The Universal Call to Personalist Feminism

R. Mary Hayden Lemmons, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

Philosophy Department

            Vocations are calls from God to continue the work of Our Lord and to re-establish harmony between heaven and earth. True feminism is the peaceful activism to promote sexual equality in the belief that men and women really are equal to each other. In this short paper, I argue that feminism is a part of everyone’s vocation–including the man’s. For since the human vocation requires all to use whatever opportunities they can to fight injustice through a love understood as a providential and collaborative care, all are obligated to fight the oppression of women, since Original Sin makes the oppression of women is omnipresent.

            Support for my argument can be found in the work of John Paul II, especially in his Apostolic Letter, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (M.D. or Mulieris Dignitatem). In this letter, John Paul II points out that the absolute equality of men and women is required by Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Sexual equality is not only required by this text, it is also required by the theology of imaging God. For Genesis 1:27 claims not only that men and women equally image God, but that they image Him as male and female. But in what way does heterosexuality image God?

If . . . we wish to draw also from the narrative of the Yahwist text the concept of “image of God,” we can then deduce that man became the “image and likeness” of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning. The function of the image is to reflect the one who is the model, to reproduce its own prototype. Man becomes the image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion. He is . . . essentially an image of the inscrutable divine communion of Persons.

Accordingly, heterosexual love and spousal oneness image nothing less than the love and oneness of the Trinity, wherein the distinction of persons—and roles---preclude neither unity nor equality. The spousal unification in love excels in imaging the triune God in the following ways: (1) by being a unit constituted by love; (2) by being fertile in the generation of new life; and (3) by being a unit of distinct equals. In this way, the loving heterosexual marriage not only images the Godhead but also His life of love. We live to love.

            Hence, the human vocation to love in the image of the Trinity bestows upon femininity and masculinity their proper meanings: self-transcendence through a fruitful love between distinct equals. Sexuality is for facilitating a fruitful Trinitarian-like love. As a result, any inequality would thus distort this sacred Trinitarian image.  

            On the other hand, it has been argued---on the basis of Scripture---that marriage institutionalizes sexual inequality. In this regard, two passages are cited most frequently: Genesis 2:18-25 in which God declares that Adam will receive a helper fit for him; and Eph. 5:22-23 in which wives are told to be submissive to their husbands. Being a helper and being submissive can be understood either as a gender role peculiar to wives or as a spousal role common to both men and women. The first interpretation establishes an inequality that contradicts the equality required by Genesis 1:27. It also misunderstands the story of Adam and Eve. According to John Paul II, the Genesis text that brings woman forth from Adam’s rib confirms her equality. Taking these texts as his guide, John Paul II argues that the Scriptural texts identifying the wife as helper and as submissive are to be understood as identifying spousal roles, rather than gender roles. As such, these texts require not only the man to be the wife’s helper, but also to be submissive to her in Christ. In the words of John Paul II:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians . . . ‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife’ (5:22-23) . . . knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph. 5:21). . . . in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the ‘old’ this is evidently something ‘new’: it is an innovation of the Gospel. [sic] Mulieris Dignitatem n. 24.

Also:

All of the reasons in favor of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ.” Mulieris Dignitatem n.24.

John Paul II’s interpretation of these Scriptural passages reveals a deep commitment to the equality of men and women.

            John Paul II’s interpretation also reveals a sensitivity to the radical nature of the Gospel message: Christ sought to restore woman to the equality, respect and dignity that was hers in the beginning, that is, before Original Sin. Original Sin not only ruptured the relationship of human beings to God but also the relationship between men and women. Genesis 3:16 is quite explicit that some penalties of Original Sin are gender-specific, affecting even the spousal union of love: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” In other words, Original Sin left woman with the desire to close her love in upon her husband and make him the lord, while Original Sin left men with the desire to dominate women. Yielding to either desire is the wellspring of sexual inequality and oppression.

            The gender ramifications of Original Sin have yet to be fully recognized. The Genesis punishments, writes John Paul II, “refer directly to marriage, but indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life: the situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or discriminated against by the fact of being a woman.” Original sin is thus responsible for the cultural prevalence of chauvinistic male domination.

            Male domination has been responsible for much suffering on the part of woman valued as existing only for the sake of man—and not for her own sake. This is particularly the case since lust gives male domination its particular color. A man’s lust confirms his dominating tendency and prevents the woman from being seen as man’s equal; she is, for the man, an object of sexual gratification. As a result, lust and its presuppositions of inequality are especially destructive of spousal love which requires each spouse to be a gift of love for the other. Lust and inequality block the ability of the husband to recognize the wife’s acts of love as gifts; rather, such husbands treat any act of love as acknowledgment of his superiority. In such relationships, there is nothing the woman can do that can be recognized as a spousal love-gift; her initiatives are misunderstood as attempts to gain power over the man; they are not perceived as inviting an equal to a union of love. As a writer to Ann Landers complained:

The truth is, there is not a woman on the planet who can fully satisfy the needs of a powerful male. When women quit asking men to make them the center of their universe and learn to accept a strong man’s desire for more than one female companion, families will live together longer, more happily and with less rancor.

The prejudice, shown in this letter, shows how blinding male chauvinism can be. For this reason, chauvinism is not merely selfishness but a destroyer of interpersonal love between equals. As the Pope points out:

. . . “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two” and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum.” Mulieris Dignitatem n. 10 (emphasis mine)

Equality, thus, for John Paul II, is a necessary presupposition to marital love. Unless a man first affirms that a woman is his equal, her love can neither be recognized as a gift nor reciprocated; without reciprocation, an “authentic” spousal communion cannot be established. In other words, the man’s affirmation of a woman’s equality necessarily precedes her ability to be a gift of love to the man as well as the man’s ability to be a gift of love to the woman.

            Thus, John Paul II—in order to protect the conditions necessary for spousal love—denounces sexual inequality----and encourages all to resist the on-going and persistent effects of Original Sin. This resistance requires recognizing that interpersonal relations are not folder for egotistical power games but for altruistic love. Altruistic love transcends the self; it, thereby, frees the self. Such love restores one to oneself.

            John Paul II identifies this restorative love as merciful.

. . . love and mercy bring it about that people meet one another in that value which is man himself, with the dignity that is proper to him. (D.M. 14.5)

Merciful love has several characteristics: it has the deepest respect for what is human; it is the spirit of mutual brotherhood; it extends cordial tenderness and sensitivity; it is forgiving; it is the very form of God’s love for us. As such, it takes Christ as its model and inspiration.

When we base ourselves on this disquieting model [of Christ crucified], we are able with all humility to show mercy to others, knowing that Christ accepts it as if it were shown to himself (Mt 25:43-40). An act of merciful love is only really such when we are deeply convinced at the moment that we perform it that we are at the same time receiving mercy from the people who are accepting it from us. (DM 14.30).

The awareness of mercy’s mutuality precludes prideful self-righteousness and arrogance by reinforcing the sacredness of the other that is so necessary for recognizing the other’s gift of self–especially in the case of woman.

            The mutuality of merciful love is experienced through collaboration. As a result, the obligation to counter the effects of Original Sin makes collaboration a universal duty. As John Paul II points out:

Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of every human being is in fact a duty of all toward all . . . If, on the contrary, people try to achieve it in only one part, or in only one world, they do so at the expense of the others; and , precisely because the others are ignored, their own development becomes exaggerated and misdirected. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n. 32.2.

We are an interdependent race: the confined heart is deformed and enslaved by selfish desires. Self-development and flourishing requires being other-centered. Other-centeredness caring about the other’s perspective and needs; it requires listening to the other; it thus requires collaboration. Collaboration expresses a caring, providential love. Collaborative and providential love is the means for achieving the common good. Such love humanizes the world.

            The obligation to humanize the world requires a commitment not only to end the oppression of all, but also the obligation to end the oppression of women. As such, it is the obligation to be a feminist. The obligation to end the oppression of women---through merciful love and collaboration—honors maternal relationships. It finds the killing of her offspring, whether born or unborn, morally reprehensible and demeaning. Feminism must be pro-life in order to be truly supportive of women’s reality and her vocation to self-transcendent love. Pro-life feminism, moreover, requires human reproduction to occur through heterosexual love unions, since cloning or asexual reproduction is inseparable from the destruction of embryonic human life. Pro-life feminism thus requires all to be a complementarian or personalist feminist.

            In other words, personalist feminism argues that heterosexual reproduction of the human race, not only identifies complementarity as essential to sexuality, but also identifies the continuation of the race with self-transcendence through union with others. But since there is no self-transcendence without love, personalist feminism argues that the human destiny is achieved through love. Thus, personalist feminism holds that self-transcendence through love should characterize all human interactions–even those at work. Self-transcendence at work is achieved when providential and collaborative work aims at advancing the common good. Thus, heterosexual complementarity marks each of us as designed by the Creator for love at all times and places.

            Love obligates us to counter evil. For love is an “anxious solicitude to ensure for each individual every true good and to remove and drive away every sort of evil.” Personalist feminism thus calls us to a providential love and care that promotes human dignity and counters evil. We are to be eager in advancing goodness and in ending oppression. Personalist feminism thus requires countering the structures of evil according to the exigencies of one’s life and professional responsibilities. Of special concern is advancing the well-being of those oppressed by poverty and prejudice. Well-being is to be advanced through solidarity; collaborative and providential love; respect for human equality and rights–especially the right to life and to religious freedom; and the promotion of the common good by seeking the development of peoples. Solidarity is not sentiment but a commitment to the common good, “that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.” Solidarity is expressed whenever one seeks the true good of others in collaboration with others. Such collaboration promotes autonomy and free-self-determination. Collaborative solidarity seeks to serve rather than be served. It thus seeks out victims of poverty and prejudice, e.g., women and the unborn.

            Personalist feminism is especially binding upon professionals both men and women, because professionals build economic, educational, medical, political, legal, and other social institutions. Although these institutions can benefit human beings and promote their happiness, they are not likely to do so. We are a fallen race. Careful review of our institutions are thus needed to ensure that they do not become “structures of sin.” John Paul points out that institutions are especially liable to becoming oppressive when they are not structured to acknowledge transcendent truths:  

If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which a person achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Centesimus Annus n. 44.

No institution–however small and intimate--escapes the threat of exploiting its members for institutional goals. Hence, social institutions must acknowledge the transcendence of every individual. Institutions exists for the sake of persons, not persons for the sake of institutions. Failure to acknowledge the transcendent truth about human beings leads to totalitarianism --even within democracies.  

            Acknowledgment that persons transcend their institutions entails treating persons with a love that is both providential and collaborative. Such love calls every human being to realize that interdependency is essential to human beings: we are naturally social or relational beings. We become who we are meant to be through collaborative relationship of love. The vocation of every person is thus the vocation to the love characteristic of personalist feminism.

            The call of personalist feminism is thus global, since human interdependencies are also global. Every person is to be concerned with advancing the welfare of the other according to opportunities of time, place, financial resources, and talents. This means that professionals are especially called upon to address the problems cause by globalization. These problems are particularity acute for mothers with young children in the least developed countries. According to Mary Ann Glendon, the framework for addressing these problems has been identified as having these elements: primary health care, nutrition and sanitation debt relief, fair trade practices, the rule of law, and investment in education. In brief: human dignity requires placing societies and economies within a juridical framework that subordinates the marketplace to the demands of morality, human rights, the common good, and human transcendence through love. This means that laws need to protect the family, adequate free time, self-expression at work, worker associations, and private economic initiatives. Wage-slavery and the oppression of women are to be especially avoided.

In Conclusion: Personalist feminism calls all to a collaborative and providential love that is eager to oppose evil whenever and wherever possible. This love is the only way to fulfill the human vocation to self-transcendence. Hence, the call of personal feminism is a universal call.