The Collaboration of Men and Women represents a step forward in the Catholic discussion of gender relations, but only a step.
The document takes issue with the common feminist critique of “patriarchy” and “male-domination” which suggests that “women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.” It also takes issue with the fact that “In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. . . . This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”
It is good that the Vatican is taking issue with these destructive threads in contemporary culture. The sexes need to get along harmoniously, not be pitted against each other, and we need to recognize the differences between them and that these differences are in part innate rather than simply cultural or a matter of personal selection. Men and women both can better flourish if they honor the gifts that God gave them rather than trying to downplay, deny, or resist these gifts. They also flourish better through recognizing and honoring the gifts that God gave the other gender.
The document does not offer a sustained critique of the above-mentioned aspects of feminism on their own terms. Instead, it turns to Scripture for an extended discussion of the theme of gender in Scripture and then seeks to apply these insights to the modern world (with the obligatory references to promoting world peace).
What the document says about the genders is correct, but it does not offer sustained argument for the positions it takes–at least not the kind of argument that many feminists are likely to find persuasive. The document appeals more to the biblical vision of womanhood than to natural law considerations. The latter could serve as common ground (or at least potential common ground) with those attracted to feminism but likely to dismiss scriptural considerations as the product of a past culture. Natural law considerations are not absent from the document, but they are not its focus.
The document has a very restricted scope. It is not a full-orbed articulation of the meaning of manhood and womanhood and how the sexes should relate. Indeed, there is virtually nothing said in the document about the biblical or natural meaning of manhood. The document speaks much of “feminine values” and their importance in society and the Church, but there is no parallel discussion of “masculine values” or their importance.
It also passes over some questions that may be most on the mind of people reading it. Though it states that women should be present in the workforce but also should have the freedom to be full-time mothers without suffering social sigma as a result, it does not address how we should view the headship passages in the New Testament.
These kinds of questions are ones that have to be dealt with as part of developing a comprehensive view of the sexes and how they should relate. Consequently, while the document takes a step in the right direction by rejecting some of the most harmful aspects of contemporary feminism, the document’s limited focus means that there are still many more steps to take.
Jimmy,
Thanks for your analysis. I hope to read the entire document sometime this week.
You stated “These kinds of questions are ones that have to be dealt with as part of developing a comprehensive view of the sexes and how they should relate. Consequently, while the document takes a step in the right direction by rejecting some of the most harmful aspects of contemporary feminism, the document’s limited focus means that there are still many more steps to take.”
Perhaps you and Miss Moss (or perhaps you, Rosalind and the Popcacks) could collaborate and further explore this in a book?
Just a thought.
Cathy has an interesting idea for a project. And speaking of Jimmy’s projects, are we ever gonna hear more about those secret ones? There were at least two I think. They’re still in the works right? I don’t recall reading anything about them for quite a while now.
I believe Jimmy said he had three secret projects in the works.
I liked the document. I thought it was a good summary of John Paul’s theology.
(Caveat: I haven’t read the document yet and am, hence, happily speaking from ignorance.)
It does not address how we should view the headship passages in the New Testament.
How can one attempt an analysis – not even a comprehensive one, just an analysis – of the biblical concept of gender without dealing with headship? This is at the very heart of the biblical notion of manhood/womanhood, not to mention being crucial for their christological/Trinitarian foundations. I’m not advocating for an uncritical parrotting of the biblical terminology, but one must at least deal with these passages, or one risks forfeiting the very doctrinal foundation of the biblical notion of gender. Granted, the Holy Father hasn’t been the most forceful advocate of ‘headship theology’ in his views of gender, but one could at least expect a Vatican document not to prance around the issue.
God bless, Jimmy. And while I don’t think you’ll ever turn Japanese, I’ll still be your friend if you do.
He is an Englishman!
For he himself has said it,
And it’s greatly to his credit,
That he is an Englishman!
(That he is an Englishman!)
For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!
(Or perhaps Itali-an!)
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman! [Source]