Here's the paper I've been working on, for a better version, here's the PDF. Update: The link for the PDF is back up. 5/24/08
On the Mistreatment of Women
Ever since the story of our creation when that most ancient of men bit into the fruit, there has been enmity between man and woman. The difference between man and woman is clearly and prevalently portrayed in the story of creation, even in their condemnation. It seems, according to Genesis, that woman experiences suffering differently than man, perhaps greater suffering. Because of sin, women experience pain in childbirth, but they will also desire and be dominated by men, perhaps even desiring to be dominated by men. The feminists agree; historically woman have been treated as inferior to men. G.K. Chesterton says “[t]he reformer is always right about what is wrong.” Although he goes on to say “[h]e is generally wrong about what is right,”1 this paper is not on the problems of feminism, rather its focus is a catholic solution. John Paul the Great, in the “Theology of the Body,” answers the problem of mistreatment of woman in a much broader project that seeks to create an adequate vision of man.
Throughout history women have been mistreated in many ways, and today it is no different. The 20th century, the same century that is esteemed for giving women suffrage and claiming to have liberated women, left the 21st century with a culture more oppressive to women than when it began: a culture that divorces love from life. Culture tells women their ability to conceive is a disease to be cured by rubber, divorcing woman from the first and greatest gift of humanity, the ability to literally turn love into life.
The 20th century began with a traditional Victorian culture where the sight of a woman's ankle could cause scandal, and ended with a multi-billion dollar pornography industry. One might even say that by the end of the 20th century, a woman who refused to wear revealing clothing was the cause of scandal. This century began putting skirts even on the legs of chairs because it might cause one to have unspeakable thoughts of lust, and ended with MTV. It began with an radical sense of shame toward the body, and ended with a radical shamelessness.
With the 1920's came the question of contraception; by 1930 the Anglican Church allowed for use of contraceptives, and most other Protestants followed shortly after. In sixty short years, culture went from condemning contraception to free condom distribution in public high schools. G.K. Chesterton, referenced earlier, was a British apologist and former Anglican who converted to Catholicism in 1922. Seeing the connection between love and fruitfulness threatened, he wrote frequently about the essentiality of such unity as an author and journalist. In 1926, Chesterton predicted “[t]he next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality: and especially on sexual morality. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan.”2 With the appearance of the sexual revolution sixty years later, his prediction came true. Sex was no longer a “mutual gift [that] leads to a 'third'.”3 Even the old pagans, Chesterton argues, who had orgies in worship of fertility deities would think the unnatural separation between sex and fruitfulness a perversion. In 1935 he wrote
“[i]t has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility.”4
Divorcing sex from fertility encourages men and women to use one another for their own sexual pleasure rather giving the gift of one's own fertility. Listen to our language: “I need to get laid,” or “did you get any?” The emphasis in such phrases is on getting or taking, sex as something for one's self. If sexual intercourse is self-indulgent and barren rather than self-giving and fruitful, the most accurate word to describe it is masturbation.
John Paul the Great says the “body expresses the person [...] in such a way as to make it clear who a man is (and who he should be).”5 What makes a woman's body 'woman,' from her womb to her breasts, points to the gift of her ability to conceive. To divorce her from this great gift is to divorce her from what makes her “woman” and not “man.” The divorce of love and fruitfulness is an affront to womanhood, an attempt to turn women into men. Truly, the sins of the 20th century have hurt women the most.
If men and women are equally sinful, why are the sins of man explicitly against woman more often than women's sins are against men? It is true that historically men have dominated politics undoubtedly to the point of injustice, but this new sin against woman specifically attacks the mystery of womanhood, her sexuality. Rape is common place in our culture, but rarely is it a woman raping; at a glance, it almost seems a divine injustice that men are more physically capable of rape than women. Pornography portrays the human person (usually woman) as an object for sexual gratification; its use is much more prevalent among men than women. Indeed, more homosexual males than females subscribe to Playgirl, a pornographic magazine marketed for straight females. It is no coincidence that many women feel the need to wear revealing clothing to attract men while the same is not true for men to attract women. It may be true that women are notorious for having seduced men in the past for their own gain, but it is equally true that if men did not see women as objects, seduction would be ineffective. The pornographer comes before the porn star and the consumer before the pornographer; it is thus the consumer that creates the porn star, not vice versa. These are just a few examples; the list could go on. In a world of concupiscence, woman is the first to be abused.
Why are women so vulnerable against the sins of men? The starting point of John Paul the Great's “Theology of the Body” will help us understand. The late pontiff knows that “Christ, the final Adam, fully reveals man to himself.”6 Since it is Christ who reveals to us what it means to be human, there is no better place to start than with the words of Christ. When the Pharisees asked Jesus a question that referred to marriage, the communion of man and woman, he referred us to Creation. Christ responds first by quoting Genesis 2:24, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”7 He then says “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”8 Christ's reference to creation reveals the true meaning of marriage and sexuality “[i]n the beginning,”9 that is, who man was intended to be before sin. This is why John Paul refers to creation, and especially Genesis 2:24 as Christ had. The late pope says there is “an essential continuity and a link between these two different states or dimensions of the human being.”10 The two different states he was referring to are man before original sin and man after the fall, or historical man, whom we are a part of.
The focus is now shifted to the story of our creation and original sin. This paper began with enmity between the sexes. These first impacts original sin has on humanity that God reveals to Adam and Eve are the ways man and woman will fail each other in their sinfulness. Continuing on to Genesis 3:16-19 God tells the woman she will experience pain in childbirth and in bringing forth children, and says, “your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”11 In reference to Gen. 3:16, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary confirms “Woman's original equality with her 'correspondent,' the man, is part of the loss, suggesting that the subordinate place of woman in Israelite society was not intended by God, but is rather a result of human sin”12 Certainly the sins of women affect men greatly, but it seems that the sins of men affect women in a more profound way.
There are many images and analogies throughout scripture that describe the relationship between God and humanity, “father and son, king and subjects, bridegroom and bride, shepherd and sheep, vine and branches, head and body.”13 All these images are valid and vital to describe the relationship, and all fall short. However, the image of the bride and bridegroom is the one that “Scriptures use [...] more than any other.”14 John Paul emphasizes “[i]n this entire world there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, Unity and Community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery.”15 St. Paul, after quoting Genesis 2:24 (referenced earlier) as Christ had, tells us “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.”16 Marriage, the Sacrament of the bridegroom and the bride becoming one flesh, is somehow meant to image Christ the bridegroom and His bride the church.
In a special way, the analogy of the bridegroom and the bride calls men to be for woman like Christ insofar as he lays down his life for his bride. It also emphasizes that women's “special giftedness [...] embodies receptivity in relation to God, the man, and the gift of new life.”17 This also means woman is a sign for all of humanity of who they are before God. It is very important to remember that this is an analogy, which means that eventually it breaks down. In no way is man more in the image of God than woman because he is called to be like Christ; male domination is clearly a result of sin as mentioned earlier with Genesis 3:16. John Paul says, “The history of consciences and of human hearts will continually confirm the words of Genesis 3:16. The words spoken at the beginning seem to refer to a particular 'disability' of woman as compared with man. But there is no reason to understand it as a social disability or inequality.”18 The late pontiff's words confirm the cry of the feminists that women have been treated as inferior throughout history.
But if humanity is the bride and Christ the bridegroom, why does the world reject woman and not man? After all, the world rejects Christ the bridegroom, not itself. The world rejects God, but it also rejects humanity to make man God. The world says the definition of morality is within our power, because man is God. This is not the first time humanity has tried this: “You certainly will not die! [...] the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods.”19 The fact is, Adam and Eve were like gods to begin with, “Let us make man [...] after our likeness.”20 Throughout history, and even today, humanity falls into the same sin of Adam by rejecting humanity to become God. Christ came to give himself to humanity as a gift. Eve, in her womanhood, was intended to be a sign that man is intended to receive God. But rather than modeling receptivity, she took the fruit and ate it for herself. Rather than receiving the gift, she grasped it.21
The temptation to reject the receptive nature of humanity comes directly from original sin. John Paul says “woman is the representative and the archetype of the whole human race: she represents the humanity which belongs to all human beings, both men and women.”22 Woman is a constant reminder to all of humanity of “our receptivity in relation to God,”23 the same receptivity we rejected from the beginning. In this way, womanhood is seen as a threat to humanity's project to make himself God. This misogyny (hatred of woman) of the world is a perversion of the bride and bridegroom imagery: instead of man imaging Christ as bridegroom he makes himself God; instead of woman being a sign of humanity's receptivity before God, her gift to receive and conceive is rejected for The Pill. Perhaps it is not going too far to say that the world tells women, “eat this pill and you will become like man,” one who can have sex without conceiving.
The best counterexample to humanity's rejection of humanity is Mary's 'fiat.' The only thing Christ cannot not do himself is show us what it means to be His disciple, so He gave us His Mother. “Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church's mystery as 'the bride without spot or wrinkle.' This is why the 'Marian' dimension of the Church precedes the 'Petrine.'”24 It was through Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is through Her that we meet Christ. Mary is not only the perfect example of what it means to be woman, She is the perfect example of what it means to be human. If we want to know what it means to be human, Our Lady is the one to turn to. Like Mary, women are the archetype of the whole human race when they choose Christ, echoing Mary's “fiat.” Thus, misogyny is not so much hatred of women as it is hatred of humanity. Misogyny takes, Mary receives. While misogyny says “I will not serve,”25 Mary says, “may it be done to me according to your word”26 Where misogyny “gets some,” Mary conceives of the Holy Spirit.27 The misogyny of the world runs deeper than perhaps even the feminists think.
The world is a scary place, especially the past hundred years. All it took for Hitler and Stalin to slaughter over 80 million people was following false ideologies to their logical conclusions. The sins of men are great as has been discussed, but there is hope. It was in the midst of fear during the Cold War that John Paul the Great was elected Pope, addressing the crowd with Christ's words, “Be Not Afraid!” He assured the world that Christ has conquered fear. “Open wide the doors for Christ,” he said to the crowds, “He alone has words of life, yes, of eternal life.”28 Sin and darkness cannot be overcome by fear, but only through faith in Christ. The late pope insists “[t]he nuptial meaning of the body has not been completely suffocated by concupiscence, but only habitually threatened.”29 If we choose “yes” like Mary,30 we can overcome even the condemnations of original sin. Even though we are sinful, we must not become complacent and give in to the temptation to reject our humanity.
Because of Christ, we have the power to overcome misogyny and give way to grace. The solution to “gender inequality” is not to strip from woman the gift of her receptivity, but to embrace it culturally as a living reminder that the world also must be receptive before God.
This understanding is not to say that men give and woman receive as some critics may have it. On the contrary, the gift in sexuality is not complete unless man initiates the gift of himself and woman actively receives and gives herself back. It must be remembered that in the story of creation man had the particular responsibility of being “the guardian of the reciprocity of donation and its true balance.”32 Just as woman cannot conceive without the gift of man, man cannot give without the gift of woman. John Paul says, “Although the maintenance of the balance of the gift seems to have been entrusted to both, a special responsibility rests with the man above all, as if it depended more on him whether this balance is maintained or broken, or even – if already broken – re-established.”33 If a man is to love, he must be vulnerable and put himself at risk because he does not know how woman will respond, trusting she will receive. If woman is to love, she must also be vulnerable because she must trust man to be sincere in his gift. Granted, the roles of men and women are very diverse, the very nature of difference in our sexuality is fundamental for a communion of persons; truly, one is not better than the other.34
The whole understanding of gift giving and receiving is intended to point us to the nature of the relationship between Christ and humanity. Our “marriage” with Christ is consummated35 in the Sacrament of Christ and the Church: “The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride.”36 It is no coincidence that 87% of Catholics in the United States think the Church should change its position on birth control37 at the same time that “according to a Gallup poll only 30% of our faithful [in the United States] believe what the Church teaches on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”38 If the connection between love and fruitfulness is severed within earthly marriage, what is left to point us to the heavenly marriage? If we do not understand marriage as life giving, how are we to understand the Eucharist is “a bond of charity”?39 If sex embraces and gives way to life, so too does the Eucharist embrace and give way to charity.
Critics and advocates alike say the “Theology of the Body” is a response to the sexual revolution, widespread dissent among Catholics after Humanae Vitae, and an attempt to defend Catholic sexual morality with modern language in a modern world. All of these are quite true, but it is important to recognize that the need for such a catechesis has been around for quite some time. G.K. Chesterton understood the problems of modernity enough to have predicted the sexual revolution, but his understanding went further than this. It seems that he and John Paul, both very familiar with Thomistic theology, were very much on the same line of thinking. In his book on St. Thomas Aquinas, Chesterton wrote, “[i]t is a pity that the word Anthropology has been degraded to the study of Anthropoids. [...] In short, there ought to be a real study called Anthropology corresponding to Theology.”40 John Paul the Great calls the “Theology of the Body” an “adequate anthropology,”41 dedicated to establishing and applying an anthropology that adequately answers the questions of who man is and how he should act.
If the great problem the 20th century ended with was be predicted by the 1920's, there must be something in the modern way of thinking that led the world to where it is now, else it would not have been predictable. This is why it is so important to turn to the Church even in times when there is little controversy, indeed especially those times.
“[The Church] does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past but might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future. [...] It does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes: those hoary and horrible and devouring monsters of the old mistakes.”42
In our culture it is not an exaggeration to say that anyone who owns a television is accustomed to being threatened by old mistakes. The Church has seen terrible times and faced greater scandals within than even the most recent sex-abuse scandal; but remember, the Church was made for sinners: “When the world goes wrong, it proves [...] that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do.”43
The misogyny of the world, as discussed, is hatred of what it means to be human, not just hatred of women. The cry of John Paul the Great is to overcome this misogyny by being open to Christ, fiat. No matter how much the world hates and rejects womanhood and humanity, if we choose Christ, we will overcome concupiscence. John Paul reminds us that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.44 In the Church, there are many schools of theology that will lead to the same conclusions as the late pontiff has has, but his is the most complete “real study called Anthropology corresponding to Theology”45 the world has seen in modern language for modern times. Father Richard Hogan calls this new take on theology the “J.P. II Revolution.”46 George Weigel says it “will compel a dramatic development of thinking about virtually every major theme in the Creed,”47 and Christopher West won't let him forget it.48 However large an affect it will have on the whole world, I can say for myself that it has given me a whole new respect for woman, and for her “special genius.”49
1G.K. Chesterton, ILN 10 November 1922.
2Chesterton, G.K., The Man Who was Orthodox (London, Dennis Dobson: 1963), 123.
3Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004), 29.
4G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows (New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1935), 233.
5John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 41.
6Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1965), n. 22.
7Gen. 2:24 New American Bible
8Mt. 19:8 NAB
9Gen. 1:1 NAB
10John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 32.
11Gen. 3:16 NAB
12Phyllis Trible, Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1978), 126-128.
13Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 12.
14Ibid., p. 12.
15Homily on the Feast of the Holy Family, December 30, 1988.
16Eph. 5:32 NAB
17Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 153.
18John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 120.
19Gen. 3:4 -5 NAB
20Gen. 1:26 NAB
21Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 140.
22John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1988), 4.
23Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 154.
24CCC, n. 773.
25Jer. 2:20 NAB
26Luke 1:38 NAB
27Mat. 1:20 NAB
28George Weigel, Witness to Hope (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 262.
29John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 126.
30Luke 1:38 NAB
31John Paul II, Address after the Way of the Cross, Good Friday (1 April 1994), n. 3: AAS 87 (1995), 88.
32John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 128.
33 Ibid., 128 - 129.
34Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 161 - 162.
35John 19:30 NAB
36John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 481.
371992 Gallup Survey of 802 US Catholics done for Catholics Speak Out, MOE +- 4%.
38Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, in Gianni Cardinale, Clinton and Us, (30 Days: 12 November 1992), 32.
39CCC, n. 1323.
40G.K. Chesterton, The Dumb Ox (New York, NY: 1933), 132, 133.
41John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), 57.
42G.K. Chesterton, “Why I am Catholic,” Twelve Modern Apostles and their Creeds (London, England: Ayer Co Pub, 1926).
43G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (San Francisco, CA: 1993), 10.
44Rom. 5:20 NAB
45G.K. Chesterton, The Dumb Ox (New York, NY: 1933), 133.
46Richard M. Hogan, Covenant of Love (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), 155.
47George Weigel, Witness to Hope (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 853.
48Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994), 15; Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004), 1.
49John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1988), 30.
Works Cited
1992 Gallup Survey of 802 US Catholics done for Catholics Speak Out, MOE +- 4%.
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, in Gianni Cardinale, Clinton and Us, 30 Days: 12 November 1992.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.
Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. Illustrated London News. (28 November 1922).
________. The Dumb Ox. New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
________. The Everlasting Man. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1925.
________. The Man Who was Orthodox. New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1936.
________. The Well and the Shallows. New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1935.
________. Twelve Modern Apostles and their Creeds. London, England: Ayer Co Pub, 1926.
Hogan, Richard M., LeVoir, John. Covenant of Love. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985.
John Paul II. Address after the Way of the Cross, Good Friday. (1 April 1994), n. 3: AAS 87 (1995).
________. “Homily on the Feast of the Holy Family,” December 30, 1988.
________. Mulieris Dignitatem. Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media.1988.
________. The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997.
Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes. Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1965.
Trible, Phyllis. Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1978.
West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II's “Gospel of the Body”. Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1994.
West Christopher. Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II's Sexual Revolution. West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004.
