In the great struggle between the Culture of Death and the Culture of Life, a propaganda war against the Church and her view of women has been waged with great success in many quarters. Several lies have become the food of feminists, a grotesque bread of life for their disciples to feed upon. This is the second of several articles that will systematically deconstruct the tissue of lies fabricated by the feminist radicals. We begin with the writings of Pope John Paul II, who loved women and was loved by them in return.
In this post, John Paul calls our attention to the radicalism of Jesus, how He broke with those cultural constraints that grew to create a deformation in the understanding of women’s dignity.
From:
Women in the Gospel
13. As we scan the pages of the Gospel, many women, of different ages and conditions, pass before our eyes. We meet women with illnesses or physical sufferings, such as the one who had “a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years; she was bent over and could not fully straighten herself” (Lk 13:11); or Simon’s mother-in-law, who “lay sick with a fever” (Mk 1:30); or the woman “who had a flow of blood” (cf. Mk 5:25-34), who could not touch anyone because it was believed that her touch would make a person “impure”. Each of them was healed, and the last-mentioned – the one with a flow of blood, who touched Jesus’ garment “in the crowd” (Mk 5:27) – was praised by him for her great faith: “Your faith has made you well” (Mk 5:34). Then there is the daughter of Jairus, whom Jesus brings back to life, saying to her tenderly: “Little girl, I say to you, arise” (Mk 5:41). There also is the widow of Nain, whose only son Jesus brings back to life, accompanying his action by an expression of affectionate mercy: “He had compassion on her and said to her, ‘Do not weep!'”(Lk 7:13). And finally there is the Canaanite woman, whom Christ extols for her faith, her humility and for that greatness of spirit of which only a mother’s heart is capable. “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire” (Mt 15:28). The Canaanite woman was asking for the healing of her daughter.
Sometimes the women whom Jesus met and who received so many graces from him, also accompanied him as he journeyed with the Apostles through the towns and villages, proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God; and they “provided for them out of their means”. The Gospel names Joanna, who was the wife of Herod’s steward, Susanna and “many others” (cf. Lk 8:1-3).
Sometimes women appear in the parables which Jesus of Nazareth used to illustrate for his listeners the truth about the Kingdom of God. This is the case in the parables of the lost coin (cf. Lk 15: 8-10), the leaven (cf. Mt 13:33), and the wise and foolish virgins (cf. Mt 25:1-13). Particularly eloquent is the story of the widow’s mite. While “the rich were putting their gifts into the treasury… a poor widow put in two copper coins”. Then Jesus said: “This poor widow has put in more than all of them… she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had” (Lk 21:1-4). In this way Jesus presents her as a model for everyone and defends her, for in the socio-juridical system of the time widows were totally defenceless people (cf. also Lk 18:1-7).
In all of Jesus’ teaching, as well as in his behaviour, one can find nothing which reflects the discrimination against women prevalent in his day. On the contrary, his words and works always express the respect and honour due to women. The woman with a stoop is called a “daughter of Abraham” (Lk 13:16), while in the whole Bible the title “son of Abraham” is used only of men. Walking the Via Dolorosa to Golgotha, Jesus will say to the women: “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me” (Lk 23:28). This way of speaking to and about women, as well as his manner of treating them, clearly constitutes an “innovation” with respect to the prevailing custom at that time.
This becomes even more explicit in regard to women whom popular opinion contemptuously labelled sinners, public sinners and adulteresses. There is the Samaritan woman, to whom Jesus himself says: “For you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband”. And she, realizing that he knows the secrets of her life, recognizes him as the Messiah and runs to tell her neighbours. The conversation leading up to this realization is one of the most beautiful in the Gospel (cf. Jn 4:7-27).
Then there is the public sinner who, in spite of her condemnation by common opinion, enters into the house of the Pharisee to anoint the feet of Jesus with perfumed oil. To his host, who is scandalized by this, he will say: “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much” (cf. Lk 7:37-47).
Finally, there is a situation which is perhaps the most eloquent: a woman caught in adulterv is brought to Jesus. To the leading question “In the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?”, Jesus replies: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”. The power of truth contained in this answer is so great that “they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest”. Only Jesus and the woman remain. “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”. “No one, Lord”. “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again” (cf. Jn 8:3-11).
These episodes provide a very clear picture. Christ is the one who “knows what is in man” (cf. Jn 2:25) – in man and woman. He knows the dignity of man, his worth in God’s eyes. He himself, the Christ, is the definitive confirmation of this worth. Everything he says and does is definitively fulfilled in the Paschal Mystery of the Redemption. Jesus’ attitude to the women whom he meets in the course of his Messianic service reflects the eternal plan of God, who, in creating each one of them, chooses her and loves her in Christ (cf. Eph 1:1-5). Each woman therefore is “the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake”. Each of them from the “beginning” inherits as a woman the dignity of personhood. Jesus of Nazareth confirms this dignity, recalls it, renews it, and makes it a part of the Gospel and of the Redemption for which he is sent into the world. Every word and gesture of Christ about women must therefore be brought into the dimension of the Paschal Mystery. In this way everything is completely explained.
Coming Home 
Gerard,
One has to wonder if radical feminists do not recognize the dignity of the women as affirmed in the Bible because they (feminists) may not have had a good male role model in their own lives who affirmed their dignity.
Janet,
Being a man, I cannot speak to the subjective experience of being a woman, and so realize that I am skating on thin ice in what I am about to say. However, before saying it, I grew up with a mother, grandmothers, great aunts, aunts, sisters, female cousins and friends, and now have a wife and two daughters. Additionally, most of my greatest mentors in life have been women, especially in my doctoral training. So, I’m not bereft of intimate experience with women in all of their many roles, in the broad spectrum of life activities.
I have noted that the women who were most at peace with the world, with men, with family and children are most at peace with themselves and their femininity, with their womanhood.
I have studied with and under radical feminists. There has always been a common denominator of being disconnected from themselves, their femininity and womanhood. Palpable anger has always been their distinguishing characteristic.
They have largely been at war with men, their bodies (in reproduction) and God. The buzzword among them is POWER.
The inordinate focus on power structures and dominance-based themes belies a war from an earlier time in life. I can believe that for many it was lack of affirmation from cold and distant fathers, as well as outright humiliation at the hands of these men. For some, it could well be the experience of poverty resulting from divorce which has traditionally left women at an economic and personal disadvantage as most men relocate to another city and begin another family, another life.
The hostility toward men in women from these backgrounds is certainly rational and understandable. The tragedy comes in being locked in to the perverted and distorted roles patterned by immature or mentally ill parents. The pain arises from the assault on the nature of the young woman as woman.
The remedy is a focus on what that nature is that was so wounded, and the work of reconciling the self with the self’s nature, with God, and if possible, with the one(s) who precipitated the rupture.
Pope John Paul II was surrounded by a community of women in Poland, healthy, normal women most of whom had families. He loved them and was loved by them. He understood them, as he did not maintain an aloofness. He got it.
That’s why these reflections from JPII. How do you women see his work from your vantage point?
Gerard,
I’d say you are probably an authority on women! I agree with everything you’ve said – you say it much more eloquently than I ever could.
I’m familiar with some of Pope John Paul’s writings, but haven’t had a chance to look at what you’ve posted here. I greatly respect him and am so thankful that he’s left such a treasury of writings. His focus on the unitive nature of the marital union is beautiful.
My childhood experience was one in which my Mother and Grandmothers and Aunts embraced motherhood as their God-given role in life. I couldn’t understand how difficult being a mother is until I became one myself! It is truly a vocation! My father is a wise man, and always said that the world would be an uncivilized place without women. How could I disagree with that? I think Pope JP II would have agreed, which makes me appreciate him (JP II) all the more. Does that answer question?
Hi Janet,
You’re very kind to say what you have. Thank You. And yes, you have answered my question.
Your dad is a very wise man, and I could not agree with him more. Of course, he was speaking of women functioning consistent with their nature, which is pro-life. There is a reson why we talk of young men ‘settling down’ in marriage.
It’s not to be equated with ‘tied down’ (which most young men see it as at times). It is truly a settling of the restlessness that comes with not belonging to another in the most profound way, in a covenantal union of persons and souls. Women soften our aggressions not so much by overt demands, as much as it is the implicit invitation during the unitive dimension of loving, both in and out of bed, to encounter woman at the core of her essence.
Such an encounter calls upon men to set aside our harsher drives and instincts and learn gentleness and compassion as the language for that encounter. It is in this way that the essence of women, which is love, becomes transformative for men.
It is the reason why radical feminism has not aided in gentling men’s condition (or women’s) but has ultimately led to the coarsening of culture by driving a wedge into the unitive dimension of love between men and women.
What the radical feminists have never understood is that the unitive dimension of sex and the procreative are inextricably bound by responsibility to one another. In advocating sexual liberation, they have ruptured the bonds of fidelity and responsibility-making of sex a mere plaything.
This permits men to live life in the shallows and leaves women experiencing the cognitive dissonance that arises from her body experiencing the feelings of the unitive, while knowing that she is in actuality not being encountered at the level of her personal dignity, as a woman. That dissonance leads to alienation and anger, to more radical feminism.
I grew up with little knowledge of what male domination and patriarchy were. My father was generally the one with the full time job, but my mother had a bachelor’s degree with two majors, she was the one who kept the checkbook (purely because she was more competent at doing so), and she started teaching part time — even taking my two year old sister along with her. She was an active Republican, my father was a relatively inactive Democrat.
I was in my teens when the feminist movement first burst on the scene. At first I reflexively applied the themes of the civil rights movement, and said, of course, women should be equal too. One of the hard lessons of the last forty years is that each cause is different. We no longer have separate bathrooms for those designated “white” and “colored,” but we certainly still do for men and women. That is because there are real and substantive differences between men and women. No cause should simply be wrapped in the mantle of another.
Looking back BEFORE various phases of what became known as feminism, there was a time women were ASSUMED to be incompetent to be lawyers, doctors, to vote, to hold public office, etc. Breaking through that, the established patterns of commerce insisted that women “prove themselves” able to “keep up with the men.” That in turn cast child-rearing as an obstacle, rather than a fulfilling part of life.
Raising children is a vocation. It takes tremendous time and attention. The average deficiencies in socialization of children today (on average) reflects the fact that there is little adult PRESENCE in their lives. Not just someone to say no — someone to be part of life, to inspire, to cultivate, to assist. It wouldn’t be a bad thing at all for men to take a larger part of that load — for “the market” to release both women AND men from the intense grind of “getting ahead” to be able to take time for children. In the long run, we all pay for that not happening, including businesses, who face everything from higher losses to delinquency to new hires who aren’t as capable as someone who was raised right.
Well said, SJ!
Thank you. If we remain at an impasse on the subject we seem to be at an impasse on, I will drop in now and then to see if there is anything else to talk about.