Having a Role...

(More on this post.)

“to ensure freedom of choice for women, so that they have the possibility to take on social and ecclesial responsibilities in a way that is in harmony with family life.”

Let us be clear, the egalitarians are not interested in upholding women's social and ecclesial responsibilities -- what they seek is authority, leadership, a place in the hierarchy.

"For some time, we have left behind us, at least in Western societies, the model of the social subordination of women to men, a secular model which, however, has never been spent of all its negative effects."

Social subordination of women to men? Not only as wives to husbands, that is true. But women cannot have the same place as men do in the "public sphere" (poorly-named, especially since it has been perverted with the rise of the modern nation-state to mean rather little), as the public sphere is the sphere of relations and responsibilities between men as heads of families and co-citizens. What is subordination but hierarchy, a recognition that some are subject to the authority of others, by nature, though perhaps contrary to the desire of some?

"It is, furthermore, to encourage and to promote the effective presence of women in many areas of the public sphere, in the world of work and in places where the most important decisions are taken, and at the same time to uphold their presence and preferential attention, altogether special, in and for the family."

Just as it is a part of prudence to consider the particulars and to solicit not only counsel from others but to get help in understanding the concrete circumstances, so men should be open to the input from their wives and to women in general, not just information but even suggestions. And this contribution to political discussions need not only be done mediately, through husbands/fathers/guardians, but may be even done in a communal forum. But women do not have a place in public deliberation and decision-making.

Not only are men more attuned to thinking about justice (which the division of responsibilities and burdens requires) but they are the ones who must carry those burdens. If women are unable to exercise the duties of fathers or husbands because they do not think or behave like men, then they should not be exercising political authority (to any degree - deliberation only, or deliberation and decision-making), since that is essentially male thinking concerning the males in a community.

I see Pope Francis as carrying the Catholic feminist line further, decrying patriarchy but also radical egalitarianism, offering a compromise solution that acknowledges sex differences (sex complementarianism) but not accepting what those differences entail with respect to political (or ecclesial) organization. While it is almost certain that he takes the modern nation-state for granted, it is very likely that he also takes modern institutions and bureaucracies as legitimate political developments (I do not, seeing them as instruments for monopolizing power) and therefore it is right for women to have jobs in those institutions and bureaucracies.