On Reserving the Ministerial Priesthood to Men Alone
It is safe to say that there is confusion among many Catholics, cleric and lay alike,
regarding the Church’s teaching that she “has no authority whatever to confer priestly
ordination on women.”1 The confusion, I believe, exists on two levels. First, there is
confusion for many as to what exactly has been taught by the Magisterium. Most lay
people, and even many priests, for a variety of reasons, simply do not read Church
documents. All too often, lay and cleric alike get their information, or misinformation, on
key issues from the secular media. Second, there is confusion as to the reasons why it
could be in the divine plan that God would reserve the ministerial priesthood to men
alone. This, quite simply, seems to be an unbelievable injustice towards women – and
this from the Church that claims to promote the dignity and equality of women! In this
paper, it is my intent to address clearly the first level of confusion, and to offer some
insights that I hope are helpful in addressing the second level.
It is also my hope that something of our heavenly Father’s wondrous plan for
marriage may shine forth, for that plan is intimately connected to the reasons the Church
offers regarding her teaching on the ministerial priesthood. As a priest who is heavily
involved in preparing couples for marriage, I am frequently saddened and overwhelmed
by how many misconceptions and distorted views young (and not so young) men and
women have regarding this sacrament. Furthermore, they are often filled with fears and
misconceptions regarding what God’s Word reveals about marriage. Unfortunately, because of how poorly several key texts in the New Testament have been mistranslated into English, especially in the Lectionary we hear at Mass on Sunday, those
1 misconceptions and fears are often solidified in their minds. The result is that many men
and women approach the Church and God’s revealed Word with suspicion and mistrust,
or simply reject it as being offensive.
I believe it is important to acknowledge that the Church, for the most part, has
done an inadequate job in articulating the issue of a male-only priesthood. When that
happens, confusion reigns. In many ways, the furor that accompanies this confusion is
entirely understandable.2 The media, too, in its coverage, seems to encourage the confusion and furor, both because of the “usual suspects” they so often call upon as
“theologians”, and because the secular media seldom have an accurate understanding of the Church as she understands herself.
In attempting to address this topic, then, I will proceed in the following manner.
1) I will offer some introductory remarks so as to set the context for our discussion; 2) I will lay out the teaching of the Magisterium on the issue, including the three fundamental reasons why the Church teaches as she does; 3) I will address the authority behind that teaching; 4) I will address how that teaching is to be received by the faithful; 5) I will attempt to dive deeper into gender is so significant to this issue, which will take us into the nature of the priesthood, most especially highlighting the relationship that Jesus has with the Church (in this section I will offer some insights on the vocation of marriage, and, especially, the absolute responsibility of the man to love his wife as Christ loves His bride); 6) I will address some of the key issues and obstacles that hinder us from adequately penetrating what has been revealed; 7) I will make some brief comments
2 regarding rights and justice; and, finally, 8) I will conclude with some remarks on Mary,
the Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
Introductory Remarks
In his Apostolic Letter On the Dignity of Woman (Mulieris dignitatem), Pope
John Paul II reminds us that the Second Vatican Council, especially in the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, renewed the awareness of the universality of
the priesthood. He writes
In the New Covenant, there is only one sacrifice and only one priest: Christ. All the baptized share in the one priesthood of Christ, both men and women inasmuch as they must “present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God (cf. Romans 12:1), give witness to Christ in every place, and give an explanation to anyone who asks the reason for the hope in eternal life that is in them (cf. 1Pet. 3:15)”. Universal participation in Christ’s sacrifice, in which the Redeemer has offered to the Father the whole world, and humanity in particular, brings it about that all in the Church are “a kingdom of priests” (Rev. 5:10; cf. 1Pet. 2:9), who not only share in the priestly mission, but also in the prophetic and kingly mission of Christ the Messiah. Furthermore, this participation determines the organic unity of the Church, the people of God, with Christ. It expresses at the same time the “great mystery” described in the Letter to the Ephesians: the bride united to her bridegroom; united, because she lives his life; united, because she shares in His three-fold mission; united in such a manner as to respond with a “sincere gift” of self to the inexpressible gift of the love of the bridegroom, the Redeemer of the world. This concerns everyone in the Church, women as well as men. It obviously concerns those who share in the “ministerial priesthood”, which is characterized by service. In the context of the great mystery of Christ and of the Church, all are called to respond – as a bride – with the gift of their lives to the inexpressible gift of the love of Christ who alone as the Redeemer of the world is the Church’s bridegroom. The royal priesthood, which is universal, at the same time, expresses the gift of the bride. This is of fundamental importance for understanding the Church in Her own essence, so as to avoid applying to the Church – even in Her dimension as an “institution” made up of human beings and forming part of history – criteria of understanding and judgment which do not pertain to Her nature. Although the Church possesses a “hierarchical” structure, nevertheless this structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the “great
3 mystery” in which the bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the bridegroom.3
While this is a lengthy quote, I believe it important enough to cite in its entirety.
There are several significant points worth emphasizing.
1. The one Priest of the New Covenant. There is only one sacrifice and one priest in the
New Covenant: the sacrifice of Jesus, our high priest. Every single person who is baptized shares in Christ's priesthood, or, more accurately, participates in it. That is, we are all called to respond to the incredible love of God for us – made manifest definitively in Jesus – by making of our very lives a sincere gift in return to God and to others. No matter what our vocation, this is to be our life. This is the universal call to holiness, which is the aim of the Christian life.4
2. The Church is organic. The Church, while having institutional characteristics, to be sure, is not a mere institution, and can only be understood properly if we remember that it is organic. Within the Church there is a structure, which has a sacred order, or
“hierarchy.” St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12, makes this point quite clearly. The purpose of the hierarchy is to serve, and, specifically, to help the other members of the body of
Christ to grow in holiness and find fulfillment as persons made in the image and likeness of God.5 Everything in this service must be motivated by love, as Paul goes on to make clear in the subsequent chapter of that same letter.
We should recall Jesus' words in Mk 10:42-45 as a stern warning on how the
"leaders" of the Church are to lead. Speaking to the Twelve Apostles, Jesus said, “You
4 know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and
their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you.
Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to
be first among you will be the slave of all, for the Son of Man did not come to be served
but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Clearly then, there can be no
room in this hierarchy for domination, manipulation and coercion. And, thus, what an
incredible scandal has happened down through the ages due to the poor witness of priests
and bishops, for which, and make no mistake about this, we will have to render an
account one day to God. I am reminded here of a story that I read somewhere of a
discussion between Napoleon and a certain French bishop. Whether or not it is true, it
certainly makes the point. The story goes that Napoleon threatened the bishop that, if he
did not give in to Napoleon’s demands, he would destroy the Church. In response, the
bishop rolled his eyes and laughed, answering, “What makes you think you will be able
to do what 1800 years of bishops, priests, and deacons have been unable to do?”
3. Christ’s relationship with the Church is spousal. Jesus’ relationship with the Church is
analogous to the relationship of a husband and wife – not the sinful, distorted relationship
between a husband and wife that has been lived out so often in our history, wherein the husband has ruled over his wife, but the relationship that is God's intent for marriage as revealed “in the beginning” in the first two chapters of Genesis.
5 With this as a necessary background, John Paul II readily admits in a general
audience from 1994, that, “Quite recently, some women, even among Catholics, have
asserted a claim to the ministerial priesthood."6 He continues:
It is a demand that is really based on an untenable assumption: the priestly ministry is not a function one approaches on the basis of sociological criteria or legal procedures, but only in obedience to the will of Christ. Now, Jesus has entrusted the task of the ministerial priesthood only to males. Although He invited some women to follow Him and even sought their cooperation, He did not call or allow any of them to be part of the group He entrusted with the ministerial priesthood in His Church. His will is seen in His behavior as a whole, as well as in significant actions which Christian tradition has constantly interpreted as directions to be followed.
In order to make sense of this, we must address the nature of the ministerial priesthood, which I will do below. Before that, however, let us turn our attention to what precisely has been taught by the Magisterium.
The Teaching of the Magisterium
Prompted by the initiation of ordaining women in the Anglican Communion, and also by theological debate within Catholic circles, Pope Paul VI directed the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the
Church on this matter. This was done through the declaration Inter insigniores in 1976.7
Subsequently, there followed the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II On Reserving
Priestly Ordination to Men Alone (Ordinatio sacerdotalis).8 Even after this document, a
further statement was issued from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
clarifying the meaning of the Pope’s Apostolic Letter.9
6 The declaration Inter insigniores recalled and explained the fundamental reasons
for this teaching. They are three: 1) the attitude and example of Jesus; 2) the practice of
the apostles; and, 3) the constant Tradition of the Church. On the basis of these taken
together the document states, “the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”10
1. The attitude of Jesus. Of the three reasons, clearly, the most important is the attitude of
Jesus. It is often claimed, however, that Jesus, as a first-century Jewish man, acted in a way that was conditioned by the times in which He lived. Thus, the argument goes, there is no way He could have chosen women to be amongst the Twelve Apostles because the culture would not have tolerated such a radical break from the norm of the day. In response, it must be firmly stated that such a position reveals an utter ignorance of Jesus’ words and actions as they are mediated to us in the Gospels. Leaving aside His breaking with customs regarding the Sabbath, and focusing only on His interaction with women, we can make the following observations. First, Jesus repeatedly interacts with women in a way that is contrary to the customs of the times. We see for example, His interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well, recorded in John 4:1-42, an encounter that the times would not have welcomed. We see also His encounter with what the Jews would have considered to be a ritually impure woman, detailed in Matthew 9:18-26. Then there is also His welcome and affection for the prostitute in the house of Simon the Pharisee, recorded in Luke 7:36-50 – an incident that shows an utter disregard for the opinions and judgments of the influential leaders of the religious community. John 8:2-11 records His pardon, love and forgiveness for the woman caught in the act of adultery, someone whom
7 the Jews wanted to stone. Other examples, too, could be given, including Jesus’ teaching regarding divorce and adultery as being injustices not merely against the man, but against the woman. In sum, over and over again, the Gospels reveal that Jesus’ behavior was in no way conditioned by the times in which He lived. Rather, His repeated interaction with women served as a correction of and chastisement towards the Jews who had failed to see not only that God had created the human person, male and female, in His own image and likeness, but that God had conferred on the human person a participation in the dignity of
His own life. Therefore, an affront against the human person is an affront against God.
A second observation is that Jesus welcomed amongst His followers many
women, including Magdalene, Martha and Mary, and Salome. A third observation is
that, out of all the possible people He could have given the privilege of being the first
witness of His resurrection, He chose a woman (and one from whom seven demons had
been driven out!) – Magdalene, someone who, according to the legal practices of the
time, would not have been able to give testimony in court. And yet, despite all of this,
there are no women among the Twelve Apostles. We would do well to remind ourselves,
as the Gospels reveal, that Jesus chose the Twelve in union with the Father, through the
Holy Spirit, after having spent the night in prayer.11 “Therefore,” John Paul II writes in
Ordinatio sacerdotalis, n.2, “In granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the
Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom He made the foundation of His Church…The apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry.”
8
2. The practice of the apostles. Perhaps here, however, one could object that the Apostles were the ones who were conditioned by the patriarchal, and often misogynist, culture in
which they lived. Several serious challenges could be made to such a charge. First, the
apostles were entrusted with the task of proclaiming to Jews, that is, to a people who had
ingrained in them an understanding of God as totally other and transcendent, that this
same God had become flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Such a proclamation was
utterly unthinkable to Jews. It was blasphemy, as the Gospels make manifest. It is a
“scandal,” as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:23. And, yet, despite this, the faith grew
and was received, in some measure, anyway, amongst the Jewish people.
Second, the apostles were entrusted with the task of proclaiming to Gentiles, that
is, to people who would be open to the idea of a god-man, that God had become a man
and died in this Jesus of Nazareth. Such an idea was preposterous to the Gentiles. This is
the “folly” Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 1:23. Furthermore, to these same people, the
apostles were entrusted with the task of proclaiming the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body. Such an idea would be utter foolishness to a people that disparaged the flesh and
understood the afterlife, if there was one, to be the release of the soul from the prison of
the body.12
Third, to both Jew and Greek alike, the Apostles were entrusted with the task of
proclaiming the doctrine of the Eucharist as a real participation in the Body and Blood of
Jesus – hardly a teaching readily accepted, as not only John 6 records, but as the last 500
9 years of Christian history have made clear. If the Apostles could get the Jews and Greeks
to accept these incredible teachings, it must at least be recognized that they could have
induced them to accept women priests too. This point is further underscored (and does
not receive sufficient enough attention) when we recall that the Gentiles, to whom the
Gospel was proclaimed, were in fact accustomed to the idea of priestesses. Louis Bouyer,
in Woman in the Church, writes, “In point of fact from the earliest civilizations of the
Fertile Crescent, through the Greece and Rome of the early Christian era, the ancients had
always been accustomed to female priests who were not in the least in an inferior position
to male priests.”13
3. The Tradition of the Church. We have touched briefly on Jesus’ example, and on the practice of the Apostles. What, though, of the third of these reasons, the constant
Tradition of the Church? As Francis Martin writes in his work, The Feminist Question
It is certainly fair to refer to this Tradition as a constant practice, though I do not deny that some evidence of women being ordained to office may be recovered from the past. The amount of energy expended in finding such examples and the paucity of the acknowledged results show that, if they are attested at all, they are extremely rare and isolated instances of a departure from a universal practice. This is all the more striking when one considers the number of examples of women exercising real causality, though in diminishing proportions, in the secular and ecclesiastical worlds during the periods preceding the Enlightenment.14
There is no question that, over the course of history, some terribly inadequate explanations have been proposed as justification for the practice of the Church. Most insulting of all would be the understanding that woman is inferior to man. Such a teaching must be steadfastly rejected and acknowledged to be simply quite offensive. It is worth saying, however, that this understanding was based in large part on an
10 inadequate comprehension surrounding the part a woman played in procreation, a
comprehension based on empirical evidence. Given the insights we have now in biology,
we might more accurately say, in the words of the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von
Balthasar, that man is a “femina occasionata.”15
The Authority of the Magisterial Teaching and How this Teaching is to be Received by the Faithful
At the conclusion of his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, n. 4, John Paul II writes
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 [1994] 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 (italics mine).
A little more than a year later, because the Pope's letter was receiving so much attention in the secular press, and amongst various theologians, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a response to the confusion that was being generated.
Specifically, the question was asked "Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatever to confer priestly ordination on women...is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith." The Congregation responded, "In the affirmative." It continued
11 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 (cf. Lumen gentium 25,2). Thus, in present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren, 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 faith.
So, then, in attempting to clear up the first level of confusion mentioned earlier,
namely, what precisely the Church teaches, we can say the following: 1) The Church
does not consider herself authorized to admit women to the ministerial priesthood.16
(Please take note that I will address the meaning of authority later, which will help us understand, I hope, what’s being said here.) Rather than being obstinant, the Church is acknowledging here her limits, for she considers her Lord’s example to be binding upon her. 2) This teaching is infallibly proposed by the universal and ordinary exercise of the
Magisterium. Thus, John Paul II has not said something new in an extraordinary statement; he has merely confirmed what has been the constant belief of the Church, owing its origin from the instruction and example of Jesus. 3) This teaching is requires definitive assent from the faithful.
Underlying this teaching, the Church is saying that there is something essential to being a male for receiving the office of ministerial priesthood. Note, it is not being said that a woman cannot, or does not, represent Christ. She does, as do all men, by virtue of their baptism. Why is maleness so important? Does the Church teach that men are superior to women? No. She would chastise severely anyone who would make such a claim. Are men more in the image and likeness of God than women? No, Genesis 1:26-
28 reveals to us that in the beginning God created the human person in His own image
12 and likeness, and that the human person is created male and female. Thus, men and
women, while being different from each other, are not created by God in a superior-
inferior relationship.17 Are men perhaps more naturally equipped to preach? No. Are
men more intelligent? No. Are men better suited for holiness? No. (We prove that over
and over again!). Are men more adept in interpersonal skills? No, in fact, women tend
to be more inter-personal than men, generally speaking. So, why is it essential for an
ordained priest to be a male?
The Nature of the Ministerial Priesthood
To try and make some sense out of this question, and again, it is to be readily
acknowledged, the Church has by and large done a terrible job articulating this, we need
to turn our attention to Jesus, the one and only priest. In particular, we need to look at his
relationship with the Church.
Who is Jesus in relation to the Church? Clearly, he is many things. He is her Lord.
He is her Redeemer. He is her Savior. All of these are true and are often on our lips as
Christians. But, drawing again from the Pope's homily on July 27, 1994, we read, "If a
reason is to be sought as to why Jesus reserved admission to the ministerial priesthood to
men, it can be discovered in the fact that the priest represents Christ himself in his
relationship to the Church. Now," the pope continues, "this relationship is spousal in
nature: Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is the bride."18 The pope continues:
"Because the relationship between Christ and the Church is validly expressed in
13 sacramental Orders, it is necessary that Christ be represented by a man. The distinction
between the sexes is very significant in this case and cannot be disregarded without
undermining the sacrament." He goes on: "Without questioning the value of persons...the
sacrament of Orders is celebrated with men."
The highlight of Christ's life, we could say, the most active moment of his
priesthood, as Frank Sheed notes in his masterful work To Know Christ Jesus,19 was
clearly the total offering of himself to the Father on the Cross for our salvation. In this
total gift of self, Jesus took the initiative and came to us, bringing about the very birth of
His bride, the Church, symbolically seen in the water and blood that flowed out of His
pierced side. Thus, the type that was Eve fashioned from Adam’s own flesh in the garden
reached its fulfillment in the Church being fashioned from the side of the new Adam:
Jesus. This total gift of self for us is made present, and realized anew, in a sacramental
manner in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is, as Vatican II clearly reminds us, "the
source and summit of the whole Christian life."20 In the Eucharist we are united, in our bodies, that is, made “one flesh” with Christ, the divine Bridegroom.
Now, the Eucharist is also the very essence of the priesthood. In Mulieris
dignitatem, n. 26, John Paul II writes, "We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal
Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom
because 'he has given himself’: his body has been 'given’, his blood has been ‘poured
out.’ In this way 'he loved them to the end.' The 'sincere gift' contained in the Sacrifice of
the Cross,” the pope continues, “gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of
14 Christ as Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption.
It is the sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride." A little further on in the same paragraph, he writes
Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman…It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the bridegroom towards the Church his bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man.
Commenting on this same idea, Inter insigniores had earlier noted that the priest
“does not act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through him…The supreme expression of this representation is found in the altogether special form it assumes in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the source and center of the
Church’s unity, the sacrificial meal in which the People of God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ.”21 Commenting on this representation, von Balthasar makes the following helpful clarification
Representation, however, appears as a strange two-sided reality. At first, it means something positive: the one representing has been authorized by the one he represents to make present something of the latter’s superiority or dignity, yet, without being able to claim any of this superiority or dignity for himself; and this is the negative side. This double aspect makes the notion of representation, and therefore the apostolic office, so vulnerable and open to abuse.22
It is most important to remember here that we are talking about a sacrament, which is not to be understood as some human creation, but rather as given by God, who is pure love, and who desires for us all the fullness of life. As the document Inter insigniores states, "The Christian priesthood is...of a sacramental nature: the priest is a
15 sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a
sign that must be perceptible, and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease."23
Commenting on how the sacraments are given to us by God, Helmut Moll writes
that the Church has “little latitude…[to] arbitrarily…change divinely instituted signs in
order to make them suit the demands of historical reality. The institution of the
priesthood does not belong to those matters which may be manipulated by the
institutional Church, but it rather sets a limit to her autonomy, within which the
fundamental mission must be fidelity to what has been transmitted. The priesthood,” Moll
continues, “cannot be arranged according to the norms of expedience and rationality,
because they are given beforehand by God to man, and the Church must subject herself to
them if she is to comply with the mission of her founder.”24
Again, let us remind ourselves that it is not being said that a woman cannot
represent Christ. She can, and does, thanks to the sacrament of baptism. This is also true
of those male persons who are not ordained priests, but who have likewise received
baptism. What is being said is that there is something special about representing Christ in
the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the essence of the priesthood, which
sacramentally makes present again the Bridegroom’s sincere gift of self for the Bride.
Discussing the spousal relationship between God and his People, Israel, which
reaches its fulfillment in the relationship between Christ and the Church, Inter insigniores
states
16 That is why we can never forget the fact that Christ is a man. And, therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination, and in which Christ himself, the author of the covenant, the bridegroom and head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry of salvation – which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist – his role must be taken by a man.25
Unfortunately, ours is an age that has an impoverished view of reality, and has
lost, in the process, a full enough sense of the symbolic. Since all of reality is created by
God (through the Word, that is, dia logos), somehow all of reality discloses the nature of
who God is – even marriage, family, sex, and priesthood. For example, a husband and
wife “disclose”, by their love and relationship, something of the love of Christ and His
Church. So, too, the ordained priest, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, the
heart of the priesthood, “discloses” something of Jesus, the divine Bridegroom.26
Perhaps one would object, based on Gal 3:28, that in Christ Jesus we are all made
one, and all distinctions are done away with. However, this passage – which accurately
reads, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male
and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" – does not have anything to do with
ministries in the Church.27 Paul addresses this theme not in Galatians but in 1
Corinthians. Rather, Galatians has to do with divine adoption being open to all through baptism, regardless of any differences.28 Perhaps we might also object that if the priest
must be a man, according to the choice of Jesus, than he must also be Jewish. However,
as Desmond Connell writes, “This is to miss the point and to descend to the level of the
frivolous. I do not say that a woman cannot represent Christ: every baptized person, man
or woman, is alter Christus. What I do say, however, is that a woman cannot be the
17 sacramental image of Christ in the act that is proper to him precisely as the new Adam.”29
We could also add that Jewish-ness, or Greek-ness, unlike maleness or femaleness, is not something essential to the human person.
If we can more deeply penetrate what Christ is revealing to us regarding his
relationship with his bride the Church then we will make significant strides in our
understanding of a biblical, and specifically Christian, vision of marriage. The
relationship of Christ to the Church is most fully and beautifully revealed in Paul’s 5th
Chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians. This passage, however, has been so terribly misunderstood, and mistranslated, down through the ages, that many of us now feel that
God’s word regarding marriage is out of date, out of touch, and downright offensive to women in particular. And with good reason, given our Lectionary and the homilies we often are subjected to! As a result, we are left with nowhere to turn for guidance regarding this wondrous sacrament, and end up creating our own meaning for it, rather
than receiving the meaning from God, who is its Author.
All too often many think that Ephesians is sanctioning the husband’s dominion
over his wife, and telling her to obey him. Such is not at all the case, however true it may
be that Christian commentators at various stages of history have argued this way.
Ephesians 5 is making an analogy between Christ’s spousal relationship with the Church
and the spousal relationship of husband and wife. As an analogy, the difference between
the two referents is greater than any similarity. However, as Martin observes, unlike a
metaphor, there is “an objective feature about certain diverse realities that” are held in
18 common.30 For example, while Christ is the Savior of his bride, clearly a husband is not.
In fact, as a member of the Church, he belongs to the bride.31 However, the husband does share, or participate, in Christ’s headship. This headship, and this is most important, is in absolutely no way a position of privilege for the man. “Head” does not mean that he is
CEO, let alone that he is “lord” of his wife (though Aquinas wrongly wrote just that).
Headship has to do with the principle of initiative.32 It is very important to note that in
this whole passage, that is, Eph 5:21-33, there is only one command being issued. It is a
command, issued three times, to the husband. What is he commanded to do? Love. Love
whom? His wife. This love that he is commanded to do is not the generic or merely
sentimental love that our culture often reduces it to. Rather, it is Christian love: agape.
Paul is telling husbands that they must love their wives, and that they must do so as Christ
loved his bride, the Church. And how did Jesus do that? He did that by making of his life
a total gift of self for the Church on the Cross. A man is commanded to make the same
gift: to lay down his life for his wife. So much for privilege.
And what is the corresponding teaching being given to wives in this passage? She
is invited, not commanded, to respond to the love of her husband, just as the Church
responds to the love of Jesus. And how does the Church respond? In the thought of Pope
John Paul II, it means that she lets him love her. Period. She lets him love her.33 It is not
my intent to enter into an exegetical commentary on this passage. Still, it is time that
priests and those entrusted with marriage preparation in parishes, speak clearly on this
passage and no longer shy away from it. Once and for all we need to understand that his
passage does not tell a wife to obey her husband, nor does it tell her to submit to her
19 husband. In fact, there is in the actual Greek text no verb at all used in reference to the
wife, despite how our Lectionary translates the passage into English.34 The verb must be carried over from the previous passage, where it is used to describe the Church’s response to the Lord, a Church that includes both men and women. The word that is used here, contrary to frequent objections, is not at all a common word used to describe the relationship of a wife to her husband. In fact, in 600 years, spanning the time from roughly 400 B.C. to 200 A.D., the word found here is used two times – two times! – to speak of the attitude and response a wife should have for her husband.35 Suffice to say,
what is being revealed here is something absolutely new, not at all in keeping with the
culture of the day, and is the result of the “innovation” that is the revelation of Jesus’ love
for us all – a love that has as its object women no less than men.36 The word in question is to be properly translated as “subordinate yourself.” That is, the action is something being performed by the agent himself, or herself. The meaning of the text is something like this: “As a person equal in dignity to your husband, freely choose to place yourself under his loving care.”37 Of course, this makes it clear that there must be something – in
particular, some clear sign of love by the husband – to which the woman is responding. If
there isn’t, then there is nothing to respond to. The essence of “subordinating yourself” is:
“Go ahead: love me!”38
If “the future of the world and of the Church passes through the family”, as Pope
John Paul II has repeatedly said, then it is an imperative that we all come to a more
profound and accurate understanding of the sacrament of marriage that stands at the heart
of the family.39 And we do this by coming to know the loving and liberating plan of God
20 as revealed to us in the written Word of God. Perhaps one of the most exciting things about living in this time in the Church is that we are only recently truly beginning to plumb the depths of the sacrament of marriage. It has been observed that something close to 70% of all that the Church has ever said on this sacrament has been said in the last 75 years or so. We are living in exciting times, and by the grace of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the wrong interpretations that have been put forth by so many who claimed to teach in the name of the Church are being shown to be just that: wrong. The result of solid scholarship and exegesis, which will approach the Word of God not with suspicion but with reverence, will bear much fruit and free us from the offenses that have been committed against women in the name of Scripture.
Obstacles to our Understanding
At this point, I wish to make a few comments regarding some of the obstacles that
I believe are operative in our present culture that hinder our ability to penetrate more deeply what the Church teaches.
1. The fear of differences. Many of us, myself included, can fall into the trap of seeing any and all difference between persons as a threat, a cause for suspicion, and as something that must be overcome. This is true, very often, for example, in relations between blacks and whites. Historically speaking, however, it is true most tragically of all in the relations between women and men. But difference is not something evil and to be overcome. The grounding for this, theologically speaking, is the Trinity, which has been
21 revealed to us as a communion of equal, yet distinct, divine Persons (the Father is not the
Son, the Son is not the Father, the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son: yet they are all
divine).40
In Genesis 1:26-28, God reveals to us that the human person is created in the
divine image. It also reveals to us that the human person is created male and female. That
is to say there are two different "incarnations" of being human: male and female.41
Because both are created in the divine image they are absolutely equal in dignity. But they are different. Despite attempts to deny this, biology and science, let alone the written
Word of God, repeatedly confirm this truth.42 This difference between the sexes is intended by the divine will to lead to a communion of love and life. Tragically, with the fall and the inclination in all of us to reduce another person to an object, what was intended to lead to communion often, instead, leads to exploitation. Over and over again in history we see how men have tended to dominate women (although it must be admitted too that women at times have cooperated in allowing themselves to be dominated).
Given this historical trend, one can, perhaps, easily understand, why there has been an effort underfoot to attempt to eradicate any differences between men and women.
However, the result has led, at many times, to a further offense against women. For if we attempt to make men and women the same, given the cultural prejudices, women will end up being normed according to a male norm – which is a distorted image of what it means to be a man! As a result, more often than not we will disregard the greatness and distinctiveness that belongs to women. As C. Meves wrote:
22 The true psychological-spiritual emancipation has not yet begun; for it would presuppose that woman develop a consciousness of her own specific attributes; that she would recognize that assimilation to man, in whatever form, will never liberate her from “slavery”; whereas a concept which will help to unfold her potentialities will. Only in this way, by becoming increasingly aware of her self- worth, and by realizing that there exists no future for humanity without her psychological and spiritual contribution, ways to her emancipation could be found.43
Commenting on the same issue, von Balthasar adds, “Under the guise of equality and equalization of the sexes, the goal is being pursued to masculinize the entire civilization, which even now is marked by male technological rationality.”44 This
“masculinization” has led to what has been called the culture of death, which places more value on having and doing than being and relationship, which tends to reduce persons to mere objects, and which has its roots in an inordinate preoccupation with efficiency.45
What is needed in response to this is a prophetic voice to call humanity back to the absolute priority of love, which never reduces a person to an object. This prophetic voice is something that Pope John Paul II has written often about as being one of the primary
gifts and tasks women offer today in the Church and in the world.46 In short, we need to
become more human, and women, rather than men, seem better able to understand this
truth. I believe it could be argued, given how he has spoken and written on many other
occasions, that in his aforementioned homily of 1994, the pope is implying that woman is
more “precious” and “expensive” to our modern world than man, precisely because she is
more naturally capable of recognizing the worth and dignity of each and every human
person. This capacity is something that she has by virtue of her body, which is a gift from
God.
23 Clearly, there is much work to be done if we are to continue to understand the
uniqueness and distinctive greatness that belongs to women and to men, and that work is
happening in a variety of places around the world. May it continue to give us a deeper
appreciation of the beauty of God's plan regarding the human person!
2. The body as integral to the person. Generally speaking, most people tend to see the
body as an accident of the person. That is, we often tend to relate to the body as some sort
of machine or instrument that we can manipulate or use for pleasure. We need only call
to mind the horrific degradation of women and children in pornography for a sobering
example. But the human body is not an accident of the person. The biblical conception of
the person knows of no duality between soul and body, between spirit and matter.47 That is an alien, unscriptural understanding of the human person. The human person is a body- person, distinct, then, from persons like the angels, who do not have bodies. The body is an integral part of being a human person, either male or female, and not something secondary or additional. We profess, after all, in the resurrection of the body.48 Moreover, the body is a sacrament of the person; it expresses the person.49 So, then, a woman's body expresses something about being a woman, and a man's body expresses something about being a man. In particular, a woman’s body is able, most remarkably, to make room for another person. Literally! This wondrous capacity, regardless of whether or not she ever has sexual intercourse with a man, or carries a child, profoundly marks her personality. It is this capacity that makes woman to be so much better-equipped than man to prophetically call our world back to the priority of love.50
24 To be sure, there are some, as Francis Martin observes, “who seek to ignore this
and to describe the difference between men and women as a question of mere ‘body
parts’ external to their essential manner of existing.”51 Such a line of thinking, however, is in keeping with Platonic, not Christian, anthropology. Martin continues, “We must seek, rather, to find a way of understanding how male and female physicality, realized on successive levels of integration along the one continuum, express two ways of being human.” Only recently have we really begun to explore this matter, and it too stands as one of the more exciting places of theological and anthropological work to be done.
3. An inaccurate understanding of authority. Our culture at large tends to see authority as equal to power. But authority is not about power, at least not genuine authority, and certainly not the authority that Jesus entrusts to his followers, as Mark 10:42-45 makes clear. Not infrequently, authority is understood as the power to arbitrarily impose one's will upon another (or others). It is equated, commonly, with domination and a curtailment of another's freedom. However, the word authority is from the Latin word auctoritas, from auctor (meaning cause, promoter, sponsor), from augere (meaning to increase, to enrich). Authority, then, must be distinguished from power and coercion. Power does not promote freedom, and coercion ends it. True authority, on the other hand, is always at the
service of others and their freedom. Authority "helps the other to reach fulfillment."52 In a beautiful passage in his Apostolic Exhortation On the Role of the Christian Family in the
Modern World (Familiaris consortio), n. 25, Pope John Paul II writes
In revealing and reliving on earth the very fatherhood of God, a man is called upon to ensure the harmonious and united development of all the members of the family: he will perform this task by exercising generous responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a more solicitous commitment to
25 education, a task he shares with his wife, by work which is never a cause of division in the family, but promotes its unity and stability, and by means of the witness he gives of an adult Christian life which effectively introduces the children into the living experience of Christ and the Church.
Our confusion on this matter is hardly puzzling, especially since we have all lived
through and are aware of disturbing examples of men and women using their authority
not to help others grow in freedom, but to do just the opposite. Many of us, as well, have
been deeply hurt by the abuse of authority. It is hardly surprising, then, that we can tend to be suspicious of those who hold positions of authority. However that may be, though, we must continually pray for those entrusted with authority, and repent of our own abuses, seeking God's grace to lead in a servant and sacrificial way, following the model of Christ, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, who lays down his life for his bride.
4. A deficient understanding of freedom. Loosely put, our culture understands freedom as the ability to do whatever we want. Thus, anything that limits our ability to do what we want, in some way, oppresses our freedom. But in truth, freedom is the unique capacity of the human person to live God’s own divine life, i.e., to make a sincere gift of self.
Therefore, as we better understand equality, the body, and authority, we can more capably become genuinely free.
5. Confusion regarding marriage. In a world that no longer recognizes that marriage must be between a man and a woman, it is hardly mysterious that we could have a difficult time understanding why a priest must be a male. After all, if two women can be
"married", then one of them presumably is the "Bridegroom", which makes it possible
26 that a woman could be ordained as well. Even as we need to penetrate more deeply into the sacrament of Orders, we need likewise to do so into the sacrament of matrimony.
A Comment Regarding Justice and Rights
At this point, I would like to offer a brief comment on justice and rights. This would seem to be necessary in that the charge often leveled against the Church is that her teaching is an incredible act of injustice towards women, and an all-out denial of a woman’s rights. In response, first of all, it must be clearly stated that no one, absolutely no one, has a right to the ordained priesthood.53 Jesus, in John 15:16, says to his Apostles,
“You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” As Barbara Albrecht writes in an essay
It is exactly this point which is unbearable to people of the late twentieth century. Nevertheless, the Church adheres to it, whether it is convenient or inconvenient: the priesthood as such is fundamentally different from any other profession in the world. It therefore is removed from any legal demand, be it from women or from men. The priesthood in the Church is neither a fundamental right, rooted in God’s creative order nor is it a “human right” determined by men. “It has nothing to do with any supernatural equality of opportunity vis-à-vis our ultimate purpose.” The choice, vocation, and mission of a priest of Jesus Christ is purely due to grace. Hence it eludes a priori any discussion as to prestige of “equality of rights.” Such an equality can operate only in the worldly order, not, however, in the order of grace, exclusively at God’s disposal…The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement; no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it; it is of another order…This point clearly emerges when [Inter insigniores] refers to women who feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood. Vocation is an occurrence which involves dialogue, similar to a vocation to marriage…It takes two. [Surely anyone who has ever dated knows this!] The intention to be married must be pronounced by both partners or no marriage will come about, no matter how strongly one party may believe himself to be called to it. The ordination to the priesthood…cannot be effected unless the Church…gives consent. That is the way it has always been. St Mark tells us of a man with a burning desire to “remain” with Jesus and to follow him, as did the apostles. After his healing and conversion he apparently felt an urgent vocation.
27 Hence his insistent entreaties. We nevertheless read in Mark 5:19 [that] Jesus “did not allow him but said to him: ‘Go home to your relatives, and tell them all that the Lord has done for you.’” This constitutes a call to testify, similar in many ways to that which the women received from the Risen Lord [on Easter Sunday].54
None of these persons, neither the man healed in Mark, nor the apostles, nor the women who met the Risen Jesus, were – or are – any more or less important than anyone else. Such a way of thinking is entirely foreign to the Kingdom of God.
It would, in fact, be a matter of grave injustice, and a denial of rights, if the
Church taught that ordained priests were the greatest in the Church, or that only ordained priests have a complete relationship with God, or that only ordained priests can reach the goal of the Christian life, that is, holiness. But such is simply not the case. Speaking more directly on the matter of justice Benedict Ashley writes
The Church is just only when it is faithful to its mission, namely, the formation of a community of persons each of whom has equal access to the spiritual goods with which the Church is entrusted by God. By this effective pursuit of the common good the Church teaches secular society that political justice has as its goal not merely the material but the spiritual goods of its citizens. Church and state by fidelity to their missions establish the personal equality of their members. Injustices arise in the Church when the hierarchy of offices is not subordinated to the common good of the members, but becomes a means to power for individual persons or groups, or is directed to materialistic ends rather than the true, spiritual common good, or when it so neglects the common good that the members no longer have full access to their rightful heritage. The Church is not unjust but truly just when it is faithful to the hierarchical structure of diverse and unequal offices and states of life established by Christ its founder, and develops these in ways suited to its situation in our time and culture and to the conditions of its members and its ministry. Justice in the Church, however, demands that persons having authority over others, including majorities over minorities, exercise their authority not only for the true common good, but also in the sacrificial spirit of Jesus, the suffering servant.55
28 Certainly, we are all aware of abuses of clergy; we have been affected by them,
hurt by them, and flat out disappointed by them.56 I write as someone who is keenly aware of the people I have been entrusted to serve, in the sacrificial manner of Jesus, and have failed all too often to do, whether or not anyone has ever seen that or not. This is hardly some triumphant ode to the glory and greatness of the male. It is, instead, an attempt to teach those who have genuinely been unclear as to what the Church teaches on the issue of reserving priesthood to men alone. It is likewise an attempt to begin to discuss some of the reasons why, and to see the light those reasons shed on issues like the sacrament of marriage, the love a husband is commanded to have for his wife, the greatness of God’s design that the human person be created male and female, and other related issues. It is also a sincere and heartfelt plea to God for his mercy and forgiveness for the ways we have all worked not for the common good but against it, for the ways we have fostered misunderstanding, rather than understanding, for the ways in which we have failed to love each other as Christ, the Bridegroom, has loved us. As Francis Martin writes, “The surest sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives is a deep repentance for our sin and for the sin of the world, in which we knowingly and half-knowingly connive. We must, through this repentance, come to know experientially what it means to be saved from darkness…The first modern mind to which we must bring the light of the gospel is our own.”57
29 A Final Word on Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church
In conclusion, it would be highly inappropriate in such a talk not to make at least
some effort to speak of the singular greatness of Mary, the model and exemplar of the
Church. Mary, despite how some may intend to use her, is no “smoke screen” to cover-up
the oppression of women in the Church. Mary is, simply, the perfect Christian, for she
makes of her life a total and “sincere gift” to the Lord. This she did in a unique way in
her “Fiat” to the Archangel Gabriel as recorded in Luke’s Gospel. Because of the
sublime grace that she received from God, from the moment of her conception, and
because of her obedience to, and faith in, that same God, Mary, in the words of The
Second Vatican Council “far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth.”58 The
Council also reminds us all that Mary, a woman, is not only the type of the Church, but also the outstanding model in faith and charity.59 As John Paul II writes in his Encyclical
Letter Redemptoris mater, Mary believed and abandoned herself to the truth of the living
God, “knowing and humbly recognizing ‘how unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways’ (Rom 11:33). Mary,” the pope continues, “…conforms herself to
[those unsearchable judgments] in the light of faith, accepting fully and with a ready heart everything that is decreed in the divine plan.”60 From the moment of the
Annunciation onwards, “Mary professed above all ‘the obedience of faith’, abandoning
herself to the meaning which was given to the words of the Annunciation by him from
whom they proceeded: God himself.”61 This singularly great example of abandonment to the divine will of a God who loves us so much that he would rather die than live without us, this path is the one all of us must follow if we are to become fully human.
30
And yet, while being the model towards which all Christians, men and women
strive, the Pope notes
The figure of Mary of Nazareth sheds light on womanhood as such by the very fact that God, in the sublime event of the Incarnation of His Son, entrusted himself to the ministry, the free and active ministry, of a woman. It can thus be said that women, by looking to Mary, find in her the secret of living their femininity with dignity, and of achieving their own true advancement. In the light of Mary, the Church sees in the face of women the reflection of a beauty which mirrors the loftiest sentiments of which the human heart [any human heart!] is capable: the self-offering totality of love; the strength that is capable of bearing the greatest sorrows; limitless fidelity and tireless devotion to work; the ability to combine penetrating intuition with words of support and encouragement.62
In the conclusion of this same Encyclical, Pope John Paul II reminds us
[Humanity] has made wonderful discoveries and achieved extraordinary results in the fields of science and technology. It has made great advances along the path of progress and civilization, and in recent times one could say that it has succeeded in speeding up the pace of history. But the fundamental transformation, the one which can be called “original”, constantly accompanies [humanity’s] journey, and through all the events of history accompanies each and every individual. It is the transformation from “falling” to “rising”, from death to life. It is also a constant challenge to people’s consciences, a challenge to [humanity’s] whole historical awareness: the challenge to follow the path of “not falling” in ways that are ever old and ever new, and of “rising again” if a fall has occurred.63
Perhaps the most important path we must all learn not “to fall” in is the one that equates power with the ultimate human value. Instead, we need to learn “to rise” and walk the path that leads to an understanding that the ultimate human value is love.
Mary, Mother of God, Mother of the Church, model and exemplar of the Church –the whole Church, men and women – pray for us!
1 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1994), 4.
31
2 To my knowledge I am the only priest in my archdiocese who has ever addressed this topic, attempting to call people together and help them understand the Church’s teaching. The talk was met with open arms from many who had been wondering why they never heard anything like this before. At the same time, it was met with outrage by others. These included men and women who think the Church is wrong and are not interested in hearing any explanation. Additionally, priests told me that what I was doing – talking about the subject at all – was simply not allowed after the Pope’s Apostolic Letter. Clearly, confusion is reigning. 3 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1988), 27. 4 See The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, Chapter Five. 5 For more on this see Lumen gentium, Chapter Three. 6 General Audience, July 27, 1994. 7 In From “Inter Insigniores” to “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”: Documents and Commentaries. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1998). Hereafter From “Inter Insigniores”. 8 In ibid. 9 “Reply to the ‘Dubium’ Concerning the Doctrine Contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” in ibid. 10 From “Inter Insigniores”. p. 25. 11 See Luke 6:12-16. 12 See Paul’s discourse on the Areopagus as recorded in Acts 17:16-34. 13 Woman in the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1979), p. 12. 14 The Feminist Question: Feminist Theology in the Light of Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 401. 15 See Hans Urs von Balthasar, “A Word on ‘Humanae Vitae’ in New Elucidations, translated by Sister Mary Theresilde Skerry (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 213-214. 16 I will address further below the true meaning of authority, which will hopefully make clearer what is being said here. 17 For more on this, see Angelo Scola, Il Mistero Nuziale: 1. Uomo-Donna (Roma: Pontificia Universita Lateranense, 1998), 31-41. 18 Among the many Scriptural texts that reveal this truth, the Holy Father points in particular to Matthew 9:15; John 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; and Eph 5:25, which all refer to Jesus as the Bridegroom. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27,31-32; and Rev 19:7 and 21:9 refer to the Church – which includes all of us – men and women, as the bride. 19 Frank Sheed, To Know Christ Jesus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1980), p. 361. 20 Lumen gentium 11. 21 From “Inter insigniores”, p. 41. 22 Hans Urs von Balthasar, “How Weighty is the Argument from ‘Uninterrupted Tradition’ to Justify the Male Priesthood”, in The Church and Women: A Compendium, ed. Helmut Moll (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 156. 23 From “Inter insigniores”, p. 43. 24 Helmut Moll, “Faithful to Her Lord’s Example: On the Meaning of the Male Priesthood in the Catholic Church”, in The Church and Women, p. 171-172. 25 From “Inter insigniores”, p. 43. 26 For an excellent examination of symbolic reality see Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993). 27 As Benedict Ashley notes, “If one needs an example of ‘proof-texting,’ the abuse of Gal 3:28 in the ordination controversy is a splendid example…[This text] say[s] only that all the baptized are equally members of the church, free of the Old Law, and of the old way of life. [It] cannot be forced to support a rejection of functional hierarchy within the Christian community.” Justice in the Church: Gender and Participation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), p. 75, note 16. 28 Francis Martin observes in The Feminist Question, p. 347-348, “We should note first of all that the contrast between male and female is not expressed as ‘neither…nor’ as in the case of the other two but rather as a denial: ‘there is not male and female.’ The interruption of the rhythm of the phrase and the explicit citation of Genesis 1:27 indicates that somehow a Jewish understanding of this Scriptural expression is being set aside. It is impossible to think that Paul is saying that from now on there are neither
32 men and women. It is precisely on the basis of this distinction that he appeals to the same Genesis texts when speaking of the relation between husband and wife and conduct in the community. The immediate context of the passage is a consideration of the effects of faith and baptism into Christ – all believers are one ‘person’ (eis is masculine, not neuter) in Christ. The wider context is the whole debate of the letter to the Galatians concerning the true children of Abraham. In this context, the denial of ‘male and female’ is a denial of the manner in which this biblical phrase operated in the law and the current interpretation of the law. In this view ‘male and female’ refers primarily to marriage and fruitfulness. This is not the basic orientation of the Genesis text. Moreover, it may be that the order of naming, that is, first male and then female, was understood by some to indicate dignity. The most fundamental significance of the phrase, however, is that it was considered to express the manner in which males were considered full members of the people, while women were not so considered. By alluding to the Genesis text, Paul is declaring that the female persona created by Judaism, by which a woman found her dignity in marriage and childbearing and was a member of the people in a derivative way, has now been set aside. Women, as well as men, enter God’s new people through baptism and not through circumcision and have the same responsibilities and privileges.” 29 Desmond Connell, “Women Priests: Why Not?”, in The Church and Women, p. 221. 30 Martin, The Feminist Question, p. 224. 31 See Mulieris dignitatem, 25. 32 For more on this idea, see Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1994), 304-380; and Martin, The Feminist Question, p. 399ff. 33 “One could even hazard the idea that the wife’s submission to her husband, understood in the context of the entire passage of Ephesians (5:21-33), signifies above all ‘the experiencing of love.’” The Theology of the Body, p. 320. In Mulieris dignitatem, n. 29, the pope writes, “The Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.” 34 The text literally begins: “Subordinate yourselves to one another out of fear for Christ. Wives…to your husbands, as to the Lord.” 35 See Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridege University Press, 1988), 46. 36 See Mulieris dignitatem, 24. 37 I am indebted to this sense of the word to Fr. Francis Martin. 38 For more on this idea, see especially Markus Barth, Ephesians, Vol 34B. Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 620. 39 See Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981), 75. 40 For more on this, see Angelo Scola, Il Mistero Nuziale. 1. Uomo-Donna (Roma: Pontificia Universita Lateranese, 1998). 41 See Martin, The Feminist Question, p. 391. 42 A most provocative book on this is entitled Brain Sex: The Real Differences Between men and Women, by Anne Moir and David Jessel (New York: Delta Books, 1989). 43 As quoted by Barbara Albrecht in “On Women Priests”, in The Church and Women, p. 205, note 37. 44 In The Church and Women, p. 158. See, also, David Schindler, “Catholic Theology, Gender, and the Future of Western Civilization”, in Communio 20 (1993): 201-239. 45 For more on this idea, see Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995), esp. nn. 18-28. 46 See, in addition to Mulieris dignitatem, “Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women” (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1995), and Evangelium Vitae, n. 99. 47 See Susan F. Mathews, “Toward Reclaiming an Authentic Biblical-Christian View of the Body”, in The Linacre Quarterly 68 (2001): 277-295. 48 For more on this, see William E. May, “The Complementarity of Male and female”, in Marriage: the Rock on which the Family is Built (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), esp. 44-47. 49 See Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, p. 40. 50 See Mulieris dignitatem, 29-30. 51 Martin. The Feminist Question, p. 396. 52 See Waldemar Molinski, “Authority”, in Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, edited by Karl Rahner (London: Burns and Oates, 1975), pp. 60-65.
33
53 See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 1578. 54 Albrecht, in The Church and Women, pp. 196-197. 55 Ashley, Justice in the Church, pp. 26-27. 56 The recent and ongoing sex scandals in the Church had not yet broken when this talk was originally given. 57 Martin, The Feminist Question, p. 73. 58 Lumen gentium, 53. 59 Ibid. 60 Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris mater (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1987), 14. 61 Ibid., 15. 62 Ibid., 46. 63 Ibid.., 52.
34