Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:28:17.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eve, Mary and the Historians: American Catholicism and Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

James J. Kenneally
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In viewing women as other “Mary's” many American Catholics have contested movements such as suffrage and higher education, believing them to be threats to a stable society and women's natural position in the home. Such a concept contained the seeds of its own destruction, for other Catholics, on the basis that pious, pure, females were superior to males, advocated that women's influence be extended beyond the immediate family. Contrasted with this “Mary” perception was that of woman as a tempting “Eve” whose societal activities must be confined, since she might undermine male spirituality. These stereotypes, each contributing to anti-feminism, have also influenced historians of Catholicism who tend to ignore the lives and problems of Catholic women. At this juncture in American Church history there is need for-an analysis of feminism's apparent erosion on the faith of Catholic women, and of an explanation as well of how prominent, influential women were able to reconcile their lives outside the home with their Church.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Fall 1976 , pp. 187 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Welter, Barbara, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,” American Quarterly XVIII (Summer, 1966), pp. 151–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Kenneally, James J., “Catholicism and Woman Suffrage in Massachusetts,” Catholic Historical Review LIII (April, 1967), pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

3 Pius, XICasti Connubi, 1930Google Scholar, as in Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, eds., The Woman in the Modern World: Papal Teachings (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1959), pp. 37–38Google Scholar; and in the same collection Pius, XII, To All Italian Women, October 1945, p. 131Google Scholar; To All Newly Weds, September 1941, pp. 68–69Google Scholar; To Newly Weds, February 1942, p. 83Google Scholar.

4 Sherwood, Grace H., “The Church and the Dignity of Woman,” Catholic Action XIV (July, 1932), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Faherty, W. B., “American Feminism: a Century After,” America LXXX (December 4, 1948), p. 235Google Scholar; Fries, Frederick W., “Should Women Work,” Catholic Digest II(May 1938), pp. 29–31Google Scholar; Kersbergen, Lydwine V., “Toward a Christian Concept of Woman,” New Catholic World CLXXXII (October, 1955), pp. 9–11Google Scholar; Sheerin, John B., “Mary Most Gracious Advocate,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review LII (May, 1952), p. 681Google Scholar.

5 Higgins, Thomas, Man as Man (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1949), p. 421Google Scholar.

6 Quoted in Tavard, George, Women in the Christian Tradition (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973), p. 129Google Scholar.

7 John, XXIII, Peace on Earth (Boston: St. Paul Editions, n.d.), pp. 10–11, 17Google Scholar; “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World,” in Abbott, Walter M., ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Guild Press, 1966), pp. 257, 227, 228Google Scholar.

8 “The Role of Women in Contemporary Society: Address of Pope Paul VI to the Convention of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, December 8, 1974,” Pope Speaks, XIX (Spring, 1975), p. 316Google Scholar.

9 Paul VI, “Women in the Life and Mission of the Church: an Address to the Committee for the International Women's Year, April 18, 1975,” ibid., XX (Summer, 1975), p. 39.

10 Brownson, Orestes, “The Woman Question,” Catholic World, IX (May, 1869), pp. 147, 150Google Scholar; Stanton, Elizabeth C., et al., eds., History of Woman Suffrage (6v., 1881–1922, reprinted by Arno and the New York Times: New York, 1967), III, p. 720Google Scholar; also see Swidler, Arlene, “Brownson and the ‘Woman Question,’” American Benedictine Review, XIX (June, 1968), pp. 211–219Google Scholar.

11 Kenneally, , “Catholicism and Woman Suffrage,” p. 47Google Scholar; Conway, Katherine E., ed., Watchwords from John Boyle O'Reilly (Boston; Joseph George Cupples, 1891), p. 20Google Scholar. Catholic opposition was also based on suffrage's alleged and actual association with socialism and nativism, see: Merk, Lois Bannister, “Boston's Historic Public School Crisis,” New England Quarterly, XXXI(June, 1958), pp. 194, 199Google Scholar; Grimes, Alan P., The Puritan Ethic and Woman Suffrage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 89,11, 125, 140Google Scholar; Goldstein, David and Avery, Martha M., Socialism: the Nation of Fatherless Children (Boston: T. J. Flynn & Co., 1911), pp. 21–22, 211, 223, 251, 298Google Scholar; McKee, Joseph W., “Shall Women Vote,” Catholic World CII(October, 1915), p. 53Google Scholar; and New York Times, November 8, 1917.

12 Kenneally, James J., “Woman Suffrage and the Massachusetts ‘Referendum’ of 1895,” Historian XXX(August, 1968), pp. 630–631Google Scholar.

13 Stanton, , History of Woman Suffrage, IV, pp. 1079–1080 and V, p. 448Google Scholar.

14 Stang, William, Socialism and Christianity (New York: Benziger Bros., 1905), pp. 78–80Google Scholar. For an excellent summary of American opposition to women's education see Welter, Barbara, “Anti-Intellectualism and the American Woman,” Mid-America, XLVIII (1966), pp. 258–270Google Scholar.

15 Merwick, Donna, Boston Priests 1848-1910: a Study of SociaJ and Intellectual Change (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Cross, Robert D., The Emergence of Liberal Catholicism in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 133Google Scholar.

17 Quoted in Swidler, “Brownson and ‘Woman Question,’” p. 218; also ibid., p. 157.

18 Quoted in O'Brien, John A., Courtship and Marriage (Paterson, N.J.: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1949). pp. 41–42Google Scholar.

19 Sister Smith, M. Leonita, Catholic Viewpoints About the Psychology, Social Role and Higher Education of Women,” unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University, 1961, p. 144Google Scholar.

20 Kenneally, James J., “Women and Trade Unions, 1870-1920: the Quandary of the Reformer,” Labor History XIV (Winter, 1973), pp. 43–44Google Scholar. Also see Lake, Leonora M., “Economic Wrongs as a Woman Sees Them,” Donahoes XXXI (January, 1899), p. 17Google Scholar.

21 Murphy, B., “Women as Bread Winners,” Catholic World, XVII (May, 1873), pp. 230, 232Google Scholar; O'Sullivan, Mary B., “The Sacrifice of the Shop-Girl,” Donahoes, XXIX (May, 1893), p. 532Google Scholar; “Should Married Women Work?” Donahoes XXIX (May, 1893), p. 632Google Scholar.

22 Broderick, Francis L., Right Reverend New Dealer:John A. Ryan (New York: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 58–59Google Scholar.

23 “Bishop Duffy Deplores Mothers' Wartime Jobs,” Catholic Action XXIV (July, 1942), p. 6Google Scholar; Schuyler, Joseph B., “Women at Work,” Catholic World CLVII (April, 1943), pp. 27–30Google Scholar; Editorial, Boston Pilot, May 30, 1942.

24 Fall River Herald News, May 18, 1942.

25 “Statements Issued by the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States on Victory and Peace, November 14, 1942,” p. 112 and “Statement on International Order of the Hierarchy of the United States, November 16, 1944,” p. 119, both documents in Huber, Raphael, ed., Our Bishops Speak, National Pastorals (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1952)Google Scholar.

26 Hertz, Solange, “The Two Faces of Eve,” Ave Maria XCIX (February 29, 1964), pp. 6–9Google Scholar; Editorial, “Women at Work,” America LXXX (January 8, 1949), p. 364Google Scholar; Kelly, George A., The Catholic Marriage Manual (New York: Random House, 1958), pp. 116–118Google Scholar.

27 Spalding, John L., “Basis of Popular Government,” North American Review CXXXIX (September, 1884), pp. 199–208Google Scholar.

28 McSweeny, Edward, “Das Ewige Weiblich,” Catholic World XLIX (June, 1889), p. 331Google Scholar; Murray, Thomas M., “Municipal Suffrage for Women,” Donahoes XXI (May, 1889), p. 451Google Scholar; Conway, Katherine, “Present Aspect of Woman Suffrage,” Donahoes XXXV (April, 1896), p. 394Google Scholar; New York Times, April 12, 1915. Also see Rorke, Margaret H., Letters and Addresses on Woman Suffrage by Catholic Ecclesiastics (New York: Devin-Adair Co., 1914)Google Scholar.

29 New York Times, September 13, October 12, 1920; America XXII(1920), p. 448Google Scholar; Catholic World CXII (1920), p. 152Google Scholar; America XLIV (1931), pp. 553–554Google Scholar.

30 “Pastoral Letter, 1919,” in Huber, , Our Bishops Speak, p. 46Google Scholar.

31 Spalding, John L., “Woman is the God-Appointed Educator,” Donahoes XCV (February, 1901), p. 176Google Scholar; Spalding, John L., Means and Ends in Education (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Co., 1895), pp. 100–130Google Scholar; Spalding, John L., “Women and the Higher Education: an Address Delivered Under the Auspices of the Auxiliary Board of Trinity College, at the Columbian University, Washington, D.C., January 16, 1899,” in Opportunity and Other Essays and Addresses (3d. ed., Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Co., 1903), pp. 57–60, 64–65Google Scholar.

32 Howe, Sarah W., “Trinity College,” Donahoes XLV (February, 1901), p. 319Google Scholar; Seton, William, “The Higher Education of Women and Posterity,” Catholic World LXXIII (May, 1901), pp. 148–149Google Scholar.

33 Ruether, Rosemary, “Are Women's Colleges Obsolete,” Critic XXVII (OctoberNovember, 1968), pp. 61–63Google Scholar.

34 Semper, I. J., “The Church and Higher Education for Girls,” Catholic Education Review XXIX (April, 1931), pp. 215–222Google Scholar; Bowler, Mary M., History of Catholic Colleges for Women in the United States of America (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1933), pp. 85–88Google Scholar; Schmiedeler, Edgar, “Near Equality with Men—So What,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review XLV (October, 1944), pp. 17–22Google Scholar; Sister Brennan, Mary, “Marriage is a Career,” Catholic Educator XXIX (May, 1959), p. 666Google Scholar; Faherty, , “American Feminism,” p. 235Google Scholar. For a particularly offensive expression of these notions see the 1940 commencement address at Notre Dame College, Md., where the speaker stated, “Once again the quality which I exhort you to give back to the world is a quality which peculiarly befits woman. I speak of the proper role of suffering.” He claimed this would refine and temper women's qualities and that mortification and purification of the flesh, in an acceptance of God's will, would liberate the spirit, see Guthrie, Hunter, “Woman's Role in the Modern World,” Catholic Mind XXXVIII (December 8, 1940), p. 497Google Scholar. A similar approach to women and suffering is found in Woolen, C. J., “Failure of Feminism,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, XLVIII (October, 1947), pp. 30–39Google Scholar.

35 Smith, , Catholic Viewpoints, pp. 118, 169-170, 183, 193, 203Google Scholar.

36 Suenens, Léon, The Nun in the World (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1963), p. 15Google Scholar.

37 “Immodest Women's Dress,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review XXX (November, 1929), pp. 171–173Google Scholar; Boston Pilot, April 30, 1938; New York Times, April 24, 1922, July 18 and 21, 1924, November 19, 1925, May 27, July 18, November 1, 1927, June 24, 1929, February 15, 1930.

38 Ford, John C. and Kelly, Gerald, Marriage Questions (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1963), p. 201Google Scholar; Pius, XII, Sacra Virgenitus, March 1954Google Scholar, in Benedictine Monks, Woman in the Modern World, pp. 13–17, 24Google Scholar.

39 New York Times, November 17, 1927; Providence Journal November 17, 1927; Pius, X, Motu Propino, 1903 (n.p., 1928), p. 12Google Scholar.

40 Stang, William, Pastoral Theology (Boston: Benziger Bros., 1897), pp. 178–179Google Scholar.

41 Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Papal Teachings: Education (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1960), p. 67Google Scholar.

42 Cross, , Liberal Catholicism p. 79Google Scholar; American Foundations of Notre Dame de Namur Compiled from Annals by a Member of the Congregation (Philadelphia: Dolphin Press, 1928), p. 552Google Scholar; Sister, M. P., “Trinity College,” Catholic Historical Review V (January, 1926), pp. 661–664Google Scholar.

43 Power, Edward J., Catholic Higher Education in America (Milwaukee: Bruce Publisning Co., 1940), pp. 185–188Google Scholar.

44 Semper, , “Church and Higher Education,” pp. 220–222Google Scholar.

45 Cunningham, William F., Pivotal Problems of Education (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1940), pp. 185–188Google Scholar.

46 For an example of these contentions through the years see the New York Times, March 9, 1920, November 3, 1922, November 21, 1925; Boston Pilot, March 13, 1920; Mrs. Slattery, Francis, “The Catholic Woman in Modern Times,” Catholic Mind XXVIII (March 22, 1930), pp. 124–131Google Scholar; “N.C.C.W. Protests Passage of Equal Rights Amendment, “ Catholic Action XV (July, 1933), p. 30Google Scholar; “Opposition to Bill Explained by Miss Regan Speaking for N.C.C.W.,” Catholic Action XX (March, 1938), p. 5Google Scholar; “Perils of Equal Rights Measure Cited by N.C.W.C. Representative,” Catholic Action XXVI (August, 1944), pp. 8, 23Google Scholar; “Face Equal Rights Amendment Realistically,” Catholic Action XXVII (November, 1945), p. 18Google Scholar; “Equal Rights Amendment,” Ave Maria LXV (February 1, 1947), p. 133Google Scholar; Woollen, C. J., “Failure of Feminism,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review XLVIII (October, 1947), pp. 30–39Google Scholar; Morrissy, Elizabeth, “The Status of Women: an Address before the National Council of Catholic Women, New Orleans, September 12, 1948,” Vital Speeches XV (November, 1948), pp. 55–60Google Scholar; Sheerin, John B., “May, Mary and Mothers,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review XLIX (May, 1949), pp. 601–605Google Scholar; Mrs. Norma Folda, President National Council of Catholic Women, “Statement for the Record, May 13, 1970,” The Equal Rights Amendment, Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, 2d session on S.J. Res. 61, May 5,6,7,1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 662.

47 McGuire, Constantine, Catholic Builders of the Nation (5v., Boston: Continental Press, 1923), II, p. 218Google Scholar.

48 Eberhardt, Newman C., Survey of American Church History (St. Louis: Herder, 1964), p. 145Google Scholar.

49 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1954.)

50 America IV (1916), pp. 276–277Google Scholar; Catholic Mind, XIII (1915), pp. 625–655Google Scholar; Kenneally, , “Catholicism and Woman Suffrage,” p. 53Google Scholar.

51 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956.)

52 (3v., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1971.)

53 The three Catholic “feminists” were Hortense Ward, Mathilde Anneke, and Kate Kennedy, the latter two abandoned Catholicism; the convert was Mary Nichols. Over one-third of the women identified as feminists by the editors of this work left the church in which they were born for a more liberally structured one, or abandoned religion altogether, a trend not noticeable in analyzing leading anti-suffragists.

54 Spalding, , “Women and Higher Education,” pp. 58–59Google Scholar.

55 Conway, Katherine, The Christian Gentlewoman and the Social Apostolate (Boston: T. J. Flynn & Co., 1904), pp. 13–14, 25Google Scholar; Conway, Katherine, “Woman Has no Vocation to Public Life,” Catholic World LVII (August, 1893), pp. 681–684Google Scholar; Conway, Katherine, “Present Aspect of Woman Suffrage,” p. 394Google Scholar.

56 Blake, Mary E., “True Solution of the Woman Question,” Donahoes XXIX (April, 1893), p. 418Google Scholar; for Blake's career see her obituary in the Boston Pilot, March 2, 1907 by Conway; Merwick, , Boston Priests, pp. 58, 167–168Google Scholar; McGuire, , Catholic Builders, IV, p. 393Google Scholar.

57 O'Sullivan, Mary B., “Are Girls a Burden?” Donahoes XXIX (March, 1893), p. 359Google Scholar; “Should Married Women Work: a Symposium,” Donahoes XXIX (May, 1893), p. 633Google Scholar.