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. — St. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 99
Pope St. John Paul II’s famous declaration in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, that it was up to women “to promote a ‘new feminism’,” was met with surprise in some circles—and with excitement in others.1 Many of us were already familiar with his teaching on women, having read his 1988 Apostolic Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem.2 The “feminine genius” had become practically a household word. And the message to women could not have come at a more fitting moment in the history of the feminist movement.
At the time the encyclical was promulgated, second-wave feminism was firmly on the march, making real inroads into the culture, the economy, and the legal system.3 Building on the advances achieved in the 1980s, women were widely choosing identities outside the home as they pursued higher education and joined the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Perhaps most tellingly, this particular phenomenon found support in the law. The Supreme Court had declined to overturn Roe v. Wade in their landmark 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in part because, as the ruling made clear, “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation” depended on access to abortion.4 Though by the start of the second millennium, women would realize the efforts of the feminists were backfiring, the 1990s were definitely the decade of “girl power.” 5
Feminism and setting the proper terms
Given this context, John Paul’s singular reference to the need for a “new feminism” sounded a note of urgency for those who were listening. And it seemed crystal clear, an unmistakable wake-up call to Catholic women. No one was coming to save us. Women themselves would have to be the ones to mount the counter-offensive. It felt like a new era was about to begin. And many women turned toward the effort with vigor and a sense of purpose, fueled by a sincere desire to answer what seemed like the obvious question: what sort of “feminism” did he mean? What would a Catholic feminism look like?
The search for an answer to this question continues into the present day. And the right way forward for feminism remains a hotly disputed issue both in the secular culture and in Catholic circles,6 even while many young people are distancing themselves from it entirely.7 Indeed, a heated debate has broken out among faithful Catholic scholars as to whether or not there even is – or should be – such a thing. Others argue that there are legitimate strategic reasons for investigating woman’s place in the world under the banner of “feminism.” Those engaged in that particular pursuit argue that what is needed is to persuade young women that only the Catholic understanding of “feminism” is the true road to freedom. But all are following a sincere quest for the proper response to Pope St. John Paul II’s call from a commitment to “follow the Pope.” Surely, we can assume their cause is just—even while we will propose to reframe it. Surely, as Catholics, we remain open to the possibility of the “both/and” option. But this debate is not our concern here. The proposal on offer in this essay has an entirely different point of departure.
First, it seems clear now that in taking up this particular question—”What sort of feminism do we need?”—we fell into the same trap laid for thinkers throughout the history of the Western intellectual tradition: we accepted the terms of the debate set by our opponents.8 We assumed that the search was on for the correct understanding of “feminism” when, in fact, an honest appraisal of the late Holy Father’s body of work reveals he was calling on us to reframe the question entirely. John Paul’s announcement in Evangelium Vitae 99 cannot be properly interpreted without reference to the context provided by his earlier papal writings, a context that comes unmistakably into focus during the first decade of his papacy.
The call to a “new feminism” (which, notably, is in scare quotes in the original document) was made in light of an entire decade of writings that prefigured what he meant. He never again wrote in favor of any kind of “feminism”.9 Rather, as will become clear in what follows, he had been pointing us to something much more comprehensive all along.
The larger context of John Paul’s teaching
Anyone familiar with John Paul II’s body of work knows that when he was elevated to the papacy in October 1978, he brought with him an impressive record of scholarship—and an almost immediately discernible plan. His productivity was astonishing, and the well-known consistency of his entire project was on full display, as he rapidly addressed a host of intersecting topics. We will mention only a select few here.
Within a year of his election, he had launched the Wednesday audiences that would ultimately become the theology of the body (they concluded in 1984) and promulgated his first encyclical, Redemptoris Hominis.10 In 1980, he called for a Synod on the Family, releasing his Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, in 1981.11 By 1988, he had promulgated his encyclical on the Mother of God, Redemptoris Mater, convened another Synod (on The Vocation and Mission of the Laity, 1987), published its associated Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, and promulgated Mulieris Dignitatem. His Apostolic Exhortation on St. Joseph, Redemptoris Custos, followed exactly one year later in 1989.
To leave these documents out of consideration in interpreting John Paul’s meaning in Evangelium Vitae 99—given it was released at a time when the culture was swept up in the momentum of secular feminism—now seems shortsighted. That he had something else in mind comes into view when we return to 1988 and consider the opening paragraphs of Mulieris Dignitatem. The Holy Father begins with a brief sketch of the history of the Church’s reflections on the dignity and vocation of women and then refers us to the results of the 1987 Synod of Bishops on the Vocation and Mission of the Laity. He states:
One of their recommendations was for a further study of the anthropological and theological bases that are needed in order to solve the problems connected with the meaning and dignity of being a woman and being a man. It is a question of understanding the reason for and the consequences of the Creator’s decision that the human being should always and only exist as a woman or a man. It is only by beginning from these bases, which make it possible to understand the greatness of the dignity and vocation of women, that one is able to speak of their active presence in the Church and in society.12
He elaborates further on the Synod’s proposal in his Post-Synodal Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, also promulgated in 1988. There, we read the following:
The condition that will assure the rightful presence of woman in the Church and in society is a more penetrating and accurate consideration of the anthropological foundation for masculinity and femininity with the intent of clarifying woman’s personal identity in relation to man, that is, a diversity yet mutual complementarity, not only as it concerns roles to be held and functions to be performed, but also, and more deeply, as it concerns her make-up and meaning as a person.13
What could be clearer? In his signature document on woman, this “feminist” Pope insists that, if we wish to arrive at a fuller grasp of her place in the world, we must pursue a thorough investigation not only of the nature of woman but also of her complement: man.
An expanded and deepened vision of Catholic feminism
The Pope, in full communion with the Synod of Bishops, and in his signature document on woman, was clearly pointing to a very different response to the challenges posed by feminism than what we have assumed. Indeed, he seems to be telling us that, if we have any hope of achieving the “rightful presence of woman” in the world, we actually do not need a new definition of “feminism,” especially one that insists on pursuing a singular focus on woman independently of her proper relationship to man. A “feminism” that leaves men out of the investigation entirely, and which focuses largely on women’s “rights” as discreet and separate categories, is doomed to remain trapped inside a self-referential loop with no way out. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is the relentless discussion of “rights” divorced from a proper anthropology that has led women to claim the “right” to murder their own children, leaving men without recourse in the central event in every human life.14
Is it not evident that both men and women have been caught in the power struggle mentioned by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 Letter to the Bishops On the Collaboration of Men and Women? And that this ancient struggle is precisely what needs to be broken, and a way forward found that is capable of banishing it from the hearts of sinful humanity?15
Perhaps this is what John Paul was referring to when, in that same passage in Evangelium Vitae, he instructs us to “reject 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.”16 Certainly, the struggle he is referring to is not that of women alone; women are not the only ones to be affected by such realities. John Paul is referring here to the role of women in addressing them on behalf of every human being.
Surely a specifically Catholic feminism would expand its vision to encompass a concern for the whole of humanity, male and female, born and unborn—for it is woman who is given responsibility for it.
Indeed, John Paul argues that woman finds her moral and spiritual strength in the awareness that God has entrusted her with the care of the whole of humanity.17 Woman’s considerable moral force comes from her mostly subconscious awareness of this responsibility; it makes her strong, even when she faces social discrimination. The moral authority of woman, displayed in so many human situations, is a gift from God, given to her so that she can fulfill her role in creating a just and humane social order.
This is but an echo of something he declared in his 1987 encyclical, Redemptoris Mater:
In the light of Mary, the Church sees in the face of women the reflection of a beauty which mirrors the loftiest sentiments of which the human heart is capable: the self-offering totality of love; the strength that is capable of bearing the greatest sorrows; limitless fidelity and tireless devotion to work; the ability to combine penetrating intuition with words of support and encouragement.18
If we are looking for what the late Holy Father meant by the “feminine genius”—and what he had in mind in issuing the call for women to develop a new “feminism”—perhaps we can start here.19
There is much more we could say about the late Holy Father’s teaching on women. It reveals a vision that elevates them in ways feminism never could and never will. And the real work of unpacking the deeper meaning and parameters of that vision is still to be done. We are still in need of a fuller response to the real question: Who is Woman? And perhaps our real task is to bring John Paul’s insights on that question more completely into the light for those still unaware of the meaning and significance it has for the world.
But we must forge ahead here. We already have a lot to go on as we turn our attention to what I submit is the fatal lacuna at the heart of the feminist paradigm: there appears to be no place for men, except as frequent objects of indifference and ridicule.
As we have (hopefully) made clear, the culture (and Catholics) has spent most of the last thirty years debating the contemporary version of what has been referred to as the “woman question.”20 Given the signs of the times, it makes perfect sense that Pope St. John Paul would launch his response to the challenge posed by the Synod with a document on women. Perhaps we can assume at this point that it was not his intention to light the firestorm that swept through Catholic circles and beyond when he pointed to the “feminine genius.” But he had a plan. And he was pursuing a fuller response to the question before him, something that seems evident in his next move.
It cannot be a mere accident that the Pope promulgated his Apostolic Exhortation on St. Joseph, Redemptoris Custos, on August 15, 1989, the anniversary of his publication of Mulieris Dignitatem. It is an eloquent and profound treatment of St. Joseph—both the man and the foster father of the Son of God. Though it contains no mention of a corresponding “masculine genius,” the document provides a tremendous resource for those of us interested in exploring that reality.21 But it is also a “sign of the times” that the document has not gotten the attention it deserves. And puzzling that there hasn’t been a broader effort to address such a clear lacuna in the Catholic tradition. Why did Pope St. John Paul II choose not to fill it? I think it is because he has left it up to the Church’s theologians and other scholars to do so.
Redemptoris Custos was the culmination of his treatment of the question of man and woman.22 In 1990, he turned his attention to other pressing questions; his next encyclical was Redemptoris Missio (1990), followed by Centisimus Annus (1991). He had taken the investigation of man and woman as far as he could. He had other work to do. And it is now our task to provide a full response to the Church’s questions: Why did God make us male and female? And what are the consequences of that decision?
These are questions just begging to be answered. Man and Woman simply cannot be fully understood without reference to each other. As John Paul states in his Letter to Women: “to this ‘unity of the two’ God has entrusted not only the work of procreation and family life, but the creation of history itself.”23 The future of humanity may depend on coming to some kind of understanding of the Divine plan in determining that it would be so.
The disconcerting truth is that there actually is no adequate account of the nature of man and woman, both in and of themselves and in relation to one another, on offer in our tradition. Pope St. John Paul provides us with many clues, particularly in Theology of the Body. But the project is far from complete. It is up to us to complete it.24 Because, unfortunately, it is this very thing that is desperately, urgently needed. We need to articulate – and soon – a robust, scientifically, philosophically, and theologically grounded account of the nature of man and woman, their identities, their genius, and their mission. Had we been armed with such an account at the end of the last century, perhaps we would have been prepared to head off the current crisis.
The new Institute for the Study of Man and Woman
These were some of the insights that have led Franciscan University of Steubenville to establish the Institute for the Study of Man and Woman just getting underway at the University. 25 Franciscan University finds itself on the leading edge of a wider effort to preserve and advance the Church’s teaching and the Catholic intellectual tradition on several fronts. It seems clear that some kind of response to the question of man and woman is called for. Indeed, we might say it is the issue of our era. The confusion it has caused and that has descended on our culture deeply affects our students and the broader community it is our mission to serve. The University cannot look away in the face of such distress.
The mission of the Institute for the Study of Man and Woman is to respond to the Church’s questions: Why did God make us male and female? And what are the consequences of that decision? The Institute’s fundamental thrust is to pursue a robust, coherent account of the nature of man and woman—their identities, their genius, their mission – and explore the significance of their collaboration for the future of humanity.
Given its focus on both man and woman, the Institute is the first and (so far) only investigation of its kind.26 There are hundreds of colleges and universities with degrees or whole departments devoted to women’s studies throughout the U.S. The list of gender studies programs is even longer. There appears to be but one devoted to the study of man. We intend to address that critically missing dimension.
Our efforts are also distinguished by the conviction that these questions are not only theological and philosophical but also implicate both the hard and soft sciences. And so, Franciscan’s investigation employs an explicitly interdisciplinary methodology and a research team that includes faculty of theology and philosophy, but also biology, neuroscience, the social sciences, and family studies. Their task is to pursue a more comprehensive account of man and woman.
Of course, all this research must have a purpose. And that is to inform the second thrust of our mission: educational outreach intended to serve both students (through curricula, degree programs, and campus events) and adult learners (through online programs, workshops and conferences, and other public events). We are preparing to launch a minor for our undergraduate program, envisioning an online journal, and are building an archive of all relevant Church documents and pivotal papers on these topics. So, we have an ambitious vision.
But a theory can be just an interesting abstraction if it doesn’t somehow inform the way we live our lives. And so, in keeping with Franciscan’s mission and practice, the Institute intends to serve the Church and the broader community through the wide dissemination of her teaching on the nature of man and woman and the meaning of their work in the world.
Let those intent on finding the right way forward for Catholic feminism continue their work. And those of us who can must pursue a fuller account of John Paul’s teachings on woman. But what cannot be ignored—and what we have tried to make clear—is the late Holy Father’s insistence that what is critical to the future of both women and men is a comprehensive response to the Synod’s questions. Why did God make us male and female? And what are the consequences of that decision? A full-throated effort to understand the Divine mandate to them both to “fill the earth and subdue it” is clearly called for if we are going to defeat those principalities and powers that seek the destruction of humanity.
We cannot postpone any longer the desperate need our society has for a faithful, coherent account of man and woman, one that sheds light on the full meaning of masculinity and femininity. If John Paul is correct and it really is our complementarity that gives us our mission—to create not only human families, but human history—then it is time to get past the age-old “battle of the sexes,” itself so clearly merely an endless replay of the events in the Garden.
Man and Woman need to find a way to work together—and alongside each other—if they are to return all things to Christ.
Endnotes:
1 Pope St. John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, 99, March 1995
2 John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, 1988. His Letter to Women was promulgated much later, a few months after EV, in June 1995. But it is worth noting that the word “feminism” does not appear in either document.
3 The formal launch of second-wave feminism took public shape in August 1970 with the women’s march in New York City: 50,000 women who declared themselves to be “on strike” in protest of the way in which “virtually all of the nation’s systems were quintessentially masculine establishments.” It was the brainchild of the author Betty Friedan, whose landmark book The Feminine Mystique (W.W. Norton, 1963) is widely credited as the spark that led to the second wave of the feminist movement that followed. The first wave began with the suffragette movement in the late 1900s.
4 “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania”, decided June 29, 1992. Opinion, Section III: A 2. The full quote is: The court’s decision was based in part on “the fact that for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.
5 “How the ’90s Tricked Women Into Thinking They’d Gained Gender Equality” by Allison Yarrow. TIME, June 13, 2018.
6 Secular feminists vary in their focus, dividing feminism into anywhere from 3 to 15 different types. The debate in Catholic circles is partially represented in these two essays, published in recent years in the National Catholic Register: “Erika Bachiochi on Being a Pro-Life Catholic, Feminist Intellectual and Mother of 7: ‘Our Hearts Long for the Good’” and “The War Against Our Lady and Womanhood Marches On”.
7 Thomas Mirus, director of podcasts and contributing editor at CatholicCulture.org provides us with a fairly thorough, if somewhat polemical, analysis of the debate underway among Catholic feminists. Here is a link to Part 3 of a three-part treatment of the issue (links to parts 1 and 2 are embedded in Part 3). There are things to disagree with in Mirus’s treatment of the topic and, at times, one wishes for a bit more nuance. But it captures the key elements of the debate fairly well.
8 This is particularly evident during the modern period (1650-1871). Descartes’ introduction of what has been referred to as the “critical question” raised the permanent specter of skepticism for those who followed. But perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is Kant’s (very creative but disastrous) solution to the dispute between the rationalists (e.g., René Descartes) and the empiricists (e.g., David Hume). Also see Etienne Gilson, Modern Philosophy (Random House, 1963).
9 The single exception was a public address given in 2000 to a gathering of the Pontifical Faculty of Educational Sciences. And even there, he simply repeats the statement he made in Evangelium Vitae. See “Address to the Teachers and Students of the Pontifical Faculty of Educational Sciences”, May 2000, 5. For an excellent treatment of the problematic nature of taking John Paul’s call for a “new feminism” at face value, see Dawn Eden’s 2008 essay “Eve of Deconstruction: Feminism and John Paul II”.
10 Redemptor hominis, March 4, 1979. The Wednesday audiences were comprised of material he had developed prior to his papacy. They began on September 5, 1979, and came to a close in November 1984. The definitive text/translation of this monumental series was the work of Dr. Michael Waldstein and published under the title Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body (Pauline Books and Media,2006).
11 He also published his encyclical on human work, titled Laborem Exercens, in 1981.
12 Mulieris Dignitatem, August 1988, 1.
13 Christifideles laici, December 1988, 50.
14 Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999), 6-8. Tiger argues that, with the advent of the birth control pill in 1965, men were cut out of the choice to have (or not have) a child, leaving it entirely up to women. He pinpoints this as the moment men began to divest themselves of the family and society.
15 Ratzinger, On the Collaboration of Men and Women, 8. The “logic of sin” has maintained its grip on men and women since the garden. It has manifested in a power struggle that has led women to think that their only option is to “make themselves the adversaries of men.”
16 Evangelium Vitae, 99.
17 John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, 30.
18 Pope St. John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, 46.
19 John Paul uses the term “feminine genius, primarily as a rhetorical device to give a name to a quality we have all experienced. But as a philosopher, John Paul would have recognized the need for additional work to fully define what sort of attribute it represented.
20 “The Woman Question” by Janine Utell. For a Catholic treatment, see Father Francis Martin, The Feminist Question: Feminist Theology in Light of Christian Tradition, (Eerdmans, 1995).
21 Interest in what we might call “the man question” is clearly on the rise. See especially the work of Dr. John Bishop at FORGE, Christian Raab, OSB (“In Search of the Masculine Genius,” Logos, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2018), and of Dr. Timothy Fortin. I have derived a theory of the masculine genius from Genesis 2 and have written somewhat extensively about it. It is a key element in my broader theory about the nature of man and woman. For the most recent published version, see “Woman and Man: Identity, Genius, Mission” in Paul Vitz, The Complementarity of Women and Men (Catholic University Press, 2021). A more recent iteration of the theory will be published under the title, “Metaphysics as Hermeneutic: Revisiting Genesis 1-2,” in the American Philosophical Association Journal in Fall 2026.
22 His 1995 Letter to Women was an intervention, written in light of the 1995 UN Conference on Women in Beijing.
23 Letter to Women, 8.
24 This effort has been the primary focus of my research for over a decade, and I have published widely on the topic. See my personal website for a list of publications.
25 More information is available on the Institute website.
26 There are hundreds of colleges and universities with degrees or whole departments of women’s studies throughout the U.S. The list of gender studies programs is even longer. There appears to be but one devoted to the study of man. Franciscan University’s effort is toward the study of man and woman.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you for this thoughtful, reasoned discussion.
Man and Woman need to find a way to work together—and alongside each other—if they are to return all things to Christ (Dr Deborah Savage).
Still a mystery requiring further study, or contemplation. As to the latter God reveals to us interiorly the depth and beauty of the feminine. The best I can contribute is personal experience both as a missionary and a patient, working with missionary sisters and cared for by nurses. I believe I can glean one remarkable reality, that women reminded me of my own humanness, and true
masculinity. Without which I felt less a man.
A good study was made by Dr Karl Stern, the former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association called The Flight from Woman. Dr Stern experienced the transformation of the German character from a strong yet cultured sensitive to compassionate needs. Whereas Adolf sought to change this entirely in a program of defeminization, whereas a feature of compassion, gentleness was sanctioned as effeminate rather than feminine.
Stern, who lived in Germany at the time perceived this revulsion to the feminine as the destruction of a great culture. Even if the Nazis glorified their great composers and artists the absence of the feminine produced a culture of death, and with that a strange obsession with self destruction.
Thanks for this article.
I wonder how many others like myself are done with feminism especially because of its hostility to/abandonment of men (and boys).
I am so done with feminism, I never even started with it.
I have three sons. I worry about them.
So agree-the term “feminism” has become repulsive. The ugly feminism that became prevalent in the late 80’s and 90’s, has eclipsed into full blown acceptance of anything abhorrent or deviant. This new “feminism” rejects not only men, but women that embrace traditional feminine roles. It’s time for our society to reject this ugliness and the Church needs to lead the charge. Start with Pope Jon Paul’s vision and bring our world back to clarity: a biblical vision of the roles of women AND MEN working together to create a stable world for our society.
At the time the encyclical was promulgated, second-wave feminism was firmly on the march, making real inroads into the culture, the economy, and the legal system.
Well, the “old” feminism Has now taken over.
It has given us women saying they don’t need men and also lamenting the absence of male interest. It has given us women in gyms wearing clothing that looks like it was purchased at Sherwin Williams and turning public gyms into private film studios, objecting to any interference with their cameras and calling men “gym creeps” for the mere act of looking in their directions. It has given us women going to social media to announce their impending pursuit of divorce, while simultaneously noting their husband’s exceptional qualities, save the ability to meet some unspecified, nebulous qualities.
It has told us that women are as strong and capable as men, while insisting that there must be a special structure that protects them from the slightest indignity. It has given us Mary Barra, Carly Fiorina, Alissa Heinerscheid, and Julie Feiss Masino wrecking companies and brands in fits of vanity and celebrated for doing so.
Meanwhile, the best, brightest and most capable women are systematically being encouraged to delay, defer and deny maternity, to pay tribute to an idol called “career” and race to the indignities and infirmities of old age unprotected by children who might provide care or advocacy.
Methinks you’ve said it all. The lust for power is a deadly part of Original Sin. Why our merciful Lord didn’t just slap us all down, male and female, from the beginning, is a tribute to that mercy. “Complementarity” is such a sweet, simple word and idea, but it seems to be in a foreign language, incomprehensible to the best educated among us especially. The crux of the problem is “obedience,” which is rarely easy to swallow. First we must learn to love Jesus and not the creature in the mirror. We know that He alone can cure us of that disease.
This a verbose essay that circumvents the central consideration of the final battle for the family.
The central consideration is this: what does Holy Writ and Sacred Tradition say about women’s role in the church, society, and in the domestic church?
An ancillary discussion must be on the inerrancy of Scripture.
As soon as one reads the epistles of Sts. Peter and Paul, any form of feminism is called into question. Either the two proto-Apostles are right and we must return to traditional family life or the whole of the New Testament is up for grabs.
As Francis Cardinal Arinze said, let us not break our heads. The simple solution is devotion to the blessed Virgin and meditation on her humility. Every woman can find true femininity there and ask our Lady to share her humble submission to the will of God. She is never outdone in generosity.
We do not need a new university department … we need devotion and Consecration to Our Lady. True identity and anthropology for souls searching for God is found only in virginal womb of the Mother of God.
Ave Maria!
I agree entirely. Mary is the answer. The most attractive and inspiring women I have encountered, always Catholic, are those who have been formed, consciously or through a thoroughly Catholic environment, by the Blessed Mother, just as men are best formed through a devotion to Jesus and St. Joseph. Another thing I have noticed, although women are frequently confused about what a woman should be, men know instinctively. The same is true for men. A good woman knows exactly what makes a man.
Any kind of proper “Catholic feminism” really could not be called “feminism”, any more than the Knights of Columbus could be called “Catholic Freemasonry”. The word “feminism”, as the word “Freemasonry”, is far, far too loaded to be recycled.
Great essay, especially in reframing the feminism in “new feminism” into the anthropology question, this time in terms of the creation of the two sexes by God. By the way, I think your question of “Why two sexes?” is addressed in TOB (and other places) where, in the loneliness of man’s Original Solitude, God creates woman so than man might have relationship? Of course, there is a lot in that statement.
The founding of the Institute for the Study of Man and Woman is an exciting development. Even the secular academy gives witness to the intertwining of male and female: the initial focus on women in the mid-twentieth century has shifted over the decades toward an increased attention to men and to the interrelationship of the “genders.” The problem in secular scholarship is the divorce of sex (“gender”) from the reality of the embodied person, the insistence that sexual identity is not merely influenced by culture but entirely “constructed,” i.e. artificial. To propose an inherent connection between bodily sex and person is to be guilty of the intellectual sin of “essentialism.” The new institute at Franciscan promises a salutary, and salvific, exploration of interwoven essentialisms. I will be sharing this article with colleagues.
Love for Holy Father and Chair of Peter, the evangelization does not ONLY proceed according to sociological groupings or mapping, whether prominent or identified in academia, etc.; and on how those are understood. And as there is admitted a need for “convincing concerning sin”, it must develop in that (convincing) according to the individual conscience as matter of truth, with perhaps a particular consideration and focus of the persistence of the era of individualism as it continues to erode the human family and natural society both incidentally and deliberately, while denying truth.
So much of the JPII philosophy and theology is rooted in what I just said, I haven’t outlined anything that could be considered so novel. In the Gospel too.
Thanks to Dr. Savage for this great article and for citing my essay.
I had mentioned Dr. Savage’s new program at FUS in my article precisely with regard to the point she makes here, as a positive contrast to the new program at the University of St. Thomas, which is a “women’s studies” program – you cannot understand woman without reference to man. As St. Paul said, “Man was not made for woman, but woman for man” – of course, as St. Paul then adds, there is a different sense in which you can’t understand man without reference to woman either.
Thank you, Tom. I was hoping you saw it. I absolutely had you in mind while writing it. Sorry it took me this long to notice you had commented. I have been watching for mention of it in your (very fine) Catholic Culture weekly. I have to admit I was disappointed that you didn’t link to it or something. Now I feel better. No word from the “feminist” crowd. I tried to be charitable.
Deborah – in turn, I didn’t see your response because I have been out of the country and quite busy pretty much since I made my original comment. I will be happy to link to this piece in our newsletter.
I sent you an email via your website by the way, which perhaps you didn’t get – is there a better way to contact you?
Hey Tom – thanks for your response. My email address is dsavage@franciscan.edu. Saw mention of essay on today’s Catholic Culture. Thank you!