Whilst launching the English version of The Catechism of The Catholic
Church at the National Press Club in Canberra on 22 June 1994, His Grace,
Archbishop Barry Hickey, remarked that the Catechism was being released at
a time when the errors of monism and pantheism were gaining ground again.
He said moreover that the Catechism strongly reaffirmed the transcendence
of God, and in this he could only have been criticising the tenets of the
heresy of Modernism which is so rampant in the Church. In the context of
these strong remarks, it is a pity that His Grace did not take the
opportunity to address the more pernicious error bedevilling the Catholic
Church and its members today, namely, the philosophical and theological
error of feminism, especially when the reason for the delay of a year and
more in publication of the Catechism in English was largely the result of
the influence of feminism.
His Grace was at pains, in making answer to questions from the floor,
to distance the correction of the first draft from any suggestion that it
had been prompted by a deliberate attempt to remove from it "gender
inclusive" language. The reason given by His Grace for the delay was that
it was necessary to modify the language of the draft so as to express more
accurately in translation the language of the original French. With great
respect to His Grace, while that explanation is true, it does not state
the half of it. The analysis by Mons. Michael J. Wren and Kenneth D.
Whitehead of the errors in the first draft, published recently, makes it
abundantly clear that it was replete with the so called "inclusive
language" and that this constituted a fundamental flaw.
His Grace indicated that he saw the effect on the English language of
such influences as part of its development. Earlier he had surmised that
when the latin version of The Catechism was published there would be scope
for other translations which he described as "more culturally
appropriate". The disturbing implication that might be drawn from these
remarks is that it may be open for a "gender inclusive" language version
of The Catechism to be published.
Despite what Archbishop Hickey had to say, the influence of feminism
on the English language is not part of the natural development of the
language but an influence which is working to corrupt it. For by insisting
on so-called "inclusive" language feminism seeks to remove from the
language certain concepts. There are many words whose meaning feminism
wishes so to modify. The word which will serve as an illustration for the
purposes of argument is the word 'man'. 'Man' has a number of meanings in
the English language but there are two which are basic. The first, and
more universal, expresses the concept of the genus - rational animal. The
second, and less universal, expresses the concept of gender - male
rational animal. The confusion that feminism seeks to introduce is to
insist that 'man' only ever indicates 'male rational animal'. This has
the character of a lie and by this character the philosophy that promotes
it may be judged.
Feminism is simply another strand of the subjectivism which
characterises all modern philosophies and which was so roundly condemned
in the Encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII in August 1950. It is
of the character of all modern philosophy to deny that we can know natures
and to assert that there are only collections of individuals which are
similar. The only unity it will allow is a nominal one [nominalism]. In
its efforts to force the populace to accept its so called "inclusive"
language, feminism seeks to demonstrate that there is no such thing as the
nature of man: there are only men; there are only women.
The philosophy of feminism asserts as its fundamental principle: Men
and women are equal in ability in every respect, whether at the material
level or at the spiritual, at the physical level or at the psychological.
This principle gives rise to a number of corollaries, including the
assertions that women have always been oppressed by men and their rights
have always been suppressed by men, and it is for this reason only that
they have been unable to achieve the same status as men in the fields of
science, art, work and in social and public life. Feminism denies any
value to feminine traits or dispositions. Feminism asserts that only the
masculine talents and activities are worthwhile and that no longer should
men be allowed a monopoly on their exercise. From this there can be
observed the fundamental paradox in feminism. Feminists are loud in their
calls for "women's rights"; but what they want are not women's rights, but
men's rights.
For men and women are different. They do not have equal abilities and
talents; they have different abilities and talents. These different
abilities and talents occur at every level and they reflect the design of
the Creator that men and women should complement rather than compete with
each other. Different rights and different obligations attach to them. A
man has the right to be treated as a man and has obligations which are
specific to his sex. So also a woman has the right to be treated as a
woman and has obligations accordingly.
The confusion of these rights and obligations, which feminism
intends, has worked and continues to work grave harm in the lives of men
and women and, especially, children. It is high time its evils were
addressed.
A consideration of the language that feminism employs will show that
almost universally, it takes a word which has an ancient pedigree and a
certain meaning and, through the addition of a suffix or some
qualification, it loads the word or phrase with obliquy. Apply this test
to the following feminist terms:
"sexist","paternalistic","patriarchal","chauvinist", "male
chauvinist","discrimination". It turns an ordinary and acceptable word
into a curse. It invests its terminology with the character of hatred.
Feminism is nothing but a passing philosophical fad. In this it is
to be compared with other philosophies which are now regarded as passe.
Consider the philosophies of idealism and of dialectical materialism [ie.
Communism]. Each of them had a view which it sought to impose on the
world: so does feminism. Each of them tried to change history to make it
suit its theories: so does feminism. Each of them gave birth to a
terminology which is now regarded as dated and otiose. Who today, for
instance, uses expressions such as "bourgeois capitalist","revanchist" or
speaks of "the revolution","the proletariat" or "the withering away of the
state", except with humour? Language such as this meant something to the
adherents of these philosophies because it expressed some aspect of their
ideology. But, save to the extent that there is always some element of
truth in every false philosophy, the language did not express any true
statement about reality. It was as if its adherents looked at the world
through the rose coloured glasses of their ideology and uttered a coloured
language to reflect what they saw. But what they uttered had very little
to do with truth.
In the same way is feminism a false philosophy and its terminology a
false terminology. And it is important that we should make a point of
declining to use this false terminology because of the false
presuppositions contained in it. The aphorism that Cardinal Mindszenty
used against the Communists is appropriate here: "If you use their words,
you will end up thinking their thoughts." Therefore the correct answer to
make to those who accuse us of being "sexist" or "paternalistic" or of
"practising sex discrimination" is to say to them that their expressions
are meaningless to anyone except those who accept their theories and that
they contain no valid criticisms.
Feminists never stop to ask themselves why it is, if the tenets of
feminism are so self evident, that they have never achieved any measure of
acceptance before the latter half of the 20th century. The reason is that
only in the latter half of this century have contraception and abortion
become regarded as acceptable behaviour and feminism could never flourish
save in such an atmosphere. Very few women would seek to pursue callings
which are peculiarly masculine or allow themselves to be misled into
thinking that they should pursue them if their energies were absorbed in
the mothering, in the loving and in the educating of their children.
That feminism should have come into existence in such a setting is
not accidental. Those who are responsible for its existence include Marie
Stopes, Margaret Sanger, Havelock Ellis, Bertrand Russell and George
Bernard Shaw. Each of them advocated contraception,"free love", and the
"freedom" of women from the necessity of giving birth to, and having to
love and cherish, children. The freedom they advocated was the freedom
the devil sought when he said: "Nil serviam".
Feminism is a false and evil philosophy and it works great harm in
society. It attacks women because it attacks the realities of motherhood
and virginity, the two values in which a woman realises her most profound
vocation. The preoccupation proper to woman is a preoccupation with
persons which is noble "per se". Feminism seeks to change her interests
to the masculine, and more degrading, preoccupation with things.
Feminism attacks men because it denies that the vocation of bread
winner in a family properly belongs to the man. It denies that he is head
of his household. It removes from him, when it poisons the mind of his
wife, the counsel he would expect from his helpmate. It removes the
natural harmony in his family because it replaces the single and common
goal of the care of the family with two competing goals: the care of the
family and the wife's "fulfilment". Feminism attacks the children of the
family because no longer do they have a mother prepared to give them total
service. Very often the feminist mother is prepared to give them no
service at all.
And most importantly, feminism attacks Christ and His Church. It
does so through its attack on the family. Feminism denies that the
husband is the head of his wife: it insists that the family should be a
democracy [is it not one of the slogans of this Year of the Family that
the family is 'the smallest democracy'?]. But St. Paul says in his letter
to the Ephesians [5:23-24]:
". . . The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of
the Church . . . therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also
let wives be to their husbands in all things."
In denying that the husband is the head of his family, feminism
denies that the Church is subject to Christ. This is the reality behind
the feminist complaints that the Church is "paternalistic" and represses
women and that the Church is not democratic. Feminism denies the
legitimate authority of bishops as fathers of their dioceses and of
priests as fathers of their parishes. If bishops and priests could only
see that the feminist dogma ultimately destroys their own positions they
would not tolerate its nonsense. And finally, of course, feminism denies
the authority of the Pope as the father [il Papa] of all the faithful.
So inimical is feminism to the Catholic Faith, that it is true to say
that you cannot be both a Catholic and a feminist. Sooner or later you
must leave the Church or abandon the feminist creed. There are
innumerable Catholics today, especially amongst members of the clergy and
religious orders, who have effectively [de facto] cut themselves off from
the Church, but who think that they remain within the Church because they
continue to attend Mass and to receive [and, in the case of clergy,
administer] the Sacraments. The time is upon us when they will separate
themselves or will be separated from the Church in law [de jure].
For this is the effect that the Pope's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis will have. Notwithstanding comments allegedly emanating from
Cardinal Ratzinger to the contrary, no one should be in any doubt that the
definition in this document is an infallible one. What was the firm
teaching of the Catholic Church for twenty centuries has now been defined.
The false philosophy which has precipitated the definition is feminism.
[Michael Baker is a Sydney lawyer and a vice chairman of The St.
Joseph Foundation, an institution which specialises in giving
canonical advice to Catholics. This article appeared in Fidelity
published by John XXIII Fellowship Co-Op]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
