John Paul II: the feminist
Michael O'Driscoll marks the third anniversary of the death of the Pontiff

Young women during a ceremony marking the second anniversary of the death of John Paul II in Wadowice

Pope John Paul II called for a "new feminism" different from the older forms of feminism which based their ideologies on the domination and power principles that drive modern western culture. At root, these principles originate in the same distorted masculinity that has been most responsible for the historical oppression of women. Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, which is regarded by many as a seminal work of 20th-century feminism, is a paradigmatic example of this kind of thinking. In it we find many of the problems and weaknesses associated with the advent of the more radical branches of feminism, those that seek to mimic masculinity in its most distorted forms. It may help to contrast the late Holy Father's view of feminism as articulated in documents such as his 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem ("On the Dignity and Vocation of Women") with that of De Beauvoir's.

"Legislators, priests, philosophers, writers, and scientists have striven to show," De Beauvoir told us, that women's subordination is "divinely decreed and expedient on earth." She declares that, "The religions invented by men reflect this wish for domination" and she cites St Augustine, Tertullian and St Thomas as examples. According to her, women have been denied the capacity for rational thought as well as spiritual and artistic venture. They have been entrapped within what she calls their own "immanence", which she closely identifies with women's bodily functions. She associates consciousness, will and spirit with a masculine "transcendence" and sees childbearing and motherhood as limiting, debilitating activities. In her opinion, they are not "activities" but "natural functions" and thus have no intrinsic worth. She actually states that it is woman's "misfortune... to have been biologically destined for the repetition of Life".

Apart from her inaccurate reading of history, her sweeping generalisations and the crippling lack of objectivity in her views, De Beauvoir also displayed a considerable contempt for the very concept of femininity. The rejection of a feminine nature manifests itself most obviously and consistently in a barely concealed hatred of the bodily functions of women, in particular the capacity to bear children. Like all ideologues, she expresses dissatisfaction with the created condition and an implicit anger with the Creator, as well as a desire to re-order and re-shape reality in accordance with her own will and consciousness.

Yet despite this there remains a powerful exegesis of some aspects of the male psyche, in its fallen condition, in parts of The Second Sex. It is true that, by and large, historically, men both desired, and have been able, to oppress women up until modern times. John Paul II acknowledges this in his 1995 Letter to Women when he states that women "have been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude" as a result of "cultural conditions" which have prevailed "down through the centuries". He even apologises for the role "not just a few members" of the Church have played in this "spiritual impoverishment of mankind".

He recognises the need for the removal of all forms of discrimination against women and the need to achieve "real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses" as well as the "recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic state". This is almost an echo of De Beauvoir's call for a change of "laws, institutions, customs, public opinion, and the whole social context". Her assertion that man desires to keep woman "carnal", that they prize her primarily for her physical qualities, also closely parallels John Paul II's assessment that "women have been and continue to be valued more for their physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities" and their other qualities.

Yet, apart from the agreed need to reform the attitudes of men as well as civil institutions, their respective solutions to these problems differ essentially. De Beauvoir believed that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". She believed that women are socially constructed as opposed to biologically determined: "Woman is determined not by her hormones or by mysterious instincts, but by the manner in which her body and her relation to the world are modified through the actions of others than herself."

She thus believed in the almost infinite malleability of human nature and grounded her prescription for rectifying the inequality between the sexes most fundamentally in this. Part of the weakness of her argument here, as elsewhere in her book, lies in her uncritical acceptance of a now outdated and discredited Freudian psychology rather than objective scientific evidence.

John Paul II, on the other hand, fully accepted the natural differences between men and women but rejected the idea that these differences are in any way limiting. In contrast to De Beauvoir, he taught that human fulfilment doesn't come about through external achievements but through an authentic gift of one's self. He also realised that since we are in fact created, dependent beings we are in need of God's Revelation to discover the truth about our human condition, and to find true fulfilment. This is why, from the very beginning of Mulieris Dignitatem, his views are informed by biblical Revelation. The coming of Christ has revealed the ultimate truth about women by the very fact that a woman was chosen to become the Mother of God. The perfection of authentic femininity has occurred with this event, and it is a perfection that far exceeds the capacities of any male human person.

De Beauvoir draws on the Genesis texts (Gen 2:21) in order to authenticate her claim that male-instituted religions place women in subordinate and inessential relations to men, that they are in fact just "in relation" to men. John Paul II rejected this notion; he stated that this text shows "the essential equality of man and woman from the point of view of their humanity". There is no question of the woman existing in relation to the man: "It is a question here of a mutual relationship: man to woman and woman to man." He added that "The woman is another 'I' in a common humanity", pointing out that only in both the male and female forms that humanity is fully expressed.

Perhaps the most important point of divergence between these two thinkers, which is itself rooted in their different philosophical standpoints, is their attitude towards childbearing and motherhood. De Beauvoir's extremely negative assessment of the physical side of these female functions stands diametrically opposed to the late Holy Father's view. He said that "the woman... 'pays' directly for [the mutual act of] shared generation, which literally absorbs the energies of her body and soul". This is in marked contrast to De Beauvoir's opinion that "giving birth and suckling" aren't even activities, as such. This appearance of passivity is only superficial, according to John Paul II, because the woman's body is "profoundly involved in that process" and "motherhood in its personal-ethical sense expresses a very important creativity on the part of the woman".

The tremendous dignity of motherhood consists of the fact that the mother "is sharing in the great mystery of eternal generation", and this is the most profound reason, on a purely natural level, for the greatness of the creative action of motherhood. He argues that scientific analysis "confirms that the very physical constitution of women is naturally disposed to motherhood"; but a consideration of motherhood cannot be limited to what the sciences say. When seen "in the light of the Gospel" it is clear motherhood also possesses a supernatural dimension.

Whereas De Beauvoir wished to minimise completely the role of motherhood for women, John Paul II saw it as inextricably connected to the female constitution. Virginity "for the sake of the kingdom" is a spiritual motherhood in which the "naturally spousal predisposition of the feminine personality finds a response in virginity understood in this way". It enables women to make of themselves an authentic gift to Christ, and this spousal love blossoms in a love that "is open to all people, who are embraced by the love of Christ the Spouse".

The "new feminism", envisioned by John Paul II, then is directly connected to spousal love and motherhood. It is true to the nature of womanhood and rejects the temptation to "appropriate... male characteristics" that are incompatible with femininity. Its intrinsic link to motherhood arises from the fact that women, through the experience of maternity, possess a unique, practical knowledge of loving persons for their intrinsic worth as opposed to the attractiveness of their physical qualities. This kind of disinterested love "is the indispensable prerequisite for an authentic cultural change".

Michael O'Driscoll is director of the John Paul II Society in Cork