Galatians 3:28 and Catholic priestesses

[Madaglan]

Galatians 3:28 reads:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

In the preceding passage, Paul calls us all “sons of God.”

A few months ago I read a series of articles which state why females should not become priests. Although I can’t remember all the arguments, I do remember that one of the most noticeable arguments is that, since Jesus only chose men as his apostles, and since Paul instructed that bishops be men, females are, shown by divine Scriptures, not willed by God to enter the priesthood.

In connection with this argument is the argument that, since all the priestly offices described in Scripture are run by male “priests” (not priestesses, as might be found in pagan temples), God has a specific reason to have the priesthood restricted to men.

Another argument I remember reading is that, since the mass is the sacrafice of Christ on the cross, the celebrant, who represents Christ, should be male, just as Jesus is male.

A terciary argument which I have run across, which, to tell you the truth, is more of a demonstration than an argument, is that throughout the Church’s entire history there has never been female priestesses.

While I can see some rationality in these arguments, I don’t presently find them very convinving. Concerning the first argument–namely, that Christ chose only males as teacher apostles–we tend to assume that the social beliefs of the early Christians in Judea must yet be adhered to today. However, to show how this is not practical, I imagine that most Catholics today would argue that slavery is intrinsically wrong, whereas the early Christians saw the practice of slavery (except in the spiritual sense) as morally neutral…so long as the master treated his slave well, and so long as the slave was obedient, slavery was not intrinsically evil, as we hold it to be today. In Philemon, Paul stresses the freedom that comes from Christ, but he does not condemn the institution of slavery per se. He simply stresses freedom and unity in Christ over all restrictions and divisions. In short, Christians of today have a different view of slavery than did the early Christians. Why, then, should we insist on a male priesthood if, as we now know, contrary to the mysogonistic writings of several Church Fathers, women are just as rational, just as spiritual, and, in short, just as capable as men?

Concerning the argument that women can’t become priests because the celebrant must be male: granted that the celebrant is to be like Jesus, why, then, do we not necessitate that the priest be Jewish and not Gentile, just as Jesus was Jewish and not Gentile? I just don’t understand why a priest must be like Jesus in one genetic respect–being male, and, in most cases, celibate–while in another genetic respect it doesn’t matter if he has a Jewish or Gentile heritage.

I imagine that the issue of gender has more to do than with just social conservativism; there are, unquestionably, Christological beliefs at stake

Anyhow, why, if we are neither female or male in Christ, did Christ come as the “Son of God”? Why are female Christians contextually referred to in Galatians 3, along with male Christians, as “sons of God”?

Do the male designations of God the Father and God the Son denote energies of God, as opposed to his nature, which is neither male nor female? Can we also refer to God, as did Julian of Norwich, in female terms–as God the Mother? Can we refer to the Word (not specifically Christ, who, in being 100% male bears a male body and a male mind), as being God the Daughter?

Although I don’t really support a female priesthood, I am having difficulties understanding the real reasons why most Catholic conservatives are against a female priesthood. What theological dangers are inherent in allowing priestesses? Why must we maintain a distinction between male and female if we are all one in Christ?

Again, I’m not trying to push a liberal agenda; in fact, if anything, I am against a liberal agenda, since I believe that there are strong arguments against issues like abortion and homosexual marriages. However, this female priest issue really has me thinking.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s already been settled. The reasons are moot. The Church does not have the authority to ordain women. A bishop can lay hands on them and everything, but it would have no effect. They would not be able to confect the Eucharist, perform marriages, absolve sins, etc. It’s as simple as that.

It’s fun to think about why, but if, as a Catholic, you believe that the Church cannot teach error and since she has taught that only men can be ordained, that should be enough for you.

In ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) (thats a link if you need to read it) the Holy Father said in paragraph 4 (bold emphasis added)…

Quote:
4.Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger, “Reply to the dubium Concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,”

Quote:
"…that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church., it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium…Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

 

[Fiat]

While I can see some rationality in these arguments, I don’t presently find them very convinving. Concerning the first argument–namely, that Christ chose only males as teacher apostles–we tend to assume that the social beliefs of the early Christians in Judea must yet be adhered to today. However, to show how this is not practical, I imagine that most Catholics today would argue that slavery is intrinsically wrong, whereas the early Christians saw the practice of slavery (except in the spiritual sense) as morally neutral…so long as the master treated his slave well, and so long as the slave was obedient, slavery was not intrinsically evil, as we hold it to be today. In Philemon, Paul stresses the freedom that comes from Christ, but he does not condemn the institution of slavery per se. He simply stresses freedom and unity in Christ over all restrictions and divisions. In short, Christians of today have a different view of slavery than did the early Christians. Why, then, should we insist on a male priesthood if, as we now know, contrary to the mysogonistic writings of several Church Fathers, women are just as rational, just as spiritual, and, in short, just as capable as men?

It does not matter what the individual Christian would accept socially, what matters is what Christ established. To say that Christ never ordained women because He was socially restricted is absurd, in light of all the other social restrictions Christ violated: i.e., allowing a menstruating woman to touch him; embracing lepers, including women in his closest circles, providing for women to be the first evangelizers, etc.

Fiat

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This is an interesting topic and I too have mixed feelings about it. I hold to the Church’s teaching on it, but I also wonder at times if perhaps there is confusion between Sacred Apostolic Tradition on the one hand, and the cultural traditions that have taken root in the Church on the other hand. Is an all-male priesthood akin to the trappings of the priesthood such as the Latin Mass (and subject to change); or is it more akin to the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself, which can never change.)

I don’t answers to these questions, but I’m “bumping” this topic for discussion by more enlightened forum members.

Peace and Charity,

 

[Genesis315]

Robert in SD:

This is an interesting topic and I too have mixed feelings about it. I hold to the Church’s teaching on it, but I also wonder at times if perhaps there is confusion between Sacred Apostolic Tradition on the one hand, and the cultural traditions that have taken root in the Church on the other hand. Is an all-male priesthood akin to the trappings of the priesthood such as the Latin Mass (and subject to change)

The Church will not teach it to be Tradition, if it is only tradition. That would be teaching error.

or is it more akin to the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself, which can never change.)

I would agree with that. If I’m not mistaken, the three things for a sacrament to be valid are form, matter, and intent and I would say the “matter” of “form” part would be off in this case. I think it would be for the same reason that a marriage between two people of the same sex would not be valid or putting honey in bread would make the consecration of the Eucharist to not be valid. Just a thought.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Fiat:

It does not matter what the individual Christian would accept socially, what matters is what Christ established. To say that Christ never ordained women because He was socially restricted is absurd, in light of all the other social restrictions Christ violated: i.e., allowing a menstruating woman to touch him; embracing lepers, etc.

You are correct. I remember reading some Catholic documents that use what you write as an argument in support of Christ’s divine institution of a strictly male priesthood.

but I also wonder at times if perhaps there is confusion between Sacred Apostolic Tradition on the one hand, and the cultural traditions that have taken root in the Church on the other hand.

I was thinking the same thing. Are early cultural traditions, which in the Bible and early Christian expressions are often tied with theological teachings, binding on Christians today, since these cultural traditions are used in representing theological truths, or, are several of these cultural traditions to be regarded as relative to ancient Biblical times, and so not an eternal Apostolic tradition, and not binding on Christians today?

Does that make sense?

 

[Genesis315]

Madaglan:

and so not an eternal Apostolic tradition, and not binding on Christians today?

Does that make sense?

I can understand your argument and it is reasonable, but the Church says it is part of big “T” Tradition. That is eternal and binding. It is to be believed by all the faithful, as JPII proclaimed. John XXIII and Paul VI were liberal and JPII was all about the dignity of women. If the Holy Spirit would have allowed it, I’m sure one of these guys would have begun ordaining women.

 

[Hildebrand]

Madaglan:

Concerning the first argument–namely, that Christ chose only males as teacher apostles–we tend to assume that the social beliefs of the early Christians in Judea must yet be adhered to today.

Social beliefs? Jesus chose 12 apostles, not because he was somehow restricted by Jewish tradition of the day. Look at how many times he broke the Jewish Sabbath:

Matthew 12:5** **broke the Jewish Sabbath

Mark 2:23 broke the Jewish Sabbath

Mark 3:4 broke the Jewish Sabbath

Luke 6:9 broke the Jewish Sabbath

Luke 13:14 broke the Jewish Sabbath

Luke 14:5 broke the Jewish Sabbath

John 5:18 broke the Jewish Sabbath

John 7:23 broke the Jewish Sabbath

John 9:14 broke the Jewish Sabbath

We can conclude that Jesus did not feel he was limited to the social order of the day, as many other passages tell.

Jesus chose 12 male apostles when there were many qualified women to be apostles. His mother, Mary. Mary, Martha’s Sister. Martha. Mary Magdalene (some believe she is the same as Martha’s sister), etc.

The apostles of Jesus after the Resurrection had no authority to break with what Jesus established. Jesus chose an all-male priesthood, it is what it is.

 

[trailblazer]

Reading this thread has been interesting. Lately, I have heard media criticize the pope on this and other issues. What is more unfortunate is that I have heard “Catholics” publically blast the pope and the Church on these issues.

I love the maturity that I have seen in the dialog. Personally, I have no objection to women priests or deacons, and if asked by Church authority, I would be glad to say so. One thing I think we must keep in mind for all issues is that as Catholics we need to promote university rather than diversity. We promote this by what we say and how we act when we say it. Those on the outside must see solidarity – to understand that the Catholic Church is the ROCK they can have confidence in.

 

[FCEGM]

The passage from St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians refers to baptism: that Baptism incorporates the individual person, male or female, into the paschal Mystery and into the Body of Christ. Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression – circumcision – was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.

It does not mean that the distinction between male and female established within Creation is obliterated on the natural level (and therefore on the level of natural symbol), but that this distinction does not exclude any man or woman from salvation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, however, is not established for everyone, but only for some, and is for the purpose of bringing to the Bride of Christ, the Church, a continuation of the definite God-Man Jesus’ sacrificial offering, forgiveness of sins, ruling the people, teaching them.

Therefore the quote which refers to Baptism, can not be transferred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and so there is no contradiction, for what is intended for all is by necessity different from what is intended for some.

Further, one can not limit revelation to that which the Lord Jesus specifically said rather than to all that He did and is. And part of Who He is we see constituted in His being Male. He is priest-as-male, male-as-priest. His maleness is not incidental to Him (no person’s gender is simply incidental to who that person is). Suggesting that whether a priest is a man or a woman is a superficial question, implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference with regard to the Incarnation of God, and that implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference as such. But such is a superficial understanding of human nature, the Incarnation, and so the symbolism of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, for the Church considers it a very deep question as part of Divine Revelation.

This really gets to the root of the problem, as proponents of priestesses think (as you have done) to point to the difference in ethnicity in the ordained as a reason to overcome the admitted Tradition of ordaining only males, namely that Our Lord chose only Jews as Apostles, but the Church did not stick to that, likewise. . .etc.

The Church is teaching, otc, that the difference between being a man or a woman goes to the heart of the Divinely-revealed Mystery of the Incarnation of God as a Man, or to put it in reverse, that the basic Mystery of the Incarnation is necessarily connected in fact with Our Lord choosing only men to be Apostles (as opposed to the ethnic difference of Jew/non-Jew) since the Twelve are to be icons or living images of this Man Jesus in being His priests. That distinction is not important for Baptism or Confirmation, but it is for Holy Orders.

In Baptism the question is incorporation into the Body of Christ affecting mainly the soul; in Confirmation, the strengthening of that grace of the Holy Spirit But the specific difference in Holy Orders is to be a visible sign of the Groom to the Bride, the Head to His Body, the Son to the Father, the Father to His children; and the Author of the world to come. That involves not just the soul but the body before the visible communion.

To some symbols are not very real; but for God they are the chief means of causing grace through the Sacraments by His free choice. And if we relate one choice of His (12 men) back to an earlier choice of His (man and woman in Creation) we must suppose a non-contradiction, so that the Incarnation reveals something important about creation of Mankind (otherwise God is arbitrary and not wise). And while we have no evidence of absolute agreement or proof in terms of science or philosophy, we do see a fittingness between the two orders of Creation and Redemption, with Creation leading to Redemption.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Why couldn’t the ancient Church have priestesses when every other religion in the world had them? The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchal as the Jews and Christians were. What this all boils down to is a two-fold denial of something intrinsic to the Catholic Covenant. Either. . .

1. The Church should discard its Bridegroom-Bride theology (given to us by Christ Himself), or …
2. It should redefine what a “Bridegroom” is, allowing both male and female to play this role (after all, lesbians do it) and thus eliminate all natural distinction between male and female in the human race - that is, to accept “maleness” and “femaleness” as something incidental to the human person (an “accident”), and not as a dimension of nature itself.

And where does all this lead? Well, not only does it undermine the very historicity of Jesus, Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature that He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.

What’s more, to go in the direction that the feminists wish us to go must necessitate a total rejection of Genesis 2 & 3 as anything more than an imperfect “parable,” since we must draw no distinction between the sin of Eve and that of Adam; and by no means regard Adam as an exclusive head of the human family with particular responsibilities (contra Gen 2:15) beyond those of his mate. And, with all this being the case, then Jesus does not come (as a man) to atone for the sin of Adam especially (despite what St. Paul has to say), but rather He comes to atone for some general, unspecified sin of Adam and Eve (humanity) collectively, since Adam’s choice to join his wife in sin (thereby breaking the final link in the Covenant between humanity and God) has no special significance. Therefore, Jesus did not have to be a man to mirror the type of Adam (again, despite St. Paul), but could have as easily had been a woman, being only incidentally a man (an “accident” to His ultra-sexual human nature).

Further, if Jesus did not need to be a man so as to atone for the exclusive sin of Adam, and repair the broken unity between man and God caused by the exclusive sin of Adam, then Mary cannot possibly be the New Eve (as all those male chauvinist pig Church fathers called her ;-)) because this would imply that the first Eve was not wholly culpable for her sin - that her sin did not directly plunge humanity as a whole into sin - and so God could not possibly have preserved another woman (an antitype: Mary) from sin because of this “victimization” of Eve and the mercy accorded to that victimization of the serpent upon His final and greatest creation (the woman).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

So, Catholicism’s 2,000-year old understanding of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve must fly completely out the window; and with it the Immaculate Conception and even the sinlessness of Jesus Himself. For without them being the New Adam and New Eve, their sinlessness is completely meaninglessness. Ah! Unless, of course, our feminist sisters wish to rescue us from this by proposing that Jesus and Mary are New Adam and New Eve interchangeably! Yes, that would work just fine! So, Jesus is not only the New Adam, but He is also the New Eve, the Mother of us all. And, if this is the case, then Jesus and His Church are interchangeable as well! Yes, both Jesus and the Church are our Mother! And, if that’s the case, then we the Church are also Christ! And since Christ is God, then the Church is God! Thus, each of us are Gods, and the serpent was RIGHT in Genesis 3:5! Alleluia! If we had only listened to him from the start! But, wait! That is what we did, isn’t it? And here we are in a sinful and confused world - the perfect setting for a feminist religion.

Thousands upon thousands of years ago, a deceived and prideful woman told us that we are to be gods. Now, thousands of years later, more deceived and prideful women (and women seeking to be faithful, but who have succumbed to their theological blandishments) are still telling the very same story - a story that can only lead to the Church declaring itself to be God, and giving the real God His (and I do mean HIS walking papers. This is what the feminists actually want anyway - even if they don’t know it yet.

Now when the Church tells us something is important and not superficial concerning a Sacrament of Jesus Christ, which is a matter of Redemption, we either believe her or we don’t; and if we don’t, on the basis of what don’t we believe her when we do believe her regarding the Divinity of Christ, His redemptive Sacrifice and Resurrection, etc.? It can only be by preferring our own opinion or judgment to hers on a matter proclaimed as Revelation.

If it were a matter only of discipline, that would be different (thought one would have to obey the discipline until it would be changed by proper authority). But when the Church says it is not a matter of discipline but a matter of doctrine necessarily connected to the Revelation, one must accept on the same faith that one accepts the Revelation to begin with, otherwise there is no faith involved but only human judgment and opinion – and so no revealed truth.

Now the Church tolerates within her body defective believers who do not accept everything she proclaims as revealed, as she tolerates sinners so as to save them; but she will not eventually tolerate teachers, preachers, catechists who do not respect her teachings. They will gradually be removed from infecting the faithful with their erroneous opinions, judgments or contrary beliefs. We are seeing the battle of weeding-out the false teachers right now, and as with previous errors, there is no doubt about the outcome.

 

[Madaglan]

Thank you FCEGM for your well-reasoned commentary.

A few questions.

Originally Quoted by FCEGM:

And, if that’s the case, then we the Church are also Christ! And since Christ is God, then the Church is God! Thus, each of us are Gods, and the serpent was RIGHT in Genesis 3:5! Alleluia! If we had only listened to him from the start! But, wait! That is what we did, isn’t it? And here we are in a sinful and confused world - the perfect setting for a feminist religion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Church in a certain way Christ, in that the Church consists of the “mystical body of Christ”? So, can one rightfully say that the Church is Christ in this sense? Also, I know this is especially true in Byzantine theology: isn’t the object of man to become divinized…to become like God?

But when you mention people saying the “Church is God” and that the “Church is Christ,” are you speaking on an “essential” level of understanding, as opposed to “divinization” understanding of the Church?

Do you think that one of the theological mistakes people make today is in confusing “divinization into Christ” with “being made into the essence of Christ”? Does that make sense?

Now the Church tolerates within her body defective believers who do not accept everything she proclaims as revealed, as she tolerates sinners so as to save them; but she will not eventually tolerate teachers, preachers, catechists who do not respect her teachings. They will gradually be removed from infecting the faithful with their erroneous opinions, judgments or contrary beliefs. We are seeing the battle of weeding-out the false teachers right now, and as with previous errors, there is no doubt about the outcome.

Granted. But I think that, in turn, the Church should also be active in teaching to its teachers the logic behind its beliefs, as you have done for us on this forum. Part of the reason that teachers, preachers and catechists do not respect the teachings of the Church is because these individuals do not receive sufficient education in the faith from their superiors in the Church.

For example, I know that when I attended CCD, a few years ago, the “morality class” teacher told the students in the classroom that masturbation isn’t really a sin, but that it isn’t really a natural thing either–sort of a morally neutral act. She could have simply read the CCC to see that she was wrong.

If an individual, in ignorance, challenges the Church, and the Church responds by giving a reasonable explanation of its authority on a matter, and if that person understands the argument but still objects, even though he deep inside affirms the argument, then he is doing a moral wrong. However, if an individual, in ignorance, challenges the Church on a certain issue, and if the Church does not adequately respond to what in reality is a petition by an individual of the Church for others in the Church to give a reasonable explanation of the Catholic faith, but instead retorts, “How dare you challenge the most infallible and Holy Church!!!” and proceeds to either excommunicate or reprimand the individual, then the Church does wrong in this instance, since it fails to use the opportunity perform its role as exponent of the Apostolic faith.
That is, at least, how I see the matter. I feel as though my instruction in the Catholic faith was, and still is, not up to par to what I need to rationally expound the Catholic faith. Most of what I know about the Catholic Church has been through reading the CCC and the early Church Fathers, and, of course, from these forums.

 

[FCEGM]

Thank you for your kind words, Magdalan.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Church in a certain way Christ, in that the Church consists of the “mystical body of Christ”? So, can one rightfully say that the Church is Christ in this sense? Also, I know this is especially true in Byzantine theology: isn’t the object of man to become divinized…to become like God? But when you mention people saying the “Church is God” and that the “Church is Christ,” are you speaking on an “essential” level of understanding, as opposed to “divinization” understanding of the Church?

You’re correct, Magdalan. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, the members of which through their spiritual growth by participation in the life of the Church become, as St. John of the Cross says, “God by participation.” And, right, I’m speaking of the “essential” as opposed to “divinization.” My point is that in promoting priestesses in Christ’s Church the line of thought often employed ultimately leads both backwards to a denial of human nature and Christ as the New Adam, and forwards to a denial of any distinctions between men and women, Christ and His Church. IOW, it would not be a participation in God by grace, but by nature - reflecting the words of the original temptation.

Do you think that one of the theological mistakes people make today is in confusing “divinization into Christ” with “being made into the essence of Christ”? Does that make sense?

Precisely and yes

But I think that, in turn, the Church should also be active in teaching to its teachers the logic behind its beliefs, as you have done for us on this forum. Part of the reason that teachers, preachers and catechists do not respect the teachings of the Church is because these individuals do not receive sufficient education in the faith from their superiors in the Church . . .[etc.]

I couldn’t agree with you more, Magdalan. But there are some who have been well-formed but yet prefer and persist in maintaining their judgment over and above that of the Church, which, of course, results in those who are receiving instruction from them echoing unwittingly (perhaps) what they have been taught.

That is, at least, how I see the matter. I feel as though my instruction in the Catholic faith was, and still is, not up to par to what I need to rationally expound the Catholic faith. Most of what I know about the Catholic Church has been through reading the CCC and the early Church Fathers, and, of course, from these forums.

My instruction was quite good - coming as it did pre-Vatican II - but still it lacked something of the “why” of the substance of what was taught; I got the basic “whats” down early , but it’s been, as with you, much study on my own - with the most helpful guidance of a very learned and holy priest.

God bless you in your study, Magdalan, and may it prove ever more fruitful in helping to build up Christ’s Mystical Body.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Madaglan:

Concerning the first argument–namely, that Christ chose only males as teacher apostles–we tend to assume that the social beliefs of the early Christians in Judea must yet be adhered to today. However, to show how this is not practical, I imagine that most Catholics today would argue that slavery is intrinsically wrong, whereas the early Christians saw the practice of slavery (except in the spiritual sense) as morally neutral…so long as the master treated his slave well, and so long as the slave was obedient, slavery was not intrinsically evil, as we hold it to be today. In Philemon, Paul stresses the freedom that comes from Christ, but he does not condemn the institution of slavery per se. He simply stresses freedom and unity in Christ over all restrictions and divisions. In short, Christians of today have a different view of slavery than did the early Christians. Why, then, should we insist on a male priesthood if, as we now know, contrary to the mysogonistic writings of several Church Fathers, women are just as rational, just as spiritual, and, in short, just as capable as men?

Personally, I don’t think Philemon deals with slavery, fundamentally. The human bondage it talks about is a vivid metaphor for our bondage to sin, which is overcome by our baptism and by following Christ. Onesimus deserved death for his running away from his master, just as we deserve spiritual death for running away from the holiness of God. Onesimus’s conversion to Christianity is the truly liberating event in his life. His human slavery would also melt away if Philemon treated Onesimus as his brother. Paul’s entreaty to Philemon is a parable of Jesus’ mediation with the Father.

Women don’t have a right to ordination, any more than men do.

Overall, I think it’s more to the point to discuss a married priesthood, and eventually a married pope. If human nature and the Bible tell us anything, men and women need each other and even the pope should be married, i.e. a fully-developed person with a wife. That makes more sense to me, in a subject where little seems to make complete sense.