The letter below is a public petition written by Joe
Cecil on May 7, 2002, and based on a private letter sent to Mister Cecil's
pastoral leader, his Eminence, Theodore Cardinal McCerrick. Mister Cecil also
sent a copy of this letter to his Excellency, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President
of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops on May 7,
2002.
Mister Cecil is a lay Roman Catholic who worships in the
Archdiocese of Washington, DC, in the United States of America. Mister Cecil
spent six years in formation for the Roman Catholic ministerial priesthood,
from 1989 to 1995. He decided to leave formation because he felt that he has a
vocation to marriage. Mister Cecil was married in the Catholic Church on June
16, 2001.
While Mister Cecil confesses that he questions whether he
would have been able to live celibately in chastity, he continues to feel that
he may have a vocation to the ministerial priesthood that is not recognized by
the Vatican. This experience of unrecognized vocation provides him with
sympathy for women who also experience the feeling of a calling to ministerial
priesthood and feel that the Vatican is not recognizing their
vocations.
Indeed, the issuance of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on
his 29th birthday, Pentecost Sunday, May 22, 1994, became a catalyst for his
decision to depart priestly formation in September of 1995. Mister Cecil
encourages anyone who finds the letter below persuasive to feel free to copy it
without his express permission and send a copy to his or her pastor in his or
her own name. Indeed, under Canon 212.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Mister
Cecil believes that there exists a moral obligation for those who cannot give
definitive assent to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to communicate their concerns to
their bishop. Mister Cecil has circulated this letter via email to supporters
of women's ordination asking for support in his appeal. In addressing a bishop
who is not a Cardinal, the greeting of Your Eminence should be changed to Your
Excellency. Those who wish to contact Mister Cecil may do so at
womenpriest@yahoo.com.
Friday, May 02, 2003
PETITION TO OUR HOLY FATHER, POPE JOHN PAUL II, FOR WOMEN
PRIESTS
TO: His Holiness, Pope John Paul II Apostolic Palace,
Vatican City
Your Holiness,
Grace to you and peace from
God our Father. We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, when we pray for you, for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus
and the love that you have for all the holy ones because of the hope reserved
for you in heaven.
What is my purpose in writing?
I am a
lay person and a believing and practicing Roman Catholic writing under the
duty of canon 212.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law to manifest to my
sacred pastors my opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
with my understanding that we also have a right to make our opinion known to
other Christian faithful.
The content of this letter has been sent to
my parish priests, as well as his Eminence, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, who is
my diocesan pastor. The questions raised in this letter are also being
circulated among the laity via email, inviting others to share their concerns
with their respective bishop.
I am writing because I have not found a
statement of the Church's position on the ordination of women that has helped
me to submit my intellect or give definitive assent to your statements in
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church is not authorized to ordain
women. As a lay-person struggling to understand this issue and explain it to my
non-Catholic friends and to those who have departed the faith, I am confused
and seek your assistance in appropriating this teaching.
Indeed, as I
weigh the arguments for and against the ordination of women, I have become more
convinced that perhaps the question should remain open. It appears to me that
the documentary evidence of infallible or authoritative statements made by the
Church strongly suggests that women may have been ordained in the past, and
perhaps should be ordained in contemporary society.
Overview of the
official position taken by you:
You issued an Apostolic Letter on
May 22, 1994 entitled Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in which you stated that
the Church is not authorized to ordain women, and that such a position is to be
definitively held as part of the deposit of faith.
Your letter briefly
reiterates arguments articulated in more detail under the authority of your
beloved predecessor, Pope Paul VI, through the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF) in a document issued October 15, 1976 entitled
Inter Insigniores.
The basic arguments set forth by you and your
predecessor as I understand them are as follows:
- Ministerial priesthood was instituted exclusively among the
Twelve, according to tradition at the Last Supper. The Twelve were exclusively
male, and we must follow Christ’s manner of acting.
- The New
Testament provides no guidance for the ordination of women.
- Sacred
Tradition is interpreted as excluding the possibility of women’s
ordination due to a lack of historic precedent and a number of authoritative,
though not certainly infallible statements indicating women should not be
ordained.
- The priest acts in persona Christi, (in the person
of Christ) and therefore must be male as Christ was male.
- The bishop
represents God the Father to the People of God, and all ordination to lower
Orders are directed toward the episcopacy.
- The Church is the bride of
Christ, and it is therefore fitting that ministerial priests should be male to
better symbolize this reality.
Is the current teaching part of the deposit of
faith?
It is my understanding that you believe that the exclusion of
women from ministry is part of the deposit of faith. It is also my
understanding that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an exercise of ex
cathedra papal authority, or extraordinary papal magisterium, in and
of itself. Therefore, its contents cannot be considered with certainty to be
part of the deposit of faith at this time in history based on your letter
alone.
The CDF's October 28, 1995 Responsum Ad Dubium issued
with your approval regarding this letter did clarify that my interpretation is
probably correct. The Responsum appealed to the authority of the
ordinary and universal magisterium, rather than your own authority.
A
subsequent letter issued by his eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, on the
same day stated that the "non-infallible" authority of your office witnessed to
the infallible authority of the ordinary universal magisterium, which I
understand to be the carefully and deliberately considered consensus of the
entire college of bishops, such as when they gather in council, according to LG
25.2. Under Canon 749.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a doctrine cannot be
understood to be defined infallibly according to the ordinary universal
magisterium unless this has been "manifestly demonstrated."
At the very
least, I would humbly ask if you requested the opinions of your brother bishops
regarding their carefully considered reflections on the matter before issuing
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as demonstrated in the example of your
predecessors of happy memory, Pius IX and Pius XII did prior to invoking
extraordinary papal magisterium in defining the Immaculate conception
and the Assumption of our Blessed Mother?
What was the example of
Christ?
The arguments set forth most strongly in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis and Inter Insigniores seem to indicate that our current
teaching is derived from Christ’s manner of acting in selecting the Twelve
as a model for ordained ministry. Special emphasis is placed on the presence of
the Twelve at the Last Supper. It seems to me that it is at least plausible
that there were others than the Twelve present at the Last Supper, and that
Christ permitted women among those he selected for Apostolic ministry:
- It seems implausible that Christ, whose attitudes toward women
were so shocking in their day, would not have permitted women to serve him in
priestly ministry (see John 4:27).
- In Mark 14: 20, Jesus advises
someone at the Last Supper that "one of the Twelve" will be his betrayer. To
whom was he speaking when he said "one of the Twelve"?
- In Mark 14:
47-52, an unnamed bystander runs from the garden of Gethsemane naked. Tradition
holds that this was Mark, himself, who was not a member of the Twelve. If he
were present in the garden, was he not also present at the supper? This is
suggestive that others than the Twelve were present at the Last Supper.
- The number of soldiers that come arrest Christ in John’s gospel
is estimated at 600 soldiers which is too large for a small band of twelve men.
This is also suggestive that a larger group than twelve was present at the Last
Supper. (see Jn 18:3 footnote 3 of the NAB)
- Luke 10:1-2 indicates
that Christ ordained 72 people other than the Twelve. Eusebius also interpreted
Luke 10:1-2 in this same fashion in Book 1.12 of The History of the
Church.
- Likewise, Luke 24:13-35 indicates that a disciple named
Cleopas recognized Christ in the breaking of the bread on Resurrection Sunday.
It would seem that Cleopas was present at the Last Supper as the condition for
the possibility of this recognition in a clear Eucharistic reference.
-
If our Blessed Mother was at the foot of the cross in Jerusalem on Good Friday,
it seems plausible that she shared the paschal feast the prior evening with her
own son in this city so far from home.
- Likewise, it has been
suggested by many contemporary popular writers that there were women who cooked
and served the meal.
- Mary Magdalene and other women were the first to
come to faith in the resurrected Lord, and they witnessed to the Eleven in all
resurrection accounts.
- In both Scripture, and the Eucharist prayers
of the Church, it is written that the disciples were present at the last
supper, while no exclusive reference is made to the Twelve or to those called
Apostles.
- Our Blessed Mother was present in the upper room when the
Church was born (Acts 1:14).
In other words, the gospels paint a plausible picture of the
Last Supper as a banquet more akin to a wedding feast foreshadowing that
heavenly wedding banquet where we will eat and drink with the Master and with
the Father, in the Spirit. Perhaps the Twelve sat at the head table, but it
seems likely many others were present. Throughout his public ministry, our Lord
showed a deep reverence and respect for women that lead me to believe it is
possible that Christ ordained them.
What was the example of the
Apostles in the New Testament?
Your office has asserted that the New
Testament provides no guidance for the ordination of women, since women were
not included among the Twelve. However, the Twelve function as representatives
of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes Israel (Mt 19:28), and were not the sole
ministers of the New Covenant in the early Church. Indeed, Mt 10:1-4, Mk
3:13-19, and Lk 6:12-16 cannot even agree on their names, and John does not
name all Twelve. This indicates the possibility that there were larger group
than Twelve who were considered members of Christ’s inner circle.
In the post resurrection New Testament period, Luke calls Paul and
Barnabas Apostles in Acts 14:14. They have charge over presbyters in Acts
11:30. Paul assumes the title of Apostle and clearly intends it as a title in 1
Cor 12:28-29. He seems to include as many as 500 witnesses to the resurrection
may have shared this title (1 Corinthians 15: 6 and 9, Book 1.12 of Eusebius'
History of the Church). Many other ministries are initiated under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament period. Some of these
ministries included women.
- Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila as his co-workers in Romans
16:3.
- Paul also calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, and the term
is usually translated in English as "minister" rather than "deacon". Paul uses
the same gender and case that is applied to Christ in Romans 15:8, implying the
word as title, rather than a functional description. This is an ordained
ministry in Catholic theology, and I have seen no convincing arguments why the
contemporary Church does not recognize Phoebe’s ministry as an ordained
ministry. Indeed, canon 3 of the Council of Trent on Holy Orders seems to
indicate all lower orders are directed to ministerial priesthood.
-
Paul also calls a woman named Junia by the title of "Apostle" in Romans 16:7. I
have not seen any convincing arguments that the original Greek texts do not
refer to a woman in this passage, or that Paul does not use the term Apostle as
a title, as he so frequently does elsewhere. Indeed, no comentator prior to the
thirteenth century rendered the passage as a man, or denied this referred to an
Apostle. Junia is significant since Paul always seems to use the word as a
title for one with authority.
- In 1 Timothy 5:1-2, the term
presbyteress is used, typically translated as elder women. The young men and
young women of the same verses are neoterous and neoteras respectively,
indicating a role somewhat like a novice. In verse 17 of the same chapter, it
is clear that the term "presbyter" is a title. Verse 17 is referenced in Lumen
Gentium no. 28 footnote 183, in a usage implying priesthood. Indeed, 1 Timothy
4:14 is referenced in footnote 155 of LG 20,21 in statements on apostolic
succession. So, it seems that the word "presbyter" was applied to women in an
identical fashion to men.
- Titus 2:1-5 uses the term "presbyter" in
reference to women, and the young women in these verses are "neas", which are
women of marriageable age (different from the novices of 1 Timothy 5:1-2).
Exhortations to silence placed on women in 1 Corinthians
14:33-35 cannot be understood as absolute since Paul offers women instruction
for prophesying in the same letter in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Furthermore, verse 28
of the chapter 14 provides instructions for men to be silent in certain
circumstances. Rather than an absolute prohibition to women speaking in Church,
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is addressing the issue of orderly worship within the
context of a highly charismatic community, clarified already in chapter 13.
Nor can the theology of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 be used against
women’s ordination. Paul backs away from an argument that seems to be
implying female inferiority by using the word choris in verse 11 to
distinguish women from men. This word is sometimes translated in English as
"independent", but more accurately simply means "different from" or "distinct
from". Thus, the statement should read, "A woman is not different from a man"
rather than, "A woman is not independent from a man". Such a reading is
consistent with Paul’s view of the equality of the sexes outlined in
Galatians 3:28, and allows for women prophesying in Church as outlined in verse
5 of the same passage.
Likewise, the contexts of 1 Timothy 2:7-15 is
likely aimed at new converts, rather than mature women of faith. The permission
spoken of in verse 12 in regards to a woman’s right to teach is from the
Greek, epitrepsein, which is a word that could be more accurately
translated as "I do not permit for now…"
We see this word used as
a temporary rule in passages such as Matt 8:21, Mark 5:13, John 19:38, Acts
21:39-40, 26:1, 27:3, 28:16 and 1 Cor 16:7. This rendering of 1 Tim 2:7-15
would make sense of the following verses in 1 Tim 2:13, that states Adam is
first, but then Eve in temporal order.
Again, there is no prohibition
against women’s ordination in these passages when they are understood
within its historic context. Scripture finds stronger justification for slavery
within the New Testament than condemnation of women’s ordination. So, it
seems to me highly probable from the New Testament witness that women were
considered ordained, either by Christ, or his immediate disciples.
What does tradition say?
Your office indicates a lack of
historic precedence for the ordination of women. Yet, the Apostolic
Constitutions 3.16 provide justification for women’s ordination to the
deaconate, and command it of the bishop for specific incidences. The opposing
texts sited by Inter Insigniores from the Apostolic
Constitutions 3.6 refer to a separate role of widows.
Indeed, many
texts quoted from Inter Insigniores as evidence of an early prohibition
to women’s ordination seem to be taken out of historic context, and
probably do not refer to women’s ordination at all, as indicated in a
Catholic Theological Society Association (CTSA) Resolution in America on 6 June
1997. I have read the primary sources of these citations, and find myself in
basic agreement with these observations.
- Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses 1,13,2 condemns Gnostic women
involved in superstitious magic. There is nothing in the text to indicate that
Irenaeus opposed women’s ordination rather than the practice of
superstition.
- Tertullian's De Praescriptione Haereticorum 41,5
does seem to object to women teaching and baptizing, but these are functions
permitted of women by the Church in certain circumstances today. Furthermore,
Tertullian's orthodoxy has always been questionable, and his view of women as
the gateway to the devil is notoriously mistaken.
- The Didascalia
Apostolorum 15 also seems to object to women preaching and baptizing,
though these functions are permitted in certain circumstances today. The
authorship of the Didascalia Apostolorum is questionable, and the work
was lost for centuries. Yet, even in chapter 16 of the Didascalia, we do
find instructions for the ordination of women to deaconate.
- Firmilian
is quoted in a letter to Cyprian (no. 75) as being opposed to heretical
baptisms and Eucharist performed by women. However, his concern seems to be
more that they are heretics under demonic influence than that they are women.
It is also interesting that Firmillian and Cyprian were opposed to the
Pope’s readmission of these heretics to the Catholic faith, indicating
that some of Firmillian’s views about these women may have been mistaken.
- Origen does argue against women preaching in the Church in
Fragmenta in I Cor. 74. However, the practice of women preaching in the
Church is permitted in certain circumstances today, and Origen’s orthodoxy
is at times as questionable as Tertullian’s.
- Only in Saint
Epiphanius writing in the late fourth century do we begin to find clear
opposition to women’s ordination to priesthood by a source considered
orthodox (Panarion 79,1.6). Yet, in Panarion 78, 13, Epiphanius
admits of women deaconesses, without clarifying how they are not sacramentally
ordained.
- Finally, the CDF's quotation of Saint John Chrysostom
argues against women’s ordination to the episcopate (possibly referring
specifically to the papacy) based on the greatness of the task. This passage
really says nothing of ordination of women to the presbyterate, and is based on
a notion that women are inferior to men. The argument of female inferiority is
rejected by you today.
None of these passages are recorded in sources that would be
considered to carry infallible authority. What we see in these passages is a
gradual devaluation of women in the Western Church that provides a historical
understanding of how women came to be prohibited from ordination to ministerial
priesthood. However, this evidence does not explain why women are excluded, and
seems to indicate that this exclusion was not the original practice of the
Church.
Canon 15 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon provides
instruction for ordaining women, using the same word that is used for men
(cheirotonia). While an argument is sometimes made that Canon 15 of
Chalcedon must be read in light of Canon 19 of Nicea, it seems clear to me that
Nicea was dealing specifically with a case of the readmission of Paulinist
heretics to the Catholic faith. Indeed, it seems that Nicea justifies counting
the Paulinist deaconesses among the laity precisely because they received no
imposition of hands from a bishop, where the bishops are instructed to lay
hands on the deaconess in Chalcedon’s Canon 15. It is valid to ask why the
Paulinist deaconesses were not re-ordained at Nicea. However, this question
does not prove that women in general cannot be ordained, since it seems to be
contradicted by Chalcedon and dealt specifically with a heretical sect.
Furthermore, in light of the later development in sacramental theology
at the Council of Trent (Canon 3 on Holy Orders) we see all lower orders, even
those below deacon, are directed at ministerial priesthood. Thus, a deaconess
would seem to have potency for ministerial priesthood.
An examination
of ordination rituals for male and female deacons reveals some local
distinctions in the functions and authority of deaconesses compared to deacons,
but no substantial difference in the matter and form of a gesture that appears
in every way sacramental. Indeed, it seems to me that denying the
sacramentality of the rite of ordination to deaconesses calls into question the
validity of male deaconate as an ordained ministry.
It seems possible
that the ordination of women was actively suppressed only around the late
fourth and fifth century through actions that nobody would argue are infallible
taken by them selves. For example, the local synods of Laodicea, Nimes and
Orange in the West prohibited women’s ordination in the late fourth and
early fifth century. We already saw that the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
would seem to overrule these local councils in 451 AD. F urthermore, the
prohibitions themselves imply that some bishops were already ordaining women.
This practice of orthodox bishops would seem to militate against the notion
that the ordinary universal magisterium has always been opposed to women’s
ordination.
Your beloved predecessor, his Holiness, Pope Saint Gelesius
expressed his concern over this matter. While he placed a stop to further
ordinations of women in the West, there is nothing in his statements that can
be interpreted as a nullification of past ordinations or an infallible
prohibition against future ordinations for all times. In other words, even the
prohibitions against women’s ordination in the West during the fourth and
fifth century indicate that there were validly ordained and orthodox bishops
who were ordaining women. Why else would a local prohibition be passed?
It does not seem that the exclusion of women from ordained ministry was
rooted in early Church practice.
Rather, the practice of ordaining
women hinted at in the New Testament gradually eroded under growing patriarchy,
lack of educational opportunities in secular society for women, and
non-infallible actions of local synods, especially in the West. In other words,
the Church’s attitudes about women gradually shifted in a similar manner
to our attitude towards Judaism, until it reached a point where it could be
deemed sinful.
Why I believe that we should ordain
women?
In your 29 June 1995 letter to women at the Beijing
Conference, you recently admitted to a sinful and progressive growth of sexism
that even effects the Church. This is similar to your recent admissions of
anti-Semitism within the Church. His eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his
commentary on Dei Verbum has admitted that there exist a distorting, as well as
a legitimate, tradition, such that tradition needs to examined both
affirmatively and critically (Ratzinger, 185 quoted in the CTSA Resolution of 6
June 1997).
Guadium et Spes 29 states that it is contrary to
God’s will to deny a woman a state of life based on gender alone. Nobody
has a right to the priesthood, per se. Certainly, it would be silly to argue
that all women should be ordained. The Church has a right to test a vocation
externally and confirm or deny it through the bishops. However, it would appear
contrary to God’s will to deny a qualified person with a desire to serve
at the altar the opportunity to do so based on gender alone.
In our
secular world in America, an analogy can be drawn to hiring practices in
worldly occupations. Not all applicants for a particular occupation have a
right to the specific job. Yet, the most qualified candidate does have a right
to the job over and against corporate cultural bias. It is morally wrong to
deny someone a job on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, creed, and so
forth. In like manner, it seems to me that it may be morally wrong to deny a
state of life to person based on gender according to GS 29. The enforcement of
an exclusively male ministerial priesthood seems to undermine the moral
authority of the Church to speak to issues of gender discrimination.
Are their theological reasons for women's
ordination?
Yet, the argument is not simply one of human rights, but
of the nature of the sacraments themselves. Certainly, it is not my intent to
insult the intelligence of you and your office by offering a theological
treatise on the nature of ministerial priesthood, the Eucharist, or baptism. At
the same time, my basic understanding of the theology of the sacraments and my
understanding of your position may help your office to articulate a response
that will help those of us who favor women’s ordination to understand and
receive joyfully what you are trying to communicate to the people of God.
Your office has set forth the argument that the ministerial priest acts
in the person of Christ, and must, therefore, be male. Lumen Gentium 10
indicates that through baptism, we all share in the unique and singular
universal priesthood of Christ. This sharing in the priesthood of Christ is
expressed through a vocation to either the common priesthood, or the
ministerial priesthood.
Together, we comprise the body of Christ. In
baptism, we are immersed in the death of the Lord to rise with him cleansed of
sin as a new creation. The liturgy of the Eucharist is the source and summit of
our lives of faith, towards which all activity is directed, and from which all
grace flows (SC 10 of the Vatican II decrees). The ministerial priesthood is
ordered to the common priesthood to call the community together to become who
we are. We become what we receive in the Eucharist.
Christ offers
himself to us, as we offer ourselves to him, and all is offered to the Father.
In a very real sense, there is only one Mass offered throughout all time,
including the Last Supper and every Mass said throughout history in one divine
event. It is true that there is a distinction between the different actions of
each individual Mass said in concrete historic existence, while maintaining the
unity of the one sacrifice across all times. Each action permits unique graces,
such that each Mass in time and space is an individual source of grace to the
believer. Yet, in asserting the unity of the various actions expressed
throughout all time as a singular sacrifice, I am affirming our substantial
unity with Christ. What I am saying is this:
God the Father, as the
creator of time, is eternal. God transcends time in a constant “now”
with no past or future. Yet, in his omnipresence, God is throughout all time
(God can do anything, so it is not impossible for him to be in two modes of
time at once). In eternity, the Father receives all Masses as one offering of
the whole body of Christ in that heavenly banquet which we taste each time we
participate in the local and historically conditioned action of the Church. The
Mass is not simply a play reenacting past events. It is an eternal act of
worship whereby each baptized Catholic Christian offers her or his very self to
God in Christ.
In Jesus Christ, the Trinity offers the perfect
self-revelation of God in concrete historicity – in finite time. By
becoming human, God revealed the incomparable value of the human person. In
effect, God says to us, “Stop looking for me in the heavens. Look around
you at your neighbor.”
The Trinity is three persons in one being,
forming their personhood in relationship with one another. We image God in our
relationships with one another, including our gender relationships. The Mass
continually invites us into this reality of divine relationship encountered in
the persons around us, so adequately expressed to humanity in the symbol of a
common meal.
By referring to the meal as a symbol, I do not mean a sign
pointing beyond itself to an absent reality. Such a notion would deny real
presence, and affirm a real absence. I am saying that symbol is reality. The
concept of “symbol” provided by Saint Augustine is a sign that points
to its self and is layered with multiple meanings. Thus, we never exhaust
exploring the meaning of the Eucharist.
In another example of symbol as
reality, our bodies are symbols of our personhood! Individual personhood has
infinite depth and meaning to God, who created each of us in finite time in his
image. This is the meaning of the revelation of God’s incarnation in human
nature! As the Cappadocian Fathers said: "What is not assumed is not saved."
Christianity is the ultimate form of humanism, and we should be ashamed when
secularists hold themselves to higher standards of humanism than we use to
measure ourselves. When institutions deny the full personhood of the
individual, structural evil is promoted.
To say that the individual has
an infinite depth and meaning to God does not make us equal to God. By analogy,
just as the set of all even numbers is smaller than the set of all whole
numbers, so the infinity of individual personhood is smaller than the infinity
of God. So, I am not arguing for some pantheistic or polytheistic concept that
we are gods equal to The God. Rather, we are finitum capex infinitum,
the finite capable of the infinite. We are the image of God, as affirmed in
Genesis 1:26-27. Woman is an image of God, and denying that a woman can act in
the person of Christ is a denial that she images the divine.
Having
stated that symbol is reality, we can say that bread and wine are symbols of
the real and substantial presence of Christ on the altar. Another way of saying
this is to phrase it as a question: Why bread and wine? Why not some other
objects?
Bread and wine mean something to us, and God is
‘aware’ of that (analogically speaking). Thus, Christ selected
symbols that would have significant value to human persons to become the
substances that he would change into his very self-offering unto us. Aquinas
said that the sacraments cause grace by signifying grace. The Eucharist
signifies God’s self-offering to us, as we offer ourselves with Christ.
The substance we call bread and wine becomes the substance we call body
and blood of Christ – for us, by God’s initiative. The broken bread
and poured wine remind us of Christ’s broken body and shed blood on the
cross as a total self offering to the Father for the remission of our sins.
However, we need to be careful to avoid reifying the Eucharist. We do not
receive an inanimate object in the Eucharist. We receive a living person! In
receiving this substance, we can speculate that we ourselves are
transubstantiated. We come to share in the very inner life of the Trinity
– a life of relationship.
The persons of the Trinity derive their
personhood in their eternal relationships with one another. A person, as a
philosophical category, is an identity that is formed and completed on the very
basis of relationship to another. Thus, we image God most in our relationships.
It is in this sense that Saint Augustine could ask “How can you who
receive the body and blood of Christ in your hands so reverently, then turn and
drop your brother, who is the body of Christ?”
Tying all this
together with the issue of women’s ordination, the entire Church is the
body of Christ. Christ is substantially present in the Church, just as he is
under the accidents of bread and wine on the altar. When I say this is real and
"substantial", I am answering the question "What is it?" as this question is
applied to the Church. We are the mystical body of Christ, as your predecessor
of happy memory, Pius XII taught.
At the same time, I am not saying
that the substantial presence of Christ in the Church is a physical presence,
like we have in the consecrated bread and wine on the altar, or the physical
human body that hung on the cross approximately 2,000 years ago. Substance, as
a category, can be applied to non-corporeal beings: such as angels, or
Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father, etc…. The category of
substance refers to the answer to the question "What is it?" and can be defined
as the underlying reality of a thing.
If Christ is truly and really
present in the Church, then I am calling this substantial presence as I have
defined it. Moreover, it would seem logical that if Christ is substantially
present in the Church, the entire body could, would, and should find
expressions of the vocation to ministerial priesthood among the various people
being brought into this divine relationship. Christ is substantially present in
women!
In other words, just as non-Jews have their full personhood
affirmed through the ordination of select non-Jews who serve as ministerial
priests, women who are called to the common priesthood of the faithful would
find their personhood affirmed in the symbol of some women being called to
ministerial priesthood. The argument for excluding women from ministerial
priesthood seems to make no more sense than an argument for excluding Gentiles
from ministerial priesthood posed in the first century.
Exclusion of
anyone from ministerial priesthood based on an ontological reality, would seem
to symbolize that this particular ontology is not fully united to the universal
priesthood of Christ – not able to be an image of Christ – not fully
a participant in the divine life of the Trinity – not fully an image of
God – not fully admitted to the divine relationships formed in the
community – not fully saved! In other words, the exclusion of women from
ministerial priesthood leads one naturally and logically into the heresy that
women are not saved as women.
At the same time, admitting the
difference between the sexes admits of the reason that it is imperative that
the discipline of exclusively male celibate ministerial priests needs to be
revised. If the differences between the sexes are not expressed among the body
of ministerial priest, we are saying that only one sex images Christ and only
one sex is saved!
If women complement or complete men, as you have
recently indicated, then the ministerial priesthood is an incomplete
representation of salvation to humanity without women ministerial
priests.
This would appear contrary to the intent of Christ!
I
believe that you have been clear that women are saved in Christ. At the same
time, I do not see how the exclusion of women from ministerial priesthood can
lead us to that conclusion. On the other hand, inclusion of women in
ministerial priesthood would affirm the salvation of women. As stated above,
Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that we image God as male and as female. Women image
the divine, and ordaining women would perfectly symbolize this. Paul tells us
in Galatians 3:28 that we are no longer male and female due to our baptism in
Christ. It would seem that from what we have said that men and women are one
and totally equal. I need the assistance of your office to not only clarify the
level of authority with which the exclusion of women from ministerial
priesthood should be accepted. I need the assistance of your office to
understand how this exclusion does not deny the salvation of women.
Can God be imaged as a female?
Your office and its
supporters maintain that the ordination of women would undermine the symbolism
of a bishop as a representative of the love of God the Father. Scripture itself
uses female images or feminine words to describe God, as did your predecessor
of happy memory, His Holiness, Paul VI.
- In Proverbs chapter 1, starting at verse 20, divine Wisdom is
portrayed as a woman crying in the streets. This feminine divine image
continues throughout Proverbs, especially in chapter 8.
- Paul uses the
image of divine “Sophia” (Wisdom) to describe Christ in 1 Corinthians
1:24.
- In Luke 13:34, Jesus compares God the Father to a mother hen.
- The Hebrew words most typically associated God’s love, mercy, or
compassion in the Old Testament are “hesed” and
"rehumim" which are rooted in the notion of a woman in labor pains.
- On Saturday of every third week of the Liturgy of the Hours, priests
around the world pray during Lauds from the Book of Wisdom:
God of my fathers, …, Indeed, though one be perfect
among the sons of men, if Wisdom, who comes from you, be not with him, he shall
be held in no esteem. Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was
present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes
and what is conformable with your commands. Send her forth from your holy
heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her that she may be with me and
work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure. (New American Bible: Wis
9:1,6,9-10)
In Scripture, Wisdom is female, and with God at creation –
coeternal with the Father. Sophia is either identical to the Logos (as Paul
seems to indicate), or Sophia is the Holy Spirit!
Likewise, there is
traditional piety that applies motherly images to God and even to Christ, such
as the writings of Julian of Norwich in the fourteenth century. The image of
Mary in the Church is also interpreted by many to be a representation of our
Catholic intuitive sense of the divine nature being revealed through a woman,
even though we do not admit that Mary herself is divine.
Traditionalists sometimes argue that God must be Father in order to
impregnate Mary. However, this line of reasoning is not supported by theology.
God can create ex nihilo and does not need to be either male or female
to conceive a child in Mary’s womb. Jesus entered the womb of Mary as an
entering into the fullness of the human condition, since we are all born of
woman. However, God the father did not have sexual relations with Mary. The
notion of gods having sex with women is only found in pagan myth.
Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, authorized in your own
tenure in the papacy, states that God can legitimately be called Mother:
Paragraph 239 …, God's parental tenderness can
also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's
immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. ,…, We ought
therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the
sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human
fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is
father as God is Father.
It would seem that the maleness of Christ
should not be assumed to be indicative of God’s intent for ordination. The
incarnation is only significant for all humanity if it is Christ’s general
humanity that is significant. The significance of Christ’s maleness, as
maleness, lies in the communication of God’s self-emptying and divestment
of power for the empowerment of others.
Had Christ come as a female, it
is doubtful that men would have understood the moral demands of a gospel. Many
values in the Gospels were culturally considered feminine traits that men did
not seem so virtuous. In the patriarchal Greco-Roman world and the context of
first century Judaism, who would have noticed that a woman turns the other
cheek and prays for forgiveness for those who injure her? We have seen this in
women who endure abusive spouses throughout history. Only a man behaving this
way could overturn the system of male patriarchy that resulted from original
sin.
So, men sharing decision-making and spiritual authority equally
with women in a collaborative ministerial effort will continue the example of
the Master. I almost feel that Catholics should feel a certain shame that our
Protestant and Jewish siblings have seen this truth ahead of us, and I am left
unable to respond to those who do not accept your position.
Conclusions on the bridal imagery of the liturgy and the issue of
women’s ordination:
Given the arguments above, and the fact
that the statements by your beloved predecessor, his Holiness, Paul VI and
yourself can be demonstrated to be of non-infallible authority, I believe that
it is of grave necessity that the Church continue to keep the issue of
women’s ordination open. It would seem that bishops and theologians and
historians should be able to speak freely as they inquire into this subject,
without facing authoritative statements that call their orthodoxy into
question. If further research leads the Church towards a decision to permit
women’s ordination, this should be seen as a response to the signs of the
times under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, if God truly does not
wish women to be ordained, we can have faith that open inquiry into the subject
without authoritative guidance will ultimately clarify the reasons for this
exclusion.
You have encouraged theologians to reflect more deeply on
the bridal imagery of Christ’s love for his Church as an appeal to
popularize the current discipline. While the Biblical groom and bride metaphors
proposed by your office in response to the issue of women’s ordination has
some poetic appeal, the metaphor does not seem to capture the true sense of the
faithful on this issue. Paul always uses this metaphor to point to the deeper
reality of the Church as the Body of Christ. Indeed, carried to its logical
extreme, it would almost seem that this metaphoric language would imply no
place for celibate priests. Likewise, it appears that the Church has not probed
deeply enough into the implication that all male members of the common
priesthood of the faithful are ontologically feminized under too literal
rendering of this metaphor. It seems to me that this metaphor is stretched to
far at best, and a rationalization for injustice at worst. The real meaning of
this metaphor lies in our eschatological hope for a personal union with God as
intimate as the marriage bond, and it is in this sense that it is in the
sacrament of marriage that so many of us encounter a foreshadowing of this
mystery. In the Eucharist, it is not the priest who symbolizes this union.
Rather, the reception of the consecrated bread and the hearing of the Word of
God penetrating our hearts symbolizes God’s union with us most fully.
Why I believe I can withhold assent on this issue and remain in the
Church?
There is a humorous fable told to American children of an
emperor who sought a new wardrobe. He went to the greatest fashion designers in
his kingdom seeking the most wonderful clothing. The top designer of the
kingdom told the emperor that he would make a beautiful ensemble that would be
invisible to the emperor, while looking magnificent to everyone else.
The designer explained that each person would see something different,
while the emperor would see nothing. All the courtiers and all the people of
the kingdom exclaimed how beautiful the kings clothing were until a small child
spoke out. The child said, “The emperor has no clothes.” The child
spoke the truth that others knew, but were afraid to say.
I do not mean
to insult your Holiness. However, I am convinced that the arguments used to
exclude women leave the Church exposed to humiliation like the fabled emperor.
Being a lay-person, I realize that I may be in better position than a bishop or
Cardinal to press these questions without facing reprisals from your
supporters. I am inspired by the example of Saint Catherine of Sienna who
offered advice to your predecessor. Even if I am mistaken in God’s eyes, I
believe that I raise the issues that opponents of women’s ordination need
to address more thoroughly if we, as a Church, are to gain a deeper
appreciation of revelation. Thus, I feel it is my duty to share my thoughts and
questions with you, my pastors, and other Christians in order to continue the
discussion.
Furthermore, in Galatians 2:11, Saint Paul sets a precedent
for responsible withholding of assent from non-infallible papal authority. The
specific issue at hand was your beloved predecessor, Pope Saint Peter’s
hypocritical treatment of Gentile Christians. While Pope Saint Peter affirmed
the equality of the Gentiles in word, his deeds spoke otherwise.
I
humbly confess in charitable admonition that I currently believe that your
current position is similar to our first Pope’s treatment of the Gentiles.
Paul made his lack of assent public in written testimony for consumption among
the laity of the Church. This Spirit inspired model of responsible withholding
of assent has become enshrined in Sacred Scripture. This idea of responsible
withholding of assent was later affirmed in Gaudium et Spes 62, which
states that “all the faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a
lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom of expression,
tempered by humility and courage in whatever branch of study they have
specialized.”
I do not leave the Church because I love the Catholic
faith. In all of my argumentation I have appealed to the Church’s own
authoritative documents, her own history, her own Sacred Scripture and a sound
theology of Catholic baptism, Eucharist, Church and priesthood. Many of us also
believe that the ordination of women will make the saving sacraments of the
Church available to more people, and alleviate the decline in male vocations to
ministerial priesthood that may be a signal of the Holy Spirit’s desire to
initiate change in the Church’s current disciplines. Many of also believe
that women will add uniquely female insight into the interpretation of our
Sacred Tradition that will draw some of the non-believers or fallen away to the
sacrament of the Church. Finally, I am convinced that women will help the
American clergy to remain accountable in the area of sexual misconduct, which
has so plagued the Church in the United States.
I rely on the atoning
merit of Christ our Lord and the prayers and intercession of the Catholic
saints. To leave the Church would be to separate myself from Apostolic
succession, papal primacy, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, our
Blessed Mother, and the web of relationships in the community of faith that we
believe forms the body of Christ. The Catholic Church remains a unified body
while being the largest and most multi-cultural expression of Christianity in
the world. This is important to me. My prayers for the dead would find no home
in many other religious bodies. My need for the sacrament of reconciliation
would go unfulfilled. My belief in the Ten Commandments and morality might fall
under question if I denied our Church at it’s infallible roots, and I do
not believe that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an expression of infallible
Catholic tradition. I accept the great councils as I recite the Apostles and
Nicene Creed each day, and I accept the infallible doctrines of the Immaculate
Conception and the Assumption. I realize too that other religious institutions
are effected by the frailty of human sin, and that the path to reform is not to
leave the body, but to prayerfully and lovingly work for change. For all these
reasons, and many others, I wish to remain faithful to our Catholic heritage
and faith.
Please prayerfully consider the sense of the faithful as
well as the doctrinal and Scriptural points raised above in your conversations
with your brother bishops and any future pronouncements on this issue.
