POPE JOHN PAUL II wrote beautiful and profound meditations on sexuality and the human family in his famous work Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. It is impossible to reconcile most of these philosophical reflections aimed at modern hedonism and radical individualism with the cultural movement we know as feminism.

Paradoxically, John Paul II has also been a major inspiration for feminism in the Catholic Church. In two works, Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women and Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul embraced feminism in all its misbegotten glory. He encouraged Catholic women to see traditional society as inherently oppressive, to view themselves as victims, and to bask in self-adulation. At a time of declining fertility and destructive careerism, when millions of women were leaving their children in the care of strangers, daycare centers and assembly-line schools, or not having children at all, John Paul proclaimed in the 1995 Letter:

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life – social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery,” to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.”

He speaks of the “feminine genius” as the unique gift of women to nurture and love, but he does so with the sort of bloated rhetoric that clearly suggests female superiority and that degrades the very meaning of “genius.” In a third work, Evangelium Vitae, on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life, John Paul speaks of a “new feminism.” He writes:

 In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a “new feminism” which rejects the temptation of imitating models of “male domination,” in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.

Unfortunately the rejection of masculine behavior for women is incompatible with campaigns to remove discrimination. Traditional sex roles achieve their sustaining support from customs and habits of discrimination. New Feminism attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and some Catholic women now proudly wave its banner. The movement aims for nothing less than what Catholic convert Elizabeth Fox-Genovese called “a new model of the way to be human.” Sound familiar?

New Feminism is Old Feminism without abortion rights and with less promiscuity. It still rejects the traditional role of women as a moral imperative and promotes the feminist myth that women can pursue money and power while fulfilling their feminine duties. It sees male domination of the public sphere as an expression of contempt for women.  New Feminism seeks the same radical transformation of society as Old Feminism and promotes the same calculated neglect of children. It has no basis in Catholic doctrine or theology, no matter how much affirmation it received from John Paul II, and I write as a Catholic.

In a recent forum at the website Inside Catholic, John E., a reader of this site, writes (under the pen name buckyink):

It seems Pope John Paul II’s writings on women were the gestures of a gentleman who truly appreciates the beauty God has placed in the world by his creation of woman. This seems clear to me. I don’t know whether his gestures were wise, however, and they seem not to be. I might not say so if the teaching that has disseminated from these writings had the general effect of causing women in authentic love to truly forget themselves for the sake of the other. On the contrary, the phenomenon I have observed from these writings is Catholic women now fawning and obsessing over their own “feminine genius,” a genius in which I am a full believer, but which is obscured almost to the point of nonrecognition the more they talk about themselves.

Two writers at Inside Catholic, Zoe Romanowsky and Marjorie Campbell, engage in standard feminist distortions of history. They claim that feminism was originally a movement for the good that was appropriated by radicals. They seem oblivious to the wreckage all around, to the fact that feminism has swept through our society like a tornado up-ending every home in its path. The social pathologies that have grown with the advance of feminism, the increase in youth suicide and depression, the out-of-sight growth in the number of unmarried mothers, seems to leave them unconcerned as they complain about the past injustices against women in societies that by comparison to our own were positively paradisiacal.

Romanowsky contends the church has been “paternalistic and misogynous at times in her history.” How so? The idea of social misandry and the onerous burdens of masculine power are utterly foreign to her. Campbell contends that  feminism “was not a movement to turn women into men but, rather, to add the unique voice/perspective of women to the public forum – for the benefit of the entire community.” The great women saints and the Blessed Virgin apparently had no “voice” and were shut out from the public forum. The raising of children, the transmission of values and ideals to next generation, and the unpaid labor of women in their communities amounts to having no voice or input into society.

Both writers hail John Paul, who died in 2005, as the inspiration for their views. John Paul’s Letter to Women was written, the pope said, “as a sign of solidarity and gratitude” on the eve of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The UN Conferences on Women seek nothing less than a worldwide movement of discrimination against men and the destruction of the traditional family by a class of international elites. The conference documents call on nations to implement the “full and equal participation of women in political, civil, economic, social and cultural life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on the grounds of sex.” It invokes the specter of sexual harassment and exploitation. 

Women are exploited of course, but then they are also exploiters. The New Feminists seem unconscious of any wrongdoing of women. John Paul himself said that abortion was more the fault of men than of women.

One purpose of the UN conference was to enforce the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, requiring member nations to “take all appropriate measures to remove the social, cultural and traditional patterns that perpetuate gender-role stereotypes and to create an overall framework in society that promotes the realization of the full human rights of women.”

The elimination of all discrimination against women is by necessity the implementation of discrimination against men. The prosperity of men is the foundation of the family. The UN has been engaged in a committed war against the family for many years and John Paul II, despite his rejection of birth control and abortion, endorsed its aims in his Letter to Women.

He wrote:

Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world’s understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic.

This is not true. Every woman is not good, nor is any woman entirely good. All women do not enrich the world’s understanding by their sheer existence. John Paul II was a holy man fulfilling a complex role. These words are grave missteps on his political journey. It is no exaggeration to say that these particular words are anti-Christian. No human being is to be exalted for the sheer fact of being human. We are born in sin and error.

                                   — Comments —

Amelia B. writes:

I support the vision of fathers-at-work, mothers-at-home wholeheartedly. And I’m a practicing Catholic. That being said, I’m not sure that you’re being fair to JPII. This was also part of the message you cited from the UN’s Fourth World Conference of Women (emphasis added):

“No response to women’s issues can ignore women’s role in the family or take lightly the fact that every new life is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying it in her womb (Cf. John Paul II Evangelium Vitae, 58). In order to respect this natural order of things, it is necessary to counter the misconception that the role of motherhood is oppressive to women, and that a commitment to her family, particularly to her children, prevents a woman from reaching personal fulfilment, and women as a whole from having an influence in society. It is a disservice not only to children, but also to women and society itself, when a woman is made to feel guilty for wanting to remain in the home and nurture and care for her children. A mother’s presence in the family, so critical to the stability and growth of that basic unity of society, should instead be recognized, applauded and supported in every possible way. By the same token society needs to call husbands and fathers to their family responsibilities, and ought to strive for a situation in which they will not be forced by economic circumstances to move away from the home in search of work.”

This passage is clearly an impassioned support for the presence of the mother in the home. Yes, he calls repeatedly in other passages for the full integration of women in all areas of society. But in the light of the above passage, couldn’t you argue that he intended integration that respected the family unit and the importance of the mother being physically present thereto?

Also, yes, he “thanks” “women who work”, as you have noted. But he does this AFTER he thanks mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters, in that order! I do not find his comment therefore inappropriate. Even in a “perfect” society full of thriving families, some women will still choose to work rather than marry. And these women deserve our thanks and our respect just as much as any other women who are witnesses to the love of God in the world. (I’m talking here of a Christian woman who remains chaste in her singleness, out of respect for God’s plan.) I’m not saying that every woman will choose this path, but the fact is that single Christian women are often powerhouses in their communities because they have time and resources to invest that wives and mothers are rightfully dedicating to their own families. And accordingly, they should be recognized.

I’ll grant you that overall these writings do give the impression that women are never evil, but always good. However, you must take into consideration that he is addressing the entire world, and not just the developed world. In many places of the world (Islamic countries in particular come to mind) the body of a woman literally represents sin and corruption! For the majority of the world’s population, the danger is not to praise women too much, but not to praise them convincingly enough. The developed world (probably the only part of his audience that might misconstrue this message as a plea for feminism) makes up barely a quarter of the world’s population. The rest of the world is still dealing with enormous problems like human trafficking, female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and abortions, and horrific labor conditions. For this larger audience, I contend that his point could not be made strongly enough.

Further, he doesn’t let women off the hook scott-free. He does write that “in giving themselves to others each day women fulfil their deepest vocation.” That’s a tall order, and I might point out something that is most naturally fulfilled by a homekeeping woman.

Finally, you criticize “Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman!” as if he were saying that every woman were good. That is not what he is saying here- he is talking about essence (being), not attribute (good v. evil). The mystery of the feminine person DOES give witness to the world of the glory of God just by the fact that it exists. Even an evil woman through the very fact that she EXISTS tells us something about our humanity, something that the existence of a man could never tell us. (This works in reverse also: men qua existing reveal critical insights to humanity and its Creator.) This “thank you” finishes his “thank yous” to groups of different women: mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, workers, consecrated. This final “thank you” is a re-affirmation that women (just like men) bring special gifts and talents to the world just because they exist as God created them. How women use those gifts and talents is, as you pointed out, another matter.

Laura writes:

Yes, he also thanks wives, mothers and sisters. But when he hails women who work he does not make the distinction that you do and say he is addressing single or childless women or those who work out of necessity. Given the cultural changes of the past 50 years, this omission, as well as the documents of the Beijing conference and of previous U.N. conferences on women which state that world leaders must not rest until women are represented in equal numbers in all spheres of life, fosters the misconception that he is hailing careerism and equal participation of women in the workforce. He also suggests that women by working are transforming “economic and political structures” for the better. I challenge that assertion.

Yes, his words on the importance of motherhood are excellent, but they are negated by his call for an end to discrimination, his affiliation with the Beijing conference (“You can see then, dear sisters, that the Church has many reasons for hoping that the forthcoming United Nations Conference in Beijing will bring out the full truth about women“), and by his point that those periods of history in which women did largely devote themselves to home were oppressive of women. He writes in Letter:

 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.

One cannot help but conclude that he is equating the centuries of unpaid labor in the home with “servitude.” His point that women were relegated by virtue of being women to the margins of society is simply false and contradict his words on the power of motherhood. If motherhood is so influential, how then does it exist at the “margins of society?” One only need walk through any art museum in the Western world and see the portraits of women in finery and comfort, expressions of contentment and reflective repose on their faces, to know that many women did not live at the margins of society and those who did did not do so purely because they were women.

Given the social context in which John Paul spoke, many of his words are an endorsement of feminism. If John Paul objects to the treatment of women under Islam then he should say so. You write, “The rest of the world is still dealing with enormous problems like human trafficking, female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and abortions, and horrific labor conditions. For this larger audience, I contend that his point could not be made strongly enough.” Then he need only affirm Catholic values and his role as shepherd of souls because Christ is a foe of inhuman treatment wherever it appears. Women no more the victim of evil than men. Men are enslaved, killed in misguided wars, consigned to servitude and hard labor. Their lot is as hard, if not harder, than that of women and words such as John Paul’s has led to the massive growth in foreign aid aimed solelyat women, billions of dollars go to disturbing and uprooting traditional sex roles in poor communities throughout the world, where women are now readily given loans while men are not. It is not the pope’s duty to address social problems among those who clearly reject Catholicism but to foster the faith, which then conquers evil.

He says, “Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman!” If he meant to say he was grateful for the potential of every woman, the physical being of every woman, I wish he had clarified this statement because it gives the impression that women are inherently good.  Must women be lumped together this way and hailed as one? What point is there in earning salvation and striving for goodness when the simple fact of being a woman is hailed by the pope himself?

Jesse Powell writes:

The following remarks were made by Pope Benedict XVI, the current pope, at the Meeting With Catholic Movements for the Promotion of Women, in Angola on March 22, 2009

“Dear Angolans, since the dignity of women is equal to that of men, no one today should doubt that women have ‘a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation. This acknowledgment of the public role of women should not however detract from their unique role within the family. Here their contribution to the welfare and progress of society, even if its importance is not sufficiently appreciated, is truly incalculable’ (Message for the 1995 World Day of Peace, 9). Moreover, a woman’s personal sense of dignity is not primarily the result of juridically defined rights, but rather the direct consequence of the material and spiritual care she receives in the bosom of the family. The presence of a mother within the family is so important for the stability and growth of this fundamental cell of society, that it should be recognized, commended and supported in every possible way. For the same reason, society must hold husbands and fathers accountable for their responsibilities towards their families.”

What is particularly feminist sounding in the above is proclaiming the “full right (of women) to become actively involved in all areas of public life” through legislation, if necessary. If what is meant by “public life” in the above is not clear, it becomes clear when looking at the source of the quote that Pope Benedict XVI is using. In the above, Pope Benedict XVI is favorably quoting from what Pope John Paul II said in his “Message for the 1995 World Day of Peace” speech. 

What Pope John Paul II said, that Pope Benedict XVI is quoting from above, is: 

“When women are able fully to share their gifts with the whole community, the very way in which society understands and organizes itself is improved, and comes to reflect in a better way the substantial unity of the human family. Here we see the most important condition for the consolidation of authentic peace. The growing presence of women in social, economic and political life at the local, national and international levels is thus a very positive development. Women have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation. 

This acknowledgment of the public role of women should not however detract from their unique role within the family. Here their contribution to the welfare and progress of society, even if its importance is not sufficiently appreciated, is truly incalculable. In this regard I will continue to ask that more decisive steps be taken in order to recognize and promote this very important reality.”

In the above we see that when Pope Benedict XVI referred to “public life,” favorably quoting from Pope John Paul II, he was referring to the “growing presence of women in social, economic and political life at the local, national and international levels.”

Laura writes:

Thank you for that.

It is the in very nature of feminism, and of liberalism in general, to deny natural limits. It is not possible for women to have a growing presence in “social, economic and political life at local, national and international levels” without their presence elsewhere being reduced and without the numbers of men in “social, economic and political life at local, national and international levels” being reduced.. “The way in which society understands and organizes itself” is not necessarily improved by the sheer presence of women in political life. History has shown that government becomes increasingly socialist as more women rise to power and that the autonomy of the family is correspondingly diminished. 

Rita writes:

It sounds like the popes are saying women can “have it all.” Sounds good but I have rarely seen that work and it doesn’t take into account all the tiny children languishing in daycare institutions day after day while mom goes out and “contributes” to society. The sad thing, most of this contributing isn’t in “public forums” but in dead-end clerical jobs or worse.

Fitzgerald writes:

I consider JP II and Benedict XVI both mixed bags. They were huge liberals in the 60’s,  Benedict being the private theologian for the notorious Cardinal Fring at Vatican II. Fring, JP II and others of the US and German contingentes are largely credited with hijacking the council’s agenda and discarding the schema at the end of the first session. 

Thankfully, as they greyed they became increasingly more conservative, but they both seemed to not completely cast off all their liberal notions. As the famous quote goes, a man who is conservative when he is young has no heart; a man who is liberal when he is old has no brain. The model for a modern liberal Pope at election that became a firebrand traditionalist is Pope St. Pius IX, aka Pio No No.

Please follow and like us: