On October 22nd, Matt, one of my fellow FOCUS Bloggers, offered on an opinion post entitled “Women Leading Men.†This post became not only the object of an excellent discussion online, but even more so the catalyst of conversation among missionaries, students and others across the country, and women in particular. Having been one to have participated in several of these conversations, including an hour long interview with the original author himself, I would like to put in my proverbial two cents as I believe strongly that Matt has brought us to a fundamental question being posed to the church in the modern world, particularly as it is manifest in the New Evangelization.
Matt knew he was potentially treading into stormy waters, but I do not believe he realized to what extent his opinion would evoke a reaction from his sisters, especially those sisters who perhaps did not fully understand the context and ethos of Matt’s argument. Someone suggested that the sub-title of my response blog should be “An ‘Unsolicited Talking To’ for One Mr. Matthew Muller.†After conversation with Matt, I do not believe he deserves an “unsolicited talking to.†However, there are several points that I should like to clarify.
First, none of what Matt, (and now what I) might have to say will make any sense unless we start off by stating a few clear presuppositions, drawn largely from John Paul II’s thought and finding their culmination in the Theology of the Body. We believe that human persons, created as both male and female, and indeed the whole of reality, are best understood in terms of the Trinitarian love of God revealed in Christ. Stated more explicitly, the communio personarum which is the Trinity revealed to us in and through Jesus Christ offer men and women a key to understanding their own masculinity and femininity, and indeed the entire created world as well. In short, we believe that the meaning of masculinity and femininity is intrinsically tied to the way that we live in relationship with others because we image the trinity in the very way that we relate to other persons. We would further claim that all men share something in common in the way that they relate with other persons and the world, and that in a complimentary way, all woman share something in the way they relate as well.
If we are willing to assent to these presuppositions, then we will agree that the way in which a man leads should and will look different than the way a woman will carry out the same task. I could write a masters thesis (and perhaps I will someday!) explicating the various strengths and weaknesses of men in leadership and women in leadership, but since I am already trespassing on my readers good graces with too many words, I will limit myself to three points.
First off, as I mentioned previously, the essence of masculinity and femininity is all about how we live in relationship with one another in image of the persons of the Trinity. Arising from this proposition, just as the Father initiates, going out of himself in love to give a total gift of himself to the Son before he receives love in return, one way of understanding masculinity is one who gives love first, and then receives it. Similarly, just as the Son first receives love from the Father, and then gives a gift of himself back to the Father, one way of understanding femininity is one who receives love first, integrates it, is oriented toward the person, and then bears forth the fruit of love to the world.
With this in mind, my second point is that it makes perfect sense to me that Matt would be more moved by a “call to arms†from a man than from a woman, no matter her talent or the caliber of her forensic prowess. Why? Because it belongs much more to the domain of masculinity to inspire other persons to action. If part of what it means to be a man is to go outside of yourself and to “subdue the earth†then of course it makes sense that this message will resonate more profoundly from one whose entire being is ordered toward such activity. I believe it is absurd to assert that a woman could have arrived on horseback in place of William Wallace and inspired the rag-tag army to the same heroic defeat over the English by using the same words as Mel Gibson made famous in Braveheart.
And here is where a significant clarification is necessary, especially for those sisters of mine who might not agree with me that the thought of a Gwyneth Paltrow with white and blue paint on her face is a bad idea. I am not saying that a woman could not inspire an army of men to fight heroically. What I am saying is that, because of who she is and how she lives in relationships with other human persons, she would not do it in the same way.
This brings me to my third point in which I would like to offer an example of how she might inspire others in light of her particular genius as a woman.
But first, one more clarification. If we take John Paul II’s teaching on Ephesians Five seriously, we believe that there exists a “mutual subjection†between a man and woman united in the covenant of marriage. A woman is subject to the authority, or headship, of her husband, and a man is called to lay down his life, subjecting himself for the sake of the holiness of his wife just as Christ does for the Church. And as there is a mutual subjection in marriage, there also exists a “mutual hierarchy†in which the man, ordered towards first going out of himself in love and then receiving, has the hierarchy of office while the woman, ordered towards receiving love first, integrating this love in such a way that makes her more oriented toward other persons, and then going out of herself by bearing forth fruit to the world, holds the hierarchy of love and of holiness.
As John Paul suggests in Mullieris Dignitatem, women show all of humanity what it means to receive the gift of grace from the Bridegroom; in short, woman reveals to all of humanity the path to holiness, which can only be achieved through receiving the sanctifying grace Jesus Christ, the center of History, won for us on the cross. To be feminine is to be more ordered toward “being†than “doing,†and as the crown of creation, to be a sign to the world of all that is Good and True and Beautiful.
While there is a certain “otherness†or “distancing†implied in Fatherhood which finds its highest form in God the Father, there is a certain “closeness†and sense of “proximity†inherent in Motherhood which finds its culminating point not in God, but in the Blessed Virgin who shared our flesh and blood. There is something very “earthy†about motherhood, which orientates us toward the everyday physical and spiritual needs of those around us. To be a woman is to “make space†for others, to welcome, and in short, to love.
With this in mind, how might the way in which women lead other persons, particularly men, be guided by the proposition that femininity possesses the hierarchy of love and holiness? Women inspire men through holiness. If a woman had the opportunity to stand before an army of her brothers, she might say, “Here I am, standing before you as a person who strives to make Truth and Beauty and Goodness incarnate. Let the very fact that I am remind you for what it is that you are fighting for – for what it is that you are laying down your life – for what it is that you are willing to die a martyr’s death.†As opposed to saying “Come, and join me shoulder to shoulder in the fray,†she might say “Go, and defend all that I stand for as a woman of holiness.â€
Chesterton said, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.†And what is behind him? Usually a woman, and all that she stands for! And for the very fact of what she stands for, and how she is made to live in relationships with others, a woman would arguably not communicate this message best by giving a speech. She would communicate it best by simply being herself, carrying out the little tasks of her day and loving those individuals placed in her path. The Blessed Virgin Mary had no words at the foot of the cross, but merely her presence served as a reminder to her only Beloved Son of who he was and why he was laying down his life. By her intercession, may all women strive to do the same.
Therefore, my dear sisters, let us not be disturbed by Matt’s experience, or feel that we have somehow been “set up to fail†when we are asked lead, or feel that we are inadequate when the task of inspiring men to action is placed before us. No matter what task is laid before us, we bring with us the genius of our femininity, which is our greatest strength, not an obstacle.
* I realize that there are a thousand practical questions that I have not addressed regarding exactly how a woman who is the President of a Student Organization, a Chief Executive Officer, or a Regional Director in FOCUS might take these principles and live them out in the every day circumstances of her life and her leadership. Let’s talk about them!
**For Further Reading and Discussion…
- The Signifance of Mary for Women by Joyce Little
- On the Collaboration of Men and Women by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Contact Katie for an electronic copy of either of these articles.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Paul O'Brien // Nov 19, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Thanks for this awesome article, Katie! (I’m assuming Katie wrote it). I’ve been giving lots of thought lately to just who exactly is the woman I want to marry? What is her core made of? What makes her beautiful? What about her would make me desire nothing more than to lay down my life for her and our children?
In reflecting on these questions, I came to the same conclusion that you reached. Holiness is what makes a woman worth fighting for. Holiness, certainly, is what made thousands of French soldiers rally around Joan of Arc to defeat the invasions of the British. The holiness of my mother, without a doubt, is what called my father to grow into the man he is today. She offered him something to live up to, and he’s spent every year of his life trying to get there. He’s a man I can be proud of, and by his own admission, it’s her fault.
2 Katie Crane // Nov 19, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Paul, I hope someday to be found “at fault” for the holiness of my husband! What a beautiful story!
3 Matt // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:35 am
Katie, an excellent articulation of our conversation the other day! Your description of the holiness of women being their unique leadership characteristic is right on and thank you for putting that into words as I was unable to do when I spoke with you and other ladies.
As far as answering some practicals. If we want to talk about the office of the President, maybe the previous comment about having a first family is the best idea so far. In some cases our nation probably has had a ‘first family’ as their have been a number of very active and leading First Ladies. In other organizations, especially one like ours where there is a great need to continually inspire and motivate, a female in leadership should probably employ a male to be the ‘2nd in command’ and handle some of the leadership of men and vice versa.
Those are just some ideas that I’ve discussed with others…lets her some more (and hopefully better!)
4 Kathryn // Nov 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“’The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.’†And what is behind him? Usually a woman, and all that she stands for!”
Beautifully written, Katie! Thank you for inspiring me to strive harder for holiness. It is a sublime (and humbling) vocation to be an icon of truth, goodness, and beauty as a woman.
5 Alex // Nov 22, 2007 at 10:59 pm
While I do not think that any of what has been posted by Matt or Katie has been sexist or demeaning toward women in any way, I would like to bring up a linguistic point that I believe is important to the discussion. Matt ended his post by asking whether “we will ever be able to say that in front of great men is a great woman?” I would answer that question with one of my own: Is it really important who is “in front” and who is “behind?” In the creation accounts, Eve is not at the head or the feet of Adam and neither is she in front of or behind him. She is at his side, made of his rib. The words “front†and “behind†imply inequalities unfair to both men and women which go against the Trinitarian nature Katie put forth. I think in our discussions of men and women, in any arena, we need to be careful of the words we use and their connotations.
I also think the Trinitarian nature needs to be applied to the concept of leadership in general. The idea of a first family has been broached and Matt has offered a male second in command and I think these ideas are a step in the right direction. If we think of Adam and Eve as the “leaders†of creation, we have to first notice that they are a couple united. If we think of religious and priests as “leaders†we must also notice that they are a couple united through their marriage to Christ or the Church. Maybe leadership was never supposed to be a one person gig. Maybe creation- and all institutions therein- was meant to be led relationally, man and woman side by side, equally dignified but with complementary natures. I think this complementarity is what is missing in modern leadership and why this discussion has become necessary.
6 NKSTanley // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:45 am
I have a couple of question to pose based on this post.
1) Does man find his “being” in action and does woman find her “being” in being?
2) Due to the complimentary natures of man and woman, do certain virtues come more natural to one than the other?
I have a few more, but thought I would start with these two. Thanks!
7 Dave H // Nov 23, 2007 at 12:06 pm
NKS,
Can you clarify what you mean by ‘finding one’s being’? That is, do you mean ‘telos’?
Both male and female are called to realize (both in the intellectual sense of ‘become aware’ and in the active sense of ‘fulfill the potential of’) the gift of being. Both are called to respond to God’s gratuity by giving wholly of their heart, mind, and strength, so I don’t think a strict division of “acting” and “just being” properly describes how each ought to flourish.
As for question 2, I think it would be more appropriate to say certain *capacities* come more naturally to one than the other, while the virtues depend on an individual’s response to grace and a myriad of human factors.
8 NKStanley // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm
After reading the post again, I realized that my question was based off something that I misread. I agree with Dave’s response to my questions. Great post, Katie.
9 Susan // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Miss Katie,
Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you !!! You are a jem!
10 Isaac // Nov 26, 2007 at 11:16 am
Nathan,
Your second question reminds me of a talk that then Professor, now Dr., Rziha gave at a men’s retreat at BC. He was explaining what makes a man’s soul different than a woman’s. I don’t remember it all that well, but I will do my best to recall it.
The aspects of a human being that make up the soul are the intellect, the will, and the emotions. The intellect leads us to know and understand God; the will gives us the capacity to choose and to love; the emotions are the movements and reactions of our soul to things we sense or experience (a look at Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility would be appropriate here for a better understanding of the emotions). As men and women, we are both called to know God in His fullness of Goodness, Beauty, and Truth, so are intellects must be the same. We are also called to “love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselvesâ€, so our wills must be the same. Which then leaves us with the emotions. Here, and I think anyone will agree with this, is where men and women differ. Each sex sees the world differently and responds to the world differently. Indeed, this is the premise for the entire discussion of masculine and feminine leadership.
This understanding then leads into the virtues, and here is where my memory begins to fade. The four cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Prudence, the virtue of discerning the proper course of action, belongs primarily as an act derived from the intellect, to know what is right and wrong. Justice, the virtue by which we give others what is due to them, is more explicitly an act of love, and hence from the will. Therefore, in these two virtues, the natural virtue of men and women must be similar because the intellect and will of each sex is the same.
This leaves us with temperance and fortitude. And this is where the natural virtues differ. I will say that these are generalizations, but with an understanding of masculinity and femininity. Men, especially and uniquely, are called to be soldiers. Even from early childhood, boys are the ones taking the risks and thus the ones with all the scars (and all the cool stories to go with them!). By looking at this, it can be seen that men have a natural inclination towards the virtue of fortitude, because it enables them to fulfill a most fundamental role of their masculinity. Vice versa, women are more naturally inclined towards temperance. Looking at their call to be examples of holiness and beauty and goodness, temperance allows them to bring those things forth in their femininity.
I hope that makes sense. Again, I apologize if it’s not quite clear. I can’t remember all of what Dr. Rziha said, especially in the natural virtues more unique to men and women. I only remember which virtues he associated with each sex. Most of what I wrote on that subject is just my thoughts on the matter. Again, they are broad generalizations and each person may be endowed with specific natural virtues. These were just a starting point derived from the understanding of man and woman. We all must still strive to perfect all of the virtues to fulfill our common call, to become like Christ.
CHRISTUS REX
Leave a Comment