 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
The Non-ordination of Women:
Tradition or Simply an Historical Fact?
Hervé Legrand
Worship 65 (November, 1991):
482-508.
Herve Legrand, a French Dominican, teaches theology at
the Insitut Catholique in Paris. Translated from the French original, this
article was originally published in Rituels: Melanges offerts au Pere Gy
O.P. (Paris: Cerf 1990) 393-416.
The
Catholic Church has never ordained women either to the priesthood or to the
episcopacy. No one would contest that. But what degree of theological weight
should we give to such a fact? In other words, does the unchanged custom of the
church since apostolic times until the present constitute “Tradition”
in the strong sense of the word and, therefore, the revelation of the will of
God for the church?
If it
were possible to identify the history of the church with Tradition, our
response should be yes. But everyone knows that such an identification is
opposed to the teaching of the church which says that revelation closed with
the death of the last apostle.(1) The non-ordination of women is part of the
Tradition only if such a tradition has a foundation in Scripture itself or, at
least, in the apostolic period. One must be able to connect it to the will of
Christ which would be known, at the very least, by these two means.(2) Further
investigation is required of the Catholic theologian. The teaching of the
church has not yet settled this question in a definitive manner. We will
establish this in the first part of this essay.
Having settled the question of whether or not an authoritative teaching of the
church exists, we will consider the question of the ordination of women to the
pastoral office. By pastoral office, we understand both the presbyterate and
the episcopate. Even though it is important, we will not consider the
ordination of women to the diaconate. And this for two reasons. First, such an
ordination remains an open question in the Catholic Church, as is recognized in
the commentary on Inter Insigniores, drafted at the request of the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Second, because it is obviously the
opening of the pastoral office to women which is the cause of growing
disagreement. Therefore, this question must be discussed first.
The
terms of the debate, already familiar in theological circles, entail, it seems,
the following essential points which will also serve as sections for this
essay:
*
Does the practice of Jesus and of the apostolic church contain indications
excluding women from exercising the pastoral office?
*
Supposing that Christ made no pronouncements on the matter: can we glean from
Scripture an anthropology of women and of men which would indicate that women
could not exercise the pastoral office without betraying the order of creation
and, therefore, that God-given vocation which is proper to them?
*
Finally, according to the apostolic Tradition, is there a theological content
to the pastoral office which, if exercised by women, would make vain its
fundamental meaning?
It is
not only the pressure coming from the ecumenical dialogue which should impel
the Catholic theologian to take up these questions, but the discussion which is
taking place in his or her own church. Obviously, whatever one’s
particular religious affiliation, a theologian, even a specialist, cannot
possibly master every discipline or, even less, the necessary data, to clarify
such a broad debate. Not only must one have recourse to exegesis, fundamental
theology and systematic theology, but to the broad range of human sciences (all
aspects of history, sociology, psychology,(3) and so on) as well. Intellectual
integrity forces me to admit my own limitations. It also obliges me to limit
myself to a part of the debate: that of raising some methodological questions
in the hope of seeing more clearly how the question is to be asked and by what
criteria our answers should correspond.
Current Catholic Teaching on the Ordination of Women to the Pastoral Office and
its Degree of authority
Since
the beginning of the 1970’s, church authorities were lead to confirm the
custom of not ordaining women to the pastoral office and to reaffirm the merits
of such a custom. This was done indirectly in the Apostolic Letter
Ministeria Quaedam of 15 August which suppressed the minor orders and
established the ministries of lector and acolyte for future clerics.(4) While
these ministries were also open to laymen, laywomen were explicitly forbidden
to receive them. However, Catholic women often exercised, in fact, the ministry
of lector at Sunday Masses, and continue to do so. We should see in this fact
that, until now, the Holy See does not want to encourage the admission of women
to any kind of liturgical office whatever. The publication in 1976 of The
Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial
Priesthood by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith represents, on
the other hand, a direct stand on the question: the first time in history that
this was done in such an explicit manner.(5) This document remains the document
of reference. Indeed, canon lO24 of the new Code of Canon Law which has
appeared since then, has done nothing more than repeat, literally, canon 968 #1
of the code of 1917. In his letter to Archbishop Runcie (20 December 1984),
Pope John Paul II refers briefly to Inter Insigniores .(6) Again, in his
Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1 October 1988) in which he
mentions only in passing the ordination of women, the pope gives “an
explanation which confirms the declaration Inter Insigniores” by a
brief remark made at the end of no.16 on the subject of the priest acting in
persona Christi (7)
Futhermore Cardinal Willebrands, in his letter to Archbishop Runcie of 17
February 1986, also makes reference to Inter Insigniores; hence one can
certainly conclude that no Catholic theologian can ignore it. For our purpose,
it is especially important to make clear the doctrinal content of this
declaration and the degree of canonical authority of its teaching.
Doctrinal Authority of Inter Insignores.(8)
The
first aim of the declaration is to confirm the existing norm: “The church,
faithful to the example of her Lord, does not consider itself authorized to
admit women to orders and considers it appropriate to explain the reasons for
this decision” (I. I., Intr.).
To
lay the foundation of this norm, the congregation bases itself on arguments of
differing value. The first is that “the church has never admitted that
women could validly be ordained either to the presbyterate or to the
episcopacy” (I. I., 1); “this has been the universal practice both in
the Western Church and in the Eastern Church” (I. I., 4). Even if in the
area of sacraments, one does not deny the church “the power to prescribe
or modify whatever would be most suitable for different times and different
places” (1. I., 4), “in the final analysis, it is the church,
speaking through the magisterium, which, in a variety of circumstances,
discerns between what can change and what must remain immutable” (ibid.).
In the case in point, “this practice of the church carries with it a
normative character . . . this norm, relying on the example of Christ, is
followed because it is considered as conforming to the design of God for his
Church” (ibid.).
How
is such a judgment arrived at? The declaration recognizes that “whatever
can be said (concerning Christ’s attitude) does not provide us with direct
evidence . . . because exegesis of a purely historical kind is not
sufficient” (I. I., 2).
In
short, it is the tradition which allows us to see a norm in the fact that women
have never been ordained to pastoral offices, and this fact is connected with
the example of Christ who never comrnissioned women in the same way that he
commissioned the Twelve.
It is
on this point, and on this point only, that the congregation exercises its
authority. As we read in the official commentary: “It is proper to notice
the clear division which the declaration makes between affirming the data (the
teaching proposed with authority in nos. 1-4) and the theological reflection
which follows, by which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeks to
shed light on this rule by showing its fittingness .This does not involve the
magisterium (emphasis ours).
Neither does the congregation involve the magisterium of the church in any kind
of argument concerning symbolism, not even when this concerns the priest acting
in persona Christi capitis during the celebration of the eucharist. Most
commentators have not paid sufficient enough attention to this statement of the
congregation. This is unfortunate because the congregation does give validity
to such symbolic arguments but considers such a task to be the work of
theologians and does not wish to involve itself in it, even in a minor fashion.
The
doctrinal authority of the declaration, Inter Insigniores made a
decision on one point only, The church does not feel authorized to ordain women
to the pastoral office for the simple reason that this has never been done. She
sees in this fact a norm which reflects Christ’s own attitude. But what is
the doctrinal authority of such a statement? Inter Insigniores is not a
papal declaration. Canonically speaking, it comes from a Roman congregation and
is not, therefore, an irrevocable decision. Certainly, it was approved by the
pope. And he can, as we know, approve a document “in forma
specifica”—which gives it much greater weight—or simply
“in forma communi,” which is the case when no other precision
is given. This is the status of Inter Insigniores.
Every
professional theologian must recognize the great care which went into writing
Inter Insigniores. It certainly does not then merit the sometimes
violent criticisms it has received. In spite of the fact that its teaching has
been affirmed as Catholic doctrine, the non-ordination of women to the
priesthood is declared to be normative only with minor authority. All the same,
it would be imprudent to conclude from this that this norm would be modified in
the foreseeable future, if ever.
For
the time being, the intentions of the Holy See are clear: under no
circumstances does it favor an open debate on this topic in the church. At the
same time, it does not forbid theologians to engage in further scientific
inquiry. Far from it. The document states the wish that more light be shed on
the more symbolic aspects of the question.
Having verified that no definitive teaching has been made on this subject, we
can now proceed to discuss the three points announced at the beginning of this
paper. They represent a verification, and a legitimate one, of a prior concern:
does the norm excluding women from ordination represent a revealed Tradition?
Or is it, more modestly, simply an historical fact?
Does the Practice of Jesus and of the Apsotolic Church
Exclude Women from the Pastoral Office?
Here
we will distinguish Jesus’ conduct with respect to women from that of the
apostolic church. Thus, we will be better able to discern whether or not the
apostolic church was faithful to the example of Christ when it permitted or
forbade women to exercise ministries in the church.
Jesus’ attitude with respect to women: what weight should be given to
the absence of women among the Twelve? The declaration Inter Insigniores
clearly expresses the consensus of exegetes and Catholic theologians when
it describes the following attitude of Jesus toward women: “To the great
astonishment of his own disciples Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan
woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of impurity of the woman
who had suffered from hemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22); he allows a sinful woman to
approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37ff); and by
pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be
more severe toward the fault of a woman than toward that of a man (cf. Jn
8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm
the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the
marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11 Mt 19:3-9).
“In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve
but also by a group of women: ‘Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom
seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza,
Susanna, and several others who provided for them out of their own
resources’ (Lk 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not
accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was
nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the risen
Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal
message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt 18:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18),
in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the
Resurrection” (I. I., 2).
Focusing on the conspicuous contrast between Jesus’ attitude toward women
and that of his milieu (a voluntary and courageous attitude, it is noted),
Inter Insigniores highlights that the fact, for Jesus, to have never
called upon any woman to be a part of the Twelve, has nothing whatever to do
with a conformity to the times in which he was living. Concerning Jesus’
own attitude, then, this is an essential point to keep in mind.
Here
the exegetes do not hesitate to bring up a question of method. They make the
following point: that the composition of the Twelve, as far as can be known
historically, could not be governed by the question of the place of women in
the subsequent ministry of the Church. It would be unwarranted to interpret
such an act from this perspective. Rather, it must be interpreted from its
symbolic importance, that is, as an eschatological warning by Jesus for all of
Israel. In the time of Jesus, there were only two and a half tribes; in the
eschatological time, the fullness of unity would be achieved. Consequently, by
choosing twelve men, Jesus announces that the eschatological time is
approaching, that he comes to gather together all Israel (that is, the Twelve
Tribes) and that all people will be judged by his word. Thus the Twelve will
act as eschatological judges, as the twelve sons of Jacob (cf. Mt l9:Z8). The
significance of such a gesture would have been severely compromised if Jesus
had included women or a Samaritan in the group.(9)
If we
understand the institution of the Twelve from this perspective, it would be
equally as artificial to see a connection between this fact and the fact that
neither Jesus nor those gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:15-26) made Mary a
part of the Twelve. The presence of a woman in this group would simply have
made no sense. Equally without pertinence would be to wonder whether Jesus paid
heed to or ignored the prejudices of his time by not including women in the
group.
A
second point made by exegetes runs in the same direction: when Luke
historicizes the eschatological and symbolic function of the Twelve, he limits
their mission to Israel where they are seen as the trustees of a mandate
received from Jesus. As soon as the pagans begin entering the church, the
Twelve disappear from history. Thus, James, the son of Zebedee, is not replaced
after his death (Acts 12:lff).(l0)
We
are now ready to make an observation on the basis of a valid methodology. From
the absence of women from the Twelve, we can draw no valid conclusions about
Jesus’ intentions concerning the presence of or the absence of women from
the exercise of ministries in the church.
In
order to trace back to Jesus’ intentions concerning ministry, it is
important to verify if the apostolic communities themselves refer back to his
example when conferring or denying the exercise of ministries to women.
The Attitude of the Apostolic Churches with Respect to the Admission of
women to Ministry.
Everyone agrees that Jesus’ attitude toward women
was liberating. This fact, and others, allow us to see that in Jesus’ eyes
men and women are equal partners in humanity and in the economy of salvation.
While in Judaism, circumcision of the male is the sign of the covenant between
God and God’s people, entrance in the church is achieved by baptism, for
both men and women. This is a considerable change, and one that was clearly
reflected upon. Paul, for example, in Galatians 3:27-28, proclaims the end of
all of those divisions found in the old order: “All of you who have been
baptized into Christ have been clothed with him. There does not exist among you
Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus.”
Was
Paul’s perception effectively put into practice by the apostolic church?
Do we find, for example, a sharing of ministerial responsibilities in these
communities? Certain indications would have us respond affirmatively when we
are dealing with Pauline communities, and negatively when we are dealing with
deuteropauline communities. Why this difference? By adopting the socalled
“household codes,” the church was adapting itself to its cultural
environment.
We
are now ready to make an observation on the basis of a valid methodology. From
the absence of women from the Twelve, we can draw no valid conclusions about
Jesus’ intentions concerning the presence of or the absence of women from
the exercise of ministries in the church.
In
order to trace back to Jesus’ intentions concerning ministry, it is
important to verify if the apostolic communities themselves refer back to his
example when conferring or denying the exercise of ministries to women
Everyone agrees that Jesus’ attitude toward women was liberating. This
fact, and others, allow us to see that in Jesus’ eyes men and women are
equal partners in humanity and in the economy of salvation. While in Judaism,
circumcision of the male is the sign of the covenant between God and his
people, entrance in the church is achieved by baptism, for both men and women.
This is a considerable change, and one that was clearly reflected upon. Paul,
for example, in Galatians 3:27-28, proclaims the end of all of those divisions
found in the old order: “All of you who have been baptized into Christ
have clothed with him. There does not exist among you Jew or Greek, slave or
free, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus.”
Was
Paul’s perception effectivly put into practice by the apostolic church? Do
we find, for example, a sharing of ministerial responsibilities in these
communities? Certain indications would have us respond affirmatively when we
are dealing with Pauline communities, and negatively when we are dealing with
deutero pauline communities. Why this difference? By adopting the socalled
“household codes,” the church was adapting itself to its cultural
environment.
The
Pauline communities acknowledge ministerial responsibilities for women. Recall
Prisca and Aquila, that couple so close to Paul, and called by him “my
fellow workers in the service of Christ” (Rom 16:3), and who worked
closely with him at Corinth and Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:26); recall also Evodia
and Syntyche, active at Philippi (cf. Phil 4:2). Phoebe is called diaconos
(the masculine form of the noun) and prostatis at Cenchreae. Junias,
along with her husband Andronicus, is called “outstanding apostle in the
Lord” (Rom 16:7).(11) Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis are called
missionaries (Rom 16:6, 12). Certain women allowed their homes to become
domestic churches, like Phoebe at Cenchreae, Lydia at Philippi (Acts 16:14,
40), and Nymphas at Laodicea (Col 4:15). We could also mention the prophetesses
at the church of Corinth or the four daughters of the deacon, Philip, who were
also prophetesses (Acts 21:9).
The
deuteropauline texts exclude women from the ministry of the word and from
holding office. According to the current hypothesis, the so-called “great
epistles” are considered to be Pauline (except for Ephesians and
Colossians which were both written around the same time). The letters to
Timothy and Titus were written much later. Among the so-called “Catholic
letters,” the epistle of Peter appears at roughly the same time. We cannot
go into an exegetical study at this point. For our purposes, it suffices to get
to the point by citing the following remarkably clear passage from 1Tm:11-15:
“A woman must listen in silence and be completely submissive. I do not
permit a woman to act as teacher, or in any way to have authority over a man;
she must be quiet. For Adam was created first, Eve afterward; moreover, it was
not Adam who was deceived but the woman. It was she who was led astray and fell
into sin. She will be saved through child bearing, provided she continues in
faith and love and holiness—, her chastity being taken for granted.”
Women, already forbidden to speak in the assembly, are likewise forbidden to
teach. From the creation story, one could be led to conclude that the woman
holds a subordinate place to the man and, by extension, all women to all men.
If, on the one hand, she is second in the order of creation, she is, on the
other hand, first in the order of sin. Obviously, such thinking conforms
neither to Genesis nor to Paul’s way of thinking. Before going into
further detail on this matter, two remarks should be made.
a)
The author of the letter to Timothy bases his remarks on the order of creation
and the fall. If he had followed the “example of the Lord,” is it
likely that he would have let such an argument go by and remain silent?
b) In
the subsequent history of the church, these two prohibitions will be used as an
easy and obvious means to exclude women from the pastoral office for, in
classical terms, they are excluded from having jurisdiction (over men) and from
exercising the ministry of the word (forbidden to teach).
As
for the Pauline communities, such continuity is a little more tenuous for,
whatever reservations Paul might express with regard to the ministry of the
word, they are not as weighty. 1Cor 11:3-16 is, in fact, an authorization given
to women to pray out loud and to prophesy, on condition that their heads are
covered. 1Cor 14:34-35 means that women must not speak in the assembly, in only
the broadest sense of the term. If they do not understand something, rather
than interrupt the speaker, which would be improper, they should wait and ask
their husbands when they get home.(l2) Undoubtedly, many exegetes consider
these verses to be interpolations;(l3) but even if they are authentic, Paul
hardly forbids women to speak publicly in church.
The
evolution with respect to the Pauline communities is considerable especially
because women, normally active and recognized as exercising ecclesial and
missionary responsibilities, become, ecclesiastically-speaking, practically
invisible. We can only make mention of the order of widows and of deaconnesses.
What, then, has happened?
The Adoption of the "Household Codes" by the Apostolic Church: a Factor
in the Evolution of the Status of Women.
We
understand by the expression “household codes” (or Haustafeln,
the German expression adopted by English-speaking exegetes), ethical
traditions found both in Stoicism and in Jewish Hellenism, which consign the
duties of those of the same household. In general, these rules describe three
aspects of family life: the submission of the wife to the husband, children to
their parents, slaves to their masters. Christianized, especially by their
constant reference to the Lord, these household codes are proposed to
Christians most notably in the post-Pauline writings. In chronological order,
then, we find reference to them in Col 3:18-4:1; Eph 5:2l-6:9; 1 Pt 2:13-3:7;
Ti 2:3-5; 1Tm 2: , 5:9-15.
We
find in these texts an evolution toward the complete subrnission of the wife to
the husband, an evolution which will find its full expression in 1Timothy. It
should be noted that if one does find a reciprocal submission in Eph 5:21 such
submission is not, in fact, developed except for the wife and is no longer
interpreted as being a submission “in the Lord” as in Colossians. The
wife must fear and respect her husband. If there is a disparity here, and if
the accent is on “submission” as in 1Pet, still we do not find a
negative image of the wife, as is the case with the pastoral letters.
Some
excellent studies have uncovered a continuity between these later pastoral
letters and the early patristic writings.(l4)We can only give a summary of it
here. Generally, this evolution can be explained by the connection between the
ancient church and the oikos, and, more precisely, by an apologetic and
missionary concern, the concern being that if preaching the word was confided
to women, * would have little respectability. We are dealing here with a
completely different issue than that of the intention of those communities to
remain faithful to the model of ministry determined by Jesus.
From
this inquiry, the non-ordination of women seems to be a traditio mere
apostolica and not a traditio divina. In fact, 1) The example of
Jesus in choosing the Twelve provides us with no conclusions as to whether or
not women should be admitted to or excluded from exercising pastoral
ministries. 2) The absence of Mary from the Twelve likewise permits no
conclusions. 3) The apostolic communities first permitted and then restricted
the ministerial activity of women; grace, that is, baptism (cf. Gal 3:27-28)
favored it, while the demands of apologetics and missionary activities
determined the exclusion of women from the ministry of the word and governance.
This exclusion does not seem to result from the conscious duty of being
faithful “to the example of the Lord.” 4) Appeal to the order of
creation and the fall justifies the subordination of women to men and their
exclusion from the pastoral ministry.
It is
now time to consider this point.
Are there Perceptions or Biblical Statements which Speak
of the Relationship between Men and Women or of the Nature of Women which would
Preclude the Latter from Exercising a Pastoral Office because then they would
Betray the Order of Creation and the Vocation which is Proper to them?
Biblical anthropology and androcentrism. The question is often posed in
the following manner: because pastoral ministry necessarily implies being at
the head of the church and representing it, women cannot accede to it without
betraying the order of creation in which the man takes first place and the
woman the second (thus 1 Tm). Moreover, in the order of creation man and woman
are complementary. By claiming to assume a role of ecclesial authority, a woman
runs the risk of alienating herself from her spiritual vocation. She would do
violence to herself, or violence would be done to her. She would be
dehumanized.
The
biblical rationale takes its cue from Paul’s saying in 1Cor 11:3:
“The head of every man is Christ; the head of every woman is her husband,"
and in verse 7: “Man is the image of God and the reflection of his glory.
Woman, in turn, is the reflection of man’s glory.” Similar
pronouncements can be found in the household codes which we have already
enumerated. This subordination of women to men is the major historical argument
barring women from ordination.(15)
In
speaking about the household codes, we saw that their first given was the
social submission of women to men, a submission which was, however,
christianized by the expression “en Christo.” But behind the
social propriety there exists in the shadows a more fundamental order expressed
by the sequence God, Christ, man, woman, encompassing the order of creation,
the fall and the redemption. Using a biblical rationale one also includes the
absence of Mary from the college of the Twelve or the fact that she was never a
priest, and this, in spite of the fact that Mary was the most perfect and the
most holy among women. This proves that it was only her sex which barred her
from the priesthood.
There
would have to be, then, a nature which is proper to woman, and different
from that of man, such that sexual identity determines, in large measure, the
vocation of each person. Biological differences are the foundations of
intrinsic differences like virility and femininity, understood as
activity/receptivity (or passivity), rationality/ intuition, aggressiveness /
softness, attention to structures/attention to persons, and so on. Such a
phenomenology sometimes finds literary expression in such works as Die ewige
Frau by Gertrud von Le Fort. But its scientific value is not confirmed by
the human sciences. Whatever the case may be, from this perspective, to ask
women to assume a pastoral ministry where activity, rationality, objectivity,
attention to structures, and so on, are required, would be to dehumanize them
and separate them from their true human and christian vocation.
Even
more fundamentally still, this masculine/feminine polarity finds its reflection
in the nuptial symbolism of biblical revelation where only the man can
represent God or Christ opposite a necessarily receptive (feminine) humanity
and church. But this question deserves to be treated separately. For the
moment, some remarks of an epistemological nature are needed in order to
evaluate what has been said in a discourse which sees in the subordination of
women to men an immutable order revealing the will of God, as if theology could
define the “feminine nature” and the “masculine nature.”
We
must now ask ourselves if there exists a kind of revealed biblical anthropology
which would challenge that anthropology which is more and more prevalent in
contemporary Western culture according to which men and women are seen as
partners, equal in dignity and equal in responsibility. If one could answer
yes, then we would not need to know whether this ideal of a partnership is
actually lived out, (l6) but we would need to denounce it as an error causing a
great deal of harm both to men and to women. As K. E. Borresen has so
brilliantly shown,(l7) Christian anthropology itself has accepted this
androcentrism. A few brief remarks are needed for understanding of this
anthropology.
Some brief reflections on Christian anthropology. Without taking up the
vast question of the status of Christian anthropology, a few remarks will be
helpful in situating it in relationship to changing cultures, to social
structures and finally to the question of historicity.
The
relationship between men and women has entered into a phase of profound
redefinition in the West. This is due primarily to objective factors such as
medical progress (better care of newborn babies and pregnant women, birth
control, a longer life-span) and working women. A greater social life for
women, financial independence, the need to share household tasks and the
education of offspring, all of these things now.figure into a marriage
partnership. This is not a fad. Values and self-images are changing because of
this, with ramifications both in the private and public sectors. This also
highlights the fact that many traits of men and women, thought to be
“natural,” are in fact culturally determined.
Given
all of this, what is the task of the church? Is it to evangelize this new type
of partnership? This would not be too difficult if we were to think back to the
example of Jesus or Paul. Or is it to ask women to consider themselves
subordinate to men by the will of the Creator? By enforcing arbitrarily such a
subordination, we would surely contribute to estranging women from Christian
life and promoting their secularization.
Anthropology and social structures. But does St Paul, and even the
author of Genesis, propose a revealed anthropology concerning the man-woman
relationship? No, St Paul wished merely to explain the love of Christ for the
church by using the example of marriage as it was lived in his time. The light
of Christ entered marriage, calling for agape, but without the call to change
the structure of marriage itself. Likewise, the author of Genesis wished to
explain the provenance of the evil which exists between husband and wife and
who yet remain attached to one another.
In
other words, neither Paul nor Genesis wishes to sacralize a social model on
God’s behalf. They speak to us first of God and Christ. That is
revelation, and not those social models which we might have before our eyes and
which will be transformed by that revelation.
It
will be noticed that the method used to reconstruct the socalled creational
model of the subordination of women to men takes a completely different road.
In this model, the fact that men assume nearly all the roles of power and
authority, is seen as revealed. But is not this differentiation of sexes due to
sociocultural conditions and to androcentric cultures from which we ourselves
have barely emerged? Is there not an attempt to deduce a divine model
(therefore, immutable) which can then be imposed on different societies from
what is really an historically contingent situation?
It
should have been noticed that such is not the direction in .: which revelation
points, nor, for that matter, Christian anthropology. The human sciences will
permit us to be vigilant regarding this even if, as stated so aptly in Inter
Insigniores 2.6: “The supernatural content of the realities of faith are
outside of their competence.
Ethics and historicity. Without these previous methodological
clarifications, we contribute to making the history of the church a moral
scandal. The gospel of a community of equals would have succumbed to a process
of repatriarchalization which is still vigorous in the Catholic Church. By
making use of such criteria, we should also be justified in our being
scandalized by the fact that the Church, from the beginning, did not fight to
set up a political system resembling our current Western democracies.
It is
illuminating, in this area, to consider that the eschatological perspective of
Gal 3:28 regarding the status given to Jews, slaves and women by the Christian
society, raises the same problems. These different statuses had not been
revised with any great depth until recently. Is it by chance that they all
changed practically at the same time?
For
reasons of clarity, let us summarize what we have said thus far.
1)
The hierarchical subordination of women to men can be guessed at in several New
Testament authors. Christian agape does not alter this structure but rather
gives it a new and different meaning.
2)
Because this point can only be guessed at, the unilateral subordination of
women to men cannot be a manifestation of the order of creation. At the very
least, there is substantial evidence to show the legitimacy of the partnership
between men and women, or the exercise of authority of women over men.
3)
The subordination of women to men has been the chief argument for excluding
women from ordination throughout the history of the church.
4)
Theology enjoys no particular competence to decide typically masculine or
feminine qualities: this is better determined by social life and by the human
sciences.
5) In
short, the exercise of ministerial authority by women would not go against the
order of creation, nor would it automatically go against what is perceived to
be the vocation of women in a given society. If neither the example of Jesus
nor the order of creation excludes a priori the ordination of women to
the pastoral office, it remains to be seen whether or not such an office would
be emptied of meaning if held by a woman. It is especially here where the
question of symbolism is so important.
According to the Apostolic Tradition, is the Content of
the Pastoral Office such that its Exercise by a Woman would Empty it of
Meaning
Inter
Insigniores affirms that the pastoral office is of such a nature that its
exercise must be carried out by a man, unless we were to disregard the
symbolism which is inherent in the celebration of the eucharist: “We can
never ignore the fact that Christ is a man And, therefore, unless one is to
disregard this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted
that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in 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 meaning of
the word persona) must be taken by a man” (I. I., 5).
Directly after this, the declaration adds that in the eucharist “the
priest represents the church, which is the Body of Christ. But if he does so,
it is precisely because he first represents Christ himself who is the head and
shepherd of the church” (ibid.)
Thus,
all holders of the pastoral office must meet three symbolic demands: they must
all be able to represent Christ as head, shepherd and bridegroom of the church.
Bearing in mind that the declaration does not wish to engage the doctrinal
authority of the church in this matter, we believe that it is possible to
distinguish between the symbolism of Christ as head and shepherd of the church,
and that of Christ as the bridegroom of the church.
The symbolism of ministry and the symbolic nature of nuptials. One
cannot deny that Christ presents himself and is presented as the bridegroom of
the church in the New Testament. This is suggested in Mk 2:19, from the
parables in Mt 22:2 and 25.1. John the Baptist refers to Christ as the
bridegroom (Jn 3:28-29). Paul mentions this symbolism in 2 Cor 11:2 and Eph
5:21-33 develops it. The Book of Revelation takes up this theme again in 19:7,
21:2, 9 and 22:17. The church is thus called the bride of Christ who is,
moreover, the New Adam. Nothing can justify the weakening of this symbolism.
But does this symbolism necessarily have a place in pastoral ministry?
The
adage of medieval canonists representing the bishop as the bridegroom of the
church is certainly well-documented,(l8 )but it calls for two remarks. On the
one hand, it was meant to avoid the abuse of transferring from one diocese to
another. On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge, it is never cited in
the context of the eucharist. We understand this well enough because “it
is the groom who has the bride. The groom’s best man waits there listening
for him and is overjoyed to hear his voice” Jn.3:29). Any transgression by
an ordained minister of the sentiments of the Baptist would be spiritually
grave because he would be placing himself, or would be placed, in the realm of
phantasm rather than symbolism. The image of the male minister as bridegroom of
the church would have but a moral value (fidelity, devotion). Could not this
moral value be found as equally in women as in men?
The symbolism of ministry as presidency and pastorship in the name of
Christ. If the ordained minister is not the bridegroom of the church,
except morally speaking, he must be, on the other hand, both symbolically and
in fact, its head and shepherd. It is in this manner that the church has always
understood, and rightly so, pastoral ministry according to the apostolic
tradition. We are next faced with the question of whether or not a woman,
because of her sex, would be incapable of presiding over the church of God or
act in persona Christi especially at the celebration of the eucharist.
Is a
woman, by the very fact of her being a woman, incapable of representing the
church? This thesis, developed by Louis Bouyer,(l9) has its supporters. We will
cite only two examples: Hans Urs von Balthasar (20)and Desmond Connell (21) use
Bouyer’s thesis as the most decisive argument on the unfittingness of
women for the presbyterate.
Louis
Bouyer constructs a phenomenology of men and women based on their sexuality
which would cause them to situate themselves in an essentially different manner
in the world and in society. According to him, male sexual activity occurs
outside of himself and intermittently. He concludes from this that man has one
sole function in the world, that of representing, a representation which one
finds in the function of the priesthood: “We will say that man, as such,
is defined by the paradox that he represents essentially that which is beyond
him, that which he is incapable of being himself and by himself.”(22)
Hans
Urs von Balthasar paraphrases this as follows: “The man, as sexual being,
merely represents what he is not and transmits what he does not really possess
and so is simultaneously more and less, than himself. The woman, however,
reposes in herself and is entirely her own being, namely, the total reality of
a created being facing God as his partner, receiving, retaining, and nurturing
his seed and his Spirit.”(23) In short, “the difference is so
profound that to the woman is assigned not representation, but being, and to
the man, the task to represent.”(24)
Beyond the arbitrariness of this, such talk seems to us to have little
methodological foundation. First of all, how can one attribute,
quasi-metaphysically, “being” to the woman and
“representation” to the man, based on a certain vision of their
respective roles in reproduction? Moreover, is sexuality reducible to
reproduction? Does sexual differentiation, certainly present everywhere, bring
about such a rupture between what is human in human beings? Next, as we have
already noted, these authors never take into consideration the existing
relationship between the social differentiation of the sexes and the cultural
considerations which determine it. Without being able to prove this lacunae,
let us ask the following simple question: does the image of paternity which is
so described correspond to the way most fathers under the age of forty practice
it in Western society?
On a
more positive side, we can say that it is a commonplace that, at least in the
West, women can acquit themselves as well as men in situations which call for
representation and authority. These same women could plausibly represent the
faith of the church and its communion just as well as men, provided that they
are ordained to act in persona Christi.
Could
a woman, provided that she is ordained, act in persona Christi? We will
now proceed from the given that to be ordained means to act in persona
Christi and we wish above all to clarify this expression which plays such a
key role in the debate.(25) The priest does not act in persona Christi
in an immediate sense in the eucharist. To be in persona Christi he
must be in persona Ecclesiae. He must be ordained and must exercise the
office of representing the faith and the communion of the church. In the
eucharist, properly speaking, he acts in a context governed by the epiclesis
which he announces in the name of the church and with the church. Responses
such as “amen” and “with your spirit” indicate that he is
acting in communion with the Holy Spirit, in communion with the church. It is
therefore only by acting in persona Ecclesiae that the priest acts in
persona Christi. The very uniqueness of pastoral ministry assumes the
articulation of both of these elements. It is essential to grasp that according
to tradition priests presided at the eucharist because they presided in the
church. The reverse order cannot be verified.(26)
This
being well-established, a woman could not be ordained and see herself entrusted
with the pastoral office of the communion of the church, unless and above all
she was deemed capable of representing the faith of the church and overseeing
its communion. By virtue of her ordination, she would be placed vis-a-vis other
Christians. Because of this symbolism, they would recognize that they receive
grace and salvation from Christ and not from themselves. They would have the
experience of being called by another, of being sent by another, of benefiting
from the ministry of Christ the good shepherd. Thus, the ordained woman would
be acting in persona Christi.
Such
an action would not be an innovation for Catholic theology. Indeed, all
ministers of the sacraments act in persona Christi. In the Latin
tradition, women, like their husbands, are recognized as the ministers of the
sacrament of their marriage: they are thus acting in persona Christi. In
the same way, women have been permitted to administer validly the sacrament of
baptism since the eleventh century, thus acting in persona Chnsti. Those
who, in all fairness, grant to women the dogmatic capacity to represent Christ
in as important a sacrament as baptism, deny it to them in the case of the
eucharist. They seem to maintain that although women can act as representatives
of Christ, they are somehow unable to represent him.(27)
In
conclusion, if it were socially plausible that a woman might be able to
represent the faith and the communion of the church, presiding over it as a
woman, it is also plausible that she might be able to represent Christ, that
she might be able to symbolize him. When this social plausibility exists, and
when the ecclesiological and theological content of pastoral ministry is
respected, what possible weight could be given to the lack of sexual identity
between Christ and the minister?
Very
little weight, it seems, including in the eucharist, for this is not a
theatrical play. In a theatrical play, a woman could not obviously represent
Christ, for in the eucharist the action is situated in the mystery, that is, in
the sacrament. In this perspective, the representation of Christ in the name of
the faith and of communion is decisive. In recalling that the first meaning of
the word persona indicates a role played in the theater (I. I., 5),
Inter Insigniores is making a statement of a philological order not a
liturgical one.
Concerning a symbolic argumentation, it appears important to us to state:
1)
The representation of Christ as bridegroom is purely moral in the case of
ministers. This excludes it from being symbolic, even for men.
2)
The content of the pastoral office requires the possibility of representing
Christ as head and pastor. In certain Christian contexts, where society
permits, women could plausibly assume such a representation.
3)
The representation of Christ is rooted in the sacrament of orders. Women can
act in persona Christi in such an important sacrament as baptism. In the
eucharist, she could also act in persona Christi ff, by virtue of
ordination, she could act in persona Ecclesiae, representing
ministerially both the faith and the communion of the church.
Conclusions
The non-ordination of women to pastoral ministry is an undeniable historical
fact, but it is not “Tradition” in the strong sense of the term.
The
threefold inquiry which we have made does not allow us to conclude resolutely
that the non-ordination of women was a Tradition which revealed the will of God
for his church. The absence of women from the Twelve is not conclusive; the
restriction of women from ministry during the apostolic period is clearly
explained by other motives than trying to be faithful to the will of Christ.
Neither the symbolism of Christ as head and bridegroom of the church, nor the
nature of women, nor the nature of the pastoral office, permit under certain
circumstances, the exclusion of women from the ability to exercise, through
ordination, the ministry of church communion and, therefore, the sacraments.
Thus,
we find ourselves faced with a constant custom which represents an appropriate
way of acting to the conditions in which the church has lived until now. She
has not examined critically this way of acting, as she was not faced with the
parameters which are characteristic of it today.
In
this regard, Inter Insigniores seems to us to be carefully nuanced when
it states that Scripture alone cannot solve the problem,(28) in finding itself
in an awkward position to justify it historically,(29) and finally, by claiming
only a lesser level of doctrinal adherence. The declaration is very faithful
then to the actual situation: “The church does not consider itself
authorized to admit women to priestly orders” (I. I., intro.). In light of
these considerations, this way of dealing with the issue can gain the respect
of non-Catholics; it can also be considered more respectful of women; for it is
no longer based, as in the past, on the inferiority of women, but on the way in
which the church understands its own fidelity to Christ.
Dogmatically, can the church change? The position enunciated in Inter
Insigniores obviously requires the practical assent of Catholics. But this
document has not closed the reflection which began before its publication, a
reflection which led many theologians and pastors to think that the ordination
of women to the pastoral ministry was possible.(30) In so many other areas
impressive reasons have been given not to do “what has never been
done” and yet things changed. We have but to mention the repetition of the
sacrament of penance, the determining of the matter and form of the sacrament
of orders (which conditions its validity), lending with interest. Again, other
changes with greater practical consequences have been made: the number of
sacraments, the sacramentality of the episcopate, and so on.
The
systematic theologian will be wary of isolating the question of the possible
ordination of women from the rest of the theological enterprise and the rules
which govern it. Without being exhaustive, let us mention that this question
has a lot to do with the relation between Scripture and Tradition, between
christology and pneumatology and ministry, on the status of the relationship
between men and women in society and in the church, on the place of Mary in the
church,(31) on the way in which the church views her rootedness in history.(32)
This list probably indicates that the question needs more time to mature on the
systematic level at least. Of course, there are other indications as well.
Catholic theologians that we are, who would probably not be opposed to the
Ordination of women fom a doctrinal level, might not be so favorable given the
current theological and pastoral situation.
The current theological and pastoral climate does not offer much hope for
the possibility of change. The cultural changes which spell the end of
androcentrism have not been sufficiently evaluated by the church. The
extraordinarily innovative Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Mulieris
Dignitatem (1988), is the first official document which systematically
challenges androcentrism. But it may take generations to emerge from the
ambivalences, confusions, and yes, even fear, which comes from this situation.
Due
to objective factors, the current redefinition of the relationship between men
and women is accompanied by great perplexity(33) and confusion. We generously
attribute this to feminists. Admittedly, feminism can carry with it a debatable
theology of God,(34) on the way in which it articulates the differences at the
heart of the equal dignity of all Christians, on the vocation to ministry, and
so on. Nevertheless, one cannot hold women. responsible for this confusion
because the problem is common to both men and women. It is also too soon to
evaluate the feminist movement as a whole.(35) Confronted with this problem,
many theologians are obsessed by a possible masculinization of women. They are
profoundly disturbed to the point of seeing in the possible ordination of women
a challenge to the entire order of creation and the entire symbolism of
revelation.
As
long as such objections are expressed, the pastors of our church will not want
to foresee the ordination of women for fear that a woman as minister of the
communion will exacerbate the divisions. Theologians can only approve of them.
Will
the Catholic Church one day call women to the pastoral ministry? Perhaps never.
But if she does so it will only be in fidelity and by fidelity. If the
preservation of her identity and of her mission is on those terms, then she
must accept some changes. The living tradition is precisely that, and this is
very different from historical repetition.
Rosemary Nurnberg asks, in the excellent article from which we quoted, if the
reason which led the ancient church to exclude women from the ministry of the
word does not suggest that, today, the church grant it to them. These days,
does not their absence from this ministry provoke that irrisio infidelium
which had commanded their exclusion in antiquity?(36)
One
thing is certain, to favor the mutual recognition between men and women, to
favor their partnership, must be the task of the church today and of every man
and woman. To educate, to promote healing, to elaborate constructive guiding
images for the church and for society is a matter of great urgency because the
notion of partnership, at once so marvelous, is also threatened. It is the
place of much joy and much suffering. It is there where Christian agape
must find itself. Without it, all changes in structure would be of modest
importance. This agape must also help us to bridge the actual
differences between our churches on this question, differences which risk
remaining. The present contribution had no other purpose than to attempt to
elucidate the Catholic position without overstating it, but also without
minimizing it.
Notes
1.
Thus Vatican I, pastor Aeternus (DS 3070) and Pius X, Lamentabili
(DS 3421).
2.
This is how the manuals of theology classically understood the Tradition (with
a capital “T”). Cf. B. Bartmann, Precis de theologie dogmatique, 1
(Mulhouse 1941) 45: “The divine Tradition goes back either to the
‘mouth of Christ,’ or to the ‘communications of the Holy
Spirit’ made to the Apostles after the ascension of our Lord. Only the
divine Tradition is a source for dogma; everything that is of human origin,
even if one could make it go back to the Apostles as the leaders and organizers
of the Church (traditio mere apostolica), or to later leaders
(traditio ecclesiastica), does not enter into consideration, whatever be
the importance of this tradition for discipline, worship, the liturgy and
ecclesiastical law. Thus we understand under the name of dogmatic Tradition,
the revealed truths which the Apostles received from Christ or the Holy Spirit
and which the Church, from that time ‘transmitted without change.
3. An
interesting approach in this respect can be found in “Lectures de textes
de Paul concernant les femmes” in D. Stein, Lectures psychanalytigues
de la Bible (Paris: Cerf 1985) 89-113.
4.
AAS 64 (1972) 529-34.
5. AAS
69 (1977) 98-196
6.
DC, t. 83 (1986) 800.
7.
DC, t. 85 (1088)1084.
8. Cf.
H. Legrand, “Die Frage der Frauenordination aus der Sicht katholischer
Theologie. Inter Insigniores nach zehn Jahren,” in E. Gossmann and
D. Bader (eds. ), Warum keine Ordination der Frau?. . ., Katholische
Akademie (Freiburg 1987) 89-111.
9.
Cf. H. Moll, “Faithful to her Lord’s example. On the Meaning of the
Male Priesthood in the Catholic Church” in H. Moll, ea., The Church and
Women. A Compendium (San Francisco 1988)164.
10.
The elders and the bishops are not understood in the Pastoral Letters as having
succeeded the Twelve; cf. R. E. Brown, Priest and Bishop (New York:
Paulist 1970) 51 69; Brief Survey of the New Testament Evidence on Episkope
and Episkopos (Faith and Order Paper lo,), Geneva, s.d.; reprinted, with
footnotes, as “Episkope” and “Episkopos”: The New Testament
Evidence, Theological Studies 41(1980) 322-38; R. Schnackenburg,
“Lukas als Zeuge verschiedener Gemeindestrukturen,” Bibel und Leben
12 (1971)232-47. It is not our intention to discuss here the birth of the
presbyterate or the episcopacy as fixed structures in the early church. As
Lumen Gentium, no. 28 noted, it is ab antiquo. The recent contribution
of R. M. Hubner, “Die Anfange von Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat in
der fruhen Kirche,” in A. Rauch, P. Imhof (eds.), Das Priestertum in der
einen Kirche. Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat (Aschaffenburg 1987) 45-89,
provides an important updated bibliography.
11.
We know that modern exegesis, betraying its androcentrism as feminists point
out, understood that this Junias was a man, contrary to the patristic
tradition. M. Hauke, Die Problematik um das Frauenpriestertum vor dem
Hintergrund der Schopfungs- und Erlosungsordnung (Paderborn 1982, 354ff
still maintains this opinion. The authoritative study on this question is that
of V. Fabrega, ”War Junia(s), der hervorragende Apostel (Rom 16:7), eine
Frau?" in Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum. 27/28 (1984/1985)45-64
12.
Cf. R. Gryson, Le Ministere des femmes dans l’Eglise ancienne
(Gembloux 1972) 28.
13.
This has been presented in H. Legrand & J. Vikstrom, “The Admission of
Women to the Ministry,” in Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission,
The Ministry in the Church (Geneva: LWF 1982)88-107.
l4. A
good work on the state of scriptural research in J. Gnilka, “Die
Haustafeln” in Der Kolosscrbrief, HThK X, 1, Freiburg, 8asel,
Vienna 1981, Zo5 - 16. Cf. also K. Muller, Die Haustafeln des Kolosserbriefes
und das antike Frauenthema. Eine kritische Ruckschau auf alte Ergebnisse, in G.
Dautzenberg et al. eds., Die Frau im Urchriskutum (QD 95) z63-319; cf.
also, especially for 1 Peter, M. L. Lamau, Da chretiens dans le monde. Les
communaute’s pitriniennes au premier siecle (LD 134), Paris (1988)133-
30. For the first patristic period, consult the excellent article of R.
Nurnberg, “ ‘Non decet neque necessarium est, ut mulieres
doceant.’ Uberlegungen zum altkirchlichen Lehrverbot fur Frauen,”
lahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 31 8
15.
The status subjectionis of the woman is a commonplace in patristic
literature as in theology until this century. For a first attempt to address
this, cf. H. Legrand, “Die Frauen im Verstandnis der Kirche: Erganzung
oder Partner der Mannert” in Frau—Partnerin in der Kirche
(Vienna 1985) 14-28. This was also the perspective of canon law, cf. 1.
Raming, Der Ausschluss der Frau wm priesterlichen Amt. Gottgewollte
Tradition oder Diskriminierung? Eine rechtshistorisch-dogmatische Untersuchung
der Grundlagen wn Kanon 968 #2 des Co dex luris Canonici (Cologne: Bohlau
Verlag 1973). The Code of 1983 puts an end to the subordination of women.
16.
Some serious concerns are legitimate with respect to the effectiveness of this
partnership: the growing concern about unmarried couples in all of Europe: in
France 37 percent of marriageable-age people are not married, 48 percent in
Sweden; in Paris one tax-paying household in two is composed of a person living
alone. Statistics for France: E. Sullerot, Pour le meilleur et sans le pire,
Fayard, 1984,10-60. The divorce rate is increasing in Europe while the
birth-rate can no longer insure the renewal of this generation in the majority
of Western European countries.
17.
K.E. Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence. The Nature and Role of Women
in Augustine and Thomas Aguinas (Washington, D.C.: University Press of
America l981).
18.
Cf. J. Trummer, “Mystiche Ehe im alten Kirchenrecht. Die geistliche Ehe
zwischen Bischof und Diozese,” Osterreischiches Archiv fin Kirchenrecht
2 (1961) 62-75. J. Gaudemet, “Note sur le symbolisme medieval. Le
mariage de 1’ veque,” L’Annee canonique 22 (1978) 72:
“In the patristic period, the connection between marriage and the
union of the bishop with his church was rare and imprecise.” He concludes:
“In the ninth century, the symbol of the marriage bond is clear.... In the
twelfth century, the symbolism has not completely disappeared, but its only
purpose is to test the subtlety of jurists,’’ ibid., So.(?)
19.
L. Bouyer, Mystere et ministeres de la femme (Paris: Aubier Montaigne
1976).
20.
Cf. H. Urs von Balthasar in H. Moll, ea., The Church and Women. A Compendium
(San Francisco 1988) 153-60.
21.
Cf. D.Connell, “Women priests: why not?,” ibid., 207-27.
22.
L. Bouyer, 47. Previously he said: “With a man, fatherhood is never only
one quality among many others and, it is but for a short time that even the one
who possesses it, exercises it in fact” (ibid. 31).
23.
H. Urs von Balthasar, ibid. 158.
24.
Ibid.
25.
Cf. B. D. Marliangeas, Cles pour une theologie du ministere. In persona
Christi. In persona Ecclesiae, Theologie historique 51 (Paris 1978).
26.
Cf. H. Legrand, “The Presidency of the Eucharist in the Ancient
Church” in Worship 27 (1979) 413-38. The problematic as a whole in
H. Legrand, Initiation d la pratique de la theologie, vol. 3, 2 ed.
(Paris 1986)194-273.
27.
This is the suggestion of D.Connell, article cited supra., n. 19, p.
220: “(The priest act) not just as minister, but in a representational
role” and p. 222: “It is important to distinguish between acting as a
representative and acting as a representation” This distinction allows us
to recognize that in baptism the woman acts as a representative of Christ but
is excluded from presiding over the eucharist because the priest is not
only the representative of Christ, but also the “sacramental
representation”,as in general, “it is fitting for the woman to be the
sacramental representation of the church” (p. 223). This non-traditional
distinction appears to us to have two disadvantages: is it founded to designate
as sacramental the symbolic representation of the church by the woman in the
same terms as designating the priest to be the sacramental representation of
Christ? And, in this latter case, is there not an unverified shift in meaning
when passing from the sacrament of orders to the sacrament of the priest? On
this danger, cf. P. J. Cordes, “ ‘Sacerdos alter Christus.’ Der
Representationsgedanke in der Amtstheologie," in Catholica 26, 1972
38-49
28.
We know also that the Pontifical Biblical Commission responded unanimously that
the New Testament cannot resolve dearly or definitively the question of knowing
whether or not women can be ordained priests. The response of the whole
Commission was first published in Origins 1 July 1976, 92 -96, and then
under the title “Biblical Commission Report. Can Women be Priests?”
in L. and E. Swidler, eds., Women Priests. A Catholic Commentary on the
Vatican Declaration (New York: Paulist 1977) 338-46.
29.
It should be pointed out that the eight authorities cited in note 7 of Inter
Insigniores in support of the incapacity of women to be ordained, according
to the Fathers of the Church, are not directly conclusive except in three
cases. Also, the references for note 8 are hardly probing. For further
discussion on this cf. J. M. Higgins, “Fidelity in History,” in L.
and E. Swidler, Women Priests, 85-9l. Finally, the explicit reasoning of
the two quotations from Thomas Aquinas put forward in notes 18 and 19 appeal
directly to the status subjectionis of the woman in relationship to the
man (comparison with the slave): the significatio rei(?) is impossible
as a result of the social being of the woman. By their silence on this matter,
the writers of Inter Insigniores base themselves on the theology of
sacramental sign in Thomas Aquinas, a theology which would exclude women from
ordination.
30.
Before the publication of Inter Insigniores we documented the rapid
change in the attitudes of Christians, theologians and bishops with respect to
the question at hand. Cf. H, Legrand, “L’ordination des femmes au
ministere presbyteral. Reflexions theologiques au point de vue catholique”
in Documents-Episcopat, 7, 1976; English translation in Origins,
January 1977.
31.
Speculations concerning the priesthood of Mary were studied by R. Laurentin,
Marie, I’Eglise et le sacerdoce, wl. 1, (Paris 1952); vol. z,
(1953). The question is even more profound: a certain parallelism between the
titles given to Mary and those recognized as belonging to Christ
(mediator/mediatrix; redemptor/co-redemptrix) appeared at one time to be
developed in a certain part of Catholic piety. Lumen Gentium no. 8
happily ended this for the simple reason that this parallelism was founded less
on systematics than on the strength of sexual bipolarity, so fundamental to
human existence, operating on the imagination in the interpretation of
Revelation. The symbolic typology of Christ (masculine)/Mary-Church (feminine)
“in which the divine partner is andromorphus and the human partner
gynecomorphus, loses its capacity to signify the relationships between God and
humanity as soon as the subordination of women disappears. The incompatibility
between the divine and the human continues, but it can no longer be illustrated
by that which is postulated between the divinity and femininity,” E. K.
B¢rresen, Imago Dei, privilege masculin? Interpretation
augustinienne et pseudo-augustinienne de Gn 1, 27 et 1 Co 1l, 7," in
Augustinianum 25, (1985) Z33 (Miscellanea Trape).
32.
Cf. H. Legrand and J. Vikstrom, op.cit., supra n. 13, 260-70.
33.
One symptom: Judaism itself foresees in certain of its branches the ordination
of women to the rabbinate. Cf. S. Greenberg, ea., The Ordination of Women as
Rabbis. Studies and Response. (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of
America 1988).
34. A
good critical analysis of this kind of feminism can be found in S. Heine,
Frauen derfrnhen Christenheit (Gottingen 1986); English translation: Women
and Early Christianity (London 1987) and id., Wiederbelebung der
Gottingen? (1987); English translation Christianity and the Goddesses,
(London 1988).
35.
Cf. for example W. Kasper, “The Position of Woman as a Problem of
Theological Anthropology” in H. Moll, ea., The Church and Women. A
Compendium (San Francisco 1988), 51-64. On feminist theology strictly
speaking, we share the opinion of H. Moll, “ ‘Feminist
Theology.’ A Challenge”: “Whoever attempts to evaluate the
different currents in feminist theology should suspend judgment for the time
being, for this movement is still in a state of development and at the present
time presents anything but a uniform structure. Consequently, apodictic as well
as conclusive evaluations are premature.” in H. Moll, ea., The Church
and Women, p. 271. One direction seems positive to us, that which never
disassociates the lot of men and women. We appreciate in this current the
suggestions of M. Th. van Lunen-Chenu, “Le sens profond du feminisme”
in Le Supplement (December 1978) 507-20.
36.
Thus p. 73, art. cit., supra, n. 14.
See also our files on Eric
Doyle OFM. In 1975 Eric Doyle and Hervé Legrand were appointed by
the Vatican to a working party on the Ordination of Women set up by ARCIC.
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!