 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
on the Occasion of his Definitive
Exclusion of Women from the Ordained Priesthood
by Dr Aaron Milavec
Text published on this web site by kind permission of its author
Dr. Aaron Milavec.
Our
brother and father, John Paul II, has strayed from the path of Jesus, his
avowed master. Jesus uplifted the experience of women, accepted their fresh
initiatives, and boldly confronted those men who tried to put them back in
their place. Our brother, John Paul II, meanwhile has spoken prematurely on the
issue of the exclusion of women from ordination (ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS), and
he has used the name and example of Jesus to reinforce this ban. In what
follows, an attempt will be made to reexamine (a) the shaping of the judgment
to exclude women from ordination to the priesthood and (b) Jesus’ practice
of upholding women’s experiences and initiatives.
==============The Shaping of the Judgment to Exclude
Women================
The
issue of Jesus’ relation to women has come up again and again as both
sides of the women’s ordination issue appeal to Jesus in order to give
authority to their respective positions. With Catholics privately and publicly
divided on this issue, it was inevitable that some bishops would press Rome for
some sort of definitive solution lest official silence leave open a false hope
on the part of many. Thus, Paul VI assigned the issue to the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1975. The CDF, in turn, asked for a report
from the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) on this issue.
The
PBC sent its final report to the CDF in June of 1976. The Commission’s
report concluded that, on the basis of the Christian Scriptures alone, the
issue cannot be decided “in a clear way and once and for all [time]”
(96). This is so, the report declared, because “the New Testament never
uses the technical term hiereus [”priest"] for the Christian ministry"
(92). But, even beyond this, the “role of leadership in the [early church]
communities . . . was always held by men in conformity with Jewish custom”
(95). The PBC report, consequently, did not think that decisions made within
the cultural conditions prevailing in the first century ought to automatically
predetermine what the church might decide would be right and proper within
altered cultural circumstances. The CDF quietly shelved the PBC report and
ignored its findings. Then it produced its own report which, as things turned
out, was the only report officially published. Thus, from the very beginning,
the CDF saw fit to ignore the results of a very legitimate condustation and
collaboration process which it had initiated. Here, again, the path of Peter
was ignored.
When
the CDF issued its final report in October of 1976 under the title, INTER
INSIGNIORES (English title: ON THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE
MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD), it unambiguously came to a negative conclusion:
“[T]he Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider
herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination” (CDF: 4). In
order to arrive at this judgment, the CDF quietly borrowed a few ideas from the
PBC report while entirely ignoring its conclusions. By way of presenting its
own conclusions, the CDF report did not offer any hint, not even a footnote,
which would have allowed anyone to know that the PBC had been consulted. The
members of the PBC, it should be remembered, are exemplary scholars chosen, in
part, for their loyalty to orthodoxy and to the Vatican. When they met in April
of 1976, they voted 17 to 0 in favor of affirming that the New Testament does
not settle in a clear way and once and for all the question as to whether women
can be ordained as priests. The PBC also voted 12 to 5 in favor to declaring
that Christ’s plan would not be transgressed should the Church elect to
confer such ordination on women.
What
this makes clear is that, from the very beginning, the CDF saw fit to ignore
the results of the legitimate consultation and collaboration process which it
had initiated. In principle, a process of consultation does not constrain the
judgment of those who consult. The CDF could, for example, have chosen to
openly acknowledge and refute the judgments of the PBC point by point. Yet,
when the CDF elected to suppress the fact that a high level consultation had
taken place and that conscientious scholars in the PBC had arrived at divergent
judgments, then an element of bad faith was introduced. The path of Peter was
ignored.
Despite the flawed process, the CDF report is extraordinary in three ways:
1.
The report openly acknowledges that its negative conclusion “will perhaps
cause pain” (CDF: 5). This is the first time that an official Vatican
document expressed sensitivity towards those would suffer due to a decision
being made on their behalf. The report later makes mention that “some
women feel they have a vocation to the priesthood” (CDF: 16). It is
perhaps to these women and their supporters that the framers of the document
acknowledge that their conclusion “will perhaps cause pain” (CDF: 5).
2.
The CDF report never falls into the trap of supposing that either Jesus or his
disciples thought of themselves as “priests.” Rather, the report
consistently affirms that, even though Jesus’ “attitude toward women
was quite different from that of his milieu” (CDF: 6), he did not,
nonetheless, entrust “the apostolic charge” (CDF: 7) to any women,
not even to his own mother. In like fashion, when considering the practice of
the early church, the report correctly notes that the apostles had worked with
certain women for the sake of the gospel; yet, “at no time was there a
question of conferring ordination on these women” (CDF: 8). Here again,
the CDF report never suggests that these early ordinations involve
“priesthood” as such. Rather the surmise is that, if the
“apostolic charge” of Jesus and the “ordinations” of the
early church were reserved entirely to men, then it follows that the ordained
ministry of the church today ought to follow the same practice.
3.
The CDF report is also noteworthy in so far as it squarely acknowledges that,
as culture changes, the practice of the church can and sometimes must change.
The report openly acknowledges that some of the apostolic ordinances relative
to women, as illustrated by the obligation of women to wear a veil on their
heads (1 Cor 11:2-16), were culturally conditioned and accordingly have been
changed (CDF: 9). When considering Jesus’ exclusion of women from
“the apostolic charge,” however, the report takes the stand that, in
this instance, Jesus was not culturally determined precisely because he was
known to have opposed “the discrimination pacticed with regard to
women”:
No
one himself has ever proved—and it is clearly impossible to
prove—that this attitude [of Jesus] is inspired only by social and
cultural reasons. As we have seen, an examination of the Gospels shows on the
contrary that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely
contravening the discrimination practiced with regard to women. One therefore
cannot maintain that, by not calling women to enter the group of Apostles,
Jesus was simply being guided by reasons of expediency (CDF: 9).
In
sum, while the CDF report is remarkably sensitive to modern scholarship and to
the pain it might cause; nonetheless, it’s bottom line is that
“Christ chose ‘those he wanted’ (Mark 3:13)” (CDF: 16).
Accordingly, if the Roman Catholic Church continues to choose only men for the
priestly ministry, she continues to do so, not because of any prejudice against
women shaped by patriarchal patterns of culture, but solely because she is
faithful to Jesus Christ.
=======Jesus’ Practice of Upholding Women’
Experiences and Initiatives========
While
the CDF report is exemplary, it does fail to note three distinctive aspects of
Jesus’ interaction with women which provide points of departure for
resolving the issue of women’s ordination within the modern church. I will
treat each in turn:
1.
The Synoptics summarize Jesus’ ministry by saying, “He went
throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues” (Mark 1:39 and par.).
Consider the situation of Jesus teaching in the synagogues of Galilee. Are we
to imagine that Jesus was exclusively surrounded my men or were their women in
the synagogues as well who sat quietly and attentively behind the men? If these
women were there, did Jesus ever take them into account? It would be impossible
to decide this on the basis of any direct evidence. On the basis of indirect
evidence, however, much can be decided.
What
indirect evidence? To begin with, examine the experience implied in the
parables of Jesus. When you do so, you will note that some of the parables of
Jesus directly speak to the experiences of men. For example:
The
Sower (Mark 4:3-8, Matthew 13:3-8, Luke 8:5-8) The Wicked Husbandman (Mark
12:1-11, Matthew 21:33-44, Luke 20:9-18) The Doorkeeper (Mark 13:33-37, Luke
12:35-38) The Fisherman’s Net (Matthew 13:47-50) The Lost Sheep (Matthew
18:12-14, Luke 15:4-7)
These
five parables appeal to the tasks and experiences which traditional Jewish
society associated exclusively with men. Women could observe men doing these
things; but, by and large, they normally would not be expected to relate to
these tasks since, in the normal course of events, they would rarely, if ever,
have a chance to perform them. On the other hand, Jesus has a set of parables
which specifically featured the experience of women. These would be the
following:
The
Yeast (Matthew 13:33, Luke 13:20f) The Ten Maidens (Matthew 25:1-13) The Lost
Coin (Luke 15:5-10) The Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8)
Here
again, men could be expected to have observed women kneading yeast into dough
and have witnessed the bride’s maids going out with lamps to welcome the
groom and his friends. However, it could be assumed that men would not be
expected to relate to these roles since they would never have an occasion to
assume such roles themselves.
In
reading the evidence here, one must keep traditional Jewish society in mind. In
contemporary society, some men do take pride in making loaves of bread from
scratch. In the world of Jesus, however, the grinding of grain, the kneading of
dough, and the baking of bread were the daily chores of women. In contemporary
society, men and women usually arrive together at the church for a wedding.
After the wedding, they go together to the reception. No one has to wait.
Within traditional societies, however, the bride and her female attendants
sometimes waited for hours in her home while the friends of the groom took
their merry old time assembling at the groom’s home for a
“bachelor’s party” before walking together to the bride’s
house where the wedding was to take place. What does it say about Jesus that he
would not only notice that the women were kept waiting but, as in the case of
his parable, kept waiting for such a long time that many fell asleep and their
lamps went out? The men, it must be remembered, were having a
“bachelor’s party” and, in their merry- making, not expected to
be attentive to the women who were waiting with the bride.
The
Gospel writers implicitly recognize that Jesus told Kingdom parables using
experiences which were sometimes proper to women and sometimes proper to men.
This evidence indirectly testifies that Jesus wished the Kingdom to be
intelligible to both women and men. Within the synagogue, therefore, it can be
presumed that Jesus occasionally directly addressed those women who sat behind
the men and who were, in most cases, entirely lost sight of by the men who sat
around Jesus. Jesus, however, did not lose sight of them. On the contrary,
Jesus was sufficiently interested and sympathetic to women as women that he
deliberately framed his teaching so as to hold up their proper experiences as
precious and as vehicles for understanding the message of God.
The
inclusivity of Jesus’ teaching style has much to offer today’s
church. Many male pastors preach and teach well; yet, up to this point I have
never yet heard even sympathetic pastors make use of women’s experiences
by way of conveying the message of the Gospel. Our brother and father, John
Paul II, might do well, therefore, to hold up before those who are charged with
teaching and preaching the image of Jesus on the point. If presbyteral and
episcopal ordination is to be confined to men alone, then, needless to say, the
inclusive practice of Jesus must challenge the present propensity of men to
emotionally and psychologically circumscribe their modes of teaching and
organizing within exclusively male models. Thus, in a church where women are
systematically excluded from ordained ministry, the ordained men have much to
repent and much to amend if they are to hold Jesus as their example.
2.
When Jesus spoke over the heads of the men surrounding him, he was also
presenting before men his determination to hold up and honor the experience of
women. This uncharacteristic sympathy toward women undoubtedly gave Jesus a
reputation which circulated among the women in the courtyards of Galilee. As a
result, women felt the urge to approach this teacher and prophet with a courage
and a determination which they did not express toward other rabbis in their
day. Think, for instance, of the woman who had “suffered from a hemorrhage
for twelve years” (Matt 9:20, Mark 5:25). Such a women would be ritually
impure and, as a result, prohibited from touching anyone or being touched (see
Lev 15:20). Hence, she suffered from being denied the embrace of husband, of
children, of friends. Moreover, unlike the dying girl of twelve who has a
father to plead her cause, this woman has no father, no brother, no son who is
sufficiently sympathetic to bring her case to the attention of Jesus. Driven by
desperation, therefore, she leaves her home for the first time in twelve years
and risks seeking to escape notice by “touch[ing] the fringe of his
garments” (Matt 9:20). She knows full well that her condition is widely
known and, if anyone of her family or neighbors spotted her, they would soundly
shame her with a tongue-lashing that she would not soon forget. Jesus,
meanwhile, does not disappoint her. In fact, he draws attention to her and
confirms her initiative saying, “Your faith has saved/healed you”
(Matt 9:22).
============Jesus Shames Men In Standing Up For
Women==============
At
still other points, Jesus deliberately shames the men in favoring of standing
up for the initiatives taken by women. Consider the case narrated by Luke
wherein a male dinner party is interrupted by “a woman who is wayward in
the city” (Luke 7:37 literal tr.)—a polite euphemism for a
prostitute. Now that one of “these women” has barged into his home;
Simon immediate thought must have been to have her removed quickly and quietly
without disturbing his dinner guests. Given the fact that the men are
“reclining” (7:36 RSV mistranslates this as “sat”) at
table, the supposition might be that Simon is moderately well to do and that
this is something of a formal dinner in Jesus’ honor. Jesus, instead of
honoring his host, then precedes to shame him in favor of praising the
initiative of the interloper. Men, especially in traditional societies, are
expected to ban together and protect the status and reputation of other
men—especially their benefactors. Not so, in the case of Jesus. He defends
the outsider. The sole woman who has no voice, no standing, no dignity is
uplifted as acting more honorably and hospitably than his host.
Given
all the self-righteous anger that Christians have poured out upon prostitutes
over the centuries, it seems incredible that Jesus never said a single harsh
word to a prostitute nor, as in the case of this woman here, does he presume to
be able to say, “Go, and do not sin again.” The harsh reality is
that, in Jesus’ day, many women were caught up in prostitution and, given
the existing social structures, their choices were either to sell their bodies
to men or to allow themselves and those who depended upon them (e.g., underage
children) to starve. It’s not a pretty picture. But, then again, Jesus had
to face up to the real evil existing in his day. And the real evil was not this
woman. She herself was victim of a system largely created to serve the
interests of men.
Mark’s Gospel also includes the story of a woman anointing Jesus during a
meal at Simon’s house. Mark’s narrative, however, is recast in an
entirely different direction. In Mark’s narrative, it is the disciples of
Jesus who become the antagonists of the woman. Jesus, in this case, openly
shames them while honoring the single, voiceless woman whom he stands up for.
The objection to the women in Mark’s account has nothing to do with her
reputation as a wayward woman or with her “touching” Jesus but
focuses on her disregard of the poor which she demonstrates by her
extravagance. As a result, “some” disciples (unnamed in Mark)
“reproached her” verbally (14:5). Jesus immediately jumps to her
defense by shaming the mistaken priorities of the disciples. Even beyond this,
Mark is here clearly signalling to his readers that this nameless woman rightly
anticipates the death of Jesus while the disciples have repeatedly hardened
their hearts to it (Mark 8:32, 9:32, 10:32-37).
How
rare it is to hear ordained men in the church upbraiding their fellow men in
favor of the initiatives of women. Yet, this is precisely what Jesus did. A
church, therefore, which would continue to reserve the role of preaching and
presiding to men must reflect upon how willing and able they are to stand up
for women (and all other underclasses of persons). If they cannot and do not,
then what legitimacy can they have as continuing and as exemplifying the
ministry of Jesus. Moreover, ordained men will need to overcome their shame and
self-protectiveness by keeping quiet when women are being abused sexually,
economically, socially. More women are beaten and sexually abused by their
husbands every month than the total number of women who have abortions in a
year; yet, the public outcry within church circles against abusive males in
such instances is noticeable muted. Here again, an all-male clergy that tacitly
aligns itself with the priviledged class of men within our society can be
critiqued as having seriously lost touch with the example of Jesus.
===========Jesus Favors the Initiative of Mary Over the
Traditionalism of Martha=============
3. In
our third instance, Luke presents Jesus as mediating a dispute between two
women, Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42). Martha is presented as the one who
“received him into her house” (Luke 10:38). Mary is introduced as her
“sister” who “sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his
teaching” (Luke 10:39). Herein the conflict erupts. Martha is fuming in
the kitchen at the fact that Mary has abandoned the traditional woman’s
role of occupying herself with preparing the food for her guests. Without any
invitation from Jesus, she has seemingly elected to take her place sitting
among the men around Jesus. So what could Martha do to remedy this situation?
Seemingly, given her seniority over her sister, she could simply order Mary to
give her a hand. But she doesn’t. She prefers to take her complaint to
Jesus and to chew him out! “Lord, do you not care . . . ?” (10:40)
Martha typifies the traditional woman who can take charge when no man is
present but, as soon as a suitable man appears, she honors him with the role of
setting the household in order. Going even further, Martha may be gently
chiding Jesus because he, after all, is the source of the problem in allowing
Mary to continue to engage in Torah discussion with him and the other men. Here
again, therefore, her expectation is that once he notices the unfair burden
being placed on Martha, Jesus will set things right by promptly put Mary back
“into her rightful place.”
Then
the surprise comes! Jesus takes the side of the woman who has neglected the
requirements of hospitality and neglected to come to the assistance of another
woman in distress. As an astute pastor, he acknowledges that Martha is
“anxious and troubled,” but this does not move him to resolve the
situation by sending Mary (or even a few of the men?) into the kitchen. Rather,
he sets forth a new principle: “Mary has chosen the good/better portion
which shall not be taken from her” (10:42; see also 8:18).
Nowhere in the Gospel accounts do we come across Jesus making general
pronouncements about women: “Women ought to do this. . . . Women ought not
to do that. . . .” Even in the case of the tension between Martha and
Mary, Jesus does not fall into the trap of supposing that he ought to impose
one solution upon all women for all time. Instead, Martha is allowed to
continue, with honor, in the traditional role she has cut out for herself; yet,
she has to learn to do this, at least for the moment, without Mary, her
“sister.” As for Mary, one cannot help but note that Jesus is not
presented as having invited Mary to sit at his feet in the first place.
Luke’s narrative seems to imply that she takes the initiative herself,
otherwise, Martha would have objected that Jesus had invited Mary to learn with
the men and thus withdrawn her from service in the kitchen. Far from making any
general pronouncements regarding women, therefore, Jesus is shown as the one
who waits for women to take the initiative in their own behalf. When they do
so, he then secures their initiative.
If
this narrative offers some insight into the internal affairs of Luke’s
community, it would have to be in the direction of signaling that the men in
charge do not have a pastoral plan which covers all cases and all
contingencies. Part of the “good news” is that women are free to take
the initiative without seeking prior approval from the men who are in charge.
Madonna Kolbenschlag admirably develops this same theme on the basis of
Luke’s portrait of another Mary, that of the mother of Jesus (KISS
SLEEPING BEAUTY GOODBY, pp. 82-88). On the other hand, the Martha and Mary
narrative offers every reason for the men in charge to continue to honor those
women who are quite content with everything as it has been.
Learning is liberating. Once Mary begins to hear Torah for herself “at the
feet of Jesus” and then begins to acquire the art of applying it to her
own life, she establishes herself as a disciple equal with the men. She can
never go back to her former position of trusting that the men in her life
entirely know and understand all those things (which were formerly beyond her
grasp). More importantly, she can never go back to thinking that she need only
to obediently submit to masculine direction to assure herself that she is
entirely in harmony with what God would have her be and have her do. If every
Jewish man gained his independence and his stature before men and before God by
virtue of learning to read and to interpret Torah for himself, why should this
same rule not apply also to women?
The
beauty of this case is that it reflects the current conflict in the church
among women respecting the proper roles to which God is calling them in their
families, in their communities, and in their churches. The wisdom of Jesus is
that he respected the legitimate freedom of choice exercised by both women
without presupposing that he should regulate things in advance. Then, when
faced with the call to reprimand Mary (and those who act like her), he ends up
commending them without dishonoring the traditional roles which Martha (and
those who act like her) regard as sacrosanct. Somewhere here there might be the
main line of a solution for our brothers John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger
who, when asked to mediate, have unfortunately settled for an either-or
solution.
==========Conclusion==========
After
reviewing the tradition surrounding Jesus, one can see how impossible it is to
cast Jesus one-sidedly as an opponent to the ordination of women. If the Gospel
tradition honored Jesus’ practice of addressing the good news of salvation
to women directly using metaphors drawn from their own proper experience, then
it must follow that the contemporary church, to be faithful, must do the same.
If the Gospel tradition honored Jesus as refraining from making general
pronouncements regarding the exclusion of women, then it must follow that the
contemporary church, to be faithful, must be very cautious when it presumes to
do so in the name of Jesus. Furthermore, if the Gospel tradition remembers
Jesus as having openly received the initiatives of women and as having backed
down those men bent upon enforcing social norms, then it must follow that the
contemporary church, to be faithful, must follow the Divine Master by receiving
the contemporary initiative of women. In the end, therefore, when the whole
fabric of the Jesus tradition is reviewed, the CDF document represents a flawed
and partial reading of the inspired and inspiring Gospel which the Church is
bound to safeguard.
The
CDF is correct when it posits the fact that Jesus did not send the women out
two by two to preach, heal, and exorcise with the men. The CDF, however, enters
upon soft ground when it interprets this fact as representing the sovereign
will of the Divine Founder which rises above social and cultural conditioning.
Anyone who takes the time to think about the condition of women at the time of
Jesus would have to admit that the Gospels represent what might be called
“a quiet revolution.” It would have been disastrous pastoral practice
for Jesus to have called some women to join the men he was training and doubly
disastrous to have sent these women out in pairs to do public preaching. Jesus
had to make allowances for the settled instincts of his contemporaries and not
act in ways that would have been roundly condemned as shamefully irresponsible.
What
Jewish father, for instance, could have responsibly given over his daughter to
be a disciple of Jesus when this would have entailed habitual association with
men who were not blood relatives? And what women, even supposing she had
somehow received training in Torah, could have expected to gain a hearing by
addressing Jewish men in the public sphere? For such conduct, women would have
been verbally abused and, if they continued, pelted with rotten fruit. If they
then continued further, they would have been pelted with stones. Such conduct
was entirely unbecoming of a woman in Jesus’ society!
Minimally, therefore, one must allow that even Jesus had to exercise a certain
pastorally motivated restraint. Jesus sought to encourage and defend women who
were themselves inspired to stretch the socially determined and religiously
sanctioned norms of their society. As for the giving women the apostolic
charge, however, this was not a viable option. Today, however, social norms
have changed. Contemporary women are finding their voices and bringing their
divinely ordained gifts into nearly every public profession. It remains a point
of confusion and of pain, therefore, to hear that our brothers, John Paul II
and Cardinal Ratzinger, would so “finalize” their reading of the
Jesus tradition as to forever and one-sidedly offer a stony certainty rather
than the saving bread of God’s Word to those who come to them requesting
that the full range of gifts and the divine callings of women be accepted
inside the Church.
Finally, even if Jesus had said something like, “I permit no woman to be
sent out among the apostles,” even this would not and could not stop
faithful Christians from discussing what God would have us do in our culture
today. Jesus was not bent upon wooden conformity. Hence, even though, according
to Matthew, Jesus restricted the mission of his disciples saying, “Go
nowhere among the Gentiles” (Matt 10:5), even Jesus later “crossed
over,” reluctantly encountered the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21ff), and
ended up healing and feeding Gentiles such that “they glorified the God of
Israel” (Matt 15:31). Another example would be Jesus’ clear
insistence that the disciples on mission “take no gold, nor silver, nor
copper in their belts, no bag for your journey” (Matt 10:6; Mark 6:8-11;
Luke 9:3-5, 10:4-12). Clearly the church never decided that this was an
expression of the completely free and sovereign will of the Divine Founder such
that missionaries and bishops alike must forever travel without any money or
any luggage. Thus the CDF report obfuscates history by passing over in silence
how deep and how wide and how long the pastoral discretion of the church has
been even in those instances where explicit mandates of the Gospels were being
set aside. One has the right to inquire, therefore, how it is that the CDF was
able to arrive at such a great certainty regarding the free and sovereign will
of the Divine Founder respecting an issue wherein not a single word on the lips
of Jesus respecting the exclusion of women is forthcoming.
Looking back, therefore, the CDF report upon which our brothers John Paul II
and Cardinal Ratzinger have taken their stand is admirable in what it does say
about Jesus working against the social prejudices of his day. The report,
however, fails to go far enough or deep enough when it comes to analyzing why
Jesus would have broken some barriers and not others. More importantly, the
report passes over in silence the practice of the Divine Master of honoring and
embracing the experience of women in his teaching and preaching of the
Kingdom—as aspect of Jesus’ ministry which invites reflection and
action by those who would teach and preach the Gospel in his name today.
Finally, the report passes over in silence those occasions when Jesus risked
his own reputation among men by standing up for the powerless and the voiceless
who took initiatives which exceeded the cultural norms in his day. Here again,
this aspect of Jesus’ ministry invites reflection and action on the part
of our brothers, John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, whose whole lives are
dedicated to walking in the footsteps of their Divine Master. Finally, the
report passes over in silence how Jesus sanctioned the initiative of the women
(represented by Mary) who sat down to learn and to discuss Torah among the men.
While Jesus could not transform the settled intuitions which governed the
conduct of men and women within the public sphere, therefore, he did show
himself bent upon accepting and defending the enlarged freedom and
responsibilities which women within his movement had undertaken for themselves.
Thus,
in the end, the very example of Jesus comes alive. And this Jesus challenges
our brothers, John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, to reflect on how poorly
they have entered into the heart and will of the Divine Founder. So too, the
Marthas in our Church must also reflect whether they can be satisfied that the
Lord’s will has been done when their modern-day sisters who have
presumptuously “sat at the Lord’s feet” (Luke 10:39) are
returned “in the name of Jesus” to work in the kitchen.
John Wijngaards
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!