John Paul II
Recuperating a rightful understanding of Mary within the reality of the Church was crucial for John Paul II’s sense of how a one-sided notion of the Church, as a hierarchical and clerical institution (Vatican I), was to be integrated into a notion of the Church as communio, a communion of persons (Vatican II), in a way that neither weakened the importance of the Petrine institution nor reduced the “People of God” to a democratic congregation. . . . he identified a mutual priority of the Marian dimension of the Church in relation to the Petrine, and of the Petrine in relation to the Marian.
Hmm. A mutual priority? I do not understand the terminology. Nor do I see the propriety in reducing an entire Church council to a "one-sided notion" of any sort. Is this a fair description of JPII's thought? Is it sensible at all?
Then there is this more sociological question:
We should acknowledge, in light of John Paul II’s emphasis on recovering the dignity of women in the way indicated here, that he has been criticized for the lack of a corresponding treatment of the dignity of men. In response, we should say that, just as the pope thought that the Petrine dimension was conceived in a one-sided (fragmented) fashion in the modern Church (Vatican I) and needed integration with the Marian dimension for there to be an adequate ecclesial communio, so did he judge that the masculine dimension had been emphasized in one-sided fashion in modern culture, and thus needed integration with the feminine for there to be an adequate domestic communion of persons.
More accusations of one-sidedness, this time not blasphemous. BUT I find this hard to swallow. Modern society is too masculine? I suppose I can see why superficially it might appear so. Judged by every other period in history, our age would seem dead set on inducing women to act like men and forcing nature to bend or break whenever she (heh) made this inconvenient. But if everyone thinks they can get in on the man game, does this mean everyone is manly?
It would be fairer to say, I think, that everyone's buying because the currency has been debased. There is hardly even a concept of masculinity left, other than the caracatures we all know. To many, male pride seems akin to white pride, something that demonsrates complicity with past oppression.
If anything today appears 'masculine' it would be science, which powerfully placates the monsters that threaten us. But it does so in the name of comfort and pleasure, not duty and virtue. I don't believe for a second that femininity is reducible to the former pair, but this paradigm has created an environment in which the masculine virtues are less often needed and still more rarely wanted. Of course they are needed, but the modern eye does not see this clearly. I for one can think of nothing that would be more helpful to Christendom now than renewed attention to the nature and principles of Christian manhood.
Could anyone comment on the accuracy of Schindler's reading of JPII on these points?