 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Eric Doyle
from The Clergy ReviewVol. LVI
November 1971.
Republished on our website with the necessary
permission
0ver
the last fifty years women have taken an ever greater and more active part in
public life and administration at both the national and the international
levels. A few years ago it was calculated that some fifty per cent of the women
of this country had accepted and espoused what is called “the feminine
revolution”. The anniversary of the emancipation of women celebrated in
1968 saw the cause of women’s equality much advanced since Mrs
Pankhurst’s days and indeed so much so, that the movement for the equality
of women is counted among the signs of the times. As a result of the movement
it was to be expected that sooner or later speculation would begin about the
possibility of women priests. During the past few years the question of women
and holy orders has received close attention and quite an amount of publicity.
This
is an important question which cannot be brushed aside as no more than an
esoteric pursuit of a few cranks. Its merits consideration not only because of
the seriousness with which it has been discussed and presented,(1) but also, so
it seems to us, because of a theological issue which is intimately connected
with it that, namely, of the source of the feminine in God. Arguments and
evidence arising from sociological, psychological, anthropological and
historical studies are, of course, of profound significance here because of the
theological implications they may carry. However, the theological question of
the source of the feminine in God is also relevant to the question of women and
holy orders, insofar as it constitutes the starting point for a theology of
womanhood. In the following pages we shall examine whether there are reasons
for asserting that the feminine has its source in God, the Primal Origin of all
things. If there are reasons, then these will serve to remind us of the
essential equality of the sexes before God and, above all, will safeguard us
from rhapsodizing woman away under those lovely but often doubtfully applied
attributes: receptivity and passivity.
Jung and the Assumption
It is
well known that Jung considered the definition of the dogma of the Assumption
to be the most important religious event since the Reformation.(2) In a most
interesting and now famous argument based on his lifelong investigations into
the psychology of religion, he demonstrated how congenial the definition was to
the psychological mind. The following quotation may be taken as a fair summary
of his argument:
The
method which the Pope uses in order to demonstrate the truth of the dogma makes
sense to the psychological mind, because it bases itself firstly on the
necessary prefigurations, and secondly on a tradition of religious assertions
reaching back for more than a thousand years.(3)
There
is much in the argument that is very welcome from a Roman Catholic’s point
of view, especially that it serves to illustrate how revelation dovetails with
our natural aspirations. Moreover, the theological significance of Jung’s
reasoning cannot be ignored in ecumenical dialogue on the place of Mary in the
Church. There are, however, two passages in the chapter which leave one with a
feeling of uneasiness. The first appears early in the chapter:
One
could have known for a long time that there was a deep longing in the masses
for an intercessor and mediatrix who would at last take her place alongside the
Holy Trinity and be received as the “Queen of Heaven and Bride at the
heavenly court”.(4)
The
second is one of the many passages in which Jung expresses, severe criticism of
Protestantism:
The
logic of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed, and it leaves Protestantism
with the odium of being nothing more but a man’s religion which
allows no metaphysical representation woman. In this respect it is similar to
Mithraism, and Mithraisim found this prejudice very much to its detriment.
Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the signs of the
times which point to the equality of women. But this equality requires to be
metaphysically anchored in the figure of "divine" woman, the bride of Christ.
Just as the person of Christ cannot be replaced by an organization, so the
bride cannot, be replaced by the Church. The feminine, like the masculine
demands an equally personal representation. (5)
The
feeling of uneasiness arises most of all at the words in first quotation:
“who would at last take her place alongside Holy Trinity” and, in the
second quotation, at the reference to “the figure of a ‘divine’
woman” and at the statement: “The feminine, like the masculine,
demands an equally personal presentation”, which makes Mary the
personalized feminine just as Christ is the personalized masculine. Jung does
point out, of course, that the doctrine of the Assumption according to the
dogmatic view does not mean that Mary has attained A status of a goddess.
Nevertheless, he adds: “as mistress, heaven . . . and mediatrix, she is
functionally on a par Christ, the king and mediator (6) One concludes here that
Mary is being exalted to the position of “divine” woman and Mary
personalized feminine alongside the Trinity, by way of compensation. for an
over-masculinized Godhead. It would seem, however, that the equality of women
is not radically enhanced in the present context by being metaphysically
anchored in the figure of a "divine" woman in the person of Mary. To be taken
really seriously from the religious point of view, the equality of women
requires to be anchored in God. However intelligible it may be on the
psychological side to assert that Mary is functionally on a par with Christ, it
appears to be theologically unacceptable and ultimately psychologically
unsatisfactory, precisely because Mary is not divine: “For no creature
could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.”(7)
Furthermore, the titles “Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. .
. are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to
the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator”.(8) What has been
said here of Jung’s statements about the Assumption applies also to the
remarks of Teilhard de Chardin to Père Leroy in 1950: “I am too
conscious of the biopsychological necessity of the ‘Marian’ (to
counterbalance the ‘masculinity’ of Yahweh) not to feel the profound
need of this gesture.”(9) He Was speaking here of the definition of the
Assumption.
At a
pivotal point in the history of God’s dealings with mankind stands the
woman Mary and she is a Mother. When we turn to contemplate her place in the
mystery of divine economy, we must be clear in our minds that we turn our gaze
on her in faith, which is God’s gracious gift to us. Without faith guiding
all the while, Mary becomes just another woman on whom we hardly need look
twice. But in faith we realize precisely what she is: just a woman. In the
Christian faith that is fundamental about Mary. Faith protects us from the
blasphemous absurdity of ranking her with the Godhead. Her place, in the
mystery of God’s plan is precisely and formally as a woman-the holiest,
the most feminine, the most womanly woman, but only a woman and creature of
God. To grasp this through the light of faith prepares the ground for a more
thorough understanding of her role in God’s designs as Type and Image of
the Church. The Council’s emphasis on Mary as Type of the Church,
crysatallizing modern mariological insights, has had the result of bringing our
Lady closer to us than ever before. Her womanhood, her
being-a-woman-in-the-world, has to be stressed in order to avoid the danger of
transforming her into a “divine” woman to counterbalance the
exclusively masculine Trinity: If there is a lack of balance in our imagery,
conceptualizations and categorizing of God, it is surely most unsatisfactory to
seek to redress the balance by mariology, precisely because this evades the
point at issue.
That
a woman stood at the most crucial point in salvation history, that her
fiat belongs to official, public, saving history in the economy of God,
that she is depicted by the most venerable and ancient Christian writers as
Archetype of the Church - all all this provides weighty grounds for inquiring
into the question of whether Mary, as a woman who is a mother, reveals an
aspect of God’s life and nature; that is to say, whether womanhood and
motherhood have their source in God.
On
the occasion of the definition of the Assumption, Fr Victor White, O.P., wrote:
“Perhaps it [the definition] will lead the Church to closer consideration
and ultimate formulation of the deep mystery of the ‘Motherhood of
God’. For by the Assumption Mary returns to her own eternal source, and
not she, but God himself is the ultimate prototype of Motherhood,
womanhood-even materiality . . . . As Christ, ascending to heaven leads the way
to God our Eternal Father, perhaps Mary, assumed into heaven, will lead us to a
deeper knowledge and love of God, our Eternal Mother.”(10) Mary’s
significance is therefore, that she makes us look beyond herself for the source
of what she is by nature and grace.
The Mystery of God and the Image of God
In
the Scriptures God is referred to as “He” and not “She”.
The heart of the Christian mystery is that God became a man, not that God
became a woman. The Eternal Logos became a member of our race in the male sex.
Jesus Christ revealed to us that God is Father, his Father and our Father, not
that God is Mother. It is from God the Father that all fatherhood in heaven and
on earth is named. Moreover, it is the Son who proceeds from the Father from
all eternity, so that we must profess God the Son, not God the Daughter. When
Christ promised the Advocate, “the Spirit of truth who issues from the
Father”, it is He, we say, not She, who will be Christ’s witness; it
is He who will show the world how wrong it was about sin and about who was in
the right and about judgement.(11)
The
Scriptures tell us that God dwells in light inaccessible. As the invisible,
indescribable, ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery, God is beyond every
category, every word and every thought. He is, in fact, above all we can affirm
or deny of him. .To God belongs super-essential existence, and he is of
superdivine divinity.(12) Yet in our obviously necessary “God-talk”
we ässert that God is Pure Spirit. This must be understood as
differentiating God not only from matter but also from all finite spirit,
angelic or human. In reality God is no “closer” to finite, limited
spirit than he is to matter.(13) Whatever definition we would ultimately give
to “Pure Spirit”, it would be agreed that it is intended to exclude
sex from God. God is neither male nor female. Consequently, the terms
“Father” and “Son” indicate that the perfections of
fatherhood and sonship are to be found ‘pre-eminently in God. Fr McKenzie
draws attention to the fact that for the Jews God is masculine: “We have
already noticed that in the Mesopotamian myths sex was as primeval as nature
itself. The Hebrews could not accept this view for there was no sex in the God
they worshipped. God is, of course, masculine, but not in the sense of sexual
distinction.”(14) While we can readily understand the reasons why the
Hebrews considered God masculine, nevertheless, given the understanding of Pure
Spirit in theology, can God be said to be masculine any more than feminine? If
we may rightly refer to the Primordial Mystery as “He”, is it so
unthinkable to say “She”? Would it not be as true to say: “God
is, of course, feminine, but not in the sense of sexual distinction”? Such
a designation of God may well be emotionally unacceptable,but but this does not
necessarily render it theologically unsound.
When
we reflect on the image of God in man and woman there is no intention here of
playing down the psychic and, social importance of sexual difference. Man and
woman are different both physically (much wider than reproductive organs:
blood, skeletal structure, etc.) and psychologically. Nevertheless, it has to
be remembered that there is a real complementarity between them based on
equality.
The
creation of mankind in the book of Genesis is introduced with great solemnity:
“Let us make man.” Man appears as the crown and purpose of the whole
created order:
God
created man (‘ãdãm) in the image of himself, in the image of
himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.
(I:27).
In
his commentary on this text G. von Rad writes:
Sexual distinction is also created. The plural in V. 27 (“he created
them”) is intentionally contrasted with the singular, (“him”)
and prevents one from assuming the creation of an originally androgynous man
.... The idea of man according to. P, finds its full meaning not in the male
alone but in man and woman. (15)
Mankind is created in the image of God and mankind is male, and female. The
image of God cannot be restricted to man’s spiritual nature exclusively
because “soul” does not define what we mean when we say
“man”. It would be much nearer, the truth to describe man as
“spatter” or “mirit”, “spody” or"boul". G. von
Rad notes that “the marvel of man’s bodily appearance is not at all
to be excepted from the realm of God’s image’.(16) Man is not a
spirit-in-a-body, nor a soul-encaged-in-flesh, but a unity, a real unity, that
is at once material and spiritual. God created mankind in the divine image. The
masculine and the feminine only together express fully what is human, what is
mankind. Consequently, both trace back their origin to the image of God. Man as
masculine is created in God’s image and God is the source of what is
precisely masculine; woman as feminine is created in God’s image and God
is the source of what is precisely feminine. Sexuality is an essential part of
what it is to be human, whether man or woman; thus, the two sexes contain the
image of God, since man and woman constitute what is human in its complete
sense.
Jung
assures us that in every man there is a complementary feminine element and in
every woman a complementary masculine element. These he calls anima and
animus respectively In man animus predominates, but there is also
anima; in woman anima predominates, but there is also
animus. (17). Each of the sexes, there; fore, possesses qualities and
elements which are characteristic of the other. Mankind as realized in man and
woman, created in the image of God, allows us again to trace back to God the
source of what is masculine and the source of what is feminine.
It is
no disrespect, but an honour surely, to insist that there was and remains this
complementary feminine element in Jesus Christ. Jung tells us that “a
collective image of woman exists in a man’s unconsciousness with the help
of which he apprehends the nature of woman”.(18) It is, however, only
woman in general that man apprehends in this way, because the collective image
is an archetype. This image only becomes conscious and tangible through actual
contacts with woman that a man makes during his life. The first and most
important experience comes to him through his mother and is the most powerful
in shaping him.(19) This provides food for thought on the vital role our Lady
played in this respect in the life and formation of Jesus Christ. It was
through his relationship with Mary his Mother that our Lord was able to have
such mature friendships with Martha and Mary and with the other women mentioned
in the Gospel of St Luke.
When
we begin to contemplate the Word of Revelation we put ourselves in the presence
of the God of our faith. That is to say, we unite ourselves with the God of
undiscoverable majesty ,’ who has willed in infinite wisdom and love to
reveal his inner life to mankind through Jesus Christ. We are not therefore
concerned with the arguments which philosophy furnishes to establish the
existence of a Supreme Being or First Cause of the universe. Admiration and
gratitude are surely born in us when we consider the achievements, for example,
of the Greek philosophers who have demonstrated to us the powers and the
openeness of the human mind. Perhaps the longings and strivings of Plato and
Aristotle are in us all when we meditate on the holy mystery of the Gospel.
Nevertheless, the God of philosophy is an impersonal-personal God. We do not
wish to undermine the importance of reason’s search for meaning in
creation. Man is compelled by the very laws of his mind to seek out an
explanation of being-in-space-and-time and thus to discover the Ground and
Reason of all that is. However, the knowledge of God which reason discovers
does not satisfy because the mind and heart cannot rest in what has been
discovered. The knowledge which human reason arrives at in virtue of its own
powers does not bring beatitude.
The
God of light inaccessible has been revealed to us in the blinding light of
faith. Jesus Christ reveals to us new knowledge of God and new knowledge of
man. What is made known to us, in revelation about God brings us knowledge of
man and what is revealed about man gives us knowledge of God. This is the,
reason why every authentic anthropology must, in fact, be Christology and why
theology must always take Christ as its starting point. Had we been left to
ourselves, we should have known only the “impersonal” God of Nature
and the cold Prime Mover of philosophy. We should never have known that
“begetting and birth, fatherhood and sonship are realities existing in
him”.(20) Through God’s gracious mercy we profess in the Creed our
belief “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of
the Father before time began". This formula of the Creed brings to mind the
texts of Proverbs 8:24 and Psalm 109:3, which are interpreted by the Fathers of
the Church and theologians as applying to the Eternal Logos. We profess,
therefore, that the only-begotten Son is born of the Father. The Athanasian
Creed warns us that we may not say of the Son factus or creates;
the Son is genitus of the Father. Our knowledge and experience in
this world, however, know only, of birth from woman. Yet the Creed is emphatic:
the Son is born of the Father. This is, of course, an analogy and analogy is
proportion, similarity, a process of reasoning from parallel cases; it is based
on like and unlike in the comparison. Now since God is the pre-eminent source
of all perfections in the created order, he must be the source of motherhood,
the supreme feminine perfection. One might feel a little reluctant in stating
this, were it not for a very instructive reflexion on the Motherhood of God by
Clement of Alexandria in the Quis dives salvetur. die actually says God
became a woman in the divine life itself through the eternal generation of the
Son:
God
is himself Love, and it is because of love that we pursue him. In his ineffable
majesty he is our Father, but in the comfort ‘ he extends to us he has
become our mother. Yes, the Father in his love became a woman, and the Son whom
he brought forth from himself is strong proof of
this.(21)
The
eternal birth of the Son from the Father makes God the the Eternal Mother.
According to Donald Nicholl St Ephraem the Syrian (c. 306-373) refers to the
Holy Spirit as “Mother in God”, the “eternal woman in
God”.(22)
The
Motherhood of God is a theme familiar in Western spirituality. St Anselm, for
example, addresses Jesus as mother: “Sed et to lesu, bone domine, nonne
et to mater? An non est mater, qui tamguam gallina congregat sub alas pullos
suos? Vere, domine, et tu mater.”(23) But, beyond doubt, this theme
has its best known and most beautiful expression in the Revelations of
Julian of Norwich: Speaking of the divine operations in every soul, she writes:
And
thus in our making, God, Almighty, is our kindly Father; and God, All-Wisdom,
is our kindly Mother; with the Love and the Goodness of the Holy Ghost:
which is all one God, one Lord. (24)
The
Trinity possesses three properties: Fatherhood, Motherhood and Lordhood.(25)
Motherhood is attributed specifically to the Second Person who is our Mother in
nature and grace:
and
the second Person of the Trinity is our Mother in kind, in making of our
Substance, in whom we are grounded and rooted And he is our Mother in Mercy, in
our Sensuality taking. Arid thus our Mother is to us in diverse manners
working: in whom our parts are kept undisparted.(26)
What
is most attractive in these pages of the Lady Julians Revelations is the
unaffected way in which she attributes feminine qualities to God. It is surely
to God our Mother that we trace back that loving concern of the All-Merciful
Lord for each one of us, as we strive in this world to reach the holiness to
which we have been called from all eternity.
Concluding Remarks
Any
attempt to establish a theology of femininity must take its origin from God.
Womanhood and motherhood, it would seem, do have their eternal source in the
Triune God. Our Lady, .. therefore, in her Assumption, must be said to return
to the Primal Origin of her own womanhood and motherhood in God. Now, if we can
take seriously that God is the source of femininity, then it is legitimate to
ask what is the theological reason behind,:. the assertion of Canon 968,
par. I of the Code of Canon Law:
Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus? Fr Francis
Sola, S.J., holds that the proposition: Femina est incapax sacrantenti
ordinis seems to be doctrina de fide catholica. (27) A. Tanquerey
maintains it is iure divino that only men can validly receive
orders.(28) We cannot, of course, ignore that St Irenaeus, St Epiphauius and St
Augustine considered the Pepuzians, the Marcosians and the Collyridians as
heretics for having women bishops and priests. However, is this reaction not to
be explained by the somewhat over-literal and too restrictive exegesis of
certain texts in Scripture, especially Genesis 2-3 and some passages in the
Pauline corpus: I Cor. I I :3-76, 14:34-5, I Tim. 2: 12? In any case it is
clear that the question cannot be decided merely by the repetition of texts
from Scripture. Given the present state of exegesis, there would seem to be no
textual argument from Scripture against the ordination of women. It is at least
open to discussion that only men by divine law can receive sacred orders.
Finally, since there are some grounds for tracing back womanhood and motherhood
to God, it would seem desirable and fitting that these aspects of the divine
life be manifested in the priestly ministry of the Church. As a preparation for
this and by way of experiment, subject to the approval of the Church, serious
consideration should be given to introducing altar girls without distinction
and to ordaining nuns so willing, to the diaconate, especially in boarding
schools, who could preach, give spiritual direction and distribute holy
communion.
St
Mary’s Friary
East Bergholt
Colchester
Essex
Footnotes
1 See
for example: Sister Vincent Emmanuel Hannon, The Question of Women and the
Priesthood. Can Women be admitted to Holy Orders? Chapman, London, 1967.
Women in Holy Orders. Being the Report of a Commission appointed by tlu
Archbishop Canterbury and York (Church Information Office, London, 1966)
2 C.
G. Jung, Answer to Job (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1954),
pp.165-78, especially pp. 169 ff.
3
Ibid. p. 170.
4
Ibid. p. 166.
5
Ibid. pp. 170-1.
6.
Ibid. p. 171.
7
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican
Council inThe Documents of Vatican II, edited by Walter M. Abbott, S.J.
(Chapman, Dublin 1966), par. 62, p. 92.
8
Ibid. par. 62, pp. 91-2.
9
Quoted in Henri de Lubac, S.J., The Eternal Feminine (Collins, London,
1971) p.125. Cf. also p. 235. Teilhard speaks of “the need to correct
‘a dreadfully masculinized conception of the Godhead’ ”, cf.
ibid. p. 126.
10
“The Scandal of the Assumption”, in Life of the Spirit, vol.
V, 1950, nn. 53-54, pp. 211-12.
11
John 16: 8-9.
12
Pseudo-Dionysius De divinis nominibus, c. ii, 4, PG 3, col. 641; cf.
also c. I, Ibid. col. 588, c. i, 6, ibid. col. 596
13 See
Karl Rahner, Hominisation. The Evolutionary Origin of Man as a Theological
Problem (Herder Freiburg, Burns & Oates, London 1965), pp. 50-2.
14
The Two-Edged Sword. An Interpretation of the Old Testament (Chapman,
London, 1955) pp. 93-4
15
Genesis-A Commentary. Translated by J. H. Marks (S.C.M Press Ltd.,
1961), p. 58.
16
Ibid. p. 56.
17
See Frieda Fordham, An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology (Penguin Books,
1964), pp.52-8.
18
Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Translated by R. F. G. Hull
(Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1953) P. 188.
19
Fordham, An Introduction, 52-3.
20
Yves Congar, The Revelation of God (London and New York, 1968), p. 84.
21 PG
g, col. 641-44, quoted and translated in The Way, April 1964, vol. 4, no
2, p..146.
22
Recent Thought in Focus (Sheed and Ward 1952), p. 90.
23
S Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia vol. I I I . Ad fidem
Codicum recensuit Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, Monachus Grissoviensis o.s.b.
(Apud Thomam Nelson et Filios Edinburgi MDCCCCXLVI), Oratio10, pp. 40-1;
PL 158, Oratio LXV, col. 982.
24
Revelations of Divine Love. Edited from the MSS. by Dom Roger Hudleston,
monk of Downside Abbey (Burns Oates, London, 1952), chap. 58, p. 119.
25
Ibid. p. 119
26
Ibid. p. 120
27
Sacrae Theologiae Summa IV, De Sacramentis. De Novissiinis (Bibliotheca
de Autores Cristianos, Matriti, MCMLVI), p. 701
28
Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae. Tomus Tertius, editio vigesima sexta
(Desclee et Socii, 1950), pp. 735-6.
Other Important Readings by and about Eric Doyle OFM
- Brenda Abbott, What is
the Lasting Significance of Eric Doyle's Contribution to the Debate on the
Ordination of Women in the 1970s?
- Eric Doyle OFM, His work in the context of
Church Politics
- Eric Doyle OFM, The Ordination of Women: The
State of the Question in the Roman Catholic Church, 1975 (paper
submitted to ACICC work group at Assisi).
- Eric Doyle OFM, The
Question of Women Priests and the argument In Persona
Christi, Irish Theological Quarterly, 50 (1983 - 84)
pp. 212-221.
- Eric Doyle OFM, The
Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church, in Feminine
in the Church Chapter Two, London 1984.
- Page of
Honour for Eric Doyle OFM
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!