23 Oct. 2011

Dear Jimmy,

I found your analysis of the question regarding the heretical nature of the idea of women’s ordination to be admirably thorough and insightful. More interesting to me, though, is the substance of the matter. I am a church-going Catholic who tries to conform to all the doctrines of the Church. On the other hand, I am too knowledgeable of human beings not to recognize that any dogmatic line separating so-called female occupations from male ones is bound to run into difficulties.

Just as there are men who make excellent nurses and homemakers, so too there are women who, I suspect, would make excellent pastors, confessors, teachers and advisers in the manner of the ideal priest. I also suspect that the primary reason why the Church has so far rejected the notion of women priests has less to do with the core values and beliefs of Christianity than with ancient Judaic preconceptions regarding the social roles of men and women. While, for the most part, Protestants and Jews have left those preconceptions behind, the Catholic Church continues to cling to them. Maybe, it would be wise to keep the belief that women should be excluded from the priesthood in the category of inferred beliefs, not revealed truth, for then Catholics may continue to debate it without fear of committing heresy. As you can see, I believe that the question is eminently debatable and deserves to be discussed.

The Jewish convert, Edith Stein or now, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross lays out in an excellent way the difference in the nature of male and female and their appropriateness for certain roles. She relates these natures to the human soul. So, you see the reservation of the male only priesthood extends beyond customs to the nature of the human person. She writes, “the body receives its nature as body - life, motion, formm gestaldt, and spiritual significance - through the soul.” She goes on further:

“the relationship of the soul and body is NOT similar in man and woman; with woman the soul’s union with the body is naturally more intimately emphasized.” How? She teaches, “Woman’s soul is present and lives more intensely in all parts of the body and it is inwardly affected by that which happens to the body, whereas, with men, the body has more pronouncedly the character of an instrument which serves them in their work and which is accompanies by a certain detachment.” This, of course, would enable the man to be more objective when standing in personal Christi during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Whereas, a woman would be less able to be objective during the consecration as she would be more attached to what she is doing on the altar, and therefore less objective.

One lates theologian Dr. Maria Fedoryka of Ave Maria University explains woman as more “receptive” in nature. Whereas the priest must serve and “give” communion versus being in a receptive role or attitude interiorly as a women’s nature would lend her to be.

See “The Collected Works of Edith Stein, Volume Two, ICS Publicatons, 1987.

If you are looking to read THE definitive study of this question I would suggest “Women in the Priesthood? A Study in the Light of Nature and Revelation” by Manfred Hauke, published by Ignatius Press.  A bit of a tough read and written before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it is nonetheless the most comprehensive study of the issue that I have seen.

Michael,
Let us be careful about thinking in such terms as “so far” in commenting on the Catholic Church’s stance on a subject as immutable as ordination of priests. Such a statement might suggest that ordination of women is a potential possiblity should the Church “progress” in such a direction. It seems that you are saying that the Church is only clinging to some archaic notion that women do not fit into certain roles. Tricky ground, there.
All of this is written into JPII’s Theology of the Body. As I am a woman, I must say that I am no more capable of being a priest than I am of fathering a child. I am female. My nature is to nurture and receive. Like Mary, I am an image of the bride of Christ. An image of the Church as the female. St Peter’s square itself is in the shape of the arms of Mother Church. The woman’s role is defined by what she is by her very nature. She is not father. She is mother. And she is the one who receives from the man.
The priest is the image (and sacramental presence) of Jesus who was ultimate man. Jesus embodied all that man was created to be. He is the one who gives of himself to his Bride who receives. Man is outward and giving, woman is receptivity. You don’t need to be a theologian to acknowledge this physical reality. We cannot fight God’s blueprint.
There is also the very obvious argument that if Jesus wanted female priests, he would have made his own mother one. Who better to be a priest than the Immaculate Conception? But she would never have asked for that, since she recognized her role.
In addition, one must not forget that equality of the sexes does not equal sameness. If a woman wants to become a priest, it is because she has not yet come to the understanding of the dignity of what it is to be a woman. And, the religious life for women is no less fulfilling than it is for a priest. She is a reflection of Mary—a woman who gives her life to Jesus and is mother to all.
It saddens me to see or hear Catholics debate this issue. There is a divine order to why we were created male or female. God has certain plans for each of us. If we fight that very nature, we are telling God that we do not like his plans for us. Mary said yes to the vocation she was given, she did not ask for one that she preferred.
ALSO…If the Church ever does move in that direction, get on your knees immediately, since that means there is an anti-pope in the Chair of Peter!

Truth, the Word of God,and the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church are not debatable, Michael, and after the Holy Father defines something from the Chair of Peter it becomes God’s Word.  Women priests are forbidden by God to act in persona of His Son. The subject is closed and indeed becomes heresy to challenge it.

Thank you, Theresa Lynn. In all Religions of the world where Sacrifices are offered to God the Creator, this Sacrifice is ALWAYS offered by a MAN. The Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is Jesus offering Himself to our Heavenly Father for the salvation of mankind. As you correctly state, Theresa, women cannot become Priests for the simple reason God did not confer this Role to us.  Our place in the Salvation Mystery is most effectively defined by the Role of the Mother of God and Mother Church.  Mary is our Spiritual Mother and Holy Mother Church is our physical Mother on Earth. To quote you, Theresa, let us never, ever try to fight God’s Blueprint

I would love to see more reflection on how the laity can live more fully their vocation. I think discussions about who can be ordained reflect a sense that the laity have an inferior role in the Church. Really, God in his wisdom invites many more people to live as lay persons because the Church needs them. Being the Church in the World and the World in the Church is a task that requires great creativity. How is it that I can visit a neighborhood where there are many more Catholics than other Christians, and the other Christians are more visible? If lay Catholics wait on “Father”, and are not pro-active, the Church is in a sorry state. Christifidelis Laici shows the amazing scope of lay possibilities. Jimmy’s blog is a great example of a layman living his vocation. I would love to see more examples, not only on the internet but also in the neighborhoods. The call for a New Evangelization, new in its fervor, new in its methods, new in its expression, is really radical. If there were a laity more fervently living the faith, we would also probably have more priests. The incredible history of the Church in Korea, which was started and maintained by lay people long before it had any priests, is a testimony to what the laity can do.

Thanks for your usual thorough job, but the question remains; what to do about those entrusted with teaching the Faith but espouse heterodox opinions? As you say, they are not formally heretics—but when was the last time anyone was actually declared a heretic? The only cases I can think of are a few professors who lost teaching posts. Americans who spied for the USSR during the Cold War technically weren’t traitors because we were never at war with the Soviets. But I doubt calling them traitors would damage their reputation. Hearing priests, bishops or catechists dissent from the Magisterium is at least scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In today’s world of instant communication maybe Church authorities need to respond to heterodoxy as soon as it becomes public rather than leisurely inviting Bishop X in for consultations.

Thanks for your usual thorough job, but the question remains; what to do about those entrusted with teaching the Faith but espouse heterodox opinions? As you say, they are not formally heretics—but when was the last time anyone was actually declared a heretic? The only cases I can think of are a few professors who lost teaching posts. Americans who spied for the USSR during the Cold War technically weren’t traitors because we were never at war with the Soviets. But I doubt calling them traitors would damage their reputation. Hearing priests, bishops or catechists dissent from the Magisterium is at least scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In today’s world of instant communication maybe Church authorities need to respond to heterodoxy as soon as it becomes public rather than leisurely inviting Bishop X in for consultations.

18 Nov. 2011
Dear Friends,
I thank all of you who responded to my 23 October observations about the Church’s distinction between males and females regarding eligibility for the priesthood. Nevertheless, as a fellow Catholic, proceeding with goodwill and in a spirit of sincere inquiry, I must wonder about the wisdom of trying to keep males and females in separate categories for the purpose of assigning them separate social roles. Why not try the reverse? Suspend the deductive approach and try an inductive one: let all individuals, regardless of sexual identity, pursue vocations as they believe God is calling them to do. Then look at where people end up. It could be that the vast majority of priests will continue to be male, just as, among Protestants, the majority of preachers are men. It may turn out that there really is something about the role of priest that favors a masculine temperament or that calls for a more masculine cast of mind. The majority of priests may turn out to be men just as do the majority of firefighters, computer programmers, classical music composers and professors of mathematics. What I question is the A PRIORI assignment of males and females to separate categories. This, I believe, is a doomed endeavor, not to mention a rather presumptuous one. It smacks of Plato’s Ideas—those “ideal” categories that so impressed the early Church fathers versed in Greek philosophy. But it flies in the face of more modern, evolutionary thinking, which emphasizes degrees of difference and processes of change rather than ideal, immutable types. Besides, it runs into conflict with common sense. Surely, you have seen men who are more feminine than some women and women who are more masculine than some men. For example, in John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath,” Ma Jode is more than a receptor; she’s a powerful, active, assertive force, loud and strong at times, taking control when she feels it necessary to protect the family. My point: you’re not going to force all men into one box and squeeze all women into another box and have everyone live the life they feel God called them to live. This won’t work. So why keep trying it? I think the Church is correct to keep the idea of women’s ordination outside the bounds of heresy, as Jimmy has explained, and, as a result, open to discussion.

Just a moment .....just hold on there Michael Drwiega!!! In The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church the Holy Mass - The Eucharistic Sacrifice - is the ongoing Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos.1356 - 1381). As I stated above, the Priest celebrating Mass is representing Jesus Christ Himself.  During Consecration, it is Jesus Christ who personally - through the person of the Priest - offers Himself to The Heavenly Father. With the Prayers of Consecration, Transubstiation takes place and He becomes Present in the Bread and Wine. In all religions of the world, Michael Drwiega, sacrifices offered to God the Creator have - since the creation of man - been offered by men. And when Jesus appointed His Apostles He - being God - appointed men because He would give them the Power to act in His Place as He offers Himself to His Heavenly Father during the Eucharistic Sacrifice.  It is not by accident that when He appeared to them on the 8th Day after His resurrection in the Upper Room, His Mother was not there. He was going to bestow on them the Power to Celebrate the Eucharist which He had first celebrated with them on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper. You need to bear in mind that the Protestant Pastors and/or Bishops do not have the Apostolic Succession.  It follows, therefore, their Services are not Sacrifices to God the Father.  Their Services do not make their Communion Elements the Body and Blood of Christ.  They can, therefore, ordain women. We should never try to change God’s Divine Law with the excuse of wanting to conform to the current rage of modern, evolutionary thinking. God does not change and His Divine Law does not change.  In order to celebrate the Real Eucharistic Sacrifice the Priest must be a man to represent Jesus Christ

Women don’t belong in the priesthood.

In reponse to
Fr. Robert Coogan on Thursday, Oct 27, 2011 8:11 PM (EST):(I would love to see more reflection on how the laity can live more fully their vocation.)
There is an excellent workshop which has just been presented in our parish called “The Called & Gifted Workshop” presented by The Catherine of Siena Instute. It allows the laity to take an inventory of their chrisms and presents a discernment process. The laity can discover outlets for their individual vocation and how they can use their charisms to evangelize or become a more Active memeber of the Christ community. This help individuals to take that next step in their spiritual journey.

Michael,

Mary is right, but I will add in my two cents.  Judaism no longer has a sacrificial priesthood.  The protestant reformation called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass an abomination.

A priest offers sacrifice.  A Christian priest offers the sacrifice of Christ.  Jesus is the only priest. All other priests are icons for him.  Historically the high priest, who entered the sanctuary was male, because of the mixing of mercy and judgement, life and death. The sacrifice offered was also male. In the Mass, Christ is both priest and victim. Signs have to perceptible to the senses. If the priesthood points to something else it becomes a broken sign, the cross becomes a broken sign.

Jesus is the saviour for both men and women. God wants distinctions or we miss Jesus.

“Is Women’s Ordination a Heresy?”

## No. It may be an error, but it cannot in itself be a heresy, because it does not in itself deny any dogmas. Some forms of favouring the ordination of women to the priesthood - which is what, in a Catholic context, “women’s ordination” means - do involve denial of dogma, and can be heretical; but by no means all. In discussing whether a tendency in the Church is a heresy, it is of the utmost importance to be absolutely accurate in the use and understanding of theological terms. Disagreeing with the theological arguments in support of a doctrine or practice or dogma, is not heresy, unless the arguments are revealed truths.