More on Monogamy and Mary
Further Conversation on Two Recent Vatican Documents
Today’s post includes two follow-ups on earlier commentaries on two recent documents from the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF): Una Caro, on the beauty of monogamy, and Mater Populi Fidelis, on the Virgin Mary’s role in salvation. First, I contrast Una Caro’s treatment of mutual respect in marriage with the views of Fr. Chad Ripperger, a well-known traditionalist Catholic figure, as summarized by Mike Lewis. Second, I respond to recent criticisms of Mater Populi Fidelis by the International Marian Association’s Theological Commission.
Over at Where Peter Is, Mike Lewis has an important article detailing the views of Fr. Chad Ripperger, an exorcist and popular traditionalist Catholic media figure, on women and their role within marriage. Ripperger is a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the society founded, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, in 1988 by former members of the Society of St. Pius X and dedicated to the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). Ripperger regularly writes and speaks about exorcisms and the concept of spiritual warfare, but he is also viewed by many traditionalist Catholics as an authoritative voice on a number of topics.
According to Lewis, Ripperger advocates for the idea of the husband’s “final decision” authority. What this means is that, within a marriage, the husband has the final say on decisions affecting the couple, their children, and their household. Ripperger also holds the view that a wife’s role should be in the home raising children and not working outside the home. As Lewis explains, “A wife having economic agency is not framed as a prudential arrangement, a shared discernment, or a response to concrete family needs, but as a spiritual and psychological threat to male identity and household order.”
Ripperger’s views have much in common with the views of male headship often found among evangelical Protestants, but as Lewis insightfully points out, there are nevertheless some important differences. Most evangelical Protestant advocates of patriarchy hold that the husband’s headship should be a form of sacrificial leadership, based on Paul’s exhortation in the letter to the Ephesians: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her” (5:25, NAB). As Lewis explains, for Ripperger, however:
Little is said about the husband’s concrete moral duties, while considerable attention is paid to policing female resistance, warning against “domination,” and enforcing obedience as a matter of order rather than charity. What emerges is a stark framework in which hierarchy functions less as a sacrifice for men and more as a disciplinary expectation imposed on women.
Any autonomous agency on the part of the wife or resistance to the husband’s demands is described as “the curse of Eve.”
Despite claiming to represent “traditional Catholicism,” Ripperger’s understanding of gender roles in marriage, as Lewis rightly notes, “collides directly with the Church’s teaching on marriage as communion, friendship, and mutual self-gift.” As I noted here at Window Light earlier this month, the DDF’s recent doctrinal note on the beauty of monogamy, Una Caro, directly challenges perspectives like Ripperger’s. For one, it rejects an authoritarian interpretation of male headship: “In the home, decisions cannot be made unilaterally, since each spouse shares responsibility for the family” (#123, citing Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia #220). This teaching is rooted in the principle that within each person is an interior dimension where only God can reach and which is foundation of the right to conscience (##127-28). This autonomy of each of the spouses does not damage the bond of marriage, but rather is its strength: “[I]t allows you to keep intact that level of respect and wonder that are part of every healthy love, which never intends to absorb the other” (#126).
Lewis explains that Ripperger’s views on marriage are so extreme that he considers many other traditionalists to be tainted by “feminism.” For example, “tradwife” social media influencers who promote a lifestyle centered around raising children, homeschooling, and traditional crafts are, in Ripperger’s view, not sufficiently submissive to their husbands because they speak with an independent voice through their social media accounts and earn income through monetizing those accounts.
Una Caro, on the other hand, does not limit itself to challenging views as extreme as Ripperger’s. For example, it warns that an abusive, authoritarian mindset can grow gradually from possessiveness and a lack of respect for a spouse’s dignity (#123). As I noted in my earlier commentary, the document also seeks to distance the Church’s magisterial teaching on gender complementarity from those Catholics who have used that teaching to advocate for strict gender roles. I mentioned as an example the NFL kicker Harrison Butker who, at a commencement address at Benedictine College, told female graduates that they would find more happiness in marriage and raising children than in pursuing careers. Una Caro insists that a rigid view of gender roles limits the spouses’ opportunities for personal development and does not fully respect their dignity (#123).
In Una Caro, then, the DDF appeals to the Church’s Tradition to challenge Catholic traditionalists. I noted a similar pattern in Pope Leo XIV’s recent apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te. Dilexi Te’s polemic against traditionalism is subtle, while Una Caro’s is quite explicit.
For his part, Lewis promises a second part of his article that likewise will contrast Ripperger’s teachings with those of the Catholic Church and, intriguingly, will address “the question of ecclesial responsibility: what it means when a priest with a large public platform advances ideas that place the faithful at risk.” In the first article, Lewis already makes the case that Ripperger’s rhetoric is a form of spiritual abuse, lending his clerical authority and a spiritual patina to what amounts to abusive relationships within marriage. I look forward to Lewis’s follow-up article.
