The ordination of women to the priesthood
The ordination of women to the priesthood (or lack thereof) is a topic which a reader asked me to write about, but for which I just never seemed to be able to find the time. Again, recent events have created a climate in which I feel the subject should be treated despite my having a completely coherent picture in my head on the matter.
First of all, let me acknowledge some excellent work on this topic by Elizabeth at Arwen/Elizabeth:
This being said, and while I do want to state that I support the magisterium of the Church 100% on this question, I do feel that the Church needs to do a better job articulating its position.
Let me also say, though, that the burden of proof lies on those who want the change to justify it. The Church is a fundamentally conservative institution, as it has to be: its function is to “conserve” the message of Christ and not let it be diluted or distorted by the spirit of this world. I therefore do not accept that the Church needs to “justify” a 2000-year old practice. Explain, yes, but not justify: that burden lies on those proposing a change to that practice. And quite honestly, every argument I’ve heard in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood is quite loose. It usually rests on an affirmation of the subjective feelings of those called, or on the idea that the community should not be deprived of the sacraments by a lack of ordained ministers. The first, however, is hardly a criterion of truth, and the latter begs the whole question of the validity of such ordinations in the first place, as valid sacraments cannot be supplied by persons who are invalidly ordained (obviously I am referring here to those sacraments requiring an ordained minister as presider).
But while the arguments in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood are poor, the arguments against are not always much better. The argument from Tradition is often presented simply as: “We’ve never done it, so we can’t do it.” I find this intellectually unsatisfying, to be honest, as it seems to discount entirely the existence of the development of doctrine. I’m not saying that this doctrine can develop in this way, but it makes no sense to craft a counter-argument that, as a corollary, denies that any other doctrine can develop either.
Even recent Vatican documents have not been particularly helpful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for examples, mentions that “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. (no. 1577)” The way this sentence is crafted, however, is to describe the current state of affairs: it does not state that this is the way it *must* be. As well, the reference for this phrase is the Code of Canon Law, which contains both doctrinal and disciplinary elements. Confusion therefore arises in the minds of some as to whether this prohibition is essential to the sacrament, or arises from the discipline of the Church.
Another example is the key Vatican document Inter Insigniores, also known as the Declaration On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood. In this document the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gives a number of references to the Fathers of the Church in which the ordination of women to the priesthood was condemned. The existence of such passages would go a long way to strengthening the argument from Tradition, so I decided to look them up for myself. I came away sorely disappointed. In all honesty, the references were very weak, and in some cases had very little to do with women’s ordination (except in a very oblique way). Fr. John Wright came to the same conclusion in an article published in Theological Studies in September 1997.
All this means that the work of theologians must continue. The magisterium has pointed out the “destination” of this doctrine, but we need to work on articulating better why this teaching/practice is the way it is. Again, I want to state that I support the magisterium on this *but* I do feel it necessary to point out our poverty in this area.
In my opinion, a complete theology regarding women’s ordination is going to have to tackle a whole host of questions, the centre of which will be a renewed theology of gender difference. And this centres on the identity of Jesus himself. Is the fact that Jesus came as a man necessary to his mission, or or is it merely a secondary consideration? In other words, did God simply flip a coin in heaven and it came up ‘male’, or was this part of the plan from the beginning? And if the latter, what does this say about the meaning of gender difference?
In all of this I am comforted that God’s grace is bigger than anything we can imagine. While I am appalled by the self-serving “ordinations” that the media has reported on in recent weeks, I also am proud to have a very good female friend who is an Episcopal priest in the US. Knowing her as I do, I know she has great integrity, and that she has avoided all the radical feminist rhetoric for a faith centred on Jesus. I am convinced that her work has helped bring many others to Christ. Is this despite her status as a minister? Or thanks to it? Perhaps it is both, depending on what aspect we are examining. But I could say the same for myself, knowing how unworthily I live the grace of ordination at times.
At any rate, people like my friend are living witnesses for me of the need to make sure that the gifts God has granted to women find an institutional home within the Church. Priesthood may be reserved to men, but the early Church also had a special place for women: the order of virgins, the order of widows, and the order of deaconesses are all mentioned in Scripture and Tradition. Where are these now? Sounds like an opportunity for renewal to me.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Hi Father Tom,
I know this is an older topic, but i looked it up since the ordination of women came up in my class. I gave the kids this post as a reference to help frame the discussion.
There was one thing that was a bit weird to me: When you write “The magisterium has pointed out the “destination” of this doctrine, but we need to work on articulating better why this teaching/practice is the way it is.” Isn’t that starting with a conclusion and then going back to the facts to make sure they fit the predetermined conclusion? That would never fly in standard debate, right? Shouldn’t a conclusion only be reached after the evidence and facts have been thoroughly dissected?
Anyway, lots more traffic coming this way!
God Bless.
Eric
February 27th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Fr. Tom,
I hadn’t read the earlier post that Eric refers to, but on reading it now I tend to agree with what Eric says. There has to be an explanation or reason somewhere. Granted, in the days when Jesus walked among us women were counted somewhat as second class citizens (Just read some of St. Paul’s comments about women in a couple of his Epistles!)and it might have been difficult for a woman to show up proclaiming to be the Messiah/Savior. (I don’t think I’m doing a good job here explaining myself.) I don’t believe there were any female Jewish priests and possibly that tradition just carried on through. I’m eager to hear see your comments on this.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
The ordination of women is a perennial topic. Because, there are always women who being interested in Christian service, see the priesthood as an ultimate end or goal.
In the Church the priest by his ministry is regarded as “at the top”. Naturally people seek to reach the “top”.
See the Pope: so many deny his place, yet all seek it. (perceived power)
As to the priesthood, being a “male” position; it is in concordance with the Father’s will.
He gave us His Son as a priest forever…
Who is this Jesus the Son?
A priest forever.
He is God the Second Person of the Trinity veiled in flesh. No one at that time, with their own eyes could see Him; God.
It is a Mystery.
He gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and the redemption there of.
He died in obedience to His Fathers will. So we could know the Father’s Love
But, before he performed this awesome act, He gave us in perpetuity Himself. And He
Authorized His Apostles to “do this in remembrance of Me.
How is this so?
He gave us His Body and Blood to consume.
How does He do this today?
He inaugurated a means: the Supper Banquet. He gave us Himself in the form of bread and wine, (that in partaking of, the Father would see us in His Son) His veiled Self. He gave us a priesthood in which He accomplishes this Memorial presentation.
The priesthood is what is termed in Latin “Persona Christi”.
It is not the priest per se that “performs” the Sacraments, he is the live presenter i.e. celebrant, not the presider, the Man Jesus is acting with him and through him, through the eyes of Faith, which is how, the Apostles and everyone else saw Him then, is Whom we “see” now, Jesus.
It would be “confusing” and not real to see Jesus as a woman.
Throughout Scripture: from the beginning God the Father in His wisdom created man and then woman. Not that they are “unequal” for one is” bone of my bones, but they are different and have specific roles to play as is God’s design and Will.
Therefore, when the priest says, “this is my Body…” it is not his body but, Christ Jesus present before our eyes, Priest, as He was 2000+ years ago. The priest from the beginning presents his people up to God the Father. .
We as Catholics do not recognize just any person or minister saying this is my body etc. and it actually “becomes” the Body of Jesus. Those who say these words don’t believe it themselves, which is why they deny the Real Presence. They know that in what they do, they do not have the authority to be Persona Christi.
I a Catholic cannot at table with my family and friends say the blessing & words “this is my body etc., break a chunk of bread from the loaf and say this is the Body of Jesus that is feeding us and why not, they are all words from Scripture which I believe in?
Why, because I have no authority. It is a Mystery and a mystery given to us from a God; who gives us “hard sayings”. One must be humble to receive and more to obey. Some just walk away.
They who walked away, these “good men and women” seeking the Messiah returned to their “own” faith. I’m sure they went to the Temple to pray regularly etc. etc. But they failed to behold the true Messiah, to believe on His, “hard teachings” really knowing God, Persona Christi standing there right before their eyes.
Who do we see at the Sacrifice of the Mass, a man or a Man?
Review Jn 6.32:66
At this point the Apostles themselves were confused as to how He was going to accomplish this promise. They just believed.” Et Jesus reprit, ne vous ai-je pas choisi, vous les Douze” .Jn 6: 70 Trad. l’Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem
March 24th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Donald,
You give a great treatise on Transubstantiation…but how does anything you have written have anything to do with denying women the chance to be priests?
Eric
March 25th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Hello Eric
Peace…
Thank you for your impressions.
Apparently I was not as clear as I hoped, for the thoughts presented were not in my mind about Transubstantiation, even though that is what is effected by Christ, in His priest.
Let me try again.
According to C of C Church, beginning at 1373 begins to discuss the ways in which Christ is present. They are myriad, but he is, most fully it says,” especially, present in the Eucharistic species.”. That I think is Transubstantiation.
What I believe we are discussing is “Who” transubstantiates.
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.
Perhaps here we see the difference from the priest and the Bread.
As St. Chrysostom indicated Christ is, shall I say, overshadowing the priest, “In Persona Christi”.
The priest, through his anointing, is given the authority to voice the words “this is my body this is my blood, and the Holy Spirit acts upon the bread and wine to change them into the Body and Blood. This is the same authority that Jesus the Man was anointed to do. The priest is the reflection of Christ and thus cannot be a woman.
Could we not say that Mary “overshadowed” reveals Jesus? Yet one would not want a male personage to represent Mary, would we? I think not. In the Father’s Providence in His natural order a man is man and a woman is a woman each performing His Divine plan for them: both valuable but distinct.
So in the order of God: the (man) father is the law so to speak, and the woman (mother) receives the law from him, (refer St. Paul) nurtures and passes on the law to their offspring.
So the priest, in the hierarchy of the Church, guided remember by the Holy Spirit, in Truth, is the lawgiver and the woman is the receiver of the law as the Church, the Bride of Christ. Mary is the Bride of Christ His Church. She receives, nurtures “holds all this in her heart” and gives it to her offspring. She is not a priest nor can she be.
The Priest, Jesus, gives Himself to His people through the mystery of His priesthood, to His Bride the Church i.e. His people.
Father Tom notes that the Theology on this subject is not shall we say fully developed.
One is reminded of many if not all the “controversies” in the Church which begin with a doubt or a question: for example, the dual nature of Christ, the Theotokos, The Immaculate Conception, to mention a few. That is not to say that the question of the male priest is equal to those above, but the Church is definitive in her response. The teaching and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will prove to be valid in the long term.
These questions took, in some cases, centuries to be fully developed and definitively answered by the Church, as they surely were, yet even though they were declared doctrine by the Church, many still continue to “question” some to the point of Apostasy and Heresy.
It isn’t that one cannot question or doubt, rather, it is that one must be patient and when necessary, humbly obedient, as was our example, Jesus the Christ.
In Christ
donO’
March 26th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Dear Father Tom
I just came across this in my archives, while looking for an article on Pope Pius XII, an article in Newsweek March 30, 1998 which clearly counters the recently renewed slanders about him vis a vis Hitler. Anyhow
Ansgar Santogrossi,OSB is a monk of Mount Angel Abbey in St. Benedict, Oregon and an Associate Professor of Theology at Mount Angel Seminary. He wrote a very interresting article several years ago, Sept 1999 in New Oxford Review. It was entitled “AGAINST A NEUTERED GOD & A NEUTERED PRIESTHOOD. FATHER IN HEAVEN & FATHERS ON EARTH..
using esp. the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas. Maybe you could see if he is still there and discuss his present ideas on this subject. He presumably has thought on it these past 11 years. He may save you some time.
The article itself would be a bit difficult to scan and send. But if you wish I’ll try. Let me know.
donO’
March 29th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Fr. Dowd writes: “In other words, did God simply flip a coin in heaven and it came up ‘male’, or was this part of the plan from the beginning? And if the latter, what does this say about the meaning of gender difference?”
Yes, the meaning of gender differences. A very important thing to consider, and I would suggest very difficult to do. Whatever the difference is in the nature of men and women, it would have to be that which is apparent at all times and in every culture for the symbol to be meaningful to all humanity all throughout history.
A priest once gave me a lead roughly along these lines: If God—who is a sexless spirit—asked to be addressed as “Father” rather than “Mother”, then it must be because he knew that “Fatherhood” would have different resonances in the psyches of his creatures than “Motherhood” would have. The voluntary nature of fatherhood is critical to those resonances.
Fathers can, if they choose, beget children then go away and never see them and never be involved in their children’s lives. Any father who sticks around to see the child born and raised is there voluntarily.
A pregnant mother cannot walk away from a child the same way a father can, and physical motherhood has a certain necessity about it that is not present in fatherhood.
So then the voluntary nature of a good natural father can be projected into the spiritual fatherhood of a priest, who is not in any way impelled to care for his spiritual children but who does so anyway as a voluntary selfless act. And that priestly fatherhood is itself a reflection of God’s totally un-”necessary” creation and redemption of the world.
Works for me, anyway.
April 8th, 2010 at 8:01 am
I find it strange that the question of ordination of women usually tries to “blame” God for the choice. I think it’s simply a matter of tradition. Jesus lived in a time of patriarchal societies. Even those with multiple gods had a male at the head of the pack. Jesus had a hard enough time convincing people that He had a new path for them to follow, how far would He have gotten trying to change their society as well as their beliefs? Tradition dictates quite a lot in our society still. Forget church for a moment … try to get a simple change of menu in a long-standing family celebration. You will at least get some grumbling on how its “always been done”.
I also believe the point of a mother not being able to walk away is a facile one. There is abortion, abandonment and neglect and none of these are new to the human condition. Neither do I give creedance to the unnecessary father idea. Ask any single parent, Mother or Father, what they think.
I simply don’t believe that either the people of the old covenant, or the new, would have been able to accept a “Mother” God. Or, for that matter, one who spoke through a woman, chattel in those days. God reaches us as He does because He knows that is how He can.
I think that when we human beings are ready the changes will happen and, until then, God will be patient with us because, His time is not our time and His understanding is not ours.
But, that’s just my female opinion.