Other questions regarding the ordination of women

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. Looking Back

The short journey we have travelled through the history and problems, allows us to glimpse a minimal amount of the tension and constant struggle, sometimes buried and hidden, and sometimes strident, between men and women within the Church. The motivations, arguments, laws...... to distance women from ecclesiastical power and, concretely, from the priesthood, have been continuous and the manifestations of superiority and even disdain of one sex for “the other” can be seen, in general, to have been without the slightest shame, as we have been showing in previous chapters.

The necessity to argue and legislate with regard to women is persistent, excluding them and reducing them to the silent space of the domestic-ecclesiastical area. It stems from a rather arbitrary and hierarchical anthropology, based on Aristotle, about supposed feminine inferiority and manly superiority, which has been in force, in the Church as well, for too many centuries. We cannot say that misogynism has been absent, nor biblical exegesis, symbolism or legislative reasoning. However, the theories against the ordination of women are very rarely read and re-considered from this reality – although we know that a minimally serious historic interpretation always has to be carried out according to all the determining factors that surround the matter being examined.

Evidently, this problem of the priesthood forms part of other cultural, historical, anthropological, ecclesiastical, sociological, ethical etc. factors..... which are much more basic and general in civil and ecclesiastical society, but whose principal common denominator is uniform and whose consequences also materialise in the historical absence of women in the public arena, with the repercussions we are already aware of.

So, the matter of the feminine priesthood is not something isolated – the roots are very deep, as are the consequences. They lie within and affect the whole relational, symbolic and ecumenical question, in the global sense of the word, Oikumene [=the inhabited world]. We have reflected on some characteristics and repercussions of the symbolism, and next we will see it from other relational and ecological viewpoints.

2. Contemplating the present: “And Dominate the Earth” – the ecological crisis

The cries of warning from nature are growing ever louder. The progressive deterioration of the planet is beginning to seriously worry us. Contamination, desertification, salination of the Earth and its rains, the growth of the holes in the Ozone Layer, the “Greenhouse Effect”, “acid rain”, “oil slicks”, the widespread extinction of most diverse species of animals and plants...., have become sadly familiar expressions and bad news. They are symptoms of disease and of the depletion of the earth. Nature, victim and patient, is exhausted and is beginning to show its sore and torn face, due to domination and human oppression, - domination by this civilisation which is proud of the progress and well-being it has achieved.

The so-called diseases of our time are symptoms of the precarious health of the planet. Because this is a genuinely planetary and inter-related situation of deterioration.

There is no doubt that there are many causes that have been brewing. But the vision of the universe as something hierarchical, vertical and pyramidal, in which the man, males, and also the West, is at the pinnacle, above all beings created to “dominate” and be taken control of everything, causes irreparable divisions between humanity and the rest of creation, as well as within humanity itself (1). Because this so-called “superiority” has irresponsibly justified incontrollable “domination” and the most rampant devastation for one’s own profit. Nature is turned into the slave of men and in this way all types of submission, outrage and exploitation, are authorised. However, and this is alarmingly palpable, “societies that are only concerned with growing and expanding are, in the long run, incapable of surviving because they demand too much of their human base and their natural base, destroying them and ruining themselves” (2). A basic unsustainable and depredatory imbalance is occurring. The crisis which is developing is evident; it is no exaggeration to say that the survival of humanity and of creation, is in danger.

3. The ecological and cultural crisis is also causing a patriarchal crisis

But also, it is clear that this hierarchical and pyramidal understanding does not just stagger the steps between humanity and “the rest”, but the scale affects and classifies people and separates them unjustly and brutally into social classes, according to quantity of money and power, different races (superior and inferior), more or less developed people, and, of course, and no less overwhelmingly, into sexes; one above the other for the benefit of one of them. The “inferior nature” of woman makes her clearly subordinate and this subordination remains very much alive in the conscious and collective patriarchical subconscious. The white, Western male, in his superiority, is set up in the centre and omnipotently “as a yardstick for everything else”, and from there, he has controlling power. This is how androcentrism [=the centrality of the male]has been established.

Evidently, this appropriation of nature and of objects, animals and people.... produces a basic and often violent imbalance, because domination is an unequal way of taking power and of destroying. Everything is inter-related.

I do not usually like to make lists or tables of “masculine and feminine virtues and defects”; from the old ones, those made by men, we already know the injustices and results; the new ones, created from another viewpoint, could turn out to be equally arbitrary and simplistic, in the long run. However, I do not think that it is accidental that the type of values and relationships that society and the world are suffering a lack of, are much more in harmony with “a woman’s way” and matriarchy: cosmomorphism, communalism, intuition, inter-personal, affective and religious family values etc., and those that prevail are the ones that are held to be masculine and patriarchal: anthropomorphism, individualism, eradication, secularisation, aggressiveness, competitiveness, rationalism.... (3).

It is not just by chance, either, that the very civilisation traditionally identified with masculinity, is showing an accelerated disconnection with nature and the earth, identified, since ancient times, with the woman, the fertile Mother. This division is of prime importance.

Unfortunately, “the sickness of our culture”, “the collective sickness”, “the religious sickness of our culture”, etc., are not ingenious slogans or titles invented in literature by clever thinkers, but they condense in a general and planetary situation that affects the whole of humanity. “The collective sickness – says P Duvigneu- occupies the position where collective well-being should be. The biosphere has turned into a technosphere, which is often hostile to human beings” (4).

Some scholars, anthropologists, male philosophers, although still not that many (namely Thomson, Pestolazza, Ortiz de Oses, Mayr etc.) still accuse the patriarchical society of threatening and “ransacking” the ancestral, symbolically matriarchal and naturalist world and that this action is, according to them, resulting in a basic impoverishment and what is called the “sickness of our culture”, because “both an attack from outside and a repression from within this matriarchal-naturalist structure, causes a noticeable uneasiness both inside and outside the social body”(5).

Ecofeminismalso openly accuses this state of affairs and examines the symbolic, psychological, ethical, paradigmatical.... paradigms which are established in an imbalanced and destructive way between human beings, according to their sex, and between these beings and creation, and it considers their consequences (6).

In Chinese terminology, we would talk of radical imbalance between Yang (masculine) and Yin (feminine). In fact, said in one language or another, what is established is an asymmetrical, unequal and distorted relationship between the sexes, races and beings, based on power and submission, which damages the master and slave, as a totality, although it is harder to recognise this in the former. We are already reaping the fruit. It is claimed there is a general, unstoppable and devastating imbalance, which even attacks nature. The accelerating distance between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, the rich and the poor...., would only be one part, although, of course the most bloody and painful, that is true, but not the only part of the consequences and problems involved in uncontrolled violent domination. Wars or whatever type of irrational violence, “ethnic cleansing...colonialism and neo-colonialism, are rooted in the uncontrollable desire for power and economic goods. It is the constant battle to have and to dominate”.

It is logical that the worst discrimination is found to act against women who, in addition, are often black or of other skin colour, are poor and belong to under-developed or war-torn peoples. They carry within themselves, silently and in double measure, the pain and injustices of this world and, in addition, they have less possibility of defending themselves: they are genuinely the ones deprived of a voice.

It is necessary that we capture the centrality of the relational problem in our world, which is therefore involved in the Man-Woman relationship. The erroneous understanding of the mandate “Dominate the Earth” from a hierarchical vision of reality, oppresses women and devastates the world. It is a global problem of human liberty and must be understood and considered as such. It is a problem that extends to the whole of creation, which is lamenting and suffering, waiting to be liberated (Romans 8, 23).

A male, Harvey Cox, expresses this unerringly: “I think that the destruction of nature, along with the continuation of masculine domination are, nowadays, integrally linked to an indifferent state of mind, anxious for profit, which deprives us of deep relationships and direct experience” (7).

4. The crisis of masculinity

I also wanted to conclude the previous section with the reference to the thinking of a male because, of course, not all men feel comfortable being trapped in their dominant image, adopting models of an almost caricatured manliness, that has been received from the past, and that stifles totally legitimate expressions, emotions and feelings which could be held to be feminine..., impoverished, in this way, in the affective and emotional arena and those of relationships and communication.

However, some people, still a shrewder minority, are perfectly aware of it; others are scarcely even beginning to wake up to it. They anticipate a change and take it on as a challenge and a community task, jointly with women.

The first one who communicated this to me, several years ago now, was a young and intelligent male friend of mine. For him, feminist thinking, as well as being an unavoidable necessity for women, was also a trigger to make men aware of the unconscious masculine oppression. Enmeshed in their own role, cliché and image, in the “traditional masculine virtues”, the males are impoverished, looking for their own liberation. In the end, he explained, they are the ones in the greatest need.

But is it evident that this awareness is not yet general and, like all hidden wounds, it is seeping puss and claiming victims. So then we are detecting in Western civilisation a genuine crisis of masculinity, generally unacknowledged, which is shown in the appearance of the “bland man”, weak, passive, “effeminate”, in contrast with the “tough man”, the “macho”, both a type of caricature but which, unfortunately are excessively materialised in the flesh and blood, Western and modern, man or male, and we can even say that they are typical products of our civilisation. All this is questioning masculinity and is revealing its crisis.

Because men are not only beginning to ask themselves, albeit secretly, about their own identity, they are also suffering a deep insecurity, a sense of imbalance and uncertainty. The current model is breaking down and causing distress, which is often unacknowledged. We are beginning to talk about a “masculine uneasiness”, psychological and biological studies are being initiated, “Men’s Studies”, there are specialist magazines and Masculine Liberation Movements are even springing up, especially in Northern and Anglo Saxon countries (8); novels also give a sense of it.... An arduous but necessary de-mystification of masculinity is beginning, which is not generally formulated yet, and is proclaiming the end of a cultural era that has to lead to a deep interior and exterior reconciliation. Because, as Elisabeth Badinter notes: “When men became aware of the disadvantage they have in nature (she is referring to fertility), they created a cultural sticking point of great magnitude - the patriarchal system. Nowadays, obliged to say goodbye to patriarchy, they have to re-invent the father and the manliness a father carries with him. Women who observe these mutants with tenderness, are holding their breath” (9).

5. A reconciled creation demands a new paradigm in human relationships

The deep healing that human relationships need, the total, inclusive ecological cure, passes through a deep theological, psychic and spiritual process, which affects men and women and the whole of creation (10). It demands a change, a radical relational change. It calls for masculine-feminine reciprocity from a mutual getting to know one another, again, with all their many respective differences. It is an arduous, tiring and, at the same time, gratifying process, which would lead to a new therapeutic and egalitarian relationship, based on some new values and a deeply spiritual experience, which can be taken on through the God of life. It is undoubtable that this change would lead to a clear improvement in our relationships with God.

Ethics and theology demand more and more empathy, as well as piety, loyalty, tenderness, vulnerability, compassion...., all attitudes and virtues, which are held to be really “feminine”, and which point to the hope of a possible global cure. The “right to empathy”, the “compassionate solidarity”, the “ethics of piety”....., express something more than a vague desire in some sectors. All this is a sign of a new sensitivity, which is emerging, albeit timidly, calling for the substitution of aggressiveness (masculine) by joint and communal compassion (feminine), where the spirit of collaboration is substituted for that of proud competitiveness.

We are beginning to see the need for a spiritual and cultural change which deeply affects human relationships and communication; a qualitatively different type of dialogue. It is a vertical step towards a more horizontal and joint experience of relationships; the step from “complementing one another” to otherness, and the recognition of difference.

Women have an undeniable contribution to make here, for the good of all of creation and the whole of humanity, but it is necessary that their voice is heard and that their company is accepted and understood.

A realistic, serious and universal ethic requires a basic change, a total conversion in relationships that are already very damaged and impoverished, as the first instrument of peace and respect for justice. We women are not asking for any favour or charity, we are demanding the re-establishment of egalitarian and fraternal relationships, wanted by God, “he created men and women”, (and to which all of creation has the right), and we are offering the hand of reconciliation. This is much more than an interesting claim, it is an alerting and urgent proclamation for the good of all of humanity and all of creation. After all, the new heaven and eschatological earth depend on the anticipation of some new relationships.

In the words of John Paul II: “the woman cannot turn herself into an object of domination and masculine possession” (M.D.)

The male does not benefit whatsoever from continuing to be dominating; on the contrary, it degrades him; neither does the woman from being dominated and told what to do.

It is a joint task of liberation in solidarity, a task that cannot be carried out alone. It is an arduous and communal learning experience that we must all carry out (males and females).

The “Femmes et Hommes dans L’Église” Movement has coined and investigated, in detail, a particularly thought-provoking and expressive term: “the parthership” , a paradigmatic model of some non-hierarchical, more communal, man/woman relationships in which, without fear or domination, they acknowledge one another in their otherness and reciprocity. The theological foundation is in the mystery of the Incarnation. In this, God declares his solidarity with human beings, as a “partnership”, and establishes some new relationships in otherness (11).

This is an urgent effort, that must be carried out, because, in addition, a disabled and imbalanced humanity, not only does not benefit anyone but also ends in self-destruction and neurotic imbalance.

6. The Eucharist, sign and place of a new and reconciled humanity

The Church, being both holy and sinning, also widely participates in the structural and environmental imbalances that we have considered. The discussion on feminine priesthood affects both the power structures and ecclesiastical government, as well as its sacramentality, life and mission, and re-examining it involves an essential and urgent first step towards making a radical relational change possible, (which she also very much in need of). This is precisely because “the question of the priesthood is recorded as the most spectacular element, in a wider context, which is the survival, in the Church, of a strongly patriarchal mentality” (12).

The Eucharist could be, and ought to be, the real and symbolic place of reconciliation and acknowledgement, and a sign of that new, visible humanity, which is truly the Body of Christ.

Women, certainly, are the transmitters and carers in life, “guardians of life” (John Paul II), of the whole of life, entirely, that is, also of spiritual life which, in the end, is what unifies the whole of life. So then, it is particularly painful and contradictory to feel their absence in the communication and very administration of the sacramental life of the Church, the source of Life and Salvation.

In addition, “in the Eucharist – says Saint Irenaeus – the Church offers the Creator part of his Creation”, “it is very important – Max Thurian continues – to see the Order of Creation and the Redemption reconciled in the Eucharist” (13). But, as we saw, we are substituting the “Order of Creation” with our sin for a “justified” hierarchical and dominant disorder, with distressing consequences. We know that these gifts of creation, symbolized in the bread and wine, are very badly distributed in the world, because of human selfishness. Women, accustomed to laying tables and often “multiplying them”, are particularly aware of the painful shortage at more than two thirds of the dinner tables in the world. It would not be a concession to a more or less romantic symbolism, to fully accept them, in the offering of these gifts accumulated with tears, (also with those of women), so that the Spirit (feminine Ruah) can transform them into the Body and Blood of Christ, handed over for the salvation of the world. This is a cosmic and reconciliatory act of humanity with God and the Universe.

“The Church, nowadays, has to recover the cosmic, ecological, positive and optimistic vision of the Eucharist and celebrate it in a liturgy which expresses the happiness of Heaven on Earth and the hope of the Feast in the Kingdom of God” (14). However, it is not easy understanding the cosmic and ecological aspects as we explained them previously, for this to be carried out expressively and meaningfully while discriminations exist within her; that is to say, her visibility and significance will not be clear until the day when the Church extends the Eucharistic table of the altar and considers having women there not only as fully entitled guests but also recognises in them the possibility that, like Mary, they make Christ present in the world, transforming the gifts created in his body for the reconciliation of this divided world. In that Body the whole of humanity is assumed, which Christ wanted to reconcile beneath the Cross.

The Eucharistic feast could, in this way be a much clearer sign and anticipation of those egalitarian and fraternal relationships in the Kingdom in which he is proclaimed.

But let us return to Mary, the one from Betania, carrying out that prophetic and sacramental gesture on the Body of Christ, anointing Christ the King, Priest and Prophet “as is performed in the sacraments”. This anointing was received by Jesus himself sacramentally and liturgically, as a “memory”, “in memory of her”, and he announced that he anticipated his death, like the Eucharist that was established precisely to proclaim and remember the death of the Lord. In this way, Mary anointed and prepared his body for the great sacrifice that the women, together with his co-offering Mother, actively witnessed beneath the Cross. As true witnesses of the “Great Mass of the World”, they can say in all truth: “we proclaim his death” and, fulfilling the mandate of Jesus himself: “we proclaim his Resurrection”.

The authentic communion with Christ places us in communion with the whole of Creation, of which He is Alpha and Omega. It is a banquet, a relationship of love and based on justice.

We would like the Eucharist, presided over and led by men and women, to truly be the symbolic and expressive place of that longed-for human reconciliation, in which men and women, having met and got to know one another again, work in complete solidarity in the Church for the salvation of the world, and as a sign and proclamation of a peaceful creation. Because “humanity cannot recognise itself more than in the perfect identity of masculinity and femininity in the image of God” (15), and what is much more serious, God will struggle to recognise himself in a divided humanity.

7. Other questions relating to feminine priesthood

In addition, we can provide other reasons to include women in the Order of the Priesthood or Episcopacy and even the Diaconate; for example, the enormous shortage of priests, especially, although not only, in the countries of the Third World, and everything this carries with it. Also, laymen are coming to Church in much fewer numbers and even fewer are undertaking ecclesiastical and apostolic tasks. These are some very urgent pastoral questions, which require effective and not “sticking plaster” solutions. But, would this be another situation, which is only driving for immediate needs? It is true that it is a matter of overcoming the “current bad patch”, but why are women, and especially nuns, carrying out some “emergency” tasks without being truly recognised? Because, as we said in another section, they are not even recognised officially in Canon Law as being able to be Readers, Acolytes or have any other duty.

This is another blatant ecclesiastical contradiction; why are they allowed to do the job but are not granted the recognition?.... It is true that women carry out these duties with apostolic enthusiasm and, in general, they are showing not only a great sense of responsibility, self-denial and the spirit of service, but they also approach them with great spiritual intuition and a deep, creative sensitivity.

In spite of everything, it is a fact that the Church is becoming tremendously impoverished through a shortage of an appropriate and more complete feminine contribution, not only at a pastoral level but also in theology and liturgy, in ecclesiastical government, the structures etc....; this lack of women can really be blamed on decisions, orientations, spirituality, in the very heart of the Church. All these are very important reasons and it is necessary to take them very much into account in a minimal ecclesiastical reality. Women are neither better nor worse than men; they are different and therefore have something to contribute to enriching the total Body of Christ. The lack of this contribution causes an imbalance.

However, as we have been showing, the reasons for the ordination of women are more in-depth and stem from a more complete and just vision of the Gospel. They are also a call for an authentic re-adjustment of human relationships, men and women, races, people......that the Church, from listening closely to the Spirit, must help to re-drive, beginning, clearly, with a radical modification within itself, for the sake of coherence and real effectiveness.

It is true that the ordination of women would not signify the “cure for all ills”; thinking this way would be simplistic and even unjust and unreal. But, of course, it is the first, visible, efficient and absolutely indispensable step towards beginning, again, the “community of equals that Jesus wanted” (16), in a more welcoming “common house” which the Church has to be, and a type of warmer, closer and egalitarian relationships, which our world, universe and Church need so much. The ordination of women involves a first and basic integration into a structure that, afterwards, will be consistent with the step taken.

It is true that all men and women will be consistent, in a shared task which involves a lot of understanding, courage, listening, knowledge and love...., loyalty and openness to the Spirit of God, whose presence, impulse and energy....., has certainly never been denied.........and who is always active in the world and the Church. It is the deepest source of life and relationships.

8. In ecumenical dialogue

In an Ecumenical dialogue, in the complete sense of the word, that is, with the whole of Creation, of course, with other Christian denominations, the majority of which already ordain women as pastors; this can and must also be a way of searching and reconciliation. This will be the subject of the second part of the book.

But I do not want to fail to observe an ecumenical fact, which seems important to me. In May 1989, in the Basle Assembly, the different Christian denominations met together, including the Catholics, under the slogan “peace with justice”; a brave and religious commitment by the Churches to the safeguarding and integrity of creation, a ray of hope based on listening to the Spirit as a community. The matter of women was not absent. All the Churches present recognised the sin of sexism interweaved within their structures and proposed some guidelines for changing. I think it is very useful to remember them, trying to understand the real scope of their implications and ask that they do not just remain beautiful proclamations:

Turning oneself into God means, actually, undertaking to overcome:

- The divisions between men and women in the Church and Society.

- The scarce appreciation and poor understanding of the indispensable contribution of women.

- The roles and stereotypes that are ideologically distinguished for men and women.

- The refusal to recognise the abilities of women in life and in the decision-making processes of the Churches.

To enter into a new community of men and women in the Church and in Society, in which women share full responsibility at all levels with men, and freely contribute their talents, perceptions, values and experiences (17).

It is the duty of women to record, promote and show all these ideas, because we need to arrive at brave and coherent consequences, so that the changes that we want can occur. All of this must be out of love for the Church and love of Humanity, although sometimes it might be uncomfortable for us.

By Way of Brief Conclusion

A North American Bishop, during a pastoral visit, asked boys and girls who were preparing for their confirmation:

“How many sacraments are there in the Catholic Church?” A girl replied with conviction: “There are seven sacraments for boys and six for girls” (18). The Bishop was very taken aback - it was very clear he was not expecting such a response and words failed him....

Sometimes what is obvious seems out of place and is disconcerting. Perhaps throughout these pages, what has become clearest is simply the observation that something is not working and we can find other different data and other perspectives.

But, as we know only too well, the Spirit does not remain inactive either in the Church or in our hearts.

Footnotes

1. R. M. RADFORD RUETHER, New Woman, New Earth: sexist ideologies and Human Liberation, San Francisco 1975; A. PRIMAVESI, From Apocalipse to Genesis, Ecology, feminism and christianity, Kent 1991; J. MOLTMANN, La justicia crea futuro. Política de paz y ética de la creación en un mundo amenazado, Santander 1992; M. HEBRARD, Feminité dans un nouvel âge, París 1993, y otros.

2. J. MOLTMANN, o.c. p. 26

3. Cfr. A.ORTIZ OSES/F.K.MAYR, EI Matriarcado Vasco, Bilbao 1981, pp. 73 y otras.

4. P. DUVIGNEU, La sinthèse ècologique, París 1980, p. 331

5. A. ORTIZ DE OSES/F. K. MAYR, o. c. p. 71

6. Además de las obras citadas, V. S. STAYING ALIVE, Women, Ecology and development, London 1989; R. M. RADFORD RUETHER, Reweaving the World: the emergence of Ecofeminism, San Francisco 1989...

7. H. COX, L’Appel de l’Orient, Seuil 1979.

8. El primero nació en los Estados Unidos, 1969, en Alemania surgió otro en 1972, y después otros con nombres semejantes a "Movimiento de Liberación del hombre (varón)".

9. Para ver a fondo este tema particularmente importante: E. BADINTER, XY la identidad masculina, Madrid 1993; J. P. SIMONEAU, Repertoire de la condition masculine, Québec 1988; J. DEBBERT, A Mans’s Place: Masculinity in transition, New York 1979; C. CASTELAIN-MEUNIER, Les hommes aujourd’hui. Virilité et identité, Acropole 1988; M. HEBARD, o. c., etc.

10. R. M. RADFORD RUETHER, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology on Earth, San Francisco 1992.

11. Cfr. los boletines Femmes et hommes dans l’Eglise, 68 rue de Babylone 75007 París.

12. R. AGUIRRE, La comunidad de iguales y diferentes que Jesús quería, Sal Terrae, marzo 1993.

13. Adv. Haer. IV, 18, 4, citado por M. THURIAN, el Misterio de la Eucaristia, un enfoque ecuménico, Barcelona 1983, p. 33.

14. Ibidem.

15. G. LAFONT, Dios, el tiempo y el ser, Salamanca 1991, citado por T. LEÓN, "Sacramentos", AA.VV. Diez mujeres escriben teología, Estella 1993, p. 343.

16. Título del artículo citado de R. AGUIRRE, Sal Terrae, o.c.

17. Documentación de la Asamblea Ecuménica europea, Basilea, 15-21 de mayo de 1989, Madrid 1990.

18. New Women, New Church, WOC, 1993.

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.