First, as explained above, signs are cultural. When the culture no longer sees the significance the sign loses its meaning, except to those who have retained the understanding of it. Certainly, the practice of an important sign can re-introduce it into a culture, whether of the Church or society as a whole. And, some signs the Church never changes, can’t change, such as the sacramental signs. In the Orient rice is not used instead of wheat in the Eucharist, for example, even though rice is the main staple there. Thus, there is an argument in favor of maintaining this sign as conveying a truth about supernatural and natural hierarchy. However, why not maintain *all *the distinctions of men and women mentioned in canon 1262?
The answer to that question is my second reason - these external signs would be an obstacle for many people of our time to accepting the truth. A sign can become a counter-witness, by conveying a meaning which in current circumstances would generally be read in a way which misrepresents Church teaching. While the truths intended by these signs remain valid, properly understood and in union with other truths, they would have the net effect of conveying only a partial truth about women and men. In the contemporary world, in which the equality of men and women as persons is emphasized, this is a legitimate concern. As St. Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 8, we must not use our Christian freedom to hinder souls. Since there is no intrinsic moral obligation to these practices, they can be set aside, as the Church has done.
This brings me to my third reason, which may explains why these signs could lead to only a partial understanding of Church teaching in our day. The dropping of this obligation, I suspect, comes from a deliberate desire to promote the values of the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council. The liturgical renewal sought to give to the laity their rightful place as “royal priests,” sacramental signs of their membership in the Body of Christ through baptism - the ministerial priest being the sacramental sign of Christ the Head. By the active participation of the laity a liturgical, as opposed to a purely personal, piety is fostered, in which the Mystical Christ, Head and members, publicly worship the Father as one. This serves as a sign to the world of Christ’s salvific work and continuing presence in the world, both in the Eucharist and in the Church. Within that liturgical, sacramental perspective, the distinction between male in female does not apply, since in baptism “there is no longer male or female” (Gal. 3:28). The distinction to be emphasized in the liturgy is not the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, but the distinction between the Head and the members of Christ’s Body, that is, the supernatural ordering of the Mystical Body which comes about through Holy Orders and Baptism. In a similar way, in all areas of the Church’s life not requiring Holy Orders, men and women today participate equally as baptized persons. The sole exception is installation in ministry, what used to be called minor orders (lector and acolyte), which being closely associated to Major Orders is also reserved to men.
In the area of marital theology we have seen a similar theological development. For centuries it was the theological and canonical practice to emphasize the distinctions of nature in societies (civil, family, Church), rather than the equal personal dignity of human individuals. From Dietrich von Hildebrand in the 1920s, through Pope Pius XI and XII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II we have seen an increasing emphasis on the personalist and supernatural dimension of realities over their natural dimension. This conforms to St. Thomas Aquinas’ insight that a person is greater than a nature. This emphasis does not destroy the natures of things, such as the proper vocation of laity (of either sex) versus clergy (all male), of husband versus wife, or of man versus woman. Instead, within the bounds determined by the nature (male, female, marriage, clergy, laity etc.) it emphasizes the moral dictum that “persons are never the object of use, but only of love”.
Seriously, I do have a major sense of humor and can’t hardly walk into a room – silently – without getting attention. My husband says my personality preceeds me.
