Sincere gift: The pope's "new feminism"

Leonie Caldecott

Woman is a space-maker, a protector of growth, an enabler of life,
a place of safety where others can encounter Christ and know
themselves to be loved.

In <Evangelium Vitae> (1995), Pope John Paul II calls for a "new
feminism"-just as in earlier encyclicals he has called for a new
evangelization and a new theology of liberation. 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." Through motherhood, he goes on, women who are
mothers "first learn and then teach others that human relations
are authentic if they are open to accepting the other person: a
person who is recognized and loved because of the dignity which
comes from being a person and not from other considerations, such
as usefulness, strength, intelligence, beauty or health. This is
the fundamental contribution which the Church and humanity expect
from women. And it is the indispensable prerequisite for an
authentic cultural change" (<EV>, n. 99)

<Evangelium Vitae> sets out the pope's prophetic vision of today's
"dramatic conflict between the 'culture of death' and the 'culture
of life'" as the context for this attempt to enlist women on the
side of life (<EV>, n. 50). The consequences of the gospel are
plain: "Human life, as a gift of God, is sacred and inviolable.
For this reason procured abortion and euthanasia are absolutely
unacceptable. Not only must [innocent] human life not be taken,
but it must be protected with loving concern" (<EV>, n. 81). "As
far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being
is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of
all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can be
founded only on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting
every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used"
(<EV>, n. 57).

The defense of life is intimately connected with the <celebration>
of life. We can "reverence and honor every person" only if we
rediscover a "contemplative outlook" (<EV>, n. 83). It is an
outlook that affects our attitude not only to human life, but to
the entire cosmos-as the pope has made clear on other
occasions.[1] "Such an outlook arises from faith in the God of
life, who has created every individual as a 'wonder' (cf. Ps
139:14). It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper
meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its
invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the outlook of
those who do not presume to take possession of reality, but
instead accept it as gift, discovering in all things the
reflection of the Creator and seeing in every person his living
image" (<EV>, n. 83).

This defense and celebration of life, this "contemplative
outlook," the pope sees as entrusted primarily to women. Here lies
the great task and the starting point for a new feminism.

I.

The pope's brief but weighty remarks on the role of women in the
encyclical on life can be expanded with reference to the 1994
<Letter to Families>, the Message for the 1995 World Day of Peace
("Women: Teachers of Peace"), the Letter to Priests for Holy
Thursday 1995, and the 1995 <Letter to Women>, together with the
many talks and addresses given around the occasion of the UN's
Beijing Conference. The main theological and exegetical work, of
course, had already been done for the apostolic letter <Mulieris
Dignitatem> (1988), on the "Dignity and Vocation of Women on the
Occasion of the Marian Year." What the 1990s have brought is
clearly a keener sense of the injustices to which women have been
subjected throughout history, and which persist in large parts of
the world. Many of the pope's remarks in 1995-and even aspects of
the Holy See's official representations at the Beijing Conference
itself-took the secular media by surprise.

Pope John Paul's respect and concern (indeed love) for women is
evident in almost everything he writes, and many women respond to
him with equal respect and affection. But "old-style feminists"
are not so happy. The pope's respect for women may be genuine, but
they suspect it is based merely on an intensely nostalgic love for
his own mother, transferred to the Blessed Virgin and to an
idealized image of femininity. Is "motherhood" somehow intrinsic
to being a woman, as the pope always seems to imply? Is there such
a thing as "femininity"? Was the decision to restrict the
priesthood to men in reality just a way of ensuring that women
will never be allowed an influence in the running of the Church,
despite all the rhetoric about equality? In trying to answer some
of these concerns, I draw on my own experience of the women's
movement, some manifestations of which I had the opportunity to
observe both before and after my reception into the Catholic
Church.

Even before the present pope came on the scene, there were always
many types of feminists, and differences between them that no
amount of "sisterhood" could paper over. There were moderate
feminists, and radical, separatist feminists. There were feminists
who denied any intrinsic difference between men and woman (the
extrinsic physical divergences being something that technology was
expected eventually to overcome). But there were others, the "eco-
feminists" (among whom I more or less counted myself) who believed
in very radical differences, and thought that women-by virtue of
their femininity, their closeness to nature, and other distinctive
qualities- could "save the earth" which men had almost succeeded
in destroying by violent assault. However, one aspect of eco-
feminism that struck me as incoherent even within the framework of
the movement was its lack of concern for one particular kind of
"violent assault" on life, namely, that represented by abortion.
Amidst all the rhetoric about the insidious power of masculine
technology, the long-term dangers of nuclear power and male
indifference (or worse) to the female sphere of experience in the
home or in personal relationships, there was a conspicuous silence
about the significance of the central fact in most women's lives-
the capacity to conceive and bear a child. The eco-feminists, in
short, wavered in front of the ideological stronghold of
mainstream feminism on the issue of "reproductive rights." (Here I
was not alone in my concern, and it is important to note the
presence on the American scene of "pro-life feminists," of whom
Juli Loesch Wiley would be an outstanding example.[2]) Ironically,
the same eco-feminists were often quite sympathetic to "natural
family planning," purely on the grounds of respect for the nature
of a woman's cycle. (This of course did not preclude using this
most effective "alternative technology" with a contraceptive
mentality.)

Another aspect of eco-feminism that concerned me was its reliance
on pagan spiritualities, often leading to some form of goddess-
worship. At the time of my contact with the movement I was
researching a book on women and Christianity. The hostility to
this subject evinced by most eco-feminists at that time was
absolute. Yet I felt intuitively that it was within Christianity
that the answer to the problems so eloquently expressed by the
eco-feminists truly lay, and it was this intuition that eventually
led to my seeking admission to the sacramental life of the Church
in 1983, and distancing myself from what I had come to feel was a
hopelessly shallow analysis of humanity's problems. For me as for
many other women, the Holy Father, in asking for a new feminism,
is bringing to fruition a question which in many respects is not
so new. What is "new" is the fact that the pope has succeeded in
integrating pro-life with the best aspects of eco-feminism, in a
way that has its roots firmly in the fertile soil of the Catholic
tradition, rather than the ideological newspeak and psychobabble
of much of modernity.

The synthesis is made to seem possible, even "natural," thanks to
the pope's highly developed Christian anthropology. As a
personalist philosopher from his days in Lublin, he locates the
intrinsic and constant value of every human life in the fact that
it is the life of a <person> in the order of love and grace. Man
and woman are fundamentally equal in that sense. As a Christian,
he further locates the meaning of human life in <love>, defined as
the giving and receiving of the self. Marriage and parenthood,
both human and divine, he sees as revealing love in its most
intense and archetypal form. Thus he affirms the importance of a
natural complementarily between men and women as such, intended by
the Creator as the means by which the loving relations of the
Trinity could be mirrored in the cosmos.

II.

To illustrate this further, let us look at a particularly
beautiful and moving expression of the pope's view of women, taken
from a Lenten message to the Brazilian Church in 1990. "Woman . .
is a person as much as man is; the person is the sole creature
which God wanted for its own sake; the sole creature to be made
expressly in the image and likeness of God, who is Love. Precisely
for this reason, a person cannot find complete fulfillment except
by making a sincere gift of self. Herein lies the origin of
'community,' in which the 'unity of the two' and personal dignity
must be expressed, as much for man as for woman." Woman, he goes
on:

finds her fulfilmnent and vocation as a person according to the
richness of the attributes of femininity, which she received on
the day of creation and which is transmitted from generation to
generation, in her special manner of being the image of God,
tarnished by sin and redeemed in Jesus Christ....

The hardness of the human heart, wounded by the consequence of
original sin in the passing of history, was harming and upsetting
the Creator's plan for woman as well, the image of God. It is
necessary for us now to walk down the paths of conversion, to
return to the original vision of the Lord.

Here now I make my appeal to the Brazilian woman and on behalf of
her, neither slave nor queen, just woman:

-Woman as <child>: a being with the look of a simple but rare
flower; blooming at the dawn of her life, she wants to receive and
reflect God's light;

-Woman in <youth>: sun of spring morning, seen clearly radiating
hope, in need of respect, trust and dignity;

-<Adult> woman: midday sun, with her simple dignity, sincerity and
purity, giving light and warmth with serene reflection, with
rectitude of spirit, with harmony which is her wardrobe and
adornment;

-<Elderly> woman: a welcoming shadow which falls, with natural
maternal affection and particular wisdom and prudence, living in
self-gift, with the desire to serve the happiness of others, the
happiness of her fellow creatures.

Certainly the pope holds a very "romantic" view of woman. But is
it an "unrealistic" view? He is speaking here of "the Creator's
plan," in full awareness of the damage wrought by sin. It is
useless to protest that the pope is "idealizing" the feminine.
John Paul II believes that God has revealed his own plan for human
nature in revealing himself through Mary and Jesus, and that any
Christian who reads the book of Scripture and the book of nature
with the eyes of faith-in the light of the Holy Spirit dwelling in
the Church-will be able to discern there the features of man and
woman as originally created and as presently redeemed. The
descriptions he gives of the ideal Brazilian woman at each stage
of her life are not mere wishful dreams, but accurate depictions
of those women who, joining themselves to Christ, have become
saints.

In his <Letter to Women>, the pope reflects on the complementarity
of men and women, and the "genius" or specific contribution of
woman to this partnership in life and salvation. He writes,
indeed, that it "is only through the duality of the 'masculine'
and the 'feminine' that the 'human' finds full realization" (<LW>,
n. 7). Basing himself on Genesis 2:18-20, he explains that woman
is created by God to be a "helper" for man not only in a physical
or psychological sense for the sake of reproduction or comfort-but
<ontologically>, and for the task of transforming the earth
through culture (<LW>, nn. 7-8). Even in the task of salvation,
this cooperation is evident: Mary complements Christ by the active
receptivity of her <fiat>. By grace, she is raised (and in her the
Church) to union with God in that love which is the eternal dance
of the Blessed Trinity. In the Church, as Balthasar writes and the
pope echoes, the "Marian" principle complements the "Apostolic-
Petrine" (<LW>, n. 11). But it is Mary, not Peter, who is supreme:
as representative of humanity, she is "Queen of the Apostles
without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and
greater powers."[3]

Given the pope's "nuptial" understanding of human nature as a
"unity of the two," the first key to his new feminism must lie in
the exegesis of the marriage covenant as one of <mutual
subjection>, over against the simple subjection of wife to
husband. There is still subjection, still obedience, still a
distinction of roles, still complementarily, but it is a <mutual>
subjection and therefore not "oppressive." This is how the pope
introduces the concept in <Mulieris Dignitatem>, drawing out the
implications of Ephesians 5:21:

The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It
reminds them of the "ethos" of spousal love which goes back to the
divine institution of marriage from the "beginning." Corresponding
to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: "<Husbands,
love your wives,>" love them because of that special and unique
bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become "one flesh" (Gen
2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental <affirmation
of the woman> as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for
the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is
precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he
desires that she be "in splendor, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph
5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole "style" of
Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the
elements of this style in regard to their wives; <analogously, all
men should do the same in regard to women in every situation>
[emphasis mine]. In this way both men and women bring about "the
sincere gift of self." (<MD>, n. 24)

Later on, the pope concludes: "In relation to the 'old' this is
evidently something 'new': it is an innovation of the Gospel." It
is indeed "new," a "call which from that time onwards does not
cease to challenge succeeding generations," including our own. In
its light we may locate the basis for the "new feminism." As we
shall see, this notion of "the sincere gift," which in this
context is seen as the central goal of the marriage union, is also
at the heart of the new feminism, demonstrating that a fresh
understanding of the married state must play a vital role in the
renewal of culture towards which the new feminism tends.

John Paul II's writings on women, in all their essential points,
echo the contents of a classic piece of feminist (or perhaps I
should say "post-feminist") writing by the "grandmother of
European Orthodoxy," Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.[4] No doubt
independently, working from within their respective traditions,
this man and this woman have come to similar conclusions about the
role of women and the need for cultural change. Elisabeth Behr-
Sigel calls for us to replace the "Cartesian humanism" of the male
as "master and possessor" of woman and the earth with a new
humanism of tender and compassionate respect for the other.
Women's legitimate roles are infinitely varied: the choice need
not and should not be between the domestic and the monastic life.
Marriage itself, according to St. Paul, is a mystery of
"reciprocal love" and of "submission each to the other." We need a
dialogue between theology and anthropology, an understanding of
gender that is faithful both to the lived experience of women and
to the account of man's creation in Genesis. The loving unity to
which we are called will be achieved not by suppressing all
distinctions, but by ending the "quarrel" between the <bad
masculine> and the <bad feminine> that has developed in the state
of sin. Feminism, she concludes, must be freed from the mentality
of a society dominated by "perverted masculine values."

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel emphasises "respect for the other"; the pope
integrates this with "respect for life." His is the fuller and
more urgent appeal. The "civilization of love" is also a "culture
of life." The special genius of women is concerned with the fact,
not that all women are or should be mothers in the physical sense,
but that womanhood is "designed" with motherhood in mind, and
therefore feminine strengths and sensibilities are orientated
towards the welcoming and nurturing of life. "A mother welcomes
and carries in herself another human being, enabling it to grow
outside her, giving it room, respecting its otherness" (<EV>, n.
99). All women as women share this capacity to welcome the life of
the other and to create the conditions for it to grow and
flourish, whether in physical motherhood or spiritual motherhood;
in the home or the office, the factory or the university or the
convent; in political life, economic life, in the city or the
country.

The particular "genius" (as the pope terms it) of the woman who
has not surrendered her womanhood and yet operates in the working
world has been traced by a long line of Catholic writers such as
Edith Stein, Gertrud von Le Fort, Caryll Houselander, and Adrienne
von Speyr. In an exemplary way, von Le Fort brings the sensibility
of a poet to her philosophical and theological reflections, and
although she was writing in the 1930s, her prophetic insights
remain relevant today. For instance, on the primacy of men and
women working alongside each other in the hierarchy of social
interaction she writes: "Every sort of co-operation, even the most
insignificant, between man and woman is, in its bearing upon the
wholeness of life, of far greater import than associations that
are purely masculine or purely feminine. Naturally, such
associations have their definite purposes inasmuch as they are
dedicated to a common struggle or ideal and serve for the
development of certain new thoughts, but for limited scope only.
In fact they risk sterility because of narrowness or one-sidedness
and therefore are of little import in the wider cultural
field."[5]

Her insights into the inner landscape of "women's work" and its
connections with the maternal principle are also fascinating:

The world has need of the motherly woman; for it is, for the most
part, a poor and helpless child. As man comes feebly into the
world, so in profound weakness he departs from it; to the hand
that wraps the child in its infant clothes corresponds the
merciful hand of the woman who supports the aged man and wipes the
sweat from the brows of the dying. Between birth and death lies
not only the achievement of the successful, but the unending
weariness of the way, the workaday monotony, all that belongs to
the needs of the body and of life.

The motherly woman is appointed the quiet stewardess of this
tremendous inheritance of necessity and distress. Under this
aspect of mother, woman does not represent, as she does as bride,
only the one half of reality. Here her part is more than half.
People know why the man calls his wife "Mother." In doing so he
does not address only the mother of his children, but the mother
of everyone, which means above all, the mother of her own
husband.[6]

III.

The pope's own most compelling exposition of the social, spiritual
and eschatological significance of human motherhood can be found
in <Mulieris Dignitatem> (nn. 18 and 19). After taking a stand
against the very biological reductionism falsely attributed to
Catholic teaching by feminists,[7] he embarks on a profound
exegesis of the maternal condition, an exegesis which illuminates
all the essential points of Catholic moral teaching in this area,
from the defense of life to the need for stable and faithful
marriages. Rejecting any "exclusively big-physical interpretation
of women and motherhood," he links motherhood "to the personal
structure of the woman and to the personal dimension of the gift:
'I have brought a man into being with the help of the Lord' (Gen
4:1)." And, whereas parenthood is something that belongs to both
men and women, "It is the woman who 'pays' directly for this
shared generation, which literally absorbs the energies of her
body and soul. It is therefore necessary that the man be fully
aware that in their shared parenthood he owes a special debt to
the woman. No programme of 'equal rights' between women and men is
valid unless it takes this fact fully into account." Men in some
sense <learn their fatherhood from the mother of their children>,
so that as the child grows, the contribution of both parents can
come into play.

Mary's <fiat> signifies "the woman's readiness for the gift of
self and her readiness to accept a new life" (<MD>, n. 18).
Through the perfection of her self-gift, made possible by the
absence of original sin in her unclouded and lovely soul, the New
Covenant is established between God and man. Though imperfect in
comparison, each fresh instance of motherhood in human history is
nonetheless related to this central act on the part of Mary. The
"<fiat> mentality" is the essential key to the fulfillment of a
mother's vocation, not only at conception, but throughout the life
of the child. For we must remember Jesus' response to the women in
the Gospel of Luke: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of
God and keep it" (11:27-28). This means that "The motherhood of
every woman, understood in the light of the gospel, is similarly
not only 'of flesh and blood': it expresses a profound '<listening
to the word of the living God>' and a readiness to 'safeguard'
this Word.... For it is precisely those born of earthly mothers,
the sons and daughters of the human race, who receive from the Son
of God the power to become 'children of God' (Jn 1:12). A
dimension of the New Covenant in Christ's blood enters into human
parenthood, making it a reality and a task for 'new creatures'
(cf. 2 Cor 5:17). The history of every human being passes through
the threshold of a woman's motherhood: crossing it conditions 'the
revelation of the children of God' (cf. Rom 8:19)" (<MD>, n. 19).

The entire passage about motherhood concludes with a meditation on
Our Lord's use of the imagery of childbirth in John 16:21. "The
first part of Christ's words refers to the 'pangs of childbirth'
which belong to the heritage of original sin; at the same time,
these words indicate the link that exists between the woman's
motherhood and the Paschal Mystery." There is a hint here of the
mysterious parallel between the feminine vocation of motherhood
and the masculine vocation of the priesthood. In any case, the
pope goes on to enumerate some of the sufferings which women go
through for the sake of this vocation, before focusing our
attention anew on the Resurrection. The key word here is "joy"-
"the joy that a child is born into the world," and Jesus' words
before his passion: "I will see you again and your hearts will
rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you" an 16:22-23).

IV.

I have quoted from <Mulieris Dignitatem> at such length because I
believe we have here all the essential elements for the creation
of the "new feminism," which is intrinsically linked to the
maternal capacity of women, a capacity which it is worth repeating
goes much further than the fact of biological childbearing. In
addition to the point about mutual subjection, there are four key
concepts to be noted:

(1) The "sincere gift of self," of which the Blessed Virgin's fiat
is the summit.

(2) The "debt" owed by men to women, who pay the heaviest price
for the bearing of life.

(3) The "keeping of the Word" by women in their vocation, no
matter what it is.

(4) The conditioning of "the revelation of the children of God" as
the effect of the relationship between child and mother.

All four are inextricably linked, and necessary for the process of
cultural transformation envisaged by the Holy Father. Firstly, the
acquiescence of women to what is asked of them must be <sincere>,
that is to say, arising out of a deep conviction and sense of
purpose. It must have a personal authenticity, the subject being
defined in terms of her divine destiny, the will of God for her
life, and not in terms of the status quo. Mainstream feminism is
frequently objecting to the falsity of the feminine consciousness-
for example the 1950s-style suburban housewife "married to her
house," or the lack of integrity in the (Strindbergian) martyred
or devouring mother. The woman of the sex-war, be she collaborator
or guerilla, manifestly lacks both sincerity and the ability to
give of her true self. This poor "unrepentant Eve" should hardly
be mourned by anyone.[8]

It is worth quoting Edith Stein on this all-important principle of
the "sincere gift of self," which links the spousal impulse
clearly to the maternal vocation, the married state to that of
consecrated virginity. She shows how it is only in the profound
communion with her Lord that a woman can find the strength to be
truly herself.

The deepest longing of woman's heart is to give herself lovingly,
to belong to another, and to possess this other being completely.
This longing is revealed in her outlook, personal and all-
embracing, which appears to us as specifically feminine. But this
surrender becomes a perverted self-abandon and a form of slavery
when it is given to another person and not to God; at the same
time, it is an unjustified demand which no human being can
fulfill. Only God can welcome a person's total surrender in such a
way that one does not lose one's soul in the process but wins it.
And only God can bestow himself upon a person so that He fulfills
this being completely and loses nothing of Himself in so doing.
That is why total surrender which is the principle of the
religious life is simultaneously the only adequate fulfillment
possible for women's yearning.[9]

The second point gives us the absolutely necessary precondition
<on the part of men> to the sincere gift of self on the part of
women. If their surrender (whose true object is God) is met with
ingratitude, or even a dishonorable and inappropriate complacency
on the part of men, an offense is committed against both woman and
her Creator, and disaster ensues. Misogyny is a very real
phenomenon (even if it is exaggerated for the sake of the
propaganda war between the sexes), and it is particularly crushing
for a woman who presents herself with an attitude of good will and
generosity. She may not resort to aborting the child in her womb
(either literally or figuratively), but she can be so drained of
strength by the encounter that she becomes incapable of
effectively nurturing that which God has entrusted to her. The
sincere gift of self on the part of the woman is thus guaranteed
and protected by a sincere rendering of the debt-a debt of
gratitude and all the actions which ensue-on the part of our
brothers in Christ.

So the third point concerns the necessity of long-term continuity
in the woman's vocation, a continuity which has perforce to be
rooted in the eternal. One of the Christian ideas which secular
feminists object to is the emphasis on sacrifice. Yet there is no
birth (or re-birth) without a certain blood-letting; there is no
unconditional love without the preparedness to suffer. Is it worth
speculating, however, on the distinction between the
<preparedness> for sacrifice and the grim <determination> to carry
it out? Could it be possible that there is a grain of truth in the
secular crusade against an alleged Christian "obsession" with
suffering? We are apt to slide into a kind of complacency with
regard to Christ's passion and death which mirrors some men's
complacency about female suffering. The redeemed Eve does not mind
suffering torments to bring a child (or any other of God's works)
into the world, and at her most sublime will accept that her
labors not bear fruit until after her own death. Yet if God has
called woman into being in order to <keep and protect> the Word,
what shall we say of those who render this continuity through time
difficult or even impossible? "Troubles will come," said our Lord,
"but woe to him through whom they come." The Holy Father himself
has exemplified this logic in his compassion for women who have
wounded themselves through abortion.[10]

The image of abortion (literally "putting out of its place") is an
apt one. For woman can be said to have a womb-shaped vocation.[11]
She is a space-maker, a protector of growth, an enabler of life, a
place of safety where others can encounter Christ and know
themselves to be loved. Hers is the mission to behold the world
and all its confusing travail in a very particular way: to make
use of her very weakness (cf. St. Theresa) to obtain the
privileged place of the lamb which is carried upon the shoulders
of the Shepherd, and thus see things from the perspective of His
gaze. "I love you as you are, for I see you as you are destined to
be." The eyes of a woman are a precious thing: they should not be
put out.

"One of the privileges of the maternal woman," wrote Gertrud von
Le Fort, "is the quiet, extremely important function of knowing
how to wait and be silent, the ability sometimes to overlook,
indulge in, and cover up a weakness. As a work of mercy this is no
lesser charity than clothing the naked. It is one of the most
ominous errors of the world, one of the most essential reasons for
its lack of peace, to believe that all that is wrong must always
be uncovered and condemned."[12]

The final point is perhaps the most intriguing and profound ever
made about the mystery of motherhood by Pope John Paul II: "The
history of every human being passes through the threshold of a
woman's motherhood: crossing it conditions 'the revelation of the
children of God."' Surely here we see the weighty implications of
our theme. Nobody passes into the world without as it were passing
through the "ambience" of a woman. Woman therefore has, even if
only <in potentia>, an immense influence on the history of
mankind. Her attitudes and outlook are paramount. So is her
welfare, both physical and spiritual. We see the effects of the
sex war in the devaluing of motherhood, degeneration of life-
giving attitudes in the home, and the assault on the concept of a
love faithful unto death. However, it is useless to point back to
the "Victorian values" as the panacea: the problem goes much
further back than that. Von Le Fort ascribed the rise of the
feminist movement, with all its imbalance, to this legitimate
sense of cultural loss:

The feminist movement had its spiritual roots in the dullness and
narrowness of the middle-class family. Its economic backgrounds do
not concern us here. From the stress of their starving souls, the
women of that period cried out for a spiritual purpose in life and
for an activation of their capacity for love. It was a tragic
motivation, for these women sought out a share of responsibility
in the man's world, and sought it outside the family which could
no longer shelter and satisfy them.

As G.K. Chesterton put it, writing at the same period as von Le
Fort, and with the same prophetic acuity, even in the Victorian
household the hearth was already cold.

V.

How then shall we rekindle the flame in that "hearth" which is
embodied by the woman? How shall we reach the hardened heart of
those who have sacrificed the hope of children and the love of
life on the altar of mammon? How shall we cradle the waifs and
strays "liberated" by an illusory revolution for a false freedom?
What comes to mind is a prayer card I kept to commemorate my own
conversion, a prayer card for the Holy Year of 1983, showing the
Holy Father in prayer. His sincerity and "aliveness" radiates
through the photograph. It is prayer like this that changes
things. That prayer is the human contribution which the Lord
desires as our response to his love, a prayer that represents at
its own level the profound communion of wills between his Sacred
Heart and the Immaculate Heart of his Mother.

<Excursus>

There is a particular subject of prayer, concerning the locus of
interaction between creature and Creator, which I feel bound to
bring up here, on the way to a conclusion. The recent permission
for girls to serve on the altar is an issue which pertains not
only to the role of women, but to the space where prayer is made
most possible: the liturgical space, the sanctuary at the heart of
the Church. It is, of course, the Church's right to legislate on
all such matters, and I accept whatever she may decide. This
particular permission, however, appears to remain open to further
debate m a way that (for example) the defined inability of the
Church to ordain women to the sacrament of Holy Orders does not.
And so it is in a desire to serve the Church that I present the
following argument, a response to which would at least help to
clarify the principles underlying the decision.

It is an unfortunate fact that some of the arguments deployed by
liturgical conservatives against the permission for girls to serve
on that altar seem (especially to a woman's eyes) to imply a
profoundly negative view of women. The message that comes across,
even if unintentionally, is that women must be kept out of sight
because they are liable to be viewed by men in terms of sexual
provocation. I cannot help wondering whether It is not precisely
such attitudes that affected the decision to <allow> girls onto
the altar-as if it were necessary to prove that the Church, whilst
reserving priesthood to men, is no misogynist, and is not afraid
to entrust a certain role to women even in the sacred mysteries.
Nonetheless, in spite of my objections to some of the conservative
reactions, from a woman's point of view there remain-apparently
unaddressed-some important reasons why it is not a good idea to
have girls or women serve at the altar.

These concern the symbolic sphere, which a "masculinized" society
naturally tends to discount as insignificant, but which should
mean a great deal more to those of us who have a sacramental new
of the world. According to this viewpoint, the male priest
represents the Bridegroom, the altar the Bride, the cross with its
vertical and horizontal dimensions the marriage of the two. Or,
from a slightly different symbolic perspective the priest
represents the Son, the sanctuary the Mother's mystical womb, the
rest of the church the visible body of the Mother. If the gender
of the priest is indeed a significant element in the
"iconographic" representation of Christ at the altar (as is
persuasively claimed by opponents of women's ordination[13]), then
an analogous argument would suggest that the sanctuary itself, at
least during the eucharistic rite, should remain as much as
possible a male preserve. For if you take away or blur the
distinction between the sanctuary and the rest of the church, you
risk (to use an image from the feminine sphere) unravelling the
exact tension which knits together the fabric of the sacramental
liturgy, and thus obscuring the life-giving nuptial mystery at the
core of our faith. The role of women in the liturgy is in part to
preserve that mystery, so that the cross may not be rendered vain
but is able to bear "fruit that will last." It is not therefore
"women as a distraction from the higher things" that is the
danger, but losing the principle of the feminine presence, <Mater
Ecclesia>, Daughter of Zion protectress of all that is sacred and
beautiful, offering herself in the temple on behalf of the people
of God-letting herself be offered <with the people, by the
priest>.

Mary is the Church, not the cross. Christ's body was given back
into her arms after the deposition. Certainly, during his passion,
Mary and other women stood by the cross; but the <foot of the
cross> is the symbolic equivalent not of the sanctuary but of the
church where the congregation is gathered The Virgin Mary
represents the whole of humanity before God, from the <fiat> of
the Annunciation to the <fiat> of the <Mater Dolorosa>. This
renders the sublimes" moment of our contact with God a uniquely
"feminine" one and yet it is easy to forget that Mary never drew
attention to herself, but only to her Son. This does not mean that
she was merely passive, as an earlier anthropology often
suggested; but her activity was orientated towards him, not
herself.

In short, it is for the sake of promoting the truth and beauty of
the human condition, and the disciplined poetry of liturgical
action, that I believe the space around and pertaining to the
priest during the act of sacrifice should be kept for men and
boys. All the baptized share in the <royal> priesthood of Christ,
and young girls can make the offering of themselves in countless
ways apart from service at the altar. It is far from inappropriate
for example, for them to read the Word before the Gospel, since
the Jewish race (feminine in relation to God throughout the
Scriptures) prepared the ground-culminating in Mary-for the
reception of Christ. The continuous presentation of the gifts of
themselves could surely be epitomized in the offertory procession.
Is it not redolent of the most stifling clericalism to say that
girls can make a proof of their dignity only in the role which is
necessarily the most visible service of the altar?

This reasoning may also affect the physical position of the priest
during the celebration of the Mass. There is an important contrast
between the moments when he is greeting the people, reading the
words of the Word giving them the Host <in persona Christi>, and
those moments at the heart of the eucharistic mystery in which the
priest is much more involved in representing the feminine
principle at the altar of sacrifice, offering the human
contribution (bread and wine, the prayers of the faithful) and
receiving the divine response: the eucharistic miracle, Christ's
self-gift.

I say all of this as a "conservative," for the new feminist would
naturally wish to <conserve> not only ecological harmony, but
everything that is precious and vulnerable and perhaps not readily
understood by the world. I say it also as a "radical": that is,
out of a desire to get to the <root> of problems which currently
affect the Church, problems that I am convinced are linked to
those between the sexes. The new feminist is committed to the
defense of life, and that includes the life of the Church, in
which the growth and protection of priestly vocations is a vital
element. The delicate balance of relationships within the space-
time of the liturgy, and the subtle process of initiation into a
potentially priestly vocation, can be neglected only at the
expense of future generations. It is a travesty of the truth to
present this concern in a light which links it with a fear of
women, or a loathing of the feminine.

* * *

As far as women are concerned, a profitable way forward to the
"new feminism" may lie in an authentic meditation on the rich and
varied attributes of Our Lady celebrated in the Litany of Loreto.
If justice is required, Mary is the mirror of that justice, not
the judge. If devotion is required, she is the singular vessel of
that devotion, not herself the object of worship. Women can be
tempted to turn themselves into goddesses, heroines of the hour in
cosmic proportions. It matters not whether she plays Gaia or Kali,
it all amounts to the same: the sin of Eve, who listened to the
serpentine words "You shall be as gods." "Women for Life on Earth"
is a lovely ideal, but women are powerless to do more than wreak
more havoc on earth, unless they are rooted in heaven. "I will
lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help."
With this help, through the covenant made in Christ Jesus sealed
in the heart of a real human woman, in one real moment of human
history everything is assured for us. Yes, even those sacred
spaces, those churches and homes where the divine will is borne to
fruition, those little sanctuaries of heaven on earth scattered
through time, are assured and protected by those women who follow
the Second Eve, whose transcendent humility called down the power
of God upon earth-and by those men who, like St. Joseph, exercise
unceasing and loving vigilance over their interests.[14]

And what are their interests, these daughters of Zion? Indeed,
their ambition, being in the world but not of it, knows no bounds.
It is a divine conspiracy in which they collaborate: that of
Justice for the sake of Love. The new woman is busy lowering her
consciousness, not raising it, since it is humility which calls
down the action of almighty God upon earth "Be it done to me
according to thy Word.... " It is the Lord who does the raising,
giving his own beauty in return for the sincere offering of her
identity. The new feminist is truly a daughter of the "Mother of
Fairest Love," as the Holy Father dubbed her in his <Letter to
Families>. She is truly free to do the will of the One who sent
her, free to give without counting the cost. For she has inherited
from her Mother the assurance of true motherhood, in which the
economy of the virginal <fiat> is constantly renewed.

Every mother puts a surplus at her child's disposal, a kind of
unlimited credit. Every mother has so much maternal love that even
the most loving child cannot give it back to her-certainly not
now, during the time of expectation. She keeps this surplus ready
for the child, for his coming good and bad days. The Mother of the
Lord also knows this secret. But over this too, the grace of her
Son has already disposed. So the Mother holds this surplus ready
not only for her Child, out of her natural motherliness, but for
all the plans, thoughts and concerns of the Child, not only in the
measure of their worldwide extension, but also according to their
divine supernatural depths. The Mother's surplus of love in the
expectation is already, even in concealment, flowing over onto the
Church and the whole world.[15]

ENDNOTES

1 For example, in his Message for the World Day of Peace, "Peace
with God the Creator: Peace with All of Creation" (1 January
1990).

2 See, e.g., <Pro-Life Feminism>, ed. Gail Grenier Sweet (Toronto:
Life-Cycle Books, 1985). Also, more recently, Naomi Wolf's cogent
criticism of the internal inconsistencies in the moral reasoning
and rhetoric of the pro-choice position.

3 Balthasar's expression, quoted approvingly by the pope in
<Mulieris Dignitatem>, fn. 55.

4 See <The Ministry of Women in the Church> (Oakwood Publications,
CA). I am quoting with approval from her earlier writing, but I
emphatically part company with Behr-Sigel in her later stages,
where she gravitated towards accepting female ordination. This
evolution seems to me to show up, among other things, a certain
weakness in her style of reasoning about tradition and adaptation.

5 <The Eternal Woman> (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1962), 39.

6 <Ibid.>, 74.

7 See the alarming satirization of this attitude in Margaret
Atwood's <The Handmaid's Tale.>

8 It would require many pages of analysis to portray the
permutations on this theme. Karl Stern's <The Flight from Woman>
contains some interesting, if not definitive, material.

9 Edith Stein, <Woman>, trans. Freda Mary Oben (Washington:
Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1987), 62.

10 See <EV> (n. 99) where, interestingly enough, his thoughts pass
immediately from the role of women in bringing about general
cultural change, to the spiritual condition of women who have had
abortions.

11 On this theme, see Robin Maas's excellent appreciation of
Caryll Houselander in <Crisis> (October, 1995).

12 <The Eternal Woman>, 75.

13 And see <Inter Insigniores.>

14 The theology of St. Joseph and the meaning of fatherhood needs
development, but for one prophetic attempt, see Andrew Doze,
<Discovering St. Joseph> (New York: Alba House, 1991). See also my
husband's article in this same issue of <Communio.>

15 Adrienne von Speyr, <Handmaid of the Lord> (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1985), 70.

This article was taken from the Spring 1996 issue of "Communio:
International Catholic Review". To subscribe write Communio, P.O.
Box 4557, Washington, D.C. 20017-0557. Published quarterly,
subscription cost is $23.00 per year.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       FTP: ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com

  EWTN provides a Catholic online
  information and service system.

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.