This is what I had in mind about the superiority of loving, with respect to our final end(ST II.Q.23.6.ad1):
The operation of the intellect is completed by the thing understood being in the intellectual subject, so that the excellence of the intellectual operation is assessed according to the measure of the intellect. On the other hand, the operation of the will and of every appetitive power is completed in the tendency of the appetite towards a thing as its term, wherefore the excellence of the appetitive operation is gauged according to the thing which is the object of the operation. Now those things which are beneath the soul are more excellent in the soul than they are in themselves, because a thing is contained according to the mode of the container (De Causis xii). On the other hand, things that are above the soul, are more excellent in themselves than they are in the soul. Consequently it is better to know than to love the things that are beneath us; for which reason the Philosopher gave the preference to the intellectual virtues over the moral virtues (Ethic. x, 7,8): whereas the love of the things that are above us, especially of God, ranks before the knowledge of such things. Therefore charity is more excellent than faith.

“. . . I say that it is the will of God that all graces should come to us by the hands of Mary. Now, this is indeed a most consoling truth for souls tenderly devoted to our most Blessed Lady, and for poor sinners who wish to repent. Nor should this opinion be looked upon as contrary to sound doctrine, since the father of theology, St. Augustine, in common with most writers, says, that Mary cooperated by her charity in the spiritual birth of all members of the Church. A celebrated writer, and one who cannot be accused of exaggeration or of misguided devotion, says, ‘that it was, properly speaking, on Mount Calvary that Jesus formed His Church’ and then it is most evident that the Blessed Virgin cooperated in a most excellent and especial manner in the accomplishment of this work. And in the same way it can be said, that though she brought forth the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, without pain, she did not bring forth the body of this Head without very great suffering; and so it was on Mount Calvary that Mary began, in an especial manner, to be the Mother of the whole Church.” — St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, The Glories of Mary

I would find that interpretation more convincing if it weren’t perfectly clear that Our Lady does literally do all the things on the Holy Father’s list (suffer, have to flee, and give birth) with the painful element of the birth being the only aspect of the metaphor/allegory that any of us would want to exclude. But I’ll leave it at that. I said I would let people draw their own conclusions.

“Furthermore, even St. Thomas admitted that there is a sense in which loving is superior(cannot remember why-maybe you could help with that?).”

Well, it’s widely acknowledged among the medievals (and St. Paul says this directly, of course) that charity is the greatest of the virtues, and that which must underlie every other virtue in order for it to be true. But when it comes to differences in the sexes, I don’t know what to make of any of this, because it isn’t clear to me how the differences in roles correspond to differences in actual virtues, especially since the virtues are supposed to form a unity anyway. I don’t know, obviously all that confuses me.

“You wish to see childbearing primarily as an honor rather than a punishment. Good point. While it began ignominiously, it received a special dignity after Our Lady bore Christ. It may still remain as a punishment, but one replete with blessings rather than shame.”

I think you put that very well, thank you. I’m sorry it took me so long to get that across.

Perhaps the woman in Revelation is more of an allegorical figure than a metaphorical one. The concrete example of a woman laboring painfully in childbirth signifies the spiritual laboring of Our Lady and the Church.

For what it is worth, TB’s interpretation of the Pope’s statement seems more obvious to me, even without taking into account the broader tradition which it favors.

The devil sinned more grievously than Eve and was punished more grievously, but neither indicates an inferiority of nature. In fact, he possessed a nature far superior to hers. I find this objection silly. Nonetheless, I must admit that the implications of exclusion from teaching and ruling are a little more disturbing at first. There are two explanations which I find preserve the sense of the text without diminishing the dignity of women. First, that the exclusion exists only as a punishment and therefore implies no natural inferiority, as indicated above. [Though, at least with respect to ruling, I think it likely that this would have been a male prerogative regardless of the Fall, simply because the family runs more smoothly with one head. I believe St. Thomas speaks to this.] Secondly, on might argue that men may be superior with respect to ruling and women with respect to loving: “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.”(Casti Connubii) Of course, St. Thomas declared that Knowing is superior to Willing, because in Knowing you possess the object in a richer sense. However, Willing(and thus loving) are acts of rational creatures and, therefore, to love more perfectly is a superiority qua rational creature. Furthermore, even St. Thomas admitted that there is a sense in which loving is superior(cannot remember why-maybe you could help with that?).

I think I finally understand your objection. You wish to see childbearing primarily as an honor rather than a punishment. Good point. While it began ignominiously, it received a special dignity after Our Lady bore Christ. It may still remain as a punishment, but one replete with blessings rather than shame.

Our Lady had to flee AFTER she gave birth not before, so the metaphor breaks down on this account.

As regards the Pontiff’s statement: TP wants to suppose that the “giving birth in pain” bit is a metaphor, both in Our Lady’s case and in the Church’s. This doesn’t make sense to me. It is essential to a metaphor that it make reference to a real thing. In Discipulus’ example above, it wouldn’t make sense to talk about “like light passing through glass” if light did not, in literal fact, pass though glass. You can’t have a metaphor to a metaphor; at some point there has to be a real thing behind it.

In case people have forgotten it by now, let me repeat the most relevant line of the Holy Father’s speech: “Yet, this woman who suffered, who had to flee, who gave birth with cries of anguish, is also the Church, the pilgrim Church of all times. In all generations she has to give birth to Christ anew, to bring him very painfully into the world, with great suffering.”

So, you can see his parallel. The woman (who suffered, who had to flee, who gave birth with cries of anguish) is both Our Lady and also the Church… who gives birth to Christ very painfully in all generations. It seems absolutely plain to me that he is saying that Our Lady, like the Church, suffered, had to flee, and gave birth with cries of anguish. The first two are obviously true of Our Lady. Tobias Petrus can try to explain the last by presuming that this is a reference to Our Lady “giving birth” to us metaphorically, but given that the same sentence refers to the Church bearing Christ with pain, I think it is far more natural to assume that “bearing Christ” is the thing under discussion, especially since we’re obviously intended to know that Our Lady was the one who bore Christ in the most literal sense. (So, as I say, what would “the Church bearing Christ painfully” be a metaphor to, if nobody ever did this in literal fact?) Again, TP could accept that implication and try to view it as a reference to the Seven Sorrows, but I think that’s also a bit strange, since those sorrows were not in giving birth per se, but rather in events that occurred afterwards, and it’s obvious that we’re talking here about giving birth. I’ve admitted that this doesn’t have the plain, on-face clarity of a dogmatic statement, but I think the implication is pretty strong. However, I’m happy to leave it to our readers to read the passage for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

With regards to Joe Six Pack’s declaration that his position on this issue is a de fide Catholic truth, I can only say that it is not listed as such in the Catechism, that Ludwig Ott (one of the best-known scholars of Catholic dogma) says explicitly that it is not, and that he is joined in this opinion by my FSSP catechist with whom I once discussed the question. But you know best, as usual.

On the other point, I just don’t know what there is for us to argue about. I stated that there was a very natural way of reading the passage which would seem somewhat petty and insulting to women. I wanted to argue that such a reading is wrong. Perhaps you were never tempted by the wrong reading to begin with, in which case, good for you. But I do think it very natural to hear, “Don’t let women do X and Y, and the reason is that they were created second (and though it doesn’t logically follow that being created second makes one naturally inferior, I think it’s an easy implication to draw in this context) and that they sinned more grievously in the beginning” as an indication that women are banned from teaching or speaking because they are naturally inferior/are being punished. Having that idea in one’s mind, one might be inclined to hear the reference to childbearing as a reference only to the punishment given to women in Genesis, of bearing children in pain. I have actually heard it interpreted this way in sermons (though never, as far as I can recall, in a Catholic church.)

And even if St. Paul did not say explicitly that submission and silence are not equivalent to inferiority, it seems fitting for him to make a positive effort to cancel the possible implications, because it is very natural to assume that the group charged with teaching and holding authority is the naturally superior one. (If you think that that’s merely a modernist mistake, think again. Nobody articulated the idea more eloquently than the Greeks.)

But look… he does! If you imagine that he meant the reference to childbearing to be a reference to Our Lady (in part anyway — I was never averse to the idea that there might be more than one way in which “childbearing” was salutary for women) then it seems that motherhood as a whole is being mentioned as an honorable and holy task, every bit as much so as teaching or holding positions of power. That was precisely the interpretation I wished to endorse.

So when you say, “What I think you fail to see is that St. Paul actually is laying out an optimistic and quite Marian role for women, one which does them no shame,” I think you’re failing to see that this is exactly the interpretation that I favored from the beginning.

If there is any disagreement between us, it is only concerning how easy or “natural” it would be to interpret this passage wrongly. But that’s rather a silly thing to fight over, don’t you think, when we both agree on the proper interpretation?

We are not agreed. St. Paul wasn’t referring to Our Lady when he mentioned how women should adorn themselves. And he wasn’t referring to her when he excluded women from teaching. Nor was he referring to her when he said that women need to persist in faith, hope, charity, etc. He really is proposing how women today should behave. The fact that Our Lady is in the background (where we agree) does not mitigate the literalness of St. Paul’s injunctions, but rather reinforces it. If I understood your proposal, if St. Paul is referring to Our Lady, then the “woman shall be saved through childbearing” doesn’t refer to women today. Or at least somehow the force is mitigated. Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Because otherwise I can’t see how the statement is at all unkind should Our Lady not be the referent. If women are supposed to be saved through childbearing literally, then that is a fair and kind thing even if Our Lady is not mentioned. And if St. Paul does refer to Our Lady obliquely, then women should imitate her. You came to the conclusion that Our Lady is the referent because otherwise much of the rest of the passage is unkind and unfair. I find Our Lady there because the passage is so kind and fair already — “Here’s how women can imitate the New Eve and not the old one.”

You mention the fact that the Church needs to imitate Our Lady. Our Lady suffered and now is in glory, as the suffering Church will be. Agreed, and I already addressed this when I mentioned Our Lady’s pains at Calvary. By bringing forth Christ in pain, the Church imitates the pains of Our Lady’s Compassio. She suffered “delivering” us (Christ’s mystical members) to God, we suffer “delivering” Christ to the world. And giving birth to Our Lord did indeed entail suffering — the Seven Sorrows, which do not include any mention of painful physical delivery. So yes, the birth pangs of the Lady Clothed with the Sun do apply to Our Lady — the *same* way they apply to the Church, metaphorically, in regard to spiritual sorrows and travails. That’s how the theologians and doctors of the Church take it (see below). My point is that Londiniensis misinterpreted the Pope’s words, as did you, when you took “this woman who, etc.” as referring literally to Our Lord’s birth. As you note, context proves otherwise.

And by making your point about the necessity of the Church imitating Our Lady, you reinforce my case, too. If Our Lady was saved by childbearing, so too are married women, who are in fact the majority of women. As already noted, the Greek word for “woman” is also the word for “wife,” so you can translate, “Wives shall be saved by childbearing.”

But every saint and blessed and doctor who’s ever addressed the question of Our Lady and labor unanimously rejects the idea that she suffered, with solid arguments, and they all regard it as a serious matter. Which is why the mention of this impious theory scandalizes me, personally, and the scandal only grows the longer others persist in it. This is a serious error, as much for the spurious grounds on which it is advanced as for the specific content. I regret picking up St. Thomas’ point on this matter in one of my comments, which is what sparked the debate here.

On the Cantigas, it is a pity that English speaking Catholics do not have easy access to the broad body of poetry and literature that other Catholic cultures have to offer. In Spanish, many of the greatest examples of poetry are poems to the Christ, the Virgin, and the saints. This is true from the Middle Ages to the Age of Gold (San Juan de la Cruz, Lope de Vega, Calderon de la Barca), to the Baroque (Gongora, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz), to the modern period (Gabriela Mistral, Cesar Vallejo). There is even a form of drama, the “auto-sacramental”, that was very popular in the time of the Counter-Reformation, that was an extended allegory to illustrate the truths of the Catholic Faith. Compared to what exists in Spanish alone, Catholic literature in English is a very small collection indeed.

Original thesis: St. Paul may have been referring to Our Lady when he referenced women being “saved in childbirth.”

Argument: Among other things, if he didn’t bring her into the picture, the discussion would seem both unkind and a bit misleading. So it would be nicer to suppose that he intends for us to be thinking of her when he makes that remark.

As far as I understand, we both agree on that point. So we’re all good, then.

JSP, I’m under no obligation to consult you about what I post. Anyway, I post on all sorts of things, and “women’s” posts can’t account for much more than 5%. If you don’t like them, don’t read them.

Be open to all the Truths of the Catholic Faith.

And also stop focusing on “the woman’s” point of view.

…there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all.

It’s true that the Pope particularly emphasizes different dimensions more with respect to different aspects of the vision. Presumably this is determined with respect to relevance. In the present time Our Lady is in glory and the Church is still in pain, and these aspects had the most immediate relevance to the points he was making, but that doesn’t mean that every aspect of the Woman does not entirely find an echo in the relevant entity. To me that seems by far the most natural way to read the Holy Father’s words. Our Lady was once in pain bringing forth Christ; now she is in glory. The Church is now in pain bringing forth Christ, but one day she will likewise be glorified.

But I suppose even the Holy Father’s words allow for some ambiguity. He does not directly say either “Our Lady suffered birth pangs” or “Our Lady did not suffer birth pangs.” Sorry, I really didn’t mean to rehash this, but I just thought it would be nice to include that tidbit, sent by one of our readers, for the perusal of the others.

If this was addressed to me, I have to say that none of my comments were motivated by the “don’t gossip” theory. I do not know what you’re referring to when you mention my reflection on that point.

Clara: “I think we’re in substantial agreement about most of the important points.”

Wait a minute. I’m confused.

Your position in your last clarification was that you perceived St. Paul’s comments as being petty and mean. He seems to downplay Adam’s sin and then ommits that Our Lady undid the “shame” that St. Paul is citing as a rationale for current policies. He excludes women from teaching as a punishment, then tells them to rear children as a punishment.

My position was (and still is) that St. Paul is being fair. His policies are not shameful, nor do they entail any punishment that Our Lady cancelled *for us.* He is not singling out women unfairly by claiming that Adam was “not seduced.” St. Paul nowhere says that childrearing is a punishment (he also tells women to engage in good works and practice faith, which are not punishments). In fact, since Eve had no teaching role to begin with (having been created second), St. Paul here imposes no special burden on women except having to fight to overcome the “old Eve” (just as the men have to overcome the “old Adam” that drives them to impure anger and contention). He proposes not a life of ongoing shame as though Our Lady never repaired Eve’s sin, but a life of grace dependent on the idea that Our Lady did repair Eve’s sin.

As such, I see no “substantial agreement about most of the important points,” unless you’ve changed your mind.

Follow the context. The Pope is engaging in exegesis of the Woman Clothed in the Sun in the Book of the Apocalypse. He notes that the Woman is “a multidimensional image”:

“Without any doubt, a first meaning is that it is Our Lady, Mary, clothed with the sun, that is, with God, totally; Mary who lives totally in God, surrounded and penetrated by God’s light. Surrounded by the 12 stars, that is, by the 12 tribes of Israel, by the whole People of God, by the whole Communion of Saints; and at her feet, the moon, the image of death and mortality.”

“Mary has left death behind her; she is totally clothed in life, she is taken up body and soul into God’s glory and thus, placed in glory after overcoming death, she says to us: Take heart, it is love that wins in the end!”

“The message of my life was: I am the handmaid of God, my life has been a gift of myself to God and my neighbour. And this life of service now arrives in real life. May you too have trust and have the courage to live like this, countering all the threats of the dragon.”

“This is the first meaning of the woman whom Mary succeeded in being. The ‘woman clothed with the sun” is the great sign of the victory of love, of the victory of goodness, of the victory of God; a great sign of consolation.’”

That is a continuous quotation. This is a self-contained section that identifies the Woman of Revelation with the Blessed Virgin Mary. NO mention of birth pangs.

Then the Pope immediately continues:

“Yet, this woman who suffered, who had to flee, who gave birth with cries of anguish, is also the Church, the pilgrim Church of all times. In all generations she has to give birth to Christ anew, to bring him very painfully into the world, with great suffering. Persecuted in all ages, it is almost as if, pursued by the dragon, she had gone to live in the wilderness.”

“However, in all ages, the Church, the People of God, also lives by the light of God and as the Gospel says is nourished by God, nourishing herself with the Bread of the Holy Eucharist. Thus, in all the trials in the various situations of the Church through the ages in different parts of the world, she wins through suffering. And she is the presence, the guarantee of God’s love against all the ideologies of hatred and selfishness.”

“We see of course that today too the dragon wants to devour God who made himself a Child. Do not fear for this seemingly frail God; the fight has already been won. Today too, this weak God is strong: he is true strength.”

Now the Pope already closed off the section about the Virgin Mary. When he says “this woman who suffered, who had to flee, who gave birth with cries of anguish,” “this woman” is not the Blessed Virgin, but the Woman Clothed in the Sun. So the Pope is saying that to the extent the Woman Clothed in the Sun gives birth in anguish, the Woman represents NOT the Blessed Virgin, but the Church. The CHURCH “gives birth” to Christ in pain through the ages by living the Christian life and giving witness (martyrdom) to Him. The Pope nowhere ascribes birth pangs to the actual, physical Birth of Our Lord at Bethlehem. He nowhere identifies the painful birth of Christ with the Birth at Bethlehem. He specifically ascribes that part of St. John’s vision to the Church alone. So Pope Benedict is *perfectly* in synch with traditional Catholic exegesis in exempting Our Lady from birth pangs. Q.E.D.

Of course, he might have said that Our Lady suffered spiritual pangs when the Church was born at Calvary. The sinless Head was born with joy, the sinful members with travail, the Seven Sorrows, the piercing of her Immaculate and Dolorous Heart (gee, I’m verging into Montfortian prose here . . .).

So Our Lady did not suffer birth pain.

DEAL WITH IT. ACCEPT IT. LOVE IT.

Too bad that whole Cornell Society for a Good Time Ladies Auxilary idea never got off the ground..