 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Robert J. Karris, O.F.M.
from Women and Priesthood:
Future Directions, pp. 47-57.
edited by Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P. The
Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.
Republished on our website with
the necessary permissions
As a
transition from the Old Testament into the New, let me invite the reader to
engage in a brief exercise in imagination. Suppose that the New Testament (NT)
texts on women are a landscape. That landscape is varied, with valleys and
hills, rough and smooth terrain, myriads of lush trees and plants. Imagine
yourself viewing that landscape through two different pairs of colored glasses.
The
first pair of glasses reveals the landscape in this light:
Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If He acted
in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of His time, for His
attitude towards women was quite different from that of His milieu, and He
deliberately and courageously broke with it.(1)
The
apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards
women.... They (the Twelve and Paul) could therefore have envisaged conferring
ordination on women, if they had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity
to the Lord on this point.(2)
The
second pair of glasses enables the viewer to spy the landscape in this wise:
It
(the Jesus movement in Palestine) rejected the priestly laws of Jewish religion
and attracted the outcast of its society. Jesus’ followers were not the
righteous, pious or powerful of the time, but tax collectors, sinners
and—women, all those who were cultically unclean and did not belong to the
religious establishment or the pious associations of the day.(3)
The
self-understanding of the Christian community eliminated all distinctions of
religion, race, class and caste, and thereby allowed not only gentiles and
slaves to assume full leadership in the Christian community but also women.
Women were not marginal figures in this movement but exercised leadership as
apostles, prophets, evangelists, missionaries, offices similar to that of
Barnabas, Apollos or Paul.(4)
This
scanning of the landscape raises the immediate question: Why do the colored
glasses show up the landscape in such vastly different lights? I would suggest
that the answer is partly to be found in the examination of contemporary NT
criticism and in a survey of the recent discussion on what the NT says about
the ordination of women.(5) Most people reading this chapter are more familiar
with the first set of glasses, provided by the Declaration of the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. People normally do not view
women’s ordination through the second set, provided by Dr. Elizabeth
Schüssler Fiorenza. For this reason I will proceed in this chapter by
showing the place the Declaration’s views occupy in contemporary NT
criticism and in the recent discussions about what the NT says about the
ordination of women. In organizing the data, I adapt the very handy schema of
Reginald H. Fuller: 1) Old Testament; 2) Jesus; 3) The Earliest Church; 4) St.
Paul; 5) Early Catholicism.(6)
I
The
Declaration follows the lead of most recent discussions of the biblical
data and eliminates as irrelevant any discussion of the Old Testament concept
of priesthood. John Reumann clearly stated the 1973 consensus on this point:
“. . . it is by and large agreed that the New Testament ministry is no
continuation of the Old Testament priesthood. Israel provides no answer on the
ordination of women to the ministry of the church of Jesus Christ.”(7) Yet
Reumann himself (8) and Carroll Stuhlmueller in chapter two of this volume
provide keys for opening up the Old Testament for further exploration in this
area.
II
The
Declaration is at one with the best of contemporary Gospel scholarship
when it generalizes: “As we have seen, an examination of the Gospels shows
on the contrary that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely
contravening the discriminations practiced with regard to women.”(9) We
still smart at the cacophony of this discrimination when we hear the synagogue
prayer: “R. Judah says: Three blessings one must say daily: Blessed (art
thou), who did not make me a gentile; Blessed (art thou), who did not make me a
woman; Blessed (art thou), who did not make me a boor.”(10) There may have
been synagogue voices more favorably disposed to women, but R. Judah’s is
the dominant voice
But
the Declaration is not at one with contemporary Gospel scholarship when
it attempts to fathom the attitude of Jesus and thus arrive at the Lord’s
example as normative for all time. The Declaration draws the inference
from Jesus’ radical stance toward women: “But it must be recognized
that we have here a number of convergent indications that make all the more
remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to
women.”(11) The authors of the Declaration are apparently so intent
on pursuing their argument, based on Jesus’ example, that they
shortcircuit one of the most signal scholarly accomplishments of recent memory,
scil., the recognition and approbation of the methodologies by which the
Gospels are seen to be the results of three stages of formation. This
three-fold approach was endorsed by an Instruction of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, approved by Pope Paul VI in the first year of his
pontificate (April 21, 1964), later incorporated into the Constitution on
Divine Revelation, Ch. V, of Vatican II (Nov. 18, 1965) and summarized
here in the following paragraph.(12)
While
based on what the Twelve remembered of Jesus’ words and deeds (first
stage), the Gospels contain the added insights of faith, granted to the Twelve
and to the churches through Jesus’ resurrection and the gift of the Spirit
(second stage). These insights, as developed and used by the early church in
its various ministries, provided the base for the evangelists who selected what
they deemed necessary to create a literary work which would meet the faith
needs of their people (third stage). Put in less technical terms and from a
different angle, the Gospels do not provide us with transcripts or
tape-recordings of what Jesus was about They are documents of faith. It is not
a simple undertaking to attain to what the Declaration calls “the
attitude of Jesus towards women.”(13)
But
focusing more directly on the topic at hand, I make the following observations.
First, it is almost certain that Jesus of Nazareth established the Twelve. They
are symbolic of the unity of Israel imaged by the twelve tribes of Israel which
are governed by males, i.e., the twelve patriarchs. It is not clear that Jesus
of Nazareth called apostles. Thus the Twelve and apostles cannot be facilely
equated nor can the Twelve and apostolic charge be easily identified.(14) Thus,
the Declaration has not arrived at the attitude of Jesus of Nazareth
when it equates the calling of the Twelve with the apostolic charge (15) and
thus eliminates women from the priesthood.(16)
Secondly, “ . . . NT criticism makes it very unlikely that we can picture
the historical Jesus as omniscient, foreseeing the future of the Church in
detail.”(17) Put in another medium, we can say that contemporary Gospel
criticism does not support a bible blueprint ecclesiology, which in the words
of Raymond E. Brown “is usually based on the Gospels and Acts as evidence
that God’s intentions were vocalized by an omniscient Jesus who foresaw
the future.... In such a blueprint ecclesiology based on the Bible, it is clear
that if Jesus wanted women priests, he would not have ordained only
men.”(18) Jesus of Nazareth, on the contrary, had limited knowledge of the
future. From the Gospel data it is a most perilous task to probe serenely and
confidently into what he thought of the future and determined as absolutely
normative for priesthood.
In
sum, if one applies the scholarly and ecclesiastically approved methodologies
which stand behind the insight that the Gospels were gradually formed, then it
is incontrovertible that Jesus of Nazareth broke with the prejudices of his
time and widely contravened the discriminations practiced with regard to women.
This is Jesus’ attitude. This is the example which is normative for the
rest of the NT churches and for contemporary churches. The Church must be
faithful to this example and not to the putative example of a Jesus who called
only men to ministry.(19) In this regard Reumann makes a most telling point
when he observes: “indeed, we may say historically with more confidence
that Jesus gave women a role in his ministering than we can claim Jesus, prior
to Easter, instituted a Ministry with a capital M.”(20)
III
Our
discussion proceeds from the lifetime of Jesus to the earliest days of the
church.
On
three different occasions the Declaration is stride for stride with the
best NT scholarship in highlighting the significance of Galatians 3:28 for the
question of the ordination of women.(21) While calling this text “one of
the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men
and women, as children of God, in Christ,” (22) it cautions that
“this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal
calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all.”(23)
By
placing Gal 3:28 under the rubric of “The Earliest Church,” I call
attention to a factor which the Declaration has not mentioned. Namely,
Gal 3:28 is a baptismal formula which accords well with Jesus’ attitude
toward women and probably dates from the second decade of the Christian
movement. Furthermore, although Paul approved the formula by quoting it, he did
not create it.(24) This baptismal formula was used by the Hellenistic churches,
to which Paul was heir, to describe what the experience of the gift of the
Spirit meant to them. As Fiorenza puts it:
The
theological self-understanding of this early Christian movement is best
expressed in the baptismal formula Gal 3:27-29. In reciting this formula the
newly initiated Christians proclaimed their vision of an inclusive community.
Over and against the cultural-religious pattern shared by Hellenists and Jews
alike, the Christians affirmed that all social, political and religious
differences were abolished in Jesus Christ.(25)
The
Christians who fashioned this baptismal formula were surely faithful to
Jesus’ radical attitude toward women. Although Gal 3:28 does not say
anything directly about ministry, it has vast implications for ministry because
its vision does not limit any aspect of Christian life to either of the
sexes.(26)
IV
Paul’s letters(27) emerged out of the problems and needs of the early
church. They were intended to correct, clarify, and direct the communal faith
in Jesus.
The
Declaration’s use of St. Paul’s letters is difficult to chart
within contemporary NT criticism and the recent NT discussions on the
ordination of women. We will orientate some of its views within current NT
criticism.
The
Declaration apparently subscribes to the view that Paul authored all the
letters ascribed to him.(28) This view is not favored by many within the
contemporary discussion of the Pauline data.(29) Also, the Declaration
capitalizes on three points which are hardly present in the genuine Pauline
letters nor found in the vast majority of the scholarly discussions on the
subject.
The
first point is “ordination.”(30) “Ordination” is our
contemporary term, and it is not helpful to introduce it into a discussion of
texts which do not use it. As Reumann so aptly says: “
‘Ordination,’ it is well to remember, does not appear, fullblown and
in our sense of the term, in the Scriptures.”(31)
Secondly, the Declaration seems to limit ministry/priesthood to the
“official and public proclamation of the message.”(32) According to
the arguments proposed by the Declaration on the basis of this point,
women did not engage in such proclamation because their femaleness prevented
the apostles from ordaining them. To arrive at such a conclusion is not only to
misread the data in the genuine Pauline epistles which abound with references
to women in ministry, but also to commit the methodological sin of imposing
upon the varied riches of ministry in Paul and in the NT a unilateral concept
of what ministry should be.(33)
Finally, the Declaration makes a distinction between “my fellow
workers,” and “God’s fellow workers” in Paul: “but he
[Paul] reserves the title ‘God’s fellow workers’ (1 Cor 3:9;
cf., 1 Thess 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus designated
because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry and the
preaching of the Word of God.”(34) As Reumann has convincingly shown, this
is a ephemeral distinction.( 35)How can one say that “Greet Prisca and
Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Rom16:3) is not
equivalent to “God’s fellow workers,”? Moreover, the
reading “God’s fellow workers” is textually suspect in 1 Thess
3:1. In the one passage in which “God’s fellow workers”
does occur, 1 Cor 3:9, it is called forth by the rhetoric of the composition:
“For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s
field, God’s building.” In brief, no ephemeral distinction
can annihilate the fact that it is of major theological significance that Paul
calls women “his fellow workers.”(36)
We
now turn and examine more directly the place of the Declaration in the
recent discussion on what Paul has to say about the ordination of women. These
discussions concentrate primarily on Gal 3:28 and the fact that Paul had female
fellow workers. Since I have already dealt with Gal 3:28 in sufficient detail
above, suffice it to say that the Declaration is au courant with the
contemporary discussions by emphasizing the collaboration that Paul asks of
women in his apostolate.(37) But as we have just seen above, the Declaration
interprets this data in a strained way. Rather than introduce artificial
points like ordination, official and public proclamation of the message, and
the distinction between “my fellow workers” and “God’s
fellow workers,” it seems much sounder to follow Paul and say that Paul,
in discerning the Spirit’s workings in his communities clearly recognized
that the Spirit called both women and men to ministry. For example, Paul
recognized the gifts of prophecy and prayer given by the Spirit to women (1 Cor
11:5) and put his stamp of approval on them. There were no barriers of
discrimination to prevent women from assuming leadership positions within the
Pauline communities and mission.
Yet
the authors of the Declaration and I are sagacious enough to realize
that most readers of Paul skim over Gal 3:28 and the Pauline texts on the roles
women played in ministry and pounce on the troublesome 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor
14:34-35.(38) Within the confines of this chapter a few remarks on each passage
must suffice.
Paul’s main point in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is not to subordinate women. We call
attention to the mutuality of men and women emphasized in 1 Cor 11:11-12:
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman for
as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are
from God.
Rather, in 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul wanted to correct an abuse which arose in the
community at Corinth because of an exaggerated understanding of the
implications of Gal 3:28. Carried along by the intoxicating newness of this
understanding, men and women tried to abolish their sexual differences as
symbolized by such things as hair style and head covering.(39) Paul strains to
correct this abuse, but, as the Declaration so rightly notes,(40) he
does not forbid these women from performing the ministries of praying and
prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor 11:5).
In
commenting on l Cor 14:33b-36, I will resume arguments which I have developed
elsewhere at greater length.(41) But first let’s quote this troublesome
text in the Revised Standard Version:
As
in all the churches of the saints, (34) the women should keep silence in the
churches. For they are not permitted to speak (lalein), but should be
subordinate, as even the law says. (35) If there is anything they desire to
know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to
speak (lalein) in church. (36) What! Did the word of God originate with
you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
If we
view the unqualified verb “to speak” (lalein in Greek) of 1
Cor 14:34-35 in its context of a discussion of charismatic speech (see 1 Cor
14:2,4,5,6,9,13,18,19,21,23,27,39), then we cannot agree with the
Declaration that “to speak” in 1 Cor 14:34-35 refers to
“the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly.”(42)
Nor is 1 Tim 2:12, “I permit no woman to teach (didaskein) or to
have authority over men; she is to keep silent,” a legitimate interpretive
parallel to the meaning of “to speak” in 1 Cor 14:34-35 as the
Declaration intimates. For the verb “to teach” (didaskein
in Greek) in 1 Tim 2:12 is not the same verb as “to speak”
(lalein) in 1 Cor 14:3435 nor are the historical contexts of the two
passages identical. I find persuasive Wayne Meeks’ view on this difficult
passage: “In his concern for order in the cultic assembly, Paul adds an
afterthought which is expressed unfortunately in too absolute a fashion,
obscuring the fact that the lalein of these women who want to enter into
a discussion to ‘learn’ cannot be the charismatic lalein of
the context.”(43) Most simply put, “to speak” in 1 Cor 14:34-35
means “to ask a question.” Paul is not forbidding women from teaching
in the public assembly.
Obviously, I have barely scratched the surface of Paul’s teaching about
women Much more could be said. In summary, Paul’s prime principle is the
one he inherited and expressed in Gal 3:28. From this principle he drew insight
and strength to warmly endorse those women whom Jesus called to ministry
through the gifts of his Spirit. Members of Paul’s community at Corinth
misunderstood the implications of Gal 3:28 and initiated abuses like the
teaching that marriage is wrong (see 1 Cor 7) and that all differences between
male and female are to be abrogated (see 1 Cor 11:2-16). Paul struggled
mightily to oppose these abuses to assimilate the teaching that “there is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).(44) On this
reading of the data of the genuine Pauline letters, Paul has been most faithful
to Jesus’ radically new and liberating attitude toward women.(45)
V
“Early Catholicism,” to which we now turn our
attention, may be a somewhat new and strange term to many readers. A few
introductory remarks on this phenomenon, therefore, may be helpful. For our
purposes Early Catholicism refers to the following NT writings: Luke-Acts,
Colossians, Ephesians,(46) 1-2 Timothy, Titus, 1-2 Peter, and Jude. These NT
books, written in the last decades of the first century or early decades of the
second, are early Catholic because they
show traces of, or tendencies in the direction of, the following: the
organization of the Church according to hierarchical in contrast to charismatic
ministry; the development of the monarchical episcopate: an objectification of
the proclamation and an emphasis upon a strictly formulated rule of faith; a
stress upon ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘sound doctrine’ in opposition
to false teaching.... a concern for ecclesiastical unity and consolidation, and
an interest in the collecting of the apostolic writings.(47)
It
might be said that the motto of early catholic writings is “law and
order.”
Except in passing,(48) the Declaration does not deal with NT writings
which are reputedly early catholic.(49) Thus it does not treat passages like
Colossians 3:18: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the
Lord”; like Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as
to the Lord”; like 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “Let a woman learn in silence
with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over
men; she is to keep silent”; like Titus 2:3-5: “Bid the older women
likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink;
they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their
husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive
to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.”
If
these statements are Paul’s, what has happened to the Paul who quoted with
solemn approval the early baptismal formula in Gal 3:28? What has happened to
the Paul who worked side by side with women in the ministry of proclaiming the
Gospel? What has happened to the Paul who seemed so very faithful to the
attitude of Jesus toward women? Many scholars answer these questions by saying
that the writings which contain these harsh, anti-feminine statements do not
stem from Paul, but are written by later followers in his name.(50) But whether
written by Paul or not, these texts and their vision of the role of women in
the Church must be addressed.
Two
answers have been given to the question which the very existence of these harsh
texts trumpets. The first answer proposes that, after Paul’s death,
gnostic heretics won over many Christians, especially women, to their views of
super-realized salvation: since they were completely resurrected (see 2 Tim
2:18), why should they observe the order of creation, i.e., marriage,
the value and beauty of sexual intercourse the distinctions between the sexes?
To counter these abuses the authors behind these early catholic writings
emphasize the order of creation. Fuller expresses this solution quite neatly:
“What then happened to Paul’s eschatological woman? She was
sacrificed to the needs of consolidation, of accommodation to the mores of
contemporary society, to the threat of gnosticism. The answer to our question
is that Paul’s eschatological woman had probably become a
gnostic!”(51)
The
second answer is that the dominant patriarchal model of the surroünding
culture won out over the vision of Jesus and Paul with regard to women.
Perhaps, John Reumann expresses this viewpoint clearest of all:
Thus Paul, building on what Jesus did and the theology and practice of the
church he knew, emerges not as a chauvinist but a rare champion of the place of
women as equals of men, in Christ, in the church. But the vision succumbed to
the heritage of centuries in the Jewish and Greek worlds, swallowed up in the
watchwords of submissiveness, silence and subordination for women as the will
of God for them. The line of development which ran through the pre-Pauline and
Pauline church was submerged by the stronger, older patriarchal trajectory and
the reactions of the mainstream church.’(52)
As
the astute reader has no doubt noticed, the two answers are not mutually
exclusive: part of the ammunition the Church used in its battle against the
gnostics was the adaptation of the observance of the patriarchal household
codes. I, therefore, agree with the view of Scroggs who combines the best
points of the two answers.(53)
In
sum, it seems that the Pauline communities after Paul had even more trouble
than Paul himself—remember 1Corinthians—in living up to the
implications of and warding off misinterpretations of the baptismal
reunification formula of Gal 3:28. A considerable number of Christian women
took this formula to mean that the created order was to be denied.(54) The
Church restored “law and order” by introducing the traditional
household codes and by forbidding heresy-prone women from continuing in or
assuming leadership functions in the Church. Perhaps Meeks is absolutely
correct when he concludes his brilliant article on how the powerful myth of the
reunification of the opposites, male and female, pulsates through Gal 3:28 by
observing:
Thus an extraordinary symbolization of the Christian sense of God’s
eschatological action in Christ proved too dangerously ambivalent for the
emerging church. After a few meteoric attempts to appropriate its power, the
declaration that in Christ there is no more male and female faded into
innocuous metaphor, perhaps to await the coming of its proper moment.(55)
Conclusions
From
the rapid tour I have conducted of the landscape of the NT texts on women, it
is clear that the colored glasses of the Declaration are not the only
pair available.
What
other conclusions can be drawn from our tour? For me one of the conclusions of
the Pontifical Biblical Commission is too minimalistic: “It does not seem
that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way
and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the
presbyterate.”(56)
More
in accord with the data we have surveyed is the view of twelve of the seventeen
members of the same Commission, who do not agree with their five colleagues
that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude the
possibility of the accession of women to the presbyterate.(57) On the contrary,
these twelve think that the “church hierarchy, entrusted with the
sacramental economy, would be able to entrust the ministries of eucharist and
reconciliation to women in light of circumstances, without going against
Christ’s original intentions.”(58) In support of their position I
would say that the NT texts about ministry bequeath to us the principle of
adaptation to historical circumstances.
In
fidelity to the example of Jesus, Paul promoted the equality of women and
sanctioned the Spirit’s gifts of ministry to them. After his death,
members of his school found that they had to adapt his teaching to new
circumstances lest gnostic women overrun the church and lest the reputation of
the church be ruined because women conducted themselves unsubmissively and thus
acted against the mores of their culture.(59) This principle of adaptation is
articulated very well by Maly: “One thing stands out from any careful
study of New Testament texts relating to ministries in the Church and it is
that the Church itself felt, from the very beginning, competent to establish
and denominate these offices.”(60)
In
sum, Jesus had limited knowledge and did not engage in the dangerous art of
biblical blueprint ecclesiology. His Spirit guided the Church to adapt itself
to changed circumstances. The varied ministries of men and women, evidenced
within the NT, are proof of the rich guidance given by the Spirit to the Church
as it adapted to diverse circumstances. This principle of adaptation is surely
valid today in the changed circumstances of the United States.
The
other studies in this volume will be able to give additional answers to the
question I posed originally: Why do the colored glasses show up the landscape
in such vastly different lights?
Notes
1. Declaration, sec. 2, par. 10.
2. Declaration, sec. 3, par. 14.
3. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "Women Apostles:
The Testament of Scripture," Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded
Vision, Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference (ea. Anne Marie
Gardiner; New York: Paulist Press, 1975), 94-102 (95).
4. Fiorenza, "Women Apostles," 95-96. For the detailed
analyses behind her statements, see her "Presencia de la mujer en el primitivo
movimiento cristiano,” Concilium 111 (1976), 9-24. For more popular
presentations of her views, see "Women in the New Testament," New Catholic
World 219 (No 1314, Nov./Dec., 1976), 256-260 and ''Understanding God's
Revealed Word," Catholic Charismatic 1 (No 6, Feb./March, 1977), 4-10.
5. From the opening quotations (notes 3 and 4) and from
subsequent references to her work, the reader will be able to discern the place
which Fiorenza occupies in contemporary NT criticism and in the recent
discussions about what the NT says about the ordination of women.
6. ''Pro and Con: The Ordination of Women in the New
Testament," Toward a New Theology of Ordination: Essays on the Ordination of
Women (ea. Marianne H. Micks; Charles P. Price; Alexandria, VA: Virginia
Theological Seminary/Somerville, MA: Greeno, Hadden & Co., 1976), 1-11.
7. “What in Scripture Speaks to the Ordination of
Women?" Concordia Theological Monthly 44 (1973), 5-30 (6). See also
The Priest and Sacred Scripture (ed. Eugene H. Maly; Washington, DC:
United States Catholic Conference, 1972), 3. It is a shame that this
magnificent study, commissioned and presented by the United States National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been so widely neglected in scholarly and
ecclesiastical circles.
8. In an unpublished paper given at Villanova University
during the summer of 1977 and entitled "Ecclesial Recognition of the Ministry
of Women: New Testament Perspectives and Contemporary Applications,'' Reumann
refers to the work of Phyllis Trible, e.g., "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical
Interpretation,'' Journal of fhe American Academy of Religion 41 (1973),
30-48, and intimates that a change in colored glasses from the ''priesthood/
priestess" model to a depatriarchalizing model may allow readers to see an old
and familiar landscape in a new light (9-10).
9. Declaration,sec. 4, par. 19.
10. Quoted from Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the
Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of
Religions 13 (1973/74), 165-208 (168). This quotation, while found in a
number of rabbinic sources, is perhaps most conveniently available in the
Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b. In chapter 8 Hayim G. Perelmuter explains in
greater detail how various sectors in Judaism have responded to the role of
women in the post-biblical age.
11. Declaration, sec. 2, par. 13.
12. For the ecclesiastical approval of the use of these
methodologies, see Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,
paragraph 19 and the 1964 "Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of
the Gospels'' from the Pontifical Biblical Commission which was approved by
Pope Paul VI. This latter document is most conveniently available in William G.
Heidt, Inspiration, Canonicity, Texts, Versions, Hermeneutics—A General
Introduction to Sacred Scripture (Old-New Testament Reading Guide 31;
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970), 111-119. For a superb treatment on the
question of the relationships between Jesus, the Twelve, and the apostles, see
Jerome D. Quinn, "Ministry in the New Testament," Biblical Studies in
Contemporary Thought: The Tenth Anniversary Commemorative Volume of the Trinity
College Biblical Institute 1966-1975 (ed. Miriam Ward; Burlington, VT:
Trinity College Biblical Institute/ Sommerville, MA: Greeno, Hadden, & Co.,
1975), 130-160 (131-137).
13. Declaration, sec. 3, par. 14. For an
appreciation of the critical methodologies being discussed here and their
application to Gospel texts, see Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching
of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).
14. See Raymond E. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical
Reflections (New York: Paulist Press, 1970), 47-73; Beda Rigaux, ''The
Twelve Apostles," Apostolic Succession: Rethinking a Barrier to Unity
(Concilium 34; New York: Paulist Press, 1968) 5-15. To understand how
moderate the position of Brown and Rigaux really is, one should contrast it
with Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church
(trans. John E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).
15. Declaration, sec. 2, par. 12-13.
16. The weakness of the Declaration's argument is
patent if one reads Romans 16:7 to refer to a woman, Junia, who is an apostle.
See Fiorenza, "Women Apostles," (95-96).
17. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises
Facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), 54.
18. Brown, Crises, 52-53.
19. In passing, it should be mentioned that the
Declaration’s principle of fidelity to the example of the Lord is
not sufficiently precise or clear. By what principle has it selected one
factor, maleness, as the one to which the Church must be faithful and excluded
others of similar importance to which the Church does not have to be faithful,
e.g., the Twelve were Jews, not Gentiles; bearded, not clean-shaven; married,
not subject to mandatory celibacy?
20. "Ecclesial Recognition," 14.
21. Declaration, sec. 4, par. 20; sec. 5, par.
28; sec. 6, par. 28. See the high value placed on this passage by Fiorenza,
''Women Apostles," 95; Meeks, ''The Image of the Androgyne"; R. Scroggs, "Woman
in the NT," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 966-968 (966).
22. Declaration, sec. 4, par. 20.
23. Declaration, sec. 6, par. 36.
24. See Fiorenza, “Women Apostles,” 95-96. For
the arguments that Gal 3:28 is a pre-Pauline baptismal formula, see Robin
Scroggs, ''Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 40 (1972) 282-303 (291-293); Scroggs, ''Paul and the
Eschatological Woman: Revisited,'' Journal of the American Academy of
Religion 42 (1974) 532-537 (533); Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne,"
180-181, 203 n 153; Hans Dieter Betz, “Spirit, Freedom, and Law: Paul's
Message to the Galatian Churches,” Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 39(1974)
145-160 (147-151).
25. "Women Apostles," 95.
26. See the accurate, if slightly overdrawn, remarks of
John McKenzie: ''We have rigorously universalized 1Cor 14:33-36 far beyond its
context; we have not been equally rigorous with Gal 3:28, a verse which admits
the ministry of women as clearly as any biblical passage admits anything." See
his ''Ministerial Structures in the New Testament," The Plurality of
Ministries (Concilium 74; New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 13-22 (22).
27. For a more popular presentation of my views on this
subject, see ''St. Paul and Women," Catholic Charismatic 1 (No 6,
Feb./March, 1977), 31-32.
23. There is considerable scholarly doubt today whether
Paul wrote more than the indisputedly authentic "Big Seven": Romans, Galatians,
1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1Thessalonians. It is sound
methodology to use with caution data from the disputedly genuine Pauline
letters in the construction of an argument that such or such a point is
Pauline, for it is not commonly accepted that this data actually stems from
Paul.
29. See, e.g., Scroggs, "Eschatological Woman," 284 and
Fuller, ''Pro and Con," 8.
30. Declaration, sec. 3, par. 14-17
31. ''What in Scripture," 5.
32. Declaration, sec. 3, par. 17; sec. 4, par.
20.
33. See the excellent, but as yet unpublished paper
delivered by Mary Ann Getty at the Cleveland conference on the Ordination of
Women, February, 1977: "New Testament Reflections on Women and Ministry." In a
sustained argument of twenty five pages Getty rightly and tellingly scores the
Declaration for this methodological shortcoming. In the NT there are the
ministries of apostle, prophet, teacher, deacon, presbyter, and bishop—to
name only the ones most familiar to us today.
34.Declaration, sec. 3, par. 16.
35. "Ecclesial Recognition," 21.
36. For an overview of the data under discussion see the
article by E. Earle Ellis ''Paul and His Co-Workers," New Testament Studies
17 (1970/71), 437-452.
37. Declaration, sec. 4, par. 20.
38. The Declaration treats these passages in sec.
4, par. 20. Both the Declaration (apparently) and I cannot follow the
lead of William O. Walker, Jr., " 1Corinthians and Paul's Views Regarding
Women," Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975) 94-110, who solves the
problems generated by 1Cor 11:2- 16 by arguing that the passage is a later
interpolation. See the effective counterarguments of Jerome Murphy-O'Connor
"The Non-Pauline Character of 1Corinthians 11:2-16?" Journal of Biblical
Literature 95 (1976) 615-621. I do not adhere to the position of Scroggs,
"Eschatological Woman," 284, that 1Cor 14:33b-36 is a post-Pauline gloss. See
the persuasive argument of Meeks, ''The Image of the Androgyne," 203-204, that
1Cor 14:33b-36 is Pauline.
39. See the arguments of Scroggs, "Eschatological
Woman," 297-302 and Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne," 199-203.
40. Declaration, sec. 4, par. 20.
41. "Women in the Pauline Assembly: To Prophesy, but not
to Speak?" scheduled to appear in the forthcoming commentary on the
Declaration edited by Arlene and Leonard Swidler.
42.Declaration, sec. 4, par. 20.
43. ''The Image of the Androgyne," 204.
44. See Elaine H. Pagels, ''Paul and Women: A Response
to Recent Discussion," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42
(1974), 538 549, esp. 544-548: Paul is a man in conflict who champions liberty,
but is also desirous of order. Pagels' insight into Paul is shared by Reumann,
"What in Scripture," 30, who expresses it in terms of "realized eschatology"
and "eschatological reserve": "First Corinthians 11, on this reading, turns out
to be the key passage: Paul allows women to pray and prophesy in church,
because it is a prompting of the Spirit that moves them; this overcomes all the
inclinations from his Jewish heritage; at the same time he regulates this
ministry, like all gifts of the Spirit, so that it will really build up the
body of Christ, the people of God, and not cause offense at the wrong
points."
45. For a similar conclusion, see A. Feuillet, "La
dignité et le rôle de la femme d'après quelques textes
pauliniens: comparaison avec l'Ancien Testament," New Testament Studies
21 (1974/75), 157-191.
46. I follow the lead of Fuller, "Pro and con," 8 in
placing Colossians and Ephesians here.
47. John H. Elliott, "A Catholic Gospel: Reflections on
'Early Catholicism' in the New Testament,'' Catholic Biblical Quarterly
31 (1969), 213-223 (214). This article also contains a basic bibliography
on the subject. For a very positive approach to the significance of "early
Catholicism," see Reginald H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New
Testament (London: Duckworth, 1966), 166-167, 196-197.
48. Declaration,sec. 4, par. 20 on 1Tim 2:12.
49. By neglecting these passages, the authors of the
Declaration may have noticed along with others, e.g., Reumann, "What in
Scripture," 12, that these texts on subordination may not be pertinent to the
discussion since they refer to wives and husbands and not to women and men in
general.
50. See, e.g., Scroggs, ''Eschatological Woman,"
284.
51. ''Pro and Con,'' 9; see James E. Crouch, The
Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Forschungen zur Religion
und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1972).
52. "Ecclesial Recognition," 23. See also Fiorenza,
''Women Apostles,'' 97-99.
53. "Woman in the NT," 968.
54. See Meeks, ''The Image of the Androgyne," 203-208.
55. ''The Image of the Androgyne," 208.
56. The translation is from Origins, 96.
57. The translation is from Origins, 96.
58. The translation is from Origins, 96. A
similar conclusion is arrived at by Manuel Miguens, Church Ministry in New
Testament Times (Arlington, VA: Christian Culture Press, 1976), 140.
59. It should be obvious that our American circumstances
do not envisage a gnostic women in every church or even every other church. Our
culture does not countenance —at least legally —the discriminatory
subordination of women. For a similar point, see Fuller, "Pro and Con,"
9-10.
60. The Priest and Sacred Scripture, 39. See also
McKenzie, ''Ministerial Structures." 21-22.
Contents of the
book
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
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!