FITZGERALD writes:

I highly recommend this article.  It is harsh, but the points it makes are essentially valid. The Roman Catholic Church has capitulated since Vatican II to the concept of equality in marriage. This represents a surrender to the forces out to destroy the family, a sop to the progressives and their agitators. 

Tradition teaches us that men are appointed the leaders for their families and society. In Genesis, we see man’s undoing in the fall by going along with Eve in sin. I would assert that a key aspect of the fallen nature of men is the tendency to shirk the responsibilities of leadership. Men do this for a variety of reasons, sometimes for ready sex. When men abidicate this role, it not only leads to a power vacuum but it unsettles those around them. Women become angry and resentful. They grab the reigns and fill in the vacuum. It’s my opinion that the most destructive temptation for women is to seek control and to be in charge. Women are powerful and have many, many tools to control men; they must learn to suppress their fallen inclinations to take control, except when absolutely necessary. Just as the power of female sexuality must be constrained by societal norms and traditions (the fire needs to be confined to the fireplace or the house burns down and the inhabitants harmed) so must their temptation to take over the roles of men be overcome. 

Sadly, when the system breaks down and men fall into a pattern of giving in, women become ever more angry, grab for more power and demand emancipation, making all increasingly unhappy. It’s been shown, as we can clearly see with nearly a century of active feminism, that once women are allowed to enter any sector of male endeavor, they crowd out the men. 

Going against our imprinted natures – leaders for men, and followers for women – leads to discord, unhappiness, and misery for all. Now there are always exceptions and times where women must step in, or men must acquiesce, but these are not the norm. Women must be taught and raised to understand the vital importance of true submission, which like true humility is not weakness but strength. Womanly submission is an active thing, not a passive “I’m-a-doormat” act. It requires that a woman not only look to leadership from the husband, but build him up and support him in ways that only a woman can. Respect is the most difficult thing for women to give and the most important for men to receive. Men, sadly, are easily undermined and broken down; most are like St. Peter, and just as Christ chose Peter to lead his Church to demonstrate his power, so God chose men to be the leaders, although in some ways they are weaker psychologically than women. If men are disrespected, they whither. Women do need love and affirmation, and, if they are to be submissive, protection and assurance of their proper role in the family. A husband must not rule capriciously or arbitrarily, for if his wife has no input, or too much control, this will undermine her and she will rebel, as will their children.

 Thus, men must be taught to be leaders, supported and built up. Women must be taught the vital importance of submitting to their husbands and fathers, imperfect though they may be. When women support men and the men are loving, spirtual leaders who govern their households, a relatively harmonious existence is possible.

Fitzgerald adds:

Coincidentally, I was watching the movie McLintock with my kids tonight, a very funny movie with many scenes that are to the point here. Maureen O’Hara gets out of line, and John Wayne spanks her, after putting up with her torturing him for two years because she discovered lipstick on his collar. You never hear his explanation, but the movie is clear that he’s an honest, just man who is not going to stray. He even allows his daughter who has been away at college to be spanked as well for impertinence. At one point, when he’s nearing his tolerance of the whole affair he exclaims, “You women are always raising hell about one thing when it’s something else you’re really sore about.” Flustered, his wife stutters in a very haughty tone that she’s not willing to discuss it late at night, especially with an intoxicated man. As she storms upstairs he exclaims one of the funniest lines in a very funny move, “I’m not intoxicated… YET!” 

When his daughter has the temerity to chastise him for allowing his wife to act up, he puts her in her place by highlighting episodes from the past where his wife stood by him in times of great duress, making the point that his daughter needs to mind her own business, but also that he has great respect for his wife and that she has the right to be unhappy with him and to express it even though she’s overdoing it. We see two very strong people, butting heads, the man giving his wife great latitude to state her disappointment with him – she’s no doormat – but eventually he puts an end to the affair and the women fall in line and respect the men for being men and having enough of their foolish business.

Putting this movie in the historical timeframe of 1963, we see an honest and forthright defense of Western culture just as things are really starting to come unglued in America. Understood within this backdrop, the movie is downright prescient and there are innumerable scenes throughout defending the existing order, relations between the sexes, and a natural and vocal American distrust of politicians and bureaucracy.

                                — Comments —

Michael S. writes:

Again, I recommend the book Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs.

David C. writes:

Please be careful about Marian Horvath. She is quite an estimable woman, but her views are genuinely rather extreme. She has put the worst possible spin on the history of the Church’s attitudes to male headship since Vatican II. A fair reading of John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem does not support the view that he abandoned the traditional teaching. How could he? All he did was stress one aspect. Also, in his Familiaris Consortio he clearly stated the leadership role of the father, albeit in an understated way. He also referred to the creation of woman as a helper to man. Moreover, the then Cardinal Ratzinger issued a commentary on Mulieris Dignitatem at the time which stressed that the husband’s headship was not in doubt. 

In Mulieris Dignitatem, the pope pointed out that all Christians are required to be subject to one another, including married couples. But he also restated the headship of the husband, while teaching that love makes the husband “subject” to the wife, while wifely obedience makes her subject to him. 

The Papal Preacher quoted by Marian Horvath merely presented his own opinions, which are much more “liberal” and his alone. I noticed once that the great Catholic apologist and convert, Monsignor Ronald Knox, also apparently believed that the Pauline teaching only reflected the views of the time. To some extent, people are entitled to their views. Mine is that husbandly headship, being Christlike, is a permanent truth, and that it still holds weight. 

As Catholics, we have the marvellous resource of Tradition, and we should always read things in the light of Tradition. And Tradition speaks clearly. A wife is to obey her husband.

Laura writes:

The papal writings since Vatican II have failed to articulate and explain male headship in the face of an all-out cultural assault on the idea. See previous posts on the subject, here, here,  here, and here. In light of the enormous damage feminism has wrought, this failure cannot be excused merely on the ground that other equally valid truths were defended.

John Paul II’s words on marriage seem to me to suggest mutual subjection. Perhaps you can correct me on this, but he seems to consistently diminish the idea of true hierarchy. It is true that male headship is a complicated reality, and that there is mutual subjection in love, but authority is not subservience to others.   

Fitzgerald writes:

David is by and large correct in his assessment of the original article I linked in my post. The Popes could no more completely abandon Tradition than sprout wings and fly.. and yes I will even agree the article is somewhat one-sided. Sadly he only underscores the reality of the modern Catholic Church all too well. 

The mark of the papacy and Church hierarchy over the last 50 years or so has been one of seeming to placate or minimize teachings that the culture at large has been attacking. Instead of an unequivocal, strident, vociferous defense of Christian Tradition, we often see a watering down, or deemphasizing of the teachings which stand radically in opposition to the current trends under the guise of engagement, or relevance, etc. 

True, when really pushed as the Church was on contraception and abortion, Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae which is a forceful and eloquent defense of Tradition. There are also several other examples, but often these involve a rear guard action. During the same period we have seen the horrors of the Novus Ordo liturgy and the experimentation of the 70s and early 80s; John Paul II attending abominations like the “prayer” meeting at Assisi in the early 80’s and lots of Papal letters and other writing such as those referred by Marian Hovarth which equivocate, and sometimes pander to the progressive wings of society, academia and even the Church herself out to destroy and remake it in their own image. 

Many famous, and some infamous, clerics expressed serious misgivings about many of the Vatican II documents. Why is it that strong elements of the modern Church hierarchy seem so ready to pander to the onslaught? I don’t think there is a single explanation, but in light of the points I made in my original postings I think this may yet be another example of the operative tendency of men to retreat or cower in the face of attack. In the case of the papacy, this can only mean equivocation and nuance, but I do believe that it may help better understand why this has been tolerated and at times seemingly encouraged. I don’t wish to impugn the personal holiness of any of the Popes during this period nor do I believe I’m better than they, but I only seek to understand and defend the Church’s core traditions and make sense of their actions. 

John E. writes:

David wrote, “A fair reading of John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem does not support the view that he abandoned the traditional teaching. How could he? All he did was stress one aspect.” It is very clear that Pope John Paul II was at least stressing one aspect, and perhaps safe to say that he does not directly assert anything untrue regarding the husband-wife relationship in marriage. However, his exclusion of any other aspect to the point of silence at least causes confusion as to what he really thought, and I think it left fertile ground for dangerous feminist ideas to be accepted with the mistaken notion that they were part of the Catholic faith. I don’t think he compromised the charism of his office as Pope regarding doctrine and morals as I think David was touching upon. There is no solemn statement in Mulieris, and it appears John Paul II was very far from stating anything solemnly there. But the respect that he held as Pope fortified his words among the faithful beyond the normal person’s just stating his opinions on matters. We should not expect the Pope to have no opinion on matters, but his decision to share those opinions by utilizing the audience he has among the faithful is a graver matter than almost any other person’s voicing their opinion. The same can be said, though to a lesser degree, of Father Cantalamessa, who is Preacher for the Papal Household.

Kimberly writes:

Fitzgerald writes: 

“In Genesis, we see man’s undoing in the fall by going along with Eve in sin. I would assert that a key aspect of the fallen nature of men is the tendency to shirk the responsibilities of leadership.” 

I think I agree with this assertion, but I do not see how it is applicable to the story of Adam and Eve. From my understanding, Adam was supposed to protect Eve and failed. Eve was supposed to be subject to Adam, and rather than asking him permission, she made up her mind on her own. The point is, she didn’t even give Adam a chance to lead. And when he arrived on the scene, he didn’t show her that she was wrong to deny him his authority. He knew what God had said, and he didn’t want to disobey His Creator because God had threatened him with spiritual death. But he ate the fruit anyway, obviously more afraid of physical death than spiritual. 

So, I suppose that the reason men shirk responsiblities of leadership is that they lack faith, loyalty and fear for God, and that they lack courage. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to be a true leader. Look at what Christ faced. It seems that this lack of courage is being overlooked, and that good men are patronized by the idea that it’s the woman’s fault for her disrespect. It may be argued that if Eve had respected Adam, he would have felt empowered by her support, and stood up to Satan. Maybe this is true. But God doesn’t seem to feel sorry for Adam; he gets banished from Eden and tastes spiritual death just as Eve does. A man must find courage, whether his wife helps him find it or fails. And good men just don’t seem to be looking for it much these days. 

Moral young men should not go walking around pretending they are tough. That’s just silly, obnoxious pride. But they should be confident. They should trust God, and confide in Him every step of the way. They should remember that a man in the right always wins, even if it appears that he fails. Their wives should be well aware of their courage and their faith, so that they feel safe in respecting and submitting to them. It doesn’t excuse a woman’s disobedience if her husband lacks these strengths (this must be emphasized). Both roles are important for success. 

I wonder what God would have done if Eve had waited to ask Adam’s permission, and Adam had still agreed to eat the fruit. Or what He would have done if Adam had refused to betray the Lord, even though Eve disobeyed. I think it was a blessing to put us both in the same boat together. God is merciful.

David C. writes:

Papal documents must be read with great care as to their nuance and their status. It is clear that Mulieris Dignitatem was not a high level of teaching or in any way solemn. It was a meditation. John Paul II had much of the university teacher about him, even the academic, and he sometimes wrote in an airy speculative style, not entirely suited to his office. A careful reading of MD nonetheless discloses the following: a restatement of the headship of the husband; no statement that the husband has to “be subject” to his wife in the same way as she is subject to her husband; a restatement of a position he previously maintained that “love” is the basis of the subjection of husband to wife. It is not my favourite papal document, speaking as a husband in the thick of a long marriage with its share of challenges, but I can extract the traditional teaching from it. Also, His Holiness had the honesty to admit, and footnote, the more robust teachings on the subordination of the wife in the New Testament.

I think there is a conservative Catholic consensus which is converging on the idea that a husband must show his wife love (as his form of “subjection” if you like) and the wife must show her husband respect. A husband really is expected to die for his wife, if necessary, although, not to be too flippant, he is more likely to merely suffer during her monthly moods. And a wife is expected to respect and obey her husband, “in all things”. My wife is not a saint, but she has good instincts in this regard, as do many Catholic wives still I imagine.

I agree about Assisi, and with the general point that John Paul II was a troubling figure in many ways. But he never solemnly defined any heresy. I think he tried too hard to please the world, but he was that kind of man. At the time of Vatican II, the press apparently used to refer to him as “the liberal Pole”. He really was a liberal, not the thoroughgoing conservative that the media presented. He was the most liberal pope ever. I pray for his soul, and that we never have another pope as liberal.

Fitzgerald writes:

I found Kimberley’s slightly different take on the Adam and Eve episode very interesting and I wouldn’t be so bold or arrogant to state one or the other perspective comprises all of the aspects of this episode in Holy Scripture. I never would claim to say women are at fault, far from it, both parties participated, both sinned and we all suffered loss. 

Although I agree with her assertion that men should be men and have courage, this courage doesn’t come from the ether. It requires good families and communities with women and men working together and building each other up. Without the support of good women, most men will be worn down unless they are truly extraordinary. Those truly extraordinary men, courageous leaders, husbands, priests, monks etc. almost always come from the careful nurturing of several generations of strong family systems with men and women upholding traditional values and roles. Often it’s enough for their to be an extraordinary mother and normal to average father to produce exemplary children both male and female. Without much effort I can think of a half a dozen where the mothers or grandmothers were truly extraordinary and their offspring became either upstanding leaders or priests or just plane great husbands and human beings.. not to say the father’s had no role, it just seems things go farther when you have a great women involved. 

I really take umbrage at the assertion that men just need to buck up and essentially stop blaming women. It’s too trite and simplistic to expect this to have much effect. I’ve heard this from different women with conservative inclinations and each time I hear them espouse how men need to step up their game, I cringe. A small anecdote on this point: my children have been attending a small traditionally oriented Catholic school run primarily by families. The older boys have struggled mightily with grasping Latin and were not doing well. Even the girls were struggling as well. The response by the very well meaning women administrators was to up the pressure and reemphasize the importance of committing more effort to be more successful. The girls, already more attuned to sitting still and working diligently at their books, did achieve more success; the performance of most of the boys, including mine, worsened. The buck-up camper approach just didn’t work as it doesn’t with men, when the gain isn’t immediate or in view and especially if they feel under assault; men and boys just give up especially when the pushing is coming from women. Now this is but an imperfect anecdote, but I hope it underscores some of the differences between the sexes and that atavistic failings of the male sex that should be understood more by the increasingly embittered and unhappy women inhabiting the countries in the Western world. 

My overarching point has been that both men and women need to understand their own weaknesses, the weaknesses of the other sex and to work together to build each other up. Most women will only be truly happy as wives and mothers (note I said MOST not all) submitting to their husbands and playing their role. Men must work to build up their spiritual muscles through prayer and fasting to be leaders to their wives, children, communities, etc while also softening himself appropriately to provide emotional support to his extended family. A man with a backbiting, controlling and nitpicking shrew at home is not going to be very successful anymore than a women with husband is cold and distant and inattentive or worse domineering and punitive. Let’s not play the blame game or compare one sex against the other as better or worse or upbraid each other to up our game or man up as it would be in this case.

Brendan writes:

My own sense about where the Vatican has been going on these issues is that the approach has been one of picking one’s battles. That is, in light of the overwhelming cultural revolution that has taken place in the Western countries in the last 40 years (a more or less complete trashing of the social order, family life, sexual behavior and roles and so on), the approach has been to draw the line in a hard manner in some areas, while soft-peddling in others.

So, for example, the Vatican still takes an open, hard stance against abortion, and has been consistent in doing so throughout the revolutionary period. This indicates that this is a very high priority battle, with good reason. Similarly, the stance against extra-marital sex and contraception, while not as strident as the one against abortion, has been fairly consistent and strong, despite much public criticism, particularly in terms of AIDS prevention strategies. Another area where the Vatican has consistently and firmly resisted the changes demanded by the culture-at-large is the area of female ordination — again, here, the statements on this are remarkably consistent and strong, and the Vatican seems impervious to the avalanche of cultural criticism that ensues from them.

I think that the strategy, however, has been to focus on a few of these key areas, while soft-peddling or (in the eyes of some) relaxing the teachings in some other areas. One of the areas where this has happened has been the teaching on family life. While I would agree with David that a very close and nuanced reading of some of JP II’s writings on the matter may yield a more subtle, nuanced approach, nevertheless the general tone of what he wrote was a departure from the teachings of the past, and, more importantly, the way these teachings have been *received* by the rank and file lay Catholics is clearly the way you have described them, Laura. One constantly hears, in Catholic circles, the phrase “mutual submission” as being the touchstone of Catholic marriage — it’s become, de facto, the new normative way of looking at the institution at least among many rank and file Catholics. Of course, a nuanced reading of Paul, coupled with a nuanced understanding of what “mutual submission” means, does not necessarily yield an inadequate understanding, but I would submit that fairly few people are capable of such nuanced understanding, and instead the phrase has come to mean, for most people who hear it, garden variety equalism, with the blessing of the Vatican. Again, to me it’s more important how the teaching has been received (and how the Church hierarchy is aware of how it has been received, because they well and truly are) than what a scholarly, nuanced, subtle reading of the tea leaves in Vatican documents yields.

One can ask with some justification whether this strategy is the most appropriate one for dealing with the cultural revolution we just experienced. On the one hand, one can see some justification in the Vatican’s approach — that is, attack and be firm against the sexual revolution in its worst elements, such as the evil of abortion, the widespread promotion of contraception which promotes a sexually wanton culture, and so on, as the worst harms of the revolution, while trying to find a way for average couples to live in this post-revolutionary culture which does not require them to be 100% counter-cultural. I can see the logic in that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have been very effective, really. At the level of strategy, and assuming it’s not possible to hold the line on all issues if you are a public institution like the Catholic Church which has a diminishing level of political and influence capital both among its own rank and file and the public at large, it becomes an issue of chickens and eggs: do you attack the sexual problems themselves, and hope that family life will profit from that, or do you attack the changes to family life, and hope that the sexual environment will profit from that?

It’s something that can be reasonably debated, I think, but in the aftermath of the approach we’ve seen from Rome on this, it doesn’t seem like the current approach is terribly effective. Abortions are no longer increasing, but they are stable at an intolerably high level, and there is no serious discussion about outlawing abortion in most cases in most Catholic countries. The promiscuity culture is probably at or beyond the level of the 1970s today and looks to be a permanent fixture in the culture, including in many predominantly Catholic countries. And family life, for Catholics as well as non-Catholics, has broken down horribly. The latter is especially the case in the United States, if we are to go by the number of annulments granted to American couples relative to the rest of the world — the 2007 Vatican statistical yearbook indicates that 60% of annulments granted worldwide are to American couples, while American Catholics represent only 7% of the world’s total Catholic population. If anything, in the place where the revolutionary attack on the family began and was perhaps headquartered, the Vatican approach to family life appears to be not succeeding, I think. That makes it a quite viable question as to whether the soft-peddling/nuanced approach to the theology of family life and spousal relations has been a sensible one.

Laura writes:

I cannot help but conclude that the Church’s very principled and courageous stand on abortion, a position which is absolutely essential given the widespread evil of abortion, is made somewhat easier by the fact that its main financial support comes from those people who are unlikely to have abortions and who are not deeply threatened by this issue. If, however, the Church took the same principled stand on women in the workforce, equality in marriage and divorce, as well as emphasized its teachings on contraception, it would challenge those sitting in the pews and making weekly donations. A more courageous position against feminism would get to the heart of the abortion issue. One of the main causes of abortion, as well as divorce, is careerism and masculine ambition in women.

Brendan writes:

At the level of strategy, and assuming it’s not possible to hold the line on all issues if you are a public institution like the Catholic Church which has a diminishing level of political and influence capital both among its own rank and file and the public at large, it becomes an issue of chickens and eggs: do you attack the sexual problems themselves, and hope that family life will profit from that, or do you attack the changes to family life, and hope that the sexual environment will profit from that?

The Catholic Church is not an institution that must survive or adapt. Better to diminish in all other ways, better to almost disappear as a cultural force, than surrender its teachings. Close churches. Give up schools. But remain fixed on the truth. Most of this failure of nerve in the face of feminism stems ultimately, I believe, from the abandonment of reverence and piety in the liturgy. From these sources, from the liturgy itself, comes all the courage that is needed to resist cultural decay.

Brendan writes:

I also agree that the Church would itself benefit by not trying to adapt to the culture, but it seems like that isn’t the approach that it has taken, and continues to take, really. It might also be the case that the liturgical reform stands at the heart of this, although in a good number of places I have noticed that even the Novus Ordo Mass is being served now differently than it was even 10-15 years ago. So perhaps that is also trending in a more positive direction.

Kimberly writes in response to Fitzgerald:

Fitzgerald writes: 

“I really take umbrage at the assertion that men just need to buck up and essentially stop blaming women.” 

And: 

” Let’s not play the blame game or compare one sex against the other as better or worse or upbraid each other to up our game or man up as it would be in this case.” 

Who is playing the blame game? Not me. I’m saying stop blaming women. I never said “buck up” or “man up.” What I said is that I don’t even see men looking for courage, let alone attaining it. Maybe it’s because men are content believing that a good mother is what makes a good man. I think it’s a father’s responsibility to teach his sons about courage; what it is, what it means, how to get it, how to keep it. But with all this “woman blame” it seems that men have excused themselves from even having to think about it. 

I’m sorry to make any man out there cringe! It’s not my intention to make you feel hostility toward women for essentially telling you to own up to your own faults. I just want to see men succeed, and letting women get the better of you, blaming us for your problems, seems counter-productive to me. Maybe I’m wrong? 

Fitzgerald seems to have a good grasp of the roll of men in general. I’m sure he’s a very good father and husband. But I didn’t see any mention of the word courage and I’ve noticed that it is a desperately needed virtue in our times. And I’ve also noticed that the young men crave it. So many of them go looking for courage, not knowing that this is what they are looking for, and wind up looking in the worst places, finding the wrong thing. They wind up with vices rather than this awesome virtue. 

Also, I wanted to say, I love the movie McLintock! I have to watch that again soon- thank you for reminding me! It is so great; feminists can’t stand it. I’ve heard several complain about it, along with The Quiet Man. They were so annoyed that I said I loved both.

David C. writes:

Thanks to Brendan for his remarks. Just a couple more thoughts. An honest Catholic, rather than a woman looking for an excuse to disobey her husband and reaching for the nearest trendy slogan (“mutual submission”), will realise that a couple of lines in one papal document cannot overturn two thousand years of teaching. Everybody knows that a wife has traditionally been subordinated to her husband for the good of the family and its unity. Moreover I seriously doubt that a woman looking for such an excuse is going to be convinced by any kind of scriptural argument anyway. Even if a pope had issued a document as firm and authoritative as Humanae Vitae in the area of husbandly authority, American Catholic women would have largely ignored it, as they did Humanae Vitae. I say Americans because the locus of most of these problems is America, as the data on annulments given indicates.

Mulieris Dignitatem, as its name clearly indicates, is intended to be a reflection on the dignity of women. It is not a full statement on family life. Familiaris Consortio, which is more traditional, and from the same pope, is closer to that. Naturally Mulieris Dignitatem stresses the equal dignity of women to men, to the greatest extent possible. (By the way, words matter, especially in papal documents. Equal dignity does not necessarily imply equality in every respect. My daughter has equal dignity to me, but she is not my equal in the family.)

Laura writes:

          David says, Everybody knows that a wife has traditionally been subordinated to her husband for the good of the family and its unity.

No, everybody does not know this. In fact, the majority of Western women believe that women have been the victims of deliberate oppression and that male authority is intrinsically evil and archaic. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to Women, unequivocally stated that women have suffered historic oppression in all spheres of life. He wrote:

Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry.

He continued:

Yes, it is time to examine the past with courage, to assign responsibility where it is due in a review of the long history of humanity. Women have contributed to that history as much as men and, more often than not, they did so in much more difficult conditions. I think particularly of those women who loved culture and art, and devoted their lives to them in spite of the fact that they were frequently at a disadvantage from the start, excluded from equal educational opportunities, underestimated, ignored and not given credit for their intellectual contributions. Sadly, very little of women’s achievements in history can be registered by the science of history. But even though time may have buried the documentary evidence of those achievements, their beneficent influence can be felt as a force which has shaped the lives of successive generations, right up to our own. To this great, immense feminine “tradition” humanity owes a debt which can never be repaid. Yet how many women have been and continue to be valued more for their physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity; in a word, the very dignity of their being!

And what shall we say of the obstacles which in so many parts of the world still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life? We need only think of how the gift of motherhood is often penalized rather than rewarded, even though humanity owes its very survival to this gift. Certainly, much remains to be done to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers. As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.

In light of this past, this “debt which can never be repaid,” many honest Catholic women would not see anything good in the tradition of wifely submission and would actually resist it. I don’t think feminist Catholics are just women looking for excuses. Some are disastrously miseducated. They have been taught all their lives that women should seek what John Paul II spoke of here: “real equality in every area.” That means marriage too. 

David C. writes:

I do not see anything particularly objectionable in what the pope wrote in his Letter to Women. Carefully read, it is mostly true and mostly fair. Again, one must consider the context. He was trying to be conciliatory. He refers to the role of women as wives and mothers in a positive way. He makes the point that women have done their share in building society. The reference to rights in the family probably means things like property rights. It it terribly important to remember that he is not writing to spoilt American feminists. He is writing to women everywhere.

My point about what all Catholic women should know is that it is not hard to point to recent papal documents, including as recently as the 1940s, that are part of a long line of teaching on the value of wifely submission. It is unhistorical to take one document into consideration without remembering the whole of Tradition. If Catholic women profess not to know this, they are being deliberately dumb. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Laura writes:

The Letter to Women, which was written on the occasion of the U.N. Conference of Women in Beijing, is a radical document despite its warm remarks on the traditional role of women. The pope, speaking to an audience which approved of the conscious and programmatic destruction of traditional femininity around the world, talks of an “urgent need to achieve real equality in every area.” And while this letter should only be read in light of previous teachings, it is still influential and some Catholics unfortunately do rely on the most recent papal teachings in the formation of their faith. That’s why I have brought it up: to encourage Catholics to look beyond it and into the more distant past.

Whether John Paul II was writing to the spoilt American feminists who need spiritual guidance or poor women in Africa, “the obstacles in so many parts of the world [which] still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life” are not unfair discrimination against women or male favoritism. The obstacles are human beings, the next generation which needs to be born and reared. John Paul wrote his Letter to Women in 1995 at a time when the West was already far along in the process of cultural suicide, when millions of Western women were having no children or very few children and were leaving these children in the care of institutions, which could no more instill Christian values than a pack of wolves could raise normal healthy human beings. What do the “equal pay for equal work” and “fairness in career advancements” that the pope refers to mean? They mean economic discrimination against men, the destruction of the male provider role and declining fertility. Now, I assume the pope sincerely believed these central tenets of liberalism, that he did not connect sexual liberation with the economic autonomy of women, and that he wanted to offer some conciliation to a hostile audience. But the idea that women have faced “much more difficult conditions” than men in the “long history of humanity” is a destructive myth. When this idea is approved by the spiritual leader of Catholics, it does not mean all of Catholic tradition has been hijacked or erased nor does it mean every other thing John Paul II said about women was wrong. But it is worthy of note given the relative silence at the pastoral level on the subjects of feminism and the decline of male authority. It is fair to conclude that many who consider themselves Catholic do agree with John Paul’s assessment in this document of the historic political and social status of women. 

Please follow and like us: