 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
By stressing the male sex as such an essential characteristic of the
priesthood, is Rome not undervaluing the priesthood of Christ? What are the
features described by Scripture itself as pre-eminent in signifying Christ's
presence? If we go by the qualifications seen in Jesus, the high priest, we
find the following to be of paramount importance in his priesthood:
- to be called by God (Heb 5, 4);
- having suffered himself, to be able to help those who are tempted
(Heb 5, 1-2);
- to be able to sympathise with people's weaknesses (Heb 4, 14-16); and
- to be able to deal gently with the ignorant and the wayward (Heb 5,
1-10).
This is quite different from requiring that he be a (male!) descendant
of Aaron. It is indeed a new priesthood ruled by its own law (Heb 7, 11-12).
Listening to Christ himself we hear him stress love as the sign he
requires.
- By laying down his life for his friends, Christ proved his love (John
15, 12-13).
- It is by such love that the true shepherd is distinguished from the
hireling (John 10, 11-15).
- Readiness to serve, not the power to dominate, makes one to be like
Christ (Matthew 20, 24-28).
- Not in presiding at table alone but in washing people's feet is the
Master recognised (John 13, 12-16).
One should note that we are not dealing here with love as a mere moral
requirement but with an element that has sign value. 'By this love you
have for one another, everyone will know that you are my disciples' (John 13,
35). Although elsewhere Christ spoke of love as a commandment, he is here
addressing the apostles on the very occasion he is ordaining them as his
priests. His 'Do this in memory of Me' presupposes pastoral love as the special
sign by which his disciples should be recognised. It is such love he demands
from Peter before entrusting him with the apostolic commission (John 21,
15-17).
Such considerations do not directly prove that women could be ordained
priests. They demonstrate, however, that Scripture itself lays stress on values
such as sympathy, service and love rather than on accidentals like being a man,
even on the level of the sacramental sign.
Would we not be nearer to Christ's mind when we stipulate that a woman
filled with the spirit of Christ's pastoral love is a more 'fitting' image of
his presence than a man who were to lack such love?
“ It must be apparent that there are quite a number
of facts about Jesus. To be sure, he was male. He also had a certain complexion
and a certain stature. He was Jewish. He belonged to a certain economic class.
He was of a certain blood-type. Are we then to suppose that each of these
characteristics must be ‘imaged’ in every presbyter or bishop whom
the Church ordains? Presumably not. In that case, however, there must be some
reason why one (or more) of these characteristics of Jesus is essential in a
minister, and the others, not. The mere fact that Jesus was a male settles
nothing. The question - to repeat it -is that of the significance of this or
that characteristic of Jesus . . .”
“Questions of significance, however, must be
answered within a specified frame of reference. One must ask,
‘Significance for what?’ And this is the point at which the
crucial issue arises. When the Church speaks - in proclamation, in praise, in
theology - about Jesus, what in fact is the focal concern which defines
its interest in him? With reference to what question do statements about Jesus
appear as relevant or irrelevant, significant or unimportant? Now the answer to
this query seems clear enough. Indeed, by implication at least, it has already
been given in this paper. The Church is interested in Jesus as the Christ -
christologically. It is interested in him as the one in whom the right
relation of humanity to God is, by God’s initiative, effected. To put the
matter simply, the Church, unlike the historian, the would-be portraitist, the
biographer, or the psychiatrist, is not interested as such in Jesuology, but in
Christology, in Jesus as the bearer of God’s salvation. When, therefore,
the question of the significance of Jesus’ maleness arises,
‘significance’ means ‘importance in and for the salvific work of
God in Christ’. ”
R.A.Norris, ‘The Ordination of Women and the Maleness of
the Christ’, in Feminine in the Church, ed. by Monica Furlong,
SPCK, London 1984, pp. 71-85; here p. 75.
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!