There has been some question about my endorsement of patriarchy and rejection of feminism. I should make clear that I do not endorse patriarchy as a system of government or culture in any way separated from an integrated Catholic theology. Patriarchy on its own is no better or worse than any other secular system of government, and just as likely as any other secular system to be abused and allow for gross injustice.
Christian patriarchy, on the other hand, is a different matter. Christian patriarchy is rooted in Christian theology and anthropology. The Christian (and I should really be saying ‘Catholic’ here because loads of Christians nowadays would not accept my views) understanding of God and man is that God is our Heavenly Father. This is not a cultural construct, or merely Judeo-Christian preference, but part of the Divine Revelation rooted in Jesus Christ’s own self understanding and his revelation to us of what God is like.
The first principle is that God is our Father and we are his children. As such, the Genesis story (affirmed by Jesus and St Paul) teach that men and women are created in his image. Both are created equal in his image. Equal but different. It is not good for man to be alone. He is to cleave to his wife and become one flesh. The are to be fruitful and multiply. Man is not independent of woman and woman is not independent of man. They are not only equal, but equally co-dependent. Furthermore, their purpose as man and woman is not only to come together, but to have children, and therefore to become mothers and fathers.
One of the results of the contraceptive culture is that we have forgotten the primary purpose and mission of both men and women. It is to be mothers and fathers. This is the divine plan. This is how they come to understand themselves, one another and God. Through the sacrament of marriage this is how the majority of the human race will work out their salvation with fear and trembling. This is how they will experience love. This is how they will experience forgiveness. This is how they will experience the need for self sacrifice. This is how they will learn to co operate with God’s grace. This is how they will share in his work of creation, redemption and sanctification of the world.
It is from these foundational beliefs that patriarchy arises naturally. Patriarchy is not imposed or constructed for social purposes. It is part of the natural order. It is written into the code of what it means to be man and woman living together as husband and wife within a sacramental system.
Within this Catholic understanding of the whole mystery of marriage and what it means to be man and woman patriarchy finds its natural and perfect home. But what is that patriarchy like? It is to be rooted in self sacrifice. To whom much is given, much is required. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her. Wives be subject to your husbands as in the Lord.
Therefore Catholic patriarchy is meant to be a patriarchy of service. The loving father never asks of his wife and children anything but what is for their very best. The loving father is the ‘servant of the servants of God.’ The loving father is constantly outpouring his love and creativity and goodness in service and self giving to others, and the wife and children respond to this constant self giving with mutual respect and self giving service back again. In this way the constant self giving of God the Father is reflected and pictured within the domestic church we call the family.
This is the ideal of Christian patriarchy. That this ideal is rarely reached is clear. That the ideal is often abused is obvious. That the ideal is little understood and little appreciated we must admit. That patriarchy without Christ has led to gross abuses of power, abuse of women and abuse of children must be admitted.
Nevertheless, we do not abandon ideals because they are not reached. Whenever we are tempted to abandon a seemingly impossible ideal, or an ideal which has not been met or which has been abused we must ask ourselves a couple of questions: first of all, did we really understand the ideal to start with? Second, if we did understand the ideal, might we have come closer to reaching it? Thirdly, if we abandon the ideal, what are we going to get in its place?
I’m essentially a conservative because I believe most of the ideals we have are good. We just have not been courageous enough, or reliant on grace enough to really try them.
What did the portly prophet say? “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has not been tried.”
Wasn’t it, “Found difficult and not tried”?
Again, Father, you sound like an Orthodox priest, and again, I mean that as a compliment.
Well, rightwingprof, orthodox…yes; but why Orthodox?
This was a very timely commentary for me. I just read this article: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/yesterday and spent all day in shock, since I used to read the paper that woman edited, and had kept up with her column. After reading a couple of other similar stories, I was deeply distressed, wondering what had gone wrong. I think you explained it perfectly.
This issue is critical to the modern Church. We have for too long ignored or even worse, ridiculed St Paul’s scriptures about the husband’s authority as head of the home. St Peter makes a similar comment in one of his letters. Yet for years I have heard Catholics dismiss these scriptures out of hand. Even though the Church’s teaching about the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is explicit, the sections about man’s authority are dismissed.The Church has allowed itself to be thoroughly infiltrated by an anti man feminist philosophy that strictly belongs to the secular world not to the Body of Christ.I believe that the consequences of all this for our families has been nothing short of catastrophic. The effect on so many young men of not having a strong father figure to look up to and to imitate is disastrous. The ideal husband is modelled on St Joseph – strong in faith, strong in leadership, with a self giving love for his wife and Son. You notice that they obeyed and accepted his leadership – the Son of God and the Immaculate Mother – accepted St Joseph’s leadership because he was the husband and father of the family under God.The Church needs to return to Scriptural teaching on this matter urgently. It will bring back stability to families, give young people the guidance they so desperately need and it will please Almighty God to see His people actually following His blueprint for a successful family as outlined by His Apostles.
I am a Catholic who loves the tradition and beauty of the church and truly believes that the Church can lead one to salvation. However, I also think that it is very easy to take Christian teachings and twist them in very dangerous ways. Father makes two comments that, with all due respect, are socially irresponsible. The first is that the primary mission of men and women is to be mothers and fathers. For those who are fortunate enough to be parents, I agree that parenthood is their primary mission in life. However, it is unfair to extend this belief to folks who are unable or uninterested in having children. Secondly, I disagree with his statement that patriarchy is part of the “natural order.” If we seriously want the church to stop being accused of being a misogynistic organization, we really need to stop thinking this way. Sure, some folks may find a partricarical system to be natural (maybe even the majority of folks), but to make a blanket statement like that is completely unfair. There are terrific female pastors who truly serve in the spirit of Christ and are lead their congregations as natural leaders. This may not be in line with Catholic teachings (which I am not disagreeing with), but to make statements that take away from their Call is hurtful and unfair.
Ryan, do me the courtesy of reading the post in detail: I said parenthood was the primary mission for the majority–not all.Christian teaching on patriarchy is part of the Bible and Divine Revelation from as simple and basic a text as the Lord’s Prayer. It’s not my opinion.If Protestant lady ministers are offended, well so be it. That’s why they’re protestant lady ministers–they don’t agree with the Catholic Church.
Your blog does state that:”One of the results of the contraceptive culture is that we have forgotten the primary purpose and mission of both men and women. It is to be mothers and fathers. This is the divine plan”Even though I do not disagree with your throughts about the contraceptive culture, I stick by my earlier post that the statement itself is hurtful to folks who, for numerous reasons that do not involve contraceptions, are not parents.And again, patriarchy may be God’s plan for the church, but to extend that to society as a whole as a “natural order” is dangerous.
Good food for thought. There is certainly a crisis of manhood in our castrated, barren culture. I think it’s, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” Ah, sweet- checked my PDF of the Chesterton Society’s quotations page (I went there so often I decided I might as well save it searchable) and that’s the quote. Of course, he may have repeated it with variations.
“Well, rightwingprof, orthodox…yes; but why Orthodox?”Uhm, because it’s my point of reference.
If a husband is abusing his patriarchal authority, is the woman still expected to submit? Or does this break some sort of contract?I’m thinking, for example, of rape in marriage. If you knew a Catholic woman in this situation, what would you advise her to do?
PiaPoi, of course not, the whole concept of loving Christian patriarchy is that the husband ‘loves his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her” (Eph.5)The woman’s response is loving submission. This is her way of service and giving back.If one partner does not play the game the other person is not required to.It takes two to tango
Regarding the issue of submission: My husband and I have been married for 37 years. No one would accuse me of reticence or being a doormat. My husband is head of our family. I submit to him willingly and lovingly. That does not mean that I don’t ever disagree with him, nor that I never express my opinion to him. I usually do. If we disagree, I explain to him my position, and I listen to him. Sometimes I am right, sometimes he is, sometimes we compromise, but he knows that he will not have a struggle with me. We work together. I believe that is what submission is.As for “hurtful”, Ryan, if it is true, they can accept it or reject it. But, they aren’t allowed their own facts. God ordained and the Church teaches that men have different responsibilities than women. Fr Longenecker is right. That is not to say that women cannot do certain things, Ryan, but that women SHOULD NOT do some jobs. They aren’t for us to do. Argue all you like, that’s the way God made us and the world. You might try looking at things from a different point of view rather than dismissing them out of hand as old fashioned or hurtful.Thank you, Fr Longenecker for taking on a volatile topic. AnneG in NC
Respectfully, AnneG, I could argue that you are looking at my comments from your own point of view and that you could be the one in need of a different perspective. Let me state, again, that I am not disagreeing with the Church’s teaching on patriarchy or the role of the father in the family unit. I simply believe that the system that works for the Church, and for your family, should not be blanketly referred to as the “natural order” of leadership. I also did not refer to Father’s comments as “old-fashioned” because very often, older ideas are better ideas. We shouldn’t throw something away just because it is old. However, I also think that it is unfair to give men a “leg-up” in leadership potential just because they are men. Effective leaders will naturally lead, whether they are men or women.
Do you think that patriarchy fits with JPII’s theology, or do you think that he was headed in the wrong direction?