Commentary and Introduction

Mulieris Dignitatem (the Dignity of Women) explains a Catholic Response to the Women’s movement as it entered its second wave – the deconstruction of biblical texts by feminist theologians such as Rosemary Ruether, Elisabeth Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Mary Daly. The challenge to the church was to establish an authoritative position which also justified the subordinate role of women in ministry whilst at the same time conceding the insights of feminist theologians on the fundamental equality of women were well founded. The argument here, as in the evangelical Protestant tradition, was to argue for complementarity, whilst re-affirming traditional Catholic doctrine.

This eternal truth about the human being, man and woman – a truth which is immutably fixed in human experience – at the same time constitutes the mystery which only in ‘the Incarnate Word takes on light… since Christ fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear….” (MD 2)

The encyclical begins by explaining the first sin of Adam and Eve. (MD 9) The symbolic character of the biblical text is not overlooked, but beyond all symbolism, the truth of human brokenness remains. (MD 9) The healing begins to take place in the contrasting etheolgies of Eve and Mary – Eve the first sinner and Mary the pure virgin mother of God, who embodies the two essential vocations of women (motherhood and virginity)

The consequences of human sin were felt for both man and woman; and the special character of human rejection of God, especially that of woman’s burden expressed in the curse of Genesis 3 ‘and your husband shall rule over you”, is answered in the example of Mary and in Jesus Christ depicted as the Bridegroom’ of the Church. (MD 10-11)

Mulieris Dignitatem describes Jesus, the redeemer, as the one who changed and healed women; he restored their dignity that ahd been compromised byt eh Fall and by the curse which subjected women to subordination, lust, and pain in childbirth. (MD 12) Several examples of Jesus’ relationship to women in the New Testament are given, dwelling at length on the woman caught in adultery (John 8). (MD 13) The vocation of woman as mother and virgin, the two dimensions of woman’s vocation, are discussed. (MD 17) Motherhood is first and primary. (MD 18-19) Virginity is for the sake of the kingdom; it a motherhood according to the Spirit. (MD 20-21)

Mary is depicted as a woman – a perfect example to both women and men – who cooperates in establishing the Church through the most intimate possible union with God. She does this freely, relationally, in God’s own image and likeness, out of the fullness of her own gender identity as a woman.

Mulieris Dignitatem teaches that woman and man are created with the power to love and to do so freely. This is what it ultimately means to be ‘made in God’s image’. Mary is the case in point. Mary’s life testifies to repeated examples of motherly love. At the same time (at least to a Christian feminist) the document re-affirms the stereotypes of the ideal woman as mother or virgin (but not independent of man) and firmly restates that only the male Christ can save. the word ‘patriarchy’ is not mentioned, nor the possibility that the whole Bible needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the critique of patriarchy.

Extracts from the Document

The image and likeness of God in man, created as man and woman (in the analogy that can be presumed between Creator and creature), thus also expresses the “unity of the two” in a common humanity. This “unity of the two”, which is a sign of interpersonal communion, shows that the creation of man is also marked by a certain likeness to the divine communion (“communio”). This likeness is a quality of the personal being of both man and woman, and is also a call and a task. The foundation of the whole human “ethos” is rooted in the image and likeness of God which the human being bears within himself from the beginning. Both the Old and New Testament will develop that “ethos”, which reaches its apex in the commandment of love.[25]

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”.
This also explains the meaning of the “help” spoken of in Genesis 2 :1 8-25: “I will make him a helper fit for him”. The biblical context enables us to understand this in the sense that the woman must “help” the man – and in his turn he must help her – first of all by the very fact of their “being human persons”. In a certain sense this enables man and woman to discover their humanity ever anew and to confirm its whole meaning. We can easily understand that – on this fundamental level – it is a question of a “help” on the part of both, and at the same time a mutual “help”. To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion. 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”. The biblical texts, from Genesis onwards, constantly enable us to discover the ground in which the truth about man is rooted, the solid and inviolable ground amid the many changes of human existence.

8. The presentation of man as “the image and likeness of God” at the very beginning of Sacred Scripture has another significance too. It is the key for understanding biblical Revelation as God’s word about himself. Speaking about himself, whether through the prophets, or through the Son” (cf. Heb 1:1, 2) who became man, God speaks in human language, using human concepts and images. If this manner of expressing himself is characterized by a certain anthropomorphism, the reason is that man is “like” God: created in his image and likeness. But then, God too is in some measure “like man”, and precisely because of this likeness, he can be humanly known. At the same time, the language of the Bible is sufficiently precise to indicate the limits of the “likeness”, the limits of the “analogy”. For biblical Revelation says that, while man’s “likeness” to God is true, the “non-likeness”[27] which separates the whole of creation from the Creator is still more essentially true. Although man is created in God’s likeness, God does not cease to be for him the one “who dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16): he is the “Different One”, by essence the “totally Other”.

This observation on the limits of the analogy – the limits of man’s likeness to God in biblical language – must also be kept in mind when, in different passages of Sacred Scripture (especially in the Old Testament), we find comparisons that attribute to God “masculine” or “feminine” qualities. We find in these passages an indirect confirmation of the truth that both man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God. If there is a likeness between Creator and creatures, it is understandable that the Bible would refer to God using expressions that attribute to him both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities.

We may quote here some characteristic passages from the prophet Isaiah: “But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me’. ‘Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you'”. (49:14-15). And elsewhere: “As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (66: 13). In the Psalms too God is compared to a caring mother: “Like a child quieted at its mother’s breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. O Israel, hope in the Lord”. (Ps 131:2-3). In various passages the love of God who cares for his people is shown to be like that of a mother: thus, like a mother God “has carried” humanity, and in particular, his Chosen People, within his own womb; he has given birth to it in travail, has nourished and comforted it (cf. Is 42:14; 46: 3-4). In many passages God’s love is presented as the “masculine” love of the bridegroom and father (cf. Hosea 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19), but also sometimes as the “feminine” love of a mother.

This characteristic of biblical language – its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God – points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal “generating” which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this “generating” has neither “masculine” nor “feminine” qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither “feminine” nor “masculine”. Thus even “fatherhood” in God is completely divine and free of the “masculine” bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood. In this sense the Old Testament spoke of God as a Father and turned to him as a Father. Jesus Christ – who called God “Abba Father” (Mk 14: 36), and who as the only-begotten and consubstantial Son placed this truth at the very centre of his Gospel, thus establishing the norm of Christian prayer – referred to fatherhood in this ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense. He spoke as the Son, joined to the Father by the eternal mystery of divine generation, and he did so while being at the same time the truly human Son of his Virgin Mother.

Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess “masculine” characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute model of all “generation” among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (3:14-15). All “generating” among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All “generating” in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human “fatherhood” and “motherhood”, bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine “generating” and with that “fatherhood” which in God is “totally different”, that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the “unity of the two”: both are “parents”, the man and the woman alike.

“He shall rule over you”

10. The biblical description in the Book of Genesis outlines the truth about the consequences of man’s sin, as it is shown by the disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons. A human being, whether male or female, is a person, and therefore, “the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake”; and at the same time this unique and unrepeatable creature “cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self”.[32] Here begins the relationship of “communion” in which the “unity of the two” and the personal dignity of both man and woman find expression. Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of “being a sincere gift” and therefore living “for” the other: “he shall rule over you”. This “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”. While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. Here we touch upon an extremely sensitive point in the dimension of that “ethos” which was originally inscribed by the Creator in the very creation of both of them in his own image and likeness.

This statement in Genesis 3:16 is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and woman in marriage. It refers to the desire born in the atmosphere of spousal love whereby the woman’s “sincere gift of self” is responded to and matched by a corresponding “gift” on the part of the husband. Only on the basis of this principle can both of them, and in particular the woman, “discover themselves” as a true “unity of the two” according to the dignity of the person. The matrimonial union requires respect for and a perfecting of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot become the “object” of “domination” and male “possession”. But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman. Burdened by hereditary sinfulness, they bear within themselves the constant “inclination to sin”, the tendency to go against the moral order which corresponds to the rational nature and dignity of man and woman as persons. This tendency is expressed in a threefold concupiscence, which Saint John defines as the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3: 16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the “inclination to sin”, will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.

These words of Genesis refer directly to marriage, but indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life: the situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or discriminated against by the fact of being a woman. The revealed truth concerning the creation of the human being as male and female constitutes the principal argument against all the objectively injurious and unjust situations which contain and express the inheritance of the sin which all human beings bear within themselves. The books of Sacred Scripture confirm in various places the actual existence of such situations and at the same time proclaim the need for conversion, that is to say, for purification from evil and liberation from sin: from what offends neighbour, what “diminishes” man, not only the one who is offended but also the one who causes the offence. This is the unchangeable message of the Word revealed by God. In it is expressed the biblical “ethos” until the end of time.[33]

In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.

The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfilment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible – “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” – can be conquered only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.

Two dimensions of women’s vocation

17. We must now focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality. In the light of the Gospel, they acquire their full meaning and value in Mary, who as a Virgin became the Mother of the Son of God. These two dimensions of the female vocation were united in her in an exceptional manner, in such a way that one did not exclude the other but wonderfully complemented it. The description of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke clearly shows that this seemed impossible to the Virgin of Nazareth.

When she hears the words: “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus”, she immediately asks: “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Lk 1: 31, 34). In the usual order of things motherhood is the result of mutual “knowledge” between a man and woman in the marriage union. Mary, firm in her resolve to preserve her virginity, puts this question to the divine messenger, and obtains from him the explanation: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you” – your motherhood will not be the consequence of matrimonial “knowledge”, but will be the work of the Holy Spirit; the “power of the Most High” will “overshadow” the mystery of the Son’s conception and birth; as the Son of the Most High, he is given to you exclusively by God, in a manner known to God. Mary, therefore, maintained her virginal “I have no husband” (cf. Lk 1: 34) and at the same time became a Mother. Virginity and motherhood co-exist in her: they do not mutually exclude each other or place limits on each other.

Indeed, the person of the Mother of God helps everyone – especially women – to see how these two dimensions, these two paths in the vocation of women as persons, explain and complete each other.

Christ is the Bridegroom

Christ is the Bridegroom. This expresses the truth about the love of God who “first loved us” (cf. 1 Jn 4:19) and who, with the gift generated by this spousal love for man, has exceeded all human expectations: “He loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1).

The Bridegroom – the Son consubstantial with the Father as God – became the son of Mary; he became the “son of man”, true man, a male. The symbol of the Bridegroom is masculine.

This masculine symbol represents the human aspect of the divine love which God has for Israel, for the Church, and for all people. Meditating on what the Gospels say about Christ’s attitude towards women, we can conclude that as a man, a son of Israel, he revealed the dignity of the “daughters of Abraham” (cf. Lk 13:16), the dignity belonging to women from the very “beginning” on an equal footing with men. At the same time Christ emphasized the originality which distinguishes women from men, all the richness lavished upon women in the mystery of creation. Christ’s attitude towards women serves as a model of what the Letter to the Ephesians expresses with the concept of “bridegroom”.

Precisely because Christ’s divine love is the love of a Bridegroom, it is the model and pattern of all human love, men’s love in particular.