AUGUST 2005 - ISSUE 5 - ISSN 1448 - 632

ORDINATION OF WOMEN INTO THE MINISTRY OF PRIESTHOOD:

AN EXPLANATION & REVIEW OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S POSITION

PETER M. MARENDY

 

ABSTRACT

The Catholic Church’s prohibition on women’s ordination into the priesthood is a very contentious issue because it is arguably a sexist teaching which fundamentally attacks women’s hard won legal rights and freedoms to work in any field for which they are qualified.  Over approximately the last 100 years, many women and their male sympathisers have been successfully campaigning for various legal, social, political and economic rights predominantly in Western societies.  This secular concern for anti-discrimination and the enhancement of women’s rights has inevitably led some within the Catholic Church to question the validity of a male only priesthood.  This article attempts to explore this issue in some depth by firstly explaining the Catholic Church’s opposition to women’s ordination outlined in the Declaration Inter Insigniores (1976) and more recently by Pope John Paul II in the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) using various commentaries and other theological writings for support.  The article will then evaluate this opposition while reviewing the key criticisms of it put forward by some feminist theologians and other interested scholars. 

The Catholic Church’s prohibition on women’s ordination into the priesthood[1] is a very contentious issue because it is arguably a sexist teaching which fundamentally attacks women’s hard won legal rights and freedoms to work in any field for which they are qualified.  Over approximately the last 100 years, many women and their male sympathisers have been successfully campaigning for various legal, social, political and economic rights predominantly in Western societies.[2] In Australia for instance, there are various federal and state laws against many types of discrimination.[3] Moreover, internationally it is recognised that women should not be discriminated against based on sex or gender in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.[4] Therefore, it is difficult not to conclude that on this issue the Catholic Church is out of touch with the mores of contemporary Western society.

This secular concern for anti-discrimination and the enhancement of women’s rights has inevitably led some within the Catholic Church to question the validity of a male only priesthood.  For instance, on the opening address to the 1st International Conference of Women’s Ordination Worldwide in 2001, Máireád Corrigan Maguire excoriates the Catholic Church’s stand against women’s ordination as “spiritual violence” against both “men’s and women’s consciences”. In response she passionately believes a “renewed priesthood and church,” which among other things, discards with the “power-thinking that is a throwback to older darker days…” of the institutional Church, is desperately required.[5] In even more forthright language, the radical[6] Catholic theologian Mary E. Hunt claims the Church’s refusal to admit women into the priesthood is one among many reasons why it is a ‘kyriarchal’ institution – i.e. a structure based on an “elite-male-defined”[7] relationship of ruling or lordship with interlocking modes of oppression that include sexism, racism, clericalism, heterosexism and imperialism…”.[8] Thus, it is arguably why:

Everything from church architecture to the structures of decision-making, from the designs of the bishops’ headgear to papal authority, was constructed in a top down way with virtually no horizontal lines.  Implicit in this culture and often explicit in its teachings, was the radical inequality of men and women, of clergy and lay people.[9]

This perceived sexist stance against women’s ordination has led some Catholic women and men to defy Church authority.  Joan ChittisterSister Joan Chittister of the Benedictine Order for example, defied a Vatican order to withdraw from a speaking engagement at the aforementioned 1st International Conference for Women’s Ordination,[10] during which she asserted that the Church’s faithful, “really need” what they have always needed: they need community, not patriarchal clericalism; they need the human, not the homophobic.  The people need more prophets of equality, not more pretenders to a priesthood of male privilege.  They need discipleship, not canonical decrees.[11]

Other progressive Catholics have boldly demonstrated their disgust at the Church’s position on ordination by ordaining Mary Anne Whitefield Ramerman a priest of a breakaway group of Catholic parishioners, a decision that was labelled by Bishop Matthew Clark “a public and formally schismatic act”.[12] While it would be safe to say most Catholics who support women’s ordination would not wish to pursue reform in such a provocative manner as embarked on by Ramerman, it is obvious from the evidence above that it remains for them a deeply important issue.

          In support of those Catholics who desire women’s ordination into the priestly ministry, this essay will argue that the Church should permit women into the priesthood, but in a manner that does not diminish the importance of the historical Jesus and his ministry and the normativeness of scripture.  Pope John Paul IIIt will attempt to do this by firstly explaining the Catholic Church’s opposition to women’s ordination outlined in the Declaration Inter Insigniores (1976) and more recently by Pope John Paul II in the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) using various commentaries and other theological writings for support.  The essay will then evaluate this opposition while reviewing the key criticisms of it put forward by some feminist theologians and other interested scholars.  Lastly, the essay will conclude by suggesting that a resolution to this issue may be found if the Church treats the advocates of women’s ordination in the same manner it treats those in an ecumenical context, an idea proposed by Sally M.Vance-Trembath.[13]

          The Vatican Declaration Inter Insigniores was issued by the Catholic Church as a response to various factors all of which it believed created problems for ecumenical initiatives in which it was currently involved.  Some of these factors included: moves within the Anglican Communion to ordain women into the priesthood, the publicity accorded women’s ordination during the International Women’s Year (1975), and the questions raised by some within the Catholic Church about its negative position on this issue.[14] In summary, Inter Insigniores presents three principle arguments in support of a male only priesthood: the constant tradition of the Church, the attitude of Jesus towards women and the faithfulness of the apostles to this attitude, and the theological teaching that only men can represent Christ while performing the Eucharist (i.e. in person Christi).[15] The argument utilising Church tradition is the first one offered in this document.  Specifically, the document states, “The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women” a practice which it claims had not been questioned since the medieval era and is still “faithfully safeguarded by the Church’s of the East”.[16] Kallistos Ware effectively expresses why the Orthodox Churches have also “faithfully safeguarded” a male only priesthood with this reflection: “Faced by the unanimous and unvarying practice of Christ’s Church from apostolic times up to our own, we in the twentieth century have no authority to alter the basic patterns of Christian faith and life”.[17] Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis expresses virtually the same message with the forceful declaration “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…”.[18] Hans Urs Von BalthasarA note of caution concerning the turn to tradition on this matter, however, is sounded by Hans Urs Von Balthasar with the observation “For it is clear a priori that the mere fact of a hitherto uninterrupted custom of the Church cannot represent a sufficient proof that this custom could not be changed because of changed cultural circumstances”.[19] In support of this observation Von Balthasar contends that the “long and persistent” tradition of priestly celibacy is a current Church practice that could be changed because despite being “highly suitable,” it is “not such a central part of the substance of the mystery of the Church”.[20] Despite this warning, he nonetheless maintains that the traditional practice of a male only priesthood is valid because it belongs to the very essence of the structure of the Church and its sacramentality “as instituted by Christ”,[21] therefore placing it in a different and seemingly more exclusive category of tradition than priestly celibacy.

          The second reason put forward by the Church as justification for a male only priesthood is the testimony of the New Testament.  There are two components to this position.  Firstly, Inter Insigniores claims “Jesus did not call any women to become part of the Twelve”.[22] The Church further argues this was not due to a desire to “conform” with his milieu because it would be inconsistent with his well established progressive attitude towards women.[23] Secondly, the faithfulness of the apostles to Jesus’ decision not to call women to be apostles as recorded in the New Testament, is regarded as further proof by the Catholic Church that the ordination of women is wrong and therefore inconceivable.  For example, the Church interprets the choice of Matthais as a replacement for the apostle Judas instead of one of the prominent women who followed Jesus, particularly Mother Mary, as a convincing sign of the early Church’s intentions.[24] This interpretation is further supported by the official commentary’s observation that Mary Magdalene and the other women who, despite the honour of learning first about the resurrection, were also not apostles.[25] While it is difficult to refute the scriptural evidence that Jesus only called males into the apostleship, nevertheless, there are still grounds for critiquing these interpretations of scripture.[26]

          The last principle justification for a male only priesthood found in Inter Insigniores is that only males could properly represent Christ while exercising their priestly ministeries.  Thus, in theological terminology, the Church teaches that the priest “does not act in his own name, in persona propria,” but acts in the place of Christ or in persona Christi.[27] This process in particularly important during the consecration of the Eucharist, which would not be effective if the priest as a sacramental sign did not have a “natural resemblance” to Christ.[28] Eastern Orthodoxy similarly teaches that the priest acts in the place of Christ while performing the Eucharist or Divine Thanksgiving, but prefers the metaphor of the priest as an icon of Christ rather than the Latin formula in persona Christi.[29]

          The explanation provided above clearly shows that the Church remains committed to its traditional prohibition on women’s ordination.  There are many Catholic theologians and other scholars who find this state of affairs unacceptable in modern, pluralistic societies.  One such Catholic scholar is Luke Timothy Johnson who acerbically opines:

The Roman church’s [sic] willingness to lose an ordained priesthood altogether − and with it the sacramental heart of Catholicism – rather than ordain married men or (horrors!) women may appear noble to some.  To more and more American Catholics, it appears suicidal self-delusion… It is no longer even permissible for theologians to speak in favour of women’s ordination, despite the fact that theological arguments advanced for an all-male clergy are laughable (at best) and blasphemous (at worst).[30]

Also, feminist theology in particular looks askance at the Church’s maintenance of a male only priesthood. Two such theologians are the prominent Catholic feminists Elizabeth Johnson[31] and Rosemary Radford Ruether[32] who, along with other mainline feminist theologians,[33] would undoubtedly consider the Church’s stand on this issue a transparent example of its patriarchal and sexist nature.  A key component of mainline feminism’s critical stance toward this and other discriminatory Church practices and teachings is the proposition that the Bible, “apart from feminist reinterpretation,[34] [is] a vehicle for the furtherance of patriarchy”. In general, this conclusion is reached through the application of a “hermeneutics of suspicion” to scripture, a type of interpretation that places the “questions of woman’s identity and the role of patriarchy in circumscribing that identity” at the forefront of their concerns when reading the Bible.[35] This contrasts strongly with the conservative “hermeneutics of trust” that typically governs biblical feminist’s predisposition to scripture.[36] Biblical feminist theologians consider the Bible as an “inspired witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ” and something which “can produce and support a feminist vision”.[37] This approach leads them to the conclusion that patriarchy should be dealt with by feminists in the larger “biblical category” of “human sin” rather than an entity in itself.[38] According to Kathryn McCreight-Greene, this means that mainline feminist theologians hold a “reconstructed notion of authority from that held by the narrative hermeneutic” – i.e. instead of interpreting the bible “as one overarching , continuous narrative,” mainline feminists usually read it non-narratively and with a great deal of suspicion.[39] This is a significant distinction because McCreight believes it exposes some of the weaknesses within the mainline feminist approach which are: a contradictory development of hierarchy where feminist approaches are privileged;[40] an implicit, if not explicit, embrace of anti-Judaism in their theorising; and the ambiguity and inconsistency in their use of the dichotomy of “Jesus of history and the Christ of faith” “as a conceptual crowbar to separate the Christic contents from the historical nutshell” or, in other words, reduce the “theological significance of his maleness”.[41] While this essay’s positive stance towards women’s ordination may suggest it favours the critical hermeneutics of mainline feminist theologians over and against narrative theology – in the last of which some of its more conservative advocates apply a “hermeneutics of trust” rather than one of “suspicion” to the Bible[42] – to the contrary, it considers elements of both approaches to biblical criticism and theology essential for the successful reinterpretation of scripture and tradition that is needed for a more inclusive model of Church.[43]

As mentioned above, Elizabeth Johnson is one among many Catholic feminist theologians who have developed sophisticated and creative arguments against the Catholic Church’s persistence with a male only priesthood and more widely the patriarchy that underlies and sustains it.  One such argument is the critique of patriarchy, which the Church inherited from Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures during the classical era.  Johnson persuasively argues this system discriminated against women by according men a privileged place over and against women in virtually all areas of society, including the nascent Church.  Specifically, this meant, “society ran on the idea that men by nature were fit to lead in the intellectual, political, and economic spheres…  [while] women’s main role was to bear children for men and, in any way possible, to support them in their difficult endeavours”.[44] In consequence, women had limited opportunities to express their opinions publicly and play a decisive hand in shaping society.[45] Also, this sexiest attitude towards women, which was naturalised or made to seem ‘normal’ by patriarchal discourses, devalued the words and actions of the “women disciples of Jesus” to such an extent that “only traces” of these contributions in scripture remain.[46] Thus, on this issue Johnson is clearly in disagreement with Inter Insigniores and various theologians who believe Jesus and the early Church’s decision not to select a female apostle was not influenced by societal norms.[47] Johnson also attacks the sexism of the Church’s prohibition on women’s ordination by citing its teaching of ‘imago Dei’ found in the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes (The Church and the Modern World) and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Mulieris dignitatem (On The Dignity and Vocation of Women) [1998].  For instance, she argues Gaudium et Spes’s affirmation of social justice for all peoples[48] based on the premise that “all persons posses a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness…”[49] clearly demonstrates that discrimination against women on the basis of their sex, as exemplified by its stand on women’s ordination, is sinful.[50] This interpretation is supported by Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of the imago Dei teaching in this transparent statement:  “Both man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God’s image”.[51] Why then does the Church discriminate against women?  Johnson persuasively answers such a question by observing how the Church’s “dualistic anthropology”[52] “posits essential differences between masculine and feminine versions of human nature”[53] which necessarily limits and thus justifies a division of social roles within the Church.[54] For example, Pope John Paul II holds up what he proposes are the exclusively feminine virtues of the Theotokos and her motherhood as things women should emulate.[55] This is why Johnson believes:

A number of women scholars have found this dualistic anthropology deficient, arguing that while the white cells of women’s and men’s bodies are indeed different in terms of the sex chromosome … and while sexual differentiation is indeed irreplaceable for reproduction, and while deep mutuality between a woman and a man ranks as one of the most profound relationships on earth, nevertheless, the way these differences play out in the social sphere is historically conditioned.[56]

Reuther’s work also supports this critique by pointing out how the plural reference to God in the  “formula” “So God created man (Adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he (they) created them” (Genesis 1:27-8) “leaves open the possibility that the human thus created is to be understood generically” and that this passage “teaches that the image of God is possesses by both male and female”.[57] Support for Johnson’s critique of dualism can also be found in Colleen M. Griffith’s[58] argument against the Church’s teaching of complementarity’ of the sexes because there is little evidence it is “life-enhancing” for women.  Furthermore, her counter-argument against those who “claim that complementarity and equality are not mutually exclusive” is particularly persuasive.[59] Although she tentatively accepts that these terms themselves are not mutually exclusive, Griffith’s points out the “‘effective history’ of the notion of complementarity…suggests otherwise”. [60]

          Johnson also takes issue with the teaching of in persona Christi propounded in Inter Insigniores.  This “physicalist interpretation” according to Clifford “ignores that the risen Christ is not limited to embodiment as a male person”.[61] It also may limit how Christians can act as “another Christ” and thus “conform their lives to the image of Christ”.[62] Moreover, as possibly even more troubling is that this “natural analogy”[63] implies that only males are redeemed through Christ’s salvific death.[64] Johnson instead proposes that “the guiding model for the imago Christi is not replication of sexual features but participation in the life of Christ…”[65] Although McCreight does reveal some weaknesses in Johnson’s theology, [66] Johnson’s criticisms of the prohibition of women’s ordination into the priesthood, particularly that which focused on imago Dei and how this seemed to contradict the notion of in person Christi, and her nuanced examination of the problems with the dualistic anthropology found in Inter Insigniores and propounded by Pope John Paul II, were persuasive.

          Rosemary Radford Reuther is another prominent feminist who is deeply critical of the discrimination against women within the Catholic Church.  In summary, there are two aspects of her theology, which provide effective critiques of Inter Insigniores’s central thesis.  One compelling argument put forward by Reuther is her belief that for humans to experience salvation through Christ new images of Christ and his work are required.[67]

Reuther bases this on her historical examination of Christological symbols which demonstrates that the identification of the Logos with Jesus the Christ by early Christianity relegated the sophia or wisdom imagery of God because of the “andocentric bias” of the patriarchal Hellenistic culture.[68] Another strong argument put forward by Reuther on this issue is low christology that emphasises the Jesus’ liberatory role for the poor and oppressed.[69] For instance, she observes that Jesus’ “authority as liberator ‘does not reside in his maleness but in the fact that he has renounced this system of domination and seeks to embody in his person the new humanity of service and mutual empowerment’”.[70] Therefore, she concludes that new images of Christ are required such as that of  “women, as Black and Brown woman, as impoverished and despised women of those peoples who are the underside of Christian imperialism”.[71]

The examination above of aspects of Johnson and Reuther’s feminist theologies demonstrated that the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women who feel called to the priesthood is suspect on many grounds.  For instance, it showed that Church’s teaching of in persona Christi propounded in Inter Insigniores was weak because it was a physicalist interpretation that ignored the possibility that the risen Christ could embody more than maleness. In response to such teachings and the hurt caused by them, Vance-Trembath argues the Church hierarchy should discard the outmoded “obediential model” it applies to dissenting Catholic women and instead pursue the same sort of loving and respectful conversation they have with non-Catholic Christians during ecumenical initiatives. [72]

It was not the intention of this essay to endorse an equally discriminatory matriarchal system, nor is it campaigning for a radical reconstruction of Christianity, which diminishes the importance of the historical Jesus and tradition, and rejects the normativeness of scripture for the Christian faith.  Nonetheless, it unashamedly calls for the empowerment of women with the Catholic and other Christian Churches as the only authentic response to the New Testament’s kerygma such as that found in St Paul’s famous teaching (1 Cor 12:18) “For as by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body – whether Jews or Greek, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit,” and the Church’s teaching of imago Die, and a pragmatic solution to alarming shortage of priests in Australia and other parts of the world.[73] Thus, this essay strongly rejects the notion that the call some women experience to the priesthood is not a ‘right’ found in Inter Insigniores and pointedly expressed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger whose position merits further investigation, and will, no doubt, spark further debate. [74] Hopefully, this essay has contributed positively to this debate by encouraging dialogue and understanding between the protagonists.


[1] On this issue the Catholic Church is not alone.  It is a position that is also supported by Eastern Orthodox Churches, and up until the 1970’s, universally supported by those Protestant Churches that considered the ministry of priesthood a sacrament.  This last currently includes the Anglican Communion Churches and the various denominations of Episcopalian churches in America which formed because of dissension over this issue.  Further tension within the Episcopalian Church and its denominations was caused over the recent ordination of a practicing homosexual Bishop.  See Anne M. Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology (New York, Orbis Books, 2004), p.140 & footnote no.17 on p.170.

[2] See John Rickard, Australia: A Cultural History (Sec. ed., London: Longman, 1996), pp.277-279; Jane Purvis, “Deeds not Words,” in History Today Vol. 52, No. 5 (May 2002), pp.56-63; Elizabeth Wilson, “Feminism Today,” in Hecate Vol. 30, No. 1 (2004), pp.212-22; and “Women’s Suffrage”; available from http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/women_and_ politics/suffrage.htm; The State Library of South Australia, April, 2001; accessed 13 January 2005, for more information.

[3] For example, the federal Sex Discrimination Act (1984) and the Anti-Discrimination Act (1991) of Queensland explicitly legislate against this sort of activity.  See the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission’s link http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/index.html and Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commission’s link http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/main/legislation.html for more information.

[4] See the United Nation’s link http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html and the University of Minnesota’s link http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e1cedaw.htm for more information.

[5] Máireád Corrigan Maguire, “A Celebration of Women’s call to a renewed priesthood in the Catholic Church”. Opening address to the Women’s Ordination Worldwide 1st International Conference, Dublin 2001, in WOW is the Time: First International Conference – Text & Context: A Celebration of Women’s Call to a Renewed Priesthood in the Catholic Church, pp.12-14 (Dublin: BASIC [Brothers & Sisters in Christ], 2002), p.14.

[6] I use the term radical because of Mary E. Hunt’s explicit support for the very contentious term ‘kyriarchal’ coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and her tacit approval of “women’s religious orders that handle their own business quietly, including the Eucharist without the benefit of clergy” [my emphasis], the last of which is patently against Canon Law and Church tradition as it now stands.  The possibility that these ideas may have merit does not change the fact that presently these ideas and practices are radical.  See Mary E. Hunt, “A kyriarchal church unmasked - Faith & Spirituality”. Catholic New Times Vol. 26, No.20 (15 Dec, 2002). No page numbers were provided with this source.

[7] Gayle Gerber Koontz, “Kyriarchy”; available from http://www.ambs.edu/GGKoontz/dictiona.htm;

Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, IN, United States, nd.; accessed 14 January 2005.

[8] Hunt, “A kyriarchal church unmasked - Faith & Spirituality”.

[9] Hunt, cited in Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology, p.135.

[10] Patty McCarty, “Nuns firm under fire (women’s ordination conference, Dublin Ireland),” in National Catholic Reporter Vol. 37, No. 34 (13 July 2001), p.3.

[11] Joan Chittiser, Discipleship for a priestly people in a priestless period”. A Paper addressed to the Women’s Ordination Worldwide 1st International Conference, Dublin 2001.  In NOW is the Time: First International Conference – Text & Context: A Celebration of Women’s Call to a Renewed Priesthood in the Catholic Church (Dublin: BASIC [Brothers & Sisters in Christ] 2002), p.22.

[12] Margot Patterson, “Breakaway parish ordains woman priest: Bishop says ceremony seals schism between congregation, Catholic Church,” in National Catholic Reporter Vol. 38 No. 6 (7 Dec 2001), p.11.

[13], Sally. M. Vance-Trembath, “John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint & Conversation with Women”. Theological Studies, Vol. 60, No. 1 (March 1999), pp.99-108.

[14] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration ‘Inter Insigniores’: Regarding the Question of the Admission of Women to Ministerial Priesthood” [15 October 1976]. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), pp.55-56.

[15] Ibid, in passim.

[16] Ibid, pp.25 & 27; Also, to further legitimise the Church’s position the author of the official Church commentary “A Commentary on the Declaration” cites evidence found in classical apocryphal literature from Syria, pseudoapostolic canons found in the Alexandrian Synods and various remarks by Church Fathers and theologians.  See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “A Commentary on the Declaration,” in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), p.60.

[17] Kallistos Ware, “Man, Women & the Priesthood of Christ,” in Women & the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko (New York: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1983), pp.14-15.  See also Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, “The Eve-Mary typology and women in the Orthodox Church: Reconsidering Rhodes,” in Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Summer 2002), pp.629-30 for another explanation of Eastern Orthodoxy’s reference to Holy Tradition concerning ordination into the priesthood.

[18] John Paul II, “Apostolic Letter ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone” [22 May 1994], in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments

(Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), p.191.

[19] Hans Urs Von Balthasar, “The Uninterrupted Tradition of the Church,” in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), p.100.  Ware also believes an appeal to tradition by itself is an inadequate justification for a male only priesthood, however convincing it may be to many Christians.  See Ware, “Man, Women & the Priesthood of Christ,” p.14.

[20] Hans Urs Von Balthasar, “The Uninterrupted Tradition of the Church,” p.100.

[21] Ibid, p.101.

[22] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration ‘Inter Insigniores’: Regarding the Question of the Admission of Women to Ministerial Priesthood” [15 October 1976], p.27.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “A Commentary on the Declaration,” p.64.

[26] See below for this critique.

[27] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration ‘Inter Insigniores’: Regarding the Question of the Admission of Women to Ministerial Priesthood” [15 October 1976], p.27.

[28] Ibid, p.43.  See also Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “A Commentary on the Declaration,” pp.70-71 and A. G. Martimort, “The Value of a Theological Formula ‘In Persona Christi’,” in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), pp.112-114.

[29] Ware, “Man, Women & the Priesthood of Christ,” pp.23-24.

[30] Luke Timothy Johnson, “Sex, Women & the Church: The Need for Prophetic Change,” in Commonweal, Vol. 130, No.12 (June 2003), p.16.

[31] Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” in The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002), p.55.

[32] Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Can Christology Be Liberated From Patriarchy”. In Reconstruction the Christ Symbol: Essays in Feminist Christology, ed. Maryanne Stevens (Mahwah, New Jersey:  Paulist Press, 1993), p.21.

[33] A useful term or category coined by Kathyrn Green-McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis & Appraisal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.38.

[34] Ibid, p.39.

[35] Ibid, p.37.

[36] A good definition of biblical feminism is provided by Elaine Storkey: “They do not take their cue from the autonomy of the Enlightenment but from a Christian view of people under God, a view which recognises the reality of sin and the need of salvation.  But it is not an individualistic belief, for salvation does not simply affect ‘personal’ or ‘moral’ life, but needs to be worked out in fear and trembling in all areas, including that of sex and gender”.  Storkey, cited in McCreight, in ibid, p.39.

[37] Ibid, p.38.

[38] Ibid, pp.38.  For more information on biblical theology see Gary Dorrien, “The Origins of Postliberalism: A Third Way in Theology?” in The Christian Century Vol. 118, No. 20 (July 4-11, 2001), pp. 16-21.

[39] McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis & Appraisal, pp.51-52.

[40] Ibid, pp.42 & 100.  That is, “feminist consciousness is now held to be the epistemological sine qua non and, as such, takes on the status of governing doctrine.  Thus it maintains the pinnacle position on the pyramid of authorities which govern the mainline feminist’s use of the Bible”.  See McCreight, p.54 in ibid.

[41] Ibid, pp.51-52.  On this point she expresses the opinion that this type of prejudicial representation of Judaism would be avoided if  “we read narrativally…”. This she believes would make it “arguably impossible to read the Old Covenant as mere antithesis or prologue to Christianity which can, after the arrival of Christianity, be cast aside.  Neither can narrative readers consistently claim that Jews are ‘Jesus-killers’…”.

[42] McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis & Appraisal, pp.8-9

[43] Thus, in a sense it is sympathetic to the aims and methodologies of postliberal theology a school of thought founded in the 1970’s by Hans Frei and George Lindbeck as a “third way” which attempts to steer a course between the naïve literal reading of scripture by conservative theologians typically practiced by fundamentalists and evangelicals, and the negative historical-critical investigations of liberal theologians, which “negated literal meaning as an interpretive possibility”.  Therefore, according to Frie both, “approaches to the Bible […] undermine the authority of Scripture by locating the meaning of biblical teaching in some doctrine or world-view that is held to be more foundational than scripture itself”.  See Gary Dorrien, “The Origins of Postliberalism: A Third Way in Theology?” in The Christian Century, Vol. 118, No. 20 (July 4-11, 2001), pp.17-18.

[44] Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” p.45.

[45] Ibid.  Johnson is quick to point out that this doesn’t negate the importance of women as nurturers or preclude the possibility that they had influence “behind the scenes”. 

[46]Ibid.  See also Clifford’s (pp. 143 – 144) reference to Raymond Brown’s argument that it is misleading for the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in Inter Insigniores to point out “there were no women priests in New Testament times,” because the use of the term “priest” in the NT was “only used in a broad sense” and that “there is simply no way of proving” whether or not women celebrated the Eucharist”.

[47]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration ‘Inter Insigniores’: Regarding the Question of the Admission of Women to Ministerial Priesthood,” p.27; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “A Commentary on the Declaration,” pp. 62-63; and Albert Vanhoye, “Church’s Practice in continuity with New Testament Teaching”, in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998), pp. 152 – 154.  In particular, Vanhoye pointedly declares “Anyone wanting to advocate a change contrary to the Church’s constant tradition… cannot cite any explicit New Testament text, but only some details of uncertain and disputed interpretation…” However, this is the type of argument that Johnson and other feminist theologians believe is immaterial to the issue of women’s ordination because patriarchy not only discouraged the recording of women’s contributions, but also increasingly excluded them from positions of authority during the classical Christian era.

[48] Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” p.51.

[49] Gaudium et Spes, cited by Johnson in ibid.

[50] Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” p.51.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid, p.54.

[53] Ibid, p.53.

[54] The Eastern Orthodox tradition rejects this social constructivist vision of sexuality according to Deborah Belonick, “The Spirit of the Female Priesthood,” in Women & the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko (New York: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1983), pp.151-152.  She states that in this tradition “complementarity between the sexes is known to be a creative act of God” and therefore “‘feminity’ and ‘masculinity’ are actual human qualities deeply connected to the person”. Consequently, this is why “spiritual vocations differ” and humans are not “‘saved’ from sexual distinction from the resurrection”.  Clearly, the Orthodox Churches hold a conservative view about complementarity, which is compatible with the anthropology of the Catholic Church as expressed in Inter Insigniores and Mulieris dignitatem. Interestingly, if the Catholic Church were to change its position on women’s ordination it would almost certainly jeopardise ecumenical initiatives between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox embarked on in recent times.

[55] Ibid, pp.53-54.  Compare with Jutta Burggraf’s impassioned defence of such a dualist anthropology revealed in remarks such as “Man and woman are not distinguished by the level of their respective intellectual and moral qualities, but rather by a much more profound, more ‘ontological’ consideration: namely, the capacity to be a father or a mother, and the special gifts that derive from this” and her argument that “precisely because of her motherhood woman possesses a certain ‘precedence’ over man’”. (Jutta Burggraf, “Women’s Spiritual Motherhood Attests to God”. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments (Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998), p.174.  Burggraf’s argument is flawed because despite this supposed “precedence,” women have historically much less power and influence relative to men.  Moreover, while motherhood is undeniably a gift from God, unfortunately the discourses of  patriarchy, which dominate throughout much of the world, marginalise its importance.

[56] Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” p.54.

[57] Ruether, “Can Christology Be Liberated From Patriarchy,” p.10.

[58] Colleen M. Griffiths, “Human Bodiliness: Sameness as Starting Point,” in The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002), p.61.

[59] Ibid, p.63.

[60] Ibid.  For instance, the hierarchical ordering prevalent within the Church can be linked to the concept of complementarity.  Instead, she calls for an “equality with distinctness” as a more appropriate vision of human relations.  However, in contrast Sarah Butler, “Embodiment: Women & Men, Equal & Complementary,” in The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002), p.42, believes women do not have to “make a choice [between equality and complementarity] because both are true”. This is generally because in terms of humanity women and men are ‘equal’ and ‘complementary’ “insofar as they are women and men”.  This position is influenced by her preference for seeing this issue in a “typically Catholic ‘both/and’” formulation rather than in one of “either/or,” and her persons-in-relations theology of the Trinity, the last of which leads her to think of “sexual difference” as a “value”.

[61] Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology, p.144.

[62] Ibid, pp.144-145 and Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” pp.55-56.

[63] Johnson, “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times,” p.55.

[64] Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology, p.145.

[65] Johnson, cited in McCreight, Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis & Appraisal, p.72

[66] For instance, McCreight has a serious problem with Johnson’s support for the idea that Jesus’ maleness is “adiaphoron”.  McCreight believes his maleness is not adiaphoron because “as a human, he was constrained within the bounds of human categories of time, race, and gender.  Jesus’ very masculinity is one of the non-negotiables over which we stumble as narrative readers”. In addition, while McCreight agrees with Johnson’s point that being Christomorphic is not a sex-distinctive gift, she takes issue with Johnson’s non-narrative Christology because it conceives of Jesus as a “‘role model’ of compassion and liberation” and forms part of Johnson’s justification for naming God in either male or female categories.  Even though McCreight does rightly highlight the need for caution when utilising a non-narrative reading of scripture, it is difficult to see what exactly is wrong with people using Jesus as a role model and reflecting on his compassion and attempt to liberate the people of his time and humanity in general.

[67] S. Lee Nicola, Faith & Feminism: An Introduction to Christian Feminist Thought (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2003), p.51.

[68] Reuther, “Can Christology Be Liberated From Patriarchy,” pp.9-10.

[69] Reuther, cited in Nicola, Faith & Feminism: An Introduction to Christian Feminist Though, p.55.

[70] Ibid, p.55

[71] Ibid, p.51.

[72] A key component of this pastoral outlook is for the Church to apply the five ways to promote unity and overcome alienation found in the Vatican II document Unitatis redintegration to those Catholic women who promote women’s ordination.  These are: “Make every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brother with truth and fairness” something which hasn’t “consistently been applied to women”.; “Dialogue with the competent experts from the separated communions”. This second task is necessary for the purposes of rehabilitating the Catholic Church’s “intellectual integrity” which was damaged by comments it has made about women in “certain official” statements.; “A call to ministry of intensive cooperation” with women interested in ministerial reform instead of questioning their activities”.; “A call for common prayer” which recognises the many ministeries Catholic women now perform and doesn’t restrict them in their prayer and worship”.; and to stop using the obiedient model in their approach with women and those who advocate “reform and renewal”. See Vance-Trembath, “John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint & Conversation with Women,” pp.100-102 & footnote number 2, p.97. 

[73] Sandra Murphy, “Drop in priest numbers no cause for alarm,” The Catholic Weekly, 19 December, 2004.  Also, even if the Church ordained women as deacons for which there is some historical precedence (See Gary Macy, “The Ordination Of Women In The Early Middle Ages,”  Theological Studies,  Vol. 61, No. 3 (September 2000), pp.481-507) this would still be an inadequate response because despite its undoubted importance this ministry will be seen by many faithful and society at large as a subordinate position.

[74] Cardinal Josef Ratzinger argued that there exists a fundamental right inseparably bound up with creation which must be distinguished from human rights derived from human reason alone, the last of which has no influence on the Church’s position on this and possibly other Church teachings.  Joseph Ratzinger, “The Male Priesthood: A Violation of Women’s Rights?” in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ Documents & Comments (Washington,  D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998), pp.142-145.

 

Bibliography

Belonick, Deborah. “The Spirit of the Female Priesthood”. In Women & the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko, pp.135-168.  New York: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1983.

Burggraf, Jutta. “Women’s Spiritual Motherhood Attests to God”. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.173-78. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Butler, Sarah. “Embodiment: Women & Men, Equal & Complementary”. In The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson, pp.35-44.  New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002.

Chittiser, Joan. “Discipleship for a priestly people in a priestless period”. A Paper addressed to the Women’s Ordination Worldwide 1st International Conference, Dublin 2001.  In NOW is the Time: First International Conference – Text & Context: A Celebration of Women’s Call to a Renewed Priesthood in the Catholic Church, pp.21-29.  Dublin: BASIC (Brothers & Sisters in Christ), 2002.

Clifford, Anne. M. Introducing Feminist Theology.  New York, Orbis Books, 2004.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “A Commentary on the Declaration”. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.55-76.  Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Declaration ‘Inter Insigniores’: Regarding the Question of the Admission of Women to Ministerial Priesthood” [15 October 1976]. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.21-53.  Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Donahue, Charles Jr. “Theology, Law & Women's Ordination”. Commonweal, Vol. 122, No. 11 (2 June 1995), pp.11-16.

Dorrien, Gary, “The Origins of Postliberalism: A Third Way in Theology?” The Christian Century Vol. 118, No. 20 (July 4-11, 2001), pp. 16-21.

Ferrara, Dennis Michael. “The Ordination of Women–Tradition & Meaning”. Theological Studies, Vol. 55, No. 4 (December 1994), pp.706-19.

FitzGerald, Kyriaki Karidoyanes. “The Eve-Mary typology and women in the Orthodox Church: Reconsidering Rhodes”. Anglican Theological Review,  Vol. 84, No. 3 (Summer 2002), pp.627-44.

Grant, Jacquelyn. “’Come to My Help, Lord, For I’m In Trouble’: Womanist Jesus and the Mutual Struggle for Liberation’”. In Reconstruction the Christ Symbol: Essays in Feminist Christology, ed.  Maryanne Stevens, pp.54-71.  Mahwah, New Jersey:  Paulist Press, 1993.

Griffiths, Colleen. M. “Human Bodiliness: Sameness as Starting Point”. In The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson, pp.60-67.  New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002.

Hunt, Mary E. “A kyriarchal church unmasked - Faith & Spirituality”. Catholic New Times Vol. 26, No.20 (15 Dec, 2002).

John Paul II. “Apostolic Letter ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone”. [22 May 1994]. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.185-91.  Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Johnson, Elizabeth. A. “Imaging God, Embodying Christ: Women as a Sign of the Times”.  In The Church Women Want, ed. Elizabeth A. Johnson, pp.45-59.  New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002.

Johnson, Elizabeth. A. “Wisdom Was Made Flesh & Pitched Her Tent Among Us”. In Reconstruction the Christ Symbol: Essays in Feminist Christology, ed. Maryanne Stevens, pp.95-117.  Mahwah, New Jersey:  Paulist Press, 1993.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Sex, Women & the Church: The Need for Prophetic Change”. Commonweal, Vol. 130, No.12 (June 2003), pp.11-17.

Koontz, Gayle Gerber. “Kyriarchy”.; available from http://www.ambs.edu/GGKoontz/dictiona.htm;  Associated Mennonite Biblical  Seminary,  Elkhart, IN, United States, nd.; accessed 14 January 2005.

Macy, Gary. “The Ordination Of Women In The Early Middle Ages”.  Theological Studies,  Vol. 61, No. 3 (September 2000), pp.481-507.

Maguire, Máireád Corrigan. “A Celebration of Women’s call to a renewed priesthood in the Catholic Church”. Opening address to the Women’s Ordination Worldwide 1st International Conference, Dublin 2001.  In WOW is the Time: First International Conference – Text & Context: A Celebration of Women’s Call to a Renewed Priesthood in the Catholic Church, pp.12-14.  Dublin: BASIC (Brothers & Sisters in Christ), 2002.

Martimort, A.G. “The Value of a Theological Formula ‘In Persona Christi’”.  In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.107-118. Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998.

McCarty, Patty. “Nuns firm under fire: (women's ordination conference, Dublin, Ireland)”. National Catholic Reporter, Vol. 37 No. 34 (13 July  2001), p.3.

McCreight-Greene, Kathryn. Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis & Appraisal.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Meicher, Sarah J. “The problem of anti-Judaism in Christian feminist biblical interpretation: some pragmatic suggestions”.  Cross Currents, vol. 53, no. 1 (2003), pp. 22-33.

Murphy, Sandra. “Drop in priest numbers no cause for alarm”. The Catholic Weekly, 19 December, 2004.

Nicola, S. Lee. Faith & Feminism: An Introduction to Christian Feminist Thought.  London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2003.

Purvis, Jane. “Deeds, Not Words,” in History Today Vol. 52, No. 5 ( May2002), pp.56-63.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. “Can Christology Be Liberated From Patriarchy”. In Reconstruction the Christ Symbol: Essays in Feminist Christology, ed.  Maryanne Stevens, pp.7-29.  Mahwah, New Jersey:  Paulist Press, 1993.

Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph. “The Male Priesthood: A Violation of Women’s Rights?” In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ Documents & Comments, pp.142-150. Washington,  D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Rickard, John, Australia: A Cultural History. 2nd ed., London: Longman, 1996.

Spiazzi, Raimondo. “The Advancement of Women According to the Church”. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’” Documents & Comments, pp.79-88.  Washington , D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,  Rep. 1998.

Vance-Trembath, Sally. M. “John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint & Conversation with Women”. Theological Studies, Vol. 60, No. 1 (March 1999), pp.99-108.

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs. “The Uninterrupted Tradition of the Church”. In From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’: Documents & Comments, pp.99-106. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, Rep. 1998.

Ware, Kallistos. “Man, Women & the Priesthood of Christ”. In Women & the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko, pp.9-37. New York: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1983.

Wilson, Elizabeth. “Feminism Today”. In Hecate Vol. 30, No. 1 (2004), pp.212-22.

 

Peter M Marendy is a Catholic secondary education teacher currently completing a Masters of Religious Education part-time through ACU McAuley at Banyo.  He is currently working at the Christian Brother’s school St James College in Brisbane as a religious education, modern history and english teacher.  

"Peter Marendy" peter.marendy@optusnet.com.au

 

© Copyright is retained by the author