 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
From INTER INSIGNIORES:
(Italics in the text by John Wijngaards)
THE ATTITUDE OF CHRIST
9. Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of
the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the
customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different
from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.
10. For example, to the great astonishment of his own
disciples Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4 :27); he
takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered
from haemorrhages (cf. Mt. 9:20-22); he allows a sinful woman to approach him
in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk. 7:37 ff. ); and by pardoning the
woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe
towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does
not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of
the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk
10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).
11. In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not
only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: ‘Mary, surnamed the
Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod’s
steward Chuza, Susanna, and several others who provided for them out of their
own resources’ (Lk. 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did
not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was
nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the risen
Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal
message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt.28:7-10; Lk. 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18),
in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the
Resurrection.
12. It is true that these facts do not make the matter
immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word
of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate
meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely
historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that
we have here a number of convergent indications that make all the more
remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge (l0) to
women.
Note 10. Some have also wished to explain this
tact by a symbolic intention of Jesus: the Twelve were to represent the
ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Mt. 19:28. Lk. 22:30). But in
these texts it is only a question of their participation in the eschatological
judgment. The essential meaning of the choice of the Twelve should rather be
sought in the totality of their mission (cf. Mk 3:14): they are to represent
Jesus to the people and carry on his work.
For the full text, see: INTER INSIGNIORES.
From the
Commentary by the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Declaration Inter
Insigniores:
The attitude of Christ
40. In the light of tradition, then, it seems that the
essential reason moving the Church to call only men to the sacrament of order
and to the strictly priestly ministry is her intention to remain faithful to
the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully
maintained by the apostles. It is therefore no surprise that in the controversy
there has been a careful examination of the facts and texts of the New
Testament, in which tradition has seen an example establishing a norm.
41. This brings us to a fundamental observation: we must
not expect the New Testament on its own to resolve in a clear fashion
the question of the possibility of women acceding to the priesthood, in the
same way that it does not on its own enable us to give an account of certain
sacraments, and especially of the structure of the sacrament of order.
42. Keeping to the sacred text alone and to the points of
the history of Christian origins that can be obtained by analysing that text by
itself would be to go back four centuries and find oneself once more amid the
controversies of the Reformation. We cannot omit the study of tradition: it is
the Church that scrutinizes the Lord’s thought by reading scripture, and
it is the Church that gives witness to the correctness of its interpretation.
43. It is tradition that has unceasingly set forth as an
expression of Christ’s will the fact that he chose only men to form the
group of the twelve. There is no disputing this fact, but can it be proved with
absolute certainty that it was a question of a deliberate decision by Christ?
44. It is understandable that the partisans of a change in
discipline bring all their efforts to bear against the significance of this
fact. In particular, they object that, if Christ did not bring women into the
group of the twelve, it was because the prejudices of his time did not allow
him to: it would have been an imprudence that would have compromised his work
irreparably.
45. However, it has to be recognized that Jesus did not
shrink from other ‘imprudences’, which did in fact stir up the
hostility of his fellow citizens against him, especially his freedom with
regard to the rabbinical interpretations of the Sabbath. With regard to women
his attitude was a complete innovation: all the commentators recognize that he
went against many prejudices, and the facts that are noted add up to an
impressive total.
46. For this reason greater stress is laid today on another
objection: if Jesus chose only men to form the group of the twelve, it was
because he intended them to be a symbol representing the ancestors of the
tribes of Israel (‘You who have followed me will also sit on twelve
thrones and judge the tribes of Israel’: Mt. 19:28; cf. Lk. 22:30); and
this special motive, it is added, obviously referred only to the twelve and
would be no proof that the apostolic ministry should thereafter always be
reserved to men. It is not a convincing argument.
47. We may note in the first place how little importance
was given to this symbolism: Mark and John do not mention it. And in Matthew
and Luke this phrase of Jesus about the twelve tribes of Israel is not put in
the context of the call of the twelve (Mt. 1-10:1-4) but at a relatively late
stage of Jesus’ public life, when the apostles have long since been given
their ‘constitution’: they have been called by Jesus, have worked
with him and been sent on missions.
48. Furthermore, the symbolism of Mt. 19:28 and Lk. 22:30
is not as certain as is claimed: the number could designate simply the whole of
Israel. Finally, these two texts deal only with a particular aspect of the
mission of the twelve: Jesus is promising them that they will take part in the
eschatological judgment.(39) Therefore the essential meaning of their being
chosen is not to be sought in this symbolism but in the totality of the mission
given them by Jesus: ‘he appointed twelve; they were to be his companions
and to be sent out to preach’ (Mk 3:14).
49. As Jesus before them, the twelve were above all to
preach the good news (Mk 3:14; 6:12). Their mission in Galilee (Mk 6:7-13) was
to become the model of the universal mission (Mk 12:10; cf. Mt. 28:16-20).
Within the messianic people the twelve represent Jesus. That is the real reason
why it is fitting that the apostles should be men: they act in the name of
Christ and must continue his work. . . .
For the full text, see: Official Commentary on INTER INSIGNIORES.
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!