Some Reflections on the Traditional Arguments for the Exclusion of women from holy Orders.

by Sr Vincent Emmanuel Hannon

from The Question of Women and the Priesthood, Sr Vincent Emmanuel Hannon S.U.S.C., Geoffrey Chapman 1967, pp.97-126. Republished on our website with the necessary permissions

1. The evidence of sacred scripture

The disqualification of women from the reception of Orders is the common and, it seems, the certain opinion of Catholic theologians.(1) In the foregoing pages we have followed the main arguments used to support this opinion: the teaching of St Paul, which he bases on Genesis; the fact that Christ was a man, and his ordination of men only to the priesthood. These are the essential reasons, while in addition arguments de congruentia are severally proposed by the Fathers.

St Paul bases his prohibition of women ‘to speak in church’ by adverting to the book of Genesis. The specific reference is generally held to be to Genesis 3 : 16: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.’ Several points bear reflection here. Are the words of this text directed to Eve personally or to woman as such? Since the consequences of the punishment imposed after the fall have been felt in child-bearing down through the ages, it is obvious that this was not an infliction meant for Eve alone. However, there is no proof that this law was imposed upon women in general for the simple reason that not all women choose to marry. The whole context is matrimonial as the word ‘husband’ and the punishment, ‘in pain thou shalt bring forth children’ indicate. It is noticeable also that Eve’s subjection to Adam comes only after the fall. The crucial question is: does this whole passage prove that woman as a sex is subject to man as a sex? Only an unequivocally affirmative answer can justify the deductions of the fathers and theologians, who rather arbitrarily conclude that because of her subjection woman is excluded from orders.

Some aver that even prior to the fall, Eve was subject to Adam, and note, as does 0ecumenius,(2) for example, that the appellation ‘woman’ in the creation account indicates that the female sex as such is subject to the male. The conclusion that she is subject by the very fact of her creation from and for man, as St.Paul himself states,(3) depends on a literal interpretation of the creation account. St Paul and all commentators until the advance of scripture studies in this century give a literal explanation of this passage in Genesis. Today scholars point out instead that the image of the rib taken from Adam’s side to form Eve is intended to typify the equality of the sexes and the indissoluble bond which exists between husband and wife. The context of the creation story itself shows that the sacred author has the married life in mind: ‘. . . the manner in which her formation is described is designed to teach that in the institution o the family, the husband and father is the natural and divinely instituted head to whom all the other members are subordinate as good order requires a central authority in every society’.(4)

But even if we accept a literal interpretation, the creation of Eve from the side of Adam does not conclusively prove her subjection. Priority in time does not argue to superiority or inferiority. If it did, then the animals would be superior to man, since they are depicted in Genesis as having been created first. We might even say that the creation account, far from pointing to woman’s subjection, indicates her eminence since, instead of being formed from the slime of the earth, as Adam was, she was taken from his very flesh.

The fact that Eve was created as a helpmate (ezer) for Adam also seems at first sight to imply that she was to occupy the position of serving-maid. But when one takes the creation text in its entirety, the formation of Eve stands out as a stupendous event. God is depicted as surveying the whole of creation and finding nothing comparable to this man, who is placed over it all and to whom it is to be subject: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone.’ Then a being, ‘flesh of my flesh’, a companion equal to himself, is given to Adam. There would seem to be no room here for the subjection of one sex to the other. Yet even if the word ezer is taken to imply the subjection of the female to the male sex, is it not possible, in view of the fact that the formation of the Bible was conditioned by the contemporary milieu, that the human author of Genesis was projecting into the creation account the conditions of his own age?

In the primitive period in which Genesis was written, the status of woman was hardly better than it was in any subsequent age. What else could be expected from this people, semi-nomadic, warring and beset by many hazards? The human author of Genesis could not visualize the condition of woman except as he knew it, and he inserted into the creation account a reason for her inferior social status. It was as natural for the author to include this as for him to explain the origin of other aspects of the physical order. St Paul himself bears the marks of his age when he speaks of the agape, the Judaizers, idolatrous practices and so on; his very use of language places his epistles in a hellenistic age and culture. We cannot expect the author of Genesis to be less susceptible to contemporary influence.

It has been suggested that the subjection of woman to man is proven from the divine injunction to Eve: ‘He shall rule over you.’ In reply, one may ask how this part of her punishment can be considered still binding while the other, her pain in child-bearing, may now be alleviated?(5) What logic distinguishes the two penalties?

A further argument used to justify woman’s state of subjection is her supposed responsibility for the sin of mankind. The book of Sirach states: ‘From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die’ (25:24). St Paul however asserts that ‘sin came into the world through one man’ (Romans 5 :12). St Thomas can say that had only Eve and not Adam sinned, their children would not have contracted original sins To his medieval mind woman was completely passive in the act of generation and therefore Eve had no share in the passing on of sin. This is hardly consistent with the patristic opinion which puts on the first woman the burden of blame for the catastrophic fall of mankind from original justice and concludes that, because of this, women in general are weak and seductive. But one cannot have it both ways: either she alone caused the first sin and passed it on and is therefore totally blameworthy, or else both Adam and Eve share the weakness of succumbing to temptation and are equally responsible for the transmision of original sin. It seems a strange logic to blame Eve for the sin which mankind has inherited and yet claim that had Adam not sinned the human race would not have contracted it or its effects.

Further it seems never to have occurred to the Angelic Doctor what inestimable weakness it was for the first man with his supposedly superior intelligence to have succumbed to the words of a mere human being, a temptation less disguised than the diabolic cunning employed against his consort! My point here is to show the lack of logic in arguing to woman’s inferiority from the biblical account of Eve’s seduction by the serpent. The question as to whether the race was monogenistic or polygenistic in origin is here totally prescinded from.

A final conclusion as to woman’s inferiority and consequent exclusion from orders has been drawn from Genesis 1:26: ‘Let us make man to our image and likeness and let him have dominion. . . ’(7) It has been supposed from this text that Adam only was made in God’s image, but this faulty translation of the Vulgate has been corrected in recent revisions of the Bible.(8) Secondly, in the creation of woman, as described in Genesis 2:18, she is said to be made ‘like unto’ Adam; thus according to some Eve was not made in the image of God. This however ignores Genesis 1:27 where it is explicitly stated that male and female were created to his image, while the RSV reads Genesis 2 :18 : ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’

Even if one accepted the view held by some of the fathers that woman was not created in God’s image, this does not justify her exclusion from orders,’ since it is baptism that regenerates, recreates man. It follows that the effects of original sin which destroyed man’s likeness to God are obliterated from his soul by baptism, and he is once more a child of God. And the child is the eikõn of his father. Baptism is also the gateway to the reception of the other sacraments. On these two counts, therefore, it would appear that woman could be the subject of orders.

The reservation of the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods to men is yet another argument used for the disqualification of woman from the sacerdotal office. It is relevant here, however, to recall that the Hebrews formed a strictly patriarchal, masculine society. Furthermore, they reacted strongly to the paganism of their neighbours, with whom (and especially the Egyptians) women had a preponderant role in worship. Taking these factors into consideration it would have been unthinkable for a Hebrew woman to be allowed to exercise the office of priesthood. Firstly, because of what was regarded as peculiarly hers, her inferiority, and secondly, because such a thing would be too much like an imitation of contemporary pagan practice. It is interesting to note that the word ‘priestess’ does not even occur in the Hebrew tongue. The exclusively male priesthood has often been pointed to as a preserve of the chosen people and a sign of Israel’s superior religion, as well as a fact of revelation. But is it part of revelation? It is worth noting that though only men de facto acted as priests in the Hebrew society, the Old Testament contains no prohibition forbidding women to act as such. In consideration of the office of priest as a mediator, one who acts with authority as representative of the people to God and the instrument of the Deity to them, it is understandable that in a society such as that of the Hebrews, where woman was inferior and her sole function was held to be that of a wife and mother, women in general would be thought incapable of the priestly role. But it is difficult to see how the exclusion of women from the priesthood can be attributed to revelation. Again, though many pagan religions did allow the active intervention of women in public worship, many others reserved the office of priesthood to men alone.

New Testament arguments for the disqualification of women from orders are based primarily on St Paul’s prohibition of their speaking at the public assemblies. If we are to understand the Pauline texts which have such bearing on this issue, it is necessary to take some note first of all of his style and method in general. Paul was a fiery, impatient character and his style of writing is at times hyperbolic and reveals his passionate zeal. His great soul is at times raised to the peaks of exultation as, for example, when he exclaims to the Corinthians on receiving intimation of their fidelity: ‘I have great confidence in you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with comfort. With all our affliction, I am overjoyed’ (2 Corinthians 7:4). Again when rejoicing over the inestimable knowledge of Christ he counts everything other than this ‘as refuse’ (Philippians 3:8). In another place he is so angry with the Judaizers that he wishes that they would castrate themselves in their circumcision practices: ‘I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate (apokopsontai) themselves’ (Galatians 5 : 12). Further, his manner of expression is not only forceful and intolerant but even disturbing if taken literally or in isolated texts as, for example, when he speaks of God showing mercy to whom he will and hardening the hearts of sinners, or when he opposes faith to works or vividly describes the struggle against concupiscence so that freedom seems to disappear. Here he is passionate to a degree and difficult to understand. He condemns St Peter for conduct he considers reprehensible (Galatians 2:11f.), though the account in Acts (11:25f.) does not record this heated correction. In another place he quotes with approval the abusive text of Epimenides about the Cretans in general:

‘The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons’ (Titus 1 : 12). Again at Athens Paul had to face self-sufficient Greeks who rejected his Gospel. His reaction was violent, and he speaks out about the conceited human wisdom which is rejected by God, and the folly God chose to confound the wise.(10)

Although all this is contained in scripture, we do not for a moment consider that in not following the literal meaning of these passages we are being untrue to our Christian heritage. We do not, for instance, believe that all Cretans were or are what St Paul held them to be. No one today argues, from St Paul’s text commanding submission to the Caesars, that the tyranny of Caligula or Nero is to be perpetuated. Neither does anyone seek to justify slavery because Paul exhorted slaves to obey their masters. Employers do not quote St Paul to decry the strikes of their employees. Nor does anyone today deem it contrary to the spirit of Christianity for a girl to marry in accord with her own freedom and choice, though St Paul allows the father to dispose of his daughters in marriage or ‘to keep his daughter as she is’.(11) On the contrary, Christians seem to possess an inbuilt sense of balance as to what really is permanent in scripture in these instances and what is contingent; they even seem to be unconscious of the automatic but yet very rational response which they give to the Word of God in general. Christian consciousness has always acted as if there is a transitory element in scripture, something which has relevance for one particular time and not for another. This consciousness seems to manifest itself mostly in the realm of everyday living.

Yet the passages in the Pauline epistles imposing silence on women in the assembly are not given the same consideration as those texts relating to slavery or the authority of fathers in disposing of their daughters in marriage according to their pleasure. Many judge that these texts should be taken literally as the revealed Word of God, without regard for the social environment in which they were written. Those who think it reasonable to defend Peter’s conduct at Antioch and who give a broad interpretation to Paul’s language on that occasion, change their approach when reading the texts relating to women. No doubt an a priori influence is responsible for this inconsistency.

Considering the inferior status of woman amongst ancient peoples, and especially among the Hebrews themselves and in St Paul’s own time, it is to be expected that women should have been excluded from public roles in nascent Christianity. The stringency of Paul’s rabbinical training and the anti-feminist atmosphere of Hellenistic and Roman culture could hardly have failed to affect his thought patterns and literary style. In view of thïs, is it not feasible that his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy reflect a historical situation? Corinth had been the centre of profligacy perpetrated in the service of Aphrodite, where at one time a thousand female hierodules surrounded the shrine. This degrading licence in the name of religion was equalled only by the idolatrous worship of Diana at Ephesus, Timothy’s episcopal city. The Christian Gospel of freedom was in danger of misinterpretation in the prevailing libertine atmosphere of Corinth and Ephesus. In fact it seems that the newly converted Corinthians saw no limits to their new found freedom. St Paul had to use harsh words to reprove such abuses as incest and fornication amongst them. The married women of Corinth, too, seem to have attempted to exploit their freedom by going about unveiled. It is in this context that Paul’s admonition for women to keep silence in church is to be taken. That he was speaking to the married is seen from his words: ‘If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church’ (1Corinthians 14:35). In imposing silence on woman, St Paul was following not only the Hebrew but also the Greek tradition, for both Sophocles(12) and Aristotle(13) declared that silence is woman’s true adornment.

We have seen how the fathers interpreted this prohibition as referring to all women and not only to the married. This interpretation is a possible one, of course, but only if the passage is taken out of its context. Here as in Genesis the sacred institution of matrimony is the concern of the inspired author. It has been considered divinely ordained that if a woman enters into marriage with a man, she yields him a certain degree of her independence. ‘A certain social subordination in respect to man which in no way injures her personal independence is assigned to woman, as soon as she enters into union with him.’(14) That this prohibition pertains to the married woman seems clear also from Paul’s words in the same epistle: ‘Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head’ (1Corinthians 11 :5). The reason for this is ‘the head of a woman is her husband’ (11:3).(15)The Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives, endorses this opinion: ‘For the husband is the head of the wife. . .’ (5:23). It is apparent that the silence which St Paul imposes on women at the assemblies applies only to the married, who are nonetheless permitted to pray or prophesy on condition that they are veiled.

If these ‘silence’ texts, together with the literal interpretation of Genesis, prove the subjection of the female to the male sex as such, then there might be no end to the deductions we might draw from this conclusion. What would there be to prevent the realization of the Platonic idea of a community of wives, or forbid any man to take to wife any woman against her will? It is because woman, equally with man, is the subject of freedom that marriage is what it is, ‘a contract freely entered upon. . .’. The very concept of contract presupposes this God-given equality and freedom of the sexes in regard to each other. To deduce from the Pauline injunction of silence to Corinthian, Ephesian or other Hellenistic Christian wives, who abused their Christian liberty in going unveiled in a milieu where to do so was a gesture of marital disobedience, that all women are forbidden to take an official part in the religious ministry seems a gross abuse of scripture. In view especially of St Paul’s very explicit words ‘Any woman who prays or prophesies . . .’ (1Corinthians 11 : 5) it is hard to understand how a total silence could have been imposed on all women by the early fathers and commentators. Is there not here the danger that Scotus spoke of - the danger of injustice being done to women by forbidding them the right to exercise their God-given gifts actively in the public reunions of the Church? Some theologians reduce this right to cases of extraordinary gifts, but to do this is automatically to admit the right of public teaching in church to some women.

To conclude these considerations, it may be said that this question of women and the Catholic priesthood is far from having an exact scriptural solution. The matter at hand is work for the exegete. One recent commentator on 1Corinthians 13:5 has admitted that: ‘Modern custom is less strict, and St Paul would no doubt have written differently today’.(16) It is the task therefore of the scripture exegete to determine what is of eternal, unchangeable value in these passages and what is merely of historical and contingent import. However learned such a study may be, it will remain valueless if not approached from an open desire to discover God’s will regarding woman’s role in the Church. Having fulfilled all these qualifications, it will remain for the Catholic exegete to be guided in his investigations by the Magisterium of the Church of Christ.

2. Arguments from the examples of Christ

That Christ the redeemer became incarnate in the male sex and that he did not confer his priestly power on Mary or any woman are arguments used in favour of an all male Catholic priesthood.

As a preliminary it is necessary to reflect on the contingent factor that surrounded Christ’s life as man. That he was a Jew, lived for a part of His life at Nazareth rather than Cana, was crucified instead of beheaded, and a list of other details of his life are in a very definite sense relative - they do not affect the essentials of his life and mission. In other words, there were contingent and merely historical factors in the life of the Word of God incarnate, just as there are in the written Word of God. That Christ was a Jew instead of a Greek was surely an accidental element in his mission as mediator between man and God. Otherwise it would be an essential requirement of each candidate for the Catholic priesthood that he should be a Jew. For the priest is undoubtedly the representative of Christ in perpetuating the unique sacrifice of Christ, our mediator.

The assumption of human nature and the sacrifice of himself for the sins of mankind were the essential elements of Christ’s mission. To appease the divine justice by infinite atonement and to win for man the Father’s forgiveness was the function of the God-man. In order to do this, according to the divine plan, it was necessary that Christ should be representative of both God and man. It was the humanity of Christ, therefore, and not his masculinity, that was the essential factor in his role of mediator. If this were not so, it would have to be argued that the female sex, one half of the human race, is without redemption. For how could one of the male sex represent woman to God? Presupposing the superiority of man as such and his authority over woman as such, this would be feasible. For then the representative would truly represent mankind in its totality. But that the male sex is superior to the female and that woman qua mulier is in a state of subjection is by no means certain.

When theologians speak of the inability of a woman to represent Christ, the priest, the same argument is used. It is maintained that, because he was a man, she (woman) could not perpetuate his priesthood and is thus excluded forever from holy orders. However there is not an exact parallel here, for the Son of God in human nature consummates the sacrifice which reconciled sinful humanity once and for all time to its God. Christ is ‘the mediator of the New Testament’ (Hebrews 9: 15), indeed the one mediator ‘always living to make intercession for us’.(17) We have only one high priest, who offered sacrifice for his people: ‘He did this once for all when he offered up himself.’ Because of its infinite value, its uniqueness, no other type of sacrifice is necessary for the reconciliation of sinners with the deity. Because it is in his human nature that Christ is priest, the representation of his sacrifice demands that the candidate for sacred orders be a human being. Thus the angels are excluded from this privileged role. Likewise for the representation of Christ the priest human nature is the basic requisite. To maintain therefore that woman, who possesses human nature equally with man, is excluded from the Catholic priesthood because of the fact that Christ was a man does not follow. In order to prove this position, it would have to be demonstrated conclusively that of all the effects of redemption, one has been exclusively reserved to man. The Gospels on the contrary stress again and again the universality of Christ’s saving activity. Neither race nor sex forms a barrier to the bounteous overflow of these spiritual gifts. Indeed they break down all such barriers so that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male-nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28).

The second argument from the example of Christ’s life for the exclusion of women from the sacrament of orders is that he did not ordain Mary or any other woman. If we are to continue logically it should be maintained that, because women were not present at the Last Supper, they should not be permitted to be present at Mass or to receive the eucharist. Something, however, has already been said of the inadequacy of this negative line of argument.

The fact that the Virgin Mary was not invested with the sacerdotal dignity and power, although most worthy of all human beings, was an argument first used by Epiphanius to exclude women from orders. Quite frequently in Christian art Mary is represented as receiving the Holy Spirit with the apostles, but an earlier artistic tradition, witnessed to as far back as the sixth century, omitted her.(18) In what appears to have been an unguarded moment Rome granted indulgences to a prayer entitled Virgo Sacerdos, but in 1927 Cardinal Merry del Val wrote in the name of the Holy Office to an Italian bishop informing him that devotion to the Virgin Priestess was not approved any longer because of the grave mistakes to which it could give rise. In 1916 an image of Mary apparently garbed in priestly vestments had already been prohibited.(l9)

Admittedly Mary was not ordained, nor did she perform any sacerdotal functions after Christ’s resurrection. Nonetheless it must be recognized that Mary’s role in the redemptive activity of Christ is far more decisive and important than that of any sacramentally ordained priest. Theologians dispute the manner in which Our Lady co-operated in her Son’s work of redemption. Some do not admit any immediate cooperation, physical or moral, while others maintain her immediate moral co-operation. But it seems that Our Lady did co-operate in some way in the actual work of redemption as ‘the sublime associate of our redeemer’.(20) Her merits are united with her Son’s in redeeming sinful humanity. The priest on the other hand is empowered only to dispense the fruits of the redemption as ‘servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God’ (1Corinthians 4: 1). Mary’s role was unique, different from all others, taking second place only to that of her Son’s. Her maternity, from which all her other privileges come, is:

A greater dignity than the priesthood of the ordained priest, in the sense that it is more to give our Saviour his human nature than to make his body present in the blessed eucharist.(21)

To speak then of Mary being precluded from the ordained ministry because she was a woman is to misconceive the eminence of her inimitable role in man’s redemption. If she was not ordained it was due not to a lesser dignity but to a diversity of mission.

3. Historical development

The teaching of St Thomas can be taken as representative of Catholic doctrine on the question of woman and the priesthood, and it is basic to his argument that woman is inferior to man and as such incapable of orders. She cannot signify the degree of eminence which this sacrament confers and since signification is an essential constituent of the very notion of sacramentality, it follows automatically that woman is excluded from the priesthood. This is the common opinion of Catholic theologians.

Now, it has often been stated by Catholic writers that respect for women is in proportion to the honour given to the Virgin Mary. And where, more than in the Catholic Church, has veneration been given to the Mother of God? Let us dwell a little on the influence this is held to have had on the status of woman. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans the worship of Athene and Vesta bore no practical results favourable to woman. To assert that devotion to Mary in the Christian era totally changed the unfavourable conditions under which women lived is a purely theoretical proposition. Of course, Mary is the glory of mankind, but in the centuries of Catholic thought she has been held up as the exceptional woman. Nowhere does St Thomas, for example, draw any conclusions as to the practical effect her unique dignity should have on the status of women. Mary is pointed to as the model of chastity for each woman and, in more recent theology, as a woman of great faith. One has no wish to undervalue her importance as the examplar of chastity and faith, but has the honour conferred on Mary by her divine maternity and its consequent privileges contributed anything to the status of woman as such? We point to the incarnation of the Son of God as raising man to a new dignity. Yet we are slow to deduce the glory of womanhood from the glorious, albeit unique, role of Mary as the mother of the brothers and sisters of Christ.

If we must look to Christianity, to Catholicism, for any dignity conferred on woman, we find it in the matrimonial and sexual sphere. Christianity raised woman’s status by its restoration of monogamous marriage. Amongst ancient peoples the wife was the property of the man and adultery was violation of the husband’s rights over his wife or wives. Among them there was no such thing as adultery against a woman; she was considered as having no rights. ‘But it was not so from the beginning.’ It was Christianity which revolutionized this condition, restoring the rights of woman to what was her due by natural and divine law. The married woman in the Christian era is no longer her husband’s chattel; she has complete personal equality with him: ‘For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does’ (1 Corinthians 7:4). Henceforth polygamy as well as divorce is adultery against the man’s first wife.

The second great contribution to the status of woman was Christ’s teaching on the nobility of virginity, which allowed woman to be independent of men. This truly was a step towards the emancipation of women. The age-old double standard of morality in matrimonial and sexual matters, which until Christian times men had established as an absolute, was dissolved by its teaching. The time had come, as St Jerome pointed out, when ‘what is not allowed to women is also forbidden to men’.(22) This improvement in the status of women is rightly attributed to Christianity.

This great revolution caused by Christian teaching was a veritable emancipation. But its effects were confined to the matrimonial and sexual spheres. The full status of woman, inherent in the central dogmas of Christianity, has been long deferred. Outside these two realms woman until recent times has remained socially inferior. That by and large she took no place in the educational and professional world until the nineteenth century is probably the fault of woman herself. Her dull contentment with the status quo and the lack of initiative on the part of women who in general, failed to make a break in the thick wall that enclosed them is partially to be blamed for this social inferiority. Yet there have been in the history of woman’s social revolution spontaneous attempts on the part of women to better the conditions of their sex, but their initiative met with suppression. One need only recall the courageous, but not over - feminine Olympe de Gouges (d. 1793), who demanded the unconditional political equality of women with men in revolutionary France. Or Florence Nightingale and the host of determined women since, who challenged the discriminatory customs and prohibitions of their times. Admission to the various professions was a long and painful process ending in the overthrow of cramping conditions that a hostile world had imposed upon woman. In retrospect it is undeniable that this advance in woman’s general status has been the work of the secular world. That there have been exaggerated expressions of feminism, unworthy of true womanhood at various times throughout this revolution, need not blind one to its real achievements.

The Catholic Church remained a stranger for the most part to this upheaval in society, eventually approving woman’s newly found role in public life. But the initiatives all came from outside her frontiers. One has only to take note of the slow and painful deliberation on the part of the Church before permitting women to function as missionaries, or religious women to work as doctors or nurses even in the sphere of gynaecology.

In regard to women’s activity in the service of religion proper, it was the Reformed Churches which took the lead. The intentions or pressure that conditioned this initiative do not matter. The restoration of the diaconate for women, by Pastor Fliedner at Kaiserwerth in 1832 for work in the German Church, and by the Anglicans in 1871, manifests at least a positive and open approach to the potentiality of the work of women in the service of religion. In general this evaluation of and approach to the place of women in the ministry is maintained by the Reformed Churches to the present day. ‘Of the 168 churches of all denominations of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, 48 admit women to their full ministry, while others either restrict or refuse their service.’(23) It has been maintained that this was an easy step for the Reformed Churches to take, since they did not have to contend with the problems of theology and tradition that would face the Catholic Church in even studying the question. If the least that can be said in praise of their initiative is that they overcame the accumulated and prevalent prejudices of an anti-feminist tradition, then the admission of women to their ministry is indeed a progression an an irrevocable victory.

The Catholic attitude, on the other hand, has remained fixed in its opinion regarding woman and holy orders, and this despite the fact that the conditions and status of woman have changed since St Thomas could use her state of subjection to justify her exclusion from the priesthood. At the beginning of this century when the Reformed Churches were conceding an ever greater share of the ministry to woman, the Catholic Church was still negative and medievalist. In 1903, a Motu Proprio on Church music by Pius X stated that women, being incapable of exercising a real liturgical office, might not be admitted to form part of the choir or musical chapel.(24) And this restriction applies in the very service for which there is ample precedent for female participation both in the Old and New Testaments as well as in tradition. The absurdity of the Roman Catholic position is further emphasized by Canon 1264 Section 2 which requires that religious women when permitted to sing in their own church or oratory should do so where they cannot be seen by the people!

Since St Thomas has played such a great part in the formation of Catholic opinion regarding women and the priesthood, it is necessary to consider something of his teaching. We have no intention of attempting to treat fully his general doctrine on the nature and function of woman. This has been much more ably done by a recent author.’(25) In accordance with the present writer’s contention that this problem should be considered in the historical and sociological context, it is necessary to dwell for a moment on the environment in which St Thomas lived and in which his theory of woman was formed. Women of the medieval period, no less than those of ancient Babylon, Israel, Greece or Rome, were relegated to the narrow limits of the family, without being able to display other gifts characteristic of their sex. The number of great Christian women who excelled themselves is few and they were of exceptional character. For the most part, they were nuns who, despite the period in which they lived, managed to secure some learning and attained an acknowledged superiority amongst their contemporaries. The majority of women were illiterate, excluded from the study of philosophy, theology, medicine and all branches of learning. Paula, Marcella, Hilda, the famous abbess of Las Huelgas, Hroswitha and St Catherine of Siena remain isolated representatives of feminine activity in the Church throughout the long stretch of the Middle Ages. From the inferior social status of women of the time it was but necessary to rationalize the status quo. Principle succeeded fact. The inferior position of women came to be accepted as the norm for woman’s standing in society. Once again the secular milieu influenced her position. To later ages the principles and precedents for woman’s role in the Church seemed infallibly based and irrevocable. After all it is an understandable tendency to explain things in the light of what ‘everyone knows’. To most people in the middle ages, for example, it appeared that the earth was flat, as indeed it seems today! But they held it, not on evidence, but as universal knowledge: ‘everyone knows’. Indeed medieval geography had improved very little on the ancients’ knowledge of the shape or order of the cosmos. It can be demonstrated equally that the scholastics’ concept of woman had added nothing to their thinking, but simply repeated and added to their antifeminist texts, and the status of woman in the middle ages remained by and large what it had been amongst ancient peoples.

To say that St Thomas’ social ambience influenced his thinking does not derogate from his genius. He found already at hand a ‘ready made’ theory about women, which explained her ‘inferiority’ and which he adopted without demur. This is obvious when he quotes Aristotle, without the slightest modification, in passages referring to woman. However, the Aristotelian theories that woman is a misbegotten male, that her role in generation is passive, that males only can truly pass on human nature to their offspring and that public authority is corrupt if wielded by any but a man, are no longer valid today. Yet these arguments are basic for the supposed inferiority of the female sex, an inferiority which St Thomas reasoned made woman incapable of receiving the sacrament of orders. This is a theological conclusion based on a false principle, which in its turn sprang from historical and sociological conditions. That de facto the Aristotelian-Thomistic thinking on the inferior status of woman does not rest on unchangeable principles but on the very shifting values and conditions of their respective ages is proved by the reversal in many parts of the world today of her degrading position. The arguments for woman’s state of subjection, therefore, have just the same contingency as those used by white racists of our own times who claim that the negro is inferior to the white man.

Unfortunately, to a defective Aristotelian biology has been added a defective interpretation of scripture. We have seen something of the literalness applied to Genesis and the Pauline texts. Scholastic theology was the heir of these accumulated influences, and just as philosophy devised arguments for the inferiority of woman in the intellectual and social spheres, so theology formulated reasons for her exclusion from the sacred ministry. That St Thomas had a decided influence on subsequent theologians one can hardly deny - it is apparent from a mere reading of their texts on this particular subject. Their collective arguments give the impression of incontestable unanimity. However it cannot be maintained that this unanimity forms an argument, de fide ex consensu theologorum The mere length and universality of a tradition are never enough to constitute an opinion into an article of faith, when that opinion remains no more than the common teaching of theologians. We can point to several instances in which the fathers and scholastics were unanimous in views which today, however, are presented by authors with less assurance. For the patristic consensus to be valid it must be based on a premise that is true. The formation of Eve from Adam’s rib in the literal sense and the universality of the flood are examples of opinions which enjoy the authority of the fathers, but are today matter for discussion. Is there a similar issue here, in their teaching on the exclusion of women from holy orders? It was the scholastics who formulated the major arguments against woman’s capacity for orders. Scotus based his opinion on the tradition of the Church, holding that in justice, the Church would not have exercised this discipline if women were indeed capable of the sacrament. But this argument supposes that women have in fact never entered into sacred orders, a premise disproved, it would seem, by texts from early liturgical books and the canons of certain Councils of the Church. It seems evident that there was a female order with active ministry in the Mystical Body at the time of the apostles or, if not then, certainly in the immediate post-apostolic period. There is no reason to deny the sacramental rank of this order unless one adopts a priori the supposition that woman is a subject incapable of ordination. In the medieval period the order of deaconesses had disappeared from the ecclesiastical structure and was largely forgotten, so that their ordination and ministry were hardly under practical consideration in discussions on women and holy orders

4. The issue today

In modern times we see that woman is taking an active part in the life of the Church. She teaches, manages social works, belongs to papal and diocesan commissions and organizes apostolic centres, activities all dependent on her increased social standing. The present state of affairs is bringing us much nearer to a realization of the Pauline text that ‘there is neither male nor female’. But the crucial question that remains is whether or not she is really capable of taking over sacred functions, not merely by an exterior and juridical delegation but by an intrinsic deputation within the Mystical Body. Is she capable of orders?

Those orders are called ‘sacred’ which are considered to confer the corresponding sacramental character. Here let us consider the order of deaconesses as the clearest example of a female order that can claim to be sacramental. In the ordination ceremony of deaconesses in the early Church, we have seen how the bishop imposed hands on the candidate and invoked the Holy Spirit, a rite as authentically substantiated as that for the ordination of deacons. The restriction put on their activities when the male members of the clergy were present does not endorse the opinion that they were not on a par with the male diaconate. This discrimination was possibly a discipline justified by the necessity to preclude abuses, which existed in abundance, and not only among heretics, but in the very bosom of the Church, where the deacons also provoked reprimand for exceeding their rank and power. The Council of Arles (314 A.D.) had to repress severely the abuses of those deacons who usurped the power of the clergy by attempting to offer Mass. Even as early as the first century St Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians had to exhort everyone ‘to be subject to his neighbour according to the order in which he is placed by the gift of God’.(26) The extravagances of heretics would alone have been sufficient to put the Church on its guard against its own order of deaconesses. The continued delimitation of their activity and their final prohibition by Councils in the west reveal a reaction on the part of the Church against existent abuses. Whatever the true reasons for their final extinction, and there are many that suggest themselves, from the diminution in number of adults for baptism, to the growth of monasticism and the excesses of deaconesses among the Montanists and Nestorians in particular, there have been authors who held that deaconesses received a true sacramental character, similar to that of deacons.(27) J. Morinus, the learned Oratorian, in fact maintains that in the east they were classed with the clergy in major orders.

Even if it is still maintained that deaconesses did not receive the character conferred by the diaconate, we are nonetheless left with an order which was often placed among the clergy in the very structure of the Church. At least it would seem that deaconesses should be placed among the minor orders. Indeed the duties of these orders were in fact undertaken by women in the early church.(28)

If this is the full extent of the female rank in the official ministry of the Church, surely it settles the question of women and Holy Orders? This would certainly be true if it were an established doctrine that the minor orders do not in any way confer a sacramental character. But this is far from certain, and is a question which even the Council of Trent seems deliberately to have left open.(29) Some theologians would deny the sacramentality of the minor degrees of order on the basis of a lack of scriptural or traditional arguments to support it, or because the very ceremonies in these cases manifest a nonsacramental rank, since the episcopal laying on of hands is not given and the Holy Spirit is not invoked on the ordained. St Thomas and the majority of schoolmen, on the contrary, held that the six orders leading up to the priesthood imprint a character and are parts of the one sacrament of order which is conferred fully in the priesthood.(30) The Decree for the Armenians, although not an infallible doctrinal decision, follows the teaching of the schoolmen on this question.(31) The whole debate on the sacramentality of the minor grades of order is closely bound up with the matter of the sacrament. The Scholastics held that it consisted in the traditio instrumentorum and were followed in this also by the Decree for the Armenians drawn up by the Council of Florence. Pius XII however decided that, for the future at least, the matter of the sacred orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopate is the imposition of hands and it alone.(32) But this does not decide the speculative question as to what constituted the matter and form of orders in the past.

Regarding the order of deaconesses it is an indisputable fact that they received the episcopal imposition of hands while the Holy Spirit was invoked. This is proven from the already quoted text of the Apostolic Constitutions, one of the oldest liturgical books of the Church.(33) At the same time the orarium or stole was given in the same manner as at the ordination of deacons.(34) All this shows the similarity with which the Church regarded both ordinations. We have seen some attempts made to deny the full import of this ordination, because it seemed inconsistent to admit the solemnity of this rite and then to deny its sacramental value.

In the ordination rite which the Church uses for minor orders is found neither the episcopal laying on of hands nor the invocation of the Holy Spirit. These are usually considered as the two characteristic marks of the presence of the sacrament. Despite this there have been recent writers who are inclined to recognize these orders as sacraments, a question not decided by the Church and therefore open to free discussion.(35) The subdiaconate in particular is held today to be one of the major orders,(36) yet it is conferred without the imposition of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Several ancient texts forbid the bishop to impose hands on the subdeacon.(37) So, compared with the ordination rite of deaconesses it is inferior. On what criterion can the subdiaconate be declared a major order conferring a sacramental character, while the evidence for the sacramentality of the order of deaconesses is ignored? There is no doubt that if a rite similar to that used for the ordination of deaconesses was found in tradition for the ordaining of those in minor orders, theologians would unanimously accept their sacramental status.

It is obvious, then, that in the ordination rite of deaconesses we are in the presence of a sacramental reality. The real tradition, despite the oversight or ignorance of the scholastics regarding it, is that there was in the early Church an order of women ordained by episcopal imposition of hands. It is inconceivable that the Church would institute a rite so similar for the ordination of deacons and deaconesses with a matter and form so parallel, if she had judged that the first was instituted by Christ while the second was merely an ecclesiastical custom without any sacramental value. The only justification for this discrimination would be that in one case the reception of the sacrament is absolutely impossible. This was the only safety valve left to later historians, who finding themselves between Charybdis and Scylla, either acknowledged the rite and denied its value or admitted the effects of such an ordination if it could really be verified. There is no historical doubt of the existence and the activity of deaconesses within the liturgical, evangelical and social life of the primitive Church. One modern theologian, while pleading for the restoration of an ordained diaconate, has this to say

It would seem to be the normal thing to sanctify by means of an ordination every regular function performed within the liturgical assembly.(38)

So, too, the early Church apparently thought. Why should it appear otherwise today? Why should we find it inconceivable to admit the sacramental ordination of women merely because they are women? This is an inconsistency contrary to the best tradition of the Church itself.

In permitting a woman to baptize, St Thomas justifies his permission by saying that though she may do so in cases of urgent necessity, the baptism is valid only because in the administration of the sacrament, Christ is the chief baptizer. But this argument carries no weight in proving the incapacity of women to function as ministers of Christ. After all, both in the Mass and in the administration of the other sacraments, it is always Christ himself who is the principal minister. Because this is true, it would seem that women should be eligible for, instead of being debarred from, the function of ministers of Christ. It is necessary to recall here, and it is Catholic teaching, that one may be the minister of Christ without being a Christian, for a pagan can be such in administering baptism in case of necessity. Again it is difficult to see how a woman can be the subject of baptism, by which she is configured to Christ, sharing in that basic degree of his priesthood in common with all the faithful, and yet be declared incapable of further configuration to his priesthood proper. If this latter is impossible, then on the same grounds she should be incapable of liturgical prayer such as the recitation of the Divine Office, since to pray liturgically is to pray in the name of the Church in union with Christ the priest. The denial of woman’s capacity for holy orders then becomes all the more unintelligible in consideration of the fact that she is capable of being configured to Christ by baptism.

The supposed inability of a woman to represent Christ the priest is closely bound up also with the concept of Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride. One modern author argues that the question whether women could be priests is equivalent to asking ‘Could Christ have been the second Eve and the Church his husband rather than his bride?’(39) This approach to the problem seems difficult to understand. In the first place, this is a literal interpretation of a figurative expression. Secondly, in this argument is inherent the age-old myth of feminine passivity. The reasoning seems to be that if Christ were a woman he would not be active (i.e. in the philosophical sense, and as opposed to passive) in relation to the Church, while if the Church were his husband it would not be the receptive agent. This latter overlooks the fact that every soul is passive in its relation to Christ the redeemer and eternal high priest.

The supposed incapability of woman for the priesthood is also based on her supposed inability to represent humankind to God. If woman as such is in a state of subjection it would seem that St Thomas gravely erred in presenting the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation as giving consent ‘in lieu of that of the entire human nature’ for its spiritual wedlock with the Son of God.(40) Mary, as exempt from original sin, would not suffer any consequences deriving from that evil. Still she was a woman, and if by the fact of creation the female sex as such is subject, then Mary should not be characterized as representing mankind, an office necessitating authority. It does not solve the problem to say that Mary is unique, for to say that, one would have to admit that at the ontological level her femininity was also unique. Unique in some way like each angelic species and therefore not shared in by the rest of the female sex.

In conclusion therefore, it can be fairly certainly stated that the traditional arguments against a female priesthood are not convincing. In fact it can hardly be denied that the whole question has in the past been surrounded with much prejudice. To discard this and explore the matter courageously is the task of twentieth-century exegetes and theologians.

Notes

1. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. P. Lynch, Cork, 1958, p. 459; Mgr C. Cronin, The Christian Priesthood or the Sacrament of Orders, London, 1930, p. 83; T. C. Donlan, O.P., et al., Christ and His Sacraments, Dubuque, 1960 pp. 491-492.

2. PG 119:155.

3. 1Corinthians 11:8, 9. ‘For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.’

4. E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J., ‘Genesis’, A Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, op. cit., 143 i. Emphasis mine. Cf. also Charles Hauret, Beginnings: Genesis and Modern Science, trans. E. P. Emmans, O.P., Dubuque, 1955, p.105.

5. Cf. Pius XII’s address to the Fourth International Congress of Catholic Doctors, AAS 41 (1949), 557.

6. S.Th.I-II, q.81, a. 5

7. 1:26 Douai Version.

8. The RSV has ‘Let us make man in our image and after our likeness; and let them . . . ’. The Jerusalem Bible is in agreement with the RSV.

9. Cf. St Bonaventure, In Quartum Librum Sententiarum, op. cit., p. 649f, where he says to be capable of orders one must be in the image of God. According to him woman does not bear this image and so is excluded from this sacrament. Cf. St Augustine (PL 34:293-294) who says that in her rational nature only is woman the image of God while the man alone can be said to be made to God’s image also as regards his body.

10. I am indebted to Father José Idigoras, S.J., for some of the ideas in this section; his manuscript ¿ La mujer dentro del Orden Sagrado ?, Lima, 1963, was privately printed.

11. 1Corinthians 7:37,, Jerusalem Bible translation.

12. Ajax 293.

13. Politics XIII, 1260.

14. A. Rossler, ‘Woman’, Catholic Encyclopaedia, New York, 1912.

15. The Douai Version reads: ‘The head of the woman is the man’.

16. W. Rees, ‘1 and 2 Corinthians’, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, op. cit., 878 a.

17. Hebrews 7:25, Douai Version.

18. “For example the ampullae of Monza depict the Twelve without her. Cf. J. Crehan, S.J., in The Clergy Review, vol. XLVIII, no. 1, January, 1963, p. 48. I am grateful to Reverend Mother Gadsby of the Cenacle Convent, Manchester, who drew my attention to a representation of a medallion found in the catacombs of St Agnes and now in the Vatican Museum. This depicts on one side the figure of Mary between the Apostles, Peter and Paul. All three names are inscribed. Although no date is given, it is certainly a relic from very early Christian times.

19. D.Attwater, A Dictionary of Mary, London, 1959, p. 227

20. Denz. 3902.

21. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, Mother of the Saviour, Dublin, 1948, pp. 223-224.

22. PL 22:691.

23. “From a note in The Catholic Citizen (June/July, 1965). This is the organ of the Catholic society, St Joan’s Alliance, whose aim is ‘to band together Catholics of both sexes, in order to secure political, social and economic equality between men and women and further the work and usefulness of Catholic women as citizens’.

24. AAS vol. XXXVI, 392.

25. ‘Dr Gertrud Heinzelman, Wir schweigen nicht länger!, Interfeminas-Verlag, Zurich, 1964. Cf. also Rosemary Lauer, ‘Women and the Church’, Commonweal, Vol. LXXIX, No. 13, December 20, 1963, pp. 365-368.

26. 1 Cor. 17:33.

27. E.g. John Morinus, Commentarius de sacris ecclesiae ordinationibus, Antwerp, 1695, P 143f. K.H.Schäfer, Die Kanonissenstifter im deutschen Mittel-Alter, 1907, p. 46 f. A.Ludwig, Weibliche Kleriker in der altchristlichen and frühmittelalterlichen Kirche, 1910, p. 548-57, 609-17.

28. Cf. J. Daniélou, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church, op. cit., p. 30, who says: ‘I would say that I see none of the duties of the minor orders which, so far as the female aspect of them is concerned, cannot be, and in fact have not been undertaken by a woman’.

29. Denzinger 1766.

30. Suppl. q. 35, a. 2.

31. Denzinger 1326.

32. AAS 40(1958), 2 f.

33. Cf. a similar rite in the Apostolic Canons, quoted under ‘Deaconess’, in Catholic Encyclopaedia, op. cit.

34. J.Goar, Euchologion, sive Rituale Graecorum, Venice, 1720, p. 262.

35. Cf. Thomas C. Donlan, O.P., et al., Christ and His Sacraments, Dubuque, 1960, p. 488.

36. Denzinger 1765.

37. La Tradition Apostolique, transl. Dom. B. Botte, O.S.B., in Sources Chrétiennes, Paris, 1946, p. 43 and the So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived Documents, trans. R. H. Connolly in Texts and Studies, Vol. III, London, 1916, Appendix B.

38. Y. Congar O.P., ‘The Restoration of the Diaconate’, Perspectives, July/August 1960, pp.23-31.

39. J.Crehan, S.J., ‘The Ordination of Woman Priests’, The Clergy Review, January, 1963, p. 48.

40. S. Th. III, q. 30, a 1, ad 4.

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.