I have meant to write something for a while. Now that I’m Catholic, the difficulties of rightly expressing my view have only increased, so I had almost given up on the idea.
I am never going to contradict firmly something proposed by the Church to be firmly held, as the male-only priesthood is. My own private theological judgment is that the arguments against women’s ordination aren’t very convincing. I have expressed that view quite often on this forum, but you’re right, I haven’t written it on my blog.
One of the problems with this forum for me (and now with FB) has always been that it distracts me from actual blogging. I find it much easier to respond impromptu to other people’s posts than to write something semi-permanent on a “blank sheet of paper” as it were.
Edwin
When JPII outlined the reasons for a male only priesthood, he was, of course, addressing fellow Catholics, not anyone else. After all, this isn’t a doctrinal issue that most of our Protestant ecclesial bodies even consider worth bothering about, even though most of them had male-only ministers for most of their histories. And most of them really had no real theological reasons for excluding women from the ordained ministry, except that it “just wasn’t done.”
But the Church has always had theological reasons for a male-only priesthood, but like many other issues of doctrine, they weren’t put forward (or at least not debated) because it simply hadn’t come up (or not seriously). The Catholic priesthood isn’t a matter of societal norms–ancient or modern, so that’s not even a consideration.
Rather, (and putting it as succinctly as possible for a forum post) the Catholic priesthood is the fulfillment of the OT priesthood of Melchizedek, as St. Paul discusses in Hebrews 5. It is a patriarchal priesthood which satisfies for the particular sin of Adam–not that of Eve, but of Adam. And what was Adam’s sin that she did not commit? He did not offer himself for her when she fell into sin, but joined her in disobedience.
As the head in authority over Eve (but not in dignity) it was his to correct her fault and offer himself for her–he failed in his duty to her and to God. Jesus, by being incarnate as a male and offering himself as both priest and sacrifice–as husband of the bride, his bride, made reparation for Adam’s sin and set up the male priesthood to perpetuate his sacrifice for Adam’s sin–as well as Eve’s, of course.
Now, JPII gave sufficient reasons for Catholics to understand and give their consent to the doctrine. As the pope, that’s all he has to do to expect compliance. Looking into it more deeply, scripturally and spiritually, the roots and meaning of the male priesthood go beyond mere sexual parts and societal roles. They go to the very core of Christ’s priesthood and his sacrifice for the whole human race. He established his priesthood to satisfy for the sin of Adam (who had the greater responsibility)–and of Eve, and of all of us.
It has to be remembered that Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal one, not merely set in Palestine 2000 years ago. It is a perpetual sacrifice, eternally offered to the Father. When Christ returns it will no longer be offered on altars throughout the world. But, until then, we offer it as he ordained, through whom he ordained, and as he ordained as a sign of the eternal satisfaction for the sin of Adam.
) and have to say that your teacher reminds me of the Pharisees in … well, a number of Gospel passages. Hard to pick one. (But at least he wasn’t angry enough to want to kill the student, was he?)
