Women as priests

[Tantum_ergo]

What I cannot understand is the fairly contemporary school of thought (existing it appears in Catholic and Protestant circles) that is constantly trying to ‘prove’ the negative. . .

Premise A. In contemporary society we view that ‘equality of persons’ means that women can ‘do’ anything that men can do as ‘jobs’ (outside primary biological function --no man can carry a child in his womb, no woman can ‘implant her sperm’ into a man). Of course throughout history ‘equality of persons’ has meant many different things and constantly ‘evolved’ or changed according to ‘societal’ definition so guess what–in 50 or 100 years I guarantee ‘equality of persons’ is going to be something that differs --either in a major or a minor way --than the current ‘definition’.

Premise B. Since Jesus lived ‘prior’ to our time, He must have ONLY BEEN CAPABLE of ‘carrying out’ concepts like ‘equality of person’ as it was understood THEN. It is ‘assumed’ that He ‘adapted’ His mission to what was ‘available’ in the culture (even though there is no support to this ‘theory’ and in actual fact countless Biblical injunctions not only go FARTHER than the ‘cultural climate’ of THEN, they go FARTHER than the cultural climate of NOW.) But these revisionists would confine Jesus the ‘human’ to ONLY what humanity knew or did ‘then’.

Premise C: Since Jesus had to ‘adapt’ His teachings, part of our responsibility as ‘contemporary’ Christians is to take the ‘limitations’ of His teachings and to ‘bring them into the modern world’. We must then, in our IMAGINARY view that Jesus was deficient in his use of women because of the Jewish culture, and our equally IMAGINARY view that the Church, carried on supposedly by ‘men alone’ hijacking “POWER”, not only refused to recognize ‘equality’ then but is digging in its heels now trying NOT to ‘permit’ the so-called ‘wrong’ from being righted, FORCE these ‘deluded beings’ into doing what Jesus WOULD HAVE DONE–if only He COULD have done it.

Again, the concept that WE are more ‘fair’ than Jesus ‘was’ is the typical ‘elevation of humanity’ rigamarole that’s been around since the Garden of Eden had a serpent slither in. . .

 

[Contarini]

You are out of line in this attack Please follow the rules of this forum, and address the arguments made,

I did.

and not drop pronouns that impute either bad motives or bad abilities to the poster of a response. If you ever “you” me again in this manner, things just might get nasty.

Huh? You wrote a post–am I supposed to pretend it just dropped from the air?

I have given the three approaches most often encountered among feminists. My statements were accurate and I stand by them. I did not mean to accuse you of bad motives or of anything else, except not having dealt with arguments I have encountered in feminist writings and in conversations with feminists. Since this is a matter of fact–i.e., I have encountered these arguments and you did not deal with them–I cannot retract what I said. I did not mean to impute bad faith to you, and I apologize for speaking in a way that could be interpreted as such an accusation.

As for the point that is presented, it must then follow that there exists in the world only feminists “in the broadest and weakest sense.” The argument is virtually universal, since it is the only argument that seems to be at hand for the action of Christ.

I gave three others. You are simply ignoring the substance of my post.

I have no problem accepting your statement that this is the only pro-women’s ordination argument you have encountered. It is certainly a common argument, but it is to be found among Christians who are relatively conservative and traditional (compared to most of those who would consider themselves feminists and would make feminism central to their theology).

Edwin

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

You make some valid counter-points. Again, it was just a theory, one I think that is still potentially plausible. Let me ask you this, what if Scripture said there were female apostles? Do you think the early church still would have thrived, or would it have been to much for a male dominated society to swallow?

But who can say? When Our Lord told people that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, many separated themselves from him, but not all, and the Church thrived. On the showing of that, one might draw some conclusions on the question posed, but the point is there were none, just as in all of the history of the Jewish people there were, uniquely, no priestesses. Judges, prophets, and other callings, yes, but no calls to the priesthood.

(Let me just add that the priesthood is not something men strive for, or claim as a right. It is something they are called to. God calls his priests, as he always has done.)

God, being God, prevails in what he does, in a way which, mysteriously, does not negate our free will.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;2821213:

Yes, and women can play an equally vital role in the Eucharist, but not one identical to the role a man may play

Women play no role in the Eucharist that cannot be played by men. Therefore, the analogy with sexual reproduction–in which both men and women play indispensable roles–does not work.

However, as I said the point is not one of “fairness,” but of the full humanity of women. If God had chosen to make women (or men) only semi-human, we would have no reason to complain. But in fact we all agree that He didn’t.

Yes, women are created in God’s likeness and image, as are men. It does not follow from that that the likeness and image of each are identical.

There is absolutely NO support in the Christian tradition (or in Scripture as far as I can see) for the idea that men and women are created equally in God’s image but in ontologically different ways which complement each other. This is a modern invention, and departs from traditional Christian anthropology radically. The ordination of women itself is a trivial issue by comparison. The complementarian position logically would require two Incarnations–as posited in heretical versions of Christianity such as Shakerism. It has seriously heretical implications.

Men do not participate in the biological process of creation in the same way as women. No Church edict can change that. Why would it follow that women partipate identically to men in the generation of ontological life?

Because we have the plain teaching of Scripture that “male and female” are irrelevant “in Christ.” If nothing else, this surely means that you cannot argue directly from the role of the two sexes in reproduction to their role in the economy of salvation. I am not claiming that the text from Galatians necessarily implies any more than that. It seems to me that this is minimal–less than that makes the text completely meaningless.

Yes, the human person is a union of soul and body, the Form and the Function. But where do you get the impression that the Soul that Forms the female body is ordered to the same nature and the Form of the male body?

I don’t think I understand your language. Presumably you mean “as” rather than “and.” It is basic to traditional Christian anthropology (indeed, it’s pre-Christian, going back at least to the Stoics) that there is one human nature. If there are two different natures, then we have two different species. If the two species are equal but one of them can participate in Christ in a way the other cannot, then we would, as I said, need two Incarnations. Otherwise women remain unredeemed.

Either you consider the priesthood to be a function of the personal sancitity of the minister given at Baptism ( which is Donatist), or you consider the priesthood to be a function of the ontological change of the soul infused at Baptism.

Well no, it’s not an either/or (many Protestants hold to neither of these things). But yes, I believe the latter of these. My point was simply that the sacraments affect the whole person–body and soul. That’s why we have sacraments.

I, and the Church, consider the Ministerial Priesthood to be a function of an additional ontological change that is infused with the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

And while we have proof that the female soul in may be ontologically configured to the common priesthood, we have no proof that the soul of the female may be configured to the Ministerial Priesthood.

You are sliding back and forth between “female soul” and “soul of the female.” Which is it? If there is a “female soul” without reference to the body, then we have two species, as I said.

As for “proof,” the burden of proof is on those who separate Holy Orders from baptism and posit that a particular biological similarity with the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity is necessary for the former but not for the latter.

Edwin

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There is absolutely NO support in the Christian tradition (or in Scripture as far as I can see) for the idea that men and women are created equally in God’s image but in ontologically different ways which complement each other.

This position is impossible to credit for any husband who has been in a delivery room while his wife has given birth to their child. It comes across as being so contrived that one would either expect to find it inside a university seminar room (or some other place where unreality is free to flourish), or on the stage of a comedy club.

But then again, this is the sort of thing that comes from a rejection of the concept of the natural law.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Contarini]

This position is impossible to credit for any husband who has been in a delivery room while his wife has given birth to their child. It comes across as being so contrived that one would either expect to find it inside a university seminar room (or some other place where unreality is free to flourish), or on the stage of a comedy club.

But then again, this is the sort of thing that comes from a rejection of the concept of the natural law.

Well, I don’t reject the natural law. And I was in the delivery room less than a year ago.

Being in a delivery room does not make one see things in history that aren’t there–at least it shouldn’t.

Men and women are different and complementary. That is not the point. The point is that this difference rests on the bedrock of a shared human nature.

Edwin

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Well, I don’t reject the natural law. And I was in the delivery room less than a year ago.

There is, on the showing of the posts, a dearth of evidence in favour of acceptance.

Being in a delivery room does not make one see things in history that aren’t there–at least it shouldn’t.

A tautology.

Men and women are different and complementary. That is not the point. The point is that this difference rests on the bedrock of a shared human nature.

Edwin

Each is human, that has never been questioned. It simply does not follow, though, that because each is human, God therefore calls both, rather than the one of his choosing, to the priesthood.

Since “things in history” seem of interest, once again it is to be pointed out that, uniquely among the Jews, only men were called to the priesthood when God (not the Hebrew people) established it. While we’re at it, history is bereft of examples where either the existence of priestesses, or for that matter, goddess worship, led to either improvement in, or equality of, the lot of women in a society.

Implicit seems to be the assumption that possessing full humanity implies a right to the priesthood. That’s just not so. It is contrary to revelation in history that a human being has the right to the priesthood simply because of the possession of human nature. To assert otherwise requires that one takes the position that God was incredibly prejudiced and unjust when he called only the sons of Aaron to the first priesthood he established. It would be as cogent to say that, in being born into a human family headed by a carpenter, God the Son discriminated against, say, stone masons, and every other trade and profession.

God chose the family into which he was willing to be born, and he chose, and chooses, at his absolute and sovereign discretion, those he calls to the priesthood. The Church works with that; she does not dispute it or try to thwart it. Protestants, having undertaken additionally to change the deposit of the faith in many other areas, act in a different manner. That is of little consequence, since Protestants have lost or abandonned the priesthood anyway, replacing it with something different.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Steve40]

Huh?

God made us male and female for a reason and it wasn’t just to have babys. The image of male and female is between Christ and the Church. Since the Eucharist is very Physical we need to pay attention to any physical requirements that Christ and the Church have established. It is just as important as the physical requirements between husband and wife to have sex and bear children which is a sign of our union with Christ. We are all feminine to Christ.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Therefore, I believe that it’s incoherent to say that a woman can be fully incorporated into Christ in baptism but is simply incapable of sacramentally representing Him as a priest. However, I agree with the basic Catholic understanding of what priests do, as you describe it in this post.

Edwin

Hi Contarini,

Thanks for your reply. But I think therein lies our difference. I’d like to give you my thoughts…

The Catholic priest isn’t “representing” Christ. I think the Latin terminolgy is “Persona Christi”, which means in the person of Christ. :twocents:

And it’s not “what priests do” that makes them special. It’s who they become. (Maybe I didn’t word that properly . But maybe if you research Persona Christi you’ll understand it better.) :twocents:

Once again, think of the priest as the Groom, and the Church as the Bride. :twocents:

 

[jmcrae]

Let me ask another question (which seems related to this issue, in my thinking).

Should women have the right to play Jesus in a public performance of the Passion play, or in a commercial movie version?

For example, could or should the role of Jesus as played by Jim Cavaziel have gone to a woman, instead? (Since there are a great many actresses who have more acting talent than Mr. Cavaziel has, and they probably would have demanded less money for the role, as well.)

If not, then isn’t the mere fact that the priest is in persona Christi when he administers the Sacraments a good enough argument against a female priesthood in the Catholic Church?

This is despite the fact that there are a great many women who are excellent administrators and very pastoral in their interactions with others.

The fact that the Church has no authority to ordain women also carries weight, since obviously (thought problems aside) the Church cannot seriously contemplate an action that it has not been given permission to perform, in the first place.

 

[mikew262]

God made us male and female for a reason and it wasn’t just to have babys. The image of male and female is between Christ and the Church. Since the Eucharist is very Physical we need to pay attention to any physical requirements that Christ and the Church have established. It is just as important as the physical requirements between husband and wife to have sex and bear children which is a sign of our union with Christ. We are all feminine to Christ.

Pretty extreme view IMO.

 

[Contarini]

Let me ask another question (which seems related to this issue, in my thinking).

Should women have the right to play Jesus in a public performance of the Passion play, or in a commercial movie version?

For example, could or should the role of Jesus as played by Jim Cavaziel have gone to a woman, instead? (Since there are a great many actresses who have more acting talent than Mr. Cavaziel has, and they probably would have demanded less money for the role, as well.)

If not, then isn’t the mere fact that the priest is in persona Christi when he administers the Sacraments a good enough argument against a female priesthood in the Catholic Church?

This is despite the fact that there are a great many women who are excellent administrators and very pastoral in their interactions with others.

No, this argument doesn’t work. (First of all, of course a woman has a “right” to play any role she chooses.) I have no theological problems with an actress playing the role of Christ in a play. The problem with it is a purely aesthetic one having to do with the suspension of disbelief. Particularly in a movie (where less suspension is generally required than in a play), people generally don’t get Nordic or sub-Saharan-African or East Asian actors to play Jesus either. That doesn’t mean that blond Scandinavians or Zulus or Koreans can’t be priests, does it? It’s not a theological issue at all.

That is the whole problem with the “Jesus was male” or “the Apostles were male” arguments. You have to back them up with some account of why gender matters in a way that other specifics do not.

The fact that the Church has no authority to ordain women also carries weight, since obviously (thought problems aside) the Church cannot seriously contemplate an action that it has not been given permission to perform, in the first place.

Well, that’s begging the question. If you simply mean that we have no record of Jesus saying “It’s OK to ordain women”–well, we have no record of Him saying “it’s OK to ordain Japanese men” either, or for that matter no record of Him saying “It’s OK to ordain left-handed people.”

Again, this presupposes a particular understanding of why gender is significant. Since the understanding of gender that the Catholic Church defends today is radically different from that of the ancient or medieval or early modern worlds, you cannot simply invoke tradition in favor of the practice without examining the theory of gender that lies behind it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Pretty extreme view IMO.

Actually I agree that “we are all feminine to Christ.” This works for, not against, women’s ordination. If we are all feminine to Christ, then a man is no more suited to represent Christ sacramentally than a woman. And as I have said many times, it is just as inappropriate for a man to take the “female” role (i.e., to be part of the congregation" as for a woman to take the “male” role (i.e., to be a priest).

Edwin

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

To step back from the arguments against the position of the Church with respect to the Sacrament of Holy Orders is to see a pattern in which there are clearly some underlying assumptions.

• The Sacraments and their attributes were not given to the Church, but devised by humans.
• God can only act in a manner that human beings can fully understand.
• Anything that human reason can find an argument against cannot be of God, and can be rejected.

There are others as well, but the point is that we are being hectored here by arguments that make God very small indeed, make humans so large that their intellects become the measure of what is godly. They take a very deistic view of the Church, with her being assumed to be completely the work of human hands, and not at all the work of a God who, effectively, is completely detatched from her, even though this God purports to be the object of her worship.

When I worshipped among the Anglicans, these trends were incredibly common. They contributed to the current situation of that community, which is in tatters, and is flying apart into pieces, while the Socinianism alluded to by Trollope in his writings is re-emerging with incredible vigour.

Of course the arguments for women priests are find a home there, among some of the members of that community. God is so small in these arguments that he must conform to the collective human opinion, and could never set an example which is normative to human though, but must always conform to that thought as it changes.

In the words of J.B. Phillips (an Anglican, as it happens), we are seeing in the arguments the fruit of those whose God is too small. All of the argument pivot on the diminution of God, and the agrandisement of human beings. Otherwise, it would simply be noted that God calls the proiests of his choosing, and since God is doing the calling, therefore it is the right call – whether we can fully understand it or not.

But part of the argument is clearly bogus. It is simply not correct to treat those instances where Catholics point out that Scripture and Tradition, and logic, are not offended by God’s actions as attempts to justify the actions. They need no justification, and Catholics are not in the business of trying to provide any. What proves the issue is the authority of God, which, alas, requires humility of humans.

Good grief, one would almost think that becoming a priest had anything at all to do with the realization of the potential of the one who does so. Admit that nonsensical premise, and anything goes.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[clmowry]

And my primary objection is not even to the idea of men and women having different functions in the Church, but to the specific differences that have existed historically, which clearly have rested on the belief that women are inferior expressions of human nature and make no sense without that belief (desperately as Catholics try to show that they do).

Believing that men and women represent “different” expressions of human nature and have different roles to play does not imply belief in an inferior expression of human nature.

Though in a historical context, it is true that women have been seen (and are still seen in many cultures) as “inferior” to men, this does not lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has taught this nor that this is the reason women are not ordained as priests.

Do you have any examples where this magisterial teaching was expressed? Perhaps I’m mistaken.

Chuck

 

[jmcrae]

No, this argument doesn’t work. (First of all, of course a woman has a “right” to play any role she chooses.) I have no theological problems with an actress playing the role of Christ in a play. The problem with it is a purely aesthetic one having to do with the suspension of disbelief.

Exactly.

So why does the prohibition of women to the priesthood have to be theological? It makes perfect sense for it to be an aesthetic issue.

After all, the rest of the Sacraments make use of our physical senses to convey their spiritual sense - why should it not also be so for the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

We don’t use apple juice in the Sacrament of Baptism, nor in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, not because apple juice is in some way “inferior” either to water or to wine (especially the stuff we use for Holy Communion), but because apple juice isn’t suitable to the Sacraments.

I am just presenting my own ideas, here - what the Church teaches is that She has no authority to ordain women, and that’s just that. No other explanation is given - or required, since this is not an issue of “women’s rights” - women can certainly hold paid positions in the Church that are of significant influence - theologians, teachers, support staff, etc. - indeed, the only place we seem to see men at work in the Church is in the ministerial priesthood - deacons, priests, and Bishops. Even the caretaking staff is becoming more and more dominated by women.

 

[Contarini]

Believing that men and women represent “different” expressions of human nature and have different roles to play does not imply belief in an inferior expression of human nature.

Though in a historical context, it is true that women have been seen (and are still seen in many cultures) as “inferior” to men

Exactly

this does not lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has taught this nor that this is the reason women are not ordained as priests.

I don’t know whether I could find such statements, but from my perspective that is not the point. As far as I know, all the official statements from the early Church (Pope Gelasius and various Councils) simply forbid women to take part in any ministry in the sanctuary (whether Gelasius was talking about female priests or some other kind of liturgical minister is not clear, in my opinion) without giving reasons. To see the reasons, you have to look at what theologians said and what people in that culture believed. Implicit in the language used by the Fathers are two concerns: that women in the sanctuary are somehow polluting (an attitude some traditionalist posters even on this board seem to hold and which can be abundantly traced through both Judaism and Christianity), and that women cannot hold any position that involves “principatus” (i.e., leadership or authority). For some of these quotes, I refer you to the section “More from Councils and Fathers” in this online article.

All you have to do is to read some of the more general things the Fathers had to say about women to see where this language (cited in the EWTN article) is coming from. You cannot isolate the bare magisterial statements from the cultural context for which there is so much evidence. Women were regarded as potential sources of pollution, and they were regarded as unfit holders of any kind of authority. The attempts of contemporary defenders of the traditional practice to argue that femaleness is just as worthy and valuable as maleness are completely alien to the world of the Fathers.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Exactly.

So why does the prohibition of women to the priesthood have to be theological? It makes perfect sense for it to be an aesthetic issue.

To say that something or someone is “not valid matter” for a sacrament is a theological, not merely an aesthetic judgment.

Aesthetics have to do with what is fitting, not what is valid. For instance, the insistence of the Vatican on the use of precious metals for chalices and patens in the Eucharist is an aesthetic point. It is allegedly more fitting for gold to be used than for pewter, but pewter is still valid. Similarly, no one says that a Mass involving bad music is invalid. These are two completely different kinds of judgment.

Edwin

 

[fix]

Further, this is a question, at root, of authority – God-given authority, given to his Church. That is enough to settle the issue.

As usual, that is the bottom line. Who is the authority in these matters?

 

[jmcrae]

To say that something or someone is “not valid matter” for a sacrament is a theological, not merely an aesthetic judgment.

Okay, granted.

Getting back to my other example, does the fact that apple juice cannot be used in any Sacrament cause it to be viewed as an inferior substance?

Should we disdain apple juice because it is not allowed to be used in either Baptism or Holy Communion?

(Would you ever tell your child, “Oh, don’t drink the apple juice honey - it’s got cooties because it can’t be used in the Sacraments.”)

No - the issue of the status of women in society (which has been deplorable throughout most of history, and still has a long way to go) is not connected to the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood.