Search Posts
“… maybe I’m just trying to wrap my brain around the idea that women aren’t in positions of general power/authority in the Church. But if men and women each have valuable contributions and talents given by God, why is it (largely) only men who make decisions? Does it just end up being about submission (I’m thinking Ephesians 5)? And then do we just give our two cents and hope that men don’t screw it up or ignore it?”
I wrote this in February of 2016. I was reeling. I can’t even remember exactly what pulled the rug out from under me, but suddenly I had so many questions about women and where exactly we fit in the Church. I’d only ever had slight misgivings in the past, which exacerbated the fears and doubts I was having now. Why does none of this make sense? How can I trust the Church on anything if the Church doesn’t even respect women – respect ME – enough to treat us as equal to men?
How can I trust the Church on anything if the Church doesn’t even respect women – respect ME – enough to treat us as equal to men?
It was hard. I really wanted to be a faithful Catholic. I loved the Church, and I had found so much goodness, truth, and beauty in my Catholic faith. But at the same time, I desperately needed answers. I emailed two of my aunts whom I thought might have some answers for me. The paragraph above is an excerpt from that (much longer) email, which I recently dug up for the first time since then.
I’m starting to think this was God’s plan all along… I had been learning to trust Him and His Church, learning that I didn’t want to live outside of this beautiful reality. Then when I did begin to have serious doubts and real fears about what the Church taught, my first instinct was to look for answers in the Church. It would have been a lot easier to leave the Church – and I might have done just that – but for the fact that I love the Church. And, as I wrote at the end of my email that night, “I want to be convinced, I just am having a little trouble with that right now.”
It would have been a lot easier to leave the Church – and I might have done just that – but for the fact that I love the Church.
I’ve written before about how I came to love the fact that the priesthood is reserved for men, and some of the doubt that led me to explore this particular teaching of the Church. For myself, the question of women and the priesthood took two forms:
1) Why aren’t women as important or essential as men in the Church?
2) Why don’t women have authority in the Church?
I tried to begin to answer the former question in my original post on women and the priesthood (hint: we are just as important). In my wonder and amazement at finding some beautiful, compelling answers to the first question, I forgot about the question of authority. (Plus I was writing a thesis, graduating, and then beginning graduate school.) I felt that this whole contentious issue was resolved – at least in terms of personal doubt. I knew I hadn’t learned everything there was to learn about women’s roles in the Church, but I was happy with what I had come to know.
God hadn’t forgotten my second question, though, even if I had. Last fall I stumbled upon a short book, The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church, by Monica Migliorino Miller. I was a little wary at first. (Alas, even I have that kneejerk suspicion upon finding someone talking about women in the Church. It’ll either be super conservative or heresy, right?) But seeing that the foreword was written by Scott Hahn, about whom I’d heard good things, I picked it up.
I cannot recommend this book enough. In addition to answering all the questions I’d forgotten I had (and then some), the author does so in an incredibly engaging manner. Her theology is totally orthodox, and it’s written sympathetically, but not condescendingly. I realized that this woman gets it. She understands why I have these questions, and she’s not here to tell me I’m a bad Catholic for wrestling with these things. She wants to help me understand the beauty of the truth that the Church teaches.
While this blog post is no substitute for the entire book, I do want to share some highlights that I learned about the nature of authority and how that pertains to women and men in the Church.
What is authority, anyway?
First, we ought to define what we mean by authority. When you google the word “authority”, the definition that comes up is “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience." Sounds about right. Except that’s not what authority means in the context of Christianity. Authority is not power. Authority is not being able to force people to do what you want, or having some special knowledge or dignity that makes you more qualified to lead people or tell them what to do. The word authority comes from the same Latin word that gives us “author”. So authority has to do with being the author or creator of something. This quote from the book explains it very well: “A person has authority… by giving life” – and, by being responsible for that life, caring for, nurturing, and protecting it (Migliorino Miller 17). We don’t obey God because, hey, watch out, He’ll squash you like a bug if you make Him mad… We obey God because He’s the source of life, and staying close to Him and submitting to His authority is how we receive life.
We obey God because He’s the source of life, and staying close to Him and submitting to His authority is how we receive life.
In the Church, authority, as well as salvation, is directly related to the covenantal marriage relationship between Christ the Bridegroom and the Church, His Bride. That might sound super theological, so give me a second to unpack it. This next quote sounds a little scandalous, but bear with me: “… Christ alone is not the sign of redemption… Redemption is not mediated by the male Christ alone, but by Christ and the Church. Redemption is mediated through the covenant. The Church gives a creative response to the mission of Christ that is authentically her own. Thus she is a model of redemption in union with her Lord and has responsibility for the covenant that is equal in human and mediatorial freedom, and thus in dignity to His” (41, emphasis added).
This is not to say Jesus was not “enough” to save us. What it means is that God wanted to – and chose to – give us salvation through a covenant, this relationship, between Himself and the Church. God is not jealous or insecure about His authority – He doesn’t demean Himself, or lose any of His power and glory, in giving authority to the Church. The Church, in relationship with Jesus Christ, has authority. And again, authority has to do with giving life and taking responsibility for that life.
Okay, so then what does authority look like for individual human beings in the Church? That was our original question, right? If authority has to do with giving life and being responsible for bringing that life to fulfillment, we can say that authority for Christians means cooperating with God in bringing people to eternal life. For all of us, that means cooperating with grace in various ways throughout our lives – praying for people, trying to grow in virtue, receiving the Sacraments, performing works of mercy, and so on.
Manifesting authority in the world
In addition, priests do this in a very real, concrete way through the sacraments, especially in the Holy Eucharist. They are cooperating with God to literally, physically, bring God to the souls around them. That’s really incredible! It took me longer than it probably should have to make the connection: mothers do this too. Well, specifically, mothers cooperate – in a very concrete way – with God to bring new souls to God. And that is just as important to the Church! … When I realized this, I thought I had made some earthshattering discovery, but then I came across a quote by Fulton Sheen in which he says almost exactly the same thing, comparing motherhood to priesthood. Which is good – it means I’m in good company, and you don’t have to take my word for it.
However, many of us (myself included) are neither priests nor mothers. That doesn’t mean we’re second-class Christians. It doesn’t mean that there’s some level of holiness that we can’t ever reach. It means that our authority – to lead each other to a deeper relationship and life with God – looks a little different, and it may not be as obvious. And because authority in the Church is based in a marriage covenant, it’s going to look a bit different for men and for women. Different, but not lesser. Women are going to live this out in what John Paul II called a spiritual motherhood, and men live this out in spiritual fatherhood. John Paul is necessarily (and very wisely) vague about how each of us is to live this spiritual fatherhood/motherhood… But in both roles, we cooperate with God to lead each other to God, who is the source of all life.
Many of us (myself included) are neither priests nor mothers. That doesn’t mean we’re second-class Christians. It doesn’t mean that there’s some level of holiness that we can’t ever reach.
Maybe you’re thinking, Great, but this is just stuff to make us feel better – where do we actually see women with authority over men in the Church? And maybe that sounds kind of petty, but it’s a good question, since we just said that women can have authority over others. We haven’t really looked at any concrete examples yet. One very clear historical example is that of St. Catherine of Siena. When Catherine was alive, the pope had not been living in Rome for many years, there was general confusion in the Church, people were trying to use the pope for his political power – it was a huge mess. And Catherine used her authority – as a Christian and as a woman (who couldn’t even read, by the way) – to encourage the pope, to remind him to do the right thing, and, when necessary, to call him out when he wasn’t acting the way a pope should. Granted, for most of us, authority probably doesn’t look like telling the pope what he should be doing. But, again, it does mean leading people to a deeper relationship with God – and leading people to cooperate with God’s will for their lives.
Now, part of recognizing the authority that we have as baptized Christians also means recognizing and submitting to the true authority of others. A lot of times we don’t like to think about submission, because we think it means admitting that we’re inferior. But consider this: authority and submission exist in God Himself, within the Holy Trinity. Jesus came to earth not to do His own will, but the will of His Father. And I’ve always thought it was weird that we ask God to send us His Holy Spirit. I mean, the Holy Spirit is God, can’t He decide for Himself? But in the context of authority and submission in a relationship of equal Persons, there is no question of inferiority or superiority, and it has nothing to do with a power trip. Authority and submission are a part of a life-giving relationship.
Authority in marriage
I’m specifically talking about authority and submission in the Church, but it’s worth taking a quick sidebar to look at what all of this means in marriage. Considering that authority is relational and life-giving, it would be fair to assume that wives and husbands have authority in a marriage, right? Sometimes, though, it doesn’t sound like that when we read certain passages in Scripture (looking at you, Ephesians 5). However, in considering the biblical command for wives to submit to their husbands, Pope St. John Paul II writes that “whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual” (Mulieris Dignitatem 24). With all due respect to our late pontiff, the author of The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church goes even further. She explains, “… it is very important that we not miss the fact that Christ already subjected Himself to [the Church]. He gave up His very life so that she may be exalted in holiness. Christ’s authority is life-giving and He has given Himself for the Church in the most radical subjection of all” (Migliorino Miller 65).
Women's authority
Ok, so what does all of this have to do with why women can’t be priests? If women can have authority, why not the specific authority of a priest? It ties back into the fact that the New Covenant is a marriage between Christ and the Church. Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. You’ve probably heard that during Mass the priest acts in the person of Christ, in persona Christi.
A man is already a kind of natural icon for Christ, because Christ is a man. And this might sound almost offensive to us, to say that men image Christ in a way that women don’t. Certainly we are all made in the image of God. That is always true and is incredibly important. However, in the context of a marriage covenant, there are two roles: the Bridegroom, as well as the Bride.
If salvation is given through a marriage covenant, we can’t only have an image of the Bridegroom. That wouldn’t make sense. And if we remember that we are persons created with souls and bodies, we know that our bodies have meaning. Each of us is, by virtue of whether we’re men or women, a symbol that points to the covenant. Within the Covenant, then, women are icons of the Church, the Bride of Christ. (In fact, that’s what we call religious sisters, brides of Christ.)
This isn’t a less important role, and it doesn’t mean that women are inferior. It means that women play an equally important role in the Covenant, without which the marriage covenant wouldn’t make any sense. Without a living image of the Bridegroom and the Bride, the covenantal reality of salvation is quite literally inaccessible to us – to all of us. In the second chapter of Genesis we hear, “It is not good that man should be alone.” Yes! Because none of us, alone, can be an image of the salvific love between God and the Church. In fact, the priest’s (or any man’s) ability to be an image of the Bridegroom is entirely dependent on the reality and partnership of the Bride. Being a Bridegroom has no meaning unless there is a Bride with whom to enter into the marriage relationship, and vice versa.
Continuing to grow
This just blows my mind! It’s so cool, and it makes me really grateful to be Catholic, and… I actually really love the fact that the priesthood is reserved for men. Now of course I couldn’t cover everything, even if I knew everything there was to say on the topic. What I wanted to do was to give an overview of the whole idea of life-giving authority, how it’s based in the relationship of Christ and the Church, and how that plays out for both men and women. There is so much more that could – and should – be said!
One last thing I do want to say: if you have questions about what the Church teaches, or if it doesn’t seem to make sense – anything, not just women and the priesthood – that’s not a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean you’re doing something wrong. It’s an opportunity to grow closer to God by learning more about Him.
I consider myself a well-read person. From my liberal arts degree in Theatre to my summer spent hiding from hot temperatures in the cool library basement while my grandmother worked as a Children’s Librarian - to my desire to read all the classics starting in the seventh grade - it’s safe to say that I’ve read a lot of books.
When I began my conversion process from a “you do you” and “I’m more spiritual than religious” lukewarm Methodist to Catholicism I lived and breathed the books I could find wherever I turned. Even now, five years after that beautiful Easter vigil, I still get a thrill when I find an new (to me) Catholic spiritual writer or theologian to sink my teeth into.
Despite the hours I spend with my nose in a book, or more recently pressed against my Kindle, I haven’t been immune to the rumblings in our country. From racial tension to sexual violence to economic stress, it’s all there and I hear it. For a while I stood immobile, not only battling my own prejudices and mis-education, but just unclear where I should go, how I could start on a road where I would walk with the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed and then I turned back to my bookshelves. Of course, book learning is only a start, but it’s a good start. The same way I learned about the world as a child could serve me know if I only knew where to look and while I started to compile lists of a books about race and justice, trying to expand not only a wider range of voices in my non-fiction and fiction there was one shelf I didn’t look closely at until just last week: my Catholic bookshelf.
In the United States of America the Catholic Church is a diverse body, in 2010 approximately 46% of all U.S. Catholic identified as something other that Non-Hispanic White. Nearly half of the body of our church is not white, but I’ll tell you a little secret: my Catholic bookshelf is almost entirely “Non-Hispanic White”.
Nearly half of the body of our church is not white, but I’ll tell you a little secret: my Catholic bookshelf is almost entirely “Non-Hispanic White”.
Now don’t misunderstand me, no writer or contributor to our faith should be discounted or overlooked due to their ethnicity. All of those works already on my shelf from Hahn to Barron, Chesterton to Merton, Kreeft to Tolkien all deserve the spot they have, however it struck me that there has to be more.
If I want to honestly say I’m here to talk about race and sex and diversity and prejudice in the world I need to start in my home, the Church. I need that bookshelf to look more like the diverse body of Christ that exists in parishes across the nation. If those writers I mentioned before could open my eyes to the beauty of the Church during my conversion, what conversions of the heart and mind could happen by actively seeking out a more complete chorus of voices and experiences to guide me.
If I want to honestly say I’m here to talk about race and sex and diversity and prejudice in the world I need to start in my home, the Church.
So I made a resolution to seek out diversity for my Catholic bookshelf. Letting the numbers mentioned above be my guide I would seek to fill my bookshelf with at least a 1:2 to ratio (1 non-white author for every 2 white author), ideally a 1:1 ratio would be my end goal. For every author that looks like me, or has a similar background to my middle-class, white experience I need to be actively seeking out voices from people of color, voices of people who’ve experienced racism, voices of people who’ve experience poverty and war, voices of people who’ve experienced the Blessed Mother in different forms and who’ve experienced the Holy Eucharist through different eyes. While my ability to actually walk these paths is limited I can do my best to read their words and learn from what they can teach me.
Not quite knowing where to start, I took this goal to the FemCatholic Forum and from there we brainstormed a starting place a list of diverse Catholic authors of both fiction and non-fiction. We’ve started a booklist to keep track of these books over on goodread which you can access here. So far the list includes works from modern Catholic fiction writers like Toni Morrison and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, both known from their stirring and prolific works. Modern voices of the Church like Cardinal Sarah’s “The Power of Silence” and Immaculee Ilibagiza’s testament to her experiences in the Rwandan Genocide. Works by Bryan Massingale and M. Shawn Copeland can expand our knowledge of racial issues and experiences within the Catholic Church, while Shusaku Endo and Ven. Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan can expand our understanding of the Catholic experience outside of our own.
The point of this challenge is not only to better understand the “universal” part of our universal Church, but also to create a demand, and a need for an increasingly wider range of authors. To show publishers that we want these books and to show potential writers waiting for a sign that we want to hear their words.
So are you ready to take the challenge and reinvent your Catholic Bookshelf?
This summer I interviewed for a counselor position at a crisis pregnancy center.
I had seen the office before: the restroom where countless pregnancy tests have been taken; the small, comfortable rooms where counselors held appointments; the ultrasound room where tiny heartbeats were seen and heard for the first time; the store where mothers could use coupons earned by participating in educational opportunities to buy baby necessities.
I had even been through two initial appointments there myself when we found ourselves expecting and money was tight.
What I hadn’t realized was that, in situations of unplanned, crisis, or unwanted pregnancies, the staff set out not only to save the life of an unborn child or give women access to free pregnancy tests and resources (as important as those things are); the counselors want to give women hope, confidence, and the ability to look within and see their own strength. In short, they want to empower every woman they encounter.
My interviewer described to me the approach that counselors took in that initial appointment. She stressed that the goal of the appointment is never to convince the woman one way or another. Instead, counselors provide each woman with information regarding all options, and work to help her realize that she has the strength to do hard things, to be courageous in the face of this difficult situation, and to assure her that there are people ready to love and support her. If the woman chooses to she can continue meeting with a counselor regularly throughout her pregnancy for support, resources, and caring community.
I have worked at two different maternity homes, and have seen firsthand the freedom that women experience when they discover and engage their strength, gifts, passions, and sheer willpower. It is incredible to watch these empowered women getting and staying sober or clean, finishing or going back to school, applying for jobs, dreaming about their futures with hope rather than despair. Women are capable of amazing things! I honestly believe one of our greatest feminine gifts is the ability to carry on in the face of even seemingly impossible situations.
I honestly believe one of our greatest feminine gifts is the ability to carry on in the face of even seemingly impossible situations.
The value of authentically empowering women, in a world where they are told that they are simultaneously not enough and too much, can not be overstated.
“Your fertility is too much of a burden, you need contraception to keep it in check, or else...”
“You weren’t smart enough/careful enough to not get pregnant.”
“This pregnancy is too much for you to handle.”
“You are too much for me to handle now that you are pregnant.”
“You can’t support a child financial/physically/emotionally.”
“You will be on your own, you can’t do this as a single mother.”
“You are too far ahead in your career to let this pregnancy get in the way.”
“You are too poor.”
“You are too young.”
“You are too old.”
Too much. Not enough. Can’t, can’t, can’t.
Is this really the best we can do for women?
Is it really in the best interest of a woman to tell her all the reasons she can’t and then offer her a single “solution”? How can she make this decision, a decision that will affect the rest of her life, when she has been told that only one option is really viable and acceptable? Backing her into a corner where she must make this decision based on fear and scarcity is neither empowering nor liberating.
How can we, women who are passionate about empowering other women, begin to change the conversation, to advance true liberation for women in unplanned pregnancies? How can we show that our dual calls to defend life and empower women are not incongruous, but are in fact two complimentary parts of one inseparable call to action?
How can we, women who are passionate about empowering other women, begin to change the conversation, to advance true liberation for women in unplanned pregnancies?
Ironically, I think changing the conversation is going to involve a lot less talking and a lot more doing. Don’t get me wrong, I love discussing, defining terms, and citing references, but in order to make the necessary shift we need to act first and let that be a springboard for discussion. Rather than insisting that we love and support pregnant women in the comments of Facebook posts or Twitter discussions, let’s get up, reach out, and empower the individual women in these circumstances. If the world takes notice and begins to realize that being pro-life does in fact mean being pro-women, great; but if not, at least we know we have done what we could to empower women in the midst of serious difficulties.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34 & 35
♦♦♦
There are many organizations that are already working to defend human life by empowering and supporting women, here is a list of some, collected from our contributors and Facebook Forum members:
Maternity Homes
“Believing in the sanctity of life and the innate value of each person, Hannah’s House is a maternity home that provides a safe environment, programming and support for the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of pregnant young women.”
“Maggie’s Place provides houses of hospitality and ongoing support to help pregnant and parenting women in need reach their goals, and welcomes them into a community filled with love and dignity.”
“Respecting and affirming life from the moment of conception, MiraVia is a safe haven and source of hope for pregnant mothers and their children. Invoking a Christ-centered approach inspired by the examples of Mary and Joseph, MiraVia helps young families move toward a new life of hopeful, independent, and healthy living and educates the broader community on the importance of fostering a culture of life.”
Crisis Pregnancy Centers
“Women's Care Center provides free, confidential counseling, support and education to women facing unplanned pregnancies. We serve 26,000 women annually from 28 centers in 10 states.”
www.helpassisther.com [App coming soon!]
“Women's healthcare resources in the palm of your hand”
Organizations offering support and resources
VISION: for every girl with an unplanned pregnancy to have a church to go to for spiritual, emotional and physical support
MISSION: to inspire and equip the church to love on single and pregnant young women and their families
“You can do it. We can help.”
“We believe women are empowered to make positive life decisions when they are equipped with the resources and support they need. Project Rosie connects women to these resources and a community of friends, so that they are empowered to accomplish their goals and settle for nothing less than their full potential.”
“The Pregnant on Campus Initiative is a nationwide, student-driven effort to empower students to make life-affirming pregnancy and parenting decisions.”
“Women Deserve Better: For us, that means better information, better support, and better choices. Life brings challenges. We bring empowerment, because we’ll never underestimate women.”
Educational and Activist Organizations:
“Educate- Empower- Engage”
Mission: To educate physicians and healthcare professionals using medical evidence so they may empower women and engage men to appreciate and care for their fertility.
“We are committed to fostering respect for the dignity of women and to working to advance her true good, both in our culture and in the world.”
“We seek to create a culture that honors and upholds the natural feminine gifts and abilities and encourages women in all circumstances to embrace their dignity and find empowerment through these gifts and abilities.”
“Feminists for Life of America recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions. Women deserve better than abortion...Our efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of nondiscrimination, nonviolence and justice for all.”
“So, let's work towards a culture that supports a woman so well that she never has to have [an abortion]. Let's work towards a culture that tells her ‘You Can,’ ‘You Are Strong Enough,’ and ‘If You Need Some Help - We Are Here,’ because that is what the sisterhood is all about.”
“As pro-life feminists, we demand better than abortion, we demand better than dehumanization, we demand better than a society that accepts violence. And we are working to create that culture of peace.”
What can YOU do?
- Volunteer at your local crisis pregnancy center or maternity home.
- Donate new and gently used maternity clothes and baby items to maternity homes. While all generosity is greatly appreciated, sorting donations requires time and volunteers/staff members, so be mindful of the condition/relevance of the items you donate. Also keep in mind the demographic in your area and donate appropriately.
- Donate local public transportation passes to maternity homes. Public transportation is usually the residents’ primary means of getting to and from doctor and social service appointments, work or school. This is a great way to directly empower a woman to take the necessary steps to develop her own strengths and skills so she can make the best life possible for herself!
- Write “Dear Brave Girl” letters or other letters of support. Better yet, host a girls’ night in and ask your friends to all write letters with you!
- For more creative ideas check out this resource.
If you feel called to fight for the unborn, fight for authentic empowerment for women - with active service, motivated by love, without agendas or politics or pretense. That is when hearts will begin to change, discussions and solutions will be more authentic, and will bear more fruit.
I want to see defending life become synonymous with empowering women - it's time we lead that change.
I have written before on how we, as Catholics, too often remain silent on ways to support children of divorce. This is the first installment in a three-part series that aims to break this silence and provide practical ways for children of divorce to begin healing, as well as to help our fellow Catholics better understand our experiences.Julia Hogan, Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor (LCPC), shared with me some of her professional, practical wisdom for children of divorce:
How have you seen women, in particular, be impacted by their parents' divorce? Have you noticed any common struggles or difficulties?
JH: Judith Wallerstein conducted a well-respected longitudinal study which found that children of divorce can experience fears and struggles stemming from their parents' divorce in their adult relationships. For example, a child may grow up believing that because their father was unreliable and emotionally volatile, that all men will be, and this impacts their own romantic relationships. Having trouble trusting seems to be a common theme for adult children of divorce (although, we all struggle with that sometimes!).
Children of divorce can experience fears and struggles stemming from their parents' divorce in their adult relationships.
If someone is deeply struggling with the impact of their experience, where might you suggest they seek support and healing?
JH: Working with a competent therapist can help you work through your experience of being a child of divorce and make a successful plan to modify your current approach to relationships. Sometimes, we focus so much on past relationships that we forget to focus on the relationships right in front of us.
Some children of divorce may worry that they are doomed to have a failed and/or unhappy marriage. What would you say to a woman who has that fear?
JH: No one's future is predetermined. While we can't control some of the things that happen to us, we can control our response to it. In other words, even if you are affected negatively by your parents' divorce, you aren't automatically going to have a failed and/or unhappy marriage. Being aware of how you are impacted by your parents' divorce is a critical step in taking control of your own future and relationships. Sometimes, we don't even notice how we have been impacted by our parents' divorce and so a competent therapist can help you identify those things. Remember though that, even if you are affected by your parents' divorce, it doesn't have to define you.
Being aware of how you are impacted by your parents' divorce is a critical step in taking control of your own future and relationships.
Have you witnessed women become stronger as they take stock of their experience as children of divorce? If so, what facilitated their growth and healing?
JH: Forgiveness, though hard to do, is very important in the process of healing from the impact of divorce.
What do you think we can do, as Catholics, to better support children of divorce?
JH: I think that Catholics have a unique gift of healing to offer to children of divorce.
♦♦♦
Here are my three main takeaways from Julia’s words of wisdom:
1) Self awareness is vital.
The first step in healing is recognizing how we are impacted by our parents’ divorce. A good therapist can help us identify this impact if we have trouble doing so on our own (and there is no shame in that!).
2) Look forward.
Learning from our past is essential; at the same time, we must also focus on what is “right in front of us,” as Julia said. From time to time, we can glance back and see how far we have come in our healing.
3) You are you, not your parents.
Julia’s words, “No one's future is predetermined,” give me much hope - I hope they do the same for you. We can have a different story and a different marriage than those of our parents. By increasing our self-awareness, seeking professional guidance when needed, and learning from the past, divorce does not have to be in our future.
Keep reading part two of this series: stories from fellow Catholic women who are themselves children of divorce.
I’ve probably read The Jeweler’s Shop by Karol Wojtyla (the future St. John Paul II) at least a dozen times—in high school, college, and throughout my dating and engaged years. Since being married, I’ve come to see it in yet a new light, as if the characters I once thought I knew so well have suddenly come alive through their brokenness, humanity, and relatability. In the beautifully crafted play, three couples, whose lives are all somehow connected, each offer insights into the joys and trials of marriage. Ultimately, through the sacrament’s powerful bond, they are all called to love.
There is one line of the play that I have always particularly loved: “[She] was a whole world, just as distant as any other man, as any other woman—and yet there was something that allowed one to think of throwing a bridge.”
I loved this truth and; I wanted more than anything to live it out.
I used to think about this idea of throwing a bridge and how profoundly beautiful it was. I loved this reality that marriage meant forming a connection with another person, who himself was an entire world; that there was no such thing as solitary islands within marriage. I loved the idea; that somehow, through the grace of the sacrament, you and your whole world were literally one with someone else’s, while still becoming more of yourself. I loved this truth and; I wanted more than anything to live it out.
When I met my husband, I knew right away that I would marry him. Not because I believed I had met my “soulmate,” or even that I believed it was “love at first sight.” I knew I would become his wife because I knew that the bridge between us would be strong, unbreakable, and indissoluble.
Loving him was so easy in the beginning. I was 21, he was 23; the only real responsibilities we each knew were to school and work. Our relationship was marked by a joy and certainty that we were called by God to this vocation and wanted only to live it out as best we could, side by side. It was new and exciting as we both grew in friendship, trust, and love. He did everything in his power to make me happy and prove he was worthy of my love. He was a gentleman, confident and fearless, naturally good with a spirit and love of life I hadn’t encountered before. He made me more myself, and I watched him grow into the man he was called to be.
During our engagement period, we had intentionally discussed two main goals for our marriage: to start a family and to get each other to heaven.
Leading up to our wedding day, I actually thought little of what it truly meant to get your spouse to heaven and allow him to lead you there as well. We had heard that marriage was hard work, yes; but what was a little hard work when you love someone with all of your heart?
We had no idea then just how humbling, hard, and sanctifying marriage and this call to holiness would be. How it would show us the ugliest, weakest parts of ourselves that we didn’t even know existed. How it would mean walking each other through the nitty-gritty moments of sin and failure and leading each other back to Christ with a heart full of humility and forgiveness. How it would teach us that true, selfless love means putting the other first and always seeing him as Jesus does, ever delighting in his unique gifts and ability to love you above all others.
Indeed, he is my path to heaven. In just two years of marriage, I have become keenly aware of this truth—and it has been unbelievably difficult to live out at times. So often have I been tempted to destroy the bridge between us if only to prove a point or inflict a wound. So many times have I wanted to be my own solitary island and wallow in bitterness or resentment. I ought to be seeking justice for myself after all, right? Why must I allow him to throw a bridge when he has wronged me and ought to pay the price? Why must I forgive and offer forgiveness?
So often have I been tempted to destroy the bridge between us if only to prove a point or inflict a wound.
I remember one evening when I was terribly sick with our first child. My husband had asked if he could go to a baseball game with a friend instead ofor if he should staying home with me. I reluctantly said yes, half hoping and half expecting that he would see the disappointment in my face and recognize my need for him that night. But off he went to the game as I lay in bed, filled to the brim with self-pity and resentment. Within minutes, I had become so dehydrated and sick that I contemplated going to the hospital and knew it was time to call my husband. Desperation and anger in my voice, I urged him to come home right away. I wanted so badly to punish him for leaving me in such a weak state; I wanted him to know how he had let me down and to feel terrible for it. He had wronged me, and I was determined to make him pay.
Then, just like that, he ran through the door and wrapped me in his arms, assuring me that everything would be OK. He admitted he had been wrong to leave me, asked for my forgiveness, and then took care of me. He had recognized his failures long before I tried to point them out. And suddenly my heart softened and shattered as the light that I had been bitterly blocking came seeping through. It was a moment of grace, and I felt more than ever the strength and power of this bond of marriage. I knew I could never, as long as I lived, destroy that bridge between us.
I’m learning that within this vocation, there are valleys and peaks, highs and lows, joy and sadness, pain and triumph. Amidst the dirty diapers, greasy pans, and tearful conversations, I am constantly given the choice to love or to close myself off in fear, anger, jealousy, or bitterness. For I have found that beyond that valley is the highest peak of knowing that I have chosen to love this man exactly as he is, even when I don’t feel like it. That is real, lasting, life-giving joy.
I am constantly given the choice to love or to close myself off in fear, anger, jealousy, or bitterness.
In the moments when my husband surprises me with a loving response or a small, kind gesture, I see the man that I loved so easily when we first met. But now, unlike then, I see him and love him infinitely more, for I have chosen again and again to love him in the face of anxiety, fear, and heartache. With each day and year of marriage, our love continues to grow into a force that cannot be broken, not even by our own sin and weakness. For Love Himself is that force, and Love Himself constantly calls us to throw a bridge.
Women are subjected to a lot of false ideas - about who they should be, what they should do, and what it means to be a woman.Luckily, our Popes have been busting right through these lies for a loooooong time. Here's just a few:
1) Women are less than men
"Both man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God’s image." - Pope John Paul II, 1988 (emphasis added).
2) Women should be valued for their beauty more than their work
"Sadly, very little of women's achievements in history can be registered by the science of history. But even though time may have buried the documentary evidence of those achievements, their beneficent influence can be felt as a force which has shaped the lives of successive generations, right up to our own. To this great, immense feminine "tradition" humanity owes a debt which can never be repaid. Yet how many women have been and continue to be valued more for their physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity; in a word, the very dignity of their being!" - Pope John Paul II, 1995 (emphasis added).
3) Women aren't powerful
"The hour is coming, in fact has come, when the vocation of women is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved." - Pope Paul VI, 1965 (emphasis added).
4) Women shouldn't work
"Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity." - Pope John Paul II, 1995 (emphasis added).
5) Women's value is in having babies
"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women... motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation" - Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger), 2004 (emphasis added).
6) Women should be passive
"Women are gaining an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves to 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." - Pope John XXIII, 1963 (emphasis added).
7) Women's equality only affects women
"Similarly, inadequate consideration for the condition of women helps to create instability in the fabric of society. I think of the exploitation of women who are treated as objects, and of the many ways that a lack of respect is shown for their dignity; I also think —in a different context—of the mindset persisting in some cultures, where women are still firmly subordinated to the arbitrary decisions of men, with grave consequences for their personal dignity and for the exercise of their fundamental freedoms. There can be no illusion of a secure peace until these forms of discrimination are also overcome, since they injure the personal dignity impressed by the Creator upon every human being." - Pope Benedict XVI, 2007 (emphasis added).
8) Women in the Bible are less important than the Apostles
"As we see, in this most arduous test of faith and fidelity the women proved stronger than the Apostles. In this moment of danger, those who love much succeed in overcoming their fear.” - Pope John Paul II, 1988 (emphasis added).
9) Women's equality doesn't need to be put into law
"The growing presence of women in social, economic and political life at the local, national and international levels is thus a very positive development. Women have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation” - Pope John Paul II, 1995 (emphasis added).
10) Women shouldn't worry about equal pay
"A more equitable distribution of wealth has always been and will always remain a chief objective of Catholic social doctrine. We can say as much for "equality of salary, for men and women, provided there be equal work and output." The Church has long made that demand her own." - Pope Pius XII, 1947 (emphasis added).
11) Women are fragile and weak
"It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life." - Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger), 2004 (emphasis added).
12) Women have feminine values that men don't need
"It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible. It is only because women are more immediately attuned to these values that they are the reminder and the privileged sign of such values." - Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger), 2004
Have you ever heard of natural law? I’m in my final semester of law school, and have only encountered the term twice in lecture halls, both times resulting in the professor quickly brushing it off as judges looking to the sky and waiting for a “right answer” to come to them.
But that is not the natural law, or at least, not the Catholic understanding of it. Most fully formulated by philosopher and Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas, the natural law is a law that has been written onto every human’s heart by God, and that every human may access using her capacity to reason. Natural law is significant because it unites all human beings. Being accessible to reason, the natural law transcends cultural differences, and holds true no matter the circumstances. Using natural law, we are able to see the way God intends for us to live, and to know the ultimate good which is, unchanging across time and place.
The natural law is a law that has been written onto every human’s heart by God, and that every human may access using her capacity to reason.
Isn’t that awesome? Let’s dive deeper into natural law and its significance in our lives.
What is natural law?
Again, natural law is based in our God-given ability to “discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie” (CCC 1954). In other words, it is our capacity to reason out the objective good in any situation.
[Natural law] is our capacity to reason out the objective good in any situation.
Importantly, natural law does not mean waiting for some kind of gut feeling to reveal to us what is right and what is wrong—it is an exercise in reason, a search for an objective answer. The good should be able to be determined by every rational being.
Why should I care?
Paragraph 1959 of the Catechism sums it up nicely: The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
Natural law is always present. It is immutable and undeniable (CCC 1958). It is something we encounter daily, and its principles should form the basis of our civil laws. Basically, it is a framework through which we can use our God-given reason to identify the objective good and objective evil. Therefore, we should work to understand how natural law operates in order to live in accordance with the Truth.
So, how does natural law work?
Catholic philosopher Edward Feser explains natural law according to the following principles:
1). Human beings seek to do what our intellect tells us is good and avoid what our intellect tells us is bad.
This is Thomas Aquinas’ basic tenant of natural law: do good and avoid evil. It’s pretty straightforward. In fact, so straightforward that both Aquinas and Feser refer to it as self-evident: we do what we think will bring us good. Now, what I think is good and what you think is good may be two different things. For example, I may think that it is good to always follow the speed limit, regardless of the situation, while you may think it is good to go over the speed limit if you are late to your grandmother’s funeral. In both instances, we are seeking to do good and working to avoid evil. This can be the case even if a person does something she thinks is bad in order to achieve something else she thinks is good. For example, a bank robber may know that it is bad to steal, but decide that the good that will come to her from the money she steals will outweigh the bad.
Okay, so pretty simple so far. Humans act in ways that they think will result in their good. But, how do we know what is good? That brings us to the second principle of natural law.
2). Human beings have the ability to reason what is objectively good.
Objective good! This is where it’s at. This means that what is “good” and what is “bad” are not relative to our own preferences. “Good” and “bad” exist outside of ourselves.
So, how are we supposed to know whether something is good or bad? Something is good when it attains its natural end. “Natural end” can also be thought of as something’s ultimate purpose (some use word “thriving”). Let’s start with a famous example. A triangle, by definition, is a shape made up of three connected lines with angles that add up to 180 degrees. Though it sounds silly, we can say that a triangle “ultimately thrives,” or reaches its natural end, when it meets this criteria.
If you go to Microsoft Word, select the triangle shape, and “draw” a triangle, you will create a triangle with three straight lines, completely closed, with angles that add up to 180 degrees. This is a “good” triangle--it meets its natural end.
Conversely, if you draw a triangle while sitting on a moving bus, it will not look like the Microsoft Word triangle. The lines will not be straight, they may not close completely, and as a result, the angles will not add up to 180 degrees. Because this shape does not conform to the definition of triangle, it is a bad triangle--it fails to thrive. That is not being mean to the triangle, it is an objective truth.
Yet, looking at this bad triangle, we know that it is still a triangle. Its form is that of a triangle, but it has not achieved its natural (perfect) end.
Another example is that of a three-legged cat. We characterize cats as mammals that have four legs. However, just because this cat does not have four legs, does not mean it is not a cat. It still has the form of a cat, but it has not reached its natural end of cat-ness--it is not ultimately thriving as a cat. Therefore, we could say the cat is not a good cat. Again, this isn’t being mean or saying that the cat has less worth than other cats, it is an objective comparison between this cat and the natural end of what it is to be a cat. Get it? Kind of? Okay, bear with me here.
Looking to human existence, we then ask, what is the natural end of being a human? What leads to our ultimate thriving?
Feser goes through a lot of options, and I’ll quote some of them here (internal citations omitted):
It cannot be wealth, because wealth exists only for the sake of something else which we might acquire with it.
It cannot be honor, because honor accrues to someone only as a consequence of realizing some good, and thus cannot itself be an ultimate good. . . .
Nor can it be power, for power is a means rather than an end and might be used to bring about evil rather than genuine good.
It cannot be pleasure, because pleasure is also a consequence of realizing a good rather than the realization of a good itself; even less likely is it to be bodily pleasure specifically, since the body exists for the sake of the soul, which is immaterial. . . .
But neither can even it be a good of the soul, since the soul, as a created thing, exists for the sake of something else (i.e. that which creates it).
Aquinas concludes that, therefore, our ultimate good is to be found “not in any creature, but in God alone . . . Wherefore God alone can satisfy the will of man . . . God alone constitutes man’s happiness” (Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 2, Article 8). Therefore, our end is perfect unity with God, which we will only realize in heaven. Consequently, what enables human flourishing is the same as what will get us to heaven. This is our ultimate good, but we can apply these same principles in other, more specific, situations to arrive at the solution that most accords with our natural end.
What enables human flourishing is the same as what will get us to heaven. This is our ultimate good.
We don’t always know, in a particular situation, how to get to heaven or what will bring us closer to God. And again, the natural law comes in to help us discern. Aquinas states that “all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.”
This sounds kind of confusing. Because doesn’t “natural inclination” sound like instinct or desire? And remember, we’re talking about reason here--not a gut feeling. By “natural inclination,” Aquinas means those activities which nature intends for us. In other words, our “natural inclination” is what we need to do as human beings in order to thrive. And though we may have instincts or desires that align with what we need to do to thrive, we also may not.
For example, in order to thrive, it is true that one must eat food. And, most of us have both the instincts and the desires to eat food. However, those who suffer from anorexia have a desire to avoid consuming food, while those struggling with overeating problems have a desire to eat more food than they need. This example shows why we cannot depend on our instincts and desires alone to tell us what is good, because our instincts and desires may be disordered, that is, not ordered toward our thriving.
We cannot depend on our instincts and desires alone to tell us what is good, because our instincts and desires may be disordered, that is, not ordered toward our thriving.
Consequently, we must take a “third person” perspective on what leads to our thriving. This allows us to detach from our own desires and to view ourselves objectively. (If you like, try looking at what you are doing from God’s perspective.)
Aquinas, Feser, and other philosophers have much more to say on determining the good and the bad, but I’m going to leave it here for now since this is just a basic introduction. Suffice to say, it is not always clear what the good and the bad are, but by using our reason and focusing on what leads to ultimate union with God—physically, mentally, and spiritually—we should be able to determine the good in a situation, at least most of the time.
With that, let’s bring it all together.
3). A rational person will figure out what is the objective good and direct her actions to that end.
So, if it is self-evident that human beings do good and avoid evil, and if human beings have the ability, through reason, to determine objective good and objective evil, then, human beings ought to do what is objectively good and avoid what is objectively bad! And that’s the natural law.
By understanding natural law, we are able to better grasp God’s desire for our lives and live consistently, no longer slaves to our desires. We can use our reason to look at situations objectively and choose the good. We can get that much closer to becoming saints!
A storied history describes the progression of contraceptive methods, spanning from as early as 1500 B.C. until today. The appearance of Enovid, the first oral contraceptive, in 1960 marked a revolutionary change for those seeking contraception. In a mere five years, 6.5 million American women were taking Enovid. The first Pill rapidly gained international popularity, with TIME reporting over 5 million women in other countries using Enovid by 1967.
Dubious Development
During the 1950s, when the first birth control pill was being developed, discussions of male birth control began; they never came to fruition. What did result was the severe mistreatment of women, namely in the form of experiments on women in asylums in Massachusetts (whose mental illness prevented them from consenting to the trial) and experiments on Puerto Rican women (targeted due to their low socioeconomic status and because they were people of color). The women in these experiments suffered side effects of the trial version of the Pill, which included significantly higher hormone levels than those found in today’s versions.
Discussions of male birth control began; they never came to fruition.
The Nelson Pill Hearings of 1970 revealed more of the injustices against women that took place during the first decade of the Pill’s existence. A journalist named Barbara Seaman discovered and brought to light the severe, life-threatening risks that accompanied the Pill, risks which were hidden from the women taking it. Feminist activists such as Alice Wolfson rightly condemned the troubling fact that no women were invited to testify during the Pill hearings. Fortunately, the hearings resulted in a requirement that the Pill be accompanied by written information on its side effects and risks.
Faith Leaders Respond
Until 1930, various Christian denominations denounced the use of artificial birth control. With the Anglican Bishops’ Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Anglican Church permitted the use of artificial contraception for married persons, while still condemning “the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience” (Resolution 15). Use of the Pill gradually gained acceptance among Christians of other denominations following this Conference.
In March 1963, Pope St. John XXIII issued a commission to study the question of artificial contraception and worldwide concerns of overpopulation. Following St. John XXIII’s death in June 1963, Bl. Pope Paul VI began his pontificate and expanded this commission in June 1964. The commission submitted their final report to Bl. Paul VI in June 1967, with the vast majority of members being in favor of the Catholic Church permitting the use of artificial contraception for married couples. It was expected that Bl. Paul VI would declare a change in Church teaching on contraception.
Humanae Vitae defied this expectation.
Bl. Paul VI’s July 1968 encyclical unequivocally reaffirmed the teaching of the Catholic Church that artificial contraception is contrary to God’s will and His design for human sexuality, and that, consequently, it cannot be permitted. Humanae Vitae received harsh criticism and was met with widespread dissent in the Church among both clergy and the lay faithful.
A Shared Responsibility for Fertility
Bl. Paul VI begins his encyclical with an acknowledgement of the topic’s challenges, communicating that the man and woman face together the difficulties of living out the Church’s teaching on contraception in order to respect God’s design for human sexuality:
“The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.” (Humanae Vitae 1)
Paragraphs one through three of the encyclical continue to name the concerns about rapid population growth and the realities of supporting several children, which troubled not a small number of people at the time of its publication.
Bl. Paul VI’s language throughout Humanae Vitae deserves special attention. In each case where he discusses fertility, responsible parenthood, or related matters, he does so referring to man and woman, husband and wife. He states that conjugal love “requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood” (HV 10). In fact, the phrase “husband and wife” appears nineteen times in the encyclical.
In each case where he discusses fertility, responsible parenthood, or related matters, he does so referring to man and woman, husband and wife.
Furthermore, Humanae Vitae presents periodic continence as a morally acceptable way of avoiding pregnancy within the exercise of responsible parenthood (what we now call natural family planning, or NFP). This requires a shared decision, made by husband and wife together. Bl. Paul VI argues that man and woman can grow from this practice:
“Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. . . . It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities.” (Humanae Vitae 21)
Unlike with artificial contraception, the burden of avoiding pregnancy (with grave reason for doing so) does not fall solely on the woman when a married couple implements periodic abstinence. With each form of contraception, only one sex remains responsible. It is the woman who takes the Pill or gets the IUD. It is the man who uses the condom or has a vasectomy. While couples can remind each other to use their chosen form of contraception, in the end, the responsibility of doing so falls on one person’s shoulders. And in the case of the Pill, the woman must be the one responsible for taking her pill... and suffering the resulting side effects or health risks.
In the case of the Pill, the woman must be the one responsible for taking her pill... and suffering the resulting side effects or health risks.
Larger Impact on Treatment of Women
Not only does Humanae Vitae communicate a shared responsibility of fertility and avoiding pregnancy, but it also outlines how artificial contraception can lead to the mistreatment of women:
“Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” (Humanae Vitae 17, emphasis added)
Contraception may leave us - men and women alike - disinclined to fully respect the design of a woman’s body and what makes us different as women. Humanae Vitae, however, communicates that the uniqueness of a woman’s body (including her ability to bear children) is worthy of respect and sacrifice. As discussed earlier, sex has different radically different ramifications for women, and Bl. Paul VI recognizes this.
The Current Landscape
Let’s return, for a brief moment, to the historical context of Humanae Vitae. One of the horrors of the Pill is that women were prescribed this medication for 10 years without being informed of the side effects and health risks. It took the Nelson Pill Hearings in 1970 to rectify this. Women were not receiving all of the information they deserved to make wise decisions that are actually beneficial to their health.
I’m afraid we’re in a similar position, almost 50 years later.
Each packet of the Pill may come with written information about side effects and health risks. This is certainly better than how things were from 1960 to 1970. However, it is not enough. The birth control pill is still heralded as a fundamental aspect of women’s healthcare, despite the severe and potentially fatal health risks that accompany it.
The birth control pill is still heralded as a fundamental aspect of women’s healthcare, despite the severe and potentially fatal health risks that accompany it.
Fertility Awareness Based Methods (FABMs) offer excellent alternatives to the Pill for family planning and treating various health conditions, without any of the Pill’s health risks. In fact, FABMs can help women discover underlying health issues that the Pill covers up and that may never be discovered without using FABMs. The issue is that FABMs are not adequately communicated to women by our health professionals. How could they be when, according to FACTS, “only 3% to 6% of physicians have accurate knowledge about the effectiveness rates of fertility awareness based methods”? FABMs are tragically absent from most traditional curricula in medical schools. This is unacceptable, especially as more women seek information on FABMs for family planning and monitoring their health.
50 Years Later: How Will We Respond?
Despite its contentious reception, I believe Humanae Vitae communicates a pro-woman message because it affirms that men and women both share the burden of being responsible stewards of their fertility, and because it boldly states artificial contraception’s negative impact on women.
Throughout the Pill’s development, only one sex - the female sex - was mistreated during experimental trials, assumed the burden of responsibility for contraception, and suffered health risks that were hidden from them. By contrast, the entirety of Humanae Vitae emphasizes the inherent dignity of each human person and discusses fertility with respect to man and woman’s call to be responsible stewards.
Throughout the Pill’s development, only one sex - the female sex - was mistreated during experimental trials, assumed the burden of responsibility for contraception, and suffered health risks that were hidden from them.
As Humane Vitae’s 50th anniversary approaches, I want to challenge this generation to revisit this encyclical, to revisit the history of contraceptives, and to revisit the current narrative of women’s health and equality.
Start with Part One of “Problems with Purity Culture” here.
In the first part of this reflection on the problems with purity culture, I examined how there is a heavy reliance on instilling fear as a motivator for young people to behave a certain way, without providing much information or education about their bodies, or emphasis on the goodness of sexuality and desire. From there, young people become adults with very warped ideas and understandings of sexuality, as well as how to relate to one another in non-sexual ways.
In this second part, I will address how this dis-integration affects men and women in different ways. This is manifested in the heavy reliance on gender segregation - i.e. “men’s talks” vs. “women’s talks” - in most chastity materials and events, as well as through different gender socialization that happens to young boys and girls from an early age as a result of the explicit and implicit values they’re taught by their parents and communities.
It’s important to examine thee messages in purity culture because they are still far too prevalent in Catholic circles.
It’s important to examine thee messages in purity culture because they are still far too prevalent in Catholic circles. In an effort to convey Truth, purity culture often employs harmful tactics - at best simply ineffective at instilling virtue, and at worst, these tactics can be spiritually and psychological abusive, even leading people to completely disregard any kind of relationship with God or to develop damaging neuroses, addictions, and other disordered behaviors.
Therefore we must deconstruct and reevaluate how we communicate about and teach sexual morality and theology. Here, I will examine the current language and messages that purity culture conveys to both men and women, along with the disconcerting effects of each.
Messages that “purity culture” conveys to men
These are the messages I have seen communicated to men through chastity books, talks, articles, Scripture taken out of context without healthy or holistic interpretation, the testimonies of friends raised in the purity culture, and other resources.
Example 1
Explicit Messages (things actually said or communicated or taught)
“You are the protectors of women. After all, each woman is another man’s daughter.”
“You must be strong and uphold their dignity, their purity… it is every man’s vocation to protect the dignity and beauty of every woman”
“Some men are not as in control of their desires and can hurt women so you have to protect women.”
Implicit Message: (things understood or implied)
If you’re not strong and physically tough or able-bodied enough to physically fend off an attacker, you’re less of a man.
A protector could take on another man if he tried to attack him or “his woman".
The purity, chastity and overall being of a woman is the property of her father until he gives you permission to take her as your own.
Example 2
Explicit:
“You must not give in to the desires of your flesh.”
Implicit:
Don’t talk about your sexual desires openly and don’t act on them. Don’t acknowledge them. Repress them.
Example 3
Explicit:
“You must avoid getting girls pregnant.”
“You must not break their hearts”
“All women could potentially be your future wife or some other man’s future wife.”
“All women could potentially be the mother or your children or of another man’s children.”
Implicit:
Women are first and foremost vehicles for baby-making.
Women are sensitive and emotional and experience heartbreak. Unlike you, because you’re a man and you don’t cry or show your feelings. If you experience heartbreak, repress it, or you’re a wuss, or less of a man.
Women’s identity is in which men they belong to. Think firstly about woman as potential wives or sexual objects, even in settings that have nothing to do with sex or romance (eg: in offices or professional settings, when they’re jogging or exercising, when they’re taking your order at a restaurant). Think firstly of their fertility and sexual capability rather than of any other non-sexual abilities, desires, or goals they may have.
In fact, women don’t really have their own wants or interests or identities outside of being your or another man’s future wife and mother of your or his children.
(which leads to) Women who do have other desires or interests are selfish and sinful.
Example 4
Explicit:
“Avert your eyes from certain parts of women’s bodies lest it lead you into sin”
“Those parts of the woman’s body are only for her husband to see. Once you’re married you can do whatever you want.”
“If you look lustfully at a woman ‘pluck out your eye’” (Mt 5: 29)
Implicit:
Don’t think of an elephant. What are you thinking of?
Certain parts of women’s bodies are taboo, exotic, to be fetishized, to be focused on, yet it’s a sin to focus on them. Unless you’re married to her, then you can focus and look and use them for your own pleasure all you want. Basically, within marriage, don’t govern your desires and it’s now okay to sexually objectify your spouse.
In fact, women are parts, not whole persons.
If you do find that your eye strays to certain parts of the the body, or that you experience desire for a woman or her body parts when that woman is not your wife, feel a lot of shame about it.
Example 5
Explicit:
“Avoid immoral, sinful, evil women, they will lead you like an ox to slaughter” (paraphrased from Prov 5, 7).
“Men have stronger sex drives than women… it’s just harder for them to control those impulses”
“Everything that is veiled is holy and sacred, like a bride when she walks down the aisle or women who wear chapel veils”
Implicit:
You don’t have to take responsibility for yourself when it comes to your sexual desire. You are like an ox, a mere animal. Those are the kind of women who are basically asking to be objectified or used. Who can blame you if you give in?
You’re weak when it comes to sexual desire, but women who are sexually strong and powerful and have sexual agency are sinful and evil and can overpower you. But remember? You’re a man and you’re supposed to be the one in power and control - take back control...
Women who don’t cover up as much or aren’t as modest are less than the “good” and “holy” and “sacred” women. They aren’t as worthy of your time, attention or love.
Women who aren’t virgins are soiled, they’ll always have the mark of another man in and on them, so they’ll never be fully yours. Women who are virgins are holier and better and more worthy of praise, love, and affection.
All of these messages focus on men as agents and women as objects - whether to be used benevolently or with hostility. Except evil or sexually available women - then they are actors and have full agency and control, which makes them a threat, because men are the ones who are supposed to be in control. None of these messages examine women as whole persons with other aspects to themselves besides their sexuality and fertility. These messages also instill impossibly high ideals of “masculinity” in which men inevitably fall short, while simultaneously reducing men to animals when confronted with women who are or who are perceived to be seductive. These messages also fail to account for male emotions. The focus is often on the physical and the sex drive, but less on men’s hearts, feelings, and deepest desires beyond libido or primal instincts. Neither emotional vulnerability nor emotional awareness are cultivated or encouraged.
The focus is often on the physical and the sex drive, but less on men’s hearts, feelings, and deepest desires beyond libido or primal instincts.
How these messages affect men
I’ve dated and been friends with guys who came from extreme Christian purity cultures, where they were so inundated with shame regarding sexuality, that it led to repression, to porn addictions, to deep self-hatred and self-chastisement, to rationalization of other sexual behaviors that were not sexual intercourse (because then they were still technically “virgins”), to shaming me about the fact that I was not a virgin and they were, to extreme insecurity and jealousy.
In a recent conversation with a male friend who is a devout, more traditional-leaning Catholic, who is not a virgin, but now is seeking to abstain until marriage, he told me (all in the same conversation): that he was “playing the long game” with a girl he deeply respects, whom he was refraining from even kissing, yet he had recently hooked up with some other girl (because he just couldn’t help himself) when he and the respectable girl weren’t in a relationship. He then went on to say that “women are the crown of Creation.” What allows him cognitively to be able to hook up with one girl, while he wouldn’t even allow himself to kiss the other girl (whom he is seriously interested in courting and marrying) if he believes that all women are the “crown of Creation”?
Men are socialized to see that masculinity consists of being sexual agents - macho, aggressive, tough, strong, not in touch with their emotions, and powerful - alongside being taught that they are to be the protectors of virginity and that giving into their sexual desires is deeply shameful.
When men are socialized to see that masculinity consists of being sexual agents - macho, aggressive, tough, strong, not in touch with their emotions, and powerful - alongside being taught that they are to be the protectors of virginity and that giving into their sexual desires is deeply shameful, then it leads to a double-thinking mind, a kind of cognitive dissonance. This is a state of holding conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, which produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
To a degree, we all live with some cognitive dissonance. That’s what it means to be a sinner. We all agree that sin is bad, yet we cannot seem to help but fall into it. But as Catholics, we are invited to acknowledge our sin and ask for the strength to avoid it in the future, and to change our behavior. However, sometimes we do not recognize our sinfulness, or we rationalize it. For example, we can mostly all agree that cutting someone off on the highway is bad, but then when we do it, we are in a state of dissonance: how I acted is different from my values or beliefs. To relieve the dissonance, we have to choose how we reconcile it. We can either justify our action, thinking “I needed to get in that lane because I’m running late” or “that driver was so slow anyway,” or we can acknowledge that we acted hypocritically - if we have enough ego strength to admit that.
With the example the friend mentioned above, he holds a value that hooking up is not morally right, and that women ought to be respected and protected. But then he hooked up with someone, so to resolve that dissonance, he can admit that he acted hypocritically and resolve to try not to do that again, or he can decide to justify the hookup, saying “I couldn’t help it” or “well, that girl was different from the other one who I respect more”. But it’s precisely, that choice to see one woman as different from the other, and therefore, able to be treated differently, that is a sexist attitude. . This particular kind of cognitive dissonance is called “Ambivalent Sexism.” And when these attitudes are held on to, repeatedly, by many men, who are also in positions of authority and power, either professionally, societally, or otherwise, this leads to systemic sexism, where the treatment of women by men on a broader scale is affected by sexist attitudes.
When men experience ambivalently sexist attitudes, again, they have a choice in how they resolve them. While a secure, healthy approach would be to acknowledge one’s hypocrisy and seek to change, often they don’t have the inner strength to do that, and so they justify their behaviors by blaming them on others, rather than taking responsibility for themselves. Social worker, speaker, writer and researcher Brene Brown explains how, when we experience shame, pain, inner dissonance, or self-discomfort, we often expel it in the form of blame. When men hold ambivalently sexist attitudes (eg: women are the crown of creation - except for “sinful” women), they often will blame women for their sexual behavior (“she was basically asking for it”; “I couldn’t help myself”).
When men hold ambivalently sexist attitudes (eg: women are the crown of creation - except for “sinful” women), they often will blame women for their sexual behavior (“she was basically asking for it”; “I couldn’t help myself”).
Some women will be categorized as tarnished, sinful, and as to be hated/avoided, or worse - to be used when “you need to scratch that itch” (thus seeing them as an object for sexual release in acts of expelling their own interior shame). Other women will be categorized as “holy,” and even lifted higher than themselves as “lowly” men. These women who “make them better” are also held to extremely high standards based on their apparent purity (thus objectifying them as validators and prizes to be won). This scenario is also referred to as The Virgin/Whore dichotomy.
Meanwhile, the Catechism explains that in true chastity this dissonance shouldn’t exist:
The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech. (2338)
While chastity is connected with power and freedom, it’s about the integration of both. To embody chastity is to live consistently. Obviously, all human beings wrestle with their desire to be their best selves, and their tendency towards that which isn’t always good for us, especially when we are hurt, stressed, or in some other way weakened. But I posit that the misguided presentation of chastity to young men makes it even harder for them to recognize this dangerous duplicity within themselves.
To embody chastity is to live consistently.
Messages that “purity culture” conveys to women
Again, these are the messages I have seen communicated to women through chastity books, talks, personal experience, articles, Scripture taken out of context without healthy or holistic interpretation, the testimonies of friends raised in the purity culture, and other resources.
Example 1
Explicit Messages (things actually said or communicated or taught)
“Your virginity is a gift to be cherished.”
“Don’t use tampons or get a well-woman exam because that will make you impure.”
“Purity is your real beauty.”
“If you crush a pure, white flower in your hand, you cannot uncrumple it and make it the same again.”
Implicit Messages (things understood or implied)
If you’ve thrown away your virginity or lost it, then you have lost a part of yourself that makes you less whole.
Purity is measured by having or not having virginity, by the presence or absence of a hymen, by how much you have done physically. If you’re not a virgin, you are not pure, you’re not beautiful.
Once you’ve lost your virginity, you’ve lost a fundamental part of yourself and your identity.
You are like that flower.
Example 2
Explicit:
“Women are daughters of the King so that makes you all princesses, beautiful princesses.”
“You’re beautiful. Remember ladies - you are beautiful.”
“Beautiful… beautiful… beautiful…”
Implicit:
If you aren’t into generic images of princesses, then you’re not as much of a woman.
Beauty is your primary attribute because you’re a woman and therefore you’re less of a woman if you aren’t beautiful or if others don’t see you as beautiful.
Focus on being beautiful and desirable and praiseworthy.
Example 3
Explicit:
“Your identity belongs to your Heavenly Father, but also secondarily to your earthly father, who will be your protector until you marry a man who will then be your protector.”
“A woman’s deepest desire is to be loved and cherished by a man. You need a man who can protect you and your future children.”
“It is a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the home when she is a mother if she does not have a grave reason for doing so” - (literally words spoken by a priest)
Implicit:
You need to be protected. You need a man to protect you. You cannot do it yourself. You are the fairer yet weaker sex.
In fact, real femininity is in letting men do things for you that you could easily do for yourself. If you don’t let men do those things for you, you will tear down their fragile masculinity.
Focus on finding a man. You’re less of a woman without one.
Put aside other aspirations, goals, or pursuits because those are not really what make you a woman and it’s selfish.
When you pursue other career goals outside of motherhood and being a good wife, you separate yourself from God.
Example 4
Explicit:
“Wives be subordinate to your husbands”
Implicit:
Men need to be in the lead, and women need to be subordinate to them, less powerful or less ranked than them.
Example 5
Explicit:
“Ladies let me tell you something - guys, I’m breaking code I’m sorry - guys say: ‘There are some girls that you play with and some girls that you marry’ and all guys protect the girls that you marry and then the girls that you play with… unfortunately we know the reality. But those girls that guys say are meant to be married, it’s because they see something in them. Cultivate that within you…” (a direct quote from priest at a youth conference)
Implicit:
If guys don’t treat you with respect or see you as a future wife, it’s because they don’t “see something in you”. You are lacking the quality that would make you a good wife one day or the quality that makes you worthy of more than simply being “played with”.
A man’s lack of respect towards you is a product of a quality you aren’t cultivating in yourself enough.
Example 6
Explicit:
“You shouldn’t be immodest because your body can evoke lust in other men, so cover up ladies”
“Modest is hottest!”
“Everything that is veiled is holy and sacred”
Implicit:
If you wear clothes that reveal too much skin or parts of your body, you are responsible for leading them into lust and sin.
You are responsible if you are harmed because you might have been asking for it based on your immodest way of dressing. Remember, when it comes to your sexuality and beauty, that’s your only power, and men are powerless and cannot help or control themselves.
Focus on your body and your appearance, that’s your main purpose. Remember, you are ornamental.
If you don’t wear chapel veils or you don’t cover up as much, you are not as holy and sacred of a woman.
All of these messages are the basis for self-esteem issues, victim blaming and rape culture. They reinforce a belief in women that their primary role is to belong to and to serve at the pleasure of men. They ultimately convey that a woman’s sexuality is not her own, but is defined by her (future) husband and his potentially conditional love and acceptance of her as predicated by her degree of purity (measured by prior sexual history), yet also by her beauty or desirability, as far as it caters to him and him alone. These messages teach women to be self-conscious, hyper-focused on or even ashamed of their own bodies and desires. These messages create no context for women to explore or understand their own sexual desires.
They ultimately convey that a woman’s sexuality is not her own, but is defined by her (future) husband and his potentially conditional love and acceptance of her.
Again, this is not what the Catechism illustrates at all. To the contrary, purity is an interior disposition, rather than a state of being that is irreversible based on one action:
Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life. The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence. (CCC 2342)
Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection.... "Man… day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.” (CCC 2342)
Yet this is not what is conveyed. Without a holistic understanding of the challenge and joy that wrestling with our desires and our hearts is, we fail to be gentle with ourselves and other women and it leads to oppression and shame.
How sexism in purity culture affects women
A personal story was posted in XO Jane in 2014 about a girl who felt so much shame or self-disgust when she was not a virgin anymore even though she had waited until marriage, and her cognitive dissonance was ultimately resolved by choosing to give up her faith. Based on her upbringing in the church and her understanding of sexual morality, she could not be the sexual woman she was while also being a Christian---so she chose sex and having a healthy marriage.
So much of her faith identity and sense of belonging was built upon that label: “virgin.” On the show, “Jane the Virgin,” a similar scenario is played out. During the wedding she imagines saint statues singing to her that “she can go have sex!” and on the night when Jane finally does have sex with her husband for the first time (not her wedding night, go watch Season 2), she has an underwhelming experience because she feels she has lost a part of herself. She couldn’t help but envision the flower her grandmother told her to crumple up in her hand as a young girl, and now she saw herself as that crumpled flower.
So much of her faith identity and sense of belonging was built upon that label: “virgin.”
The messages purity culture relays to women also can lead us to perpetuate our own subjugation. Many straight women often subconsciously turn themselves into objects for men - believing their essential worth and value is in their physical appearance, sexual desirability, and ornamentality. When we accept the virgin/whore dichotomy, we slut shame other women who appear to receive more sexual or romantic attention or participate in sexual activity, we compete to be seen and admired, and we compare ourselves to them and their bodies, their attractiveness or purity. When we do this to ourselves and each other, we ultimately enable men to continue to do this to us, too.
Purity culture may also lead women to repress their sexuality, in an effort to fit a virginal ideal. The shame experienced in repression of that which is human and natural can increase a sense of cognitive dissonance, which can lead to rationalizing certain unhealthy sexual behaviors as a way to expel that shame, such as developing a porn addiction (women have them too! Catholic singer-songwriter Audrey Assad addresses the root of and struggle with her own addiction here.). The habitual use of porn or indulging in other dis-integrated sexual behaviors can increase a sense of shame and dissonance, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.
Perhaps most damaging, women may also blame themselves if they are victims of sexual assault because they have been taught that it must have been something they did to bring on the assault. They might not have been modest enough. They might not have acted “purely” enough. Some women may react to their repression and/or oppression by shutting down their sexuality while others may act out compulsively in a desire to seek empowerment and a sense of control and security over their bodies not being respected as their own.
Women may also blame themselves if they are victims of sexual assault because they have been taught that it must have been something they did to bring on the assault.
The idolatry of “purity culture”
While the messages conveyed in purity culture seem to lead to varying degrees of cognitive dissonance for men and for women, which play out in some similar and some different ways respectively, this runs quite counter to what the word “chastity” actually means.
The problem with so-called Christian “purity culture” is how much it lacks Christ, who alone is truly pure and is the source of purity. The Christian narrative, the “good news,” is a story of mercy, of healing, of renewal, of resurrection, of unconditional love and forgiveness, and of the upholding of the human dignity of each and every individual - which includes our sexuality! Christ, above all else, was concerned about the orientation of the heart, mind, body, and soul, toward God, Abba, the Source of all life, love, goodness, truth, and beauty. All our actions are meant to flow from a rightly-oriented heart.
When we focus on addressing, judging, or trying to control or modify behaviors without examining hearts, without taking into account the whole person, we completely miss the mark of what it means to be a faithful Christian.
When we focus on addressing, judging, or trying to control or modify behaviors without examining hearts, without taking into account the whole person, we completely miss the mark of what it means to be a faithful Christian. When we pigeonhole men and women in their experiences of being embodied, of having sexuality, we also fail to be like Christ, who addressed each person as an individual, versus making sweeping generalizations that upheld double-standards. When we fail to be vulnerable and authentic with our children, especially in matters as important as sexuality, but instead instill fear and unrealistic expectations, we enable objectification, and we fall short of leading young people towards a true chastity, a holistic integration of their body and soul.
Ultimately, the problem lies in the failure to actually teach the true meaning of the word “chastity”--- the virtue that it is, which includes but transcends sexuality, in the failure to present the concept of chastity to young men and women equally, and in the failure to practice what is preached without maintaining an atmosphere of harsh judgment and authoritarianism.
Ultimately, the problem lies in the failure to actually teach the true meaning of the word “chastity."
Within the context of purity culture, there is an inordinate focus on sex and virginity, a virtual idolatry. Perhaps it originates in an effort to combat the inordinate emphasis on sex in mainstream culture which promotes it as a free-for-all. But ultimately, either way, on both sides of the spectrum, sex is being placed on a pedestal. When we place virginity on a pedestal, and measure purity by having or lacking it, we do a disservice to deeply appreciating the full gift that sexuality is, that God created and gave us. We focus on the act more than we focus on the persons engaging in it. God has always been more concerned with people, with the health of souls, than with actions. We are, after all, human beings not human doings.
Fr. Ronald Rolheisor speaks of virginity ultimately as a state of having yet to experience something and of living with the tension as well as the wonder and awe of that which has yet to be experienced. Once you’ve experienced something, you now have the memory of that experience, versus the fantasy or idea of what it might be like - the veil has been lifted, the mystery dispelled. And it is human nature to become somewhat habituated or even somewhat desensitized to certain experiences. Virginity, by itself, is simply a state of having yet to experience the mystery of sexual intimacy. One who happens to be in that state, through their choice and human freedom, grounded in the true virtue of chastity, may allow their virginity to point to the sacredness of sexuality itself - to the beauty of two sacred persons mutually, freely, faithfully, totally, and fruitfully sharing in a particular expression of self-giving love - and to sexuality’s capacity to deepen intimacy and bond partners together.
But rather than valuing virginity for what it points to, and proclaiming chastity as being about both virginity and purity of body, mind, heart, and spirit, many Catholic circles fall into the purity culture trap of getting hung up on virginity itself - that particular state of being.
But rather than valuing virginity for what it points to, and proclaiming chastity as being about both virginity and purity of body, mind, heart, and spirit, many Catholic circles fall into the purity culture trap of getting hung up on virginity itself - that particular state of being. We treat it like a qualifier for love, for acceptance, for validation. When we do this, we then treat sexuality like an academic transcript or an attendance record, where one A- or B or one missed class completely destroys our record, or as a prize to be won. Then sexuality fails to be treated the way it is meant to be. It is no longer sacred by its own merit, but it becomes a marker by which we try to define one another’s sacredness, which is blasphemous, for we are all made in God’s image. We each bear God uniquely and sacredly. We are each beloved intrinsically. Our sexuality is meant to be an expression of that deep place where our trinitarian knowledge of self, the other, and of God meet.
When we - as the Church - can take this approach to understanding and speaking about purity and chastity, then this will be a place where we can begin to build a healthy, holy, truly Christian and truly feminist purity culture.
In response to Why We Shouldn't Call Women Who've Had Abortions Murderers:
Thank you for saying this.
I am a post-abortive new Catholic woman.
In the 1990s the culture and media were full of pro-choice ideals. You are right to say that many women are mislead to think abortion is the answer. As an 18 year old who made a mistake, I didn't even have a boyfriend. The reasons I was seeking love and affection through sex are a different post altogether.
In 1998 all the information around me pointed to abortion being a good thing. "How could a teenager properly care for a child? The child/ren are doomed to a lifetime of suffering and poverty." Preventing that suffering was shown as the best and good thing that could be done for the baby.
"Save the baby by preventing its birth into suffering."
I was misled.
I was convinced by the culture around me that abortion was the only answer for both of us.
I was convinced by the culture around me that abortion was the only answer for both of us.
Being only 18, I did not ask others in my life for help or opinions. I only did what the whole world around me thought was right (so it seemed.) By media and pop culture I was convinced abortion was the only right and true thing to do. It was empowering. It was preventing suffering. It was "saving" the baby.
And now I know it was wrong. It was a terrible mistake and sin. But I was not alone. I was basically convinced to do it. The pro-choice pop culture made me feel like there was no other way.
In hindsight, I believe I did not have full consent and knowledge. I have prayed, confessed, and begged forgiveness and am in a good place with God.
Thank you for showing me you see the me that was desperate and ignorant back then.
Thank you for showing the world that the mother needs saving, too.
This author would like to remain anonymous.
I've heard a number of pro-life advocates say “we don't just want abortion illegal; we want to make it unthinkable.”
Outrage is a natural and appropriate response to evil in the world, but how we express it is key because we’re talking about human beings - TWO human beings.
We’re talking about human beings - TWO human beings.
As pro-life feminists, we need to evaluate how we can communicate the truth about of abortion, affirm the dignity of both human lives involved, and empower women to choose life. We must ask ourselves if we are truly making abortion unthinkable, or are we just hardening hearts despite our very good intentions? Are we truly being pro-life in not only our ideas, but in our words and our approach?
Though there are many facets to this conversation, the one I want to focus on is calling abortion “murder” and post-abortive women “murderers” both in public and one-on-one conversations. I believe that this kind of language does more harm than good for the pro-life cause.
Calling Abortion “Murder” Introduces Distractions
Trent Horn points out several times in his book Persuasive Pro-Life that as pro-life advocates, we need to get to the core issue of abortion: the fetus is a person with inherent human dignity, and it is wrong to kill people. When we call abortion “murder,” it has the potential to disrupt conversations with pro-choice advocates for two reasons.
The first is simply put, by definition, abortion is not murder. Murder, as defined by Oxford Dictionaries is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another…” Unfortunately, the law in the United States makes it legal to kill the unborn, therefore, abortion technically isn’t murder. Though to use it seems like a minor distinction, it does matter. Using inaccurate terms weakens our arguments and diminishes our credibility. I’ve seen and participated in enough discussions to see how minor inaccuracies can easily derail the conversation. As Catholics, we should be striving for the truth, and we can do so without using inaccurate terms.
Because murder is linked to an unlawful action, bringing that word up usually leads to a discussion of punishment.
The second is because murder is linked to an unlawful action, bringing that word up usually leads to a discussion of punishment. If we define abortion as “murder,” then how should the post-abortive woman be punished? This is an incredibly sensitive subject,especially because it’s likely you’re talking to someone who either has had an abortion herself, or is close to a woman who has had an abortion. Have you thought through how you would respond here? That being said, we shouldn’t have to define the legal consequences to be able to state that an act itself should be illegal. Though this conversation may still come up, it is less likely if we don’t use terms like “murder” which already have clear punishments attached to them.
Sharing the Truth Through Love
It’s clear on a practical level why we shouldn’t call abortion “murder,” but when it comes to reasons for why we shouldn’t call post-abortive women “murderers,” there is another important consideration: loving her as a daughter of God.
I am not trying to diminish the fact that abortion ends a human life; what I am proposing is we need to recognize that when we throw around a term as harsh as “murderer,” there is a woman who is being harmed by that word.
Above all else, we should be compassionate to post-abortive women. A consistent pro-life ethic means honoring the dignity of every human life, and that includes people who have made mistakes. I’m not saying we should sugarcoat the reality of abortion, but in conversing with (or even about) post-abortive women, we should not call them by their sin. These women are not their sin; they are daughters of God who have been led astray by the lies of Satan. Calling them murderers is not only hurtful, it also ostracizes these women, which may cause them to pull deeper inward due to their shame rather than seeking forgiveness from God.
There is a woman who is being harmed by that word.
Another consideration is a post-abortive woman may be struggling in regards to emotional and or mental health. Before I go into this, I want to make two points clear:
1) Many women do not regret their abortion. As pro-life advocates, we should avoid making broad claims about how women feel after abortion. Again, sharing inaccurate information is dishonest and will hurt the pro-life cause.
2) A women’s regret after her abortion, especially if it leads to mental and emotional health challenges, should not be used carelessly as reason to oppose abortion. Behind that statistic about X women who had suicidal tendencies after abortion or Y women who became addicted to drugs after their abortion are real human people struggling. As feminists, we certainly should be concerned about procedures that harm women, but we need to be careful about how we use it when discussing abortion. Are we saying it just as another point against the unjust killing of the unborn, or are we bringing it up out of legitimate love and concern for the women who are also victims of abortion?
The reason we should be aware of this is because these women who are distressed by their mistake are suffering enough as it is. Is calling them a murderer really going to help them heal and seek Christ, or is it going to cause more damage?
Lastly, we should take into account that we don’t know the state of a post-abortive women’s soul. For all we know, she may be incredibly remorseful and perhaps may have even confessed her sin. If God in His infinite mercy has forgiven them, who are we to bring up something God has washed away?
But say a post-abortive woman has not gone to confession. Some might say, well, she’s in a state of mortal sin! But in fact, we don’t know that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states “ For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."” (1857, emphasis mine).
Of these three conditions, we can only know the answer to one - that abortion is a grave matter. The other two we do not have a way of knowing, and I would argue that many women seeking abortions do not meet the other two conditions because if they did, they would not choose abortion.
Knowledge
To pro-life people, it may seem obvious that a fetus is a person, but we shouldn’t assume that other women have accessed that same information. I want you to pause and consider how effectively pro-choice advocates have dehumanized the unborn. Society tells us that a child is “just a clump of cells” or “a parasite.” It shifts the focus from the unborn to human rights. Abortion providers use euphemisms like “take a pregnancy out of your uterus” or “empty your uterus.” You would be amazed at how many pro-choice advocates think that the fetus dies because it is removed from the mother and not because it is poisoned or ripped apart. There have been cases of abortion providers sharing misleading ultrasounds, and there are fights AGAINST showing women the ultrasound screen. Even pastors are hesitant to preach about this issue from the pulpit.
Further, many women have been told that although the fetus is a human being, it doesn’t have equal human dignity to an adult human being. In this case, “knowledge” of what is happening requires both pieces of information - first that the fetus is a human, and also that this human has equal human dignity to that of any other human being.
Knowledge” of what is happening requires both pieces of information - first that the fetus is a human, and also that this human has equal human dignity to that of any other human being.
Consent
It’s tempting to paint women choosing abortion as villains; women who take joy in ending the life of their child. In reality, I personally believe it is just the opposite: women are also victims. I suspect that a majority of women seeking abortion are doing so out of fear: fear that they will be kicked out and left homeless, fear that their abusive partner will harm them further, fear that they will succumb to an illness and possibly die, and so on. There could also be coercion at play.
Women are also victims.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think the women donning abortion dresses or actively celebrating an abortion are in the minority. I suspect that many women make the decision to get an abortion from a place of suffering. If they are experiencing emotional distress and/or feel threatened to make this decision, that is not consensual.
Other Considerations
Though these might not relate to whether or not it is a mortal sin, there are still two other considerations that I think are worth mentioning. First, I suspect that women aren't aware of their options. Abortion seems like the easiest fix, and adoption is often thrown out as the other solution. While we certainly should recommend adoption over abortion, good-intentioned pro-life advocates often fail to take into account the challenges of pregnancy, the struggles that are driving the woman to abortion in the first place, or the emotional burden of placing a child for adoption.
many women genuinely feel like they are doing what is best for the child.
Second, many women genuinely feel like they are doing what is best for the child. They may sincerely think that death or “never being alive” is better than facing whatever trials the child or woman may face. Although we know that this is wrong, without being in that woman’s exact situation, we cannot truly understand.
♦♦♦
Ultimately, it comes down to recognizing that we have a just AND merciful God. Our interactions with post-abortive women should radiate the love of Christ and draw them closer to him and His merciful heart.
What About Doctors that Provide Abortion?
If you’ve gotten this far, you may be wondering about doctors who provide abortions. Clearly, they are in a very different position than a woman seeking an abortion. They must know that it is a human being. They must know that they are ending a life. They are not in emotional distress.
Ultimately, I still don’t think it is right to call them a murderer. Are they more culpable than a woman seeking an abortion? I would say in most cases, yes. But what will calling them a “murderer” accomplish? Will it do anything more than shut down a conversation and/or further harden their hearts? Unless you have a really good answer to how calling an abortion provider a murderer will change their minds, I recommend a more charitable approach.
So What Should We Do?
If we truly want to make abortion unthinkable, we need to think about the women thinking about having an abortion. How can we help them? What social services, community resources, and emotional support do they need in order to take on the incredible challenge of an unplanned pregnancy? How do we help eliminate their fear?
The following was adapted from at 30+ page thesis, The Vision of Woman and Mercy according to John Paul II. If you are interested in reading the entire document, please contact theswap.grace@gmail.com.
At the dawn of the 20th century, a vision was revealed to Pope Leo XIII in which God (at Satan’s prompting) gave the demon a choice of one century in which to do his worst work against the Catholic Church. According to the legend, the devil chose that very century, which is why Pope Leo XIII immediately penned the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. When looking over the last hundred years, it’s clear that Satan has attacked the Church through his unending assaults against human dignity, demoralizing and depersonalizing the human person as never before. The killings, sufferings and loosening of morals has only lead mankind into further misunderstanding and disregard for the dignity of every person.
God... gave the demon a choice of one century in which to do his worst work against the Catholic Church.
Like any good parent, God did not leave mankind defenseless. It was during this same century that he revealed his message of Divine Mercy through St. Faustina; he also ensured that a young John Paul II was elected to the papacy to lead the Catholic Church into the new millennium. Based on the timing of these two gifts, we can derive that God intended them to be a beacon of light for those of us who are struggling because of 20th century downfalls.
God’s Greatest Attribute
I had a professor in college who was famous for the line, “God’s greatest attribute is his mercy.” If you could somehow work that quote into an answer on the final, he promised never to fail you. I’m fairly certain that because of this little quirk, thousands of souls will never forget that truth. For me, it was actually one of the reasons I chose God’s mercy as the topic for my senior thesis. While doing initial research, I was immediately drawn to the writings of my favorite pope, John Paul II. As I searched through his section in the school library, I not only came across all his writings on Divine Mercy, but also everything he had penned about Woman. I found myself wondering if there was a connection between Mercy and Woman, especially since most women I know have a natural inclination to be merciful. Hence the paper evolved and became an exploration John Paul II’s vision of women and mercy.
I have to say, good old JPII did not disappoint.
God’s greatest attribute is his mercy.
Mercy
In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, John Paul II points out that modernity often rejects the necessity and value of mercy. Obsessed with justice, society seems to think showing mercy is the same as showing weakness. JPII claims the opposite - that the ability to show mercy requires strength as it displays Divine love to a world in desperate need of this reminder. The late pontiff claims that “mercy” is love’s second name, as it can be seen throughout Old Testament when God uses mercy to show love to the Israelites time and time again. Likewise in the New Testament, Christ came to minister to those individuals who did not understand their dignity (tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners). In other words, he spent the majority of his time with the people who needed mercy the most. Then, by his Paschal Mystery, Christ transformed the very nature of mercy. It is no longer topical, only treating the symptoms of suffering (saving, healing, etc.). Instead mercy is able to destroy the very root of the problem: sin and death. Thanks to Christ’s mercy, sin and death have no permanent hold over humanity.
The 5th Beatitude
Mercy is necessary for another reason. In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ taught, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” He himself is living proof of this. By dying for our sins even though he himself was innocent (an act of mercy directed towards us), God the Father showed mercy to his own Son by bringing him back to life. John Paul II actually speaks of Jesus as being the first human to ever fully experience the mercy of God by his own Resurrection.
Thus, this proves that mercy is necessary for our salvation in more ways than one. If we desire to receive mercy, we ourselves must be merciful. This is why Woman’s role in this world is so important in order for mankind to understand the value and necessity of mercy.
Woman
In the garden of Eden, “it is not good for man to be alone…” because he has no one to love. As his “helpmate,” Woman is not a servant, but both a current and an outlet. She provides a place for Man to direct his love, just as his Creator also loves. So too, Woman, returns love to Man, helping him to understand the full meaning of this virtue. This is most obvious to us through the physical difference and complementarity of the genders, but it also exists within the heart and mind of Man and Woman.
Just as the bodies of Man and Woman are different, so are their souls (to the extent that their body and soul are united). It is to this interior disposition of Woman that JPII cries out for help for “...she has the unique capacity to see the person as an individual, to understand his needs and aspirations with special insight and she is able to face up to problems with deep involvement.”
Why exactly is she able to do this?
The simple answer... because of the way in she was designed as 'woman.'
Woman has a natural ability to see the worth of a person before she even knows the individual. Although it is not exclusive to this type of situation, this truth is easiest for us to see in the example of a pregnant mother. Even before this little person can do anything besides exist, Woman nourishes and protects the individual within her womb, believing in his or her worth and dignity. This same recognition she has for an unborn child applies to all persons. Woman does not have to know someone personally in order to see their worth or feel a deep emotional connection to them. It is an innate ability within her, built into her very essence.
Woman has a natural ability to see the worth of a person before she even knows the individual.
JPII says that it is because of this ability that she is able to love so well outside her “natural vocations” (daughter, sister, wife, mother). She takes this capability out into the world and shines light into the darkness. Outside the family, the professional work environment has become a place that operates mostly according to reason and profit. According to John Paul, women in the workforce contributes to the growth of a culture which unites reason and emotion because Woman naturally serves with her heart. Her presence and witness in the workforce not only demands more ethical behavior, but also serves as a reminder to Man to see the dignity of every person he deals with.
Brokenness vs. God’s Original Intent
John Paul acknowledges that we are the posterity of a history which has conditioned Man to be an obstacle to Woman. Thus, this much needed feminine nature is often rejected or unknown -- even by Woman herself. Because of the maltreatment her gender has lived through over the centuries, Woman’s dignity often goes unacknowledged, her prerogatives are misrepresented, and her role reduced to mere servitude. This has not only prevented Woman from being the fullest version of herself but has harmed all of humanity.
Certainly this is not God’s original intention for Woman. As Catholics, all we have to do break free from these lies and be an image of authentic Woman is to look at the Virgin Mary. Through her fiat and humility in accepting her role in God’s plan for the world, she leads us to the true discovery of God’s mercy because she literally bore Him! Her acceptance of this vocation allowed God’s mercy to extend to all persons, past, present and future.
As women, saying “yes” to own vocations continues to bring mercy into the world. Mankind is meant to experience a foretaste of heaven while here on earth, but he cannot do so without accepting love and mercy. This is why we, as women, must continue to sow the seeds of a loving and merciful civilization, whether we do this in the home, in the workforce, or in the convent.
As women, saying “yes” to own vocations continues to bring mercy into the world
In our loving assistance of others, we are accepting God’s mercy for ourselves. This is important because despite our esteemed role in God’s merciful plan, each one of us is still a sinner. Just as the woman who washed Jesus’ feet was forgiven because she loved much, our love for others lived out through our daily interactions will assist in our own salvation (Luke 7:36-50).
Why Feminism is a Necessity
There is no denying the misunderstanding of the Feminine Mystique that has occurred over the centuries. Even some Feminists lack an understanding of the true gift of femininity. This is why a new wave of feminism is so crucial. JPII called for a movement of feminists who acknowledge the differences between the sexes as essential complementarities. He wrote, “...acknowledging these differences frees women from being evaluated according to a male standard and allows them to contribute to society in their own unique way.”
As women, we cannot bring a fuller understanding of love and mercy into this world if we are not being our authentic selves. And as JPII has so brilliantly illustrated through his many writings, this world is in desperate need of Woman’s insight and natural abilities if it is to grow in its understanding of the worth and human dignity of every individual.
Like childbirth, assisting mankind in his need for mercy is both a joy and a pain. However, one thing is true: it is absolutely necessary for creating New Life, and that is our collective act of mercy.
Keep Reading: How Advocating for Women Promotes Peace in the World.