The Dignity of Women: A look at Mulieris Dignitatem (post 2)

In last week's post, I looked at some of the reasons Pope John Paul II offered for writing Mulieris Dignitatem. The foundation of Christianity and salvation history intimately depends on the participation of women. This role is exemplified in the unfallen femininity of Mary who achieves perfect union with God. In order to bring this discussion into a broader context, John Paul II directs his attention to the creation narrative to understand the beginning of man.

One of the things that may be difficult for some people to discern is when John Paul II uses the term "man" to refer to both man and woman and when "man" only refers to man and not woman. I hope that it will suffice to point out that man, at least in the English translation, is used both ways in Mulieris Dignitatem. Although I find the usage of man reasonably obvious, I have heard many people complain about the opposite.

Any attempt to comprehend and construct a Christian anthropological understanding of man must flow from understanding man as made "in the image and likeness of God." John Paul II claims that man—both man and woman, is collectively the culmination of creation. In reference to the first creation account in Genesis, John Paul states:

This concise passage contains the fundamental anthropological truths: man is the highpoint of the whole order of creation in the visible world; the human race, which takes its origin from the calling into existence of man and woman, crowns the whole work of creation, both man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God's image. (MD: 6)

Accordingly, this "image of God" translates into a quality common to all humans that constitutes a major way humans differ from animals: rationality. As rational beings, humans have the conscious ability to know, choose, and intend to follow the will of God or, as we soon discover, to rebel against God. "Every individual is made in the image of God, insofar as he or she is a rational and free creature capable of knowing God and loving him." (MD: 7) While reason is definitely a likeness to God, another significant and primary way humans reflect this reality consists of the original unity between man and woman.

The second creation account of man found in Genesis uses metaphorical language to express human likeness to God in terms of the communion between man and woman. Man, in his original solitude, recognized more differences than similarities between himself and the animals because he was of a different essence. In his Theology of the Body, John Paul II explains that original solitude refers to the experience of man as such because the experience of original solitude is substantially prior to the masculinity and femininity of the original unity (TOB; 8:1). We must realize that experience of original solitude is universal to all humanity, prior to masculinity and femininity, and yet prefigures this sexual duality. Furthermore, this experience of solitude translates into every human's experience as a unique autonomous individual. In contrast to the original solitude, we learn that it is not good for man to "be alone." Already God reveals something of his own inner-mystery. Man ought not to be alone because God is not alone, but a communion of persons.

In the description found in Gen 2:1 8-25, 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. (MD: 6)

Only when both man and woman are present to each other can they transcend the original solitude, and this is called the original unity. Man is able to understand himself in an essential way of which he was not capable before the presence of woman. Likewise, the woman can only understand herself in the presence of man. Thus, both the man and woman become mutual helpers of each other. For between man and woman there is more similarity than difference. Man expresses this truth in his confession to the woman: "flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone." While man found more difference than similarity among the different plants and animals, only in the face of woman does he find someone of the same essence and dignity. Through the experience of the other, man and woman come to understand their own human nature.

From the previous passages, we can deduce that man became the "image of God" not only through his own humanity and rationality, but also through the communion of persons, which man and woman form from the very beginning. The sexual designation of the body and spirit only make sense if the opposite sex exits. Man and woman exist mutually for each other. The presence of the other allows man and woman to recognize their call to communion and love, and this communion of love mirrors the divine mystery of love that originates in relationship between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Human love and family finds its source in God. Man ought to love because God is love.

To say that man is created in the image and likeness of God means that man is called to exist "for" others, to become a gift. (MD: 7)

The experience of being either man or woman, masculine or feminine, exists as "two reciprocally completely ways of 'being a body' and at the same time of being human" and "two complementary ways of being conscious of the meaning of the body" (TOB; 10: 1). This duality calls us to an interpersonal communion with the other. The original unity becomes the basis for all community and the economy of the gift. The good of the individual is united to the good of every other individual. From the beginning this call is manifested within marriage, but as the whole of human history unfolds, other ways to express this communion open up on the horizon of salvation history. The summary of this truth is that man and woman cannot find themselves fully except through a sincere gift of self.

In my next post, I will focus on the rupture in the relationship between man, woman, and God. With the introduction of sin and the original dis-unity, John Paul II points to the tendency of male dominance and the reduction of women as objects of lust rather than mutual helpers that has consistently plagued humanity in every generation. Contrary to the original unity, sin always threatens to distort the proper relationship between man and woman.

The Theology of the Body in Shakespearean Comedy

Jonathan Pryce as Petruchio and Paola Dionisotti as Kate in The Royal Shakespeare Company's 1978 production of The Taming of the Shrew

Whether we realize it or not, the love of “mutual submission” John Paul II writes about is the defining characteristic of the happy ending we expect from Shakespeare’s comedies.

Many of Shakespeare’s plays explore the tension between duty and inclination, and the various conflicts that arise from this tension. In Shakespeare’s comedies – take The Taming of the Shrew, for example – man’s struggle to reconcile duty and inclination is often typified in a conflict related to sex and marriage, which is resolved only when the characters learn to compromise their inclinations for duty’s sake. In Taming, for instance, Petruchio and Kate learn to channel their passions and to relate to one another respectfully as they are obligated to do as husband and wife. In Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body (TOB), Pope John Paul II discusses the necessity of this sort of compromise and couches it in terms of his theology about the meaning of creation, sex and marriage.

Shakespeare makes the basic thematic point that while duty and inclination seem to contradict one another, they do not have to remain at odds. John Paul II develops this idea further and argues that if we allow our inclinations to be ordered properly, that is, toward our duty to obey the moral law, we will find the happiness and fulfillment that we seek in God’s plan for sex and marriage.

In the TOB, the Holy Father presents what he terms an “adequate anthropology,” a comprehensive philosophy intended to help man better understand himself in light of his created body, his sexuality, and the mysteries of the Catholic faith. The significance of the sexual act transcends the physical because we are not merely bodies; rather, we are beings with great worth because God created us, body and soul, and His plan for sex and marriage redeems our entire person, bodies included (144). Marriage is sacramental, and therefore more than merely a social convention; it is the visible sign of a spiritual reality, and it is intended both to safeguard the sacredness of sex and to help husband and wife grow in virtue, specifically in love for one another and for God (363).

We noted earlier that conflicts involving sex and marriage often form the basis for the theme of “duty vs. inclination” in Shakespeare’s comedies. More often than not, marriage becomes purely a matter of duty, and sex – or sexual desire – purely a matter of inclination. John Paul II argues that this dichotomy is due, in part, to the ways in which God’s plan for sex and marriage is tarnished and obscured by human sinfulness (256). He uses Sacred Scripture and natural law to support the TOB as he explains that in God’s plan for sex and marriage, man’s desire for sex directs him toward marriage, and the sacrifices married life requires ensure that man’s sexual desire remains properly ordered toward its unitive and procreative ends, and thus toward his eternal happiness.

We can see John Paul II’s ideas at work in the ways audiences typically respond to Shakespeare’s characters. At the beginning of Taming, Petruchio treats marriage as merely a binding social contract, and we cannot help but disagree with him for doing so; nor are we wiling to believe that marriage is merely as Lucentio imagines it to be: a lifetime of infatuation, sunshine and roses. We recognize very early on in the play that both men’s views are erroneous. If, at the play’s end, it seems that Petruchio still regards marriage as “a contract of domination,” we will most likely be unsatisfied with the play’s resolution (473). Shakespeare seems to point out that marriage is not purely a matter of obligation or purely a matter of romance; ideally, it is a combination of both.

The TOB echoes this idea, while of course developing it further: if we wish to be happy, we must submit our inclination to our duty; we must place sex within its intended context, that is, within the sacrament of marriage. At the center of the Holy Father’s reflections on married life are the words of St. Paul in Ephesians (Ephesians 5:21-33), in which Paul calls husbands and wives to “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” The Pope calls this practice “reciprocal submission” expressed in love (473). While Paul is often quoted as simply instructing wives to submit to their husbands, the Pope examines this directive in context and concludes that spouses “are, in fact, ‘subject to one another,’ mutually subordinated to one another” (473).

This ideal of mutual submission plays a central role in the resolution of the sex-and-marriage conflicts in Shakespearean comedy. Depending on how Taming is played, it may seem by the end of the play that Petruchio and Katharina have learned to practice the sort of reciprocal submission necessary for a happy, lasting marriage; or it may seem that only Katharina practices submission, which we find distasteful and unfair, since we know intuitively that Petruchio ought to submit, in some way, to her as well. Whether we realize it or not, the love of “mutual submission” John Paul II writes about is the defining characteristic of the happy ending we expect from Shakespeare’s comedies.

While The Taming of the Shrew is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the TOB at work in Shakespearean comedy, John Paul II’s ideas are certainly applicable to the other comedies as well, perhaps especially to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, and Love’s Labour’s Lost.

Strong Women = Lustful Men?

I want to be a strong woman. If I were to look to the media for guidance, I would see countless “strong” women; women portrayed as vain, greedy, ambitious, and lustful. These women seem to attribute hedonistic and selfish values to masculinity (which does a grave disservice to men). Women like Carrie Bradshaw from “Sex in the City,” whose goal, as she describes it in one of the earliest episodes, is to, “have sex like a man.” In other words, she wants flimsy strings of meaningless one-night stands with which to package an emotionless and hedonistic lifestyle. Is this strength?

St. Edith Stein did not believe so. In her Essays on Women, St. Stein describes how womanhood and femininity should be exemplified. She describes the role of women as one of support, nurture, maternity, and obedience. She uses the Blessed Virgin Mary as the exemplary female, writing,

The image of the Mother of God demonstrates the basic spiritual attitude which corresponds to woman’s natural vocation; her relation to her husband is one of obedience, trust, and participation in his life as she furthers his objective tasks and personality development; to the child she gives true care, encouragement, and formation of his God-given talents; she offers both selfless surrender and a quiet withdrawal when unneeded. All is based on the concept of marriage and motherhood as a vocation from God; it is carried out for God’s sake and under His guidance (46).

If we look carefully at this passage, we see a description that is quite different from the individualistic, ambitious, selfish attitudes Americans tend to cherish. We are taught to work hard, not to further society or implement meaningful change, but to “get ahead”—essentially, to beat everyone else in the rat race to wealth and vainglory. And when a woman succumbs to this view, it is desperately against the values of which St. Stein writes. I know firsthand that it is difficult to lay aside vanity and pride for our actions. To be perfectly candid, when I accomplish something, I want people to know about it so that they love and admire me. This can be a sinful and is always a destructive way to live a life, and I am ashamed of it. It contrasts truly Christian charity for men and women, but also contradicts the supportive and nurturing roles that specifically belong to females.

To combat the images with which the media assails us, women must learn to see and demonstrate strength by striving for the best values to which the Lord, through His love and wisdom, has created our natures to dispose us. Also, men must strive to combat the vices with which society them. Few of the values and attitudes cherished by the media are worthy of emulation. We must change this!

The Rupture Between Sexuality and Procreation

“The libido of the individual becomes the only possible point of reference of sex. No longer having an objective reason to justify it, sex seeks the subjective reason in the gratification of the desire, in the most ‘satisfying’ answer for the individual, to the instincts no longer subject to rational restraints. Everyone is free to give to his personal libido the content considered suitable for himself.”

These words of Pope Benedict from his book The Ratzinger Report constitute his analysis of the implications of the modern mentality on human sexuality, which is at the core of the debate over homosexuality today – a mentality in which the objective reason for the sexual act is no longer rooted in the absolute for which it was created, that is, unity and procreation. Rather it is reduced to an act that is perceived and touted as one that is the least absolute in all of nature, thus losing a sense of intelligibility about the act. If this act, which in reality represents man as an image of God in nearly its fullest sense, is without intelligibility, then man himself loses intelligibility especially with regard to his relationship with the Creator in whose image he is made.

The defense of homosexuality represents an implicit denial of the intelligibility of man in that it makes the false assumption that there is nothing in the nature of man that should convince him that certain acts betray his nature. Stemming from an exaggerated personalist philosophy, the rupture between sexuality and procreation naturally leads to a rejection of objectivity in the sexual act and devolution into pure subjectivism where sexual gratification becomes the greatest good. Without intelligibility, there can be no guiding principle to act according to man’s nature, thus making it perfectly acceptable to use the body in any way one desires. If this is truly the case, then there is no basis for laws against pedophilia, rape, incest, etc. If there is no natural law guiding that which is most fundamental to the existence of man, that is, the sexual union between a husband and wife, then one would be hard-pressed to make a case for the existence of natural law at all with regard to man. This leads to a rejection of the entire concept of natural law, and thus, the nature of man. In other words, man has neither nature nor intelligibility. If man has no nature, then man is not man. If man has no nature, then man is nothing, for all existing things have a nature. If man has no intelligibility, then he is created by an unintelligible god, which is no god at all. Therefore, the defense of homosexuality is not only the implicit denial of man’s intelligibility, but also the denial of an existing man and an existing God.