Reply on Pope Pius XI's Magisterium

In my latest essay over on Catholic Stand, I finished up talking about how the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium works; what it is and what it is not. There was one commenter who had a question about Pope Pius XI and his encyclical Casti Connubii. The commenter's words will be in red, with my reply in blue.

Tom: Yet the other part of Casti Connubii -- condemning equal rights for women -- is that still the Magisterium?

Nicholas: I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. I'll be happy to engage more fully then. It seems different people have different meanings of "equal rights". There are many different connotations. I can assure you, that in the fullest sense of the term, Pope Pius XI did not condemn equal rights in this encyclical; quite the contrary, actually.

Also, keep in mind that there are three categories when declarations of the authentic Magisterium are made. Only those in the first two categories are recognized as infallibly taught.

Tom: Pius condemns those who say "the rights of husband and wife are equal" (para. 74), called "the subjection of wife to husband" an eternal truth though the specifics vary with time and place (para. 26 - 28), and "there must be a certain inequality" legally (para. 76). I think we can confidently say that these teachings have been superseded.

He also condemns mixed marriages without a special dispensation (para. 82), another teaching which has been superseded.

Pope Pius XI

I think context is key here. I don't think Pius XI said anything scandalous or wrong in his document, nor was anything necessarily "superseded", as you put it, but more on that in a minute. The language he uses to describe these things (i.e., equal rights in the sections you posted) are different from how people might talk about such things today. When you note that Pius XI condemned equal rights, what are the specific "rights" you have in mind? Voting, working, etc.?

Regarding the quoted section of paragraph 74, he is not saying that women can't work. What he's talking about is the duty of the married couple. By virtue of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, couples are called to have children, and if infertile for whatever reason, to at least be open to children. Oftentimes, a successful career for women of child bearing age means putting off having children. Many Catholic women use artificial birth control to achieve this goal, and children who have already been born to this couple may be neglected if the wife pursues a career, especially if her husband is still working. This is one of the things that Pius XI warns against because it is neglecting the realization of the "noble office of a Christian woman and wife." This thought process he condemns in paragraph 74 "debas[es]... the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood" (CC 75).

He condemns the notion that "the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother". He's right on target there. In paragraph 76 he talks about how this "equality of rights" is "much exaggerated and distorted". Of course husband and wife are equal partners, and equal in dignity. But the husband and wife, because one is male and one is female, have different roles, and thus, possess an "inequality" in certain aspects. In what sense is the wife "unequal" to the husband, or in other words, subject to him? Pius XI clarifies what he means by this in those paragraphs you mentioned, 26-28:

"This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion...; it [this subjection] forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love." (CC 27)

Pope St. John Paul II echoes Pius XI sentiments when he says: 

"In creating the human race 'male and female' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity, endowing them with the inalienable rights and responsibilities proper to the human person. . . . But clearly, all of this does not mean for women a renunciation of their femininity or an imitation of the male role." (Familiaris consortio 22, 23)

Pope St. John Paul II

All that is being condemned is the notion that a woman can be equal to a man at the expense of her femininity. For example, if a woman feels she needs to sterilize herself to become equal to a man (or refrains from sexual activity altogether for an indefinite period with her husband so as to avoid motherhood and achieve her goal of "emancipation" in the work place), this is in fact a distortion of equality; it is a "great detriment" to the "body which is the family". And of course, as you pointed out, Pius XI provides for the occasion when "social and economic conditions of the married woman [become] altered on account of the changes in social intercourse"; times obviously change, but he reminds us that despite these changes, "the essential order of the domestic society [must] remain intact" and that we "keep in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demands." (CC 77)

So in my view, I don't see anything problematic with Pius XI's quoted words, nor do I see any contradiction with what the Church presently teaches today.

As for paragraph 82, I'm not a canon lawyer, but I really don't see any changes made regarding mixed marriages in the present day. First, note that not all mixed marriages are "rashly" or "heedlessly" contracted. But some are. Second, Pius XI is directly quoting Canon 1060 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1124 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (the current edition) directly corresponds to this canon that Pius XI quoted. This canon basically says the same thing:

"Can. 1124: Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church."

Canon 1125 also warns against "the danger of the falling away of the Catholic party and the perversion of the children" that the old Canon 1060 warned of, but in a more positive fashion:

"Can.  1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled: 

"1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;..."

A special dispensation or "express permission" is still needed today as it was then.

Tom: Pius XI says that women can't have equal rights with men. What exactly did he mean by that? He was vague, but that's his fault, not ours. It's not up to us to guess. As it is, he is vague enough so that whole bunches of rights can be denied women. Remember that first century Christians were even o.k. with slavery. (Paul returning Onesimus to Philemon.)

On the one hand, say that men and women (and slaves and owners) have "equal dignity", etc. On the other hand, say it's o.k. for women to be denied rights, excluded from positions of power, etc., simply because they're women. This might not have seemed a contradiction to the ancient mind but it certainly does to the modern mind. See Slacktivist's article from a few years ago.

It deals with gay marriage, but it can apply to women, or to slaves.

Nicholas: I still don't see where Pope Pius XI is saying women can't have equal rights with men. Again, context is key. Pius XI is talking about husbands and wives. I'm still not clear on what specific "bunches of rights" you're speaking of. What "positions of power" are we speaking of here? In government? CEOs of a business? In the Church's sacramentally ordained hierarchy? I do think that you're missing Pius XI's point, and I don't think he's vague at all. I think I managed to explain what he meant, and I was not guessing about it. If anything, Pius XI's meaning is obscured because Western culture has moved in a way that makes Pius XI's comments and viewpoint seem as if they came from another planet; the meaning is obscured by modern ideologies, not a vagueness on the part of the pope.

I don't see Pius XI contradicting himself at all (or contradicting the Church today, for that matter), and I also reject the idea that he (or the Church) is saying that it's OK for women to be denied rights. Pius XI made it clear that he supports the equal rights of all humans, yet also made it clear as to what he rejects: the "false liberty and unnatural equality" which results in "the husband suffer[ing] the loss of his wife, [and] the children of their mother..." (cf. CC 75)

This is the "equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted" that Pius XI speaks of. I read Slacktivist's article. I think the arguments presented in the essay are flawed, but I don't have the time to rebut it right now. The only thing I'll comment on is that state sanctioned same-sex marriage is not a "right". I can't apply that to women at this juncture because I still feel like we are not agreeing on what "rights we're even specifically talking about right now, as I noted above pertaining to "positions of power". But I will say this...

If the modern mind sees something on one hand, and something else on another hand as you put forward, and that modern mind says "Hold up. There seems to be a contradiction here!", we have to keep in mind that an apparent contradiction is not necessarily an actual contradiction. As I said, the "modern mind" is confused on a number of issues, i.e., state sanctioned same-sex marriages. It's no surprise that many people have not taken the time to work through what appears to them to be a contradiction. Although St. Augustine said the following regarding Scripture, I think his words can work here as well in regards to our conversation here:

"If any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain how both passages, instead of being contradictory, may be harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all perplexity removed by a careful examination."

Also, I do not want to get sidetracked into discussing slavery, but I want to briefly mention that a distinction between chattel slavery and other types of slavery (more like indentured servitude) needs to be made. Also, 1st century Christians like St. Paul were not endorsing or "o.k with slavery". In Onesimus' specific case, several scholars are of the opinion Onesimus and Philemon were half-brothers, and that, actually, St. Paul "was asking Philemon to restore Onesimus to an equal, familial status through manumission." I'd recommend reading Chapter 22 of Trent Horn's recent book, "Hard Sayings" for more on that specific issue.