 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
Rome says that a priest should be a man because of the symbolism by
which Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church his Bride.
“The Church is Christ’s bride, whom he loves because he has gained
her by his blood and made her glorious, holy and without blemish, and
henceforth he is inseparable from her. This nuptial theme, which is developed
from the Letters of Saint Paul onwards (cf. 2 Cor. 11 :2, Eph. 5 :22-23) to the
writings of Saint John (cf. especially Jn 3:29, Rev. 19:7, 9), is present also
in the Synoptic Gospels . . . . That is why we can never ignore the fact that
Christ is a man. And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of
this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in
actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself,
the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is
represented, exercising his ministry of salvation-which is in the highest
degree the case of the Eucharist-his role (this is the original sense of the
word persona) must be taken by a man.” Inter Insigniores § 30-31.
The symbolism of God in the Old Testament and of Christ in the New, as
Bridegroom, belongs basically to a Jewish cultural context. It is only a way of
speaking. Scripture itself transcends male symbolism in more than one case. The
Bible stresses that there are feminine aspects to God's compassion. God's
everlasting fidelity is compared to the never-forgetting love of a mother for
her children (Isaiah 49,15). Christ is spoken of as being tender (Hebrews 5, 2)
and anxious as a hen wanting to protect her chickens (Matthew 23, 37). Even
Paul speaks of himself as a mother (1 Thessalonians 2, 7; Galatians 4, 19).
However, there are three specific reasons for which this symbolism of
Bridegroom and Bride does not exclude women priests.
- In Scripture the symbolism of Bridegroom and Bride
is never extended to the priesthood of Christ.
- The symbolism of the Bridegroom's feast is hinted
at in the eucharistic liturgy, but the overriding symbolism is of Christ as the
Mediator of salvation.
- The symbolism of Bride and Bridegroom is itself
ambivalent. Every Christian represents both the Bride and the Groom
In Scripture the symbolism of
Bridegroom and Bride is never extended to the priesthood of Christ
“Both Inter Insigniores and its commentary call attention to those
texts in which Christ is related to the Church as bridegroom to bride. The
Declaration then goes on to make a theological extension of this image not
found in the New Testament: the priest represents Christ the groom and
therefore must be male. In the New Testament the image is used only of Christ
and the Church, and never extended into the area of ministry.”
John R. Donahue, ‘A Tale of Two Documents’, in Women
Priests, by L. and A. Swidler, Paulist Press, New York 1977, pp. 25-36; see
also J. R. Donahue, “Women, Priesthood and the Vatican,” America,
Vol. 136 (April 2 1977), pp. 286-287. John R. Donahue, SJ is Associate
Professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt Divinity School and the author of
Are You the Christ? Thc Trial of Jesus in thc Gospel of Mark. He has
been a member of the Executive Board of the Catholic Biblical Association and
is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biblical
Literature.
The symbolism of the Bridegroom's feast
is hinted at in the eucharistic liturgy, but the overriding symbolism is of
Christ
Before Holy Communion, the priest may invite the faithful to come
forward with the formula: ‘This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins
of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.’
The allusion here is to John 1,29 (the lamb who takes away the sins of
the world) and to the exclamation: ‘Happy are those who are invited to the
marriage supper of the Lamb’ (Revelation 19,9). This meal, at which Jesus
himself is the paterfamilias, is the eschatological fulfilment of heaven.
Nuptial imagery, depicting the covenant relationship between himself and the
community, is thus being introduced. There is an undeniable link to the
Eucharistic meal.
However, such allusions to Bridegroom imagery are of secondary
importance, as David Coffey points out.
“It should first be pointed out that the invitation formula just
given only dates from the time of the post-Vatican II reform, and that its text
only has the status of an option. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal
only requires that the priest invite the faithful "to participate in the
meal... using words from the gospel".(§43) But there are weightier
considerations also.”
“In the liturgy the priest represents Christ as head of the
mystical body. Apart from the fact that this is solidly attested by the
magisterium, it is the necessary link between the priest’s representation
of the church and his representation of Christ, as we have also shown. I now
wish to make the point that insofar as he represents the one person, Christ,
under one particular symbol, it is not possible for the priest simultaneously
to represent him under another symbol. It is not possible, therefore, for him
simultaneously to represent Christ as head of the mystical body and as
bridegroom of the church. Admittedly, allusion is sometimes made to this
second symbol in the liturgy, but the representation remains consistent,
namely, of Christ as head. Admittedly, this allusion is more telling when made
by a man, but it could also be made by a woman.”
David Coffey, ‘Priestly Representation and Women’s
Ordination’, in Priesthood. The Hard Questions ed. Gerald P.
Gleeson, Columba, Dublin 1993, pp. 79-99; here p. 96.
The symbolism of Bride and Bridegroom
is itself ambivalent. Every Christian represents both the Bride and the
Groom
“An everlasting proxy marriage is perhaps not the ideal
relationship between Christ and the Christian. Christ is primarily present in
the Church, and the Church is us—we are ‘other Christs’, we are
Christ in the world. This is part of the priestly nature of the whole people of
the Church, that we mediate Christ to the world. While we are Christs, this
ministerial priesthood which is composed of ‘representatives of
Christ’ is also composed of individuals who like ourselves are members of
the Church. That is, they are members of the bride, the Church, which is
feminine, at the same time as they are Christ, masculine, the bridegroom. But
they cannot be said to be both bride and groom, both masculine and feminine,
out of their very nature.”
“We can only overcome this if we say that there are two ways of
looking at an individual member of the ministerial priesthood, as a priest in
which he has certain functions which are related to the person of Christ, and
as a member of the Church in which he is a Christian like ourselves. That is,
at one time he is symbolically masculine, at the same time symbolically
feminine, and neither symbolic position is affected or falsified by his
biological role. In other words, if a man can be a member of the Church,
symbolically feminine, then a woman can be a member of the ministerial
priesthood, symbolically masculine.”
Paul Lakeland, Can Women be
Priests?, Mercier Press, Dublin 1975, pp. 64-65; see also his
Theology and Critical Theory: The Discourse of the Church, Abingdon,
Nashville 1990.
Conclusion
The symbolism of Christ who relates to the Church as a Bridegroom to
his Bride does not invalidate the representation of Christ at the Eucharist by
a woman priest.
Read: Can Men be
Ordained?, by Rosemary Radford Ruether
John Wijngaards
Follow @JohnWijngaards
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!