John Paul II
prepared his apostolic letter, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women
(Mulieris dignitatem), in response to the request of the 1987 World Synod
of Bishops that the theological and anthropological bases of being a
"woman" or a "man" needed further clarification by way of
resolving current issues in the Church. The pope's text has the character of a
meditation. He begins by citing the message of Vatican II addressed to women:
The hour is coming, in fact has come,
when the vocation of woman is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in
which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never
hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment when the human race is
undergoing so deep a transformation, women imbued with a spirit of the gospel
can do so much to aid humanity in not falling (MD: 1 = Mulieris dignitatem,
sec. 1)
|
Near the end
of his meditation, however, John Paul II has defined the dignity and vocation
of women in such a way as to come to the conclusion that women are equal in
human dignity but that they have distinct gifts and callings from those of men.
What this means for the issue of the vocation of women within the Church
finally becomes clear:
In calling only men as his apostles,
Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he
exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the
dignity and the vocation of women without conforming to the prevailing
customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time (MD:
26).
|
Thus, John
Paul II reads the Gospels in such a way as to enforce the fact that Jesus
himself endorsed a separate but equal vocation which God fundamentally assigned
to men and women in the order of creation (Genesis).
John Paul II
defines motherhood as the calling guaranteed to offer "fulfillment of the
female personality" (MD: 17). At no point does John Paul II envision any
woman as finding a fulfillment in her (divinely/humanly) calling to be an
astronaut, lawyer, physicist, head-of-state, or peace-maker to a degree that
might prompt her to delay or entirely set aside motherhood. Rather, based upon
his reading of the theology of Genesis, motherhood and consecrated virginity
(“spiritual motherhood”) remain the essential vocations of all women in all
times and in all places.
The purpose of
my own reflections is to examine for my daughters some of the soft spots within
Mulieris dignitatem. I shall do this in three parts: (a) the vocation of every
woman to be a mother; (b) how cultural transitions have altered how a man
clings to his wife; (c) the implications for women of the fall in the Garden of
Eden. My reflections shall cite some sources but, for the most part, they
remain the meditations of a father (who happens to be a theologian) bent upon
giving his daughters the best advice available on these matters—even when it
necessarily rubs against and challenges the grandfatherly advice that the Holy
Father would want to offer my daughters. As such, I dedicate these reflections
to my daughters and to all those other daughters of Eve who will be gathering
in Rome in order to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's
apostolic letter on the dignity of women from the 7-9 Feb 2008.
The Vocation
of Every Woman to be a Mother
Every child appreciates
a mother's love. This is all the more the case when such love is given
abundantly and then, due to death or some similar tragedy, love is silently
withdrawn. In this regard, both Karol Wojtyla (the future John Paul II) and I
share a loss which binds us together in an uncommon attachment to and grief
spilled out for an absent mother. As it happened, Karol and I were the same
age, eight years old, when tragedy struck.
After my
mother's death, everything was transformed. I returned from school to an empty
house. There was no one there to hug me and to elicit from me the little
successes and tragedies which mark a young boy's daily existence. In the
evenings, it was now up to me to finish preparing the supper which my father
had begun that morning. It was now up to me to do the dishes. No longer would
my mother sit me on a stool so that I could read to her for a half-hour while
she did the dishes. Gone to were the picnics which I loved, the birthday
parties which she organized, and the joyful walks in a local park. My dad,
meanwhile, was depressed and withdrawn--unable to function as a caring
"father" and entirely removed from anything like a tender
"mother."
For Karol as
well, the loss of a mother was not just the moment of her death, but the long,
empty spaces which lingered on for years upon years thereafter. As a university
student, Karol poured out this sense of absence in the following poem:
Over Your white grave
White flowers of life bloom--
Oh, how many years have gone by
Without You--how many years . . . ?
|
After his
mother's death, the parlor in their home was shut down: "the rugs were
rolled up and the furniture covered with cloth" (Szulz: 67). As in my
case, this was symbolic of the large place in the heart which goes dead,
atrophies, and finally decays following the death of a mother.
Within this
horizon, it is not unusual for a boy to begin inadvertently to adopt
"mothers" so as to fill some of the dry rot within the heart. Thus,
for Karol and for me, devotion to the Mother of God was not only a religious
pastime but a life-sustaining energy which kept alive what is was to be cared
for and loved for oneself by one's mother. But, on the practical level, there
were also other "mothers." I used to unconsciously decide upon what
boys in the neighborhood would become my special friends on the basis of the
degree to which the mothering within their homes was able to pour out upon me
as well. At the time, I was entirely unaware of this. In my thirties, however,
when the grief of loss first struck deep and violently in my life, I realized
what I had been doing in selecting my playmates for those long, lonely years
after my mother's death. While I have no evidence of this, I can, nonetheless,
presume that something of the same thing happened to Karol while he was growing
up in Kraków, Poland.
Against this
background, it is no mystery to me that John Paul II would identity
"motherhood" and "virginity" as the principal
"dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality" (MD: 17).
Nor is it any mystery that John Paul II would first and foremost identify Mary
as the one in whom "virginity and motherhood coexist" (MD: 17)
whereas they are two paths for most women. The first is lived out by those
women religious whose virginity "contains a profound yes in the spousal
order: the gift of self for love in a total and undivided manner" (MD:
20). The second is lived out through that "gift of self" which
"in marriage [which] opens to the gift of a new life, a new human
being" (MD: 18). Thus, in both cases, women find their fulfillment in the
gift of self to a spouse (whether human or divine) and in the nurturing of new
life (physically, for some, spiritually, for both).
Had I read Mulieris dignitatem in my early
thirties, I still would have been entirely satisfied with John Paul's portrayal
of women's vocation. But, then, quite unexpectedly I fell into love with a
woman who transformed my soul. My youth had been lived under the vision of what
mothering and nurturing a woman could bring to me. My twenties had been lived
under the vision of how woman could be lured into forwarding my plans, my
ambitions, and my sense of self. Now, however, I was overcome by the inner
mystery of woman. All my life I had been shown models of how men, in order to
be real men, tame women and bend them to their wills. Now, however, it was I who was being taken in
and reshaped by the woman who, for the first time, was revealing a new self to
myself. The world of human relations was no longer How to Make Friends and
to Influence People but was now a mystery which only the other could unfold
and reveal and become.
The curious
thing is that nothing of the grace or the promise of romantic love appears in Mulieris dignitatem. One is tempted to
conclude that either Karol Wojtyla may have never known this kind of mutual
surrender of self or that, have tasted its power, he may have drawn back and
decided not to speak of such things. Thus, at this point, my experience and
that of vast numbers of men and women in our society moves beyond what John
Paul II is able or willing to address. In so doing, however, Mulieris dignitatem circumscribes
women's vocation at the level of self-donation to a man and at the level of
motherhood.
How Cultural
Transitions Have Altered How a Man Clings to His Wife
Thomas Aquinas
raised the question as to whether the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge
was becoming to women. His response is telling:
Speech may be employed in two ways: (a)
in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this
respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; (b) in another way,
publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted
to women. [Why not?]
[1] First and chiefly, on account of the
condition attaching [sic] to the female sex, whereby women should be subject
to man, as appears from Gen 3:16. . . .
[2] Second, lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written: "Her
conversation burneth with fire" (Sir 9:11). [The logic here is that a
female teacher might incite men to lustful thoughts. Would not this rule
apply equally to a man teaching a women?]
[3] Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be
fit to be entrusted with public teaching (Summa Theologica
2-2.177.2.co.) [The logic here is that every woman must be distrusted because
most women are incapable of being effective teachers. Would this rule not
equally apply to men?]
|
To the credit
of John Paul II, the second and third reason have no role whatsoever within his
exposition. However, it would appear that his appeal to Gen 3:16 remains the
principal reason why women cannot have the same public vocation as men (at
least not in the church). Thus, it is to the fall and its consequences that our
attention must turn.
Relative to
the two accounts of creation (Gen 1-3), John Paul II has many things to say
which are exemplary at the same time that they are troubling:
In the description found in Genesis
2:18-25, the woman is created by God "from the rib" of the man and
is placed at his side as another "I" as the companion of the man,
who is alone in the surrounding world of living creatures and who finds in
none of them a "helper" suitable for himself. Called into existence
in this way, the woman is immediately recognized by the man as "flesh of
his flesh and bone of his bones" (cf. Gen 2:23) and for this very reason
she is called "woman." In biblical language this name indicates her
essential identity with regard to man 'is issah' something which
unfortunately modern languages in general are unable to express: "She
shall be called woman ('issah) because she was taken out of man ('is)"
(Gen 2:23).
The biblical text provides sufficient
bases for recognizing the essential equality of man and woman from the point
of view of their humanity. From the very beginning, both are persons, unlike
the other living beings in the world about them. The woman is another
"I" in a common humanity. From the very beginning they appear as a
"unity of the two," and this signifies that the original solitude
is overcome, the solitude in which man does not find "a helper fit for
him" (Gen 2:20) (MD: 6).
|
Anyone reading
this account will be struck with the "essential equality" which is
recognized for both man and woman. John Paul II, to his credit, entirely avoids
giving any superiority to the "man" in so far as he was formed first
(as does 1 Tim 2:13). Almost immediately, however, this equality is tarnished
by the fact that the entire narrative is read from a patriarchal vantage point.
Thus, it is the man who is coming to discover himself in terms of what "he
needs." The Lord, in this case, appears to be quite uncertain what it is
that "man needs" since, in the first instance, the creator endeavors
to "make him a helpmate . . . from the soil" and produces "wild
beasts" and "birds" (Gen 2:18f). Each of these is paraded before
the man "to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19). Thus, even here,
the notion is that the beasts and birds are defined by the man in view of his
own private purposes. Thus, the man is clearly lord, and the Lord serves this
lord by helping him to discover what "he needs" for himself as “a
helpmate.”
When it comes
to the creation of the woman, therefore, the needs of the man are still
central. Clearly his agenda is dominating the scene, and the Lord is searching
for how to satisfy him. Then, despairing of fashioning still more creatures
"out of the ground" (Gen 2:18), the Lord brings a deep sleep upon
Adam and forms "a woman" from the rib taken from his side. According
to the rabbis, the ancient text fails to have the woman taken from a bone in
his foot such that he would step all over her or from a bone in his head such
that she would dominate him. Moreover, in modern terms, one can say that Adam
has to give of himself in order to ever have a "helpmate." Here
again, the rabbis, spoke of the creation of the first woman, Lilith, as having
been fashioned "out of the ground" but since she had received nothing
essential from Adam, she went her separate way and failed to bond with Adam.
The text that
stands out for me (one which John Paul II entirely overlooks) is the one where
the divinely inspired author specifies the nature of the union according as
follows: "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his
wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Now, in the society of the
day, a man did not leave his father and
mother but simply brought his wife to live within his family circle where
she worked with and remained subordinate to his mother. Here, therefore, the
text speaks metaphorically (in the same way that the removal of the rib is not
a physical fact leaving men with one less rib but a symbolic reality). The man
"clings to his wife" because he has given himself over to her. The
man, consequently, is transformed by his recognition of his beloved and, as a
direct result, comes to know himself in a new way, i.e., bound to his Helpmate
more than he has ever been bound to his father and mother. "And they
become one flesh" suggests sexual union, this is true. First and foremost,
however, it suggests that Adam recognizes something of his lost self ("his
rib") in his Beloved and that this recognition leads him to bond with his
Helpmate more than he has been bonded by the flesh and blood ties with his
parents.
When read from
a modern vantage point, therefore, the dignity and vocation of woman being
presented here is not defined by patriarchal ambitions. This is the way the
quest begins but, as seen earlier, it utterly fails. Only when a man surrenders
some essential part of himself does the "woman" appear who is able to
rip him out of his self-absorption and to render secondary the paternal and
maternal ties which, up to this point, have defined his being. The
"woman," therefore, becomes the agent of the man's self-transcendence
and self-transformation within the very process wherein she is becoming a new
being, namely, his Helpmate. She belongs to him because she had given herself
over to him. But he belongs to her in so far as she has reshaped his relational
and interior reality.
John Paul II
gets closest to this mutuality of transformation when he speaks as follows:
This also explains the meaning of the
"help" spoken of in Genesis 2:18 25: "I will make him a helper
fit for him." The biblical context enables us to understand this in the
sense that the woman must "help" the man and in his turn he must
help her first of all by the very fact of their "being human
persons." In a certain sense this enables man and woman to discover
their humanity ever anew and to confirm its whole meaning. We can easily
understand that on this fundamental level it is a question of a
"help" on the part of both, and at the same time a mutual
"help." To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion.
The text of Genesis 2:18 25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense,
the fundamental dimension of this call. But it is not the only one. The whole
of human history unfolds within the context of this call. In this history, on
the basis of the principle of mutually being "for" the other, in
interpersonal "communion," there develops in humanity itself, in
accordance with God's will, the integration of what is "masculine"
and what is "feminine" (MD: 7).
|
One can
perhaps read into this that men, due to their initial socialization, are prone
to give themselves over to the task of transforming their world and even of
transforming people in their environment in order to serve their own ambitions.
The "man," therefore, is taught to harden himself against his
feelings (esp. his sympathy for others) in order that he might win fame,
fortune, and women that abound to his
glory. Then the "woman" appears who causes him to fall in love, to
surrender his deepest self to be transformed by another who holds out to him
his lost soul, his mysterious selfhood, his forgotten dignity that reaches far
beyond the achievements which, up to this point, he has habitually used to
reinforce his ego and to satisfy his personal ambitions.
Many men never
know this experience of surrender. They are frozen in the male mystique and, at
their worst, women become one of their projects or playthings, and, at their
best, women are patronized and pampered. Under no circumstances, however, does
such a man let a woman get under his skin. Nor is he capable of letting himself
go, save but a very superficial and rehearsed way. The well-known psychologist,
Karl Stern, describes these hyper-active and hyper-controlled men as follows:
On getting to know these persons more
intimately, one notices an extraordinary denial of feeling, a shying away
from tenderness, and a fear of dependence and passivity. Not to want to be
dependent or passive is in itself healthy. In fact, it is well known that
psychiatrists have to deal a lot with people who crave too much dependence
and passivity. Nevertheless in a normal person one must allow for a need of
dependence, passivity, and protectedness. The kind of individual I am talking
about here is really in terror of dependence. The very possibility of being
in the least dependent or protected, or even being loved, amounts to nothing less
than a phantasy of mutilation or destruction. . . .
The denial of feeling is at times
accompanied not only by undue activism but by undue intellectualism. . . . In fact, hyper-activist and
hyper-rationalist attitudes often go together. The man in power, the
executive who manages not only things but also people; the man who approaches
human relationships as if they were matters of engineering; the man who acts
as though he were on guard against his own heart--these types are only too
well known. It goes without saying that such people may be successful in
life, if we take "success" to mean material [or social]
advancement. But one can frequently observe that they allow their technical
or scientific or business [or theological] acumen to extend into areas of
human life in which these techniques have no place. In other words, they shy
away from all interior means of communion, and tend to be great believers in
the mechanics and manageability of human relations (The Flight From Woman,
p. 2-4).
|
Going beyond
Stern, I would even say that such men can master the part of being a Lover.
When they do so, however, they are indeed "acting the part" by
managing the encounter such that the deception is so complete that they
themselves cannot imagine that there is any more to love or being in love. However, Stern warns such men that true
"love can neither be planned nor managed, it can only be sown and
nurtured" (191). Thus they can never experience how it is that a man in
love can leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (Gen 2:24).
When I read Mulieris dignitatem, I discover the soul
of a man who has lost his mother and who, despite himself, moves in a world in
which he inadvertently regards the vocation of all women to be that of
motherhood (whether it be physical or spiritual motherhood). When it comes to
the Genesis accounts, John Paul II focuses upon the dignity and the equality of
the woman whose "gift of self" provides the man with his true
"helpmate." What John Paul II appears to downplay, however, are the
intimations of how utterly and irrevocably the man is transformed in the
process. Adam comes to the encounter seeking something for himself, something
to advance his private ambitions. Even God is bent to serving his self-centered
intentions. What surprises and astonishes the man, however, is how the
"woman" transforms him and his social world--how he clings to her as
bone of his bones because he loses himself in the mystery of her
"otherness" which he cherishes and loves "for its own
sake." She, in turn, reveals to him that "self" which has been
lost to him. Now his inner world of feelings and "letting go" and
vulnerability become lovable because they are loved by his significant Other.
These latter
things are muted in the meditations of John Paul II. One suspects that he has
never given himself over to any woman and, as a result, he cannot envision or
imagine what such an encounter might entail. Hence, like the man who is driven
by achievement and who has learned to guard himself within carefully constructed
"thoughts" about life, John Paul II appears blind to those things
which, in the life of most of my contemporaries, are the most precious when it
comes to knowing a "woman." David Yallop, the recent biographer of
John Paul II, confirms this assessment when he notes that “apart from Mother
Theresa and the Virgin Mary, his [adult] understanding of women was severely
limited” (The Power and the Glory, p.
404). For these reasons, Mulieris
dignitatem leaves one with a truncated understanding of women. As a father,
therefore, I would be wary of confiding my daughters to John Paul II when it
came to forming their womanhood. Why this is so will become clear as I reflect
upon the changing experience of marriage over the last three generations.
The Changing Experience
of Marriage
The
traditional marriage of my grandparents had little to do with "falling in
love" or with vulnerability. To begin with, there were distinct spheres of
influence and division of labor. My grandfather knew nothing about cooking, cleaning,
or caring for children. He left these things up to his wife just as his own
father had left all these things to his mother. My grandmother, meanwhile, knew
nothing about running a business, making a living, fixing things (plumbing,
electricity, auto mechanics) -- she left all these things in the hands of her
husband who acted much like his own father before him. Both of my grandparents
came from the same social class (middle-class), the same culture (Slovenian),
the same religion (Catholic); hence, when entering into marriage, there were
very insignificant disruptions from the habits of thought and practices which
both had been used to in their respective homes.
Where there
was disruption, the tacit surmise was that the role of the wife was to accommodate
to the wishes of her husband. Thus, when my grandfather (who took pride in
making his own wine) insisted that he always serve wine to guests and, when
there were no guests, it was assumed that his wife would serve him his wine.
So, too, when my grandfather made it known that he preferred this perfume, this
dress, this posture in love-making, my grandmother gracefully accommodated just
as she had seen her mother do. In some things, however, my grandmother refused
to accommodate. For example, she always fed her children first (from infancy
onward) even if it meant that her husband had to wait for his supper. At first,
there were angry outbursts. And later my grandfather fumed about this; yet, in
the face of his wife's stubborn insistence that "the children come
first," she finally won the day and got her husband to tolerate her
"deviance" from what had been the practice during his own upbringing.
Division of
labor and mutual need provided much of the bonding within traditional
marriages. My grandfather, for instance, needed to eat. Since he regarded
cooking as a "women's work" and never took the least interest in
watching, much less learning, the rudiments of the art, he was always dependent
upon a woman. First, it was his mother. Then, it was his wife. As was the
tradition, they postponed their marriage until he could afford to buy a house.
Thus, marriage marked the transition from his mother cooking, cleaning, ironing
for him and his wife doing all these very same things.
The same thing
could be said for my grandmother. She regarded learning a trade and making a
living as a "man's work." Thus, with her marriage, she moved from
being dependent upon the income of her father to becoming dependent upon the
income of her husband. At one point, my grandmother, who was superb at
crocheting, was lured into selling some of her doilies to her friends. My
grandfather was furious. He insisted that she give the money back. He felt
ashamed that his wife was earning income as though to say that he was not providing for her
sufficiently. My grandmother, who didn't want to resort to giving her work
away, developed the strategy of trading jams and other preserves for her
doilies. Later, she returned to the practice of accepting money and insisted
that her buyers must not breathe a word of it to anybody. Thus, in a world
wherein "the man was king of his castle," my grandmother had to surreptitiously
resort to deception in order to avoiding my grandfather's supervision in things
where he ought not to have been meddling.
How different
this was when it came to my own marriage. From the very beginning, it was clear
that I could cook, clean, and iron with a pride and proficiency which rivaled
that of my wife. She, from her side, was already training to enter a profession
such that there was never the intimation that she would be forever dependent
upon a weekly allowance that I would give to her out of my paycheck. Hence, for
the very beginning, it was evident that we had great need to influence each
other, to decide things together, to work cooperatively.
When it came
to children, marriage was a positively expansive experience. I was intent upon taking
part in all the delights and headaches of raising children from infancy to
adulthood. My cultural upbringing,
however, made it seem "sissy" if a boy showed interest (much less
compassion) for a crying, exploring, playing child. That was "girl's
stuff." Hence, I had to sympathetically watch, imitate, and receive
coaching from my wife who was extraordinarily adept at relating to children. I
read books as well. Hence, I had ideas and experiences of my own and, with the
appearance of our children, we spent hours discussing, persuading, negotiating
how they were to be raised.
Sympathetic
listening with the intent of entering into the soul of another--this is the
paradigmatic skill of modern marriage. It is for this reason that mutual
surrender (the falling in love) provides the ground for the lifelong habit of
mutual influencing each other. Under my grandparents system, mutual need and
spheres of influence provided the effective glue for marriage. For my wife and
I, however, we wanted to only enter into marriage when we had discovered a
soul-mate. Hence, romantic attraction ushered us into a mutual surrender that
characterized our union. In this, settled instincts were being transformed
under the guise of the mutual love which was binding us. I had been the son of
Emma and Anthony Milavec. Now, however, I was becoming the soul-mate of my wife
and romantic surrender was the graced stuff which made this transformation relatively
effortless. I wanted to see the world through her eyes, to taste it as she
tasted it, to touch it as she was touching it. For her it was the same. Once
the period of romantic surrender wore off, both of us had arrived at a blending
of our souls, our loves, our hates, our instincts, our habits for engaging in
the world.
My marriage
did not appear, all of a sudden, out of nowhere. Both my wife and I had parents
who, to some degree broke away from the patterns of their own parents. Thus, my
father-in-law had taken pride, over the years, in preparing Saturday morning
breakfast. He mastered making various forms of pancakes with fried sausages and
various toppings and took a special joy in doing so. At all other times, my
mother-in-law did all the cooking and cleaning up. What is significant here is
that my father-in-law's manhood was not threatened by doing this nor was my
mother-in-law's importance and necessity for the family unit challenged. On the other hand, they never made meals
together! In fact, they only marginally extended the boundaries of the separate
spheres of their parents but failed to include any negotiating or cooperative
skills which would give them any satisfaction in planning and executing a meal
together. In contrast, my wife and I enjoy cooking a meal together and
regularly entertain our friends at a table in which both of us have been
cooperatively engaged. Doing something cooperatively with another is always a
much more complex and more rewarding affair than taking turns or entirely
leaving it to one's spouse.
The trouble
that I have with Mulieris dignitatem
is that I never catch any real glimpse of how marriages have changed within the
short span of three generations. More often than not, I get the feeling that
John Paul II either has not noticed these changes or, having noticed them, has
not considered them worth mentioning. If this is the case, however, I doubt
whether he has understood or taken into account the stuff of my marriage. For
all I know, he might be still thinking of marriage as he knew it in his
formative years in Kraków--a marriage very much like that of my grandparents.
The fact that he assigns the role and vocation of woman as directed towards the
"gift of self" and towards motherhood gives the feeling that he is still
imagining my grandparents' generation. His wisdom, accordingly, would have admirable
fit my grandparents. Today, however, I presume that my wife has a calling and a
vocation within the public sphere that stands alongside her being wife and
mother. John Paul II does not appear to notice this. As in the case of my own
father, he might, under restricted circumstances, allow my wife to continue to
work outside the home until the birth of her first child. This "work,"
however, was not her true vocation; it
was merely a diversion until "motherhood" set in and revealed who she
was meant to be. Fat chance, therefore, that someone fashioned within this era
would be receptive to women as ordained ministers within the Catholic Church.
The struggle for women in the Church may indeed be much more a question of
enculturation rather than an issue of theology.
The
Implications for Women of the Fall in the Garden
Within the
Fathers and Doctors of the church, one finds a steady and repeated theme: the
"woman" in the Garden showed herself to be weak and unreliable. Thus,
she was chosen by the demon-serpent as the easier prey and, having fallen into
disobedience, she deliberately used her influence to bring her "man"
down with her. Thus, in the minds of most Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Genesis
provides the paradigmatic warning that women must not to be trusted or given
undue influence over men.
The whole of
the Hebrew Scriptures (even while it frequently partakes in an ambivalent
attitude toward women) never falls into the trap of categorically blaming women
for misleading men on the basis of the Genesis account. The first time that
Genesis is used to specifically expose the weakness and unreliability of women
is in 1 Timothy:
I permit no woman to teach or to have
authority over a man. . . . For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was
not deceived [first], but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1
Tim 2:12-14).
|
As was pointed
out in an earlier chapter, the writer of 1 Timothy wanted to use the cloak of
Paul to overturn the equality of discipleship which Paul extended to Jews and
Greeks, to slave and to free, to female and to male. Finding no rule given by
Paul or by Jesus to stop the practice whereby some women apparently were
teaching and were exercising guidance over men, the writer of 1 Timothy fell
back upon scapegoating all women because of what he regarded as the permanent
character of Eve in relation to Adam. The argument has two prongs: (a) Adam was
formed first; hence, not only Adam but all men have a superior dignity and
honor which requires that all teachers much be chosen from among them; (b) In
the one case where Adam allowed Eve to "teach" him, she deceived him;
hence, all men, in all places and all times, should resist the teaching and the
influence of women. Despite the faulty logic of this argument, nearly all of
the Fathers of the Church felt that they had a certain divine warrant to blame
women and to warn men against listening to women.
John Paul II
thus becomes a true father and brother to women in the Church by refusing to
use 1 Tim 2:12-14 to enforce the notion that all women are to be named as
gullible and unreliable due to the supposed fact that Eve fell first. In
contrast, John Paul II insists that, despite the different roles played by
each, both were equally culpable:
The biblical description of original sin
in the third chapter of Genesis in a certain way "distinguishes the
roles" which the woman and the man had in it. This is also referred to
later in certain passages of the Bible, for example, Paul's Letter to
Timothy: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not
deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim
2:13-14). But there is no doubt that, independent of this "distinction
of roles" in the biblical description, that first sin is the sin of man,
created by God as male and female. It is also the sin of the "first
parents," to which is connected its hereditary character. In this sense
we call it "original sin" (MD: 9).
|
John Paul II,
however, was not able to be consistent in maintaining this sense of equal
participation, for, when it comes to considering the consequence, the
"dominion" of Adam over Eve sadly replaces their original
"equality." Thus, in the end, John Paul II falls into the logical
fallacy of the Fathers by assuming that Adam's dominion over the Eve after the
fall represents the situation that ought to prevail in all times and places
(regardless of whether the man in question happens to be wise and self-giving
or gullible and selfish). The logic runs as follows:
The biblical description in the Book of
Genesis outlines the truth about the consequences of man's sin, as it is
shown by the disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman
which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons. . . . Therefore
when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman:
"Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"
(Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to
this "unity of the two" which corresponds to the dignity of the
image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious
for the woman, since domination takes the place of "being a sincere gift"
and therefore living "for" the other: "he shall rule over
you." This "domination" indicates the disturbance and loss of
the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman
possess in the "unity of the two": and this is especially to the
disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their
dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an
authentic "communio personarum." While the violation of this
equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator,
involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it
also diminishes the true dignity of the man. Here we touch upon an extremely
sensitive point in the dimension of that "ethos" which was originally
inscribed by the Creator in the very creation of both of them in his own
image and likeness (MD: 10).
|
John Paul II,
instead of arguing that Jesus, in his teaching and in his preferential option
in favor of women, wished to return to that fundamental equality which was
intended by the Divine Creator at the beginning of creation, now uses Gen 3:16
to correct both Jesus and Paul and to relegate, not only Eve, but all women to
the permanent and divinely ordained condition of being subject to the authority
of men.
That all women
at all times are "disadvantaged" and "discriminated
against" thus appears to be, more or less, the natural consequence of Gen
3:16:
These words of Genesis refer directly to
marriage, but indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life:
the situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or discriminated
against by the fact of being a woman (MD: 10).
|
Immediately
after this point, John Paul II makes an obscure reference to "the books of
Sacred Scripture confirm . . . the actual existence of such situations and at
the same time proclaim the need for conversion . . . from what offends
neighbor, what 'diminishes' man . . ." (MD: 10). At this point, one would
have hoped that John Paul II might have been more precise in noting that the
Gospels proclaim the need for conversion from what offends and
"diminishes" women --but he does not. Can it be assumed that
the generic terms "neighbor" and "man" were intended to
apply to "women"? One would think so. One might hope so. But he never
says so.
Yet, while
John Paul II is unclear here, he does, nonetheless, make it abundantly clear
later that the domination of women by men is both necessary due to the fall and
yet transitory due to the effects of salvation:
The personal resources of femininity are
certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely
different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her
"fulfillment" as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis
of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she
received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of
the "image and likeness of God" that is specifically hers. The
inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible "Your desire shall
be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" can be conquered only
by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is,
generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or
man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman's personal dignity
and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own
vocation (MD: 10).
|
From reading
this, it would seem like the domination of women in Gen 3:16 is an "evil
inheritance" which can and must be progressively overcome by the original
equality affirmed by Gen 1:27. Yet, this same text can be understood to mean
that the "path" to overcome "the inheritance of sin" is
precisely for women to embrace their subjection to their husbands.
In the face of
John Paul's seeming fixation upon Gen 3:16, he passes over in silence the text
which comes immediately before and immediately after. The text immediately
before reads as follows: "I [the Lord] will greatly increase your pangs in
childbearing" (Gen 3:16a). Given the unclear lessons which John Paul II
has distilled from Gen 3:16b, it remains uncertain whether he would promote
natural childbirthing which does nothing to diminish the "pangs of
childbirth" or, on the contrary, whether he would encourage women giving birth
to use relaxation breathing and spinal blocks by way of overcoming "the
inheritance of sin."
The same
ambiguity greets the silence of John Paul II regarding the text immediately
following which registers the consequence of the fall for the man:
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife . . . cursed is the
ground because of you: in toil shall you eat of it [i.e., its fruits] all the
days of your life" (Gen 3:17). Here again, it remains unclear as to why
John Paul II is never tempted to imagine that the vocation of all men is to be
farmers as was Adam. Since these words are addressed to "the man"
alone, it also remains unclear whether women should be prohibited from assisting
their men in the toil of the fields. Furthermore, since Adam and Eve were
vegetarians and the Lord gave only them "seed-bearing" and
"green" plants for food (Gen 1:29f), a condition which would be
changed only after the flood (Gen 9:2-6), one wonders whether John Paul II never
entertains the possibility that humans should return to being vegetarians.
Finally, since Gen 3:17 clearly places its emphasis upon "toil" and
"sweat," one wonders whether subsistence farming using primitive
tools appropriate to primitive men is to be advocated or whether, on the
contrary, tractors, pesticides, and herbicides are to be greeted as envisioned
by the Gospel as overcoming the curses of the fall. All in all, since John Paul
II is so keen to define women on the basis of the biology of the womb and his patriarchal
reading of Genesis, it remains puzzling why he is not equally zealous to define
“man” on the basis of the biology of the penis and to define man’s universal
vocation to be farming (whether physical, spiritual, intellectual, or social
“farming”).
My purpose for
imagining issues posed by the text that are silently passed over by John Paul
II is to demonstrate the fallacy of supposing that the situations described
after the fall were somehow meant to have universal application to all men and
to all women down to the end of time. At best, therefore, the reflections of
John Paul II are curiously short-sighted and antiquated. At worst, they are patriarchal
and self-serving. This then brings me to a personal turning point: if I am
aware of these things, would I be a worthy father and trustworthy guide for my
daughters if I did not alert them to the severe limitations that I find within
the pope’s commentary on those very things that shape their existence as women
in our modern world?
Conclusions
John Paul II
grew up within my grandparents' era. He knows their life values, their hopes, and
their dreams. For this generation, John Paul II is an able father and a wise guide.
When it comes to my generation and my marriage, I fear that John Paul II
understands little or else he values little what we have tried to achieve. The
vague dream of equality which John Paul II holds out to women is the central
tenet of my marriage and those in my generation who share our values. Within
this world, many women have the vocation of motherhood, a few have the vocation
of virginity, but all have the deep stirring of the Spirit which calls them to
be engineers, mail carriers, deacons, scientists, child psychologists, priests,
cab drivers, theologians, social reformers, and prophets. This world has
overtaken the world of my grandparents, just as it has overtaken the world of
John Paul II. My grandfather would have vigorously resisted the modern
expansion of women's vocations; hence, it is no surprise that John Paul II,
with his grandfatherly understanding of the world would do the same.
In the end,
the sad truth is that I would not entrust my daughter to the guidance of this
"grandfather" when it came to matters of women's vocation, of women's
femininity, or women's sexuality. I would have her love him dearly and to
listen to his stories and to become familiar, through him, of where her
forebears once were. Thus my daughters would come to understand the love in their
grandfather's eyes as the real token of his care and affection. As for his
practical guidance and wisdom, however, she would realize that he fails to
address her world and her dreams since everything he knew had been fashioned
within the settled instincts and sources of grace rooted in a vanishing past.
When the world is quite stable from one generation to the next, then the elders
have only to transmit the wisdom learned during their youth since the present
generation has substantially the same experience of growing up. When cultures do
change, however, the wisdom of the elders fails. Thus, with some sadness, my
daughter must discover that the wisdom of John Paul II almost certainly will
not be able to nourish and guide her soul. Jesus, keenly aware of how his own hard-won
wisdom hungered for God's future and clashed with the religious norms of his
past, would thus be the only authentic road to follow:
And no one puts new wine into old
wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost,
and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins (Mark 2:22).
|
Copyright
© 2008 by Aaron Milavec