In November 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published its reply to the Pope John Paul II apostolic letter Ordinatio Saacerdotalis. According to the congregation the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination since it is "founded on the written word of God." This is a clear indication that the Catholic Church has no intent to permit ordination. From an objective point of view it could be easily said that Jesus would disagree with this decision, as he himself did not ever purposely discriminate women. It can be argued that the Pope has possibly relaxed his views on ordination as a result of the Anglican decision to ordain females. Cardinal Ratzinger stated that it as no the pope's intention to establish an infallible papal definition concerning ordination, in Ordinatio Saacerdotalis.
During the early Church, women were accustomed to being leaders in some Gentile communities as seen in Romans 16:1. It seems this tradition died out during the rise of Christianity and great injustice developed against women, such as being barred from touching sacred objects and not allowed to read sacred scripture from the pulpit. These sanctions developed as early Christians believed Christ's message was to exclude women from religious positions. Change came about slowly within the Christian Church and even with the mammoth overhaul that the Roman Catholic Church underwent in the 1960's,change, in respect of the view to ordain women, has not occurred at all. This is an unquestionable decision by the Vatican hierarchy despite some of the arguments for ordination that have been positively pointed out.
Catholic theologians are seriously incoherent by certain theological aspects to their argument. If the maleness of Jesus, rather than his assumption of human reality is the decisive point concerning the incarnation and therefore Priesthood, women should be excluded from other sacraments such as redemption. A noteworthy example of Jesus sharing his most precious moments with the Twelve Apostles is the last supper. It is unlikely that women would have been present at such an important meal as this occasion also bears significant theological symbolism. It must also be questioned as to whether Jesus would have known his bread and wine offering would result in the prominence of the Eucharist within Christianity. Therefore it seems that countless pope's have not looked upon the situation with an open mind. It is difficult to state that when the matter was first addressed, Catholic hierarchy didn't have sexist views. Their notions may have been the 'norm' in society then. They can even be excused until the period of civil rights movements in the 20th century were finalised which put women just as equal as men (in most democratic states.) But today these views have to be questioned and maybe pressured for change.
Simple theological analysis raises further questions on St.Paul's decisions concerning women within the Church. If we look back to Corinthians 14: 34-35 St.Paul's letter says women are to be silent "as even the law says." This law is expected to be a Jewish custom, so how could a 'Jewish' command be binding in all Churches. This is a difficult question to answer yet we should probably use this to remind ourselves of the intrinsic link between Christianity and Judaism, theologically and with reference to religious practice. The position that the Bible "must always remain the ultimate authority on issues of faith and practice." Should also serve as a warning against taking Biblical sections out of context and too literally. It must be remembered that the use of scripture alone in deciding this issue is futile.
Jesus may not have attempted any political reforms yet he did condemn the social injustices of his day: he expressed his disapproval of divorce and remarriage (Matt 19:8.) He critised the hypocritical religious leaders (Matt 23:13) and preached righteousness to all through the parables. Christ could have ordained six men and their wifes as his Apostles, he could have chosen at least one woman such as his mother- she had already been certified "highly favoured" (Luke 1:28-30), he could have ordained a Samaritran woman, or Mary who he bespoke to witness his resurrection. But he chose twelve men. This is the overriding fact, which St.Paul, being centrally responsible for Christianity, appreciated, and understood Jesus was acting according to scriptural authority. This is a very fervent argument represented throughout all of St.Paul's letters, where much of the Scriptural support for either side of this issue comes from.
The fundamental problem with this debate is the basic interpretation of God, Jesus' and St.Paul's words. So far we can already notice how Catholic teaching chooses to be slightly selective over what scripture it will read from and what it will ignore such as 1Peter 2:9
"the entire people of God are priestly."
The empowerment given to a minister is to perform religious acts such as the permanence of the Eucharist sacrifice. These offerings may resemble Jesus' blood and body yet why does a male have to act as the mediator between this and God. Most other liberal forms of Christianity accept women can do the job just as well. The symbolism of a male priesthood has no real meaning in the wake of the true doctrine between Priests and the Ministry. For example, Mary Murray Charles relates this to incarnation:
"In the incarnation the symbol is the humanity of Christ and the symbolic reality is the whole of humanity united to God through the incarnate world."
Many scholars would argue that the Biblical evidence Jesus left indicated his wishes within the Church. Firstly, the choice of men as the Apostles, and during the Last Supper only to the twelve men concerning the Eucharist sacrifice did he say
"Do this in remembrance of me" (1Cor 11:24)
It is also believed by exegetes that Jesus' choice of men was determined by the symbolic role as "patriarchs" of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. We can see Catholic theologians seem to be careful over suitable scripture to use in their arguments. They ignore 1 Peter 2:9, which reminds us that all ministry has its exemplar in Christ, regardless of, gender. But take into account passages such as Luke 8:2 that indicates women are the cause of evil from the Fall. It would seem that the apparent contradictions within the Bible and, indeed, amongst the interpretations of it, lead us nowhere in solving this debate. On the one hand we see injustices conquered e.g.: in God's freeing the Hebrews from slavery, and on the other we have, by implication, women since the beginning of time being blamed for the arrival of evil into the world.
"The priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did" (Espist 63:14)
This passage surely reveals where the true nature of this debate lays - namely, the view that a Priest is to represent Christ. Pope John Paul II's 1994 declaration didn't refer to the importance of the "ionic" representation of Christ probably because this shifts the argument away from theology and towards biology. This could possibly indicate that the Pope understands but ignores that Catholic tradition has to be evolved. Cardinal Danielou wrote in Le Monde
"the law may be criticised when it des not achieve its object or when it leads away form it. It also means that the law should be revised according to new situations"
Cardinal Ratzinger argues the difference of sex has significance, indicating it forms part of the order of creation, and this influential Catholic believes it is of Divine Will that women can't be ordained.
Many theologians have begun to discuss whether Jesus intended the Last Supper to entail the ordination of his Twelve to the priesthood. It is likely Jesus did not know his sacrifice would have such a big impact on Christianity, in the form of the Eucharist. Inter Insigniores indicates that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe women are inferior to men and St.Paul reflects this in I Corinthians 6:16 -
"though woman is nothing without man, man is nothing without woman"
Many Biblical passages can be thrown around in the argument for women's ordination. But important creeds such as The Nicene Creed can't be overlooked. This asserts belief in "one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." If the priest is to guide man to God and vice versa, then the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Churches have a strong case that women are inappropriate for Priesthood on the basis that the chosen Twelve were men who bear natural resemblance to Jesus and witnessed the Last Supper.
There are many examples of where you see Jesus paying the up most respect to various women. Jesus asked Mary Magdalen "The Apostle to the Apostles" to be the first to witness his resurrection. It could be said that women therefore played an even more important part in Christianity, as the resurrection was a vital part of Jesus' life reflecting thus, Christianity. Avery Dulles doesn't downgrade women but reviews various extra biblical sources of tradition, including the partristics and medieval practice, and consequentially finds universal rejection of the idea of ordaining women:
"Jesus treated women with respect but he did not call them to be members of the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve."
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1Timothy 2:11-14)
This is an obvious replacement to Corinthians 14:34-35 and is useful to show scripture evidence to why St.Paul was not in favour of women Priests. He didn't give sociological or cultural factors to why or prohibited women from having the responsibility of authoritive teaching, but appealed to the divine argument from creation. St.Paul reasons his restriction on women through the use of scripture. He strictly follows the doctrine that theological issues must be settled by the written word of God and by this he means the Bible, any Christians ultimate source of authority. For a Pope to contradict this would be an unlikely circumstance and that's why the Catholic Church remains with their century old views.
"Women are forbidden to give the official teaching, to baptise, to make the offering or to lay claim to any function of men, or to the sacerdotal ministry" (Praescript 41:5.)
This Russian Orthodox position shows how forms of Christianity remain just as against ordination as the Roman Catholic Church. But the Orthodoxy's strict ways are not so under fire as the papal doctrines, (despite the fact they strictly forbid women performing baptism.) Papal teachings alone are not formidable enough to make any doctrine infallible. The universal magisterium requires all Catholic Bishops to be united, and despite strict tradition, this in the future remains unlikely and doctrines may have to evolve to suit the Church. The "Inter insigniores" declaration states
"the church desires that women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and harmonization of society."
This disavowers the belief that there is a gender discrimination in the Catholic Church. This can be argued as Christ can't be guilty of injustice and likewise the Church, which has strict moral grounds, can't be guilty of discrimination. This is summed up in both 'Inter Insigniores' and 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis'
"the nonadmission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are lesser dignity nor can it be construed as discrimination
against them"
Countless Popes have said the exclusion of women from priestly ordination is "a teaching to be held definitively and absolutely." If there was ever a period when a pope did question this doctrine an easy conclusion to make is that he felt impotent to change this strong view. However, it is not my desire to analysis their actions but to question them. Defenders of the tradition may agree that the culture of Jesus' time was pro-men, yet any Christian should respect the fact that Jesus was a great being and was neither prejudice by race or gender. If Jesus autonomously chose the Apostles to be male than the Catholic traditional arguments may stand. As a result of Christian practices being developed, such as the Eucharist, further arguments have supported this Vatican claim. Pope Paul VI claimed that "natural resemblance" is a key aspect between a priest and Jesus.
St. Thomas Aquinas anthropomorphic accounted to women's natural inferiority to men. Yet our society have move passed these prejudice views as they are of little importance over who is physically superior. Other scholars it is said do have a strong case as to why women shouldn't be ordained: Duns Scotus believes that the decision to prohibit women form the Priesthood is a theological decision made by Christ. St.Bonaventure had a liturgical argument said the impossibility of women being priests is due to the nature of the priestly function i.e. natural resemblance. This is a sound case and therefore according to Pope Paul VI the church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." Catholic credo still appears to be discriminatory over which material it basis its laws on. All of St.Paul's letters should be considered, but passages like "we are ambassadors for Christ" (II Corinthians 5:20) are not as important to neither Anglican nor Catholic as credible ones like Luke 22:14-20 at the Last Supper. But maybe Catholicism and Orthodox Churches are right in accepting and taking their doctrines from these 'famous' passages and taking little consideration to other verses, which are quite irrelevant within the fundamentals in Christianity.
Jesus left the future of Christianity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make decisions concerning authority. It is doubtful that he intended to express a preference regarding the gender of future Priests. Christian denominations that forbid the ordination of women do have understandable arguments: they echo how Jesus chose twelve male apostles and only these men sat with them at the significant last supper. Yet objections do arise and much dispute against certain Roman Catholic doctrines has been formulated: many believe Catholicism has a possibly sexist view that women can't naturally resemble Jesus. It is also argued that St.Paul's teachings have no definitive stance on the matter and considering God made us all equal an open mind on the matter should be cast.
In our time the basic need to secure equal opportunities changed the outlook on the Anglican Church as early as 1967. It only seems that time and human progression will be the decider on the future of women's ordination within the Catholic and Orthodox churches. This only mirrors what the majority of the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded in 1976:
"It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a
clear way and once and for all the possible accession of women to the presbyterate."
Bibliography
Equal and Different - Michael Harper
Ministry a case for change - Edward Schillebeeckx
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - Apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II
Sexism and God - R.Reuther
The Case for Women's ministry - R.Edwards
The New Theologian Debate - Women and Ordination - The Case for the Ordination of Women - Murray Charles Murray
The Case against the Ordination of women -Henry Kirk
The Tablet 10 February 1996 - Women Priests cannot be - Anthony Lane
The Tablet 2 November 1996 - The Pope and the women - Hermann Josef Pottmeyer
The Tablet December 1995 - Tradition says no - Avery Dulles
Tradition and the Ordination of Women - CTSA convention in Minneapolis
Women at the Altar - The Ordination of Women in the R.C. Church - Lavinia Byrne
Website : www.womenpriests
