As the only person I know who actively uses the #Catholic Feminism tag, it seemed only right that I take this question.
There are, of course, disagreements among Catholics about the role of women in the church and society, because the question isn’t really over doctrine—not if we’re being honest—but over how the doctrine is applied. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
The straight answer to the question you asked is, no. Scripture, Tradition, and the Catechism clearly indicate that God created humanity, male and female, in God’s own image: together, they form in family an image of the Trinity. Male and female are equal in dignity and one in Christ. Here are a few extracts from that doctrinal teaching:
In Galatians 3:28-29, for example, Paul writes that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
St. Gregory Nazianzan wrote, “The Woman sinned, and so did Adam. The serpent deceived them both… Christ saves both by His Passion. Was He made flesh for the man? So He was also for the woman. Did He die for the man? The woman also is saved by His death. He is called of the seed of David; and so perhaps you think the man is honoured; but He is born of a Virgin, and this is on the woman’s side. The two, He says, shall be one flesh; so let the one flesh have equal honor.”
There have been a lot of misogynistic theologians throughout the centuries. Fortunately, none of them were writing Infallible Dogma, and we are as free to brush aside their ill-founded conclusions as we are to ignore Aquinas’s unfortunate lapses in scientific acumen. I recommend Sr. Prudence Allen’s historically and doctrinally sound, and impressive, book, The Concept of Woman, for further details.
There is also a long-standing tradition of strong, independent, intelligent, educated women in the Church, from the semi-mythical St. Catherine of Alexandria, to St. Gertrude the Great, to St. Ursula, and beyond. The important thing to note here about them is that they are exceptions for their Feminism, as it were, in their respective cultures, not in their place in Catholic revelation or its interpretation. It is Islam which claims women are “generally deficient” in reason and faith, not the Catholic Church.
The Catechism (#378) says that “work” was created to be “the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation” (my emphasis.) #1605 affirms that woman is man’s “equal, his nearest in all things.” (There’s other aspects of that passage which should be addressed, but in another post.) #2333 affirms what might be called a “feminism of complementarity”: men and women are different, yes, but that does not mean “unequal”: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented to the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.” In #369, the Catechism affirms that ”man and woman … have been created … in perfect equality as human persons. … Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God.” #2335 builds on this, adding, “Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way.”
The easiest way to talk about these differences as different but not unequal is to reference the distinction between motherhood and fatherhood. These identities and roles are different, but equally important; they are manifested in different ways. Fatherhood, especially when it comes to the priesthood, is always discussed in terms of leadership. But there is a big difference between Christian leadership and worldly leadership. Worldly, fallen leadership says, “Bow down before me and serve me as an inferior.” The leadership of Christ and the example He gave is a leadership of service.
Fatherhood requires a specific kind of serving. This, for example, is the role of priests. Simply put, women are not called to be priests because women are not called to be fathers. Motherhood is equally dignified and also leadership, but it requires different duties and a leadership of service in a different way. And there is nothing in doctrine which claims the leadership of motherhood is inferior or inherently submissive to the leadership of fatherhood. (People contest this, because nothing about this subject is simple. But people contest every doctrine relating to sex, so that’s nothing new.) The Church is just now reaching a point in culture and history where she is capable of really delving into what motherhood is and means, of separating sexism and culture from divine revelation. We’ve had 2,000 years of emphasis on fatherhood: God the Father and Christ the Son came and showed an extremely painful, patriarchal, and misogynist world a better way of being, of living, and of interacting with the other half of humanity.
To move from doctrine to semi-speculation: one way of looking at this is, to put it bluntly, to say that the emphasis was on fatherhood because fatherhood needed it more. That idea is not original with me, and I suggest that anyone who wants to fight it (as I did at first, though probably for different reasons than men would) think long and hard about the treatment women have received at the hands of men over the course of centuries—and then look a woman straight in the eye and tell her it hasn’t been a long and painful process towards redemption. There’s some more about that here.
Anyway, none of that means ”a woman’s place is only in the home,” or only in the convent. But I would question those who react violently to the dignity of such callings whether or not they are being sexist themselves by refusing to acknowledge the importance of so-called “women’s work.” For a secular example of what I mean, check this out.
Of course, not even all of that specifically answers the question of submission. The essential question is, is maleness of such a kind of thing that it requires femaleness to submit to it? Short answer: no, but the “why” isn’t easily decided.
Many Christians will tell you that it is dogma that men give orders and women receive them. That’s nonsense. Ephesians 5 is often pointed to as a “proof text” for this idea that women are only around to do what their husbands tell them, but a proper understanding of Paul’s epistles shows that is not the case. Pope John Paul II taught, as did St. Paul, that husband and wife are to mutually submit to each other in love. As many have noted, Paul wrote advice to slaves and masters as well as husbands and wives. And he gives them almost exactly the same advice, which is appropriate, since he was writing to new Christian converts in pagan Rome, and pagan Roman marriage was often little better than slavery. His advice is: masters, submit to your servants in love of them and Christ. Servants, submit to your masters in love of them and Christ. If his advice had been followed, it would be the end of slavery! Just so, if his marital advice had been properly followed, it would mean the end of patriarchal marriage. I don’t have any links handy for other Pauline passages often brought into this debate, “women keep quiet” and so forth, but it is worth noting that two of Paul’s good friends, Priscilla and Aquila, were a husband and wife team who went around writing letters, preaching, and generally doing great missionary work, together, as a team—and Paul had absolutely no problem with Priscilla’s activities.
Some Christians, including some Catholics, will tell you that “male headship” (as this authority of maleness is often referred to as) shows itself only in such a scenario as, for example, an unsolvable argument. C.S. Lewis and von Hildebrand are proponents of such arguments. Personally, I find this ridiculous, since male headship, stripped of all its sexist affirmations—that it means women have no place in the workforce, or can never argue with their husbands, or aren’t leaders in the household, for example—has no essential or tangible qualities, and therefore does not exist. For an elaboration on that and similar topics, I refer you to this post.
John Paul the Great, despite the mudslinging of his critics, was a man, a Catholic, and a pope deeply attuned to the profoundest depths and divine heights of the Deposit of Faith. Of all people to respect authentic Catholic doctrine and anthropology and place those truths within the context of the modern world, he was uniquely placed to do so. And he called himself “the feminist pope.” He advocated a feminism of complementarity, mutual submission within marriage, and wrote, “Thank you, women who work!” He recognized that any attempt to make women more like men to achieve “equality” is actually just about the most sexist attitude you can have. He recognized the intelligence, authority, and leadership capabilities of women as a whole and demonstrated this in his interactions with them as individuals. I freely admit that I am not as familiar with his writings first-hand as I want to be, but that much, I am certain of.
What I’m getting at is this: short of dumping a library of sources in your lap and going through all the nuances of this subject bit by bit, this as close to a thorough doctrinal treatment of the subject I give you to show that both “radical” camps, the ultra-conservatice and ultra-liberal (for lack of better designations) have got their faith twisted into politics—to the detriment of both. As usual, the genuine Catholic position is somewhere in the middle. Gone are the days (thank God!) when it was true and acceptable to say, “a woman has no business in life except to look after her husband’s happiness,” but so too is it incompatible with the Catholic faith to affirm that women are “the same” as men, whether in body, mind, or spirit.
There are a lot of “conservative” traditions and opinions that rankle my nerves, (some on that here,) from purity balls to the “etiquette” of marriage proposals, but my personal antipathy to them, though well-founded, does not mean that they are incompatible with the Catholic doctrines of equal dignity, complementarity, and mutual submission. (However, it is true that any custom or opinion which attempts to reduce woman to a completely passive being who is not an end in herself, which is proper to personhood, but as a means to maleness, is in conflict with Catholic doctrine. I, personally, would argue that many so-called “conservative traditions” lend themselves to such error, but that application of doctrine to culture is opinion, not divine revelation.) On the other end of the spectrum, self-identified Catholics who have accepted the secular free-love model of equality-as-sameness Feminism, or any of its variants, aren’t being true to Truth, either.
In short, individual Catholics are, I suppose, free to believe that women ought to be submissive to men “because that is the nature of the sexes,” but they often claim that in such a way that does violate truth. The doctrinally sound alternative is Catholic Feminism, which, properly understood and lived, shouldn’t offend anyone, Catholic or not, except misogynists and equality-as-sameness Feminists. And, I suppose, the various more or less “Catholic” camps campaigning for female priests. We’ve got all kinds on tumblr, so this is bound to offend somebody, but that’s why we try to please God first, and not people. I’ve said what’s true to doctrine as well as my opinion, which is, if not acceptable to everyone, at least not contrary to doctrine, and I hope this answered your question somewhat. If you have follow up questions, I strongly suggest reading through the Catechism, these posts and these posts, and/or contacting me personally here.
TL;DR: The answer is no. Men and women are equal in dignity, called to mutual submission in love and Christ, women are as fully capable of succeeding at using their human faculties as men, are persons fully in the image of God and therefore ends in themselves and not merely an end to maleness or male pleasure, the concept of “submission” has been widely misunderstood and appropriated by fallen, misogynistic cultures to oppress women because that is the nature of fallen humanity, and if it wasn’t for women leaders, humanity would be in pretty dire straits.
God bless, Anon.
