Adelson A.

Jaugan

What is good about the Letter

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

other and that they are responsible to each other.

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

letter Mulieris Dignitatem itself, so to speak. It is the framework of “Man-Woman difference”.

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

letter seemingly leans toward the emphasis and appreciation on women.

Because she is a woman

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

the sphere of aggressive characteristics.

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

commentary about it says “Thus, when he describes a woman as receptive, as ‘a vessel of

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

from subordination in real sense.10

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.

But, I would rather leave this question unanswered.

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

perfect opportunity to practice what it preached.”13 It acknowledges the presence of women in

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 women should be and should not be.

The Fear of Women

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

to be feminine” because of such mentality.

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

sincerely promotes equality?

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

that one is a Jew or Greek.”16

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

We will get used to it

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

Angelika Walser, “Introducing the Category of Gender to Roman Catholic Theology—aLiberal

Approach”, www. Idialogue. org.

Edward Collins Vacek, S. J., “Feminism and the Vatican,” Theological Studies 55 (2005)