 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by John Hilary Martin, O.P. Graduate Theological
Union, Berkeley.
Published in Theological Studies,vol.48, no.2, 1987,
pp.303-316.
Discussions about major theological problems have long histories, although they
need not, of course, always proceed from the same point of view. Perhaps that
is why they can die out for a while, only to be picked up again later as if
they were quite new. Discussion about whether women might be ordained is one of
those theological issues which had a longer history than most of us were aware
of, I suspect, when the possibility was raised so sharply and insistently in
the mid-1960s. Since that time there has been a flood of studies on the
position of women in the Church, and the need to come to grips with the
question of an ordained ministry for women. In pursuit of this goal, recent
studies have re-examined the text of Scripture, have skilfully teased out
evidence to show the ministerial activity of women in New Testament
communities, have sought the traces of an ordained ministry for women during
the first centuries of the Church’s life, and have looked at ministry in
the churches of the Reformation. But in all of this work there has been a
notable gap. Very little has been said about the state of the discussion from
the end of the patristic period up to the Reformation. With the exception of
two short articles in the collection of essays, Women Priests: A Catholic
Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, and a chapter in a work by Manfred
Hauke, I have found nothing which covers this period.(l)
This
lack of interest can probably be explained easily enough by our common feeling
that the medieval world would not have given the matter much thought. It comes
as a mild surprise to find that a society which operated under the
presupposition, as medieval society certainly did, that the world should be ran
under masculine direction, if not male domination, had anything at all to say
on the subject.
Medieval theologians did in fact discuss the ordination of women beginning in
the early decades of the 13th century and continuing on until the Reformation.
The question eventually became one of the standard ones included in the
academic curriculum. As time went on, it is true, it tended to be handled by
authors in a routine and repetitive manner, but the earlier discussions record
a serious theological attempt to justify the traditional practice (i.e.,
nonordination) as witnessed in bits and pieces of canonical legislation. The
solutions to the question which I present here come largely from what is found
in commentaries on the Sentences. It would be interesting to know how
much popular feeling lay behind the discussion in the Schools, whether there
was active agitation for ordination of women in some quarters. An examination
of popular literature and sermon material might prove interesting.
Medieval theologians operated on the assumption that women had never been
ordained, at least not in a sacramental manner, at any time in the
Church’s history. (Reports of one or two attempts to do so were treated as
aberrations, and were regarded in the literature of the time more as
eccentricities than anything else.(2)) While this was clear enough to them,
whether this practice was simply a time-honored ecclesiastical convention or
something of divine law was less evident. If the prohibition were a
matter of divine law, the question was obviously far less sensitive than if it
rested only on an ecclesiastical regulation. If nonordination of women was only
of ecclesiastical origin, then there was a theoretical possibility that a woman
could be ordained, perhaps even should be ordained. Would it not be an act of
injustice, some began to argue, to exclude them? In this article I shall
discuss this specific question as it came to the surface shortly after 1300,
but before taking up this specific issue it will be well to examine briefly the
medieval discussion of the ordination of women in general.
The
earliest medieval treatment of the sacrament of holy orders appears among the
canonists.(3) The body of canon law, like most law, was concerned chiefly with
the external, the social relations between people, and not with a consistent
and systematic treatment of a problem. Its province was matters such as who had
the right to preach and when, who had authority in a church assembly and how
they got it, who could touch sacred objects and who could not, and the like.
Even the most elaborate commentators on canon-law texts gave little theological
explanation or exegetical arguments to prove their point. Canonists were
content to state their case and not theologize too much about it.(4) With
regard to the relation of women to holy orders, their case was that, since the
ancient councils of the Church had said that women could not touch the sacred
vessels and linens used at Mass, and since they could not preach or officially
teach in church or public (as witnessed St. Paul), and since any ordained
person was obliged to do these things, women and holy orders were incompatible.
Texts which suggested that women had sometimes preached in church, especially
as deaconesses, or were presbyterae were explained away by the eleventh-
and twelfth-century canonists.
By
the 1240s, after an initial silence which I find curious and intriguing,
theologians at the universities began to ask if women were qualified to receive
orders, and, if not, if it was their sex which excluded them.(6) The case made
by the canonists might have been good enough to show that the nonordination of
women was indeed the Church’s ancient policy and discipline, but it was
not good enough to demonstrate that this was the only policy which was
possible. To settle this second question, theologians after 1250 in their
commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard began to re-examine the
scriptural texts, look into the meaning of the sacrament of holy orders, and
analyze the natural characteristics of men vis-à-vis women. This is not
the place to go into this mass of literature. At its best it reveals a
heightened awareness of orders as a sacrament (a sign of Christ’s action
in and for the Church) and its relation to the Eucharist; at its worst it
reflects unexamined prejudices about the supposed male superiority over women
taken as a class. Their prejudices about the supposed weakness and instability
of the distaff sex need not detain us here, because these prejudices ultimately
were not the basis for the theologians’ conclusions.
Arguments Based on Symbolism
While
accepting the canonical tradition, theologians in their commentories on the
Sentences of Peter Lombard began to develop somearguments based on
symbolism. Bonaventure typifies one line of approach.(6) He develops an
argument which ultimately depends upon a Christian understanding of the
relation between God and the human race, and an understanding of the parallel
relationship between a man and a woman. He notes that the roles of man and
woman are complementary, where the woman provides rest and a sense of
fulfilment to man, while man provides for and supports the life of woman. In a
parallel way the Church, which is also seen as feminine, becomes the place
where God is able to find rest. God “delights to be with the
children of men, as Proverbs says,” while He guides and directs the Church
through Christ, a mediator who is masculine. The relationship of humanity and
God as feminine to masculine penetrates Bonaventure’s thought.(7)
God’s activity, which is visible in the salvific work of Christ, is
expressed in each one of the sacraments. It is appropriate, fitting, therefore,
that the minister of them be masculine rather than feminine in gender.(8) To
suggest otherwise would clearly be unsafe and most unlikely. For this we have
the witness of the saints. Bovaventure's final option hardly differs from that
of his contemporaries.
An
essential point to remember with Bonaventure is that he is talking about
idealized relations between man and woman, the symbolic value of
masculine and feminine, not actual experience in particular cases. The relation
is seen as a paradigm for a relation between God and His people, between Christ
and his Church. Christ’s minister is not so much a functionary (someone
capable of performing a service) as a representative figure, a symbolic person.
Like
Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas also answered the question by using symbolism.(9)
As a commentator on the Sentences, Thomas accepts the somewhat inelegant
formulation of the question, then customary, which asked if the feminine sex
was one of the deficiencies of nature which prevented ordination. (The
deficiencies of nature traditionally listed were age or immaturity, female sex,
and the status of being a slave.) For Thomas, the sacrament of orders, like
every sacrament, must express in sign form what is being signified in the
sacrament. In the case of holy orders, what signifies happens to be a living
person. It is essential, therefore, that any persons receiving any order be
able to represent in their person what the order signifies. While arguing
through symbolism, Thomas grounded his symbols somewhat differently than
Bonaventure. His line of approach, which could also look to traditional
precedents, was employed later by many theologians both inside and outside the
Thomist School. It looked to what might be described as a political model, one
which involved a relationship between being-in-authority and being-asubject of
authority. In line with this thinking, the feminine was continually referred to
and characterized as having the status of being-a-subject.(l0) The masculine,
on the other hand, not being subject, could and should represent the role of
authority. This relation was viewed as symbolic and apart from the real
qualities of mind and spirit which might be present in a man or a woman in a
given instance. Women were often wise and prudent and in charge of affairs; men
were at times known to be weak, foolish, and in need of direction.(l1) Another
way of expressing the relationship, which was often used, was to say that women
were not naturally in a position of “eminence,” while men were.
While
the notion of a subject status for women fit in quite well with the medieval
social pattern, Thomas and other theologians of the time looked beyond the
arrangements of society when they came to justify their theology of ministry.
They relied on, or at any rate quoted, passages from the epistles of Paul
(especially 1 Tim 1 and 1 Cor 11) and the imagery found in the first chapters
of Genesis, which suggested to them that the status of being-a-subject was the
symbolism of the feminine. Here, of course, a difficulty arose for a
sacramental ministry for women, since this ministry grew out of the work of
Christ. In their eyes the role of Christ was one of authority and not
subjection. For Thomas, Christ was one who directed, taught with authority, and
battled for the Church as her champion (propugnator).(12) Those who can
receive orders must be those who can represent the authority possessed by
Christ. From this point of view it is obvious that the recipient must be by
nature in a position of authority. This becomes the precise theological reason
why it was inappropriate to ordain women. It was the reason brought forward to
justify church practice.
When
the philosophy of pagan Greece, epitomized in the work of Aristotle, became
known after mid-century, its negative view of woman’s nature and ability
was used as a convenient rationalization for speaking of women in a subservient
role. It was not, however, the original basis of the view.
The
symbolisms employed by Bonaventure, Thomas, and those in their milieu make it
clear that they would have been uncomfortable with a feminine priesthood at any
grade of ministry. In the following generation, i.e. toward 1300, theologians
lost interest, and perhaps confidence, in the force of their symbolic
explanations. The prevalent view that this world is somehow the image of the
divine, that God’s activity is reflected in the symbolism of the
sacraments, began to fade. Instead, the sacraments came to be regarded more as
gracious expressions of God’s free gift, even as examples of grants of
favor which were arbitrary. Less effort was made in Sentence
commentaries to rely on arguments based on sacramental symbolism. Emphasis was
focused instead on the practice of the Church. Theologians now turned their
attention to justifying that practice, and to justifying it in different ways.
Arguments about a woman’s supposed emotional instability, lack of
intelligence, greater timidity, and proneness to lead others into sin appear
with more insistence in the discussion. Bits of folk wisdom as well as the more
systematized remarks of Aristotle were now brought forward in Sentence
commentaries and biblical exegesis which tended to denigrate women.(13)
This type of argument, left in isolation, will, of course, never prevail. First
of all, it was psychological and not theological; and second, it ran against
their own common experience. The very authors who wrote about the weakness of
women were always obliged to make the point that some women at least
were brighter and more competent than many men, that some women have
faced difficulty and grave danger with poise and courage (the many women
martyrs were obvious examples). Everyone was also well aware that women
sometimes were called to govern duchies and kingdoms, even in feudal Europe,
and that it was a much more common practice elsewhere.(l4) Even if one should
agree that the masculine sex as a whole was superior to the feminine,
why not at least ordain those women who had demonstrated marked abilities?(15)
Theologians now began to ask: Would it not be a mark of prejudice, even an
injustice, to deny orders to a qualified Christian?
New Arguments
While
not entirely abandoning the older arguments based on symbolism, sketched out
above, theologians began to search for new arguments which would address the
justice of the Church’s long practice of not calling women to holy orders.
The Franciscan Duns Scotus was the first author (at least the first I have
found) to offer some suggestions on this score.(l6) In his hands the final and
ultimate reason why women should not, and cannot, be ordained rests not on
symbolism but on a historic determination. Since Christ initiated the
sacraments, and since they confer the grace they claim they do through a solemn
pact which God has made, it is the will of Christ that determines the
conditions under which this pact will be carried out.(17) The reason why women
cannot be ordained is based on a decision of Christ. But why is Scotus so
convinced that this was the actual will of Christ and not simply ecclesiastical
usage? It is here that Scotus’ argument takes a surprising turn. It seems
inconceivable to him that the Church, or even the apostles themselves, could
deprive even a single person, let alone an entire sex, of something that would
be beneficial to salvation. Neither the Church nor the apostles, he feels,
could in justice deny this “status” (his word is gradus) to
anyone if it would be conducive to salvation, unless the Church and the
apostles were acting under Christ’s direction. Christ, who is Lord of all,
is the only authority capable of issuing such a prohibition.(18)
In
the wake of this line of reasoning, two important themes enter into the
sacramental discussion. First, there is a tendency to see holy orders as a
grace (a gift) which can be directed toward one’s personal salvation. In a
sense, orders becomes a kind of personal possession. Perhaps this was logically
inevitable when the minister was no longer seen as a symbolic figure whose
service was essentially a public, sacramental representation. In any event,
orders is presented as a kind of personal gift, something to be striven for
even apart from the needs of the community. The fact that orders is given to
someone to serve the Church is never denied, of course, but its ecclesial
purpose came to be further overshadowed. When ordination becomes a grace which
is personal, it also becomes something which can be desired for quite private
reasons. At that point orders can be legitimately sought by anyone who feels a
need for this sacramental grace. It is an enhancement of personal dignity, even
as a matter touching on justice.
The
second tendency, which I have already touched on, is that the conditions for
conferring orders depend less now upon the Christian community than they do
upon the arbitrary will of Christ. A human legislator can be called to account
and made to give reasons, symbolic or otherwise, for regulations and
restrictive conditions which are set, but a divine legislator is bound by no
such constraints. God is free to be arbitrary.
Scotus was a theologian, however, and we would not expect him to leave the
matter there. While the absolute powers of God are beyond our ken, and we will
never completely know why women have been excluded from orders, Scotus offers
some congruous lines of argument, some “plausibilities” we
might call them, to give some explanation. In this he is not particularly
original and follows earlier theologians. Women have been excluded from orders,
he suggests, because their status is one of being-subject and not one of
eminence. Moreover, those in orders must teach and preach, something which
exceeds the capacities of women.(19) These arguments, however, only offer some
plausibility; they do not really demonstrate Christ’s intention. To gain
some further assurance that this really was Christ’s intention, Scotus
examines the figure of the Blessed Virgin. In a curious way, he develops an
argument which takes the same form as the argument he will construct to defend
the immaculate conception of Mary. The mother of Christ was most holy, and thus
most worthy of all possible graces. No one in the Church could be equal to her
in sanctity or honor, yet the grace of orders was not given to her.(20) Scotus
leaves us to draw the inference that the grace of orders for some reason was
not appropriate to the Virgin, and, by extension, was not appropriate to other
women as well.
Scotus is aware of one other hurdle to his argument, and that lies in stories
about famous women in the circle of the apostles. What should we say of St.
Mary Magdalene, who was called apostola and was a great preacher in the
early Church?(21) Interestingly enough, Scotus does not dismiss the story out
of hand. He fields this objection by saying that if this legend is true, it
represents a special privilege given by Christ to Magdalene as an individual.
Privileges given to individuals do not generate any precedents and cease with
the death of the person possessing the favor, as canon law teaches. This answer
serves to parry any argument which might try to show that it was somehow unjust
not to call women to holy orders. No one would accuse Jesus of being unjust
toward his own mother. Moreover, privileges are gifts which are freely given,
and so have nothing to do with the order of justice. The remarks Scotus makes
about Mary and the legend of Mary Magdalene are brief and somewhat tentative.
They were developed in Sentence commentaries throughout the fourteenth
century, especially in the Scotist school.
The
theme of justice was taken up by many theologians in the years immediately
after Scotus’ death. These are minor figures today but were not so
regarded in their own time. A contemporary Spanish Franciscan, Antonio Andreas,
talking about women and orders, says that we should not believe that the
stricture against them is simply an ecclesiastical norm, for the Church on its
own authority could not exclude the whole of the feminine sex from such a
dignity without falling into a sin itself.(22) This is especially the case when
we reflect that this status (i.e., gradus) is given not only for the
sake of others, but as a perfection of the soul of the person who possesses it.
It is for this reason that we must conclude that the prohibition was introduced
by Christ and not by the Church. A sign of this, he continues, is that Christ
did not bestow any grade of orders upon his mother, who nonetheless exceeded
every creature in purity.
Bishop Durandus, a Dominican, writing in the 1320s, argues in the same
vein.(23) It would be wrong to suppose that the regulation about not ordaining
women was something given out by the apostles. They could not withhold a
dignity useful for salvation and granted by Christ without being guilty of
prejudice themselves. Durandus thinks that prejudice in this matter would be
more reprehensible than any sort of political disability, since orders is a
gift valuable for promoting one’s eternal rather than temporal salvation
if used rightly. If Christ had wished women to be ordained, such an honor could
not be withheld by any ecclesiastical law.(24) In this matter the apostles have
simply handed down what they received from the Lord. This is shown by the way
in which Christ instituted this sacrament. At the Last Supper he ordained only
men when he gave the power of consecrating the Eucharist, and, again, only men
were mentioned when he imparted the Spirit for forgiving sin after his
resurrection. Moreover, Durandus notes, Christ did not ordain his mother to any
grade of orders, even though she was the most holy of women.
Durandus’ successor at Paris, Peter de la Palude, closely followed the
same line of thought.(25) Not even the pope, he said, can dispense from the
restriction barring women from orders, because that would affect the very
“matter” of the sacrament, which is outside the Church’s
competence. There are, of course, many sacramentals, such as blessings,
consecrations, and similar ceremonies, which have been introduced by the
Church. Unlike the sacraments, these sacramentals are indeed subject to change
and modification under ecclesiastical supervision. Should the lesser orders,
Peter asks, be included among this group or not? He replies: If you happen to
believe that only the priesthood is a sacrament and the lesser orders are only
sacramentals, then it is perfectly true that the pope could change them, and
change the conditions making someone eligible to receive them. Whatever we may
think about the various minor orders, Peter cautions, the masculine sex is a
necessary condition whenever we are speaking about the sacrament of
orders. By way of explanation, Peter simply quotes verbatim the text of his
teacher Durandus.
The
Franciscan William of Rubio, writing about the same time, picks up the threads
of Scotus’ argument.(25) It seems implausible to him that the Church would
deprive a whole sex of the ability to receive orders— something both of
value and an aid to salvation—if women as a matter of fact were capable of
being ordained. Now it is quite certain, he insists, that orders would be
helpful to salvation for women just as they are for men, if women were in fact
able to receive them. The Church itself would not be without sin if she
unilaterally deprived a whole sex of open access to them. No statute resting
simply on the authority of the Church could bar a woman from orders if she were
in fact capable of receiving them. If such a statute exists, then it is not the
legislation of the Church but a prohibition which rests on a divine rule. He
concludes, somewhat sharply, that a general disability such as this one is the
kind laid down on those who are incapable of carrying out the activity involved
in orders, as, for example, is the case of a person incapable of speech
(mutus).
After
the second quarter of the fourteenth century, interest in the problem of the
ordination of women seems to have begun to wane, at least among theologians who
wrote commentaries on the Sentences. This lack of interest, I might add,
paralleled a general lack of interest in sacramental theology as a whole.
Evidence for this can be found in the shape of the Sentence books
themselves. During the century, commentaries on the fourth book of the
Sentences, where sacraments were discussed, became progressively
shorter, while introductions and discussions on the material in the first book
(dealing largely with theological methodology and epistemological problems)
grew ever longer and more intricate. Discussions on the sacraments were
squeezed into fewer and fewer quaestiones occupying fewer and fewer
folios. In commentaries, some authors never got around to discussing all of the
seven sacraments, often contenting themselves with some remarks about baptism
and the Eucharist.
The
tendency to pass over the sacraments lightly was accelerated in the fourteenth
century by the movement known as nominalism (or terminism). William of Ockham,
whose philosophical system provided the inspiration for much of its theological
methodology, had nothing to say about orders in his own treatment of the
sacraments, and in consequence the question of the ordination of women was not
considered. His commentary set a precedent for other theologians of the
nominalist school, who do not discuss orders in any detail.(27) The silence of
nominalist theologians prevented them, of course, from making any contribution
to the discussion such as Scotus and his followers had done when they raised
the issue of justice. The overall effect of the silence of the nominalists,
however, went further than that. If we accept the view of historians that
nominalist thought represented the cutting edge of philosophical and
theological development in the latter half of the fourteenth century, and that
it dominated the intellectual imagination of masters in so many of the newly
founded universities of Germany well into the fifteenth century, it seems clear
that a large portion of theology students toward the end of the Middle Ages
would have heard little about the underlying basis for the relation of women to
holy orders, or, for that matter, about the grounding of orders at all. This
would inevitably have left students with the impression that the current
arrangements in the Church were mandates imposed by the infinite God, about
which little needed to be said, or indeed could be said.
The
matter of justice was raised at the turn of the fourteenth century, and it is
tantalizing not to be able to know just how much soul-searching it may have
represented in the minds of theologians at the time. The issue was soon
discarded again, for it seems that justice, too, was hidden in the unfathomable
mind of God. For policy and direction, the faithful were left to rely on the
Church, which was now burdened with a double duty. It was to teach what was
true (what God had revealed), and for this it was endowed with infallibility.
It was also to be sure that its actions and policies were in accord with
justice (what God had willed), and for that it needed to be endowed with
indefectibility.
Notes
1.
The articles are by Francine Cardman and by George Tavard. Tavard makes the
point that the three scholastic doctors (he discusses only Thomas, Bonaventure,
and Duns Scotus) “reflect about the fact of non-ordination, which they try
to justify with suitable theological arguments.” This procedure is, of
course, well in line with medieval methods, which more or less unconsciously
followed the path trod by Anselm (“I believe so that I may
understand”), where the doctrines and practices perceived to be the ones
accepted in the Church then became the point of departure for theological
speculations. Tavard takes up Thomas’ treatment of the question first,
before Bonaventure’s. While this is legitimate from his point of view,
which is to give a synopsis, it does invert the historical order. Since
Bonaventure talks in terms of “greater probability,” “surer
opinion,” this may leave the unwary with the impression that later writers
were less certain about the matter—which is not the case. In treating Duns
Scotus, Tavard notices the injustice argument given there, and that Mary,
Christ’s “most blest” mother, was not ordained. Cardman is
concerned with showing how the Vatican Declaration has failed to do justice to
scholastic arguments. These matters need further discussion and will be pursued
in the present article. Cf. F. Cardman, “Non-Conclusive Arguments:
Therefore, Non-Conclusion?”, and G. Tavard, “The Scholastic
Doctrine," both in Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican
Declaration,ed. L. Swidler and A. Swidler (New York: Paulist, 1977) 92-98,
99-106. For a historical discussion of the period from 1100 to 1500, see my
“The Ordination of Women and the Theologians in the Middle Ages,”
appearing in Escritos del Vedat 16 (1986) 115-177 and subsequent issue.
Hauke believes that the theological criticism which was needed concerning the
ban on the ordination of women has now been done, but that this in itself is
not enough: It is necessary to have a more positive treatment of the question
which should take the form “Why indeed should women be
ordained?” He fears that the line of argument that since women and men are
equally capable, they are therefore equally capable of being ordained,
is rooted in a “flight from the feminine.” Reception of orders cannot
be reduced to that; something more positive is required. In a short section,
part of a historical review of the recipients of orders from NT times, he
summarizes the view of Thomas, Bonaventure and Duns Scotus from the standpoint
of the “sign value” of the sacrament. Cf. M. Hauke, Die
Problematik um das Frauenpriestertum von dem Hintergrund der Schöpfungs-
und Erlösungsordnung (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1982) 440-56. The volume
contains an excellent bibliography.
2.
Wyclif, or Wyclifites, seemed to have countenanced, even encouraged, sending
out women priests and preachers; at least this is the way Thomas Netter of
Walden (1370- 1430) felt in his polemical, anti-Wyclifite Doctrinale
antiquitatum fidei catholicae ecclesiae, (Venice, 1757-59). Netter was
close to the government of Henry V and was appointed confessor to Henry VI. He
was certainly in a position to know the attitude of those around the King. His
work is of particular interest since it appears to be addressed to an audience
of educated layfolk as well as clerics. He marshals many quotations from the
Fathers but hardly ever refers to professional theologians of the Schools.
3.
Several collections of ancient church laws were known in the West in the early
part of the Middle Ages. All of them contained canons which suggested that
women should not, probably could not, serve in a clerical capacity. The oldest
strata of this law, the Dionysiana collectio, came from a collection
which had been prepared in the second half of the sixth century at Rome. This
collectio, revised slightly in the ninth century, was transmitted by
Pope Adrian to Charlemagne, becoming known as the Hadriana collectio.
This, along with the Hispana collectio, attributed to Isidore, the
sixth-century bishop of Seville, formed the basis for several collections of
canons made about the time of the Gregorian Reform. Two collections compiled in
the eleventh century, the Decretum of Burchard of Worms and that of Ivo
of Chartres, were particularly influential. Finally, in the twelfth century,
the Camaldolese monk Gratian produced the Decretum which was to become a
standard. As its title suggests (Concordance of Discordant Canons),
Gratian’s purpose was to bring unity to the presentation of church law and
to reduce its inconsistencies to a minimum. The existing canons on the clerical
status of women came under his scholarly examination. The discussion going on
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was mediated to the theologians we will
be considering through the various glossae made on the Decretum
of Gratian. At the beginning of our period, the early thirteenth century, one
of these glossae became more influential than the rest, the
Glossa of John Teutonicus. Published in 1216 or 1217, it quickly became the
apparatus used in the law schools of Bologna. From there it found its way into
general use among theologians and lawyers, becoming known as the Glossa
ordinaria. Virtually no new legislation about the ordination of women was
to appear in the Corpus juris canonici collected after the beginning of
the thirteenth century. When looking for norms which should regulate church
practice on ordination, theologians followed the legislation found in the
Decretum in the light of the interpretation offered by the Glossa
ordinaria without undertaking any particular investigation of their own.
4.
The canonical texts which theclogians continually referred to were Sacratos
D.23.25 and Adicimus C. 16.1.23, along with two forms of Mulier
quamvis D.23.29 and De con. 4.20, Mulier debet D. 32.18, 19,
Diaconissam C. 37.1.23, and Si quis rapuerit C. 27.1.30. Some
words of comment prefacing Causa 15 were also cited at times.
5.
Peter Lombard does not raise the question himself when he discusses the
sacrament of holy orders in his Sentences, composed in 1157 or 1158.
Distinction 25 of his fourth book became, however, the classic locus for
discussing the question in commentaries on his Sentences when his book
became a kind of “set text” used at the universities around 1215. But
early commentaries, and even those as late as Alexander of Hales or Albert the
Great, did not always take up the question. The commentary of the Dominican
Richard Fishacre at Oxford is the first one I have discovered which offers a
treatment in a Sentence commentary. Perhaps other authors still excused
themselves as did Peter of Poitiers in the 1180s: that he would not mention
holy orders in his theological text because “that was handled by the
canonists.” Cf. Sententiarum libri 5, 14 (PL 211, 1257).
6.
Bonaventure, later to be minister general of the Franciscan Order, commented on
the Sentences at Paris between 1250 and 1252. I will be citing from
Opera omnia (Ad Claras Aquinas [Quaracchi]: Coll. S. , 1882-9). For a
study of his life and works, cf. J. G. Bougerol, Introduction à
l’étude de s. Bonaventurae (Paris: Desclée,S 1961).
Following common opinion, Bonaventure notes that a woman cannot be ordained
because this violates Sacratas, but a doubt can legitimately be
entertained about whether it might be possible for a woman to be
ordained (Sent. 4, d. 25, a. 2, q. 1.).
7.
Cf. Sent. 2, d. 18, a. 1, q. 1. The interdependence of man and woman,
which is an important concept for Bonaventure, is well summarized by J. M.
Ferrante, Woman As Image in Medieval Literature (New York: Columbia
Univ., 1975) 105-7. The same interdependence is reflected between God and the
individual soul, Christ and his Church.
8.
Sent. 3, d. 12, a. 3, q. 1. The position of a bishop as spouse of the
Church gives Bonaventure an opportunity to reassert his position; cf. Sent.
4, d. 25, a. 2, q. 1.
9.
Thomas commented on the Sentences at Paris between 1255 and 1260, making
him a junior contemporary of Bonaventure. We must rely on Thomas’
formulation of the problem as it appears here, because his Summa theologiae,
written some years later when he was a veteran teaching master, breaks off
before he gets around to treating of orders. It is of little help to turn to
his commentaries on Scripture. His mature commentary on the epistles of St.
Paul (composed cu. 1270-72) breaks off at 1 Cor 10, just at the point where we
might have expected him to deal with the ordination of women. We must rely
instead on an earlier and much thinner version (dated ca. 1259-65), a
reportatio of his secretary, Reginald of Piperno. Is it just a
coincidence that Thomas never returns to a discussion of orders? Perhaps,
perhaps not. There is no evidence as to why he breaks off his epistle
commentary at chapter 10.
10.
Sent. 4, d. 25, q. 2, a. 1. In asserting this, Thomas was not breaking
any new ground. The theme of subordination and eminence was a common one in the
medieval period. It is part and parcel of the notion of hierarchy. As it
appears in Thomas, cf. K. E. Børresen, Subordination and Equivalence:
The Nature and Rôle of Woman in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981). A. Bernal has
studied the same matter with special reference to Thomas, “La
condición de la mujer en Santo Tomás de Aquino,” Escritos
del Vedat 4 (1974) 285-335. It should be noted that the term “subject
status” did not imply that woman was servant to man, for that would run
counter to the dignity of the human person. If masculine authority was to be
legitimate, it had to be exercised for the good and the utility of the person
who was subject. Cf. Sum. theol. 1, q. 92,a. 1.
11. A
talented woman should teach privately although not in the public forum: Sum.
theol. 2-2, q. 177, a. 2.
12.Sent. 3, d. 12, q. 3, a. 1, qla 2.
13.
Henry of Ghent, a secular master, replying to the question why women could not
preach in the church ex officio, says that four things are necessary for
the preaching office: constancy, so that the teacher may not deviate
from the truth; stamina, to be able to sustain the teaching burden;
authority, so that listeners will be led to believe; vivacity of
intellect, so that people will be turned away from vices to virtue. Women
fail on all four counts, he thinks, because they are inconstant and are easily
led away from the truth; being the weaker sex, they have less stamina; because
of their condition, they lack freedom, being always subject to another; and
besides, their voice leads to sensuality. Cf. Summae quaestionum
ordinariarum1, a. 11, q. 2 (Paris: Iodoci Badii, 1520). Richard of
Middleton, a popular Franciscan author, speaks to the same effect. He seems to
have popularized the phrase that women were “weak of intellect and fickle
in affections”: Magistri Ricardi de Mediavilla super quatuor libros
Sententiarum 4, d. 25, a. 5, q. 1 (Brescia, 1591).
14.
The usual response to explain why women could be empresses or duchesses, and
yet not have any authority in the Church, was to say that authority in civil
matters was one thing, religious authority (presumably a higher type of
authority) another.
15.
It was agreed that if women did possess knowledge and skill, they should not
conceal them but use them for the good of others. A wise woman could teach what
she knew, but in private. The notion of “at home” seems to be
implied. Cf. Thomas, Sum. theol., 2-2, a. 177, q. 2.
16.
Duns Scotus lectured twice on the Sentences, once at Paris and once at
Oxford. (He seems to have covered all four books in both places, though not in
sequence.) The state of Scotus’ text presents many problems, aggravated,
no doubt, by his early death. We have been left with something like a
work-in-progress. The edition being prepared under a commission headed by Carlo
Balic has done much to sort out the problems and to present us with a
trustworthy text. Unfortunately, the commission has not yet reached the part of
Scotus’ commentary of interest to us. I shall rely on the Wadding text
found in the edition of his Opera omnia (Paris: L. Vives, 1895-). Vol.
19 contains his Opus Oxoniense (dated 1304); Vol. 24 contains his
Reportatio Parisiensis (dated 1303). The lectures are substantially the
same but contain some interesting variations.
17.
Scotus was at pains to show that the action of the bishop in ordaining someone
was not what caused that person to be ordained. The bishop did not act
as a necessary agent, but only contingently. If a bishop should ceremonially
ordain a woman, Scotus argues, this is not proof that she is ordained. What is
proved is that the bishop, like any contingent agent, does not act absolutely.
His act takes effect only “in most cases” following the divine
disposition (cf. 19,140).
18.
Ibid.
19.
24, 370.
20.
24, 370-71.
21.
The name of Mary Magdalene appears as an important figure in much apocryphal
literature. In the Gospel of Mary she is presented as equally graced
with Peter and the other apostles; cf. E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha
1 (London: SCM, 1983) 340-44. In one version of the Acts of Pilate
she volunteers to go to Rome to show Caesar the evil that Pilate had done;
cf The Apocryphal New Testament, ed. M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon,
1924) 117. The stories were known to the Schoolmen. although they do not cite
any texts.
22.
Antonio Andreas (1280-1320) was at the newly formed University of Lerida about
1315. He later became Franciscan minister of the province of Aragon. Although
little is known of him, the frequent editions of his Sentences in the
15th and 16th centuries testify to the popularity of his work. Cf. Ant.
Andreae Conventualis Franciscani. . . Sent. 4, d. 25, q. 1, a. 3 (Venice,
1578) II fol. 156rb.
23.
Durandus of Saint-Pourcain (1275-1334) lectured at Paris as a bachelor, 1307-8.
Under pressure from elements within his order, he felt forced to revise his
commentary, 1310-13. After his appointment as bishop of Limoux, he revised his
commentary yet again, producing his third and definitive version between
1317-27: D. Durandi a Sancto Portianno . . . Petri Lombardi Sententias
theologicas commentariorum . . . 4, d. 25, q. 2 (Venice, 1571) II:364va.
24.
Ibid.
25.
Peter de la Palude (ca. 1277-1342) was a skilled diplomat and polemicist. Peter
was a member of the commission authorized by the Dominican general chapter to
examine the writings of Durandus. Although the commission reported negatively
on his theology, this did not prevent Peter from freely borrowing from
Durandus’ text, verbatim at times. Cf. Magistri Petri de la Palude . .
. Sent. 4, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1 (Paris, 1514) 133rb.
26.
William of Rubio (1290-?) was a student at Paris, 1315-25, possibly a student
of Francis de la March. The Franciscan general chapter of Assisi, 1334,
examined and approved his commentary. No manuscript survives although several
editions do. Cf. F. Guillelmi de Rubione venerabilis . .. in quatuor libros
magistri Sententiarum 4, d. 25, q. 3 (Paris, 1518) II fol. 196rb.
27.
The dates for the early life of William of Ockham (or Occam) are based on the
first known date, when he was licensed to hear confessions by the bishop of
Lincoln, 1318. As a Franciscan, he was sent to Oxford, commenting on the
Sentences most likely between 1317 to 1319, certainly before 1323. Since
he never completed his degree as master in theology because of charges against
his orthodoxy, he was called the Venerable Inceptor by his followers, who
honored him with the highest academic degree he had received (Inceptor).
For his life and work, cf. G. Leff, William of Ockham: The Metamorphosis of
Scholastic Discourse(Manchester: Manchester Univ., 1975). An accessible
edition of his work is Guillelmus de Occam OFM: Opera plurima super 4 libros
Sententiarum (Lyon, 1494-96; Gregg reprint, 1962). Occam’s fourth book
is divided into 14 questions, only 9 of which deal with the sacraments. Of
these, 4 through 8 deal with the Eucharist and are concerned almost entirely
with the metaphysics of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. No
mention is made of holy orders at all.
Index of Classic
Texts
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!