Dolores Cristina
As a general comment, it is unfortunate that the international press has dealt rather harshly with this document, highlighting solely its negative points and failing to underscore the significant positive aspects that are in it.
The Vatican Document in itself presents a sound biblical and theological reflection on the human person in general, and on the aspect of sexual differentiation in particular. It recounts that God created the human being in his image and likeness as male and female and that the relationship between woman and man constitutes a perfect unity.
The deep reflections made on the human person and on the relationship between men and women as designed by the Creator should have led to good proper conclusions on a healthy collaboration of women and men in both the Church and in the world. Regretfully, this is not reflected in the document, which fails to evolve a realistic historical analysis of what is happening in the struggle for equality between women and men.
The signs of the times are read in the wrong way and the document sees this striving for equality as antagonism... which it is not.
The document sees the solution in the traditional role of women in society, although it refrains from saying so explicitly. In today’s society this would simply lead to more antagonism and to less collaboration. What we do need is a healthy collaboration that does not depart from equality of rights and duties, and this collaboration can be more easily reached by emphasising what women and men have in common rather than by underlining the differences. I find it very difficult to appreciate why, in the context of today’s society, there is still the insistence that “family and work have, for women, characteristics different from those in the case of men”. Or for that matter, when, today, we speak about fathers and mothers having an equal share in family life where children need both their father and their mother, the letter still puts a heavy emphasis on the role of women and speaks about “the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others” to the exclusion of the role of fathers. It would be more appropriate, in line with the reality of the needs of today’s society, to put the emphasis on the role of the men as fathers and on the importance of their striking a balance between work and family life in this regard.
The document does recognise the valuable contribution of women in the world of work and in the organisation of society, underscoring the fact 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”.
It is sound in saying that women who choose to devote their time to work of the household should not be penalised or stigmatised by society while those who wish to engage in other work may be able to do so without having to relinquish their family life or to live under continuous stress with negative effects on the serenity of the family.
The “authentic advancement of women” has to run parallel with the advancement of men and of society in general. This is an equilibrium that our society has to strive to attain.
Marie Benoit
I find it superfluous that throughout the document it is repeated that men and women are different. Only the most hardened feminists in the early days have ever believed that they are the same. Equal, yes, but not the same. This is a “heavy” and boring document which needs to be read at least a couple of times before it can be digested properly. But then, it is addressed to bishops, not to the layman.
Resolving the burden of women’s double role – blending work and family responsibilities – is currently one of the biggest challenges we are all facing. Until recently, women “died to themselves”, giving up any personal ambitions they may have had for a career, a profession. Once married, they dedicated themselves to their families. But the days of the 1950s paragon of the full-time housewife, described by Betty Frieden in The Feminine Mystique, are almost over. The emphasis has to be on maximising choice and opportunity for women. The issues are about power, freedom and choice and the Church is realistic enough to realise this. For the Church it is a new way to see.
I consider it positive that, in this document, the Church has accepted that women can no longer be fixed and frozen as mothers, and nothing more than mothers; that many may wish to participate in public life as well, and that the choice should be left to each individual. As it stands today, the world of work has been created by men for men while domestic arrangements are largely fashioned for men’s convenience and men are almost entirely removed from domestic life.
The world of work is going to have to be adjusted so that the working woman who is also a mother will not continue to have a double burden, as she does presently. The document also acknowledges that “a just valuing of the work of women within the family is required”. The idea behind this is that those women who want to spent more time with the family will be allowed to do so without losing out financially.
Anything positive regarding women coming from the traditionally conservative Catholic Church, must be welcomed. There is plenty of food for thought and points for discussion in this document. But from words we need to move to action, and quickly. Otherwise these documents from the Church become merely tokenism. Together, we need to find answers which will result in a positive transition for all those concerned.
Anna Spiteri
It is difficult for me to read 17 pages of Church rhetoric in detail as my reaction is: why give importance to a document that will not have any effect on improving our lives at all? Why should the Church yet again pronounce judgement on us working women who are actively contributing to society, quietly and with our hard work?
But perhaps these are some kind of distraction tactics? Why not direct the world’s attention to the western political entanglements of the war in Iraq? Or seek solutions to the Darfur situation in Sudan, where women are being raped and killed? Why focus on us? Are we still under the yoke of the Church? At a glance, I can deduce that the church is again “interfering” with how women should be viewed, and the view is too simplistic and disengaged from the real struggles of the world of today’s mothers and working women. Instead of wasting time publishing documents, why not choose to lead by example? However, the Church is incapable of doing this as over the centuries there has not been any feminine influence in its hierarchy, (nor is there likely to be), to soften its approach towards the role of women in society, or to consider women’s issues in a more humanistic context.
Like any other all-male institution, the Church has evolved slowly, with stinted emotional growth. Many western women are making great strides amassing collective “emotionally intelligent” experiences, albeit fragmented, which the church cannot match or understand. So, similar public documents will not be of help to women.