueless about what the Church teaches and they aren’t interested in finding out. But the Chuch puts her answers out there. She wants us to find them. I have definitely heard priests mention both topics; obedience to husbands and the purpose for marriage. Maybe they should be saying it more, and more clearly. It’s hard for me to say- that would make so many homilies all about me!

Laura writes:

Kimberly makes an excellent point. The Church does put her answers out there. The Catechism is not a feminist document.

John writes:

In response to Kimberly who said, “I wanted to address a point made by John G. I don’t know why he thinks wives have to “submit to their husbands in all things.” That’s just crazy.” 

Well perhaps it is crazy, but if that’s the case fortunately it’s not I who am crazy, but St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost. He is the one who said (Ephesians 5:22-24): 

“Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”

When Kimberly lists her objections regarding why she thinks this is a bad idea, does she really believe that none of these thoughts occurred to the Holy Ghost before He inspired St. Paul to write “let wives be subject to their husbands in all things”? 

Secondly Kimberly said:

“I also think he’s wrong about the Church not teaching that the child is the center of the marriage and that we have to be their primary teachers. The Catechism states:

“The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (CC 1601)

Kimberly is probably not aware that this statement in the new catechism, which appears at first glance to look like Catholic teaching, is in fact a reversal of two millenia of actual Christian belief and practice. It turns true Catholic teaching on its head and reverses the natural order. As recently as in the 1950s Pope Pius XII strongly condemned re-statements of Christian belief such as the one quoted above:

“This [personalism] is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. 

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

The new catechism, as quoted by Kimberly, does precisely what Pope Pius XII condemned as “a grave inversion of the order of values” when it puts “the good of the spouses” ahead of the “procreation and education of children” and when it fails to instruct us that these other ends must always remain subordinate to the primary end. 

Is this simply quibbling over insignificant phrases? No, Pope Pius XII didn’t think so, and neither do I. Dr. Johnson said, “First clear one’s mind of cant.” To begin to understand marriage properly one must begin by clearing one’s mind of all the cant of Vatican II marriage-speak such as JPII’s “Theology of the Body.” In day-to-day life, one’s entire approach to every aspect of married life is revolutionized once one adopts the traditional view that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children and that all other purposes must remain subordinated to that primary end. 

John adds:

When Kimberly said, “But why not go after Christopher West? Why bash your Holy Fathers? What good will that do? There are much more respectful angles to approach this matter,” she raised an important point which ought to be addressed. There is a crisis in the Catholic Church mirroring the crisis in society. Anyone, and I’m sure this includes Kimberly, who follows what has been happening for the past four decades knows that there is a grave crisis that runs much deeper than simply the headlines which we see every day about priests being arrested, bishops resigning, churches being closed, seminaries and convents shuttered, and in short a mass apostasy from the Faith. 

There are two fundamental views of this situation. One says, “The teachings of Vatican II and the conciliar popes (e.g. Theology of the Body) are compatible with the Catholic Faith, but liberal interpreters (e.g. Christopher West) have distorted and mis-represented them.” The other view says, “Since the time of Vatican II the teachings coming from Rome no longer represent the Catholic Faith of the prior 2,000 years.” 

Each side is able to present solid arguments, and it takes a great deal of effort and research for an individual to reach an informed conclusion. As for myself, I take the second view. The more I investigated these questions, the more I realized that the problems began at the top. “The fish rots from its head.” The liberal theologians correctly understood the “spirit of Vatican II” and Christopher West correctly understood the “theology of the body.” Don’t shoot the messengers like Hans Kung and Christopher West. If these teachings are not in agreement with 2,000 years of Christian tradition, then the blame rests squarely on the leaders who promulgated them.

Kimberly writes:

What I rely on is just those infallible keys of St. Peter’s. How can the Church be so wrong now and the promise that Jesus made still be valid? I don’t understand? Maybe you have an explaination?

As far as the obedience to our husbands go, I know I’m not mistaken. Not because I’m a learned Biblical scholar, but because I associate with lots of traditional, pre-Vatican II Catholics, and I’ve heard many times that the Church’s interpretation of Ephesians 6:22-24 is that a wife is to obey her husband in everything so long as what he asks is not sinful. I get spiritual advice from a traditional priest who seems to have the highest standards on maintaining the truth in the Church. I have asked him if I am to obey my husband when he has demanded that I do sinful things and this priest has told me not to. He was careful about the whole situation, and assessed things quite patiently. His advice has protected my marriage, and even more, my children, every blessed word of it. So I don’t know how to prove it theologically, but I trust that the keys of St. Peter “loosed” me from having to sin terribly in order to rigidly follow St. Paul’s words. I follow them, absolutely, but only with the Church interpreting these things for me.

Anther traditional priest I used to confess to told me that at times, it’s even okay to lie to your husband! The example he gave was that if my husband hates my mother and says she is not to be allowed in my home, and yet she comes to visit me and I allow her in, that it would be fine to tell him that she was never there if he were to ask. Makes sense to me. But then, I know my own husband.

What you explain about the backwards teaching of the new catechism does sort of baffle me. It seems like you’re right about the primary goal being procreation and education of the children, but I’ve always thought that a husband and wife are to put each other first and foremost, and with that love, they encompass the children in the strongest possible way with love. That’s not to say that they should love themselves before the children, and I think that is what you are taking it to mean, and I see why. But to love each other first seems like the right way to go. I’ve known women who put their children above their husbands and things have not gone so smoothly in their relationships or for the kids.

Laura writes:

Kimberly writes: “How can the Church be so wrong now and the promise that Jesus made still be valid? I don’t understand?” 

“So wrong?” What does this mean? Kimberly is exaggerating the weight of the criticisms I raised. I did not say the Church is wrong in its creed or core tenets or most of its teachings. I discussed two written statements – out of many hundreds of statements – by one pope. Kimberly seems to be saying that Church teachings and papal statements must be either all wrong or all right, that if any error is found, the whole structure comes tumbling down.

I don’t think John was saying that a wife should obey her husband if he advocates something wrong. It seems his point was that male authority in general is valid even if husbands sometimes abuse that authority and that the fallibility of husbands was there from the start, not something that has been newly discovered in modern times.

If the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and the raising of children, and if the love of a husband and wife is fundamental to raising children well, then an emphasis on that love does not conflict with the belief that procreation and the needs of the next generation are foremost. But, as important as that love may be, the absence of love does not invalidate a marriage.

Larry B. writes:

I found it interesting that you mentioned von Hildebrand in the JPII discussion, especially as a counter example of sorts. I’ve been under the impression that JPII and von Hildebrand were ideological buddies for the most part, though I’ve admittedly read very little of either. [Laura writes: I don’t know anything about their connection. You may be right. For the record, I don’t believe everything John Paul II said about marriage and sex roles was wrong. Not at all.]  

It seems like there is a lot lacking in way of much needed conservatism with JPII’s stuff. However, his writings also have an appeal, a mean for re-initiation for lots of young adults, people I’d generally say in their mid 30s to 40s, who were repulsed by their (probably incorrect) perception of a Church that found all sexuality to be opprobrious. JPII was rejuvenating for a lot of these adults, and while the ride doesn’t end there, he at least got them back in line for it. My personal issue is one of authority I guess. I just can’t well abide advice on relationships and sexuality from priests or, for that matter, celibate men. This has nothing to do with the respect their vocation deserves, but how can one take their teachings as being authoritative, as being anything other than based on theoreticals and philosophies without experiential back-up?

Of course, that reasoning can disqualify lots of thinkers, teachers, and contributors from their respective fields of expertise or focus, but here, dealing with the peculiarity of love, it is more important. 

In response to John G.’s excoriation of the new Catechism, which I imagine must have undergone immense scrutiny, review, redaction etc. by the highest intellectual forces of the Church over a long period of time, I still think that a husband and wife committed to each other, and devoted first towards their own healthy, loving relationship, can’t help but have healthy, loving, and happy children. Two parents can stay in an unhappy marriage for the good of the children, and of course that is probably better than the absence of that marriage the non-existence of the children. Still, the children and the parents would be better off if prime importance and focus were first placed on the marriage itself, especially so the children will know what to work for themselves when they are adults.

If procreation became the foremost concern of a marriage, without regard for the comfort, health, well-being what have you of the children when they are born, then no one would be happy, and everyone would probably be too distracted to live A.M.D.G.

Laura writes:

 If love is the primary purpose of marriage then any marriage without love would be invalid. This is the liberal view of marriage: it is nothing without love and mutual feeling. To say that procreation and the raising of children is the primary purpose of marriage is not to say that love is not highly important. It is also not to say that procreation is always what is foremost in the minds of spouses. The primary purpose of food is to keep us alive but we usually don’t think of staying alive when we eat; we think about the food and our pleasure in it.

Sheila C. writes:

Thank you for your precise articulation, as usual, of complex and often confused issues in your discussion of Catholic theology and modern feminism. As a non-Catholic, I have read the thread with respectful interest. I have known many Catholics of varying degrees of devotion throughout my life, and had often wondered about the issue of papal infallibility (particularly when one woman told me that the Pope was correct in his teaching against artificial birth control today, and if he did a 180 tomorrow, he’d be equally correct). Your statement that while the “office and execution of sacred duties are infallible, the man who fills the office is not intellectually perfect” clarified for me what had seemed a contradictory point. I also strongly agree with your argument that not to respectfully disagree would be complicity in error or sin. Too often people justify their refusal to protest something obviously unjust or unholy as properly obeying legitimate authority, or going through “channels.” As one who has refused to be complicit in the past, often to my detriment, I applaud your faith and your moral fortitude.

Please follow and like us: