The question of symbolism

by M^a 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.

1. Guidelines for Interpretation

One of the main difficulties with the problem we are dealing with is that of symbolic interpretation. From an anthropological, theological, or whatever other feminist viewpoint, we have to make a serious effort to show the risks of interpreting and even manipulating symbolism, in general, and also biblical-religious symbolism.

An anthropology and hierarchical overview of the world which, as we are showing throughout this study, assumes the inferiority and inability of women, as well as the superiority and controlling power of the male, has been stripping the most ancient traditional symbolism of more matriarchal ancestral significance, in favour of a vertical interpretation of reality and of the sexes. We said that the “state of submission”, and of “subjection”, was one of the main arguments that medieval legislators found to prevent women from accessing Holy Orders. In the field of symbolism, this concept remained in force, although, clearly, in a more harmonized form.

The symbolic problems of the priesthood, in general, and in respect to women in particular, are rooted as much in the intention as in the interpretation of symbols, because this is carried out in a patriarchal and hierarchal world. We will concentrate on these problems, seeing them from other viewpoints, in the next chapter; in this section we will specifically concern ourselves with the symbolic arguments that the Church reveals as obstacles to women accessing the sacrament of the Holy Orders.

The first is the allusion to the masculinity of Christ, who “was a male and continues to be a male” (I.I), and so can only be represented by men. And, the second is the concept of the symbolism of the mystical marriage of Christ with his Church, in such a way that the “symbolism of the husband is masculine” and that of the wife, the Church, would represent the feminine sex, so that this spousal relationship “becomes transparent and univocal when the sacramental service of the Eucharist – in which the priest acts in persona Christi [in the person of Christ]– is carried out by the man (male)” (M.D). In fact, both arguments are linked together. Of course, it is according to concepts of humanity and of the nuptial or matrimonial relationship, which underlie interpretation, that its meaning will be interpreted and its symbolism applied.

In this way, from an egalitarian concept of human nature and an understanding of reciprocating and alternating relationships between the sexes, conclusions can be drawn, which project the perception of a complete, harmonious, male/female humanity, and, in this way, the symbolism would be better understood and investigated in detail. On the other hand, from the (conscious or unconscious) hierarchical-patriarchal perspective, an understanding of a divided humanity is projected, maintaining a superior/inferior duality both in spousal relationships and in the symbolic representation of masculinity.

I do not intend to do an exhaustive study of the symbolism or the theology that is contained within them. I will simply try to alert people to the danger of certain interpretations which are excessively “literal”, with the risk of surpassing the limits of symbolism, deriving from a vision which prioritises the male and keeps women at least one step below men.

2. The bridegroom and the bride

Let us begin by tackling the symbolism of the betrothal, taking a brief look at the well-known poem of Saint John of the Cross.

Who has been able to read this text, which undoubtedly has old-testament roots, so as to exclude the masculine sex from the incredible depth of this mystical experience? Who could have thought, at some point, without evident ignorance or injustice, that men were forbidden from forming an intimate spiritual relationship with the Beloved One? Both this author and the one who wrote the Canticle of Canticles, speak from their own interior experience and explain it symbolically, understanding, of course, that God is delivered and pours forth into the heart of any man and/or woman who, “with burning love” let themselves be taken over by Him in the hidden depths of their heart, in the nuptial bed, as the union with God is expressed in mystical-literary language.

It would not be fitting, either, to deny men the possibility of fully dedicating themselves to the Lord by means of the three vows, although the theology of religious life has developed the spirituality of the mystical marriage and has traditionally seen nuns as “spouses of Christ” without finding an equivalent figure for men.

It would neither be true nor fair, in either of the two cases, to explain that “the symbol of the bride is feminine” and that, therefore, “its meaning and reality are only made transparent in women”, to paraphrase the affirmation of the document Mulieris Dignitatem.

In both cases, it would be very dangerous and unjust to transfer the symbol and move the levels of meaning, denying to men what is rightfully theirs.

However, it is not completely gratuitous, when some people make the affirmation that: “the reason why the Teaching Authority refuses ordination to women goes deeper: the ecclesiastical authorities find a suitable argument to justify their position in the nuptial symbolism of the Bible” (2).

These nuptial applications, carried out according to whatever concepts, can help to clearly explain that women cannot signify Christ, the Husband, because Christ was male. The Bride is the Church, who I do not think women are used to representing either.

No, it is not appropriate to bring this type of symbolism to extremes, nor, as we said previously, to transfer it from symbolic language to a realistic explanation. Christ is the Head and the consummation of all of humanity and the Spirit pours forth into the whole of humanity and, of course, equally to both sexes. Woman, like man, was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1, 27), and together they form the whole of humanity.

But we must recognise that the letter of John Paul II also understands things in this way, and rightly so, where men are concerned. No 25 of the letter explains how the surrendering of the love of Christ to the Church, the community and the people, should be applied to everyone, men and women, and in this sense: “all human beings – men and women – are supposed to be the Bride of Christ, redeemer of the world”. Consequently, the human condition is expressed in this way, according to the words of Paul: “there is no longer male nor female, for you are all one person in Jesus Christ” (Galations 3, 28). And a little further on, the letter explains: “......given that as members of the Church, men are also included in the concept of the Bride ...” (M.D.). What is difficult to understand is why the same should not apply to the concept of “Bridegroom” and why “the symbol of the bridegroom is of the masculine sex”. etc.; it is not easy to understand this difference in interpretation between one case and another.

This would, no doubt, be the universal interpretation of the text in which the Evangelist, John, urges us to rejoice without distinctions or exclusions, at the closeness of the Groom to the Church and to the whole of humanity (John. 3, 29). As H. Legrand says, “the image of the bridegroom as Christian minister in the Church would only have moral value (faithfulness, dedication...). Could this moral value not be found in Christian women as well as Christian men?” (3). Effectively, if we acknowledge this interpretation in the mystical area and that of religious devotion, why understand the image in a different way only when it consists of ecclesiastical powers or the ministry of the priesthood?

3. The masculinity of Christ and the femininity of the Holy Spirit

The affirmation that Christ was male, and, as such, can only be represented by the masculine sex, also leads me to look closely at the symbolism of the Holy Spirit.

It does not seem silly to talk about the maternal heart of God towards his people; that God who is “father and mother” at the same time, as was stated by Clement of Alexandria, Juliana of Norwich and others who read in the Bible how God looked after, fed, welcomed and taught his people to walk, with the tenderness of a mother (Hosea 11, 1-4; Isaiah 49, 15; 9, 13-14; Proverbs 17, 12 etc.)

We also know that from the Hebrew philological roots, that the Holy Spirit is linked to femininity. The words “ruah” (pneuma), “sophia” (knowledge), “shekina” (immaterial presence of God), are expressed in female words. For this and other symbolic reasons, the Holy Spirit, the breath which is the giver of life, is symbolically linked to women in a direct fashion. But this is a closeness that the Christian interpretation has been gradually forgetting. However, I am going to mention some interesting remnants which have remained in texts, traditions and iconographic representations.

I am referring to a feminine image of the Holy Spirit transmitted to us in some sources of tradition like, for example, the Constitutions of the Apostles and the Didascalia, both Syrian texts, and even in icons whose indiscriminate interpretation could alert us to the danger involved in certain theological-symbolic applications.

The Didascalia says, referring to women deacons: “... because the Bishop presides over you as an image of God the Father. The Deacon is like an image of Christ, so love him. Let the Woman Deacon be honoured by you as an image of the Holy Spirit. Let priests also be considered by you as images of the Apostles. Widows and orphans should be considered as images of the Altar” (4). And in the Apostolic Constitutions, we read something similar: “The Woman Deacon should be honoured by you as an image of the Holy Spirit who does not do or say anything without the Deacon; as the Holy Spirit does not say or do anything without Christ...” (5). That is to say, in both texts the woman deacon is considered to portray the Holy Spirit.

The “femininity” of the third Person in the Trinity has remained better preserved in the theology of oriental orthodox Christianity and appears to originate particularly from Syria. This is what Rosemary Radford Ruether notes and I think that her contribution can be very useful for us to corroborate the idea; it reads:

“Although the androgynous concept of the Trinity has been repressed in Greek-Roman Christianity, Syrian Christianity continues the Hebrew tradition of feminine Knowledge and transfers it to the feminine image of the Holy Spirit. This feminine Holy Spirit is thought of as a mother and a source of nurture for Christians. She is intimately related with baptism as, from her stomach, re-birth and re-generation occurs, visualized as feeding the re-born soul. There is a close parallel between Christ, born from the stomach of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and re-born Christians who, in the same way, have to be a virgin people through the gestation and birth power of the Holy Spirit. These types of images of the Holy Spirit as the feminine power of gestation, birth and feeding, is evident in the Syrian Odes of Salomon (n. 19).” There God is presented as an androgynous person [= both male and female] who has breasts capable of pouring forth milk like a lactating mother. The Holy Spirit is the power that gives milk to the Father and She herself is that full breast of the Father. She grants this milk to Christians, in this way regenerating life for them” (6).

The text is one of great beauty and symbolic and theological richness.

A third example: we also find this concept slightly represented in Western Medieval iconography. There is a very interesting and ancient painting in the German church of Urschalling in which the Holy Trinity is represented: the Father with a white beard, the Son with a blond beard and the Holy Spirit, between the two, represented as a woman (7). That is to say, it seems that the image of the Spirit, expressed in a feminine way, has not been, in any way, contrary to Western tradition either.

However, all this feminine symbolism of the Holy Spirit, taken to the letter, could involve a series of problems – are they insuperable.....? We now disregard the dubious theology which surrounds this hierarchical dependence and submission of some members of the Trinity to others which we found in the Apostolic Constitutions. But, putting aside irrelevancies such as a mind-twister about the appropriation and literal application of these images which leads to the us to formulate that “Christ was male and can only be represented by males”, has it ever been considered, what would be involved in bringing these affirmations to their final consequences? If the possibility of signifying Christ is exclusively possible for the male, would this not have to be done in a feminine way, based on the images of the Holy Spirit in the primitive Church and the most ancient tradition? Could we not say, without any obvious error, that the Holy Spirit could only be represented by women? What would it involve to award to women the activities that are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Church, denying them to men? It would possibly change the audience in Council and Synod Halls; and what about infallibility?... theology and spirituality?..... How could one justify the systematic distancing of women from the fields of preaching and teaching throughout so many centuries?

4. Some Considerations

Of course, the symbolism that we have been showing is beautiful, very enriching and has great biblical-theological value. Specifically in relation to the Holy Spirit, it has not been studied in any depth or sufficiently welcomed in traditional theology; on the contrary, it has remained utterly forgotten. With C. Halkes, we can assert: “I continue to believe that carrying out an in-depth study of feminist theology, pneumatology [study on the Holy Spirit] and sophiology [= study on Divine Wisdom] will offer rich incentives, as these will not only enrich the experiences that women have of their faith, but will also be very favourable for theology in general” (8).

Here we have tried, as we said at the beginning, to give a necessary word of warning. Its applications would have to be studied in greater depth, without sexualising them in exclusivist terms. It is evident that every symbol has a limit that we cannot overstep. We cannot materialise symbolic expression; it is not appropriate to force images, or break the tension between what is signified and what is significant if we do not want to lapse into absurd and crippling overstatements. It is difficult to interpret the Trinity in such an exclusivist way.

But, also, let us return again to Rahner when he says: “The simple fact that Jesus was male is not an answer, because it is not evident that an individual who works under the command of Christ and, consequently, (but not in any other way) represents him in persona Christi – in the name of Christ – has to represent him precisely in his masculinity”. If, afterwards, we try to find and make such motives known according to “a divine order of creation”, it would be very difficult to avoid (as happened to the Fathers of the Church and medieval theologians with their spurious arguments) returning to an anthropology which would threaten the very dignity and equality of women, which, however, the Declaration recognises (refer to Inter Insignores) (9).

The insistence on the masculinity of Christ in a restrictive and exclusivist sense is disconcerting. How do we understand this? How do we understand the representation “in persona Christi”? Is it that, during the mass the priest becomes another Christ, or is it rather the offerings that are transformed into Christ by the words of the priest and the power of the Spirit? Saint Johnn Chrysostom wrote, referring to the Eucharist: “Everything is the responsibility of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. The priest only lends his tongue and offers his hands” (10). We can ask ourselves, with the orthodox Elisabeth Behr-Sigel – could that voice and those hands not be feminine? (11).

As Rahner points out, feminine dignity and equality do often feel threatened by reasoning and images which, in the end, put into question their complete social and ecclesiastical participation. Women are completely human, in their own sex, with something to contribute (not always to passively receive), not from the inferiority that places them on a step below and excludes them, but from a meeting up/joining together, from a new, more profound, and relationship of wholeness in which both sexes really “acknowledge” one another and set up, despite their differences, an enriching dialogue between “equals”.

Some profound words from the Anglican ex-Archbishop Runcie which can also be very illuminating in the subject we are dealing with are: “Christ has taken on and assumed the whole of humanity in his Incarnation. As he in his glorious and resurrected Body assumes the whole of humanity which includes women, so in the priesthood the priestly nature of the whole ecclesiastical body is represented, no less than the resurrected Body of Christ where the redemption of the whole of humanity is assumed, without distinction of masculinity and femininity (1, VII 1986).

Footnotes

1. CRUZ, SAN JUAN DE LA, "Noche oscura", Vida y Obras completas, BAC, Madrid 1964, p. 339.

2. BÉRÈRE, M. J. y otros, Et si on ordonnait des femmes? Ed. Le Centurion, Paris 1982, p. 67.

3. H. LEGRAND, "Traditio perpetua servata? La non ordination des femmes: tradition ou simple fait historique?", en AA.VV. Extrait des rituels, Paris 1990. p. 408.

4. D. II, XXVI, 104.

5. TEJADA R J. o.c. t. I, p. 549.

6. R. RADFORD RUETHER, Woman guides, Boston 1985, p. 21-26. Citado por M. T. PORCILE, La Mujer, espacio de salvación, Montevideo 1991, p. 61.

7. La reproducción con la que cuento es una postal. Foto Velag Berger, 8210 Prien am Chiemsee, Dr. Otto-Eyrich, str. 16 Karte, nr. 9.

8. C. HALKES, Concilium, 163, 1981, p. 462.

9. K. RAHNER, Sollicitudine per la Chiesa, Roma 1982, p. 262.

10. P.G. 59, 472.

11. E. BEHR- SIGEL.

Translated by Lisa Mullins

Return to the index of the book?

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