And Baby Makes Three: Women as Priests

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Women as Priests

Here goes:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:
" 'Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.' The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve and ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

This in and of itself I find insufficient to explain the non-ordination of women. Jesus did choose twelve male apostles, and appointed Peter as the head of the church that he left behind, but he also had numerous female disciples. Paul also wrote to men and women alike, and names some women, such as Phoebe, as deacons. Women may not have been able to be priests in church history, but they greatly assisted priests. The most likely were not able to be priests themselves because of cultural reasons, and biblical reasons and Tradition did not become the main reason until much later.

One of the few reasons that makes me wonder if it is ok to not have women priests is that the role of deacons, priests, bishops, etc. is the role of Jesus, who was male. They are supposed to be acting as Jesus and taking over his role, espcially in the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation. Does it matter if it is a male for the Sacraments, because Jesus was male? That might make some sense, but at the same time, if Jesus had lived in our age, would he have come as a man or as a woman? Therefore, does it matter if the person who is facilitating the Sacraments is a male or female?

The Catholic church definitely needs to discuss this matter. I myself, as a feminist and as a strong Catholic, have a hard time deciding one way or the other. When are these reasons valid for keeping women out of the priesthood, and when are they just excuses? Part of me wants to stick by the teachings, but part of me wants to say that a woman could act in the place of Jesus just as well as a man, because his maleness was not what made him Jesus, it wasn't what saved us when he died on the cross. It was his unselfish sacrifice, not the fact that he was a man. A woman is just as intelligent as a man and could teach and preach as well as any priest. Does the church just not want to change? Does it want to stay patriarchical for simplicity or for not wanting to admit that they are wrong? Or are we all wrong for wanting women to be priests? It is hard for many reasons-I do not want to claim that the church is wrong for excluding women, especially since all of the reasons that I can give are not necessarily theological or faith-based reasons. At the same time, it is important to realize that women have almost no say in the church, and that all of the teachings are controlled by men. While this may not be a big deal, because the men making the decisions are intelligent and know their theology and have very strong faiths, it is a big deal socially and possibly theologically. Does not having women as priests show that women do not have as high of a place in the Catholic church as men? Men-only as priests has been a problem for equality of women, and I know the teaching should not be changed just because of that, but it should definitely be considered.

It is hard to know, even as a strong Catholic and a theology major, when the reasons for keeping women out of the priesthood are good enough theologically. While Jesus chose 12 male apostles, and those apostles chose more males to succeed them (a history of which I could not find), this does not mean that Jesus did not want women to have a place in his church. He considered women his disciples as well, and Paul after him also considered women to have a slightly higher place in the church. Again, Jesus' maleness was not necessarily important to his teachings and to our salvation, leading me to think that the maleness of the priests is not what allows the Eucharist to become Jesus, or the person in the confessional speaking as Jesus. Until I can understand these teachings more, or have other reasons given to me that sufficiently explain why males can be priests and women cannot, something other than the maleness of Jesus, or the apostolic succession (or rather, a valid explanation for the apostolic succession) I do not know if I can say that it is ok that the Catholic church does not include women in the priesthood.

16 Comments:

At 8:09 PM , Matthew B. Novak said...

A couple of things. First, I think you're right on that the Church's reasons are not strong enough by themselves.

But of course, there's the flip problem - that there's not really any strong evidence which proves women should be priest.

And finally, I think it's important to point out that I don't think you can blame the culture at the time as a reason why women weren't chosen by Christ to be Apostles. Because let's face it, cultural gender taboos didn't stop him - we have all sorts of accounts of this. So why would they have stopped him from naming women Apostles? Plus, he was starting a new Church, and teaching people to believe in all sorts of "crazy" stuff. People followed those things, so it's only reasonable to believe they also would have followed women priests, had they been ordained. And had Christ appointed both male and female apostles equally, the male apostles would have treated the females equally, out of obidience to Christ, if nothing else. I mean, they followed Christ into death and martyrdom, certainly they would have listened if he had also ordained women priests. So that whole cultural thing doesn't really stand up in my mind.

So ultimately, we're left with "Christ only had male Apostles." This type of argument is at it's strongest merely and indication of God's Will, and not an argument construing God's Will. And at it's weakest, this type of argument can be dismissed as unlikely coincidence.
At 11:21 PM , Emily Powell said...

This is interesting, and I might have something to say about it soon, but not right now because I need to go to bed. And also, I'm in the middle of a couple articles that I think might have some interesting ideas about this and I want to wait until I finish seeing what these theologians have to say.
At 10:32 AM , empeterson said...

Matt, I think many women would disagree with you when you say there's not any strong evidence which proves women should be priests. But that's not what I want to get into.
I think I can blame the culture as a reason why women weren't chosen as apostles. While most cultural gender taboos didn't stop him, he may still have been concerned about naming women as apostles, because of the way they would have been treated by others later on. And let's face it-Jesus never came out and explicity said anywhere in any Gospel that women were equal to men. Sure, he treated them way better than others did, but he never said "treat women as your equal". Jesus was not as concerned with breaking social norms as he was with getting his teaching and salvation across. His sole purpose for being on earth wasn't to gain equality for women, or be a social revolutionary, although he kindof was. I think if he believed in complete equality for men and women, and would have thought that others after him would have treated women in the same way, and if women would have been allowed to be educated, he would have named some as apostles.
At 11:36 AM , Matthew B. Novak said...

But Emily, others would have treated women as equals because Christ told them to. They followed His teachings and His examples, therefore we have no reason to doubt that they would have followed his choice of women apostles. Christ was creating a new Church, a new culture. The old culture wasn't a factor in the way he did things, because he was creating a new one.

But furthermore, Christ didn't refrain from doing the right thing. Period. He didn't say "well, I'm afraid of what might happen after later on, so I'll just avoid teaching this or that." No, He did what He came to do and didn't defer to social barriers. If what He had to do would have included ordaining women priests, then He would have done so. But that wasn't part of what He came to do. It seems strange that from all the people Christ called to be apostles, none were women. This doesn't mean women aren't called to the priesthood, but it does mean that they weren't called to the priesthood. So now you've got to give me a reason why they weren't then and are now, and you can't defer to cultural differences because that type of reason wouldn't have stopped Christ from ordaining women.

I think the best argument you can give for what has changed is one that asserts that there just weren't any women at that time who were called to that vocation, and nothing has changed between now and then, except that currently there are women who are called.

That's your best argument.

The culture one is way weak. Even if equality of the sexes wasn't Christ's main objective, when he set up a Church on Earth He wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of gender, regardless of future hardships. He was replacing the old culture with a new culture, and in that process it would have been a relatively easy thing to recognize women who were called to the vocation.
At 2:49 PM , empeterson said...

Well, then I can argue and say that Jesus wasn't necessarily setting up a new religion, and if he was people didn't listen to him for quite awhile. Jesus, all of his followers, and many of their followers, were Jews, and stayed Jews. Paul later on makes the claim multiple times that he is Jewish and there is no need for conversion to a new faith, just a new way of salvation that both Jews and Gentiles could partake in. While he didn't make Gentiles convert to Judaism, he sure as heck didn't want the Jews to convert to anything else either. It wasn't until much much later that the it became a new faith and a new religion. So I guess I can make the claim that because Jesus was still Jewish and came to fulfill the Law and be our salvation, since he was still Jewish, and Jewish leaders were male, chose male apostles to succeed him. Therefore, since later on this new way of Judaism became something completely different, Christianity, the Jewish customs and laws no longer apply.

I think you would be better off arguing not that Jesus chose twelve male apostles, because he also had many men and women disciples, but that he chose to give them the ability to perform the sacraments; only the apostles were there when he gave them the ability to fogive sins, and at the Last Supper. I may be arguing against myself here, but then again, I don't think I have an answer either way right now. However, I find this to be the strongest argument, especially if we are going to define Catholicism, as you did in my previous post, by the Seven Sacraments. Therefore, if Jesus chose 12 male apostles, not just as his followers, but specifically to institute and perform the sacraments, then this is a stronger arguemnt for males only as priests.
At 3:11 PM , Matthew B. Novak said...

For starters, I'm saying Apostles because that word means significantly more than "disciples". Disciple is about following Christ. Apostle is about recieving a vocational call and authority from Christ, i.e. the authority to perform the sacraments. So the fact that Christ picked only males to be Apostles means that Christ only gave Sacramental Authority to males.

But, aside from this argument of terminology, there's the real response you put forward: that Christ wasn't establishing a new religion.

There are a couple of things you fail to consider: First, while Christianity started as a Jewish "sect" it was, in it's teaching that Christ was God, completely original and new.

Secondly, what is important to the integrity of the culture argument is not whether or not Christ was making a new religion, but whether or not Christ was making a new culture. This, he was doing. Whether that new culture was within the Jewish church or outside of it doesn't matter, it was a new culture.

In essence, also, it was by it's terms a fullfillment of the old Covenant, and a bringing of a new covenant. So the old was obsolete, and though you could be both Jewish and Christian, being Christian required a different culture and set of beliefs than being "only" Jewish. With these new beliefs came a new culture, and one that Christ surely could have breathed women priesthood into.

Surely you agree that Christ was not constrained by culture.
And surely you agree that Christ's followers listened to him.
The logical conclusion is that Christ could not have been constrained by culture when choosing whom to call to/give Sacramental Authority.

I'm telling you, your best argument is just to say it was a coincidence that only 12 men were called as Apostles, and the only reason it happened was b/c there weren't any women in the area who had the Priestly vocation.

We can talk more about this over break if you want. I'll keep responding here, but I'm hoping that a philosophy major you get the whole weak/strong argument point I'm making.

What you say has some point to it. It's just a very weak point, and there is a stronger argument available.
At 7:28 PM , empeterson said...

I think you are oversimplifying it by saying that Christ was not confined by culture and that his followers listened to him. And I do not agree that Christ was starting a completely new culture.
At 8:50 PM , Matthew B. Novak said...

Then I challenge you to do 3 things.

1. Show how Christ was limited by the culture, using examples other than the women priest thing.

2. Show how his teachings were not embraced by a core group of his followers, i.e. those who became the Church, not those who descended into heresy.

3. Demonstrate how Christ was attempting to maintain the current culture.
At 9:12 PM , Emily Powell said...

I came across an interesting idea:

You mentioned that Jesus would not have been/was not constrained by social taboos. Have you ever thought that the way Jesus called his followers to be, especially the men, in face WAS a social taboo? He called them to love their neighbor as themselves. To serve, to help out the orphans and the widows, to care for the sick, to visit the imprisoned. To not seek fulfillment their own selfish goals. In his time, this would have been much more uncharacteristic of the men than of the women.

Perhaps this is one reason that Jesus called men to be his apostles.

As for women priests now, I'm still not sure what my opinion on that issue is. But I will say this:

What is a priest really doing? Acting in place of Christ. CHRIST is neither male nor female, JESUS was male. Christ came to earth in human form--Jesus--to redeem all of humanity. He took on all of humanity, this we know because what is not assumed is not redeemed, in the particular form of Jesus. Thus, Christ assumes human form, in order that we all may be redeemed. I think what we need to focus on here is not Jesus's maleness (or that of the apostles' for that matter) but rather his human-ness. I think we will all agree that the essence of humanity is no less present in females than males. So, females as well as males should be able to act in the place of Christ as priests.

This is the stronges argument I have heard for why women should be allowed to enter the priesthood.
At 10:47 PM , Matthew B. Novak said...

I think we can sum up your "evidence in favor" by essentially saying that "the priestly role is a human role, not a male role, therefore women can be priests too.

But the really interesting thing about this argument is that it's on it's face responsive to the argument that the priesthood his a male role.

But there's a big difference between saying it's a male role and saying it is a role to which only men are called.

The church, doctrinally at least, is only really making that second claim - not that the priesthood is a male role, just that it is only men who are called to it.

So if that's the church's position then the responsive argument you make is responding to a position that isn't actually what the Church puts forward.

See the problem there?

If I had to point to evidence that women are called to the priesthood I'd just point to the women who feel an honest and Divine call, and who's vocational calling is made manifest in other ways as well (because vocation is about more than feeling a call or wanting to do something). I don't know how many of them there are, but I think they're probably out there. That to me, though it also isn't conclusive evidence, seems to be the strongest argument.

And about your culture point - I think it was interesting, and a fun little "reverse the logic" type idea, but I'm not sure it would stand up under pressure. And my guess is you'd agree. It's a fun thing to think about, and probably has some truth to it, but it isn't really relevant to showing whether or not women are actually called to the priesthood.

Also, I wanted to say another word about why I think culture is such a weak argument. See, God is Eternal. All of God's Truths are Infinite, and unchanging. So when we have a "conflict" between one culture (i.e. Old Testament beliefs that killing enemies was good) and a new culture (i.e. New Testament "turn the other cheek"), we don't say that God's Will or Truth has changed. We realize that our understanding has changed. Our Old Testament understanding was less perfect than our New Testament understanding.

And so if we say women weren't called back then b/c of "culture" but are now, then we've got God's Will subverted to something that changes. And that can't be. It either has to be that Women are called now and were called then (but there just weren't any women w/ the priestly vocation), or it has to be they weren't called then, and aren't called now.

Does that make sense? You definitely want a stronger argument than culture.
At 5:47 AM , empeterson said...

I think women were called both then and now, but weren't allowed to then, and aren't willing to stand for it now. There are many instances of women in antiquity who tried to be deacons or perform priestly duties (with no indication that they were doing it for reason other than for God and the faith) and who were persecuted or stopped by men. I do not think that you can claim that just men are called to the priesthood-that is an arrogant and shows a very limited understanding of Jesus I think.
At 5:49 AM , empeterson said...

Oh, and when Mary Magdalene and Martha were Jesus' hosts, and Mary stayed with Jesus to be with him and the apostles to listen to his teaching, etc., Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way. Isn't that some indication that he wanted women followers/leaders?
At 9:56 AM , Matthew B. Novak said...

Yes, that's an indication that he wanted women disciples. It's not an indication that he wanted women apostles, aka priests.

The only indication His preferences we have regarding apostles is based on who He picked, and then who they (the early Church, who best knew His direct will) turned around and picked.

It's not a strong argument. It's just one that says "hey, here's what Christ and the Apostles did, so we're gonna defer to them."

And I don't think the Church's position is in any way arrogant. They're basically saying "we don't even have an argument for why men are the only ones called, we just have an historical indication from God that only men are called, and since we don't want to approve teachings that are contrary to God's Will, we're just gonna follow that example." That's not arrogant - that's fearful. They're not giving a reason for why women aren't called. They're just explaining that it looks, Historically, like they aren't.

Also, I have a huge problem with your "women were called both now and then, but weren't allowed to then" line of thinking. This returns us to the culture argument. If they were called, surely Christ would have called them, right? You can't say "not allowed to", because that would mean Christ didn't allow them, and surely that doesn't fit with who Christ actually was.
At 1:07 PM , empeterson said...

I'm not saying Christ didn't allow them, I'm saying later on, members of the church didn't allow them. And please don't say they were then following Christ's example, because it wasn't his example to call them sinful, whores, etc. (Ok, I don't know if they were actually called whores, but there were called some mean names)

And I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoints, I do not have an answer for this one way or the other, but since you're not arguing for women priests, someone commenting has to!
At 8:12 PM , Matthew B. Novak said...

But I'm not arguing against women priests either.

I'm just trying to parse out the strongest arguments.

And those people who denied women much later then Christ - like a couple hundred years - because of cultural issue, that wasn't ok. But, if they denied women because they thought they were following Christ's example, well, then you've got the same question we do now. So it really all comes back to that question - is this 12 being men evidence of Divine Will that only men are called to the priesthood. And the answer, I think, is we don't know for sure, it could have just been coincidence.
At 8:55 PM , empeterson said...

There's another theory about Jesus having an apocalyptic view of the world and just not thinking it was too important to do that because he thought the end of the world was coming too...it's complicated and I don't want to get into it, but maybe we can talk about it more when we're home for Christmas.

And Baby Makes Three

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Women as Priests

16 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts