The
Catholic Church does not ordain women, and there are many reasons for
it. Let's look at some of the arguments in favor of the exclusion of
women from the priesthood.
The Catholic News Service writes:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that
only men can receive holy orders because Jesus chose men as his apostles and
the "apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them
in their ministry." Blessed John Paul II wrote in 1994 that this teaching
is definitive and not open to debate among Catholics.”[i]
But the men Jesus chose were not only men, they were
Jewish men; when was the “Jewish”
dropped from the equation and Gentiles included in the priesthood?
For example, why did Jesus choose Paul (a Jewish man) to become an apostle to
the Gentiles and have him appoint overseers in their churches if Gentiles were not eligible for the priesthood?
In Acts 9 Saul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, and
becomes Paul; in Acts 10 Peter is sent to a Gentile called Cornelius.
"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how
true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation
who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people
of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of
all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the
baptism that John preached- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were
under the power of the devil, because God was with him. "We are witnesses
of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him
by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and
caused him to be seen. He was not seen
by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate
and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to
the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the
living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who
believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While
Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the
message" (Acts 10:34-44 NIV).
God
does not show favoritism.
The Jewish apostles sometimes struggled
with the idea of including the Gentiles in the church.
"When I saw that they were not acting in line with
the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and
not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish
customs?" (Gal 2:14, NIV).
The inclusion of Gentiles was done by a special
revelation, after the formation of
the church, after Jesus had sent the
first apostles. What was the rationale behind the decision to include the
Gentiles? The one concept that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, never ceased from
declaring: Jesus had ended the enmity between Jews and Gentiles caused by the
law and made the two one body through his death.
"For he himself is our
peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing
wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two,
thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God
through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and
preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For
through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" (Eph 2:14-18, NIV).
If Gentiles were included
in the priesthood because of the death of Jesus, and not because Jesus had sent
them, why isn’t this true also of women?
A common misconception
is that only the first twelve disciples were considered apostles. Barnabas, for
example, wasn’t one of the Twelve Apostles, but he was nevertheless called an
apostle.
“Although Barnabas was not among the original
Twelve, he is traditionally thought to have been among the 72 commissioned by
Jesus to preach; thus, he is given the honorary title of Apostle.”[ii]
All of the 72 sent by Jesus were Jewish, but were
they all men?
“After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two
ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go” (Luke 10:1-2, NIV).
We know of one woman apostle who had “been in Christ”
before Paul, which would place her before Acts 9 and 10, before the conversion
of Paul and the inclusion of the Gentiles. Junia is mentioned together with
Andronicus (Rom 13:7), wherefore they could have traveled together as apostles.
Since women were apostles before
the inclusion of Gentiles, why are women excluded from the priesthood
if the priesthood was given to the apostles and those they appointed
after them?
In addition, if Barnabas is
recognized as an apostle by tradition, why do we not accept the apostleship of
Junia by tradition?
“Salute
Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of
note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing.
But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this
is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how
great is the devotion (φιλοσοφια) of this
woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But
even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who
were also in Christ before me.”[iii]
And if those who were sent by Jesus were eligible for the
priesthood, certainly the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene should be included
in those sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel (John 4, 20:18).
At this point, Dominican Fr. Wojciech Giertych, the theologian of the papal household,
claims we can’t know why chose only men as his apostles.
“According to Giertych, theologians cannot say why
Jesus chose only men as his Apostles any more than they can explain the
purposes of the incarnation or the Eucharist.”
But then Giertych somewhat surprisingly states that only
men are eligible for the priesthood because Jesus
was a man.
"The son of God became flesh, but became flesh
not as sexless humanity but as a male," [Fr. Wojciech] Giertych said; and
since a priest is supposed to serve as an image of Christ, his maleness is
essential to that role.”[iv]
Image
of Christ.
Aren’t we all in Christ and reflect therefore the
image of God, Christ being God?
“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off
your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being
renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or
Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but
Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:9-11, NIV).
After the “we cannot know” and the “Jesus was a man”
arguments, we finally arrive to the core of the question:
“Men are more likely to think of God in terms of philosophical definitions and
logical syllogisms, he said, a quality valuable for fulfilling a priest's duty
to transmit church teaching.”
But should not women who think of God in terms of philosophical definitions be included in the priesthood? No, because male priests love the church in a “male
way” and show concern "about structures, about the buildings of the
church, about the roof of the church which is leaking, about the bishops'
conference, about the concordat between the church and the state."”
In other words, we really don't want to know why God chose men for the priesthood, because there is no why.
In the end, Giertych, makes an astonishing comment:
"The mission of the woman in the
church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church,
not even sacramental power," he said. "What is most important is the
encounter with the living God through faith and charity." "So women
don't need the priesthood," he said, "because their mission is so
beautiful in the church anyway."
That's nice.
Let’s take one more look at the arguments presented above. Men should be
priests because Jesus chose men to be his apostles, because Jesus was a man,
because men think philosophically, because men are concerned about buildings. But
what about the Bible? Why does Giertych not take his own advice?
"In theology, we base ourselves not on human expectations, but we base
ourselves on the revealed word of God," the theologian told Catholic News
Service. "We are not free to invent the priesthood according to our own
customs, according to our own expectations."
***
The Catholic website, Catholic.com finds the prohibition for women to
become priests in the Bible.
“While women
could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not
teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two
essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or
challenge the teaching of the clergy” (1 Cor. 14:34–38). [v]
But this begs the question, if men are eligible for the priesthood because Adam was
created first, why were Gentile men excluded from the priesthood in the Mosaic
Law, and why was Jesus a priest according to the order of Melchizedek?
All humans descend from Adam, in him we
all die (1 Cor 15:22). How can the first man be the foundation of priesthood considering
he is the beginning of humanity itself? All that is true of humans in general is
found in Adam: he was created in the image of God, created to care for the
earth and its inhabitants, created to be walk with God and to be with other
humans. If we say the man’s prior creation is the foundation for the man’s
authority, we are essentially saying that being an incomplete human is required
for authority; the man was a lonely creature before the woman was created.
Perhaps this explains why the Catholic Church insists on celibacy for priests.
But
this begs the question: why did priests in the Old Testament marry if spiritual
authority requires celibacy? And why did God choose first Melchizedek and Aaron
to be his priests, if being a man is the only requirement for the priesthood? And
why is there a long line of qualifications for priests in 1 Tim 3, if being a
man is the most important qualification for the priesthood?
Because the Catholic Church relies on both the Bible and tradition, the
same website cites various church fathers to support the idea that women
should not be ordained. Most of the examples describe heretical women,
but
their examples do not prove that Catholic women espoused heresy, nor
that the
Catholic Church didn’t ordain women. The examples are equally
troublesome. For
example, when we look at the writings of Tertullian, we find him
attempting
remove women from the priesthood, for he talks about ordained women.
"How many men, therefore, and
how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence,
who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their
flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age,
by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity)
which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such
as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease
from that thing from which Paradise is intact."[vi]
The original Latin text supports the above reading:
"Quanti (how many men) igitur
(therefore) et quantae (how many women) in ecclesiasticis ordinibus (in
ecclesiastical order) de (concerning) continentia (continence) censentur
(judge/recommend), qui (who) deo (to God) nubere (married) maluerunt (prefer),
qui (who) carnis (flesh) suae (theirs) honorem (honor) restituere (restore).
(revive)."[vii]
The same is true of
Chrysostom, who approved of Junia as an apostle. By the fourth century the leadership
model of the Church had changed from the domestic overseer in the private home
to the monarchial bishop who presided in God’s stead over a public assembly.
The bishop was seated on a raised dais from which he governed the Church and it
was from this seat that Chrysostom wanted to exclude women.
"In what sense then does he say, “I
suffer not a woman to teach?” He means
to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not
from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said
to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, “How knowest thou, O woman, if
thou shalt save thy husband?” Or how came he to suffer her to admonish
children, when he says, but “she shall be saved by child-bearing if they
continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?” How came
Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private
conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it
was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the
husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When
she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him."[viii]
Chrysostom based his prohibition on Genesis 3:16
instead of Geneiss 2:
"If it be asked, what has this to do
with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher
honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither
was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes
the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above,
he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards.
For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and
wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the
man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy
desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16)
This had not been said to her before… The
woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her
not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It
certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of
the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common
name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in
the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so
here the female sex transgressed, and not the male.”"[ix]
The reason for the prohibition seems to be the concept of honor. The priesthood is seen as
honorable, and therefore bestowed only on those who are worthy of such an
honor. Chrysostom wished to reserve the priesthood to men because he
believed only Eve was guilty. Tertullian agreed with a
perpetual punishment for women because of Eve’s sin.
"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward
of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved
sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the
truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too
gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go
about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking
about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence
she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,—the ignominy,
I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of
human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman;
and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination (conuersion), and he lords It over thee.” And do you
not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours
lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that
(forbidden) tree: you are the first
deserter of the divine law: you are
she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image,
man. On account of your desert—that
is, death—even the Son of God had to die."[x]
We no longer believe the woman is an inferior creature punished with subjection, nor do we believe Genesis 3:16 is a commandment
from God.
Since the ancient exclusion of
women from the priesthood was based on error and faulty theology, should the Catholic Church not
move on and include women in the priesthood?
[i] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300417.htm
[ii] http://www.stbarnabasny.org/who-was-st-barnabas.html
[iii] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI
[iv] http://ncronline.org/news/theology/why-not-women-priests-papal-theologian-explains
[v] http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
[vi]
On Exhortation to Chastity, XIII
[viii]
Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI.
[ix] Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX.
“The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex (infirmitas sexus and levitas animi) were the underlying
principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the
custody of males” (Pomeroy, 150).
[x] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Ch. I.
