 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
A Scientific Look at Male-Only Ordination
by Dr Roberta Meehan
published on www.womenpriests.org with permission of
the author
Canon 1024 insists that only males may receive the Sacrament of Order.
But, what is "male" and why is "maleness" essential for ordination?
This paper addresses only the biological aspects of these questions.
I. Ecclesial Definition
A. Present Status
The Church has not defined male, but rather, has used the term "male"
in a manner implying common knowledge.
It seems appropriate to ask the Church for a definition of "male."
However, it also seems that the Church cannot define "male" theologically
without first addressing the issue biologically.
B. Scientific / Historical Basis of Canon 1024
1. Church law (Canon 1024) was formulated on a belief in a simple,
mutually exclusive male/female dichotomy. This supposition does not take into
account the present understanding of male and female.
2. Church law (Canon 1024) was also formulated on the premise of both
Aristotle and Aquinas that the male/female dichotomy was hierarchical in
nature.
In his Summa Theologica Aquinas states in Question 92, reply
to Objection 1: "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and
misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a
perfect likeness in the masculine sex."
Again, this supposition does not take into account the present
understanding of male and female. Although the theological reasoning of Aquinas
was impeccable, the scientific premise was false. If any part of a premise is
false, the conclusions drawn from that premise are necessarily invalid.
II. Scientific Definition (Overview)
A. Historical Perspective
Sexual dichotomy existed throughout the living world for at least a
billion years before the arrival of the sexually dichotomous human. The
scientific function of the sexual dichotomy is and has always been the
perpetuation of the species, be that species anywhere on the tree of life from
protozoan to human.
B. Gender and Sex
Although the terms "gender" and "sex" are interrelated and circular in
meaning, they should not be used interchangeably to express sexuality.
1. Sexuality is the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious awareness
both of one’s physical being and of one’s reproductive niche.
2. Gender is the social manifestation of sexuality – limited by
both physical constraints and cultural mores. Gender cannot be unilaterally
defined.
3. Sex is both an internal and an external physical manifestation of
sexuality – limited primarily from within by both physiology and
genetics.
C. Male / Female
It is from the definition of sex that the present concepts of male and
female are derived. It is also from the definition of sex that the concept of a
male/female polydimensional continuum is derived.
III. Male / Female – A Polydimensional
Continuum
Sexual identity – the physical expression of sex – is a
polydimensional continuum, covering the expanse from male to female in at least
six different areas: external genitalia, internal gonadal structure,
chromosomal identity, genetic expression, nervous system response, and hormonal
response.
According to the historical concept of dichotomy, sexual identity is
determined by gross observation of the external genitalia. The person is then
declared to be male or female. Present scientific knowledge, however, reveals
that this gross observation is not sufficient for determining sexual
identity.
Numerous cases exist where the external genitalia are apparently male,
but the internal gonadal structure is definitely female. Other cases exist
where the external genitalia are apparently female but the internal gonadal
structure is male. Are these persons male or female? Where do these individuals
fit in relation to male only ordination? Since this phenomenon has only come to
light in recent years, it is certainly plausible that many apparently male
persons with female internal structures have been ordained. It is equally
plausible that many apparently female persons with male internal structures
have been denied ordination.
On the chromosomal level, it can be said that the presence of the XX
chromosomal complement indicates that the person is female, while the presence
of the XY chromosomal complement indicates that the person is male. But, this
test does not stand up to scientific scrutiny either.
Some chromosomally XX people are internally and externally male. Some
chromosomally XY people are internally and externally female. The reason some
people are for classical purposes physically male and some people for classical
purposes are physically female is the presence of a gene, the SRY gene. SRY
stands for Sex determining Region of the Y chromosome, and this is the gene
responsible for the development of male characteristics. The SRY gene is
usually found on the Y chromosome (the male chromosome). Sometimes the SRY gene
attaches to a different chromosome; sometimes it is lost. Should these XX males
and XY females be classified as male or female?
In addition to these factors, the genetics of sexual identity includes
questions about people with non-standard chromosome numbers, people who are
sexual mosaics, people who are overt or covert hermaphrodites. How are these
people identified? What should be done with those who have been ordained in the
past?
IV. Present Position
Does the physical requirement for ordination come down to one little
piece of DNA – the SRY gene?
Which criterion for determining maleness and femaleness should be used?
Why should that criterion be used? Why should other criteria be negated?
Why is it that one particular piece of DNA is essential for ordination?
If it is essential, are all ordinations of persons who did not have this gene
to be invalidated?
V. Call to the Church
Before continuing the present position of the Church regarding male
only ordination, the Church must define male. The Church must also justify
which criterion it is using to define male.
If the Church does not define male, the Church is ignoring a basic
tenet of both logic and argument – the identification of terms used.
If the Church does define "male" but fails to take into account the
present understanding of both sex and gender in relation to that definition of
"male," the Church will continue to lose credibility. By ignoring scientific
research, the Church could easily repeat the problems caused by the Galileo
incident.
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!
