Convention or Liberation?
By Genevieve S. Kineke
“Nice
girls don’t.” This truism from a half-century ago
reflected the well-recognized and practical fact that sexual
indiscretions would burden women more than men. The conventionality
of suburban life may not have held up Christian virtue as much
as it sought to protect reputations, but even this secondary
goal seemed uphold chastity for the sake of human respect,
if nothing else.
The ensuing sexual revolution seemed to adjust the scales
of “justice” more evenly, so that promiscuity was
a choice available to both men and women, with few side effects.
The pulsing beat of “free love” blared from so
many outlets that, eventually, what were once called “indiscretions” turned
into the very building block of “women’s liberation.” Birth
control and abortion were essential elements in the new world-view,
eliminating any unwanted consequences of sex outside of marriage,
and soon, indifferent acceptance of children out-of-wedlock
confirmed that the revolution was entrenched.
It is difficult to have a rational conversation about such
things today, decades after the culture’s adjustment
to the separation of conjugal love and procreation; and men,
especially, are required to refrain from commenting, having
no legitimate voice in the choices women are called to make.
But Jesus felt no such compulsion.
Our Lord mixed freely with women from all walks of life and
spoke clearly about their choices. From holy women to harlots,
he gazed with sincere affection at those whose very femininity
called them to receive love and give love in return. He clearly
outlined the sins that inhibited that exchange—the very
exchange meant to enrich them and all they touched.
The contemporary phenomenon of sexual license in the developed
world is simply another form of sin that keeps women from being
truly free. From the abuse of divorce from Moses’ time,
to the harems of antiquity, to female infanticide rampant in
many cultures, women cannot find their true dignity in cultures
that do not value chastity.
Mulieris Dignitatem cites many examples of indignity towards
women, and stresses that the Gospel was in their best interest. “Christ
speaks to women about the things of God, and they understand
them; there is a resonance of mind and heart, a response of
faith. Jesus expresses appreciation and admiration for this
distinctly “feminine” response” (MD, 15).
Never did he indicate that women were “the weaker sex,” in
fact, his purifying love and message of hope so attracted them
that they stayed by his side even during his Passion. “As
we see in this most arduous test of faith and fidelity, the
women proved stronger than the Apostles” (ibid).
Knowing full well that the vulnerability of women often placed
them in difficult situations, he held them to the very standard
which would be both their refuge and their salvation. “Consequently,
the women who are close to Christ discover themselves in the
truth which he ‘teaches’ and ‘does,’ even
when this truth concerns their sinfulness. They feel ‘liberated’ by
this truth, restored to themselves: they feel loved with an ‘eternal
love,’ with a love which finds direct expression in Christ
himself” (ibid).
God’s standard of chastity is the path to authentic
liberation. Despite the siren call of sexual license and intimacy
without consequences, love isn’t free. The price of our
redemption—which is the measure of God’s love—was
bought in blood and swamped with tears.
Nice girls may have been buoyed by convention at one time,
but at this point strong women are what are needed. We must
reclaim that “feminine response” that Jesus so
appreciated and admired—for there we will find our dignity,
our vocation, and true liberation.
Mrs. Kineke is the author of The Authentic
Catholic Woman (Servant Books).
|