By JULIA HARRELL
(Editor’s Note: Julia Harrell holds a master’s degree in theology from Franciscan University.)
+ + +
To great jubilance at the possibility of the first female president of the United States, delegates at the Democratic National Convention confirmed Hillary Clinton as the party’s nominee.
Some conservatives, and especially religious conservatives, are dismissive of advocacy for women in leadership roles, viewing it as unnecessary at best and destructive to traditional social structures and gender roles at worst.
However, not all religious leaders share this view. Pope John Paul II was an enthusiastic champion of women and the expansion of their participation in public life. He devoted much of his academic writing and pastoral initiatives to celebrating women and what he called the “feminine genius.” The feminine genius is woman’s gift for seeing and receiving the other as a person, as a subject and not an object, and her willingness to serve them in a life-giving way.
In his 1995 Letter to Women, John Paul II praises the presence of women in the political sphere. He thanks them for their service in building a culture wherein economic and social systems reflect the dignity of all people. Specifically, he applauds woman’s gift for uniting “reason and feeling” in the culture.
In a world that averts its eyes from the suffering of the other, as ours so often does, we desperately need leaders who feel deep empathy for the marginalized and possess the intellectual acumen to translate those feelings into effective and meaningful action for change. Contrary to the narrative in some conservative American circles, women in public life are not a threat to the family unit and the moral fabric of society. Quite the opposite; they bring a sense of humanity to a domain that tends toward the utilitarian.
With Clinton’s nomination we can say that at last, a woman may hold the most powerful position in the world. At last, women who once did not even have the right to vote can now vote for a woman. At last, a woman may bring her unique perspective and gifts to bear upon increasingly complex global problems. Not a few people have posited that Clinton’s nomination and potential election is a cause for celebration, regardless of one’s personal politics.
This is an assertion that warrants examination, particularly for Christians who believe in the equal and complementary dignity of the sexes. Is it reasonable to believe that Clinton’s nomination is a boon to the cause of women’s advancement? To the contrary, Clinton’s nomination should not cheer, but rather alarm all Americans, regardless of their personal politics. The genius of women, as understood by John Paul II’s personalism, is an enriching gift to human society. Clinton embodies an abandonment of the virtues that constitute the feminine genius. Instead, she exhibits a consistent and calculated exploitation of the vulnerable and marginalized, particularly women.
Our culture values the technological and scientific, fields in which women have made significant contributions. Nonetheless, the contributions of women are disproportionately greater in the sphere of social relations and ethics, identified by John Paul II as the principal measure of progress over and above the technical. The heart of ethics and one of the gifts of the feminine genius is the right ordering of goods to serve the human person.
Clinton has repeatedly engaged in unethical behavior that reveals that she values her own political advancement over the dignity of the human person. Whether accepting large monetary donations from countries run by dictators notorious for human rights violations or granting positions of power to wealthy donors, Clinton has trampled the voiceless for her own gain.
Violence, particularly sexual violence, disproportionately affects women. John Paul II condemned such violence and called for both an increased recognition of the dignity of women and promotion of women’s participation in public life to combat it. One would hope that a woman would be a leader in the fight against sexual violence, but Hillary Clinton has shown precisely the opposite tendency.
Despite her rhetoric about “believing women,” she has threatened women who accused her husband of sexual assault, attempted to discredit those who claimed to have had consensual sexual relationships with him, and expressed her exasperation with “whiny women” who report sexual harassment. Certainly she is not culpable for her husband’s transgressions, but she is culpable for her campaign against his victims. For Hillary Clinton, the rights of those victims have been stumbling blocks to her participation in public life rather than goals for such participation.
A final hope of the late Pontiff was that women might become “teachers of peace,” not merely with words but with their actions and in their very person. He identified peace as the “most pressing need of our time.” During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton displayed a willingness to commit to military engagement abroad which far surpassed that of others in her party. Philosophically, she is committed to military action both as a means of addressing international conflict and also as a vehicle for the spread of American influence.
Her hawkish outlook, dismissal of diplomatic alternatives, and dedication to American exceptionalism make her quick to commit to armed conflict, paid for with the lives of American soldiers and the lives of civilians, often women and children, in war-torn areas.
Clinton’s disregard for peaceful solutions to societal problems is not limited to issues of foreign policy; she has repeatedly and forcefully expressed her advocacy for the expansion of abortion rights. Clinton favors permitting abortions at any gestational age, for any reason, and supports overturning the Hyde Amendment in order to permit the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions.
Discussing the expansion of abortion access and services, Clinton asserted that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” She is committed to the belief that access to abortion is a necessity for women’s full participation in society. In fact, what this ideology really says is that women’s bodies, as they are, are broken, a liability, and a disadvantage. If a woman cannot choose violence to rid herself of the new life carried within her body, she cannot participate on equal footing with men.
Never mind that there are other solutions to even the most challenging pregnancy situation that do not reject the woman and her intrinsic and defining capacity for bringing forth new life. Clinton chooses violence; she chooses the most efficient means available to achieve her goal — extermination of obstacles. Rather than building up and creating, she flattens and destroys.
The heart of the feminine genius is its gift for seeing the needs of others and meeting those needs through self-gift. In this way, woman serves as a model for all of humanity as the image of the fully realized human person. Hillary Clinton’s main objective throughout her public life has been to serve her own interests, even at the expense of others and especially other women.
Our nation is in desperate need of the feminine genius and its witness to the dignity of the human person. The nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for the presidency is a repudiation of the value of the genius of women and their capacity for creating a more authentic civilization based on love. It sends a message that for women to succeed, they ought to do away with their most powerful and life-giving abilities in favor of self-serving actions that further marginalize the most vulnerable members of society, including other women.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress