 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Sandra M. Schneiders
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard
Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp.227-233.
Republished on our website
with the necessary permissions
Sandra M. Schneiders, IHM, received an S.T.L. from Institut Catholique in
Paris and an S.T.D. from Gregorian University in Rome. She was at the time
assistant professor of New Testament and Spirituality at the Jesuit School of
Theology at Berkeley and Executive Co-ordinator of the Institute for
Spirituality and Worship.
This
sentence purports to give the principle upon which the fundamental affirmation
of the Declaration rests, namely, “the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in
fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized
to admit women to priestly ordination'' (1)(emphasis mine). Section 4 of the
Declaration, and specifically the sentence being commented upon here, maintains
that the reason why the Church is not only unwilling at this time to
ordain women but is now, and will always remain, unable to ordain women
to the priesthood is that Jesus acted in some way during his earthly life which
divinely established the priesthood as exclusively male. This assertion raises
two serious questions, one of theory and one of fact.
The Theoretical Question
The
principle invoked by the Declaration is that in some cases of sacramental
activity (obviously not in all) (2) some practice of Jesus is known to be
directly and normatively relevant to later sacramental practice. In all (and
presumably only) these cases the Church cannot alter the prevailing sacramental
practice.
This
raises the theoretical question of the criterion for determining in
which cases the behavior of Jesus binds the Church. In respect to the issue of
ordaining women the question becomes: on what grounds has the Sacred
Congregation decided that Jesus’ behavior in the matter of choosing the
Twelve constitutes a norm binding the Church in the matter of ordaining
priests? And on what grounds has it decided that the behavior of Jesus in the
matter of choosing the Twelve is binding insofar as it touches on the sex of
the Twelve but not insofar as it touches on their race, ethnic identity, age,
or other characteristics?
The
Commentary gives as an example of the application of this criterion the use of
bread and wine in the Eucharist linking the sacrament to the Lord’s
Supper. The relationship between the Lord’s Supper on the night before he
died and the Eucharist is the clearest example (and perhaps the only clear
example) of the relationship between a particular historical action of Jesus
and a present sacramental activity of the Church. It is certainly clearer than
the relationship between any known practice or action of Jesus and the present
sacrament of ordination.(3) Furthermore, it is certain that Jesus’ use of
unleavened bread and wine at the Supper was not a mere historical accident or a
culturally dictated choice, something which is not at all certain in regard to
the choice of men only as members of the Twelve.(4) These elements were
prescribed for the Jewish Passover of which the Christian Eucharist is a
fulfillment. Therefore, unleavened bread and wine link the Eucharist with both
the certain action and the explicit intention of Jesus in establishing the New
Covenant in his blood.
Despite this clear connection between the historical action of Jesus and the
sacramental practice of the Church the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith approved, under certain conditions, the use of grape juice rather
than wine in the celebration of the Eucharist by alcoholic priests.(5)
If, in this case in which Jesus’ manner of acting and especially his
intention in so acting is certain, and their relationship to the present
sacramental practice is perfectly clear, the behavior of Jesus can be set aside
for the good of the Church and/or some of its members, it is diffcult to see
why, in a case in which the actual behavior of Jesus, his intention, and the
relationship of his behavior to the sacrament of ordination is not clear, and
in which the pastoral reasons for a change in the sacramental practice are
urgent,(6) the Church must consider itself unable to change. In other words, if
the principle can be waived in a clear and certain case, it is not very
convincing to argue that it must be applied absolutely in a much less clear and
certain case.
In
fact, the absence of any workable criterion for the application of the
Declaration’s principle seems to have been obvious to the
Declaration’s authors, for the final appeal in the Declaration is simply
to the decision of the Magisterium in deciding when and how the principle is to
be applied: “In the final analysis it is the Church, through the voice of
her Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and
what must remain immutable.... The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the
Lord’s promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit . . .” (par. 23).
This
appeal of the Declaration to the Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium is,
in the present case, more than a little suspect. It is a matter of record that
the Magisterium, on this matter, is not expressing the faith of a very
significant segment of the Church, especially in the United States.(7)
Furthermore, the Magisterium, in this case, acted contrary to the growing
consensus in the theological community that there is no theological obstacle to
the ordination of women,(8) and in contradiction to the carefully studied and
explicit conclusions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Commission
voted 12 to 5 that, should the Church decide to ordain women, it would not be
acting contrary to the will of Christ.(9) In other words, the official biblical
scholars at the service of the Sacred Congregation maintained that the major
argument given in the Declaration cannot be defended on biblical grounds. The
Congregation had this knowledge at hand before it published the Declaration,
which nevertheless makes no reference whatever to the Commission’s work or
to its conclusions. (10 )
In a
case in which there is not a clear consensus among the faithful and in which
the most competent available theological and biblical opinion run counter to
the Congregation’s position it is doubtful that the latter can
legitimately claim to be guided by the Spirit unless it wishes to maintain that
it is the sole and independent organ of the Spirit in the Church. Such a claim,
which seems to be implicit in the way in which the Declaration was formulated,
is contrary to the Church’s traditional understanding of itself and
especially to the renewed ecclesial self-consciousness since Vatican 11."
The Factual Question
The
Declaration claims that in refusing to ordain women the Church is following a
perpetually binding “manner of acting” of Christ. Even if there were
some criterion for ascertaining which actions of Jesus were normative for the
sacramental activity of the Church (and if such a criterion exists it is not
clear from the Declaration or Church practice what it is or how it can be
applied) it would still be necessary in the question of the ordination of women
to establish the fact that Jesus acted in such a way as to indicate his
intention to exclude women, for all time, from priestly ordination.
The
Declaration maintains that the “manner of acting” of Jesus to which
it appeals is Jesus’ choice of males only as members of the Twelve.
Implicit in this argument, arid absolutely necessary for its validity, is a
syllogism which is operative throughout the Declaration but which is never
expressed:
Jesus ordained only the Twelve as priests.
But Jesus selected only males
to be among the Twelve.
Therefore, Jesus selected only males to be
ordained priests.
Let
us leave aside completely the question of whether, in choosing only men to be
among the Twelve, Jesus intended to exclude women as such, any more than by
choosing only Jews he intended to exclude Gentiles as such, or in choosing only
Caucasians he intended to exclude non-Caucasians as such, and so
on.’’ A number of authors have already pointed out the invalidity of
singling out sex as an object or as the only object of Jesus’
intentionality in his choice of the Twelve. St. Paul’s clear affirmation
that the sexual distinction in matters salvific is abolished by Baptism into
Christ (Gal 3:28) makes the Declaration’s position on this point even more
questionable on theological grounds than it already is because of its lack of
foundation in the historical attitude of Jesus.
The
most serious factual problem in the major premise of the Declaration’s
implicit syllogism is that Jesus did not ordain anyone, male or female, to the
priesthood. The Twelve are not the unique or even the principal precursors of
the later Church offcials whom we call priests. And both men and women were
among Jesus’ immediate followers who were, in virtue of a commission from
Jesus or subsequent activity in the early church, the precursors of present day
priests. The Declaration limits its argument to the Twelve for the obvious
reason that this is the only group associated with Jesus which was composed
exclusively of males and hence the only possible basis for the Declaration's
conclusion regarding the exclusion from priestly ordination. But there is
simply no historical grounds for regarding the Twelve as the first priests, for
maintaining that Jesus ordained them, or for considering them as the exclusive
precursors of that role in the Christian community which is later filled by
ordained priests.
It is unnecessary to repeat here the careful scholarly
work that has been done in recent years on the subject of ordained priesthood
in the early Church.(13) Suffice it to say that there is wide consensus among
reputable New Testament scholars that there were no Christian priests in New
Testament times and therefore certainly none ordained or appointed by Jesus.
(14) The priesthood does not emerge in the early Church until the end of the
first century at the earliest and, evn at that relatively late date, the
evidence is scanty and uncertain. (15)
The
functions within the early Church which later came to be associated with
ordained priesthood were never limited to the Twelve, and some were apparently
never exercised by the Twelve. We have no clear evidence that any of the Twelve
ever presided at the Eucharist and it is relatively clear that others, notably
prophets, did so by some sort of official designation. (16) It is interesting
to note that the role of the prophet is one which we are certain women played.
(17) The tasks of missionary proclamation, baptising, catechesis of new
converts, administration and service of local communities, and the like, were
fucntions that were certainly exercised by ministers who were not members of
the Twelve and, in at least some (if not most) cases, not appointed by the
Twelve. (18)
There
is clear evidence that a number of these functions were exercised by women and
no clear evidence that women were excluded from any of them as a universal
practice or principle. What we do not know for certain is that there were women
among the disciples who went about with Jesus during his public life (Lk 8:13),
a woman who received an Easter appearance of Jesus and was directly
commissioned by him to announce the kerygma (Jn 30:11-18), (19) women who were
involved in the founding of early Christian communities (Acts 18 with Rom
16:3-5), women leaders in some early communities (Rom 16:1-2, 6,12), (20) women
involved in the catechesis of new converts (Acts 18:26) and in public
liturgical functions (1 Cor 11:5). In short, there is no historical reason to
maintain that women were certainly absent, much less intentionally excluded by
Jesus and/or the early Church, from any of the functions which later came to be
associated with the ordained priesthood.
The
only group associated with Jesus to which it is certain that no women belonged
was the Twelve. But the only role which belonged exclusively to the Twelve in
the economy of salvation was that to which no one, male or female, is
successor, namely, that of constituting together the foundation of the renewed
Israel, the Christian community, as the twelve patriarchs constituted the the
foundation of the Chosen People. (21) Consequently, the all-male composition of
the Twelve is irrelevant to the question of any future ministry in the Church,
including ordained priesthood. The Twelve are immortalised as the foundation of
the Church. As such they have no successors. (22) And as disciples, apostles,
teachers, early Church leaders, etc., in which capacities they do have
successors, they are members of a wider group which was never all
male.
In
summary, the principle invoked by the Declaration for the exclusion of women
from the ordained priesthood, namely, that the practice of Jesus makes such
exclusion mandatory for the Church, is inapplicable in theory because
there is no criterion according to which it can be applied in this case, and
indefensible in fact since Jesus did not ordain anyone to the priesthood
and the functions in the later Church which were eventually associated with
ordained priesthood were never restricted by Jesus to males.
Notes
1.
par. 5
2.
For example, we have no precedent in the behavior of Jesus for auricular
confession, confirmation, anointing of the sick with oil, or most of the other
sacramental activities of the Church, almost all of which have undergone change
down through the centuries.
3.
Contemporary sacramenta theology has largely abandoned the search for specific
''institution texts'' for most of the sacraments.
4.
Cf. John R. Donahue, ;;Women, Priesthood and the Vatican,'' America,
Vol. 136 (April 2, 1977), pp. 285-289. See esp. pp. 285-286.
5.
Letter of Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrince
of the Faith, to Cardinal Krol, Presidcnt of thc National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, dated May 2, 1974. The Letter was commented upon in a
statement by Bishop J. S. Rausch, General Secrctary of the NCCB, on May 23,
1974.
6. I
am in no way minimizing the pastoral urgency of thc decision in favor of
alcoholic priests but wish merely to point out that the pastoral urgency of the
ordination of women if only because of the number of people negatively affected
by the present exclusion of women from orders, is even greater.
7.
The Detroit “Call to Action” Conference in Oct. of 1976 was an
episcopally-originated consultation of the faithful in the United States. The
participants gave the U.S. bishops a clear recommendation for the ordination of
women to the priesthood. The participants gave the U.S. bishops a clear
recommendation for the ordination of women to the priesthood.
8. The
numerous responses criticizing the Declaration, e.g., that of the Faculty of
the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley which was published in the Los
Angeles Times on March 18, 1977, bear witness to this growing consensus.
A major objection to thc Declaration is the failure of the Sacred Congregation
to consult with theologians and theological faculties prior to publishing the
Declaration.
9.
The exact text of the questions (in English translation) on which the
Commission voted during its plenary session in April, 1976, was published in
the San Francisco Monitor, Vol. 118 (June 17, 1976), pp. 1-2.
10.
For a comparison of the Declaration and the Biblical Commission Report see the
essay by John R. Donahue, pp. 25-33.
11.
See, e.g., Lumen Gentium II, 12 on the importance of the consensus of
the faithful in doctrinal matters.
12.
The Declaration’s second section is entitled “The Attitude of
Christ." It attempts to show that Jesus had every reason to select women as
members of the Twelve, and, therefore, the fact that he did not do so indicates
that he intended thereby to exclude women as such. The same argument, however,
could be used regarding Gentiles. The Declaration, in its fifth section,
maintains that sexual differences are much deeper and more significant than
ethnic differences. It should be noted, however, that the early Church
immediately admitted women to Baptism (cf., for example, Acts17:4) even though
Jewish law had no ritual initiation of women into the covenant community
analogous to circumcision of males. Nevertheless, the admission of Gentiles to
Baptism required a specific divine revelation (Acts10:1-11:18). Evidently
ethnic differences were more, not less, religiously significant in the early
Church than sexual ones. The amazement of Jesus at the faith of Gentiles (e.g.,
Mt 8:10-12; Mk 7:24-30), which has no parallel in regard to women, suggests
that this might also have been true of Jesus.
13.
The bibliography on this topic is copious. The interested reader I might
consult R. E. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York:
Paulist Press, 1970); Bernard Cooke, Ministry to Word and Sacraments:
History and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976),
esp. pp. 525-536;
André Lemaire, Les ministères aux origines de l’Eglise
(Paris: Cerf, 1971), and a shorter, popularized version entitled Les
ministeres dans l’Église (Paris: Centurion, 1974).
14.
Brown, Priest and Bishop, pp. 13-20.
15 .
There is some evidence of priestly activity by bishops in I Clement 44:4
(c 96 A.D.) and at least a suggestion of regulation of eucharistic presidence
in the Didache (early 2nd century).
16.
Didache 10:7.
17.
Acts 21:9, 1 Cor 11:5.
18.
Cf. Brown, Priest and Bishop, pp. 54-55.
19.
For a fuller treatment of this crucial scriptural evidence regarding the
apostolic role of women see my article “Apostleship of Women in
John’s Gospel," Catholic Charismatic, Vol. 1, No. 6 (February/March
1977), pp. 16-20.
20.
See Donahue, “Women, Priesthood and the Vatican,” pp. 286-287.
21.
This interpretation is rejected by the Declaration in note 10. The note takes
the strange position that the Markan explanation (Mk 3: 14) of the task of the
Twelve, which is never attributed to Jesus, is to be preferred to the only
logion on the function of thc Twelve attributed to Jesus (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30).
Since it seems hardly tenable that Jesus had or claimed to have detailed
knowledge about the events of the eschaton (cf. Mk 10:40, 13:32) it is
difficult to understand the note's assertion that Jesus' explanation of the
function of the Twelve as judges of the twelve tribes refers only to 'their
participation in the eschatalogical judgment.''
22. On
this point see Brown, Priest and Bishop, p. 55.
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!