The new pope is Joseph Ratzinger of Germany. He has chosen the name: Benedict XVI.
Below the fold is a list of all the popes that have ever been.
Did he choose the best name?
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) — also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) — also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) — also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) — Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican’s official list) omit him.
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045) — Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
[joke blatantly ripped off from Kos]
It depends. If Diebold counted the votes it’ll be Pope dubya I.
I’m hoping for Sixtus the Sixth.
It has a ring to it.
I say Benedict
He is 78 years old! Geez.
They HAD to go with the guy with Hitler Youth experience, didn’t they?
I can see new anti-Catholic web domains being registered as we speak.
.
Birthdate of Joseph Ratzinger in 1927!
Yes, he is from Germany and conservative.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Last night I said to my daughter, “Well, it’s kind of unfair to hold against someone what they did when they were 14 years old and living in Nazi Germany.” (I was a Young Republican at age 14!)
And she replied, “Well, yes. However … it’s the perception that counts.”
And she’s right. Unfair or not. Perception matters.
the fact the both Kerry and Bush were in Skull and Bones made a lot of people freak out.
But, while they do look out for each other, Bush and Kerry don’t agree on very much.
Still, the perception was that some unseen hand had given us two choices without a difference.
He has NO COMPASSION
If you were a Hitler Youth and had to witness the atrocities… then you turned to the cloth … wouldn’t you have a bit more compassion… he has none.
The last thing I would do is issue Nazi-typed ordinances against gays.
Sounds like he still is a nazi
I have heard on cable that many in the church wanted an older man so he would not have so long to reign, too many years to mess up I guess.
Our incompetent media will love that. They’ll keep their camera positions for an ongoing “Pope watch” just to be ready for the next election – all in hopes for a ratings bonanza.
Liberius (352-66)
To avoid beatification? Must’ve been a very bad man, or folded his cassock funny, one or the other.
On the contary, he was probably too good to be beatified….didn’t want to go on Crusades or order the torturing of “witches” and “heretics”…
will take them best of them from the hagiographies.
for the Benedict part
what do we owe you?
I couldn’t believe it, but I have to confess that I was listening to Channel 7 with the analysis and someone said he could pick Benedict because he was a very good pope in the recent past and it would be a good sign to the church, yada yada. I thought that sounded like a good reason so I picked it.
But I’ll take a reward if you’re giving one, how about major mojo.
Guardi qui, folks… I called almost exactly two minutes BEFORE it was declared in anither thread.
A revolutionary new concept. The New European Times : the first trans-Atlantic blog.
by gilgamesh on Tue Apr 19th, 2005 at 09:40:41 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
yes, yes…I called the exact individual, I tell you.
look at the times. Unbelievable…about two minutes of difference. Go find the offical time of announcement!!
.
Elected as new pope – Benedict XVI.
Just turned 78 years, the most senior and close advisor to the late John Paul II.
A clear choice of the Conclave to continue along the same doctrine set out during the last 26 years.
Although his age, would indicate the choice means likely to be a short reign, similar to the papacy of Benedict XV.
Certainly a great surprise to me, I expected an Italian pope – my choice had been Cardinal of Milan – Dionigi Tettamanzi.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
.
The chosen name is of some importance, as its a model for Joseph Ratzinger to follow!
After graduating from the University of Genoa, he studied for the priesthood in the Collegio Capranica in Rome and entered the papal diplomatic service, later spending four years in Spain before being employed in the department of the secretary of state (1887). Pope Pius X made him archbishop of Bologna, (1907), and cardinal (1914). He was elected pope a month after the outbreak of World War I, and the greater part of his papacy was occupied with war problems.
Trying to follow a policy of strict neutrality, Benedict abstained from condemning any action of the belligerents. He concentrated the church’s efforts initially toward the alleviation of unnecessary suffering. Later he made positive efforts toward reestablishing peace, though hampered by the pro-Austrian sentiments of the majority of cardinals. When the United States entered the war and took up the Allies’ attitude that peace could not be restored to Europe until Germany had been defeated, his principal attempt to mediate (1917) failed.
By 1919 the papacy lacked the prestige it had enjoyed under Pope Leo XIII, and Benedict was excluded from the peace negotiations. His last years were concerned with readjusting the machinery of papal administration made necessary by the territorial changes that followed the war and with directives on missionary work. During this period official relations were resumed with France, and a British representative was accredited to the Vatican for the first time since the 17th century.
© Encyclopædia Britannica
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
.
Interview with Cardinal Simonis of the Netherlands —
The topics that were discussed, and of importance in their choice of a new pope:
Pope Benedict XVI will travel to his native Germany in August, to attend the World Youth Conference at Cologne between August 16-23. He will NOT be a globetrotter like JPII due to an ailment, his physician will not allow him to make intercontinental flights.
As Dean of the College of bishops, Joseph Ratzinger has met his colleagues on many occasions. Many show amazement over his deep knowledge of theology, his ability to listen and indicates on modern issues, the universal church has the responsibility to be a teacher to Rome.
On ecumenical cooperation, indications are his ability to work well with the christian orthodox churches, perhaps the discussion with the Protestant Reform churches will be more difficult.
Benedict is the patron of Europe.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
The most powerful cardinal telling everybody to vote for a pope who would uphold the current dogma? Guess there was only one choice to go along with.
Dang it.
My choice was Cardinal Rodriguez of Honduras.
Ratzinger should have gone with an easier name, but he didn’t, so I hereby christen him ‘Pope Benny’. 😉
He’s friendly to all religions, an anti-feudalist, it would have been a very good strategic choice for the Catholics, but I’ve heard some analysts say they think that they don’t mind becoming a smaller group.
Maybe that is what they wanted.. be more exclusive, intimate, like Jains and Jews…
.
The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith – Georg Ratzinger
How will the election of a German Pope influence the domestic, political stance of ordinary German citizens?
Anyone care to comment.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Bavaria is really the only place that’s Catholic – I’m not sure on the figures but I would say at least 85% Protestant. Weird choice – from that perspective.
.
Related Papacy and the Vatican Full Coverage
Included link to VIDEO of Joseph Ratzinger and homily for JPII at St. Peter’s Square.
Photo AFPOui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
I’m really not trying to be rude here, but does anyone else find ol’ Pope Benny to be rather scary looking?
I don’t think he looks scary at all.
It’s the deeply sunken eyes and the permanant downward frown lines. This is not a friendly looking person.
When I wrote my comment, I just replied from the comment section, so in the pic above he does look scary, but he didn’t when he appeared on TV.
I think they ‘dressed’ him up considerably when he came out.
server load may be heavy, the buzz is they anticipated this and should have upped their capacity by now.
CLICK
.
On BBC Radio today, and in the British press, a view on denial of communion to John Kerry, is repeatedly and falsely levied at Joseph Ratzinger. During the election campagne, the media had picked up on some comments from Rome, but mostly carried within the US by several archdiocese. NOT an official statement from the Vatican Office on Doctrine, headed by Ratzinger.
Cardinal Francis Arinze told a Vatican news conference that pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Mr Kerry were “not fit” to receive communion.
Cardinal Arinze agreed Kerry shouldbe denied communion for his views
But, across the Atlantic, an unabashed Mr Kerry said women’s rights “are just that: rights, not political weapons”.
The clash has refuelled the fiery debate over abortion in the US. US bishops have discretion in deciding who should receive communion, and several bishops, led by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St Louis, have warned they will not give Mr Kerry communion.
Source: BBC News.
As I recall, the Vatican released a statement that it was not any formal view from within the Holy See. Clearly taking no political position in the run-up to the US election.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
.
The questions came at a news conference where Vatican officials presented a 524-page compendium of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on social issues including war and peace, the death penalty, globalization, the free market and workers’ rights.
When a reporter asked if Catholics could vote for a politician supporting legalized abortion, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the “Holy See never gets involved in electoral or political matters directly.”
[…]
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
GOP Congressman Jokes: Hillary for Pope?
While much of the world awaits smoke-signals from the Vatican cardinals selecting a new pope, New York Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) joked Tuesday about a dark horse candidate for the vacant position: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
King, a sometimes maverick within his own Republican Party, praised and poked fun at New York’s junior senator when they both appeared at a breakfast of construction union officials.
“Maybe we can elect Hillary Clinton pope. God knows what she’s running for,” joked King, to roars from the crowd.
If this offends the pious, so be it. The Catholic Church has removed the final shred of doubt: it is a glorified psycho sect.
Once again it has chosen a Pope convinced that every sperm is sacred – although 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of them go to waste anyway, presumably in accordance with ‘God’s plan’ – and that the Church must fight the use of condoms even in dirt-poor third world countries where 1/4 is HIV positive.
Now, the countless other insults to reason spouted by this medieval organization I might have been able to tolerate, imbecilic though they are. Thus, the opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and female clergy are abysmally retarded, even when taken as readings of the Biblical creed, which I consider pure mythology; but hey, being a compulsively broad-minded individual I can shrug off a lot of dogmatic mumbo-jumbo as the fruits of human frailty. However, this ‘Big Daddy in the Sky has declared that every sperm is sacred’ lunacy is just a little too rich. And now they have elected yet another Sky Scout in Chief who will put the full weight of the Church behind it. Very well then: that leaves me no choice in what attitude to take.
Fuck the psycho Catholic Church, and fuck His Holiness Benedictus XVI to hell and back.
Long live Constantine.
Well, I feel (sort of) sorry for the more liberal or at least more enlightened Catholics… some of them are in a complete tizzy, which is understandable.
I don’t know what, if any, power they have within the organization, if the head of it is the one that makes the pronouncements and sets the direction. Nor how much power the Pope has over their lives and decisions, in general.
It’s extremely sad and disheartening, though, that anyone at all would continue to support an organization whose policies, at least in the area of condoms, AIDS and death from sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies the body just can’t handle and things like that are so damaging to so many.
Yes, I too feel sorry for enlightened Catholics. But they have to ask themselves whether this guy can conceivably have been appointed by ‘The Holy Spirit.’ Not that some names on the list above – like Urban II and Innocent III – shouldn’t suffice to raise a red flag by themselves.
At some point they must see the writing on the wall, like true conservatives in the GOP. Many do: clerical recruitment is tanking both in Europe and the US.
By the way, have you seen Part II of the Congo thingy? The Church has much to answer for there as well. The ‘mission schools’ served as boot camps for Léopold slave army, and the clergy actively white-washed the democide. Sadly, I lacked the space to go into that.
Yes, I would say there will have to be some decisions made, although from reading various right wing Catholic type sites it seems that “purging the Church” of enlightened Catholics, or people who viewed Vatican II as a good thing, is actually a goal of this man and others. Odd.
I did a quick glance over of the Congo thingy, but not a thorough reading yet. I did come away with an impression of a truly malevolent regime. Among so many, sigh. I will give it a more complete reading soon.
The bootcamp thingy, and apologists/enablers of the horrific deeds of power seem to be a recurring theme. Wasn’t there a similar type thing in Rwanda? And in many other situations as well, throughout the centuries. It must be difficult to reconcile the many faces and deeds of the organization, and I don’t know if the best way for believers in the religion to effect change is to do so from within or without.
a name of a Pope that has gone before? And why have different names at all, is there a special significance to that? I think nuns also change their names.
I know it’s traditional to change their names. On the other hand I remember an Anthony Quinn movie where he played a Russian cardinal who was elected pope and kept his own name, choosing to be created Pope Kyril. For whatever that’s worth, which is most likely nothing.
I was hoping he’d name himself after his two favorite popes and become Pope John Paul John Paul II I.
apparently it comes from some prophecy of Malachi and possibly Nostradamus, I am a bit out of my element here, but it would appear to dovetail nicely with apocalyptic aspirations throughout the west.
He is even the Inquisitor!
St. Malachy claims this one has something to do with olives (the Benedictines thought it would therefore be a pope from their order(?)), and the next is the last that will walk the ashes of Rome. Don’t know about Nostradamus. Somewhere I heard of another prophecy having to do with a black pope – I don’t know where that’s from, however.
Apparently there is some significant anti-Jesuit sentiment in certain sectors, which reminds me of a joke:
A Benedictine, A Franciscan, and a Jesuit are sitting around, debating obscure theology. Suddenly, the lights go out.
“O Lord,” says the Benedictine, “Please accept our sacrifice as we offer up our suffering to you, as we sit here in the darkness.”
“O my brothers,” says the Franciscan, “Let us welcome our Sister the Darkness, and give thanks for her presence here with us tonight.”
Nobody says anything for a minute, then the Jesuit clears his throat:
“Yo, anybody got a lighter? I think the fuse box is over there.”
From a tin-foil hat website I present The Prophecy of Malachy:
“The Glory of the Olive. The Order of St. Benedict has said this Pope will come from their order. It is interesting that Jesus gave his apocalyptic prophecy about the end of time from the Mount of Olives. This Pope will reign during the beginning of the tribulation Jesus spoke of. The 111th prophesy is “Gloria Olivae” (The Glory of the Olive). The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from their ranks. Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its fight against evil.”
Also on the website is a quatrain (choo-choo! chuga-chuga-chuga) of Nostradamus:
The great star will burn for seven days,
The cloud will cause two suns to appear:
The big mastiff will howl all night
When the great pontiff will change country
Which, perhaps, makes sense in French but in English – not so much.
And let us not forget:
Johannes Friede (1204-1257) who predicted:
” When the great time will come, in which mankind will face its last, hard trial, it will be foreshadowed by striking changes in nature. The alteration between cold and heat will become more intensive, storms will have more catastrophic effects, earthquakes will destroy great regions, and the seas will overflow many lowlands. Not all of it will be the result of natural causes, but mankind will penetrate into the bowels of the earth and will reach into the clouds, gambling with its own existence. Before the powers of destruction will succeed in their design, the universe will be thrown into disorder, and the age of iron will plunge into nothingness.
When nights will be filled with more intensive cold and days with heat, a new life will begin in nature. The heat means radiation from the earth, the cold the waning light of the sun. Only a few years more and you will become aware that sunlight has grown perceptibly weaker. When even your artificial light will cease to give service, the great event in the heavens will be near.”
And on other days it just rains.
(As you might be able to deduce I have a hard time taking these things seriously.)
For a good time go to: http://www.crystalinks.com/papalprophecies.html
I read something about how he issued a statement a few years back denouncing feminism as a “destructive force” or somesuch. What a shame.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Here is the whole thing, so no one can say I am taking anything out of context
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD
INTRODUCTION
1.The Church, expert in humanity, has a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women. In recent times, much reflection has been given to the question of the dignity of women and to women’s rights and duties in the different areas of civil society and the Church. Having contributed to a deeper understanding of this fundamental question, in particular through the teaching of John Paul II,1 the Church is called today to address certain currents of thought which are often at variance with the authentic advancement of women.
After a brief presentation and critical evaluation of some current conceptions of human nature, this document will offer reflections – inspired by the doctrinal elements of the biblical vision of the human person that are indispensable for safeguarding his or her identity – on some of the essentials of a correct understanding of active collaboration, in recognition of the difference between men and women in the Church and in the world. These reflections are meant as a starting point for further examination in the Church, as well as an impetus for dialogue with all men and women of good will, in a sincere search for the truth and in a common commitment to the development of ever more authentic relationships.
I. THE QUESTION
2.Recent years have seen new approaches to women’s issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.
A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.
3.While the immediate roots of this second tendency are found in the context of reflection on women’s roles, its deeper motivation must be sought in the human attempt to be freed from one’s biological conditioning.2 According to this perspective, human nature in itself does not possess characteristics in an absolute manner: all persons can and ought to constitute themselves as they like, since they are free from every predetermination linked to their essential constitution.
This perspective has many consequences. Above all it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male-dominated culture. Second, this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form.
4.In the face of these currents of thought, the Church, enlightened by faith in Jesus Christ, speaks instead of active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman.
To understand better the basis, meaning and consequences of this response it is helpful to turn briefly to the Sacred Scriptures, rich also in human wisdom, in which this response is progressively manifested thanks to God’s intervention on behalf of humanity.3
II. BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLICAL VISION OF THE HUMAN PERSON
5.The first biblical texts to examine are the first three chapters of Genesis. Here we “enter into the setting of the biblical `beginning’. In it the revealed truth concerning the human person as `the image and likeness’ of God constitutes the immutable basis of all Christian anthropology”.4
The first text (Gn 1:1-2:4) describes the creative power of the Word of God, which makes distinctions in the original chaos. Light and darkness appear, sea and dry land, day and night, grass and trees, fish and birds, “each according to its kind”. An ordered world is born out of differences, carrying with them also the promise of relationships. Here we see a sketch of the framework in which the creation of the human race takes place: “God said `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'” (Gn 1:26). And then: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn1:27). From the very beginning therefore, humanity is described as articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity, sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared “the image of God”.
6.The second creation account (Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference. Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper.5 This is so that Adam’s life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God’s creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. In this encounter, the man speaks words for the first time, expressive of his wonderment: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23).
As the Holy Father has written with regard to this text from Genesis, “…woman is another `I’ in a common humanity. From the very beginning they appear as a `unity of the two’, and this signifies that the original solitude is overcome, the solitude in which man does not find `a helper fit for him’ (Gn 2:20). Is it only a question here of a `helper’ in activity, in `subduing the earth’ (cf. Gn 1:28)? Certainly it is a matter of a life’s companion with whom, as a wife, the man can unite himself, becoming with her `one flesh’ and for this reason leaving `his father and his mother'(cf. Gn 2:24)”.6
This vital difference is oriented toward communion and was lived in peace, expressed by their nakedness: “And the man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame” (Gn 2:25). In this way, the human body, marked with the sign of masculinity or femininity, “includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and – by means of this gift – fulfils the meaning of his being and his existence”.7 Continuing his commentary on these verses of Genesis, the Holy Father writes: “In this peculiarity, the body is the expression of the spirit and is called, in the mystery of creation, to exist in the communion of persons in the image of God”.8
Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others. “In the `unity of the two’, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist `side by side’ or `together’, but they are also called to exist mutually `one for the other’… The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call. But it is not the only one. The whole of human history unfolds within the context of this call. In this history, on the basis of the principle of mutually being `for’ the other in interpersonal `communion’, there develops in humanity itself, in accordance with God’s will, the integration of what is `masculine’ and what is `feminine'”.9
The peaceful vision which concludes the second creation account recalls the “indeed it was very good” (Gn 1:31) at the end of the first account. Here we find the heart of God’s original plan and the deepest truth about man and woman, as willed and created by him. Although God’s original plan for man and woman will later be upset and darkened by sin, it can never be abrogated.
7.Original sin changes the way in which the man and the woman receive and live the Word of God as well as their relationship with the Creator. Immediately after having given them the gift of the garden, God gives them a positive command (cf. Gn 2:16), followed by a negative one (cf. Gn 2:17), in which the essential difference between God and humanity is implicitly expressed. Following enticement by the serpent, the man and the woman deny this difference. As a consequence, the way in which they live their sexual difference is also upset. In this way, the Genesis account establishes a relationship of cause and effect between the two differences: when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted. When this relationship is damaged, their access to the face of God risks being compromised in turn.
God’s decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God’s original plan, are lost.
8.Reviewing these fundamental texts allows us to formulate some of the principal elements of the biblical vision of the human person.
Above all, the fact that human beings are persons needs to be underscored: “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God”.10 Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of “uni-duality”, which only sin and “the structures of sin” inscribed in culture render potentially conflictual. The biblical vision of the human person suggests that problems related to sexual difference, whether on the public or private level, should be addressed by a relational approach and not by competition or retaliation.
Furthermore, the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions”.11 It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather “is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love”.12 This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed.
The human dimension of sexuality is inseparable from the theological dimension. The human creature, in its unity of soul and body, is characterized therefore, from the very beginning, by the relationship with the other-beyond-the-self. This relationship is presented as still good and yet, at the same time, changed. It is good from its original goodness, declared by God from the first moment of creation. It has been changed however by the disharmony between God and humanity introduced by sin. This alteration does not correspond to the initial plan of God for man and woman, nor to the truth of the relationship between the sexes. It follows then that the relationship is good, but wounded and in need of healing.
What might be the ways of this healing? Considering and analyzing the problems in the relationship between the sexes solely from the standpoint of the situation marked by sin would lead to a return to the errors mentioned above. The logic of sin needs to be broken and a way forward needs to be found that is capable of banishing it from the hearts of sinful humanity. A clear orientation in this sense is provided in the third chapter of Genesis by God’s promise of a Saviour, involving the “woman” and her “offspring” (cf. Gn 3:15). It is a promise which will be preceded by a long preparation in history before it is realized.
9.An early victory over evil is seen in the story of Noah, the just man, who guided by God, avoids the flood with his family and the various species of animals (cf. Gn 6-9). But it is above all in God’s choice of Abraham and his descendants (cf. Gn 12:1ff) that the hope of salvation is confirmed. God begins in this way to unveil his countenance so that, through the chosen people, humanity will learn the path of divine likeness, that is, the way of holiness, and thus of transformation of heart. Among the many ways in which God reveals himself to his people (cf. Heb 1:1), in keeping with a long and patient pedagogy, there is the recurring theme of the covenant between man and woman. This is paradoxical if we consider the drama recounted in Genesis and its concrete repetition in the time of the prophets, as well as the mixing of the sacred and the sexual found in the religions which surrounded Israel. And yet this symbolism is indispensable for understanding the way in which God loves his people: God makes himself known as the Bridegroom who loves Israel his Bride.
If, in this relationship, God can be described as a “jealous God” (cf. Ex 20:5; Nah 1:2) and Israel denounced as an “adulterous” bride or “prostitute” (cf. Hos 2:4-15; Ez 16:15-34), it is because of the hope, reinforced by the prophets, of seeing Jerusalem become the perfect bride: “For as a young man marries a virgin so shall your creator marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Is 62:5). Recreated “in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy” (Hos 2:21), she who had wandered far away to search for life and happiness in false gods will return, and “shall respond as in the days of her youth” (Hos 2:17) to him who will speak to her heart; she will hear it said: “Your bridegroom is your Creator” (Is54:5). It is substantially the same reality which is expressed when, parallel to the mystery of God’s action through the male figure of the suffering Servant, the Book of the prophet Isaiah evokes the feminine figure of Zion, adorned with a transcendence and a sanctity which prefigure the gift of salvation destined for Israel.
The Song of Songs is an important moment in the use of this form of revelation. In the words of a most human love, which celebrate the beauty of the human body and the joy of mutual seeking, God’s love for his people is also expressed. The Church’s recognition of her relationship to Christ in this audacious conjunction of language about what is most human with language about what is most divine, cannot be said to be mistaken.
In the course of the Old Testament, a story of salvation takes shape which involves the simultaneous participation of male and female. While having an evident metaphorical dimension, the terms bridegroom and bride – and covenant as well – which characterize the dynamic of salvation, are much more than simple metaphors. This spousal language touches on the very nature of the relationship which God establishes with his people, even though that relationship is more expansive than human spousal experience. Likewise, the same concrete conditions of redemption are at play in the way in which prophetic statements, such as those of Isaiah, associate masculine and feminine roles in proclaiming and prefiguring the work of salvation which God is about to undertake. This salvation orients the reader both toward the male figure of the suffering Servant as well as to the female figure of Zion. The prophetic utterances of Isaiah in fact alternate between this figure and the Servant of God, before culminating at the end of the book with the mystical vision of Jerusalem, which gives birth to a people in a single day (cf. Is 66: 7-14), a prophecy of the great new things which God is about to do (cf. Is 48: 6-8).
10.All these prefigurations find their fulfillment in the New Testament. On the one hand, Mary, the chosen daughter of Zion, in her femininity, sums up and transfigures the condition of Israel/Bride waiting for the day of her salvation. On the other hand, the masculinity of the Son shows how Jesus assumes in his person all that the Old Testament symbolism had applied to the love of God for his people, described as the love of a bridegroom for his bride. The figures of Jesus and Mary his mother not only assure the continuity of the New Testament with the Old, but go beyond it, since – as Saint Irenaeus wrote – with Jesus Christ “all newness” appears.13
This aspect is particularly evident in the Gospel of John. In the scene of the wedding feast at Cana, for example, Jesus is asked by his mother, who is called “woman”, to offer, as a sign, the new wine of the future wedding with humanity (cf. Jn 2:1-12). This messianic wedding is accomplished on the Cross when, again in the presence of his mother, once again called “woman”, the blood/wine of the New Covenant pours forth from the open heart of the crucified Christ (cf. Jn 19:25-27, 34).14 It is therefore not at all surprising that John the Baptist, when asked who he is, describes himself as “the friend of the bridegroom”, who rejoices to hear the bridegroom’s voice and must be eclipsed by his coming: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn3:29-30).15
In his apostolic activity, Paul develops the whole nuptial significance of the redemption by seeing Christian life as a nuptial mystery. He writes to the Church in Corinth, which he had founded: “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a chaste virgin to her one husband” (2 Cor 11:2).
In the Letter to the Ephesians, the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church is taken up again and deepened in its implications. In the New Covenant, the beloved bride is the Church, and as the Holy Father teaches in his Letter to Families: “This bride, of whom the Letter to the Ephesians speaks, is present in each of the baptized and is like one who presents herself before her Bridegroom: `Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her…, that he might present the Church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish’ (Eph 5:25-27)”. 16
Reflecting on the unity of man and woman as described at the moment of the world’s creation (cf. Gn 2:24), the Apostle exclaims: “this mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:32). The love of a man and a woman, lived out in the power of baptismal life, now becomes the sacrament of the love between Christ and his Church, and a witness to the mystery of fidelity and unity from which the “New Eve” is born and by which she lives in her earthly pilgrimage toward the fullness of the eternal wedding.
11.Drawn into the Paschal mystery and made living signs of the love of Christ and his Church, the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin. For Christian spouses, the goodness of love, for which the wounded human heart has continued to long, is revealed with new accents and possibilities. It is in this light that Jesus, faced with the question about divorce (cf. Mt 19:3-9), recalls the demands of the covenant between man and woman as willed by God at the beginning, that is, before the eruption of sin which had justified the later accommodations found in the Mosaic Law. Far from being the imposition of a hard and inflexible order, these words of Jesus are actually the proclamation of the “good news” of that faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness over weakness, over injuries and over the couple’s sins. In the grace of Christ which renews their hearts, man and woman become capable of being freed from sin and of knowing the joy of mutual giving.
12.”For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20).
Male and female are thus revealed as belonging ontologically to creation and destined therefore to outlast the present time, evidently in a transfigured form. In this way, they characterize the “love that never ends” (1Cor 13:8), although the temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient and ordered to a phase of life marked by procreation and death. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom seeks to be the prophecy of this form of future existence of male and female. For those who live it, it is an anticipation of the reality of a life which, while remaining that of a man and a woman, will no longer be subject to the present limitations of the marriage relationship (cf. Mt22:30). For those in married life, celibacy becomes the reminder and prophecy of the completion which their own relationship will find in the face-to-face encounter with God.
From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are distinct, and will remain so for all eternity. Placed within Christ’s Paschal mystery, they no longer see their difference as a source of discord to be overcome by denial or eradication, but rather as the possibility for collaboration, to be cultivated with mutual respect for their difference. From here, new perspectives open up for a deeper understanding of the dignity of women and their role in human society and in the Church.
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF FEMININE
VALUES IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY
13.Among the fundamental values linked to women’s actual lives is what has been called a “capacity for the other”. Although a certain type of feminist rhetoric makes demands “for ourselves”, women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contribute to the growth and protection of the other.
This intuition is linked to women’s physical capacity to give life. Whether lived out or remaining potential, this capacity is a reality that structures the female personality in a profound way. It allows her to acquire maturity very quickly, and gives a sense of the seriousness of life and of its responsibilities. A sense and a respect for what is concrete develop in her, opposed to abstractions which are so often fatal for the existence of individuals and society. 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.
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. The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard.17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny. Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation.18
In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear.19 It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”,20 since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings. They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence. It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.
In this regard, it cannot be forgotten that the interrelationship between these two activities – family and work – has, for women, characteristics different from those in the case of men. The harmonization of the organization of work and laws governing work with the demands stemming from the mission of women within the family is a challenge. The question is not only legal, economic and organizational; it is above all a question of mentality, culture, and respect. Indeed, a just valuing of the work of women within the family is required. In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one’s own equilibrium and the harmony of the family. As John Paul II has written, “it will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother – without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalizing her as compared with other women – to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age”.21
14. 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. But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. In this perspective, that which is called “femininity” is more than simply an attribute of the female sex. The word designates indeed the fundamental human capacity to live for the other and because of the other.
Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.
Without prejudice to the advancement of women’s rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love.
On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one’s humanity, whether male or female.
IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF FEMININE VALUES IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH
15.In the Church, woman as “sign” is more than ever central and fruitful, following as it does from the very identity of the Church, as received from God and accepted in faith. It is this “mystical” identity, profound and essential, which needs to be kept in mind when reflecting on the respective roles of men and women in the Church.
From the beginning of Christianity, the Church has understood herself to be a community, brought into existence by Christ and joined to him by a relationship of love, of which the nuptial experience is the privileged expression. From this it follows that the Church’s first task is to remain in the presence of this mystery of God’s love, manifested in Jesus Christ, to contemplate and to celebrate it. In this regard, the figure of Mary constitutes the fundamental reference in the Church. One could say metaphorically that Mary is a mirror placed before the Church, in which the Church is invited to recognize her own identity as well as the dispositions of the heart, the attitudes and the actions which God expects from her.
The existence of Mary is an invitation to the Church to root her very being in listening and receiving the Word of God, because faith is not so much the search for God on the part of human beings, as the recognition by men and women that God comes to us; he visits us and speaks to us. This faith, which believes that “nothing is impossible for God” (cf. Gn18:14; Lk 1:37), lives and becomes deeper through the humble and loving obedience by which the Church can say to the Father: “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Faith continually makes reference to Jesus: “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5) and accompanies Jesus on his way, even to the foot of the Cross. Mary, in the hour of darkness, perseveres courageously in faithfulness, with the sole certainty of trust in the Word of God.
It is from Mary that the Church always learns the intimacy of Christ. Mary, who carried the small child of Bethlehem in her arms, teaches us to recognize the infinite humility of God. She who received the broken body of Jesus from the Cross shows the Church how to receive all those in this world whose lives have been wounded by violence and sin. From Mary, the Church learns the meaning of the power of love, as revealed by God in the life of his beloved Son: “he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their heart… he has lifted up the lowly” (Lk 1:51-52). From Mary, the disciples of Christ continually receive the sense and the delight of praise for the work of God’s hands: “The Almighty has done great things for me” (Lk1:49). They learn that they are in the world to preserve the memory of those “great things”, and to keep vigil in expectation of the day of the Lord.
16.To look at Mary and imitate her does not mean, however, that the Church should adopt a passivity inspired by an outdated conception of femininity. Nor does it condemn the Church to a dangerous vulnerability in a world where what count above all are domination and power. In reality, the way of Christ is neither one of domination (cf. Phil 2:6) nor of power as understood by the world (cf. Jn18:36). From the Son of God one learns that this “passivity” is in reality the way of love; it is a royal power which vanquishes all violence; it is “passion” which saves the world from sin and death and recreates humanity. In entrusting his mother to the Apostle John, Jesus on the Cross invites his Church to learn from Mary the secret of the love that is victorious.
Far from giving the Church an identity based on an historically conditioned model of femininity, the reference to Mary, with her dispositions of listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting, places the Church in continuity with the spiritual history of Israel. In Jesus and through him, these attributes become the vocation of every baptized Christian. Regardless of conditions, states of life, different vocations with or without public responsibilities, they are an essential aspect of Christian life. While these traits should be characteristic of every baptized person, women in fact live them with particular intensity and naturalness. In this way, women play a role of maximum importance in the Church’s life by recalling these dispositions to all the baptized and contributing in a unique way to showing the true face of the Church, spouse of Christ and mother of believers.
In this perspective one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men22 does not hamper in any way women’s access to the heart of Christian life. Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom.
CONCLUSION
17.In Jesus Christ all things have been made new (cf. Rev 21:5). Renewal in grace, however, cannot take place without conversion of heart. Gazing at Jesus and confessing him as Lord means recognizing the path of love, triumphant over sin, which he sets out for his disciples.
In this way, man’s relationship with woman is transformed, and the three-fold concupiscence described in the First Letter of John (1 Jn 2:16) ceases to have the upper hand. The witness of women’s lives must be received with respect and appreciation, as revealing those values without which humanity would be closed in self-sufficiency, dreams of power and the drama of violence. Women too, for their part, need to follow the path of conversion and recognize the unique values and great capacity for loving others which their femininity bears. In both cases, it is a question of humanity’s conversion to God, so that both men and women may come to know God as their “helper”, as the Creator full of tenderness, as the Redeemer who “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16).
Such a conversion cannot take place without humble prayer to God for that penetrating gaze which is able to recognize one’s own sin and also the grace which heals it. In a particular way, we need to ask this of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the woman in accord with the heart of God, she who is “blessed among women” (cf. Lk 1:42), chosen to reveal to men and women the way of love. Only in this way, can the “image of God”, the sacred likeness inscribed in every man and woman, emerge according to the specific grace received by each (cf. Gn 1:27). Only thus can the path of peace and wonderment be recovered, witnessed in the verses of the Song of Songs, where bodies and hearts celebrate the same jubilee.
The Church certainly knows the power of sin at work in individuals and in societies, which at times almost leads one to despair of the goodness of married couples. But through her faith in Jesus crucified and risen, the Church knows even more the power of forgiveness and self-giving in spite of any injury or injustice. The peace and wonderment which she trustfully proposes to men and women today are the peace and wonderment of the garden of the resurrection, which have enlightened our world and its history with the revelation that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8,16).
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Angelo Amato, SDB
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
link
I didn’t really find anything there as objectionable as I had expected, although I admit I skimmed it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Of a) why I joined the Catholic Church, and b) why I left it.
My first religious training was in a fundamentalist Christian Protestant Church. After being sent to Catholic school, I converted to Catholicism a few years later. Catholicism seemed so much more rational, and intellectually deeper and more satisfying than fundamentalism. Several things strike me in his letter as reflecting this, especially when compared to the nonsense about men and women taught by the fundamentalists.
For example, the interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Fundamentalists often interpret the “nakedness” part of the story as – the nakedness was a shameful thing, but they didn’t know it until they acquired “knowledge.” However, Ratzinger says:
. . . .
The peaceful vision which concludes the second creation account recalls the “indeed it was very good” (Gn 1:31) at the end of the first account. Here we find the heart of God’s original plan and the deepest truth about man and woman, as willed and created by him. Although God’s original plan for man and woman will later be upset and darkened by sin, it can never be abrogated.
That last refers to the interpretation that the subjugation of women by men is a consequence of sin – a distortion of god’s original plan for the relationship between men and women, which was for them to be equals.
“In the `unity of the two’, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist `side by side’ or `together’, but they are also called to exist mutually `one for the other’
Seen in that light, the words of God often quoted by fundamentalists as God’s vision for how the relationship between husband and wife should be, are not that at all:
. . . when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted.
In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God’s original plan, are lost.
Instead, what God is saying is, look how you’ve screwed up what I had in mind for you. Instead of equality, you have distorted the relationship between you and now there will be subjugation and inequality, not because that’s what I had in mind, but because you guys have screwed it up. This domination and subjugation stuff is a consequence of sin – it’s a bad thing.
Ratizinger also says some things about the essential nature of women that starts to raise my feminist hackles:
It seems to be venturing into the “woman as superior being” that leads to being placed on some kind of pedestal – pedestals not being places where one has a lot of freedom. I’m against them. And extolling the supposed “superiority” of women disparages men, I think. But then he redeems himself (in my eyes) by saying:
Although I still cringe at the “because women are more attuned” part.
This next is not too bad – together with his reminders that opting for not being a mother is a valid and admirable choice – especially when contrasted with religious teachings that insist that women are “unnatural” or “sinful” if they don’t do their best to reproduce as much as physically possible.
Though, of course, he sees “virginity” as the alternative to having children. Gets into that birth control thing. I kind of got it about abortion (though I don’t agree with the Catholics on it), but even when I was being a serious Catholic I couldn’t understand about birth control. I used to get into serious trouble at school arguing with the nuns about this one.
I’m fine with this description of how families ought to be:
Certainly can’t argue with this one:
Ummm, no problem with this either:
But, of course, there’s that other stuff. Weak rationalization of why women cannot be ordained, “ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality,” (ugh) continuing to define women as special or superior because of (at least) the potential for childbearing.
Much of this letter doesn’t seem so bad, especially in comparison to the right wing theocrats. It often seems that Catholics get part way down – what seems to me – the right road, but then veer off in some other incomprehensible and reprehensible direction.
I remember many years ago, standing in Vatican Square looking up at the Pope that just died being just absolutely furious with him – and calling him many very bad names in my head, because of all of the damage to women that he had caused by insisting on the continued prohibition of birth control. And that was before AIDS. In other words, why I left the Catholic Church. Oh, and there’s that other little matter of no longer believing in the existence of God.
Since I’m no longer a Catholic, the Pope’s pronouncements on how people should live no longer apply to me, personally. But there’s no denying his power in the world. Sometimes popes say the right things – e.g. against war and the death penalty. Let’s hope this one is strong on issues like those. Let’s hope he doesn’t do too much damage in the other areas, though I’m not too hopeful.
“Liturgy and Church Music,” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, L’Osservatore Romano, March 3, 1986, p. 4.
via
link
The thing about Catholicism is if you’re born and raised in it, you can understand it a little. It makes some kind of sense to you even if you disagree with some of its tenets.
But if you weren’t, it seems to be the most outlandish, weird, goofy, harsh, bizarre religion on Earth most of the time. And then you can scarcely believe that a billion people are members of this faith.
I look upon Catholicism exactly the way I do upon Hinduism. They both have a million strange celestial actors (“gods” in Hinduism and “saints” in Catholicism) that different members pray to who have odd stories of performing supernatural acts. And their worshippers go on pilgrimages to holy sites where miracles can occur.
They are definitely not the religions for me but I respect other people’s faiths. The only real difference for me between them is that one of them mentions Jesus more than the other.
Pax