The Male Priesthood
As I understand the line of thinking from many proponents of the ordination of women to the priesthood, it first assumes a functional understanding of the priesthood, i.e., a role someone does, and then a political understanding of why it is restricted to men, i.e., a power interest. From these assumptions they do not see how a woman can not do what a man does should she have the talents, training and motivation for the vocation, nor why she would be excluded in principle except by unjust discrimination by power-invested hierarchs (or perhaps, for some, from a motive of mindless tradition).
But this thinking is about as far removed from the understanding of the Church as one can get. Why? Because the Church understands the Sacraments to operate by reason of their symbolism. And what they “operate” is a supernatural reality beyond the entire natural order.
Turning to the priesthood: God chose twelve men to symbolize Christ as High Priest (vis-a-vis both God and the Church) as Head of the Body and as Groom to the Bride. (See especially Ephesians 5 toward the end of the chapter on the Great Mystery and spousal symbolism.) Women can not symbolize the Head (the Man Jesus Christ) to the Body, nor the Groom (the same Man Jesus Christ) to the Bride (the Church).
I wish to point out that not even any man can symbolize this. Only those chosen by the Church and ordained through apostolic succession. So going back to the example of the Eucharist, should a community of Catholics lack an ordained man (it happened in both Japan and Korea for hundreds of years, as well as in much of England and Scandinavia during the same period), they could not have a layman, or ordained deacon even, celebrate the Mass with any supernatural effect. Reason: supernatural causes alone bring supernatural effects and God has chosen to bring about the supernatural effect of extending the Priesthood of His Incarnate Son only through the symbolism He choose for Christ as Head to Body and Groom to Bride through the laying on of hands upon men by the Twelve and their successors.
It is obvious that a woman can not symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin – rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better – than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest.
That is why Christ chose only men to attend the Last Supper where He established the Eucharist and Priesthood. To the objection that “only Jews were there, so only Jews should be priests” the answer is easy: the Divine symbolism of Christ as Head and Groom is not removed by the absence of Jewishness, while it is by the absence of a) a Baptized male believer of sufficient age, b) being chosen and ordained by Apostolic Succession, through the laying on of hands for the office. And that is how the Church took it from the beginning with the ordination of gentile men while the Apostles were still alive and refraining from having priestesses.
I might point out that this tradition of the office of the priesthood as a Sacrament, a sacred and supernatural symbol of Christ, i.e., the specific man Jesus Who is God Incarnate, is why the faithful have put up with great deficiencies in their priests down through the ages, because they sense the supernatural effects are through the symbolism and not through the natural or attained qualities of the individual priest. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, the Body and Blood of Christ is transubstantiated, sins are forgiven, by a validly ordained priest through the Divinely chosen symbolic actions of the Sacraments, regardless if the priest himself is a jerk, or worse. That human condition doesn’t stop the supernatural effects from taking place between Christ and the faithful. That is also, I may add, why Bishops sometimes value even bad priests in desperate circumstances, if through discreteness no scandal or moral harm takes place (although America seems to have reached new lows in a very few cases recently).
So the Church does not see itself competent to ordain women. Neither does it see itself competent to allow deacons or laymen to officiate at the Eucharist or forgive sins, or replace water for wine in the Eucharist, or oil for water in Baptism. There would be no supernatural effects if she did make those changes since it is not by the functioning of natural or attained talents or human intentions, but by the Divine chosen symbolism that Divine Mysteries are mediated in the Church. Thus it is not a put down or injustice of women to discriminate on the basis of supernatural symbolism received by the Church from God Himself. And the natural or attained talents of women can be expressed in other ways to great effect as they have been from the beginning.
And I might add that this sacramental awareness of the Priesthood also corrects the political understanding of Church leadership as primarily a position of power. It is, rather, a position of authority: kingship, Priesthood (the sanctifying role of offering the sacrifice) and prophecy (teaching with God’s authority God’s Mind on things, all as service to the flock, not as a political power in society. Protestants deny all this. The minister is chosen solely on the basis of a community’s evaluation of his talents and functions towards their needs; they go to him for that and remove him when they don’t see the results they want. In that understanding of ministry it really would be male chauvinism to insist on excluding women on principle or because that’s the way it always was done in the past (traditionalism rather than Tradition).
Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.
Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus’ ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church’s greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church’s constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church’s understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.).
Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language “the twelve” and “apostles” shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men.
Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus’ priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship.
Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.
Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 - because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman.
Mark 3:13 - Jesus selected the apostles “as He desired,” according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus’ selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God.
John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years.
etc.). When people give silly reasons like this it just fuels the belief that the male priesthood is discriminatory. We should all stick with theology when defending the priesthood.
