The ‘Ordination’ of Women

The history of the world is as complex and varied as the human actors who have occupied its stage. Without diminishing the love, beauty and virtue that has characterized the relationship of many men and women in the corridors of history, the painful reality is that men have often oppressed women: individually and collectively. Closer to home, it is a well-known fact that women were not even considered persons under the law in Canada until 1917 and not granted the right to vote, the hallmark of being a full citizen, until the early 1920s. No argument will ever justify the chauvinism which women have experienced during the history of Canada. Chauvinism is a sin and no sin ought to be justified. Some local and national commentators have suggested that the developments in the Peterborough Diocese, regarding the ‘Father Ed’ situation ought to be read primarily within this context of chauvinism. This situation in the life of our Diocese forced me to read widely, listen carefully and think and re-think many things. I strongly disagree with this popular reading and I think it is faulty and misleading.

I discovered that even though the arguments proposed by supporters of women’s ‘ordination’ were ably met by responses based on scripture, reason and magisterial teaching, many still rejected the Church’s stance. Why? Simply put, more (though not less) than reason is needed here. Faith is needed – faith not only in the mystery of Christ, but faith also in His Catholic Church as the authoritative expositor of God’s revelation. As Cardinal John Henry Newman stated, “A revelation is not a revelation if it cannot be understood.” We know that constitutions, dramas, stories, biographies etc. all require interpretation. As a matter of fact, no ‘fact’ ever comes before us without already being partially interpreted already. Broadly speaking, if we want to understand God’s revelation, we need to trust in the interpretation of the Magisterium. Catholicism is not a religion, which leaves faith up to my personal interpretation of the Bible or to the latest thing scholars are saying at the university or to the politically correct flavour of the day. This is not to ignore personal experience, scholarship or cultural context, but to submit them in faith to a higher court of judgment. Thus, the arguments put forward by the Church stating it is not possible to ordain women as priests require trust in the Church’s teaching office, both in order to perceive their inner logic and to embrace them personally. The Church`s teaching office does not replace logic or reason, but aids them to a fuller understanding of what Christ intended by constantly reflecting upon the meaning of Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition. Thus, I believe one of the reasons why people seem unable to embrace this teaching stems from a lack of trust in the Church herself as teacher and mother. In fact, for Catholics who hold that the Church was established by Christ himself, to dissent from the teaching of the Church would actually bespeak a lock of faith. For Catholics, faith in God means believing what he says in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as interpreted through His Church.

Everyone acknowledges that the sacrament of priesthood is critical to the life of the Church; interestingly, Christ did not speak at length about it. However, it is clear in the Bible that Jesus prays to the Father the night before choosing his apostles. He decides to choose only men as his apostles (Lk. 6:12). It is neither a hasty nor haphazard decision. This decision becomes part of the entire life which the apostles passed on to future generations of Christians in fidelity to Christ’s command: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teach/ing them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20; emphasis is mine). The apostles, as well as their successors, travelled afar and lived in many different cultures and times; yet, the sacrament of priesthood has remained a constant male vocation despite the change in societal views towards women.

Some argue that Jesus chose only males as his priest-apostles as a concession to the chauvinism of his 1st century Palestinian age. Does this explanation make sense? In answering this question, let us consider the actions of Jesus, the divine plan and the cultures of the day.

First, the rabbi from Galilee was hardly known for making concessions/; when he confronted the money-changers in the Temple, or healed/picked grain on the Sabbath, or forgave sins, or claimed that his authority was greater than that of Moses!/. These were radical anti-cultural stances that reinterpreted Judaism and unsettled many. Moreover, he had no problem making women his good friends by sharing their fellowship and table (e.g. Martha and Mary of Bethany), appearing to a woman first after the resurrection (Lk.23:49) and breaking through the prejudices of his day by speaking to the unescorted, Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4). This was especially daring since/At this time, Jews and Samaritans were at odds with each other. According to the Judaism coming from Jerusalem, Jesus was not even supposed to communicate with this woman; yet, he disregarded societal views and spoke to her with love. Wells were often the place where women socialized during the day. This woman was alone and she revealed that she had lived with many men, all of which suggests she was being shunned by own people. However, Jesus welcomed this Samaritan woman just as He welcomes all sinners-with love and mercy.

Second, if God was particularly interested in paying attention to societal norms, as a factor in determining how to spread the Gospel, would He have become incarnate as a carpenter from the Roman province of Judea in order to change the empire and, eventually, the world? The One whom the heavens could not contain allowed himself to be contained in the womb of a Virgin. So said St. Augustine. This is hardly the move which lobbyists, experts, strategists and consultants would recommend. Give up your infinite power, become very little, obscure and vulnerable, love greatly, be misunderstood and die on a cross. Perhaps the plan of God is deeper than our own assumptions! Indeed, to base male-priesthood on Jesus’ alleged ‘going with the flow’ is only a pure insult to God!

Finally, consider the fact that many cultures in the Mediterranean basin, at the time of Jesus, had priestesses. The acceptance of women in these positions of religious authority hardly constituted a liberation from chauvinism or prevented Jesus from choosing women to be apostles. Likewise, we should be cautious today in adopting the cultural assumption that the refusal of the Church to ordain women constitutes a sign of chauvinism.

Some confidently cite St. Paul’s letter to the community in Galatia as a proof-text that women should be permitted to be priests claiming that he erases distinctions based upon sex: “For those who are baptised in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave or free...” (Gal 3:24-27). Note that St. Paul is speaking specifically about the sacrament of baptism, not ordination. Granted, when God the Father looks upon the baptized, He does not primarily see a grandmother or a grandfather, a mother or a father, a sister or a brother or a son or a daughter. He does not judge us according to the terms of kinship, cultural status or sex. Rather, He sees each of the baptized in union with His Son; for each person is now, ‘in Christ’; each person now has Christ’s relationship with him as his adopted daughters and sons and have a unique and special dignity as new creations. This does not mean that human embodiedness and sexual identity have no role in the natural or sacramental world. Otherwise, it would be quite strange for St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians to compare the love of Christ to his Church to the married love of a husband and wife (Eph 5). As well, Genesis 1:27 speaks of male and female equally being created in the image and likeness of God. Here equal dignity does not erase but embraces sexual difference. Thankfully equality and sexual difference co-exist; therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that this complementarity, this diversity within unity, has a profound meaning in God’s plan and that the mind of the Church aids us in understanding the possible correct interpretations of this meaning.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, Mary is the mother of God. No other human being has or ever will be in such an exalted office. Though our Lady shares neither the mission of the apostles, nor the dignity of the sacrament of priesthood, she was more holy than the men Jesus chose. In fact, she holds an even greater dignity than that of any priest, as she was born without sin, lived without sin and was assumed into heaven without the scars of sin on her soul. Furthermore, she was chosen by God to bear His Son because of this/her purity, and, therefore, her person and life has an incalculable dignity. If a woman is barred from the office of priesthood, it cannot be advanced that this is because she is ‘unworthy’ or ‘without gifts’ or ‘not holy enough’ etc. The Church’s teaching on Mary secures and emphasizes this truth.
Are there perhaps ecumenical considerations we should examine relative to this question? Yes. Many in-the-pews Catholics look at their Protestant brothers and sisters and say: ‘They are good Christians and they have women ministers and many of their women ministers are good preachers, gifted motivators, thoughtful theologians and pastorally sensitive . . . why not us?” Remember that Protestant Christians don’t have a sacramental priesthood. Protestant denominations have actually rejected the sacramental teachings from Rome and appoint ministers whose responsibilities are different than those of a sacramental priesthood- dedicated to offering the Holy Sacrifice and forgiving sins in the confessional. It makes little sense for Catholics to look to our separated Protestant brothers and sisters to help us this issue. It also suggests to us that the reason for a male priesthood is deeply associated with the priest as another Christ at the altar where the maleness of the minister functions like an icon. Are there other Christians who do share our idea of Priesthood? Yes. Are they of a significant number? Yes, over two hundred million strong! The Orthodox! By and large, they uphold the same great Tradition, liturgy and sacraments as the Roman Catholic Church including the teaching against ordination of women/for men alone. While the Orthodox disagree with Roman/Catholics about some things, they have bishops who are successors of the Apostles and, on this issue, we are of one heart and mind.

There have been various speculations concerning women deacons in the early Church. While it is true that the Church did have women deacons at one point, they never went on to become valid priests/and whether they were really “ordained to the diaconate” is uncertain. Furthermore, women deacons did not have the liturgical role of present-day deacons or priests. These women prepared other women for baptism - a sacrament which, at this time, involved full emersion in the nude. Women deacons and their catechetical role was intimately connected with concerns for modesty; it was not a step to priestly ordination. Sacraments have often undergone developments without their essentials being changed. During the 11th century marriage was officially declared as a sacrament within the Roman Catholic Church, even though it had been understood as a sacrament, at least, since the 4th century and its reality as a graced union and vehicle of grace is understood in our Tradition as being linked to the ministry of Jesus and the Wedding Feast at Cana (Jn 2). What does this say relative to the sacrament of ordination? Just this: the Church belongs to Christ and makes Him present in history; she exercises absolute power in making decisions that conform to the will of God in decisions touching upon the sacraments. Nothing in the sacramental world is subject to change unless approved by the Church. (In fact, because the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Church does not even have the authority to change them!) How Mass is to be celebrated, whether or not confession is to be in public or private, what words are necessary for Baptism to occur and the steady extension of sacramental requirements surrounding marriage and, many such situations, illustrate this truth. If the Church is the competent authority to rule in these cases, and she is, then the Church alone has the competency to rule in the matter of whether gender is an essential part of the matter of the sacrament of ordination. (The Church cannot change certain essentials about the sacraments however, the Church is bound by this choice of Christ Himself and therefore is not able to ordain women even if she wished to!)

Everyone wants to ‘dialogue’ about this issue. Dialogue is good. I am for dialogue. However, every dialogue has its time. Since Vatican II (1961-65) the Church of Rome has been consulting about this issue, and theologians have been writing about it. It has been the subject of conferences, books, journal articles, and vigorous debates inside and outside of the Church. At some point, dialogue gives way to decision. This happened in Pope John Paul the Great’s Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 1994 in which he taught definitively that the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium which must be held by all Catholics. In 1995, Pope John Paul II stated, “This issue does not need further discussion,” and I would definitely have to agree that enough is enough. Further discussion should centre upon the meaning of this decision and how it fits with our life and faith as a good and holy thing. Those who dissent at this point are harming the Body of Christ by their disobedience and inflicting wounds. To the unity of His Church.

Winston Churchill was definitely in the right when he stated, “There must be something in an institution which could survive so many centuries and have held captive so many men.” Surely the Church, as a divine institution based on over 2000 years of teaching and tradition is deserving of our trust. It is time we stood up and defended the Roman Catholic Church and, I suggest we do this primarily by turning to prayer as a first response and not a last resort. If we truly do this, then great things will happen and we will win many souls for God’s Kingdom. Prayer, educated argument, reason, and a united front; this is the way in which the Church of Christ shall prevail.

Cristy Ironside