My layman’s experience of Catholicism …
And yet, the universal tradition of the Church supports this doctrine, as well as the living magisterium. This is the sure sign by which we know doctrine to be true. How can a Catholic safely reject universal tradition and the living magisterium, and still think himself to be wading in safe waters? Aren’t these reason enough for holding to the doctrine?
Why would He? And experience of parishes and individuals suggest to me that many women are eminently suited to the priesthood.
I think the prime error that people make when treating the question of priesthood and women is to treat the priesthood as if it is an ordinary job which people can have or not based on merit.
Discrimination, particularly sexism, is an evil of which we are especially conscious at this time. The world always fluctuates in evaluating its favorite causes and its favorite vices, and the ‘first-world’ countries have-- God be praised-- come to understand how evil racial discrimination and sexism are.
I think that’s the background where most of us come to the question of women and the priesthood. And so it comes naturally to us to treat it as we would any other job… say as a police officer or firefighter, a carpenter or a lawyer… we ask merely
well, she’s qualified, isn’t she? And we can’t see anything else as being relevant.
I’ve very sympathetic with this intuition. I’ve thought over it a lot, and I see that it plays into your own response. See how you note that
women are eminently suited for priesthood. What else are you saying except this: when I look at a list of functions which priests need to be excellent at, it seems that women are equally as qualified at fulfilling any of these functions. Could women preach well? Counsel well? Of course. Well, then one has no basis on which to deny women the priesthood, if they can fulfill all of these functions equally as well.
On further reflection, I’ve found that the error in this line of reasoning is very subtle and very fundamental-- so much so that it is hidden from our view.
Why is sexism so bad? Isn’t it because it is a form of injustice? Why is it so bad for someone to deny a job to an equally qualified women? Well, because it is an injustice. And justice and injustice are a fairly simple matter for us to understand, conceptually. Justice is simply giving to others what you owe to them. Injustice is depriving others of what is owed to them. Sexism is an injustice because it deprives women of what is rightfully theirs. It is a textbook case of injustice.
The problem with treating the priesthood as a matter susceptible to sexism is that it assumes that it is susceptible to injustice, i.e., to the entire context of being just or unjust. I may not be clear. Let me explain.
Between God and man there is no strict obligation of any sort. God does not and cannot owe any creature anything on the basis of Who He is. It would be a defect in His supreme perfection if His creatures could
obligate Him or put Him into a relationship of obligation to them. I think this is why St. Paul insists that we cannot be justified before God by works of the law. After all, the worker enters into a relationship of strict justice with his employer. The worker does specific work, and as a result, the employer is
obligated to pay him a wage. Or, as St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.” (Rom 4:4). That’s why we relate to God by faith and not by works.
The whole problem with assuming that there would be something wrong with God or the Church disbarring women from entering the priesthood seems to fundamentally assume that priesthood is an honor which human beings ascend to based on merit of some sort. In other words, if you are sufficiently pious and otherwise well qualified, you ought to be a priest, and no one ought to deprive you of it. But the Scriptures are clear that the opposite is the case. Hence the Epistle to the Hebrews says that “And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was” (Heb 5:4). In other words, priesthood is a gift, not something due.
Referring back to Paul’s verse from Romans above, this should be a clear indication that priesthood does not come to human beings on the basis of merit, but purely as a gift.
If priesthood is purely a gift, then God is not obligated to give it to
anyone. Furthermore, if it is purely a gift then God is not unjust is depriving anyone of it. It simply cannot be unjust to fail to give to someone what is not owed to that person. So God simply cannot be unjust in failing to make women to be priests. It is literally impossible that this be a ‘sexist’ action on God’s part, for to be sexist, an act has to be unjust… and this simply cannot be unjust.
I grant you, to our contemporary mindset it seems surprising that God didn’t choose women to be priests. But that doesn’t mean that God isn’t within His rights to act this way. It is an opportunity for reflection and humble submission to God.
I think the arguments in favour are quite clear…The arguments against are always like yours ie swathed in obscure language and convoluted and --forgive me–incomprehensible reasoning.
I could definitely be clearer. It is a vice of mine. On the other hand, there are principles and ways of thinking that one must learn in order to do theology. There is no promise from God that all doctrine will be readily understandable to any layman. Therefore, if one balks at holding to a doctrine because one doesn’t understand the explanation, then one is not making a responsible decision in faith, for it is possible that one simply lacks the tools by which to evaluate it.
God bless,
Rob
I pray He gives us the grace necessary to remember that any children He blesses us with are ultimately HIS.
God bless,