Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Thursday, September 16, 2021

Sr. Mary Ruth, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life" (1916)

 [106] The first step in defining what the woman's college ought to do is to state its primary aims, because they should direct us in the choice of the various subjects of study. The nature of the means, which in the present educational problem is the curriculum, is largely determined by the nature of the purpose to be attained. Social and industrial changes are making great demands upon the college for suitable preparation for life. The striking lack of educational standards by which the effectiveness of college training is judged, urges a consideration of what is the fundamental task of the woman's college.

Christianity has lost much of its vitality in the world since it has been taught through books. In the olden time when knowledge of Our Lord, of His Heavenly Father, and of His Blessed Mother, were taught by word of mouth and by mystery plays, God and His saints were very real to their followers who willingly, even gladly, suffered all things to prove their love of [107] Him. Again, in the olden time when morals were taught by word of mouth, by example, and by morality plays, all intimately related to God the Creator and Saviour [sic] and sanctifier of men, the priests and other teachers, whether in the missionary field, or at home among their own people, even though according to modern standards quite unlearned in science and art, were able to lift themselves and their followers to higher and higher planes of Christian life and civilization. Since we have undertaken to make the knowledge of God an academic subject, however, knowledge of Him has become in great measure memorized statements that have little or no influence upon our daily lives. To a large proportion of civilized men, Christ is a myth like William Tell. To-day [sic] because the love of God no longer dominates men's lives, we have a world war, nations battling against nations, and the spectacle of the powerful ruler of a so-called Christian nation decorating a man for writing a hideous "Chant of Hate."

The first aim, then , of the woman's college is to make its students real Christians; lovers and followers of a real Christ. Both consciously and unconsciously we imitate those whom we love; we do what we think will please them, and we develop along the lines of their development, and grow to become like them. Christ's life on earth was a life of love and service of man. If our students love Christ, they, consciously or unconsciously imitating Him, will also love and be eager to serve those with whom they associate in their daily lives, not only their families, but their communities, and thus their country. While the woman's college is inspiring its students with a love of Our Lord and of His Blessed Mother and the saints, it will make sure in their minds and hearts the relation between that love and the love of His children and the desire to serve Him through serving them.

The second aim of a Catholic woman's college, therefore, is to fit its students to serve God through serving the community in which they live. This directs our attention to the vocational aspect of education which at the present time is the dominant feature of all educational discussion. In the Catholic woman's college this is a vocational problem correlated in no way with [108] the training for a money-making occupation; rather it is the problem of giving preparation for the life that the student will lead after she leaves college, and making that lifework the basis of her preparation. The real vocational motive is to be construed as one which stimulates and enables the student to acquire not only the knowledge for, but the art of living the purposeful life which she thinks she is fitted by capacity and taste to lead after her college course is finished, thereby making her a contributing member of society and giving her a positive value in the social equation. the power of a worthy purpose to create and maintain interest and to stimulate study, is of supreme importance in college as in high school and, indeed, in all education. The desire for preparedness to meet one's life-task is the best stimulus to seek the requisite training for it.

The term, problems of modern life, stamps the subject of our discussion as a sociological question, and requires an understanding and an appreciation of present conditions of society. Upon a surface view we are immediately confronted with a multitude of problems of modern living, each of which has its claims. But back of them all, because it lies at the basis of all, and towering above them all, is the vitally important problem of the home. It needs no argument to establish this thesis. What everyone agrees to needs no discussion. Upon the home, its spirit and training, depend those fundamental attitudes of a man or woman that control all the relations of life.

In order that this Section of the Catholic Educational Association may be a constructive force in the educational betterment of our Catholic women's colleges, the vital topic, the relation of the curriculum of the Catholic woman's colleges to the problems of modern life, has been proposed for our discussion. We can do little more in the first meeting than to bring the subject before the consideration of our college teachers for an analysis of conditions, with the hope of making it a matter of continuous study, observation, experiment and discussion, to be checked by follow-up work which should judge of the value of the education by its functioning in later life; that is, by the degree of success attained by our students, measured by their own standards of ethics. Finally, in order to make the study widely profitable, [109] we should make reports of our findings, giving to all the benefit of the experience of each. Then shall we awaken inquiry into the relative values of subjects of the curriculum to equip the college young woman for the efficient home, and stimulate experiment to discover these values. Then also shall we realize the potentiality of this Section of the Association as an agency in constructing an educational plan to conserve the ideals of the home, to raise those ideals to a higher level and to furnish training in household management, thus to safeguard the home by laying under contribution to that end the intellectual and ethical instruments of the curriculum.

The far-reaching industrial and social changes of the nineteenth century brought in their train momentous changes which have affected no institution so profoundly as the home. In less than thirty years new machinery has virtually revolutionized industrial methods, removing one industry after another to the factory, until at the present time nearly all the clothing is made in the factory, the tailor shop, or the modiste-studio; much of the food is prepared in the packing house, the canning-factory, the bakery, and the delicatessen store. Instead of knitting the stockings and making the dresses and aprons at the family fireside, the woman of the house places the order, and lo! the ready-made garment is at the door. Instead of making the bread, she, or her maid telephones and the bread is delivered fresh for dinner. Instead of moulding [sic] candles, she touches a button and the carbon filaments radiate light. There is no escaping the fact that physical conditions affect and greatly modify human relations and the sense of spiritual obligations. When food and clothing were prepared in the home, the members of the family were identified with the various processes and were associated in the work. This identity of aim and cooperation of service was the basis of organization upon which the solidarity of the home depended. The home was the industrial unit. Stern necessity was the creator and the custodian of the home spirit. Its compelling force in keeping the members of the common tasks, working in common and sharing in common, was effective in building deep relationships of the home and developing the [110] altruistic ideals, leading selfish human nature to exercise itself in unselfishness, thereby preparing itself for social obligations.

The principle of solidarity is fundamental to society. There can be no national spirit, no world spirit, without the loyalty which depends for its vitality upon the tap-root of solidarity. This root, because those primary relationship which are its essence can be formed only during the plastic years of childhood, must have its beginning in the home.

It cannot be expected that there will be any reversion to the old industrial system. The old-time home with its numerous industries will never return. More of its already nearly depleted activities will be taken over by the factories. A change and readjustment to the new conditions is inevitable. The relationships of the family must be strengthened by some other means than work. We must find some substitute for work to conserve the home as the center where may be formed those ties of affection which are the sources of the deepest joys of life. Dr. Andrews says in Education for the Home:

"Strength and satisfaction in the home relationships form a prime problem. The breaking down of the family bond is to be overcome by strengthening that bond, by enriching the home experience of the individual, child and adult alike. . . . Our education for the home will be a sorry thing indeed if it concerns simply the household arts of cooking, sewing, and household care unless it teaches us the art of 'family building', of home-making, of living in families in such ways as to bring increasing personal satisfaction as the years go."[1]

The "enrichment of home experience" in the sense of cementing family bonds was furnished by the mutual service required in providing the comforts of life. There is a deep truth in Pestalozzi's statement, "It is the social side of parental solicitude that makes environmental influences themselves of spiritual value, contributing thereby to the higher intellectual and emotional life. The stocking which the mother knits before her son's eyes has a deeper significance in his education than the one he buys at the shop or puts on without knowing where it came from."[2] [111] This concrete expression of the value of work in moulding the child's deepest sentiments is an argument for some other agency in the absence of work as a substitute to develop unselfish family relationships.

The present crisis in the decadence of the home tests our capacity to adapt the curriculum and training to the new conditions. The new factor to reckon with is the leisure of the members of the family. Practically, for both men and women, the hours of leisure have been doubled. This has been done for women by the transfer of industries and by fixing the maximum number of hours which women may work in stores and factories. The hours of men have been proportionally shortened. The sixteen-hour day has been shortened to an eight-hour day. The office hours from nine o'clock until five leave long stretches of leisure. Whether we like it or not, the solution of the problem lies in enriching the home experience, by organizing the leisure of the home and making it by its very attractiveness a compelling force to accomplish the solidarity of the home. It may not have the same unifying effectiveness as work. It is a less tangible, less insistent influence, and therefore will require finer art and more careful preparation on the part of the home-makers to make it an integrating force. There is a daily challenge to the woman of the home to make it an enriching experience.

"The home of the future must be cultured. . . . The companionship in the work of their hands that husband and wife have lost, they must find again in the cultivation of their minds and hearts. The home of the future must breathe a charm so potent that it will gather to its bosom each evening the dispersed and weary toilers of the day. The home of the future must be the sanctuary of life and the dwelling-place of love; the mind must find in it room to grow in all the realities of truth and beauty; its atmosphere must be that of refinement and culture; beauty must cover it with her mantle and courage must protect it with his shield. . . . Woman must preserve the home of the future. She must preserve in it the sacred fires of religion and culture. Through it she must save man from materialism and from the worship of the golden calf. She must build a home in which he will find rest from his toil, consolation in his sorrow, strength to battle with temptations, courage in the midst of disaster, and companionship in the highest aspirations [112] of his soul," says Dr. T. E. Shields, in The Education of Our Girls.[3] 

 These words written in 1907 have application to-day not less than a decade ago. This consideration invests leisure with extraordinary importance as a constructive force of society. "The girl problem or the boy problem is inherently a leisure-time problem," says Montague Gammon.[4] What inference must we make as to our duty in this vitally important matter?

Our home-makers must catch the purpose and appreciate the value of leisure in saving the home. To develop in young women a consciousness of their duty toward the home, to see and to use the golden opportunity that leisure offers them to make the home a center of happiness, to help them to accomplish in some measure the vital union of theory and practice in the fine art of living, this is our basis of orientation. Dr. Andrews says, "A new vocational emphasis is in the older education as well as in the education called vocational, and the home is to be one of the beneficiaries of this changed point of view."[5] Home must be such a pleasant place that it will lay hold upon the affection and loyalty of every member of the family. It should compete successfully with the club house, the dance hall, the billiard room, the vaudeville theatre [sic], and the amusement park. The home should be so attractive that when the man of the house leaves his office or place of business, he will take the most direct way to reach it, and the adolescent boy and girl will from pure choice spend their evenings in the family circle. The attitude of the members of the family toward their home is a reasonable basis for the evaluation of its potency as a constructive force in their lives. To strengthen home-mindedness then, is the vital task that lies before us. It is the problem that the Catholic woman's college should address itself to, and readjust the curriculum so that the various subjects with their resources and interests may develop in the students with appropriate attitude and ideals. The present group system which obtains generally in the college and regulates the course of a student [113] makes easy the conditions of such an achievement. Indeed Dr. A. W. Harris, ex-president of Northwestern University, says, "Of a hundred girls more than eighty will become home-makers; they constitute so large a group with a common life business that special studies and methods adapted to their needs may fairly be required of all."[6] The selection of studies to attain this aim should hold high place in our purposes and be the object of our best thinking and investigation. Would that an educational prophet might arise and name the subjects which would contribute most effectively to this end! The movement for scientific measurement of educational results is slowly gaining ground and it is challenging the methods of education; but even though we had reliable standards of measurement, anything like a scientific rating in the measurement of training for home-making could be made only after the lapse of years.

The results of the present education as given in the woman's college shows that woman has been educated away from the home. Miss Addams says, "Modern education recognizes woman quite apart from family or society claims, and gives her the training which for many years has been successful for highly developing a man's individuality and forcing his powers for independent action."[7] The woman's college has not emphasized the conservation and enrichment of home life. Instead of stressing the fine values of home companionship, it has emphasized the possibilities of community service, woman's opportunities of club membership, and the obligations of a wide social nature, with the result that many women have acquired a false perspective of their duties. The woman's college has pointed with pride to the fact that its entrance requirements were the same as those of men's colleges. The Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1916 shows that there are eighty-four colleges with an attendance of 19,179 undergraduates to which men are not admitted. This does not exhaust the number of such colleges, as there are some not rated in this report. They have all modeled their curriculum closely upon that of men's colleges.

Inasmuch as women perform different functions from men, [114] it is logical that some preparation be made for the tasks that fall to their lot. So far we have given very little attention to working out lines of distinct instruction especially adapted to woman and her God-given work in the home. The Association of Inter-Collegiate Alumnae have felt the need of such adjustment, and at their convention in New York in 1911, the principal subject of discussion was the possibility of adding to the curriculum subjects of special value to women. Hygiene, biology, and sociology were the subjects in greatest favor. It requires no extended study to see that we must do more than merely train the intellect. Our aim is not to educate the students to find delight in reading Browning in solitude. The study of higher mathematics and an analytic study of the Greek dramatists are not best adapted to develop that quality of character which is most needed in home-making. For the woman in the home, culture is not to be valued as a personal acquisition as such, but merely as a development of her personality to make her effective in the service of others.

Socialization of education is a new term injected into the educational vocabulary. The changes in the curriculum of schools indicate a shifting of emphasis from knowledge in itself to its purpose in terms of group interest and group development, and mutual interrelations of the group. Nowhere has this principle greater application than in preparing our students for future homes. A measurement of the success of her college education, therefore, is not the measure of her capacity for happiness; rather it is the measure of how far she actualizes the fine, rare ideals of womanhood in the home. Dr. Andrews says, "The home as a conservative institution has been slow to receive educational attention, but its vital interests make education for the home second to none in importance." To formulate a curriculum with such an objective must from the nature of the case be a long task. It is very difficult to evaluate subjects. We know that the finest values elude all measurement. We cannot conclude that each subject of the curriculum has a specific service as a "life value." Such an inference Mr. Van Piper says would be like saying that, "If a course in mathematics is a prerequisite for a given course in physics, then [115] each chapter in mathematics is a prerequisite for some corresponding chapter in physics. Everybody knows there is never any such correlation of part to part. . . . There would be much essential matter in the mathematics which could not be sanely omitted, yet which would find no specific application in the physics proper. In a precisely  parallel way there may easily be phases in a preparatory training school which still are not, as such, anticipatory of any corresponding demands in adult life."[8]

There is no way of arriving at a determination of the "life values" of different studies. It is difficult to determine the value of those studies which have been tried out in the curriculum for ages; new subjects will have to be tried out and their effects noted in the efficiency of the real home-maker. Moreover, all the other subjects, however well planned, are inadequate without vital religion which should be both the root and the flower of the curriculum. Faith in God the Creator, and trust in His providence whereby He feeds and clothes and shelters His children and "opens His hand to supply the wants of every living creature," and a personal love of our Divine Saviour Who is our model of loving service, will inspire the spirit of loving service and self-devotion. True religion begets character. Let pulsating, practical religion permeate the daily life of the students and it will inspire them to serve others. The subjects of the curriculum will equip them to execute that which religion prompts them to do.

One important principle which is fast gaining ground is that there should be correlation between the curriculum and the normal experience of the student. Education must be brought into intimate relation with life in the twofold aspect of work and leisure, both of which should be put on an educational basis. Economy and efficiency of effort which is the objective of training in household management, contributes to the leisure which we have seen is to be used purposefully to enrich the home. The woman of the future must appreciate the value of leisure and employ it systematically for moral ends. Broadly [116] speaking, the equipment of the home-maker has a twofold aspect, practical and cultural, or according to Dr. Andrews' distinction, household management and home-making. The ends are efficiency and cultured personality. The home-maker should know how to organize household activities. Mrs. Willard, who discovered domestic economy as a subject of instruction, said, "It is believed that housewifery might be greatly improved by being taught, not only in practice, but in theory. There are right ways of performing its various operations, and there are reasons why those ways are right." Both the facts and the principles of household management the home-maker should know. This scientific knowledge will furnish economy and efficiency of effort, thereby increasing the leisure time. Denatured drudgery is a significant term which connotes both the lessening of the work and the glorifying it with the home-making motive.

Home economics, therefore, should occupy a large place in the differential curriculum planned for the home-maker. This is a complex, comprehensive subject including a wide range of material and its courses of instruction should be both technical and cultural. It is defined by the American Home Economics Association, Baltimore, Md., [sic] as the study of the economic, sanitary, and aesthetic aspects of food, clothing, and shelter as connected with their selection, preparation, and use by the family in the home, or by other groups of people. It lays under contribution the subjects of art, history, anthropology, sociology, aesthetics, economics, physiology, hygiene, mathematics, physics, and biology.[9] This subject should be placed on an equality with any science, political or social, and given a dignity and an importance accorded to any of the sciences. It should give the student an acquaintance with the rational ways of conducting the household; cultivate good taste and judgment of clothing values, artistic and economic; it should give such training as would guarantee freedom from such a dismal domestic failure as "Mrs. Hamlyn, who, with an A. M. from the State University, was always in trouble with her servants; the meals were irregular [117]; the table not appetizing; her house in disorder and her children absolutely undisciplined," according to Dr. Shields.[10]

We should stress with emphasis the social sciences, and stress equally the importance of their philosophical principles being in accord with the principles of faith. According to Dr. Andrews's judgment, sociology should be studied from a threefold view-point [sic]: (a) General sociology, giving the origin and development of civilization and the structure and function of present institutions; (b) Domestic sociology, dealing specifically with the origin, development, structure and functions of the family and the home as a human institution; (c) A study of the practical movement for general social betterment. A study of sociology, however, will not create or nourish the spirit which appreciates those finer, rarer interests of the home, but it will make the student understand the significance of the courses in home economics in their relation to modern problems, and the young woman who understands the home in relation to the larger life of which it is a part, will approach all problems of home economics with a deeper appreciation of their connection with the realities of life. Home economics must get its point of view from sociology. The center of interest of sociology is the relation of individuals to each other. This adjustment of personal relation depends chiefly upon spiritual conditions. Habits, purposes, and ideals of life affect profoundly these relations. This fact makes apparent the value of psychology in the curriculum. If we could make home economics a branch of applied psychology with the creation of an ideal home and family as its great purpose, the study would give not only academic instruction and expansion of mental outlook, but it would furnish an insight into experience to see the interrelations of physical problems with the spiritual aspects of human life.

A basis of Catholic philosophy is essential in the curriculum of the Catholic woman's college. We look to religion for the Christian ideal, and the inspiration and grace to advance toward it. Moreover, philosophical principles may be appreciated with [118] precision and yet be ineffective as a practical guide to conduct. Morality depends upon good will rather than upon knowledge, yet the moral nature is rational and requires a rational account of duty. Especially is a grasp of the underlying principles of true philosophy necessary to point out the fallacies in the theories proposed by some secular philanthropists and modern sociologists, between which and the principles of Catholicism there is "an essential and irreconcilable antagonism." From the field of philosophy it is practicable to derive a great deal of material vitally helpful to the Catholic woman's college alumna, yet it is important to keep insistently in consciousness the fact that we are preparing her to safeguard the home, not to take the chair of philosophy in college. A study of logic will help her to think correctly. A course in Introduction to Philosophy is recommended to give an acquaintance with the principles of scholastic philosophy, and as far as may be accomplished to cultivate the power of philosophical criticism. This is especially important in view of the widespread materialistic philosophy which interprets all human living in economic terms, the logical outcome of which we are reaping in the present world war [NB: WWI]. The aim here should not be to give the student complete knowledge of the evolution of idealism from Descartes to Hegel, nor of empiricism from Bacon to Mill, nor of pragmatism, as purely a matter of philosophical knowledge, but to give her an insight into the essential philosophical truths that she may be able to discover the principles underlying the method of a social movement and judge of its truth or falsity.

The study of ethics is of paramount importance. Especially is this true at the present time when the prevalent ethical standard is the humanitarian standard, and altruism and social efficiency are regarded as ends in themselves, and social welfare, as the end of conduct from which all moral values are derived. It is evident that to discover the principles of humanitarianism in its methods of social service, which are popular and appealing and to a great degree praiseworthy, a knowledge and an appreciation of the grounds of moral obligation and of the essential importance of right motives are necessary. But the Catholic woman must discriminate between the system of morality based [119] on the ideal of the service of humanity and the system that recognizes that the universal order is the expression of the divine will to which the individual is obliged to conform his conduct, and that one essential factor of his conduct is the service he owes his neighbor. Moreover, with the increasing worldliness and unrestrained love of pleasure, the trend of the time toward the standard of utilitarianism as the determinant of moral values, and toward hedonism which ignores all moral values, it is important to know the true criterion of conduct; to see that although morality has its independent root in the rational nature, yet ultimately it has the same source as religion; namely, the Infinite Good; that both are connected with the end of man and that the sphere of each is penetrated by the principles of the other.

At the present time when our country should be aglow with patriotic fervor, the study of Christian ethics will give the scientific basis of patriotism and show that it is a virtue and a sacred duty. Here we shall find the principle calling upon the Catholic woman to make the sacrifices which the present crisis requires; to simplify her way of life; to do without luxuries, even to deprive herself of daily comforts, and to accept all the privations that she may have to endure, and thus become a sharer of the soldier's sacrifice. To be specific: To encourage the young woman to economize in the preparation of food and to prevent all household waste (here we note the close correlation between ethics and household economics); to be willing to stifle the instinct to conform to fashion even to wearing a gown of last year's style; to substitute simple social functions for the elaborate receptions and theatre parties; in a word, to forego every superfluity, imbued as she should be with the feeling that it is the duty of every woman to do all in her power to help her brother called to the front.

In the forefront of subjects that furnish mental culture are the foreign languages. The tendency of the current educational scheme away from Greek is manifested widely. Within the last few years there has been a shift of emphasis also from the study of Latin. Meanwhile, the discussion regarding the theory of general discipline continues. Besides the value of whatever [120] "transfer" of general powers which does take place, the study of Latin is valuable as a means of preparation for the acquisition of a Romance language, as well as for its direct bearing upon the study of English. Prof. A. F. Lange, dean of the School of Education, University of California, says, "Just because it is so radical in the specific disciplines it can be made to furnish (the results of which are transferable, at least to things that are human), Latin as an educational means has virtues that other subjects have not." In addition to this two-fold reason of "general" and "specific disciplines" is the value of the content of the Latin masterpieces studied. Archbishop Spalding says, "The educational value of classics does not lie so much in the Greek and Latin languages as in the type of mind, the sense of proportion and beauty, the heroic temper, the philosophic mood, the keen relish for high enterprise, and the joyful love of life which they make known to us." Granted that in this factor the Latin classics are greatly surpassed by the Greek, yet the possibilities in this regard inherent in the study of the language form an additional reason why we would retain the Latin in the curriculum of the woman's college. The modern languages enjoy an increasing popularity as subjects which will function in the daily life. Either French or German should be a part of the education of every college alumna; she should have not only a reading knowledge, but a certain conversational facility in the language.

For the development of the intellectual and aesthetic quality of mind, we would emphasize the liberalizing value of literature with the caution to avoid academic-mindedness. The tendency has been to intellectualize everything taught in order that the student might know for the sake of knowing. Perhaps there has been too little conscious attempt to teach this subject in a manner that emphasizes and fixes in the student's mind right attitudes towards life and to develop fine appreciation and high ideals of womanhood. This will require the study of literary embodiments of their ideals.

History which we have been wont to rank next to literature as a culture study, is being displaced in a measure by the social sciences on the plea that according to present standards it is [121] overloaded with material which is not of substantial worth in realizing the present aim of education. The Catholic woman's college, however, cannot afford to lessen the emphasis upon the history of the Christian centuries.

Music should be included in the curriculum, not so much to enable the home-maker to furnish beautiful music as means of entertainment; the victrola [NB: brand of wind-up phonograph; also generally refers to any wind-up phonograph] of to-day enables us to hear the pianist's conception executed perfectly; to hear Godowski, not as Godowski really plays, but better,—as Godowski would wish to play, by enabling him to become his own best critic and to correct his own execution. The study of music is most valuable for its cultural effect. For the same reason art should be studied. The culture value of both music and art in developing appreciation of the fine arts and in cultivating the emotional side of one's nature is preeminently high. In adding to the power of the rational enjoyment of leisure they are significant studies.

Emphasis should be given especially to the cultivation of the speaking voice, both for its effect upon others and for its reaction upon one's own state of mind. A querulous voice is a powerful excitant of domestic scenes. On the other hand, a cultivated voice under control has a value that would be difficult to exaggerate. It acts effectively upon others and reacts upon one's self. Mr. Arnold Bennett says in his volume, The Human Machine, that ninety-nine per cent of all daily friction is caused by mere tone of voice. "It is a curious thing that an agreeable tone artificially and deliberately adopted will influence the mental attitude almost as much as the mental attitude will influence the tone. If you honestly feel resentful against some one, but having understood the foolishness of fury, intentionally mask your fury under a persuasive tone, your fury will at once begin to abate." It is of supreme importance that the curriculum should offer an opportunity for this element of cultural equipment.

For a large number of our students, the greatest value of their college education should come from both increased knowledge and deepened sympathy and insight. The aim is not to make literati, but to encourage the students to combine with [122] school activities and social experience the art of home-making and an appreciation of womanly ideals. Socialization of the student is the educational watchword of to-day; that is, to give the student the view that right conduct rather than knowledge is the ultimate aim of education.

The policy of the Catholic woman's college in the solution of this radically vital problem of modern life, the safeguarding of the home, reflects the spirit and judgment of the Catholic Church. It should stress the cultivation of that phase of college life both in curricular studies and in extra curricular activities which is best fitted to develop and strengthen the personal life which Dr. Andrews says "education for the home is ultimately to furnish." Our students should be of the intellectual-moral êlite [sic]. Historically, culture has meant that body of knowledge which individuals use in their leisure. We would not reconstruct the concept, but we would effect a rapprochement between the college curriculum and the normal experience so that the studies will function in the daily lives of the students from the standpoint of our present social organization, the basis of which is the home. Adapting the Catholic woman's college to the needs of its students and readjusting it to present conditions, will be the sign and the expression of our appreciation of, and our response to, the needs of present environment.

To summarize: The great problem of modern life is the saving of the home. As a real home, it is going and partly gone. The "downfall of the home" is a current theme of discussion. In the past, the home was preserved by the solidarity that work creates, but work has been greatly eliminated, and even the hours of men's labors are shortened by half. Therefore, the solidarity of the home as created and preserved by work is gone. Solidarity of another kind is the solution of the problem. What solidarity? There is only one—the solidarity of an organized leisure. If woman is to be a home-maker, the enrichment of the home by the systematic use of leisure becomes her real life-career. How to organize leisure is the heart of our problem. Woman must be educated, not to find her delight as a solitary with her books as her best companions, but in the center of the home where she must make herself and her home [123] so attractive as to charm the home folk; so that her husband will hasten from his place of business and her sons and daughters will hasten from school, all to join the home-circle. Are we educating our students for that at present? Will Greek and higher mathematics train the woman for this? We are educating woman away from the home. Culture has for its aim, or rather the school has for its aim in giving culture, to fit woman to shine in public, to lead in club work, and to take part in platform speaking. We, of the Catholic woman's college, know our aim. We must educate woman for organized leisure. How? It will take a long time to work out the system. The method is as yet only tentative, but we must keep the aim steadily in view; work and try out plans, and as far as they succeed, adopt them, mindful all the time that the inspiration of the best initiative and the dynamic of that self-sacrifice and devotion without which home would be but a hostelry, is the spirit of religion which invests ordinary duties with an extraordinary dignity and which is the rootage [sic] and the fruitage of home life and of all worthy social life.

DISCUSSION

Mary A. Moloy, A. M., Ph. D., College of Saint Teresa, Winona, Minnesota: In appreciation of Sister Ruth's beautiful paper I will say that I sincerely trust that she outlines what may be possible in our women's colleges in the not too distant future.

In general, as far as graduates of schools go, undoubtedly eighty out of one hundred girls find their places in the home. With college graduates, however, it is different. From statistics gathered some years since from colleges granting degrees to women, we find that only thirty-three per cent of college women graduates find their place in the home. Can we at the present ignore the claims of the sixty-seven per cent who may wish to pursue work other than that bearing directly on the home?

We are not saying that this attitude of women pointing away from the home is as it should be. We merely see it as a condition with which we have to reckon. Women are restless in this generation. They are taking their places side by side with men in political, economic, sociological and pedagogical fields. We do not say that this is as it should be but the fact is not to be overlooked. If a young woman wishes to become a specialist in higher mathematics, in the classics or in history or sociology, is her ambition legitimate? Shall we let her go from our keeping [124] to seek the training she desires where the boldest and the saddest doctrines advanced in philosophy since the organization of the faculty of liberal arts are made part of her course?

Let us give her mathematics, the classics, history, even the professional courses in law and medicine, in the safe and holy atmosphere of the Catholic college. Let the mathematics, the classics, the science, be so full, so thorough, so advanced, that for the mere secular branches alone she can nowhere find them more thoroughly and carefully presented. Let us give her what she wishes of secular learning that is legitimate, and thus save her to the Catholic faith through the philosophy that she will learn from us to interpret correctly and in terms of eternal truth, her theory of science, her practice in sociology or her interpretation of history. This is quite in accord with the practice of the Church in all times. There has never been a legitimate demand on the part of men or women that she has not magnificently provided for.

It is the ultimate business of the Catholic college to educate women out of their restlessness back again into the home.

It has been said that the home is a vanishing institution, but we must change all this. The home has been turned out into the street and the paved road has invaded the cloister. But souls are to be saved by the hundreds and it is not a matter of supererogation but a sacred imperative duty to rescue the flower of our Catholic young womanhood from the education that will prove to be their undoing. We must bend every available energy to enable our young women to take their places side by side with the women of the times in every line of legitimate endeavor in which women are engaged. Let us not forget that in the first centuries of our era there were Christians in the very palaces of the Caesars and we know to what glorious purpose.

The Catholic college for women in America has a magnificent opportunity to regenerate the times. Can we afford to side-step the issue, be blind to its appeal and fail in the supreme work that as Catholic educators we are called upon to do?

Rev. J. H. Ryan, D. D., St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, Ind.: It would be difficult, indeed, to exaggerate the value of the learned and timely paper, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College and the Problems of Modern Life." The author not only appreciates the conditions existing in our colleges for women, but what is more important, possesses a vision of the future status of women in American society and of the means of preparing them for their work. She emphasizes two points which to my mind are of fundamental import. First, the Catholic woman's college is for the education of women—rather an obvious statement, yet one constantly lost sight of by educators. No one denies that women can follow, and very successfully, the courses outlined for men in college and university, but the question is not, can they, but ought they? It was a foolish pride which prompted educational authorities to lay [125] down identical courses for men and women, ignoring all the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. Let us go back to what the ideal of the woman's college ought to be—a womanly woman. Secondly, the Catholic woman's college is Catholic; that is, its ideals, its methods, its spirit, are imbued with Catholic truth and tend to the production of ideal Catholic women. If the college is false to either of these ideals, its raison d'etre ceases then and there.

Before discussing in particular the curriculum of our women's colleges and its bearing on the problems which concern Catholic women to-day, a word of suggestion may not be out of place. There is altogether too much formality in our teaching; too much book work, note-taking, memorizing, and that especially in the cultural subjects. There is too little correlation of thought and action. Education must not be divorced from life; they are in reality one and the same thing, viewed from different angles. If there is one place where we would look for and expect dynamism in education it is in the colleges for women. Men readily throw off the evil effects of a formalistic training by contact with a vital, strenuous world, but the lives of women are more sheltered and guarded, and they have not the opportunities of so readily correcting false impressions absorbed during college days.

The author of the paper under discussion realizes the new orientation in woman's education. She demands, and for excellent reasons, that it be socialized more and more in order to meet the conditions and requirements of modern life. The industrialism of the last century has indeed wrought great changes in the home, and therefore in the lives of women with respect to the home. And not only have the old conceptions of the home been changed; the very outlook of women on life itself has been marvelously transformed. Women, and especially college women, do not look upon marriage to-day as the end-all of their existence. Statistics from secular colleges will bear out this statement. Unfortunately there are no statistics available for our Catholic women's colleges, though I see no reason why the same conclusion should not be true of them as well. Then, women to-day are becoming more and more independent economically. Over seventy-five per cent of the graduates of Catholic women's colleges go either into the professions or into business. In the majority of cases, it is true, this is merely temporary occupation. Industry, therefore, has not only changed the home; it has worked a revolution in women themselves and in their attitude toward life.

Woman's education ought to be socialized, but can that be done by the mere addition of "social studies" to the present curriculum? Will the super-imposition of sociology, political economy, domestic science, on cultural subjects, develop a woman capable of appreciating the needs of the times and of doing her part in meeting its demands on her? To my mind an altogether different emphasis is necessary. The home-making studies must not be dragged along as so many step-children; [126] they are real children, the heirs of the future. They must be stressed and emphasized. They must be given the place of honor in the curriculum. A new curriculum is so necessary as a change in emphasis, a reorganization of the old curriculum and a new correlation of its parts, with insistence placed on those subjects which will prepare our women not only "to make a living" as someone has said, "but also to make a life." This change would be vital, it is true, but not so radical as it might seem at first thought. An ideal curriculum would be one in which, during the freshman and sophomore years, social, scientific, and home-making studies would be in the ascendancy, not neglecting, however, the study of the languages. For example, a young woman, in addition to religion, English, and a language, might elect from the courses in logic, psychology, child-psychology, physiology, chemistry, biology, or domestic science, and care of children and the sick, during two years. This plan would also allow for the continued study during the whole college course of any subject, vocational or cultural, in which the student was interested. The freshman and sophomore years, therefore, would prepare a woman for her position in after-life, would teach her the subjects every woman ought to know, together with one or two courses which meet the demands of her individual talent or taste. The last two years ought to be divided between subjects which bear directly or indirectly on her future work, or which represent a secondary taste in the individual. In these latter years emphasis should be placed upon ethics, history, civics, and sociology. But someone may ask, "What about the cultural, what about the development of personality?" I answer that there is a culture of the sciences as well as a culture of art, or of history, or of literature. Culture is not a thing apart, is not a thing fastened on the mind; it is rather the flowering of qualities inherent in one's personality, which can be obtained by scientific courses as well as through the medium of language study.

Again, and this is a point not touched upon in the paper under discussion, in the process of socializing woman's education, great insistence must be placed upon the health of our students. It is manifestly and statistically false, that college life injures the health of women students. Four years of college have built up many a youthful body. In this matter of physical education, the college has a clear and distinct duty toward not only its students, but towards the State and the race as well. Army examining boards have been loud in their complaints of the physical deficiencies found in the mass of American men. Is the physical condition of our women any better? I think not. Gymnasium work should be made a curricular study in our colleges, and credit given for the same. Two hours of physical training weekly is little enough,—but this minimum ought to be exacted of every woman student. Whether physical training is to be more and more individualized, (and this is the present-day tendency), according to the special weaknesses and defects of each girl, or whether it is to take other directions, is a question that [127] may fairly be left to the faculty of each institution to solve. The necessity, however, of putting every convenience in the way of our women to make their bodies strong, healthy, and robust, is a duty which cannot be overlooked, and should not be shirked. For the woman of the future, a healthy body is as necessary as a sound mind.

Religion must hold first place in a Catholic college for women. A four years' course in Christian Doctrine, (this subject is vitally necessary, as so many of our young women matriculate from public high schools), Church history, Bible study, and ethics, taught in the manner and after the spirit noted by the author, cannot fail to produce lasting results. The atmosphere of our colleges, the lives of the instructors, are such that the translation of religion from theory to fact is constantly kept before the eyes and the minds of the student body in a manner not possible anywhere else. Let me bear my humble testimony to this fact, namely, that there is one thing in which our Catholic woman's college will never fail—in turning out strong, pure, upright, Catholic women.

The author mentions art and music as curricular helps in aiding women to meet the problems of modern life. Both art and music, it is true, have a professional value, but where their place is and should be in the socializing of female education, is difficult for me to perceive. I wish to voice a vigorous and emphatic protest against, not the retention of music and art in the curriculum of a woman's college, but against the undue prominence sometimes given to them, and especially to music. The following reasons prompt this assertion: First, they are of little or no practical value in after-life; secondly, the author mentions that mechanical inventions do better than any individual can ever hope to do; thirdly, they take up time, to the detriment both of the individual and of the college itself, which ought to be devoted to real college work. Were a college woman to attempt to carry "double music," voice culture, and one instrument,—entailing ten or twelve hours a week for instruction and practice, the result would be unfortunate and spell inefficiency. The curriculum of the present-day college is so full, as it stands, that one cannot afford to lose so many hours every week for music or art. To the difficulty, that our woman's colleges are not endowed, and therefore depend financially on music and art to meet the expenses of the institution as a whole, I have and know no reply. My sole contention is that neither the college curriculum nor the problems of modern life demand so much time as is now given to music and art.

In conclusion, may I thank the author for her illuminating paper, and publicly express my conviction that as long as we have such learned and devoted Sisters as she, teaching in our institutions, little or no fear need be had that our colleges are failing in their duty, either towards the present or coming generation of women.

 ---

Footnotes:

1. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 1914, No. 36, p. 20

2. Educational Writings, edited by J. A. Green, Views and Experiences, p. 162

3. P. 280.

4. Report of the Com. of Education 1916, p. 447

5. Op. cit. p. 7

6. "The Future Education of Women," The Youth's Companion, May 31, 1917

7. Democracy and Social Ethics, p. 83

8. School and Society, "On Radicalism in Education," May 5, 1917, p. 524

9. Cf. Syllabus of Home Economics, 1913

10. The Education of Our Girls, p. 210-21

---

Source: Sister Mary Ruth, OSD, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life," Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 14, no. 1 (Nov. 1917): 106–127.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Jenn Morson and the Rejection of Purity Culture

The following is a reflection on Jenn Morson's article "The Dress that Ended My Modesty Obsession": https://www.racked.com/2017/3/28/14982578/modest-dressing-clothes-purity-culture

Experiences like the one described in the above article always strike a nerve for me. Not only is the behavior of the roommates described appalling in multiple ways, but the outcome and lasting effects it had on Morson only make the whole thing more tragic. I have seen something analogous with another person at my own college who began his freshman year as a self-identified traditional Catholic and because of excruciatingly negative experiences with other traditional Catholics ended up drinking the liberal Kool-Aid by the time he was a senior.

Yet why is the outcome of the author's experience tragic? A reader might get to the end of the essay cheering for the author and her newfound sense of freedom, of liberation from the poisonous aspects of purity culture. Indeed, the article is written in such a way as to evoke that sympathetic response from the reader. But the author doesn't just reject the poisonous aspects of purity culture. She rejects the entire culture itself: "My faith remained the same, although purity culture was no longer a part of it."

If by purity culture, we mean this sort of Orwellian, omnipresent surveillance and intrusion via secret purity police, who always style themselves as "friends," into literally the nooks and crannies of other people's lives, then of course, we should reject this culture, which isn't culture in any true sense of the word but a prison. On the other hand, the notion that "[n]ot having to worry whether or not my bare shoulders were causing others to sin was freeing, and if anyone, man or woman, thought it was their place to call me out, I’d inform them to avert their eyes if they couldn’t handle it"—this is simply not Catholic but classic liberalism and the attendant exaggerated individualism that we see today in feminism and most forms of libertarianism.

Morson summarizes purity culture:
In purity culture, the highest good is your virginity. It teaches that safeguarding your soul and your physical virginity means that you will be immune to the deep heartache of lost love. In other words, keeping your hymen intact means keeping your heart intact as well.
Of course, given her experiences, Morson is hardly an unbiased reporter, yet she is not trying to be objective. Her goal here as throughout her entire article is to show not only why she rejected purity culture but implicitly why anyone should reject it. If purity culture means a commitment to ridiculously naive beliefs, such as a direct correlation between maintaining purity, physical virginity, and the affections of love, then we would be crazy to accept it in the first place. But Morson's caricature is simply naive itself. Who actually believes such things? And what should we make of those many virtuous women who suffer so much because they have a hard time finding a virtuous man, who may have had to end a relationship because they realize the man they currently love seem woefully inadequate to be a father or spouse? This common experience simply sets aflame the straw man that Morson has set up.

Morson continues: "A commitment to purity culture must be expressed in dress: You show the world how unblemished you are by dressing modestly." Yet this is precisely backwards. Modesty isn't virtue signaling, or at least it ought not to be. One dresses modestly because one wishes to remain unblemished, pure, chaste, virtuous, not because one wishes to peacock to others that one is chaste. Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter demonstrates this discrepancy eloquently. The world has nothing to do with it at least not in its fundamental motivation and principal purpose. The commitment to purity and its expression in dress is the result of consistency between believing that sexuality is a powerful and profound good, that man is fallen and prone to weakness and temptation, that we as social beings must build each other up and not be stumbling blocks, and the most effective means to preserve these beliefs and principles. Modesty, like all forms of temperance, is an external expression of an interior disposition, yet before it is a powerful statement to a rapidly degenerating civilization, it firstly ought to be the result of a powerful commitment to a virtuous life.

The moral theology of scandal (CCC 2284–2287) and the ways in which we can participate in another's sin (CCC 1868) clearly form some of the basic principles, the guide posts, by which any truly healthy civilization may emerge. Is the attitude expressed by Morson in the above quotation one that shows concern for the spiritual well-being of her fellow man, or is it more like the snide retort of Cain, who when asked by God where the slain Abel was, said, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9). There are extremes here to be avoided. What is tragic is that this woman was pressed into another extreme because of the opposite extreme that vilified her.

Morson's error is further illustrated by the following rhetorical question: "I knew that I was the same person whether I was wearing baggy pants or a mini skirt, so why wouldn’t that apply to the world at large?" This is a simple philosophical error. Aristotle lists as one of the accidents, that is, non-essential characteristics of a substance, the manner in which one dresses (vestition). Obviously to change the way one dresses does not change one's substance, one's essence, and by extension one's intrinsic dignity as a human person. No one is claiming that your dress does effect such profound, substantial change. The issue is that the nobility of man is expressed through accidents, and that one's substance may shine through well-ordered accidents. Everyone recognizes the effects of good grooming, of care of one's body, of being well dressed, of carrying oneself with deliberation, of speaking eloquently and persuasively. These are all accidents in Aristotle's terminology, but they have a true effect: they express man at his best, and when the accidents are disordered, they hide man's dignity, or better, they tar and smear it behind disorder. Modesty is a virtue that beautifies; if one is dressing in such a way that makes one positively or objectively ugly, then that is not modesty but a sham form of it.

We would do well to recall the summary of the moral theology of scandal contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):
II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons 
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. 
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6) 
Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing. (Mt. 7:15) 
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." (Pius XII, Discourse, June 1, 1941) This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. 
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!" (Lk. 17:1)
If we have learned anything from the feminists, is it not that sexuality may be a form of power? Chastity and purity protect this power, the power of life, so that it may not become a weapon of death. Purity culture ought to be one that celebrates life in every true, good, and beautiful manifestation of it. There will be fear, for we are suffering from generations of emasculated men, who are weak in the face of exposed, raw sexuality. But the nurturing, the patience, the mutual concern of one for another, the fruits of the Holy Ghost, these ought to imbue and to till the spiritual soil of present Catholics as they strive not only for their own sanctity, but to lay the groundwork for a renewed West, for future generations of strengthened individuals who when faced with slighter—or greater—forms of immodesty will have the power of virtue to resist temptation.

Morson concludes, "Nothing about my own values was altered, but the lens through which I viewed those around me changed." The sad thing here is that whatever lens we choose to view others or the world through is precisely determined by our values. We do not exist as "objective," detached (floating) thinking things ala Descartes. We exist in flesh, in the world, and pressed by our biology and our fallen, fractured nature. On the most fundamental, psychological level, the way in which we perceive, structure, and participate in the world is determined by what our brain deems as valuable and what our mind (intellect and will) pursues as good. There can be no change of lens without a change of values. But perhaps rather Morson means to confess that the scales of a lens she never really bought into finally came off her eyes.

Those roommates who confronted Morson failed on multiple counts: they presumed Morson's guilt; they presumed to correct without prudent consideration of the best means; they presumed to intrude into Morson's privacy; they presumed to represent the best of purity culture. They failed in all of these and more. But most of all, they failed to encourage. Our role is not to police but to encourage, literally to fill with courage, with fortitude and strength. And in this we must also be conscientious not to cause scandal as our Lord Himself warned us. The tragic irony of Morson's experience is that in being scandalized by the dress, that supposed sign of promiscuity, those fellow Catholics scandalized Morson in a much more profound and lasting way.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

"The True Seriousness of Modesty in Dress" - A Response

This post is a response to "The True Seriousness of Modesty in Dress": https://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/the-true-seriousness-of-modesty-in-dress/

The blog post quotes a passage from an article on immodest dress in The Casuist (full citation below) and gives commentary:
Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage or outside of masked balls,* will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered. Physical charm is more alluring than dress, and yet no one is obliged to destroy their beauty because others take scandal at it.” 
There you go. Venial sin.
Of course, such commentary doesn't make clear whether the poster is suggesting: 1) that the original Casuist article is arguing that immodesty in dress is always or only at most a venial sin; 2) who is guilty of the venial sin—the immodest dresser or the one committing lust; 3) that the argument(s) given in the article are definitive or even representative of the moral theological literature from that time period; or 4) whether and to what extent other forms of immodest dress in modern circumstances still fall under the same moral rubrics (e.g. it no longer is the case that as a rule the most immodest forms of dress in "civilized society" would be found on stage or at masked balls!)

All four of the above distinctions are important, for casuistry and technical moral reasoning is preeminently concerned with making the necessary distinctions, applying universal principles to particular circumstances. Yet an actual reading of the article will reveal the answers to the above distinctions and paint a very different picture than what the original poster seems to have intended.

The author first defines scandal and the types of scandal. He briefly summarizes how scandalous conduct may lead others into sin, not as an efficient cause but as an occasion of sin, that is, as an incidental or accidental cause. Then these principles are applied specifically to the concrete case in consideration, to a woman named "Claudia." In Claudia's case, the author writes:
We are inclined to think that she commits a venial sin. Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage or outside of masked balls, will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered. Physical charm is more alluring than dress [....] If some persons unknown to her take grave scandal by her conduct, such scandal is rather scandalum sumptum et non datum. [...] 
She could scarcely be obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to change her style of dress, since it is rather her personal beauty than her dress that is the cause of the scandal. (27)
When is scandal mortal or venial? The author states,
One may commit a mortal sin or only a venial sin in giving scandal. It all depends on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will commit. The action that I perform may be only venially sinful, and yet I may by it commit a mortal sin of scandal, because I either intend to incite my neighbor to commit a mortal sin, or at least I foresee that he will be incited by my conduct to commit a mortal sin. On the other hand, I may sin mortally myself and still only give venial or slight scandal, where I foresee that my action, although mortally sinful, will lead another only into venial sin. Consequently the gravity of the scandal one gives does not depend on the gravity of the sin one commits, but on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will be incited to commit. (25–26)
We now have enough context from the principles of the moral theology on scandal laid out by the article to address the above four concerns.

With respect to 1), the author clearly allows that 1a) immodest dress may itself be a mortal sin and 1b) that it may give rise to mortal sin.

With respect to 1a), the author implies this when he says, "Immodesty in dress [...] will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin." If it will hardly ever but not always, then in principle immodesty may be a mortal sin for the immodest dresser in some circumstances. This single quotation above, taken out of context, means immodesty in dress as an indirect scandal, that is, not intentionally calculated to cause others to commit grave sin. But if the scandal is direct and calculated to incite others to mortal sin against purity, then immodesty would take on the gravity of a mortal sin by the principles laid out in the article. In the first case, it is a venial sin against charity; in the latter, it is a mortal sin against charity and a mortal sin against purity.

1b) is self-evident from the principles of scandal itself. The gravity of the scandal depends on the gravity of the action that a scandalized person takes:
The action that I perform may be only venially sinful, and yet I may by it commit a mortal sin of scandal, because I either intend to incite my neighbor to commit a mortal sin, or at least I foresee that he will be incited by my conduct to commit a mortal sin. (26)
With respect to 2), in the context of the article, Claudia's actions are under discussion, and the author is only "inclined to think" that Claudia commits a venial sin (27). But in general, who commits mortal or venial sin from scandalous behavior is clearly explained in the principles given, especially the quotation from pages 25–26 above. It should be noted that the confessor who submitted the original inquiry about how to handle Claudia's case states that he "knows that [Claudia] has been the occasion of grave sins of thought and desire to certain young men of the parish" (22), but the reason Claudia is only committing a venial sin against charity is because she did not intend to incite grave sins of lust in these young men who see her but only because she dresses immodestly for the sake of personal vanity as she herself admits, which is indirect scandal.

With respect to 3), while further study would need to be done to determine if the attitudes expressed in this article are representative, we can at least say that they are standard and established, for The Casuist was a well-known and trusted journal for moral theology.

And with respect to 4), it is simply beyond the particular scope of the article in question. The author clearly did not foresee the changes in fashion that would occur even 10 years later, let alone 50+ years later. The same moral theological principles apply today as then however. Outside of a larger study of male response to immodest dress, some of which has been conducted in psychology and sociology, which we may examine at another time, we need only look to the average male response on social media of various sorts to clear examples of immodesty. Examples and instances of different types may be multiplied endlessly, and the average man is exposed to far more immodest dress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in all sorts of social contexts than anyone in the past has had to endure. A great number of responses to immodesty in popular culture and media (and the huge amounts of printed and digital media dedicated to different kinds of immodest female dress as they show up in all sorts of social contexts—public spaces and events, exercise, video games and movies, etc.) center around masturbation and sexual fantasies, which are in themselves grave matter.

According the principles laid out in the article, if a person intends through immodest dress to incite others to grave sins against purity and acts in a manner calculated to do so, that person commits a mortal sin of scandal and is guilty not only against charity but also "the particular virtue or commandment against which he incites his neighbor to sin" (26). It is becoming increasingly difficult to doubt that many women today dress precisely in such a fashion, and popular culture pressures women to do so. To take just one out of hundreds of possible examples, one famous song lyric says, "If you sexy, then flaunt it."

What is also interesting is the attitude that Claudia expresses regarding her dress:
If others think evil on [Claudia's] account, they do so because they are evil-minded, and that it is no concern of hers. She does not propose to dress like a nun, just because some people happen to be disposed to think evil. The evil that they think must be ascribed to their own impure minds, and not to her way of dressing. (22)
This is exactly the attitude of modern feminists and anti-modesty promoters. Maybe in 1912 this attitude was more excusable when women's dress regularly covered almost every inch of her body. In 2018 it simply is not excusable and clearly marks the dividing line between those who promote the continual disintegration and destruction of Western culture and morality and those who fight against that collapse.

Original Casuist article source: "Scandal by Immodesty in Dress," The Casuist 4 (1912): 22–27.

The article may be found scanned on Google Books here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rCdZAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AsNGBHbI74AoC&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false

Monday, December 12, 2016

Repost: Steven Pinker debate excerpt "The Truth Cannot Be Sexist"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM

Full debate (S. Pinker vs. Elizabeth Spelke): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKRkmwtGY

Repost: NRK Documentary "The Gender Equality Paradox" (2010)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70&t=0s

Wikipedia page on the series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

Monday, August 10, 2015

Changing Modern Papal Thought on Women

"Religion . . is undoubtedly the single most important shaper and enforcer of the image and role of women in culture and society," asserted Rosemary Radford Ruether, a prominent Catholic feminist scholar, in 1973.[1] Many recent commentators on women in the Catholic Church have agreed and frequently have rendered harsh judgment on the role of Catholicism as a "shaper and enforcer." In 1968, Mary Daly accused the Church and Papacy of supporting a "long history of antifeminism." She acknowledged that traditional church attitudes toward women were similar to those of society at the time, but she argued that the Church and its Vatican leadership resisted feminist demands even after the non-Catholic world began to respond to them:

Only as there has been an evolution in secular society toward full recognition of the potential of women have attitudes within the Church been modified, usually after a time-lag and resistance from conservative structures and androcentric thought-patterns.[2]

Other critics have been only slightly less caustic. Writing on the Italian women's movement of the 1970's, Leslie Caldwell charged that the Church in Italy "has pursued a policy which denigrates women and, in effect, refuses them the right to the control of their own lives."[3] In 1975, Jean Aubert called the Church "one of the last bastions of masculinity."[4] Even the more moderate George Tavard pointed out that the modern Church still has liturgical prayers referring to women as the "weaker sex" in the tradition of misogynist Church Fathers such as Tertullian.[5] Writing more recently, Mary Malone lamented that Catholic writers still assumed women's responsibilities in the Church to be secondary and auxiliary to those of men. In general, she said, these writers reduced women's gifts and ministries to three: "nurturing, being beautiful, and serving. Leadership of any kind, then, is automatically excluded." Along with many others, she agreed with Daly that the Church undertook a genuine re-examination of this issue only after the Second Vatican Council of the 1960's.[6]

In reality; the evolution of papal thinking about women began long before the Second Vatican Council. Inspired by the example of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), the twentieth-century popes constructed a program of social and religious reform in which women were expected to play an increasingly important role. Although the popes only gradually modified their strong opposition to many feminist demands and only slowly revised their patriarchal conception of women's roles in the family, their numerous and widely disseminated encyclicals, letters, and speeches displayed a growing appreciation of the contributions women were making outside the home. As a result, they expressed an increasing desire to recruit both married and unmarried women for the work of the Church in the outside world. Papal thought on women in the twentieth century represented a significant departure from traditional church attitudes, although not an absolute repudiation of them. The Second Vatican Council reconfirmed and expanded earlier papal teaching on women's rights and duties; it did not begin a new era.

This "new era" in papal social awareness had begun almost ninety years earlier with the work of Leo XIII. Unlike his predecessors, Leo was convinced that the Catholic Church and its papal leadership could no longer view the institutions and values of secular society as evils to which the only valid church response was intransigent opposition. Encouraged by a small but articulate group of "social Catholics" in France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland, he believed that the Church could function effectively in the outside world to advance its holy mission, iniquitous though many aspects of that world were. To that end, he sought to win a more influential place for the Church in this world giving the Church a voice on the major social issues of the day. [...]

These pronouncements unquestionably responded to the social and political pressures of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including the rise of women's movements, but their content also was shaped by traditional church teachings reaching back to the Fathers of the late Roman Empire. The most significant influence on the medieval church tradition about women was St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), who taught that God made the souls of both sexes in His image, but made man the only true image of God in both body and soul. Consecrated virginity was the most exalted possible state for women in this world. Marriage was also good, but the married woman was no longer an equal partner with her husband, as Eve had been to Adam in Paradise. Because of the Fall, the wife was the property of her husband and was to serve him as a subordinate, although not as a slave without rights.[8]

St. Thomas Aquinas, the other major influence on the medieval Catholic doctrine concerning a woman's "place," agreed with Augustine on these points but went beyond his great predecessor to assert that even the female soul was of a different and lesser nature than that of the male. Influenced by Aristotle, Aquinas viewed women as defective human beings created solely for the purpose of procreation since that was the only human activity in which women were essential. Men and women were spiritually equal before God and would be totally equal in Paradise, but on earth women were physically and morally inferior to men and naturally subordinate to them.[9]

The nineteenth-century popes were well aware of what these theologians taught and agreed with them about the wife's subordination to her husband in the Christian family. The encyclicals of both Pius IX (1846-1878) and Leo XIII supported this assumption by citing a favorite passage from Augustine's De Moribus Catholicae Ecclesiae:

[(The Catholic Church) subjects wives to their husbands in chaste and faithful obedience, not for the gratification of lust but for the begetting of progeny and the society of the family; and it places husbands over their wives not in scorn of the weaker sex but under the law of pure love. (NB: I've used a different translation than the one given in the original article because it is easier to read.)][10]

Nineteenth-century Catholics sincerely endorsed much of this teaching. Most of them, including the Papacy, did not doubt the traditional Catholic conviction that inequality was the natural order of God's world, within the family and without. No amount of social engineering could alter that reality, they agreed, although human endeavor might alleviate some of its most flagrant injustices. Women were indeed the weaker sex and in need of male protection, but both men and women had to realize that their mission on earth was to complement and assist each other rather than enter into a battle of the sexes in either the secular or religious spheres of life.

Yet for Catholics to reaffirm these ancient doctrines was not to make them totally immune to more modern attitudes concerning women. The misogynist conviction that women were morally inferior to men, long a standard teaching in many Christian confessions, disappeared from nineteenth-century papal pronouncements, as it did from most other social tracts of the time. Indeed, the female role model for the popes increasingly resembled the "Victorian" credo that women belonged in the home and were to be honored there as the moral guardians and teachers of the children. As Leo XIII said in his famous social encyclical, Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891), "a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing-up of children and the well-being of the family."[11] If, as George Tavard argued, the Catholic tradition on women was "open schizophrenia" because it idealized women and also proclaimed them the weaker sex, many middle-class men and women outside the Catholic Church were schizoid as well.[12]

[...] Although it is an overstatement to label the Catholic Church of that era a "major obstacle to feminism"[13] when most of the other established religious, political, cultural, and social institutions were similarly opposed to feminist ideals, there is no denying that women's rights activists were unwelcome in Catholic circles until very late in the nineteenth century.

The avowedly anticlerical views of many feminist militants of the time solidified this Catholic antifeminism. In traditionally Catholic nations such as Italy and France, even the more moderate feminists frequently viewed the Catholic Church as a malevolent influence on women and saw women's emancipation as a means of reducing the influence of the Church on all aspects of national life.[14]

The Catholic response to this feminist challenge became progressively less negative in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. [...] By the 1920's, Catholic feminism, unthinkable fifty years earlier, had, at the very least, become a possible program.[15]

Leo XIII's response to this program was silence. Devoted though he was to the Christian reform of society, he saw the female half of this society as either consecrated virgins or as wives restricted to home and Church in passive, loving subordination to their husbands. Consistent with the prevailing views of his era, he assumed as natural and eternal a middle-class vision of marriage fairly recent in origin. He lamented that women were forced to work outside the home and repeatedly admonished Catholics to work for legislation to protect women from those who would exploit their "weaknesses." To a French workers' pilgrimage of 1889, he said, "it is by means of regulations and other equitable measures that the interests of the working classes are guaranteed, the young are protected, and the weakness and the exclusively domestic mission of women is safeguarded."[16] On the women's movements of his day and their important legal and political victories, he rarely even commented.

Pius X (1903-1914) broke the silence of the Papacy on feminism in spite of being more conservative than Leo and less interested in Catholic social action. He even gave reluctant approval to some feminist goals such as admitting women to the universities and the professions. On the other hand, he explicitly opposed political rights for women in an era when Catholic women were already exercising these rights in some nations. In an interview of 1906, he argued that, "there is much to admire in the feminist desire to elevate women intellectually and socially, but the Lord protect us from political feminism!" He did not deny that women should have some influence in the political arena but insisted that they should not become politicians.[17]

Benedict XV (1914-1922) apparently withdrew Pius's opposition to female political involvement. In an audience of 1919, widely quoted in the press, he allegedly went so far as to say, "We would like to see women electors everywhere."[18] By this year, millions of women, many of them Catholic, were exercising the right to vote for the first time in history. Where women still had not won this right, as in France, Catholic women and their organizations were increasingly sympathetic to woman suffrage. Whatever Benedict's personal reservations about the new trend, the Papacy could not have continued its opposition to it without making the Church seem archaic even to many Catholics.

And Benedict had such reservations in spite of being more open to political and social innovation than Pius X had been. His sympathy for the "new" woman of the postwar era was severely limited, and his public statements on the subject were not a radical departure from the views of his predecessors. In a letter of 1917, he argued that some women were taking up occupations "ill-befitting their sex" and that others "abandoned the duties of the housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life."[19]

He sounded a more positive note in 1919 when he acknowledged that the new rights and functions of women gave them new opportunities; these new conditions had "expanded the area of a woman's activity: the more intimate, restricted duties of the domestic sphere which were originally hers have been replaced by an apostolate in the wider world." But women needed to be aware of new dangers that went with these opportunities: "this apostolate must be understood in such a way that the woman, whether in her home or outside of it, will not forget her duties to her family the care of which even today is principally consecrated to her."[20]

Pius XI (1922-1939) reiterated these expectations and emphasized the traditionalist element in them. He was less open to innovation than Benedict XV and ruled his church in a time when women's rights were given a low priority by the rulers and the ruled of nearly every persuasion. The economic chaos of the time and the polarization between the radicals of right and left seemed more important to many than advancing the women's cause.

Pius XI agreed but was concerned about the impact of these secular crises on the lives of women and their families. In his social encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931), commemorating the fortieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, he responded to the impact of the Great Depression on women by being the first pope to give unequivocal support to the principle of the "family wage," dear to the hearts of many conservative Catholic social reformers. This wage policy decreed that the worker with many dependents needed a supplement to his "normal" compensation. The explicit goal was to enable the wife to stay at home. "It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all costs, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children."[21]

Too many alleged reformers were promoting this "abuse" as female emancipation, he charged, and the odious Communist movement was particularly guilty. Under Communism the woman was "withdrawn from the family and care of her children to be thrust instead into public and collective production under the same conditions as the man."[22] The pope agreed with the many other Catholics and non-Catholics in that economically troubled era who argued that married women should not be in the paid labor force.

Nor should woman be given the same education as men, he added. Pius XI once again endorsed the Catholic tradition that women's education needed to be separate and distinct from that given men. In his encyclical on Christian education, he asserted:

The Creator has disposed and ordained perfect association of the sexes only in the unity of matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and society. Besides, there is not in nature itself . . . anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes.[23]

The pontiff's conception of life within the family was scarcely less traditional. He reconfirmed the opposition of his predecessors to divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and "artificial" family planning. His understanding of the structure of family authority was still essentially patriarchal, but, unlike earlier popes, he made some concessions to the feminist view that the truly fulfilling marriage was a union of equal partners and loving companions. In Casti Connubii (December 31, 1930), his encyclical on marriage, he asserted, as his predecessors had, that the wife must obey and be subject to her husband. Then he added:

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty that fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion. Nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due the wife, nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with persons who in law are called minors.[24]

The pontiff even conceded that a wife's marital subordination was subject to changing family and societal conditions. Indeed, when the husband refused to do his duty, the wife sometimes was required to take the husband's place as the head of the family. The state too had responsibilities regarding the rights of the wife. Although a "certain inequality" had to be preserved in Christian marriage, "as . . . the social and economic conditions of the married woman must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements."[25]

Mary Daly charged that even this unprecedented concession highlighted the subordination of women to men in the thought of Pius XI since the state was to control the process of modernizing women's rights:

It is significant that in this process of adaptation, it was the "public authority" which was said to adapt the rights of the wife. All of this was to be decided for her. There was no suggestion of a democratic process in which she might claim her rights or actively further social change in her favor.[26]

Daly's accusation was about half-right. Pius XI undoubtedly had reservations about the democratic process, as he did about "exaggerating" the claims of a wife's equality in marriage. At the same time, he urged both women and men to promote the Catholic vision of social change. Indeed, he proposed a more active role for Catholic laymen and laywomen in the life of the Church than any predecessor. Women in Catholic religious orders had long been active in teaching, nursing, and missions, but laywomen were rarely encouraged to emulate them. Only in the twentieth century did the church leaders, such as Pius XI, promote Christian social action by the laity.

What type of activity was most suitable for Catholics? The pope's answer was to urge the laity of both sexes, married and unmarried, to organize, under the guidance and direction of the clergy, as militants of "Catholic Action" defending the Church and strengthening society through social and religious activities separated from all political parties. Catholic Action became strong enough in Italy to be attacked by the Fascists in one of the major conflicts between Church and State of this era. Pius wished to be remembered as the pope of Catholic Action, and his view of women's activities in this organization was far removed from any vision of the angel in the house. His determination to defend the Church with an organized, disciplined laity partly overcame his traditionalist biases about a woman's place.[27]

His successor, Pius XII (1939-1958), seemed equally determined to encourage Catholic women to reach out beyond their traditional sphere in the home. He made more public statements on secular and religious issues than any other modern pope, and in many of them he urged Catholic women to be active in the outside world. In one of his earliest speeches, he told the representatives of the Leagues of Catholic Women:

There was perhaps a time when the apostolic work of women was limited to guarding and nourishing the Christian life in the home. It is no longer so today, when every aspect of family life is necessarily and immediately subject to the influence of the social conditions in which it finds itself. On these conditions depends to a large extent the spiritual tone of the family, and so also its moral and religious life. This is why the Catholic woman of today is aware of her social obligations.[28]

Political activity became an increasingly significant means of fulfilling these obligations in the thought of Pius XII. From his perspective, the Church was in exceptional danger almost everywhere due to the rapid expansion of Communism. The faithful of both sexes were obliged to defend true religion and morality by any legitimate means. One weapon was the Catholic vote, an important element in the democratic power structure of many non-Communist nations such as Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, and, to a lesser degree, France. Potential Catholic power had been greatly enhanced in Italy and France after 1945 by the enfranchisement of women. In Italy, the Church became a particularly formidable political force through the dominance of the Christian Democratic Party and Catholic Action. Some voting analyses suggested that the Italian Christian Democratic Party received almost sixty percent of its votes from women and was the only party in Italy to receive substantial female support.[29]

Pius XII unabashedly encouraged such voting behavior among Catholic women in order to resist the advance of Communism and defend Church and home from the tides of secularism, hedonism, and materialism. Ignoring the reservations of former popes about women in politics or about the use of the democratic suffrage to defend religion and morality, he proclaimed that "the ballot in the hands of the Catholic woman is a means of realizing the goals dictated by their conscience in the laws of the land." Three years later, he condemned abstention from elections on the part of Catholics as a "grave sin."[30]

Sins equally grave had to be avoided by women who did vote. "No wise woman," he taught, "favors a policy of class struggle or war. Her path to the ballot box is the path of peace." The Christian woman had to vote to "secure for the families of every class the conditions needed for their economic, legal and moral integrity." Support could be given only to candidates who offered "secure guarantees that they will respect the rights of God and religion."[31]

Pius XII was more ambivalent about the problems and opportunities for women in modern life outside the voting booth. Typical was his reaction to the growing number of women, married and single, entering the labor force in most Western nations: "Not a few deplore such a change," he told the Society of Christian Women Workers in 1945, "but it is an accomplished fact which at present is impossible to alter."[32]

But at times, altering this situation seemed exactly what the pontiff had in mind. In the first year of his pontificate, he repeated the call of Pius XI for a "family wage" policy paying men with large families more than other workers as a means of enabling their wives to stay at home. The plight of single women with families to support was not mentioned. After the war, he altered his emphasis somewhat by maintaining that women workers had the right to salary parity with men, but once again protection of male workers seemed to be one of his primary motives: "It would be unjust and contrary to the general welfare to profit from the labor of women solely because they will work for lower wages; this not only brings harm to women workers but exposes men to the threat of unemployment."[33]

He was also less than enthusiastic about giving women full economic equality with men. He attacked the "totalitarian systems" for trying to win the political support of women by making glowing promises of equal rights with men, social services for pregnancy and childbirth, community kitchens and other domestic help, public childcare centers, free schools, and health insurance. He conceded that these social programs could be valuable if administered properly, but would the real condition of women be improved thereby? In nations where these "systems" operated, "equality of rights with men has taken the woman out of her home where she was queen and has subjected her to the same work requirements as those of men. Her true dignity has been disregarded; the foundation of her rights, that is her femininity and the intimate cooperation of the two sexes, has been undermined."[34]

[...]

And what of married women who did stay home? Initially, Pius XII's attitude toward them seemed as conservative as any of his predecessors. In one of his early addresses to newlyweds, he reconfirmed the traditional view that the wife was to be subject to her husband in love and that her husband was to exercise authority over her with love and respect. He even cited the misogynist defense of male authority found in I Timothy 2:13-14, which proclaimed that women were subordinate because they were the first to be deceived by the serpent.[36]

In the postwar era, the pope was more sensitive to modern notions of marital equality. To representatives of the World Union of Catholic Women's organizations, he asserted that, in spite of the duty of wives to be subject to their husbands, "the man and woman are images of God, and, each in his own way, are persons of equal dignity and possessing the same rights, so that it is impossible to uphold that the woman is in any way inferior."[37]

Furthermore, contrary to the charges of some of its critics, Christian tradition exalted women:

Even now you can still find some people who tend to play down or even completely ignore the Church's meritorious role in restoring womankind to its original status.... They use false fragmentary evidence and give superficial interpretations of customs and laws which were inspired by necessary proprieties of the day; and they do this in an attempt to associate the Church with something that it has firmly opposed from its very beginning--that unjust status of personal inferiority to which paganism often condemned women.[38]

In contrast, Christianity taught that men and women enjoyed "an absolute equality in personal and fundamental values," although the two sexes still had different functions which were "complementary and superbly equivalent." For Pius, a woman's primary right and duty was motherhood. This was her "sublime mission" and her basic function.[39] For Mary Daly, this meant that the pope wanted a woman to remain the "purely relational being who receives esteem from society because of her maternal role."[40]

Yet, Pius XII also taught more explicitly than any former pope that women could no longer be contained within their traditional roles in family or society. Perhaps he became more cautious and negative on many social and religious issues in his last years, as even many Catholics asserted,[41] but he also believed that the new realities of women's lives, however doubtful some of their benefits might be, were here to stay and had to be confronted by the Church in an informed and creative fashion.

His successor, John XXIII (1958-1963), essentially agreed. However popular he became as a symbol of the renewal of Church and society, his pronouncements on women proclaimed no revolution. In an address to representatives of a Congress on "Women and Social Life," for instance, he acknowledged that modern conditions tended to establish an "almost absolute equality of women with men," but he did not give unqualified approval to this trend. In words similar to those of his immediate predecessors, he asserted that a "parity of rights" had to be supported in all appropriate areas, but this did not imply a "parity of functions." On the contrary, the Creator gave women unique qualities and inclinations which fitted her for the vocation of motherhood.

Some situations, he added, made this vocation more difficult, the most serious of which was the employment of wives outside the home. "Anyone can understand that this prolonged absence from home and the attendant dispersion of energies creates a situation which prevents the wife from carrying out her duties of wife and mother, as she should." To enable the wife to alleviate this situation, he supported the principle of the family wage.[42] He even urged women, in another address, not to allow their activities in the world outside the home to undermine their "open and delicate spirit." Fulfilling this promise might be very difficult, for women "are called to an effort perhaps greater than men, if you take into consideration women's natural frailty in certain respects."[43]

In his last encyclical, Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), he seemed more prepared to re-examine traditional roles for women. He became the first pope to assert flatly that, in the founding of a family, "the man and the woman enjoy equal rights and duties." He also noted how women's roles in public life were changing:

Women are gaining an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves m be regarded as a kind of instrument, they are demanding both in domestic and in public life the rights and duties which belong to them as human persons.[44]

His successor, Paul VI (1963-1978), much maligned as an opponent of Pope John's vision of progress in the Church, seemed in fact determined to preserve John XXIII's balance between reform and tradition in the area of women's rights. Now, however, many of these traditions relating to women were increasingly criticized even by Catholics. He agreed with John XXIII that the sexes had to be equal in rights. Early in his reign, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed that women had the right "to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men."[45] In that same year, the pope said that the Holy Scripture recognized for women "the perfect equality of nature and dignity and therefore of rights."[46]

But he warned of those for whom equality was not enough. He was plainly disturbed by the more radical demands of the feminist revival that became such an important social and political force in his era and which won increasing support within the clergy and laity. He felt that modern feminist movements were moving beyond their successful campaign to eliminate the social inequality of women and now seemed to be attacking the moral foundations of women's roles in society. Justice for women, he told the women in one of his audiences, did not consist in the "banal assimilation of your life into a masculine life-style" but rather in the "elevation of your femininity" in a manner that would be complementary to the lives of men.[47]

He never abandoned this attempt to define women as equal but complementary. In the encyclical Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968), which incurred the wrath of Catholic and non-Catholic progressives by reaffirming the Church's opposition to "artificial" contraception, he also proclaimed that one of the mighty new forces of the modern world was "a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society."[48] Yet, the pope also urged women, in another address, to exercise a "prudent realism" in responding to this new force. He warned against making a fetish of sexual equality:

Equalization of rights must not be allowed to degenerate into an egalitarian and impersonal elimination of differences. The egalitarianism blindly sought by our materialistic society has but little care for the specific good of persons; contrary to appearances it is unconcerned with what is suitable or unsuitable to women. There is, thus, a danger of unduly masculinizing women or else simply depersonalizing them.[49]

He and many other members of the hierarchy were especially opposed to eliminating distinctions between men and women in the ministries of the Church, as their actions during the Second Vatican Council made clear. Women did not participate in the early sessions of the Council under John XXIII, nor, initially, was the role of women in the Church an issue before that body. Not until the third session of the Council (1964) did the new pope, Paul VI, announce the designation of selected women as auditors without the right to speak to or vote in the council sessions. In 1965, women's rights were first discussed by council members. In 1971, the bishops considered and rejected a resolution favoring the ordination of women. In 1973, Pope Paul established a "Study Commission on the Role of Women in Church and Society" but gave it the following charge: "From the onset of study, the ordination of women must be excluded." Furthermore, the Commission was urged to keep in mind the differences between the roles of men and women.[50] On January 22, 1977, the Holy See responded to the ever increasing requests for the ordination of women by proclaiming that Christ established a bond between maleness and the priesthood which could not be altered.[51]

[... Pope John Paul II's (1978-)] commitment to women's emancipation seems at best uncertain. Catholic feminists have expressed bitter public distress at his unyielding support for the 1977 ban on women's ordination.[52] His social encyclical, Laborem Exercens (September 14, 1981), was distinctly traditional in its approach to women's work, supporting as it did a family wage which was "a single salary given to the head of the family for his work sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home."

On the other hand, Laborem Exercens also argued that women could not be discriminated against in employment because of their feminine nature or family duties:

The true advancement of women requires that labor should be structured in such a way that women do not have to pay for their advancement by abandoning what is specific to them and at the expense of the family in which women as mothers have an irreplaceable role.[53]

Two years later he reiterated to the bishops of the United States that "the bishop is called upon to oppose any and all discrimination of women by reason of sex."[54]

Were these other than the insincere platitudes of a fundamentally unsympathetic pope, as some charge? On August 15, 1988, in the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul attempted to refute these critics by becoming the first pope to publish a treatise devoted exclusively to the subject of femininity. Mulieris Dignitatem was written in response to the request of the 1987 Synod of Bishops for further study of "the meaning and dignity of being a woman and of being a man,"[55] The result was a lengthy meditation on the dignity, rights, and duties of women that forthrightly rejected patriarchal readings of the Scriptures and misogynist traditions within the Church. At the same time, the pontiff yielded not an inch on what he believed to be the essential differences between women and men in both nature and vocation.

Women and men were "essentially" equal in the Holy Scriptures, he concluded. Without mentioning the Church Fathers, John Paul rejected their patriarchal interpretations of the creation accounts in favor of the conviction that God had created men and women as a "unity of the two" in which each was rational and free. Even the admonition in Genesis 3:16 to women, "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you," was seen by the pontiff not as divine approval for patriarchy but as a "violation" of the equality given by God. "The overcoming of this evil inheritance," he added, "is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man."[56] Both Christ and his Church affirmed this essential sexual equality. Even in marriage the "subjection" taught by Paul in Ephesians 5:21 was "mutual" rather than for the wife alone. Women, he concluded, "have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God." God had a "royal priesthood" for woman and "entrusts the human being to her in a special way."[57]

This "special way" recognized women's unique gifts which were complementary to but different from those of men. "The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different." One such difference was that Christ, acting "in a completely free and sovereign manner," chose only men as apostles and intended the priesthood to be exclusively male. Christian believers had to accept this decision, as they obeyed all Christ's commands. In the legitimate cause of resisting male oppression, women had to avoid being "masculinized." "Women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine 'originality.'"[58]

Perhaps this indicates that John Paul is continuing the teaching ministry of his predecessors by gradually adjusting the papal ideology on women to modern demands for female social and political emancipation without abandoning the traditional claim that women have a unique, irreplaceable role in family, Church, and society. In the evolution of papal thought, women first became the moral equals of men and later, more slowly and reluctantly, were accepted as equal partners with their husbands in marriage. As the rhetoric of inequality faded from the papal ideal of marital relations, the concept that the spouses were complementary became more and more important. For this reason, the popes hesitated to endorse the growing practice of married women working outside the home, for they feared that such work would compromise women's duties as wives and mothers.

However, this ambivalence did not dampen the ever increasing papal enthusiasm for women helping to advance the cause of the Church in all other areas of life. In fact, women were seen more and more as full participants with men in the Christian reform of society, although not as clerical leaders in the the Church. It remains to be seen whether women will be able to fulfill this mission if laywomen are hampered in their secular careers by the requirements of the Christian family and if religious women continue to be denied ordination and leadership positions [...]

---

Footnotes:

[1] Preface to Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether (New York, 1974), p 9.

[2] The Church and the Second Sex (New York, 1968), p. 7.

[3] "Church, State and Family The women's Movement in Italy," in Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production, ed. Annette Kuhn and Ann Marie Wolpe (Boston, 19-8), p 72.

[4] Jean Marie Aubert, La fermme: antifeminisme et christianisme (Paris, 1975), p. 7

[5] George H. Tavard, Woman in Christian Tradition (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1973), pp. 130-131.

[6] Mary T. Malone, Woman Christian: New Vision (Dubuque, Iowa, 1985), pp. 5. 117; Daly, op. cit., p. 8.

[...]

[8] Kari Elisabeth Borrison, Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Role of Woman in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, trans. Charles Talbot (Washington, D.C., 1981), pp. 30-32; Tavard, op. cit., pp. 113-118; Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church ' in Religion and Sexism, ed. Ruether, pp. 176-178. See also Margaret A. Farley, "Sources of Sexual Inequality in the History of Christian Thought,"Journal of Religion, 56 (April, 1976), 167-168.

[9]Borreson, op. cit., pp. 171-178; Tavard, op. cit., p. 125; Farley, op. cit., p. 168; Eleanor Commo McLaughlin, "Equality of Souls, Inequality of Sexes: Woman in Medieval Theology," in Religion and Sexism, ed. Ruether, pp. 217-218.

[10] Pius IX, encyclical, Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849, in Claudia Carlen (ed.), The Papal Encyclicals (Raleigh, North Carolina, 1981), I, 302; Leo XIII, encyclical, Immortale, Dei, November 1, 1885, in Etienne Gilson (ed.), The Church Speaks to the Modern World: The Social Teachings of Leo XIII (Garden City, New York, 1954), p. 170. The passage is quoted from Gilson.

[11] Gilson, op. cit., p. 228. The misogynist tradition in the Catholic Church is outlined by Henri Rollet, La condition de la femme dans l'Eglise (Paris, 1975), pp. 32-38, 84- 85.

[12] Tavard, op. cit., p. 149. Extensive scholarship now exists on the once neglected question of the ideology of a woman's proper place in the nineteenth century. Among those works I found most useful for understanding prevailing attitudes among both Catholics and non-Catholics are Rollet, op. cit., pp. 215-216; Adeline Daumard, La bourgeoisie pparisienne de 1815 a 1848 (Paris, 1963), pp. 357-358; Deborah Gorham, The Victorian Girl and the Feminine Ideal (Bloomington, Indiana, 1982), pp. 4-5; Jane Lewis, Women in England, 1870-1950 (Bloomington, Indiana, 1985) pp. 75-78, 82-86; James McMillan, Housewife or Harlot: The Place of Women in French Society, 1870-1940 (New York, 1981), pp. 9ff.; Steven Mintz, A Prison of Expectations: The Family in Victorian Culture (New York, 1983), pp. 14-15, 50-51, 140-141; and Claire G. Moses, French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (Albany, New YOrk, 1984), pp. 35-35.

[13] Richard J. Evans. The feminists: Women's Emancipation Movements in Europe, America, and Australasia, 1840-1920 (New York, 1977), p. 237. James McMillan disputes this point and argues that anticlericals in France often were no less opposed to women's rights than were the Catholics. See "Clericals, Anticlericals, and the Women's Movement in France under the third Republic," Historical Journal, 24 (June, 1981), 362 ff. Evan's reply is in "Feminism and Anticlericalism in France, 1870-1922," Historical Journal, 25 (December, 1982), 947-952.

[14] Moses, op. cit., p. 120; Judith Jeffrey Howard, "Patriotic Mothers in the Post-Risorgimento: Women after the Italian Revolution," in Women, War, and Revolution, ed. Carol R. Berkin and Clara M. Lovett (new York, 1980), pp. 239-242.

[15] Paola Gaiotti de Biase, Le origini del movimento cattolico femminile (Brescia, 1963), pp. 24ff; Francesco Maria Cecchini, Il femminismo cristiano: La questione femminite nella prima Democrazia Cristiana, 1898-1912 (Rome, 1979), pp. 31-37; Steven C. Hause and Anne R. Kenney, "The Development of the Catholic Women's Suffrage Movement in France, 1896-1922," Catholic Historical Review, 67 January, 1981), 11; Women's Suffrage and Social Politics in the French Third Republic (Princeton, New Jersey, 1984), pp. 7 ff.; Richard Evans, The Feminists Movement in Germany, 1894-1933 (London and BEverly Hills, California, 1976), pp. 6, 18-19, 229.

[16] As quoted from Arthur F. Utz and Medard Boeglin (eds.), La doctrine sociale de l'Eglise a travers les siecles: documents pontificaux du XVieme au XX[ieme] siecle, textes originaux et traductions (Basle, 1970), II, 986.

[17] Gaiotti de Biase, op. cit., p. 100; Hause and Kenney, "Development," p. 23.

[18] The word "allegedly" is used because neither I nor Hause and Kenney could find any record of this statement in church documents. Benedict's statement is quoted from Hause and Kenney, op. cit., p. 27.

[19] Natales Trecentesimi, December 27, 1917, Monks of Solesmes (eds.), The Woman in the Modern World: Papal Teachings (Boston, 1959), p. 27.

[20] Address to delegates of the Italian Union of Catholic Women, October 21, 1919, Utz and Boeglin, op. cit., 11, 1288.

[21] Terence McLaughlin (ed), The Church and the Reconstruction of the Modern World: The Social Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI (Garden City, New York, 1957), p. 244. Cf. Camp, op. cit., pp. 82-85, 96-97 The family wage concept was promoted by Catholic conservatives and others, including the British labor unions, in the nineteenth century. See Michael P. Fogarty, Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820-1953 (London, 1957), pp. 149-150; and Lewis, op. cit., p. 175.

[22] Encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, McLaughlin, op. cit., p 370.

[23] Rappresentanti in Terra, December 31, 1929, McLaughlin, op. cit., p. 97.

[24] McLaughlin, op. cit., p. 126.

[25]. Ibid. pp. 127, 143.

[26.] Daly op. cit., p. 69.

[27.] Pius XI spoke frequently of the duties of the women of Catholic Action. Examples can be found in his letter of July 30, 1928, to the Italian Union of Catholic Women's Leagues (see A. M. Cavagna, Pio XI e l'Azione Cattolica (Rome, 1929), pp. 45-46); and his apostolic letter to the Philippine Hierarchy of January 18, 1939 (see Utz and Boeglin, op. cit., II, 1830-1832) The conflict between church and state in Fascist Italy is well explained in A. C. Jemolo, Chiesa e stato in Italia negli ultimi cento anni (Turin, 1963), pp 431ff. A more recent and detailed study of its crucial phase is in John F. Pollard, the Vatican and Italian Fascism, 1929-1932: A Study in Conflict (Cambridge, 1985). The Catholic tradition on the role of the laity is discussed in Rollet, op. cit., pp. 214, 235-237, 269ff.

[28.] Address of April 14, 1939, Monks of Solesmes, op. cit., p. 44.

[29.] Giorgio Galli and Alfonso Prandi, Patterns of Political Participation in Italy (New Haven, connecticut, 1970), p. 57; see also Joseph La Palombara, Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton, New Jersey, 1964), pp. 333-335.

[30.] Address of October 21, 1945, to Italian Christian Women, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 37 (1945), 294 (hereafter A.A.S.); address of September 11, 1947, to the International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues, Monks of Solesmes, op. cit., p. 171. The conflict between the Catholic Church and the Communist movement did not begin in 1945. The Papacy condemned Socialism almost from its pangs of birth in the nineteenth century. See Wallace, op. cit.

[31.] Address of October 21, 1945, Monks of Solesmes, op. cit., p. 294; Address of March 10, 1948, A.A.S., 40 (1948), 119.

[32.] Address of August 15, 1945, A.A.S., 37 (1945), 213.

[33] Encylical, Sertum, November 1, 1939, A.A.S. (1939), 654 address of August 15, 1945, A.A.S., 37 (1945), 214.

[34] Address of October 21, 1945, to Italian Christian women, A.A.S., 37 (1945), 288.

[...]

[36] "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor"; address of September 10, 1941, Monks of Solemes, Le foyer chretien; les enseignements pontificaux (Tournai, 1964), p. 159.

[37] Address of September 29, 1957, Monks of Solesmes. Woman in the Modern World, pp. 301-302.

[38] Radio message of October 14, 1956, Monks of Solemes, Woman in the Modern World, p. 271.

[39] Ibid., p. 273.

[40] Church and the Second Sex, p. 71.

[41] J. Derek Holmes. The Papacy in the Modern World, 1914-1978 (New York, 1981), p. 198.

[42] Address of September 6, 1961, Monks of Solesmes, Le foyer chretien, pp. 403-404.

[43] Address of December 7, 1960, The Pope Speaks, 7 (1961), 172-173.

[44] As quoted in Carlen, op. cit., V, 109, 111.

[45] "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," December 7, 196S, in Walter M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican 11 (New York, 1966), p. 228.

[46] Address to delegates of the Italian Women's Center, May 30, 196S, Utz and Boeglin, op. cit., 11, 1302.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Carlen, op. cit., V, 223.

[49] Address of January 31, 1976, The Pope Speaks, 21 (1976), 164-16S.

[50] Rollet, op. cit., pp. 29S-310; and Tavard, op. cit., pp. 127-129.

[51] Rosemary Ruether, "Entering the sanctuary The Struggle for Priesthood in Contemporary Episcopalian and Roman Catholic Experience, II. The Roman Catholic story," in Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (New York, 1979), pp. 379-381.

[52] George H. Williams, The Mind of John Paul II. Origins of His Thought and Action (New York, 1981), pp. 37-38. The disaffection from his position, at least in the United States, may be widespread. A recent newspaper poll indicated that sixty percent of the American Catholics in the polling sample believed it "wrong" to exclude women from the priesthood; Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1987, p. 20.

[53] Carlen, op. cit., V, 318.

[54] Address of September S. 1983, The Pope Speaks, 28 (1983), 335.

[55] On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (Boston, 1988), Section 1, pp. 10-11 (hereafter 1:10-11).

---