 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
from: Wie Mag Toeven Binnen Uw Tent?, by the
commission on Woman and the Church of the Belgian Bishops' Conference, eds. Ann
Bedeleem and Ilse van Halst, Louvain 1998, pp. 55 - 67.
Translated from the Flemish by John Wijngaards and here
re-published with permission of the Commission.
Voices of disagreement
Not everyone agrees with the official position of the Church expressed
in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Many people have misgivings about the
arguments the Pope employs when excluding women from priestly ministry. They
object to the way in which the "special nature of woman" is understood, as well
as to the interpretation of the data from Scripture and Tradition. They point
to the heavy cultural load resting on the ideal of the priestly ministry on
account of the past clerical image of the Church and the stress on
essentialism. They ask that more attention be given to women who feel called to
the priesthood and to the fact that women are also excluded from other
leadership functions simply because these are tied to the priesthood.
Christ is God made human
The opinion that only men can represent Christ because of their natural
resemblance in gender is heavily criticised. A sacramental relationship does
not arise, according to these theologians, by a natural resemblance in sex
between the sign (the priest) and the object signified (Jesus Christ). A
sacramental relationship is established through liturgical actions and words by
which the sign is created to be a sign in the spirit Jesus intended. Essential
to the priesthood is not that a person is a man, but that the person is
ordained to be a priest and is commissioned by the Church. If the Church were
to ordain women and could entrust the priestly ministry to them they would,
just as much as their male colleagues, be able to act in the person of
Christ.
"Considering the symbolic nature of the roles and functions linked to
sex, it is easily understood, from a psychological point of view, that the
ministry could be taken on by a woman. Just as the mother, in spite of her
feminine identity and experience, can all the same fulfil the functions of the
father, so can "mutatis mutandis" the woman, from a psychological point of
view, perfectly fulfil the relational and representational task that the
Church's ministry is. Of course, in all this, one needs to take into account
the great differences that exist between cultures with regard to what is
possible and acceptable" (J.Corveleyn, AV June1996).
The theologians who follow this line of thinking find it strange that
Church authority attaches so much importance to Jesus being a man. John Paul II
rightly points out in "Mulieris Dignitatem" that God's procreation is totally
divine in nature and that his fatherhood really does not possess any male or
female qualities. If one takes this seriously and at the same time remembers
that both the woman and the man have been created in God's image and likeness,
one cannot really make the manhood of Jesus Christ a necessary factor of God's
Word in his incarnation in this world.
The same theologians ask themselves ‘May one really maintain that
Jesus had to be a man because he was supposed to become the bridegroom of the
Church?’ Yet, in harmony with the marital terminology of the covenant, the
relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church is being strikingly expressed
through the term's 'bridegroom' and 'bride', but these are, and remain,
metaphors. Just as the marital relationship between Yahweh and Israel does not
mean that Yahweh is truly male and Israel female, in the same way 'bridegroom'
and 'bride' do not proclaim anything about a real femininity of the Church or a
necessary maleness of Christ.
"The whole group was not happy with the fact that one image (Christ as
bridegroom, the Church as bride) is pushed forward so much, even absolutised,
among the many images. The priest presides over a community, which makes Jesus
present. The priest points to Christ. At present ,however, he is being
sacralised too much. Would a woman, just because she is not a man, not point to
Christ much better in a less ambiguous manner?" (Discussion group, VA June
1996)
The fact that Jesus was a man no doubt determined his personality. It
was not accidental. But the same applies also - although in a different way -
for his being a Jew. Jesus' having been a man is exaggerated beyond reason in
the discussion about the priesthood of women, according to the criticism of
those who defend a possible ordination of women. They point out that Jesus is
in the first place the salvation of the world as Word of God who has become
human, as the human-God who in his concrete humanness remained one in being
with the Father and gave himself up, by listening to the Father's will, to the
greatest gift of love. The priest represents this human being ,Jesus Christ, in
person. This is a role, so the theologians argue, which those men and those
women, who know themselves called and who are appointed to this ministry in the
name of the risen Lord by the Church, can take on.
If one - as the pope does in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" - looks at
ministry from the higher aim of "striving after love", the minister does not
stand above but between all other faithful. One task or function is not better
or higher than another one. This affirmation of the principle of equal worth of
all the faithful does not tell the whole story. Questions arise when we flesh
out this equal worth, questions that come both from the clerical Church image
and the previous unequal status of men and women.
"In the world of women religious the predominance of men often weighs
heavy. Women religious are usually under the power of the Bishop. They feel
hemmed in by episcopal rules. They do not get space. In celebrations a priest
sometimes just starts from the assumption that he determines what has to
happen. He does not take into account agreements that were made about the way
of singing and praying; he takes for granted that he can do everything himself.
Women religious usually get a chaplain who is no longer of any use elsewhere
and who has been dismissed from parish work. This promotes the idea that
sisters are nobodies" (discussion group AV February 1995).
"Pastoral workers and women experience a lot of problems in exercising
their tasks. Sometimes priests push them to the background as having been
"inadequately trained". The female chaplain in a hospital is sometimes less
easily accepted by people. In a parish team that is predominantly female,
people often prefer to talk to the male members. People accept much less from
women who are often away from home and leave the family to cope (for instance
on the occasion of meetings in the evenings, and on formation days). All this
is not the necessarily intentional, but is determined through culture and
traditional role patterns. Women have to involve themselves in more quality
pastoral work so that a new mentality can grow from below" (Discussion Group,
AV June 1996).
The influence of a clerical Church image, which formerly was taken for
granted, makes it difficult for a true priesthood of service to be accepted.
However true and valuable the ecclesiastical position about the equal worth of
the faithful may be, the past has definitely left its imprint. Formerly the
priestly ministry was very much elevated both in society and the church,
especially above all the tasks that could be fulfilled by women. It was also
given the halo of being a path of life that brought more salvation than the
life of a married couple. We therefore have to reckon very much with the fact
that, on account of its past history, a heavy load rests on the presumed
principle of the equal worth of all the faithful and of the priesthood as a
true service of the community.
"In our ecclesiastical manner of speaking, we are again running the risk
of branding what is feminine in an essentialist sense. Woman is in the first
place considered mother and in the second place virgin. About woman as partner
there is silence. In this way the essential difference between man and woman is
strongly emphasised and the nature and the task of the woman is perceived as
being attention of and care for others. A professional life is not permitted to
her in this perspective, for to aim at a profession would mean that she would
think of herself instead of others, as her primary role demands. The role of
mother is therefore deemed to be the role in which we think of others. Perhaps
the same could be said of the father - but it is not. In this way one handles
again the sexual difference between men and women as an absolute fact"
(R.Burggraeve, AV June 1996).
"Feminist discussion has clearly shown that there are real differences
between women. Some women tend more towards assertiveness and power and other
women more towards caring. But one cannot really say that one is true women and
the other is not, or visa versa. But from a traditional point of view, and
without claiming that this does or does not come from a biological tendency,
women have been more inclined to caring, communication and social interactions
than men, who are more inclined towards instrumental thinking" (A.Snick, AV
June 1996).
In "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" the various vocations of men and women are
placed within the fundamental equal worth of all the faithful. The fleshing-out
of the proper vocation of woman, however, remains too vague and many different
interpretations are possible. As the analysis of debates within the feminist
movement have shown, it remains quite difficult to determine the specific-ness
of women. Women can, both from within their own history and from within the
Church, provide many worthwhile experiences and insights, but terms like
"specifically feminine" run the risk of suggesting a norm or an ideal with
which women have to comply and in which no account is taken of the many ways
and variations in which they can give expression to their being woman.
Moreover, the vague description of the truly feminine nature (and also the
truly male nature) opens wide the door for interpretations of the difference
between men and women - which remind us strongly of the old pattern according
to which women’s nature was considered inferior. The fact that church
authorities - which until now are only men - are defending a distinct vocation
for women reflects, in the eyes of many, the discriminatory thinking of the
past. Because then, too, it was men who determined what the true female nature
was. And this "femininity" was consciously or unconsciously handled by men in
such a way that they did not need to share the leadership, and the power over
society, with women.
"In Christian circles we find at present a kind of cheap speaking, as if
emancipation has already been completed, so that we could devote ourselves to
the sexual difference, to what is specific in man and woman. But this offers
precisely the risk of being a new source of domination, because in the past the
difference has always worked out that way. Of course, this result is neither
certain nor unavoidable, but we should not be naïve and forget the weight
of previous history which, as in the history of the Church, has left deep and
painful scars " (A.Burggraeve, AV June 1996).
Witness: Susan, who was fatally ill, said to me: "I am so sorry that I
cannot ask you for one last favour". She stopped. "Ask me all the same", I
said. Crying she told me: "I would have liked you to give me the anointing of
the sick". But smiling about her sadness she toned it down by saying: "Men
maintain that women may not do so". (Witness of a Pastoral Worker, AV February
1995)
Tradition is not Holy
The Pope says: "The tradition of the Church has been, in imitation of
Jesus who only chose men to be apostles, to ordain only men as priests. The
Church is bound to follow the example of Jesus". But this is only the case if
one could prove that Jesus acted consciously and freely. The proofs which
"Inter Insigniores" and "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" offer for this
are not convincing. The tradition of only ordaining men to be priests has a
long history, but does that make her holy and beyond challenge? In pleas for
opening the priestly ministry to women it is often pointed out that quite early
in the history of Christianity unfortunate developments took place concerning
ministry. According to critics, the purpose of the ministry was originally to
proclaim the good news and the leadership of the community according to the
gospel - functions which were also exercised in the liturgy. Later however, all
the emphasis was on liturgical leadership at the celebration of the Eucharist
and the administration of the sacraments. In this way the priesthood was given
a rather cultic content - in a departure from its original intention - and, as
a sacred ministry, was separate from the community. In this development, often
with the best of intentions, people pointed to what Jesus himself would have
had in mind about t ministry. In fact however, the result was rather the
consequence of an adaptation of religious models of the cultic priesthood in
Judaism and paganism, and influences from a wider social context.
"Whoever tries to fix the forms of the ministry that have actually
developed by linking them to the historical arguments of Jesus ends up in
quicksand. We have to make a distinction between the legitimacy of a
development and its 'unchangeableness'. A legitimate development is a
development that, taking account of time and place, incarnates the best way of
being faithful to Jesus' Gospel. Every ecclesiastical ministry which really
serves the building up of Christ's community is founded in the Gospel. This
does not, however, mean the same as it having been expressly willed so by the
historical Jesus. An ecclesiastical development to a ministry in three layers,
such as we know it from many centuries, may therefore be quite legitimate and
can be called founded in the Gospel. But this legitimacy in no way implies that
it is unchangeable". (V.Schmidt, AV February 1995).
The same can be said about the tradition that, from the beginning of the
Church, excluded women from the leadership of the Church. The tradition is not
a Gospel norm but a human tradition, a giving in to the obvious impossibilities
of those days. The evangelical norm, according to these theologians, can only
be found in the liberating impulses which come from Jesus' own actions, and
which continued in the earliest Christian communities, so that believing women
were recognised there with their own gifts and potential. Since we have now
finally identified the old cultural and social prejudices against women, the
Church needs to take up the thread again with full conviction and to work for a
truly equal treatment of women and men, including with regard to ministry.
We have to be honest enough to dare to acknowledge that our culture is
no dogma. Our culture’s sensitivity has its value, but also its
limitations. The Gospel enculturates within a culture and yet also criticises
cultures. And therefore I can quite well understand that a lot of people now
say: "From a cultural sensitivity which is different - this is the only way I
can feel - I cannot agree to it". Yes, I can understand it, but should we also
not criticise our own culture? This too is not universal, neither in time nor
in space. (Cardinal Danneels, AV June 1994). June 1994).
What has always been done in the church need not always stay like that -
even though people thought that was how it was. The tradition which restricts
the priestly ministry to men cannot derive legitimacy from unbroken practice.
And to what extent could this practice base normative value on the fact that
the magisterium of the church keeps characterising it as an essential and
unchangeable element of the sacrament of the priesthood?
In this connection the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points
to the normative competence of the magisterium. According to the classical
teaching about the church, the magisterium has the task of deciding which
elements in the sacramental tradition belong to the substance and which are
temporary. However - so the campaigners for the ordination for women point out
- this applies only if it can be shown that the actual tradition of the
ministry really derives from Jesus' own intention. Only in that case can a
deviation on the part of the ecclesiastical magisterium be ruled out.
"I am closely involved in the socio-cultural sector of society. My
concern is that, possibly because of the image of the Church today, there are
more and more people who do not bother about the conflict anymore. They just
leave it for what it is. We are gradually experiencing a new coldness in the
Church. There are people who do not bother about that any more. I also see that
gradually many volunteers, who have little theological or exegetical formation,
find it more and more difficult to discern between the truly religious
expression of power and the factual power which they experience in the Church,
and who therefore begin to question their involvement with the Church or with
their own parish" (General Enquiry, AV June 1995)
"Tradition has always presented Christ in the dress of its own time. She
has done this precisely to keep the Gospel living and dynamic. Actually this is
quite a liberating insight, for it makes clear how much freedom the Church
enjoys in its concretely fleshing-out of essential structures. Also in this
particular respect she enjoys the complete freedom of the children of God. This
is a very reassuring message when we think of the many centuries, and perhaps
millennia, which humanity still has to face." (P.Schmidt, AV February
1995).
In our society discrimination is closely connected with either having or
not having some say on matters of government. All ministries of government have
to be open to men and women. In the discussion about the priestly ministry of
women the role of women in the power of government is also at stake, for
leadership in the Church is tied to ordination. Women want to be acknowledged
as equal members of the Church, as they are supposed to be by Church law.
According to our modern understanding this also implies equality in government
and therefore an openness to priestly ministry for women.
The objection that the Church is not a democracy is out of order here.
For why could a woman not exercise an equal ministry of government in a
non-democratic system? What matters here is not a particular form of
government, but whether everyone has a place as a truly equal member in the
community.
"People do not challenge authority because they deny the Church, Jesus
or the resurrection, but because there is something wrong with the cultural
form of that authority. As soon as someone claims: 'I will tell you what God
prescribes', something is not right." (Discussion Group, AV June 1995)
"It is not just a matter of bringing more women into the political and
pedagogical decision making, but also and especially to make the
decision-making itself a less discriminating practice. The greater involvement
of women can therefore be the outcome of a non-discriminating policy, but
participation by women can also contribute to bringing about a more democratic
form of decision-making, since women traditionally incorporate values and
perspectives which are different from men’s." (A.Snick, AV June 1996)
"I believe that awareness of the equal rights and equal value of men and
women - and of the need no longer to discriminate in their participation in
forms of decision making and policy making - is now assuming such authority in
our world, and in the awareness of humanity, that the Church can no longer
continue to deny or ignore this reality in its own structure" (E.Van Waelderen,
AV 1995)
Since the power of ordination and the power of government are tied to
each other, a reference to Mary does not really help, because the central
question is not who can represent which 'persona', but why the whole power of
government has to hang on the representative who acts 'in persona Christi'.
Criticism is not only levelled at the fact that men are allowed to lead in the
Church because they are physically men, but also at the fact that they
are allowed to dominate because they are allowed to lead.
"Today, in our work for 'peace and justice', we are committed to equal
rights for men and women wherever this applies in society. Our credibility
depends on a consistent application of these principles to our own Church as
well as to society. Different roles need to be fulfilled. People have differing
responsibilities: that is indisputable. What we cannot accept is that half the
population in our Church is deprived of their fundamental rights. We believe
that this is where the hub of the matter lies - deprivation of rights, not so
much because of losing ordination, but more on the level of losing the ability
to decide. The discussion about this matter has been going on for more than
twenty years - and very little progress has been made." (AV June 1994)
The question as to why women cannot be entrusted with functions of
government is also not being satisfactorily dealt with by the contention that
the task of governing is not a position of power but a position of service.
Because then we may ask: Why exclude women from this task of service?
"There is indeed a problem ... in the fact that the power of
decision-making in the Church is tied to the sacrament of ordination. This
connection can, indeed, be called into question. It is possible to separate the
power of jurisdiction from the power of ordination, although I think that this
should be considered carefully. It is not clear. However, I am not saying that
they should be separated without further ado, because there is an affinity
between the two ideas of power" (Cardinal Daneels, AV June 1994)
The practice and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church seem to be
clear. But what should we make of the women who are convinced that they are
called to the priestly ministry? In Inter Insigniores the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith speaks about the desire of these women to serve
Jesus Christ and the Church through priestly ministry. The desire can be
honourable, it says, but may still not on that account be considered as a true
vocation to the priestly ministry. For a genuine vocation is only present when
the Church, in Christ's name through ordination, acknowledges and affirms this
personal desire - and this is something that is not possible in the case of
women.
What is being said in this document about the essence of the priestly
vocation and the priestly ministry will be denied by few. But does the Church
at this moment really do justice to what moves some believing women in the
depth of their hearts? Is it really honest to characterise the vocation to the
priestly ministry in women as a purely subjective desire, if there is not even
the possibility of letting this personal vocation grow out into a truly
ecclesial vocation as happens in the case of men? Is it fair if women,
moreover, are not even allowed to make a judgement about the acknowledgement
and affirmation of this subjective desire? Is this not, in actual fact, a form
of discrimination?
Often these women who know themselves called to the priestly ministry
are extremely competent and capable of leading their colleagues and others in
Christ's name. Perhaps they have already been prepared for this and trained in
an excellent manner. Often they have already taken on important and responsible
tasks in pastoral work, at the request of the Church itself. Often they
themselves and many others have been allowed to experience how beneficial that
was . . . and how much the Church would gain if these women would, through the
priestly ministry, be allowed to give full expression to their own gifts and
pastoral concerns.
"Women want to be priests but not like the priests of today - a priest
who just says Mass. 'To be a priest' will have to be something different. It
will have to be fleshed out in a new way" (Discussion Group February 1995).
"People's experiences of women doing pastoral work are quite positive on
the whole. These women are not standing on a pedestal as their priestly
colleagues do; they are clearly lay persons with the laity and therefore there
is a lower threshold. These women contribute a lot through their own approach
to the building up of community around Christ. Their ability to 'listen'
therefore holds special relevance" (Discussion Group, AV June 1996).
Keeping the Discussion Open
The contents and the arguments in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are not
new. They have already been presented and commented on in the declaration
Inter Insigniores. What is new is the conclusion of the letter - "all
the faithful of the Church have to accept this position as being definitive" -
in which the pope with his full authority subscribes to the opinion that women
cannot be priests. This argument of authority came as a hard blow for many
believers who had questions about the previous argumentation. Moving the
discussion from the level of content to the level of authority has given many
people the impression that they have been reduced to silence.
"Some people raise the question: 'If the pope says that restricting the
sacrament of holy orders to men alone belongs to the essential constitution of
the Church, how do we need to understand this?' Is it a point of faith? But we
do not find it in the Creed. Neither can it be found explicitly in the Gospel -
although indications in that direction are claimed it is certainly not
explicit. There are, of course, some things in the Church, in the fundamental
structure of the Church, which because of the historical data of the Church are
such that they cannot be changed" Cardinal Daneels, AV June 1994)
"To what extent are statements of the magisterium binding? How do we
need to place them? Lumen Gentium gives us a clear distinction in paragraph 25.
We have to distinguish what is dogmatically fixed, that is, what belongs to the
domain of infallibility. This area is strictly limited by conditions: it
happens only when the pope speaks ex cathedra or if the pope and bishops
together in council or spread all over the world define a doctrine regarding
faith and morals as a strict point of faith. This domain is strictly tied to
revealed truths. Christians are required to give obedience in faith to such
points of doctrine. The ordinary authentic magisterium also gives guidelines
but does not belong to the domain of infallibility. It does not pretend to be
always in complete agreement with the Gospel. These points demand a 'religious
agreement of mind and will’, though in this matter we are not talking
about strict obedience in faith. These latter declarations have also their own
authoritative weight. That does not mean slavish subjection but it demands an
attitude of 'respectful acknowledgement and honest reception'. One is obliged
in conscience to conform one's thinking and actions with this doctrine" (E.Van
Wilderen, AV June 1995).
In their statement regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis the bishops
of Belgium remark that one can give further thought, in spite of it being a
'definitive opinion'. But is it still possible to be involved in real thinking,
in all openness and according to the rules proper to theological research?
Moreover, it is not sufficient that the discussion about the arguments be
continued on theological level - the dialogue must also remain open and be
stimulated at a pastoral level and in the policymaking of the Church community,
especially with regard to the realisation of the true equality of men and
women. The credibility of the Church's attitude depends on a commitment to a
true partnership of men and women.
"Some people are shocked by the abrupt affirmations in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis. But one must not forget that previous declarations of the
doctrine presented a deep and wide argumentation (Inter Insignores;
Mulieris Dignitatem). It is also possible that the tone and the language
of the declaration , however justified from a legal, church law point of view,
evoke different and emotional connotations in a present day audience, which may
give rise to a totally different meaning. While the term 'definitive' in church
language means that something belongs to the accepted doctrine of the church as
the pope and bishops always present it, the same word may sound, to modern ears
as, a prohibition to speak or to think, or an attempt to silence people
altogether (Declaration by the Bishops of Belgium regarding Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, 7 June 1994).
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!