 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Carolyn Osiek
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard
Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 75-80.
Republished on our website
with the necessary permissions
Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ, has been Research/Resource Associate in Women’s
Studies at Harvard Divinity School, where she achieved her doctorate in the
field of New Testament and Christian Origins. She is Professor of New Testament
at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.
The
Declaration’s interpretation of the evidence regarding the Church
Fathers’ attitude to women in ministerial roles implies a number of
underlying assumptions that are highly problematic. Let us consider each
statement in turn.
“The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination
can be validly conferred on women.” At later times the definition and
boundaries of the “Catholic Church” are clearer. In the first
centuries of Christianity they are not so clear. As first used by Ignatius of
Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans (8.2), the expression “Catholic
Church” seems to have meant the association of Christian communities with
whom he was in communion across the Empire from Antioch to Rome. To say that in
the following years there was a clear consensus of doctrine that distinguished
this Christian tradition from others is misleading. The Christology of Justin
Martyr and other theologians in Rome in the next two generations after him was
not that of the later dogmatic pronouncements of Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon;
the differences between Tertullian’s theology in his earlier
“orthodox” period and his later “Montanist” period are not
totally definable; the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, accepted by the
Catholic Church, show Montanist tendencies; many aspects of the theology of
Clement of Alexandria can be construed as “Gnostic”; the theology of
some of the Desert Fathers showed similarities to Gnosticism. This does not
exhaust the list of possible examples. When speaking of the first centuries of
the Christian faith as does the paragraph quoted above, caution must be applied
to be sure that a certain fluidity of concept is maintained.
“A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic
ones....” The Commentary on the Vatican Declaration (par. 10) expands the
interpretation: in “some heretical sects” we find
“attempts” to have women exercise priestly ministry, but these are
“very sporadic occurrences.” Again, the interpretation of the data is
misleading. We know that the Marcionite and Montanist Churches had women in
prominent ministerial roles as did many Gnostic communities. Most of the
evidence for these groups comes only from the heresiologists precisely because
the majority of the books and documents written by such groups perished with
them in the eventual triumph of the Catholic Church as it gained political
ascendancy as well as doctrinal clarity. The discovery in this century of a
wealth of Gnostic literature, particularly from Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, has
added much information about the theology and spirituality of communities from
which it came, but very little knowledge of their ecclesiastical
organization.(1) Consequently we must rely almost exclusively on the writings
of their opponents for accurate information of this sort about them, and the
Church Fathers who wrote polemical treatises against the “heretics”
were anything but objective. One of their favorite tactics was to insinuate
sexual impropriety and delusion on the part of women who exercised church
leadership, exactly as does the Commentary on the Declaration by its passing
statement that these “very sporadic occurrences” of women in ministry
are associated with “rather questionable practices,” a suggestion
which, given the tendency to rhetorical exaggeration on the part of the same
heresiologists and the strong stress on sexual continence on the part of most
of these “heretical” groups, is often not credible. Many Gnostic
gospels were written under the authority of a woman, and some of the
second-century apocryphal acts of apostles portray women as important
evangelizers.(2) While such literature was long recognized as
pseudepigraphical, it nevertheless shows women exercising roles which must have
been credible in the Christian communities from which they came: teaching,
preaching, even performing miracles.(3) We know of many women, some in
traditions based on New Testament times, who were prophets and teachers in
Gnostic and Montanist communities: Marcellina, Helene, Salome, Mariamne.(4)
The
Declaration goes on to say that these heretical sects “entrusted the
exercise of the priestly ministry to women.” It is unclear in the
Declaration itself, just as it is in most texts of the period of church history
which we are considering, precisely what “priestly ministry” does and
does not include. As the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the
question points out (Introduction, #2), the New Testament knows no specialized
office of hiereus, or priest in the later sense, and never connects
authorization to perform the Eucharist with the office of apostle, bishop, or
presbyter. The early Church Order known as the Didache expressly allows
itinerant prophets to celebrate Eucharist in the form and wording that they
wish (10.7). Ignatius of Antioch (Smyrneans 8.1) says that there can be
no Eucharist without the bishop that is bebaia: reliable and, in that
sense, valid or authorized. An examination of the role descriptions of
ministers in the early Church reveals that attention is focused not on
authority to perform the Eucharist but on authority to preach and teach, and
therefore to be recognized as a teacher of sound doctrine.(5)
The
Declaration notes seven texts in the Church Fathers in which information is
found about the exercise of “priestly ministry” by women.(6) Irenaeus
(Adversus Haereses 1.13.2) describes part of the Gnostic liturgy of the
Marcosians in which women offer the cup at the altar; Marcus is depicted as a
charlatan and the women in question as deranged. Tertullian (De
Praescriptione Haereticorum 41.5) satirizes the lightness and lack of
seriousness of heretical groups by mocking their lack of structure. Another
proof in his estimation of their lack of genuineness is the arrogance of their
women who dare to teach, refute, exorcize, promise healing, and perhaps even
baptize, No eucharistic celebration is mentioned in this passage. The letter of
Firmilian recounts the tale of a woman of the generation before him who
exercised prophetic powers and performed Baptism and Eucharist in the accepted
way and with the correct formulae, apparently not in a heretical church but in
a situation well known to the bishop. (He of course considered such liturgical
actions invalid.) This occasion may be considered exceptional, but those
described by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius are not; they are rather
practices of long standing in some Christian communities. Origen’s remarks
on 1Cor. 14:34-35 concern the right to prophesy or teach in the assembly they
are directed against the Montanists’ women prophets. Epiphanius’
account of the prophecy and leadership of Priscilla and Quintilla speaks of the
Montanists’ practice of admitting women “into the clergy” (en
klero) as presbyters and bishops but does not specify what the offices
entailcd (Panarion 49.2-3). His description of the Collyridians is more
specific. In this case groups of women assemble and perform priestly functions
(hierourgein) in honor of the Virgin Mary (Panarion 78.2-3,
79.2-4). Of these seven references cited by the Declaration, three concern the
exercise of a eucharistic function two that of baptizing, and four that of the
authority to preach or teach. There is no one model of ministry used in these
texts. Moreover, once we see the variety of roles included here in the exercise
of priestly ministry, we must also see that it is simply not accurate to state
as the Commentary does (par 10) that we know of these roles being exercised by
women only from the above texts. There are other texts by some of the same
authors as well as passages in Church Order collections such as the
Apostolic Constitutions which condemn a woman’s right to teach,
baptize, or offer Eucharist.7 The controversy over the question was more
widespread than the impression left by the Declaration.
“This innovation,” continues the Commentary, was noted and condemned.
Considering the information we have about the evangelizing activities of women
in apostolic times, it is impossible to label the whole role of women as
prophets and teachers an innovation. To say that women’s further role in
baptizing and celebrating Eucharist during the first centuries of the Church
was an innovation is to accept the classical position of the heresiologists
that all “heresies” originated later than the true teaching of the
apostles and were in opposition to this apostolic teaching which was absolutely
clear and unifed from the beginning. Such a conception of the origins of church
history is highly questionable in the light of recent scholarship.(8) The same
monolithic conception of church history is implied later in the Declaration:
“this attitude of Jesus and the Apostles . . . has been considered as
normative by the whole of tradition up to our own day” (par. 18); and in
the Commentary (par. II) the custom is referred to as “the constant and
universal practice of the Church.” One wonders how a practice can have
been constant and universal if all the statements regarding it are negative and
imply that the practice needed to be defended.
“This innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who
considered it as unacceptable in the Church.” Certainly those Church
Fathers cited, inasmuch as they speak on the subject, did consider official
ministry for women unacceptable, with the exception of the limited role of
deaconess admitted by Epiphanius for the Baptism and visiting of women—
the same role assigned to them by the contemporary Apostolic Constitutions.
(9) It is then necessary to ask why the Fathers considered the practice
unacceptable. There are two obvious reasons given within the texts themselves.
The first is that they considered it predominantly a practice of heretics, and
in the mindset and literary style of most of their writings, anything connected
with the heretical must be wrong. This brings us to the question: did the
heresiologists reject ministry for women on principle or because it was
considered a practice tainted with heresy? The latter alternative was suggested
long ago in regard to the Montanists(10) and must be kept as a live possibility
in regard to other heretical groups who differed more radically than they from
orthodox or Catholic tradition.
The
second reason contained within the texts themselves for the Church
Fathers’ rejection of women in ministry is their appeal to a select group
of Scripture passages which can be interpreted to support the natural
inferiority of women: Gen. 3:16 and 1Cor. 11:3, 8; and especially 1Cor.
14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:11-15, which base submissive behavior of women in the
Christian assembly on the argument from the order of creation and the fall.
Origen’s commentary on 1Corinthians, #74 interprets 1Cor. 14:34-35 to
include even prophecy, allowing women to prophesy (as in 1Cor. 11:5) only
outside the assembly, he also invokes 1Tim. 2:12 and Titus 2:3, as well as Gen.
3:16 in #71. Tertullian in de Baptismo 17.4-5 invokes the authority of
1Cor. 14:34-35, as he also does in Contra Marcionem 5.8.11, where he
forbids women to speak in the assembly even in order to learn. Again in de
Virginibus Velandis 9.1, probably written when Tertullian was a Montanist,
he still assumes that women cannot perform any priestly function and again
appeals to 1Cor. 14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:12. The Apostolic Constitutions
3.6 quotes 1Cor. 14:34 and 1Cor. 11 :3 against women teaching and 3.9 again
cites 1Cor. 11:3 and Gen. 3:16 against women baptizing or having any part in
the priesthood. When the Montanists against whom Epiphanius writes justify
their inclusion of women as bishops and presbyters on the authority of Gal.
3:28, he quotes against them Gen. 3:16; 1Cor. 14:34-35; 1Cor. 11:8; and 1Tim.
2:14 (Panarion 49.2-3). As the Commentary on the Declaration admits
(par. 12), St. Thomas Aquinas still uses the same scriptural bases for his
exclusion of women from priesthood: because woman is in a state of subjection
(quia mulier est in statu subiectionis) even though at that point such
an argument is called “scarcely defensible today.” We are thus left
with conclusions based on authorities whose reasons are admitted to be no
longer viable. Indeed the appeal to the natural inferiority of women runs
counter to the current voice of the teaching Church. Both the Declaration and
the Commentary fail to wrestle with this fundamental problem of appeal to
scriptural statements which seem to stand in opposition to a contemporary
vision of human dignity recognized by the Church. That is the most serious
problem arising from this section of the Declaration.
There
is however an additional problem of no little seriousness, namely that the
reasons advanced by the Church Fathers in these texts all rest on an appeal to
a hierarchy of authority between man and woman: woman cannot be a priest
because she is subordinate to man; priesthood is therefore seen only in terms
of authority and dominance. How well do such arguments hold against a more
comprehensive notion of priesthood and ordained ministry for which we are
striving today?
Notes
1.
For texts, see Werner Foerster, ed., Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts,
trans. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972 and 74) especially
vol. 2.
2.
See Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by Wilhelm
Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1963 and 65); Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church,
trans. Jean Laporte and Mary L.Hall (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1976), pp. 15-16.
3.
Acts of Paul and Thecla: Acts of John 82-83.
4. On
Marcellina: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.25.6, and Epiphanius Panarion
27.6; Marianne: Acts of Philip 94-95, and Hippolytus, Refutatio
5.7.1; 10.9.3; on them and others: Origen, Contra Celsus 5.62;
Augustine, de Haer. 27.
5.
See Raymond Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (NewYork:
Paulist Press), 1970, pp. 13-45.
6.
Declaration, n. 7: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.13.2 (Foerster, Gnosis I
pp. 200-201); Tertullian, Praes. 41.5 (Ante-Nicene Fathers III, p.
263); Firmilian of Caesarea in Cyprian, Ep. 74(75) (Ante-Nicene Fathers V, p.
393); Origen on 1Cor. 14, frag. 74, reconstructed by Claude Jenkins in
Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909), pp. 41-42 (Gryson, The
Ministry of Women pp. 28-29); and Epiphanius, Panarion 49.2-3 on the
Quintillians or Montanists; 78.2-3 and 79.2-4 on the Collyridians.
N.B.
Sources in the original languages are given in the notes of the Declaration
itself. Where English translations are readily available, they are given above
in parentheses and in following notes. Ante-Nicene Fathers henceforth = ANF.
7.
Cf. Tertullian, de Bapt. 17.4-5 on teaching and baptizing (ANF 111, p.
677); de Virg. Vel. 9.1 on teaching, baptizing, and offering Eucharist
(ANF IV, p. 33); Con. Marc. 5.8.11 on teaching; Epiphanius, Panarion
42.4 on baptizing; Didascalia Apostolorumand parallel texts in
Apostolic Constitutions 3.9 on baptizing (ANF VII, p. 429) and 3.6.1-2
on teaching (ANF VII, pp. 427-8).
8.
See for example, Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity, ed. George Stecker, trans. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester,
Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1971); Robert L. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings: History’s
Impact on Belief (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971).
9.
Panarion 79.3; Apostolic Constitutions 3.15 (ANF VII, p. 431);
8.20 (p. 492).
10.
Labriolle, Pierre de, “‘Mulieres in Ecclesia Taceant’; un aspect
de la lutte antimontaniste,” Bulletin d’ancienne
littérature et d’archéologie chrétiennes 1
(1911), pp. 3-24; 103, 122; 292-298; especially pp. 120-122.
Contents of “Women
Priests” 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!