Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jaugan
Unaware of the influences of the point of view of Church teachings and John Paul II’s
Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, and having in mind that such letter promotes equality and
rejects subordination of women, it surely is easy to appreciate and indicate its effort to reaffirm
the dignity of women. The problem of the visible incidence of the subordination discrimination
of women by despising them especially their body is no longer an issue. It started with
recognizing the rationality of both men and women which strongly point toward their being in
the image and likeness of God. It is a strong basis to clearly affirm that men and women are
equal as persons possessing the same dignity which comes from God. Moreover, it
acknowledges, in a seemingly extraordinary way, the role of women not only in the church but in
the world as a whole with biblical and theological bases. Its effort is evident as women became
the paradigm of being human to make its point clear.1 More evidently, basing on the analogy of
the Trinity which is the Divine communion, it strongly stresses the equality of both men and
women by highlighting their mutuality in spousal relationship as being the subject at the same
time stewards to each other.2 It is like saying that one cannot fulfil his/her uniqueness without the
However, if we become aware of where all these are coming from, we would somehow
notice that there are weaknesses. It is when it becomes noticeable that there is still an underlying
mind-set that greatly influences the perspective of the teachings of the Church and the Apostolic
1
Edward Collins Vacek, S. J., “Feminism and the Vatican,” Theological Studies 55 (2005): 163.
2
Mulieris Dignitatem, 7.
By this, the remnants of putting man as the paradigm to humanity strongly manifests even if the
One set of ideas of the letter’s weaknessess can be capsulized by the phrase
“because she is a woman”. Actually, this idea originally, though most likely unconsciously said,
comes from the mouth of Ruth Henderson, making use of Human Rights and Women’s
Ordination as the reference, as she was stating that “Excluding women because they are women
is a similar act of discrimination”.3 Similar to her idea, it seems that putting what is for men and
what is for women or what is masculine and what is feminine confuses what equality really is in
a sense that what is for men cannot be for women and vise versa. This raises the question: “is
there really something that is specific ‘for men’ and ‘for women’?”
First and foremost, before proceeding to the main weaknesses, the most evident weakness
of the letter is the language itself. It already shows that the church is still tied to the usual
practice of using masculine term like always putting “man” as a default term for the whole
humanity and always presuming the maleness of God, like “Man- whether man or woman- is the
only being among the creatures of visible world...”4 Of course it is difficult to avoid such
tendency but since the letter wants to promote equality, then it must start with the most basic and
essential aspect—the language. Again, by the language itself, the letter fails to effectively speak
of equality.
3
Ruth Henderson, “Tradition and the status of women in the catholic Church”, Australia eJournal of Theology 2
(February 2004): 6.
4
Mulieris Dignitatem 9
According to Angelika Walser, the Roman catholic doctrine lies on a paradigm by which
male and female are the basis of gender, that one is masculine and the other is feminine. 5 In the
apostolic letter, it describes man as the one who destroys and women as the one who prevent
humanity from falling.6 Why is it that the tendency to dominate and to become aggressive
attributes to men by default? Can we think about it in another way that women now becomes the
aggressive one? No, because seeing this way would do away with what the letter wants to
stress—to emphasize the specific roles that are for women. Women are the ones who are gentle,
sensitive, and caring because it is their nature. Because they are women. They are excluded from
Another thing that is odd is the receptivity of the woman.7As stated, “The
Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love
in return.”8 This shows that the initiative comes from man from which the woman’s act to love
back derives. It may sound mutual but it puts the first act to man. In connection to that, Man now
is identified to Christ and the woman is the Church. Though the letter speaks of mutuality of the
bridegroom and the bride, it suddenly shifted to superiority of the bridegroom when it talked
about between Christ and the Church. There is still an assigning of what is for man and for
woman, which let us go back to the basic framework of man-woman difference. Women, the
bride, are the ones who receive because it is their nature, because they are women. One funny
fulfilment specially designed for’ man, a feminist reader might be forgiven for thinking that an
5
Angelika Walser, “Introducing the Category of Gender to Roman Catholic Theology—aLiberal Approach”,
www. Idialogue. org.
6
Mulieris Dignitatem 1.
7
Mulieris Dignitatem 27.
8
Mulieris Dignitatem 23.
image of ‘missionary position’ penis-thrusting-vagina sex…”9 Thus, even if it seems that, as
mentioned earlier, the letter is leaning towards women like in the words of Edward Collins,
“…John Paul II has bent so far over backwards to end this way of thinking that... women become
the paradigmatic form of human”, the letter undeniably and indirectly refuses to free women
Another thing that caught my attention is the role of Mary as the “woman in the
central salvific event which marks the ‘fullness of time’…”11 In this way, the letter is able to
affirm the role of women from the very foundation of our faith. This also affirms that Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, whom we are worshipping was born of a woman. It can be used as a
basis that women shall not be subordinated because even our God was protected and cared by a
woman. However, what makes it interesting is that what was always highlighted was the woman-
ness of Mary, the femininity of Mary. Of course it is the goal of the letter to highlight women
and to affirm the uniqueness of Mary, but is the only focus of women, their femininity? I don’t
know. Is Mary recognized simply because of her feminine role as a mother in salvation history? I
don’t know. However, if we base Mary’s being “handmaid of the Lord” or her “fiat” before she
became a mother, as a person who is God’s image and likeness, then I think there is no problem.
To understand why the letter is written in a way that there is a focus on what is masculine
and what is feminine, it must be noted that the basic stand of the Church is that man and woman
9
Edward Collins Vacek, S. J., “Feminism and the Vatican,” Theological Studies 55 (2005): 172.
10
Ibid., 163
s Dignitatem 20.
are equal but different.12 On the part of the apologists, by knowing and getting used to this basic
understanding, then it becomes easy for the Church especially John Paul II to speak about it
without any difficulties. Just say we are all equal because we are all image and likeness of God
and that we are able to receive God’s outpouring love to us but we are different because I am a
man and you are a woman, I do masculine stuff and you do feminine stuff. It is easy as that.
What is contrary is that the apostolic letter wants to show that it tries to get out of the old
concepts of subordination of women and superiority of men and yet it is not able to let go from
the very paradigm which causes them. As Edward Collins would say, “The ‘Letter’ missed a
the scriptures, it affirms Jesus’ attitude toward women, it appreciates the role of Mary, it makes
clear the mutuality between man and woman, and affirms letting go of one’s capacity to enter
spousal life for the kingdom of God and yet it cannot let go of the underlying tendency to avoid
man from woman-ness and avoid woman from man-ness by making use of the “man-woman
differences” to make it not look imposing and domineering ,although indirectly, since it imposes
What I am referring to fear of women does not literally mean afraid of women.
What I mean is the fear that women will take over and that what used to be women’s job will
eventually be men’s. Yes, there is fear of domination of women, but more than that, there is fear
12
Angelika Walser, “Introducing the Category of Gender to Roman Catholic Theology—aLiberal Approach”,
www. Idialogue. org.
13
Edward Collins Vacek, S. J., “Feminism and the Vatican,” Theological Studies 55 (2005): 161.
that men has nowhere else to go because what is left is what used to be women’s. Most men
would not want to take the assignment to clothe the priests which used to be the tasks of mother
butlers since it is for women only. Males somehow feel uncomfortable of female stuff, more so
when females share male stuff. There is just something about men that does not like about
women—their being weak by seeing their gentleness. And that is our unconscious perspective.
Since we find women weak, and that we don’t want to be weak, we do not want women in our
circle. There is a depreciation of what woman has. We forgot that men are weak and gentle too.
In line with the Letter, though there are affirmations about women, the highlighting of
differences itself, like the assigning of dominance to men and passivity to women reflects the
fear of mixing of man-ness to gentleness. That is why “mind, intellect, activity and autonomy”
(i.e. suprieority)” is identified to man and “body, emotion, passivity and care (i.e. inferiority)” to
woman.14 It is because men do not want to be inferior. Men are just uncomfortable to “supposed
Going back to the issue, since the letter strongly stands that men and women are equal
but different and seeing its weaknesses rooted from its own outlook, do we still say that it
Of course the letter promotes equality. That is what it is made for: to promote and revisit
the dignity of each of us as persons created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, it clearly
says: “Man- whether man or woman- is the only being among the creatures of the visible world
that God the creator ‘has willed for its own sake...”15 This phrase is repeated many times in the
letter which implies that it always assert equality. Moreover, it shows its strong promotion
14
Angelika Walser, “Introducing the Category of Gender to Roman Catholic Theology—aLiberal Approach”,
www. Idialogue. org.
15
Mulieris Dignitatem, 9.
towards equal dignity by saying “The fact of being man and woman involves no limitation here;
just the salvific and sanctifying action of the Spirit in man [sic] is in no way limited by the fact
If it promotes equality, then why does the letter still lay on the same mind-set that caused
the subordination of women before? Why is it that women are still not allowed to be ordained?
To be honest, I cannot give a full satisfying reason for that, but for me I think the Church is not
just ready to let go. It may have opened in various aspects during the aggiornamento of the
Church, but there are things that are rather left undisputed than shaken. Maybe the Church
authority fears changes on that part especially on women ordination because it is the only
argument that keeps the situation stable. The letter can somehow be used to support women
ordination and yet it is against it. If the Church focuses much on equality without giving
attention to the differences, probably it would fall into allowing women to be ordained. Of
course men and women are biologically and culturally different but it does not mean it hinders
them to maximize their potentiality and gifts like leading the Church.
If we put on the shoes of John Paul II, what does he mean by equal but different in terms
of priesthood (referring to the ordained)? When he talks about equality—equal dignity as both
are in the image and likeness of God and created for their own sake, does it include equal
identity that both can become a priest? Both are able to live in a celibate life (not necessarily
virgin), study Philosophy and Theology, and do ministry and yet women are not allowed.
Sometimes, much more women are more capable than men.17 The theological and historical
bases where vague to justify it, but it is noticeable that it is based on the “currently dominant
16
Muieris Dignitatem, 9.
17
Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood?,(San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 1988), 194.
stream of ideas in the world”-- that roles are not exchangeable especially for this kind of
ministry.18
Another possible reason why the Church authority does not allow ordination for
women is that we are not used to it. It would feel and look weird seeing women exercising the
ministry as an ordained priest. We are not used seeing our church headed by a woman because
we usually see leadership as limited to men, to father figure. And now, as noticeable in many
companies, women are the leaders. There is no longer the so called “subordination”. Women
today are confident and already realized their capacity and dignity. So, Why not ordain them and
let them exercise priesthood? Anyway, it is an office shared in our Church as composed of
persons who are created in God’s image and likeness and made by which God willed for our own
sake. Priesthood is not an office reserved only for men or masculine but is a ministry open for
those who are called not as man or woman, but as a person. We will get used it.
On the other hand, it is also not easy to immediately open the ordination to women since
our church teachings and perspectives are primarily based on patriarchal perspective. So, I think
it would require a lot of work to change or even refine the ways of thought and teachings of our
Church. But again, there is no problem about women ordination. Don’t worry, we will just get
used to it.
18
Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood?,(San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 1988), 43.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitate, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women on the occadion of the
Marian Year.
Hauke, Manfred. Women in the Priesthood? San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 1988
Edward Collins Vacek, S. J., “Feminism and the Vatican,” Theological Studies 55 (2005)