Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

258 STEPHEN T. REHRAUER
egalitarian fashion. 61 This matter of injustice goes beyond
gender differences and would extend to any area where the
access to roles and the assignment of roles is neither equitable
nor equal.
Veritatis Splendor 110 reminds us that elaboration of the
anthropological foundations of moral teaching is part of the
vocation of the Catholic Moral Theologian. I believe that the
specific, concrete, Christian anthropological stance explicated in
recent Magisterial teaching, particularly in Dignitatis Mulieribus
6-7, Cristifideles Laici 49-50, and Salvifici Doloris 28, both
recognizes the differences between, and defends the
fundamental equality and interdependence of men and women.
This emphasis upon the anthropological insight of Christian
tradition is not only helpful in bringing these two genderdifferentiated
positions closer together, but also states clearly
the Christian obligation to carry out this task within the context
of mutual help. It is the recognition by Church authority that
these two ways of seeing are complementary. To allow one’s self
to be helped requires a recognition of one’s need for the help
another has to offer. By listening to the “other moral voice” of
women, men can learn something about the nature of injustice
that their own perspective blinds them to, and in listening to the
perspective of men, women can also learn something about
injustice to which their perspective blinds them. The two voices
61
Injustice as improper distribution of assignment in this area can have
long-term and powerful effects not only upon the quality of life, but on the
survival of a social group itself. As Margolis observes, “We are not born
equal. We are born with a broad range of strengths and weaknesses in our
physical, mental, and psychological makeup–and we are born dependent.
Without an ethic of protection and care, market-dominated societies would
be depopulated in a lifetime for there would be no social basis, neither motor
nor motive to bring new generations to life and adulthood … no society, not
even one dominated by market exchange, can get on without a system of
obligation that assigns caregiving responsibility.” D. MARGOLIS, The Fabric of
Self, p. 83. We might do well to read this statement in the context of the
“culture of death” concept comprising the central argument of Evangelium
Vitae. Perhaps the unjust distribution in the assignment of these essential
care giving responsibilities is one of the principal causal factors in the
prevalence and power of this “culture of death” today in the developed
world.