Reasons why Historically Women have been Refused Entry into the Priesthood

Reasons why historically women have been refused entry into the priesthood

by Ma José Arana

translation from the Spanish Mujeres Sacerdotes ¿Por qué No...?

Original text: Publicaciones Claretianas, Madrid 1994; ISBN: 84-7966-078-3;
republished with the permission of the author.

But, what, in reality, have been the reasons and thinking, that have kept women distanced from the sacrament of the Holy Orders, for the last twenty centuries?

It is not easy to carry out a clear and brief study of this wide subject, which has intermingled the explicit "causes" and those which are perhaps more important: the implicit ones, that are there, hidden in the ideological background. In addition, we would have to take into account that the reasons quoted for keeping women away from the Priesthood and also from the diaconate and other ecclesiastical duties, also form part of the sound ideological and anthropological compendium which has been systematically turning them away from the altar and ecclesiastical power. Thus, we are not ignoring them either. It is very important that we scour history, even just very quickly, to see, in reality, where our ancestors had difficulties, in the face of this problem.

1. The thinking of Saint Thomas

We begin by revealing the thinking of Saint Thomas, as it is he who, in a way, synthesises the theological past and systemises it for the future; that is, (even as far as arriving at the threshold of the Vatican II), Catholic Theology practically was influenced by the theological and philosophical system of the "Angelic Doctor". So then, although we already know about them, it is important to begin by briefly revealing his ideas with respect to the ordination of women.

Together with children, slaves, murderers, bigamists, illegitimate offspring, the physically handicapped..., women form part of the "chorus" of problem areas when it comes to receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders (1). The doubts stem from the fact that a woman can be a prophet, carry out the prelature as abbesses can, and is capable of suffering as a martyr or teach as a Nun, all of which would make one think that women would be able to receive ordination into the priesthood. But Saint Paul says: "I do not allow women to speak in Church or to dominate the male"; also we would have to take into account that "it is required that ordained people wear a tonsure", although it is not necessary for the validity of the sacrament. However, crowning and tonsure are not practised with women. So, they cannot receive Holy Orders either. The solution to all these problems is clear: given that the sacrament is a symbol, the actions carried out to grant it do not only have to produce the sacramental reality, but also preserve its symbolism. However, the feminine sex cannot signify an eminent dignity, since a woman lives in a state of subjection. So, she cannot receive the sacrament of the Holy Orders (2). What is more, a woman, unlike a slave, who is also in a state of subjection, is subordinated by nature, in which case, ordination, as well as being illicit, is invalid (3). This is also the reason why they are forbidden to preach: "Firstly and principally because of the condition of the feminine sex, which has to be subject to the male" (4).

With these presumptions the ordination of Deaconesses would also not be possible, but Saint Thomas does not understand that primitive Deaconesses would have received a sacrament. Abbesses do receive the power of jurisdiction, but he adds that this is simply "by delegation". And the question of prophecy would have to be seen from other perspectives, since it is not a sacrament, but a gift from God. It does not involve symbolism - only reality. But, as far as reality of the soul is concerned, it is not distinguished from that of the male; what is more, sometimes a woman is better than many men, in terms of her soul. So, she can receive the gift of prophecy and other similar things but not the sacrament of Holy Orders" (5), or to put it another way, prophecy can be given to a woman, as it is given through the enlightenment of the mind, in that which is sexless (6). That is to say, a woman, because of her sex, would remain on the outside, both of everything related to the power of Holy Orders and of jurisdiction.

The concept of the feminine, "submission" is very deeply rooted. Like Aristotle, Saint Thomas understands the woman to be "something defective", "little imbeciles" , "aborted" and the project of the frustrated male, lacking in qualities, "feminina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (7). So then, the woman is inferior in everything and therefore "the image of God can be found in man in a way that does not happen in the woman; man is the beginning and end of the woman like God is the beginning and end of all of Creation". (8).

However, although we are not delving any deeper into lots of concrete data, it is easily noticeable that the "Angelic Doctor" is perfectly coherent in himself and with his ideological and anthropological schema when he denies women the possibility of priestly ordination and states that they are incapable of it.

2. Medieval Thinking

In fact, the author of the Summa was not making anything up. Also in the 8th century, Huguccio asked himself – What is preventing women from getting close to the sacrament of Holy Orders? "Women do not receive the characteristics of Holy Orders because their sex and the constitution of the Church prevents it". Or, to put it another way: "the constitution of the Church prevents it, created because of their sex". Exactly the same was repeated by other canon lawyers and decree lawyers: "Woman cannot be ordained".

The reason is that Holy Orders is suitable for the perfect members of the Church, since it is given to grant grace to others. "But the woman is not a perfect member of the Church – the male is" (9). Guido de Baysio wrote a similar expression: "You say that a woman cannot be ordained because Holy Orders belongs to the perfect members of the Church, and is given for the conferring of grace to another. But a woman is not a perfect member of the Church – the male is".

And she cannot be a perfect member, nor can she be ordained, "because of the condition of servitude, through which the woman has to be subjectto the male in all things" (10). For this reason, "it is clear that the woman is subject to the domination of the male, does not have any authority and cannot teach, be a witness, give testimony, or judge" (11).

Gratian defines this "state of submission", "vir est caput mulieris", very well, gathering together, (although not in great depth), the ideas of Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome etc..., and, of course, those of Saint Paul (12). But all these thinkers found stronger support for their arguments in the society of their time, both in terms of practice and ideology, because, as Tiraqueau had already well observed in the 16th century, about this situation of the "submission of the woman", both the Church and the State had been in agreement across all the ages and in all the cultures (13). Anyway, the subsequent influence of Gratian, especially as regards the configuration of the canons, is enormous, and, of course, he was not exactly in favour of promoting women, so, in the legislation, the most unfavourable texts have been collated together in its production (14). The Decretum Gratiani, for all these reasons, concretely says: "Nevertheless, women could not be guided either towards the priesthood, or the diaconate" (15).

But in addition to the state of "servitude", and, closely related to it, there are two other "reasons" that prevent women working at the altar, because, the feminine sex "cannot signify outstanding dignity". The symbolic question, drawn on by the other authors already mentioned, can be seen with particular clarity in Saint Bonaventure: "Because in this sacrament, the ordained person signifies being a mediator of Christ and, as the Mediator was of the masculine sex, they can only signify the masculine sex..." (16). This is for a variety of reasons.

There is another text, which I think is particularly expressive because, in addition, it adds other "details" and topics about women; its author is the previously mentioned Guido de Baysio, also called Archidiaconus, and emphasises: "You add something and say that a woman cannot be ordained, as previously stated, and the reason is because Holy Orders belongs to the perfect members of the Church, since it is given for the conferring of grace to others. But a woman is not a perfect member of the Church – the male is. In addition, I would say that the woman was the final cause of man’s damnation since she started the era of sin and Adam was deceived by her. Therefore, she could not be the end cause of the salvation, (Holy Orders being the fulfilment of grace to another and, in this way, of salvation); but the material cause of salvation could have been a woman. In addition, having been taken, physically, from the male, the mother of the salvation must have been a virgin, and that is the truth: that the sex of the woman was the material cause of our salvation, that is to say the Blessed Virgin Mary, from whom Christ was physically born - our salvation. Also, Godfredo (de Trani, 1245) maintains that the woman, even if she were ordained, would not receive the characteristics of a priest" (17). Here is where the old antagonism appears, between Eve and Mary, which, very often exalted and distanced Mary, but reviled Eve and other women. But this author rejects the feminine sex in such a way that he only admits that Mary became the "material cause" of our salvation...

Evidently, and not only through the influence of Leviticus (Lv. 15, 14, 19; 17, 14..), in this problem, the question of the impurity or taboo of blood is also present. In the East, this is especially alluded to, for example, when referring to the Diaconate: "However, the impurity of their monthly cycles sets them away from the divine and holy altar" (18); this will separate them all the more so from the priesthood...... Also the Council of Bithynia states: "Christian women have to abstain from entering into the House of God or temples during the period of menstruation". We find this same observation in the 1st Council of Constantinople, which forbade baptisms during menstruation. Canon II of the Council of Trullo of 692 forbids a woman from approaching the altar and taking communion in these circumstances. Penitential books, etc... express the same prohibitions. In fact, this is also a clear limitation "because of their sex".

What is more surprising is the contentious reference to the " tonsure" which we have already briefly mentioned when referring to Saint Thomas. Duns Scotus, like other authors, argues that the Apostle forbade women from cutting their hair, but, as you have to be tonsured to access Holy Orders, this is another reason why women are excluded from the priesthood (19).

We have already alluded to it before, but it is important to underline the fact that this author hints at the possibility that the Church would commit "the greatest of injustices, not for just a few people, but for an entire sex" if it assumed the right to prevent them "without being guilty of any illicit act (ie. towards the feminine sex), and which was aimed towards the salvation of women and others in the Church", and refuse them access to the priesthood. However, "the "Subtle Doctor" does not manage to see any injustice in it because, according to him, it was Christ himself who did not establish it this way. The reasons he provides are, in addition to the "state of subjection" and tonsure, the fact that women are not able to teach (20); and something which many authors emphasise: the fact that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was not "ordained". In Mary Magdalene, he sees a "personal privilege which disappeared with her" (21). We would also need to emphasise the question proposed by Duns Scotus when he says that Christ himself ordered that women should not be ordained, observing, however, the fact that, evidently, he is saying it from his own context and with a mentality and understanding by which the reasons he thinks that Christ did not do it would clearly make sense on the basis of his approach, ie to "the state of submission" and the condition of intellectual and physical weakness in of the woman. That is to say, he responded more to the ideological schemas which medieval writers defended rather than to the values that are really reflected in the Gospel, (which still appear to be strange). And, of course, he states this without ever referring us to the place or source where this "conclusion" can be found.

In the end, we could continue to compile many more testimonies along these lines, but the most significant lines of reasoning are already set out. I think that it is very important that we have underlined, albeit schematically, all these ideas and "reasons" which, for centuries, have been an invisible and unquestioned reality in practice, legislation and ecclesiastical teaching, and which still continue, as a profound, unacknowledged, underlying assumption, to exercise a subtle influence on this controversial matter. Faced with these texts, it is difficult to assert that ecclesiastical thinkers have always defended the equal dignity of both sexes and other questions which, although evident, do not require further comment. Analysing history could help us to reflect, and in that way avoid us falling into the same or similar mistakes. It is easy to prove that the exclusion of women "because of their sex", that is to say, the discrimination "by reason of one’s sex", as the Decretalists, would say, remains unashamedly very evident when justifying stances and preventing women from being ordained into the priesthood. We could even say that they secretly underlie the current arguments.

3. After the Middle Ages

Since the Middle Ages, the possibility of women being allowed access to the ministry of the priesthood was questioned less and less. This possibility was almost ignored as inappropriate or the same criteria were repeated. Some thinkers tackled the subject, like for example Suarez, Soto, Gabriel Vazquez..., but they came to reformulate the same presumptions, in the same way as their ancestors had (22).

Actually, there are very few people who are re-questioning the possibility of feminine priesthood. As a curious exception, although very much in the minority, and almost a literary one-off, is the voice of those men and women who, in the first half of the 16th century, debated the defence of women, "la querelle des femmes" an interesting rhetorical movement which argued the merits of the "De claribus mulieribus" , "the book of praising the virtues of noble women", etc. Along these lines, we find the book De nobilitate et praeccellentia foemineiby Cornelius Agripa, which effectively defends the position that women should be ordained, because you can find in profane and biblical antiquity the names of the "sibyls", prophets, priestesses, martyrs, saints.... Equally, he defends the fact that women are capable of carrying out the arts, sciences, etc. So, the author has no hesitation in requesting the possibility that women could also become priests. But this stance goes no further than being a more or less literary game, a curiosity without any real importance (23).

The arguments against the priesthood were much more powerful and the thinking of the authors that have been mentioned, absolutely prevailed; so then, there is no doubt that during the 16th and 17th centuries, the "restraining" of women was even more severe and persistent than in preceding centuries. Subsequently, the matter was not even raised again. We have to move forward to our own era to find a glimmer of discussion, an attempt to change their stance and a certain concern in this regard.

4. Current criteria against ordination into the priesthood

Both the Canon Law of 1917 (can. 938), and the renewed law in 1983 (can. 1024), clearly state that "only the baptised male can be validly ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church".

Given that the arguments which are currently being invoked against feminine priesthood are much more widely known, we will limit ourselves to stating them in concrete points. Evidently, the basic documents are the Roman Declaration Inter Insignores (1976) and the pastoral letter of John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem (1988), as these are the two which gather together and express the official stance of the Catholic Church at these times. Both maintain the validity of the canons previously mentioned.

The arguments, stated schematically, are:

All these arguments, deeply rooted in the past, are those which are being revealed nowadays, both by some theologists and ecclesiastical and Roman documents (24). However, some of them are used less and less frequently. Those that are truly being appealed to, are: the symbolic question, tradition and the biblical argument, that is to say the absence of women amongst the Twelve and at the Last Supper.

However, if, from the writings of the medieval thinkers, the normal and coherent conclusion could not be anything but a definite refusal to allow women Holy Orders, given the poor image that they had and the social practice in which they were immersed, nevertheless, it is brought powerfully to our attention that in the social context of theoretical acknowledgement of women and from an opposing anthropological and philosophical point of view, the Church continues (although with a less cruel language) to draw identical conclusions to those it drew in the past.

For example, it is obvious that there is a symbolic-ideological divide between the ideas defended and the theology skillfully revealed throughout the papal document Mulieris dignitatem [= M.D.] and the last part with its conclusions with respect to the ordination of women. You can see that it goes on to emphasise a symbolism, already expressed by Paul VI, which tends to perpetuate keeping women on the widely known, honourable "pedestal" which distances them more and more from the possibility of true equality. "Husband-wife", "the gift of the wife", "the order of love...", are images and expressions which, according to the context in which they are used, easily lead to the understanding that " the symbol of the husband is masculine" and therefore this spousal relationship, "becomes transparent and univocal when the sacramental service of the Eucharist in which the priest acts in persona Christi, is carried out by a man" (M.D).

This draws attention, since John Paul II could have interpreted the contributions of the New Testament from what, in the same letter is referred to as "a new dimension", a "new order". However, on arriving at this point, the thinking becomes anchored in a more literal and less dynamic interpretation of the Gospel and on the very volition of Jesus himself: "Christ, naming only men as his apostles, did so in a totally free and sovereign way. And he did it with the same freedom with which in all his behaviour, he showed the dignity and vocation of the woman without adapting himself to the dominant custom and the tradition, guaranteed by the legislation of his time (25). So, the hypothesis that he called some men as his apostles following the widespread mentality of his time, does not completely reflect Christ’s way of working..." (26). It should also be noted that in order to endorse these considerations, you do not have to enter the field of exegesis either. It is simply stated.

But, having said, in passing, how they contain some contradictions, some of these very arguments are those which should help the Church to raise the issue of celibacy among priests again. The apostles were married and the practice of the Church, in the first few centuries, kept it that way but, as far as we can see, while the change with males has not only been possible but obligatory, for women, however, the inflexible opinion and practice remains which, in the opinion of many (males and females), should be reviewed.

However, although the Biblical Commission has declared, without ambiguity: "As there is insufficient evidence in the Scriptures to make a decision on the matter, the Church could modify its secular practice and allow women to be ordained into the priesthood" (see note on previous pages), however, Rome continues to assert that "the Church, through loyalty to the example of its Lord, does not consider itself authorised to allow women to be ordained into the priesthood" (I.I).

Once we have revealed the main difficulties that have been maintained throughout history to exclude women from the ministry of the priesthood, we are going to try to delve more deeply, from different perspectives, into realities which could end up clarifying and even "correcting" these arguments.

History itself and the Gospel will guide us in our quest.

Footnotes

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Teologica, BAC, Madrid MCMLVI, t. XV "Tratado del Orden", supl. q. 39, a 1-6.

2. Ibidem, q. 39, a.1 p. 118.

3. Ibidem, q. 39, a.3 p. 124.

4. Ibidem, Summa... II a II ae, q. 177, art. 2.

5. Ibidem, q. 39, p. 118.

6. Ibidem, 2-2, 177, 27.

7. la q 92, a.l ad l.

8. la q. 93, a. 4, ad 1. Sobre Santo Tomás es conveniente ver las obras, ya clásicas, de BORRESEN, K. E. Soubordination et equivalence, París 1971. Fundamentos antropológicos de la relación entre el hombre y la mujer en la Teología clásica, Concilium, 111, (1976), 9. 26 ss.

9. HUGO DE FERRARA, Summa in decretum Gratiani, C. 27, q. 1, c. 23.

FLAMESBURY, ROBERTO, Apparatus ad decreta. Quoted by ALCALÁ, M. La Mujer y los Ministerios en la Iglesia, Salamanca 1982, p. 257, 258. Una frase calcada escribe GUIDO DE BAYSIO (s. XIV) en Rosarium decretorum: "Tú di que la mujer no se puede ordenar porque el Orden pertenece a los miembros perfectos de la Iglesia, dándose para la colación de la gracia a otro. Pero la mujer no es miembro perfecto de la Iglesia, sino el varón..." Citado por METZ R. La femme et l’enfant dans le Droit Canonique médieval. London 1985. p. 81. También en AUBERT, J. M., La Mujer, Herder, Barcelona 1976. p. 189. RAMING, I. p. 44 ss. GRYSON, R. y otros.

También es muy interesante, por los textos que aporta, en latín siempre, GINER SEMPERE, Santiago, "La mujer y la potestad de orden. Incapacidad de la mujer, argumentación histórica" Rev. de Derecho Canónico, III, (1954).

Todos estos textos los he ido confrontando detenidamente.

Las siglas P.L. (P. Latinos) P.G. (P. Griegos), se refieren a MIGNE, J. P. Patrologiae, cursus completus, seu bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis commoda oeconomica, Omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum. París 1884. La mayoría de estos textos los he traducido del latín, pero no creo necesario hacerlo constar en cada momento.

10. GRATIANUS, C.33, q.5. P L, 187.

11. Texto que Graciano asume, pero que atribuye equivocadamente a San Ambrosio, aunque pertenece a San Agustín. Graciano. C. 33, q. 5, c. 17. METZ R. o.c. p. 385.

12. Cuando afirma: "La mujer debe ester sometida al varón" (C. 33, q. 5, c. 12, 14, 16). "El varón es cabeza de la mujer" (c. 13-14). "Conviene que la mujer siga en todo la voluntad del varón" (c. 16). Ambrosiaster en textos atribuídos a San Ambrosio en los C.33, q. 5, c. 18-19. Tomado de METZ, R. o.c., pp.74 y 75.

13. MAIO, R. o.c., p. 95.

14. TUNC, S. Brève Histoire des Femmes Chrètiennes. París 1989, p. 210.

15. Caus. XV, quest. 3.

16. BUENAVENTURA, SAN, IV Sententiarum, Opera omnia, París 1866, p. 200.

17. GUIDUS a BAYSO, Rosarium, fs. 335-336, cit. por A. GINER SEMPERE, Potestad de Orden, o.c., pp. 846-847.

18. BALSAMON, TH., Canones concilli Calcedonensis, P.G. 137, 442. Citado por ALCALÁ, M., o.c., p. 184, y otros.

19. DUNS SCOTO, J., Librum IV. Sententiarum, d. 25, q. 2. en Opera omnia, París 1894, 19. 140 (vide). Texto casi completo citado por ALCALÁ, M., o.c., p. 292-293. También MAIO, R., o.c.

20. Los concilios de Cartago (s. IV) tit. 99, c. XV, C. de Zaragoza (418 c. VII), Constituciones Apostólicas lib. III, textos originales y traducidos en TEJADA RAMIRO, J., Colección de cánones de la Iglesia española, publicada en latín por el Señor Don Francisco A. González, traducida al castellano con notas e ilustraciones..., Madrid 1849, etc. Hablan sobre la imposibilidad de que las mujeres enseñen.

21. DUNS SCOTO, J., l.c.

22. Textos, Suárez, Censuris, in communis. Disp. 51, sec II; 4, disp. 25; ... Soto q. 1, art.3. Navarrus, c. 27, n. 203; ...Vázquez: D. H. MAES, O.PRAEM, o.c.

23. E.V.TELLE, L’oeuvre de Marguerite d’Angoulême, Reine de Navarre, et querelle des femmes, Toulouse, p. 50.

24. Citaremos algunos de los documentos actuales de la Iglesia: Ministeria quedam (1972). Declaración sobre la cuestión de la Ordenación de las mujeres al sacerdocio Ministerial (1976). Inter Insignores (1976). Mulieris dignitatem (1988).

25. G. BAUM, La Carta Apostólica Mulieris Dignitatem, Concilium 226 (1989).

26. JOANNES PAULUS, PP. II, Mulieris Dignitatem, La Dignidad de la Mujer, Edic. Paulinas, Madrid 1988.

Translated by Lisa Mullins

Return to the index of the book?

Bottom Bar

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