Vatican II and Women s Ordination: Stalled Aggiornamento By

Transcription

1 Vatican II and Women s Ordination: Stalled Aggiornamento By Peter B. Jordens 16 th Conference of Catholic Theology in the Caribbean Vatican II and the Church in the Caribbean St. Vincent and the Grenadines, June 17-21, Introduction 1 The Second Vatican Council this was the first council of the Roman Catholic Church 2 that had women participants, although still in very small numbers and in a quite limited role. Vatican II raised expectations that more changes would be forthcoming in relation to women and their role in the Church. One of the issues that required Rome s attention soon after Vatican II was the question whether can law could be changes to allow for women s ordination to the priesthood. In 1976 and again in 1988, Rome explained that women s ordination could not be allowed for various historical and theological reasons. In 1994 and 1995 Rome tried to settle the issue definitively by declaring that its teachings on the inadmissibility of women s ordination have been set forth infallibly, while in 2010 it criminalized the ordaining of women. This paper critically examines the official arguments that the Roman Catholic Church has used since Vatican II to justify excluding women as a group a priori from the priesthood seek to show that these arguments are unconvincing. In addition, Rome has not done itself a favor by declaring the discussion on women s ordination closed and by criminalizing women s ordination. Rome s theologically unconvincing stance on women s ordination has contributed to people inside, on the fringes and outside the Church viewing the Church as a rigid and authoritarian institution that has retreated from the self-analysis and renewal or aggiornamento promised by Vatican II. It is important to clarify that this is not a paper advocating women s ordination. 3 Rather, this paper recommends Rome to resume the dialogue with the modern world and to revamp the process of aggiornamento initiated at Vatican II in the interest of building a fair and authoritative Church able to lead the community of faithful toward the Kingdom of God Women at Vatican II In October 1962, in the midst of turbulent times worldwide, Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II to bring about an aggiornamento (updating) 5 or renewal of the Roman Catholic Church in light of 1

2 contemporary developments in society. John XXIII passed away in June 1963, but not before issuing in April his last encyclical, Pacem in Terris [Peace on Earth], in which he identified the women s emancipation movement as one of the notable signs of the times. Vatican II continued with its second session in September 1963 under the presidency of his successor, Pope Paul VI. At the end of the second session, in December 1963, Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens of Belgium raised the rhetorical question: Why are we discussing the reality of the church when half of the church is not even represented here? This provocative question, midway through a Council that was until then totally male in participation, was a breakthrough that prodded Paul VI to invite a few women to the final two Council sessions (1964 and 1965). A group of 23 women 10 women religious and 13 lay women was invited to attend the third and fourth sessions of the Council as auditors, i.e., as silent spectators. 6 Additional women were invited to the fourth session in a special capacity, for example for their expertise on issues such as the family, birth control, labor relations, war and peace, or poverty. As far as I know, no formal list exists of this second group of women. I have been able to find the names of nine such participants. 7 I estimate the total number of Catholic women invited and present at the final sessions of Vatican II to be between 32 and 46, or between about 0.9% and 1.41% of the approximately 3,400 total participants. Approximate numbers of participants at Vatican II Bishops (men) 2,811 Auditors (lay and religious): Men 29 Women 23 Periti or experts (men and women) 480 Observers from other Christian churches 63 Approximate total 3,400 Of the 32 women participants that I have been able to identify, 27 were from North America, Europe or Australia and the other 5 were from Egypt, Lebanon, Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay. As far as I know, there was no Caribbean representative among the women at Vatican II. One of the auditors, Cristina Estrada, who was the Mother Superior of the Handmaids of the Sacred Heart in Madrid, Spain, was actually born in Cuba when her Spanish parents were briefly stationed there in the 1890s. I think that she, through her birth in the Caribbean, is the closest that our region came to having a woman representative at Vatican II. It is notable that the women at Vatican II were constantly seen and referred to as belonging to a separate category, as a gender group, i.e. as women, rather than seen as being members of the functional groups present at Vatican II, such as the religious, the lay persons, the theologians, the auditors or the experts. At the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI even delivered a brief speech specifically directed at the women participants. 8 None of the women participants at Vatican II was allowed to speak publicly during the plenary sessions of Vatican II. One speech prepared by a woman, a paper on hunger and poverty by British economist Barbara Ward, was read, but had to be delivered in impeccable Latin by a male auditor (James Norris). The women at Vatican II were also not allowed to mingle with the bishops during coffee breaks and had their separate coffee bar, and they had to wear black veils and long sleeves. Upon the suggestion of a male theologian, Bernard Haring CSSR, some of the women were invited to attend meetings of the various commissions engaged in formulating Council documents. In fact, all the women found creative ways to attend workshops and meetings of the drafting commissions and subcommittees, and in this way made themselves heard and influenced discussions and the final documents, especially texts that dealt with the laity. 2

3 One Catholic woman s impression of Vatican II Well-known US feminist Mary Daly ( ) was one of the women experts who attended the last session of Vatican II. At that time, in 1965, she was still a Catholic, studying and teaching philosophy and theology at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. She was excited about being in Rome for the Council and had high hopes for meaningful reforms in the Church. However, this is how she described her impression of Vatican II as she sat in the press section of St. Peter s Basilica: I saw in the distance a multitude of cardinals and bishops old men in crimson dresses. In another section of the basilica were the auditors : a group which included a few Catholic women, mostly nuns in long black dresses with heads veiled. The contrast between the arrogant bearing and colorful attire of the princes of the church and the humble, self-depreciating manner and somber clothing of the very few women was appalling. [...] Although I did not grasp the full meaning of the scene all at once, its multi leveled message burned its way deep into my consciousness. 9 This Catholic woman, with far more theological education than many of the participating cardinals and bishops, at Vatican II personally witnessed the patriarchal structure of the Roman Catholic Church visibly expressed in the attendance of the Council. After Vatican II, Mary Daly began her mission to expose and change the inferior place of women in the world and eventually left the Church, becoming a self-proclaimed post-christian radical feminist The main document resulting from Vatican II, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modem World called Guadium et Spes [Joy and Hope], states in section 29: With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God s intent. This formal rejection of all discrimination together with the pioneering presence of women at Vatican II raised hope within the Church that Vatican II would have tangible consequences for the role and position of women in the Church. 10 Sister Mary Luke Tobin SL, one of the auditors, stated that Vatican II was an opening, although just a tiny crack in the door, to a recognition of the vast indifference toward women and the ignoring of their potential within the whole body of the Church. In this context, one of the issues that appeared on Rome s agenda soon after the conclusion of Vatican II was the possibility of priestly ordination of women. In the 1950s and 60s, some Christian churches, such as the United Methodist Church and the United Presbyterian Church in the USA, approved the inclusion of women in their ordained ministries. In the Roman Catholic Church, women s ordination is impossible as Canon Law 1024 (See also the Catechism, nr. 1577) states: Only a baptized man (in Latin: vir) validly receives sacred ordination. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a great push for women s ordination on the part of many Catholic individuals and organizations. 3. Women s ordination as an issue of concern after Vatican II One of the first significant expressions of the Catholic interest in women s ordination was the Report on the Systematic Theology of the Priesthood, commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. This April 1971 report concludes that there are no biblical or dogmatic arguments against the ordination of women and that on the contrary there are several theological and pastoral reasons to admit women to the priesthood. In November 1971, women s priestly ordination was formally placed on Rome s agenda when a Synod of Bishops 11 was held which had as its topics: The Ministerial Priesthood and Justice in the World. During the Synod, Cardinal George B. Flahiff of Winnipeg, Canada, called on the Pope to install a commission to examine the position of women in the ministries of the Church and especially 3

4 the possibility of their ordination. Archbishop of Kingston, Jamaica, Msgr. Samuel E. Carter SJ, then proposed to explicitly include in the study the admittance of women to the priesthood. He expressed his opinion as follows: One half or actually more than a half of mankind [sic] and of the church are women. In the church this half is excluded from ordination. I am willing to concede that there are perhaps very serious cultural reasons to justify this exclusion. But I am not sure whether these reasons are as serious in all the countries in the world, adding that these earlier cultural, not theological grounds against the ordination of women as priests are no longer [sic] valid. 12 I would have preferred if His Grace, the late Archbishop of Kingston, had said not valid instead of no longer valid, but his choice of words does indicate that the winds in the Church were changing and his statement also establishes the important point that the Church s reasons for excluding women from the priesthood are cultural rather than theological in nature. Pursuant upon the Synod s proposition, Pope Paul VI appointed a commission called the Papal Study Commission on the Function of Women in Society and Church in Although the Commission had a male president, Msgr. Enrico Bartoletti, the majority of its members (14 out of 26) were women, which was unprecedented among Roman commissions. Its task was to study the role of women and the complementarities of man and woman; it was expressly forbidden from studying the possibility of admittance of women to the priesthood. 13 To many this prohibition was undoubtedly a great disappointment. Meanwhile, in November 1975, a Working Group of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation (ARCIC) met in Assisi to consider the question of the ordination of women. In its Assisi Report, the Working Group did not issue a unanimous conclusion, but notably the two Roman Catholic theologians in the Working Group, Hervé-Marie Legrand OP and Eric Doyle OFM, did conclude that according to them there were no theological objections to the ordination of women. In April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission 14, which had apparently been asked to study the role of women in the Bible in order to help determine the place that could be given to women in the Church, concluded: (1) The New Testament alone does not settle in a clear and final way the question of whether women can be admitted to the presbyterate. [The voting on this point was unanimous: 17-0]. (2) There are not sufficient indications in the Scriptures to exclude the possibility of women priests. [Here the voting was 12-5]. (3) The Church would be able to entrust the ministries of the Eucharist and Reconciliation to women without going against Christ s original intentions. [On this point too the voting was 12-5]. This is according to unofficial, leaked portions of the Commission s deliberations. The Commission never released a final and official report. The above-mentioned Papal Study Commission on Women presented its final report to Pope Paul VI in August 1976, but this report was never made public either and its contents are unknown. Instead, two months later, in October 1976, the Church s the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood called Inter Insigniores. Most likely, Pope Paul VI had asked the CDF in early 1975to prepare a statement on women s ordination. 15 Pope Paul VI approved the CDF Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its publication. In this Declaration the CDF firmly rejects the possibility of ordaining women, stating that the Church does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. It explains this position using five interrelated arguments: 16 (1) The normative or sacramental argument: Jesus Christ s attitude, will and action not to call any women to become part of the Twelve considered the foundation of His Church are seen as 4

5 normative for the Church. The Church s practice of conferring priesthood only to men is considered to conform to God s plan for his Church. The priesthood is considered a sacrament established by Christ; the CDF states that the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign. (2) The Marian argument : even the Blessed Virgin Mary, though she surpassed all the Apostles in excellence and closeness to God, was not invested with the apostolic ministry an example of Christ s will in this domain. (3) The foundational or apostolic argument: the apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus toward women and, convinced of their duty and fidelity to the Lord, never conferred ordination on women. As the apostles, specifically the Twelve, are considered the foundation of today s Church, Rome wishes to follow their example. (4) The argument of a constant Church tradition : the CDF states that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles. This faithfully safeguarded tradition, says the CDF, has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance in the life of the Church. (5) Rome posits that the priest, in the exercise of his ministry, and especially during the Eucharist, acts in persona Christi; he takes the role of Christ to the point of being His very image; he is an icon of Christ. Rome furthermore argues that this key ability to represent Christ in the exercise of his ministry must be perceptible, i.e. easily recognizable to the faithful: there must therefore be a natural resemblance between the priest and Christ. Hence the priest, as icon of Christ, must be male, for Christ himself was and remains a man. Considering its timing, Inter Insigniores can be seen as: the final knock-out blow to the Papal Study Commission on Women after it had already been prohibited from studying the question of women s ordination; the definitive overruling and silencing of the Pontifical Biblical Commission a subordinate, consultative body of the CDF in terms of having the Bible shed light on the (im)possibility of women s ordination; a reaction to the first International Year of Women (1975) and the first World Conference on Women (June 1975), and specifically an opportunity to point out that women s ordination in the Roman Catholic Church ought not to be approached as an issue of human rights and women s emancipation, but instead in terms of the mysteries of the sacraments; a reaction to the founding of the Women s Ordination Conference (WOC) in the USA in November 1975, and a warning directed at this organization that claims to legally ordain women as deacons, priests and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II, whose pontificate began in 1978, issued in August 1988 Mulieris Dignitatem, an Apostolic Letter on the Dignity and Vocation of Women. It was written on the occasion of the Marian Year, , and in response to a recommendation by the 1987 Synod of Bishops that the Church study the meaning and dignity of being a woman or a man in the light of divine Revelation. Mulieris Dignitatem is the Church s first systematic exposition on womanhood; it discusses such themes as the significance of Mary the Mother of God, Christ s attitude toward women, virginity and motherhood as key dimensions of the female vocation, marriage, and religious consecration. It states (Chapter III) that as both man and woman are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27), they are equal in humanity and dignity, yet they are different in vocation and role and complement one another (Gen 2:18). Mulieris Dignitatem also confirms the teachings of Inter Insigniores concerning the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. In particular, it points to the masculinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and draws on symbolism present in the Scriptures (especially Eph 5:25-32) that Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church to argue that priests, who act in persona Christi, hence as Bridegroom, must be male (Chapter VII of Mulieris Dignitatem). 5

6 In 1992 the Church of England authorized the ordaining of woman priests and she began ordaining women in In May 1994, in what was clearly a reaction to this development, Pope John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, a short Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. It repeats that to the Roman Catholic Church it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood and recaps the various arguments set forth in Inter Insigniores and Mulieris Dignitatem. The Pope then notes that despite the Church s constant tradition and its firm teachings, there are apparently some who still consider the debate to be open or who consider the Church s teachings to have a merely disciplinary force. He therefore states in his concluding paragraph: [...] in order that all doubt may be removed [...], in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to definitively held by all the Church s faithful. Pope John Paul II hereby teaches that Canon Law 1024 is not merely a matter of ecclesiastical law, but rather a doctrinal matter. The Pontiff s statement was just short of a declaration that, by his own authority, speaking ex cathedra and as a result of divine inspiration, the teaching is infallible. In anticipation of the Fourth World Conference on Women, to be held in September 1995, Pope John Paul II in June 1995 addressed a Letter to women throughout the world, dealing with the dignity and rights of women as seen in the light of the Word of God. 17 The Letter is the second document on the Church s view of womanhood and is more concrete than Mulieris Dignitatem. It discusses obstacles (discrimination, violence, exploitation and other injustices) to women s progress and to their equality with men, but also emphasizes the complementarity of women and men, including the complementarity of certain different roles that women and men have, e.g. with respect to the question of women s ordination in the Church. The Pontiff states: If Christ [...] entrusted only to men the task of being an icon of his countenance as shepherd and bridegroom of the Church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women. He repeats Inter Insigniores s explanation that such role distinctions should not be viewed from the perspective of secular functionality, but be understood as part of the mystery of the sacraments the sacred signs that God chooses to become present in the midst of humanity. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of negative reactions by theologians and organizations of priests, religious and lay people who cast doubt on the definitive character of this Apostolic Letter s teaching and/or questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the Roman Catholic faith. In October 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith therefore found it necessary to reaffirm, in a so-called Responsum ad Propositum Dubium [Reply to a Doubt], the doctrinal status of the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The CDF Responsum states that the ban on women priests is to be held definitively, always, everywhere, and by all, as it is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The Responsum does not say that the Pope had performed an infallible act of teaching. Rather, the teaching has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium 18 : its binding authority rests upon the continuity of the tradition of the Church, i.e. the teachings and acts of the bishops of all places and times. 19 In 2008 the CDF issued and published a General Decree regarding the offence of attempted sacred ordination of a woman, which proclaims the penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication against both the one who attempts to confer a sacred order on a woman and the woman who attempts to receive a sacred order. In 2010 Rome took further punitive steps by effectively criminalizing women s ordination, calling it a crime against the sacraments and a crime against the faith that falls under the jurisdiction of investigators of the CDF. 6

7 Clearly Rome has not been able to remain indifferent to the issue of women s ordination since Vatican II and this is largely a result of the attention that the issue has enjoyed within the Church itself, on the fringes of the Church ( illegal Catholic ordinations), outside the Church in other Christian denominations (legal ordinations under those jurisdictions), as well as in secular society (media attention to women s ordinations and to actions/statements by Rome and other churches on the matter). The overview in the Appendix illustrates how events inside and outside the Church between 1948 and 2013 created a general climate that influenced actions on the part of Rome and sometimes had a direct impact on (the timing of) those actions. 4. Deconstructing Rome s arguments against women s ordination In this section of the presentation I engage with Rome s position on women s ordination which is anchored on the five arguments listed in the previous section first professed in Inter Insigniores (1976), Mulieris Dignitatem (1988) and the Letter to Women (1995) supplemented by a sixth argument contained in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis (1994): (1) the sacramental or normative argument; (2) the Marian argument; (3) the foundational or apostolic argument; (4) the argument of a constant Church tradition ; (5) the iconic argument; (6) the 1994 Papal declaration that serves as the great clincher or silencer. 1. The sacramental or normative argument Argument: Jesus Christ s attitude, will and action not to call any women to become part of the Twelve considered the foundation of His Church are seen as exemplary and normative for the Church. The Church s practice of conferring priesthood only to men is considered to conform to God s plan for his Church as revealed in Scripture. The priesthood is not just any function or position but considered a sacrament established by Christ; the CDF states that the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign. Response: The principal questions that need to be asked is: Did Jesus, when he selected only males as the Twelve, really set a norm and mean to set a norm, and if so, was it a norm for the priesthood as we know it today, and was it a norm to be forever observed? Scripture merely establishes the discernible fact that Jesus selected only males as the Twelve, but provides no explanation or even indication of His intent behind selecting only males, or of His instruction or desire that the practice be continued, let alone forever. Did Jesus consider it not done to include women among the Twelve, did He actively and willfully not include women, to the point that it could justifiably be said that He decidedly excluded them, and was satisfied to do so? The Bible provides absolutely no indication that this was the case, yet this is exactly what Rome claims. It s like observing the fact that, for example, St. Vincent and the Grenadines have never had a female prime minister, and concluding: Well, obviously then, Vincentians have willfully excluded women from the office of prime minister and do not want a female prime minister, and therefore St Vincent and the Grenadines should never ever have e female prime minister. This clearly is a non sequitur but it is the type of logic that Rome has used, claiming that Scripture reveals that Christ specifically intended for women to be excluded from the Twelve and, moreover, for this exclusionary practice to be strictly applied in the future to priests as well. It is a case of poor exegesis and faulty logic. 7

8 As mentioned, studies by both the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1971 and the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1976 have concluded that there is no biblical basis to exclude women from priestly ordination. Rome has not answered these studies; it appears that she merely ignored the USCCB study, while she effectively silenced the Pontifical Biblical Commission by not publishing its final report and instead issuing the CDF s Inter Insigniores. Priestly ordination of women or men is not a matter that can be settled by the Bible, because the priesthood did not exist during biblical times; it was a later historical development. Certainly, Jesus did not establish the hierarchical order of bishops, priests and deacons; it arose much later in the history of the Church. What Rome has done is interpret the biblical facts from the perspective of her current ordination practices in order to suit her desire to continue those practices and to biblically legitimate them. And not responding to the biblical studies of the USCCB and Pontifical Biblical Commission in her own documents on women s ordination has not added to Rome s credibility. 2. The Marian argument Argument: The fact that even the Blessed Virgin Mary, though she surpassed all the Apostles in excellence and closeness to God, was not invested with the apostolic ministry, is considered an example of Christ s will in this domain. Exclusion of women from priestly ministry is not an instance of inequality, says Rome. Women and men are equal but different : equal in humanity and dignity, but different in vocation and role. Differences in Church roles should not be assessed from the secular perspective of human rights, but should be understood as part of the mystery of the sacraments the sacred signs which God chooses to become present in the midst of humanity. Response: The fact that even the Blessed Virgin Mary was not selected by Jesus as one of the Twelve has no relevance whatsoever for the possibility or impossibility of women s ordination to the priesthood. All the example of Mary proves is that one particular woman has served God in a role more elevated than everyone else. Perhaps, by extension, Mary s example could be used to argue that women can serve God in a variety of roles and can be exalted in roles other than the priesthood. However, the single example of Mary does in no way prove that women as a group should be excluded a priori from serving the Lord through the priesthood. This too is a non sequitur. We do not know if Mary felt a calling and had a desire to become one an apostle. There is no evidence that Mary was subsequently willfully rejected, actively excluded, or expressly withheld from joining the Twelve. She just was not selected for this group and this fact really is not very remarkable, as Mary already played another, highly significant role. Rome has used the Marian argument, and specifically the fact that the Church exalts the Blessed Virgin Mary a woman above all other human beings, to prove that she is not sexist and that she is not against women s ordination for discriminatory reasons. This again is a poor argument and a non sequitur. How an institution treats one member of a certain group is no proof of how she treats all members of the group or the group as a whole. The Church s adage that women and men are equal in dignity but different in roles sounds nice but is quite deceptive. One could rightfully speak of equal but different if both men and women were each excluded from certain ecclesiastical roles. But that is not the case in the Roman Catholic Church. What happens is that only women are excluded from certain church roles; men on the contrary are not excluded from any roles: they perform all possible roles of significance in the Church organization. Moreover, the rule that women should be excluded from certain ecclesiastical 8

9 roles was imposed by men; women never had a say in the decision. To apply a maxim like equal but different to this situation inside the Church seems inappropriate, to say the least. 3. The foundational or apostolic argument Argument: It is argued that the apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus toward women and, convinced of their duty and fidelity to the Lord, never conferred ordination on women. As the apostles, specifically the Twelve, are considered the foundation of today s Church, Rome wishes to follow their example faithfully. Response: It is not clear to me why the modern-day ordained priesthood should take as its basis the Twelve, their masculinity, and their custom of electing only males to replace the Twelve. First, as mentioned, the priesthood is really foreign to the Bible. When Jesus performed what is seen as the first Eucharist and said: Do this in commemoration of Me (Mat 26:26-28, Luk 22:19, 1Cor 11:24), there is no indication in the Bible that He was addressing only the Twelve or only men. The Last Supper was a Jewish Paschal meal, which, according to Jewish tradition, meant that women prepared the meal and took part in it. Therefore it is probable that women disciples were present during the Last Supper and it is not unlikely that they too received the Eucharistic commandment. There is no indication to the contrary in the Scriptures. Jesus did not select, let alone ordain, the Twelve as priests. They did not perform priestly tasks during Jesus lifetime here on Earth. Jesus wanted twelve new patriarchs to start the new Kingdom of God; they symbolically replaced the twelve patriarchs of Israel (Mat 19:28). That explains the phenomenon of the Twelve as a core group surrounded by other apostles and disciples. The patriarchal symbolism probably also explains the choice of men, although we do not know for sure. One can therefore ask whether it makes sense, from the perspective of a much later conception of this ministry, to base the priesthood on the Twelve. It looks more like an anachronism projected backward onto the Gospels in the light of a later development and tradition. It is impossible to prove from the Bible that by choosing only men for the Twelve, Jesus expressed his intent and will that those who would later be called priests should always and forever be men. Second, there is no indication in the Bible that when the Twelve chose men as their replacements, they did so out of fidelity to Christ. There is, on the other hand, ample indication in the Scriptures that the male apostles, including the Twelve, were male chauvinists. The Apostles were not faithful at all to Christ s positive, equitable attitude toward women. For example, when Mary Magdalene told Simon Peter and the beloved disciple that Jesus tomb was empty, they would not believe her and went to the tomb to verify her testimony (Jn 20:1-10). There are several biblical stories in which Jesus demonstrably ignores the attempts of His (male) disciples to keep women away from Him and allows the women to approach Him: In the story of the Canaanite woman asking for her daughter to be healed (Mat 15:22-28), the disciples beg Jesus to send her away, but Jesus answers the woman and heals her daughter. In the story of the hemorrhaged woman who touches Jesus cloak (Mk 5:25-34), the disciples initially try to divert Jesus s attention away from the woman, but He ignores them, allows the woman to approach Him, and heals her. Jesus is in the company of his disciples when he receives and accepts the invitation of the two sisters called Martha and Mary to enter their home (Luk 10:38-41). When the woman in Bethany anoints Jesus head with an expensive perfume (Mat 26:6-13) and the disciples become angry, we see that Jesus even rebukes them, saying: Why are you bothering this woman? It is a fine and beautiful thing that she has done for Me. 9

10 Considering this negative attitude toward women, it is not unlikely that the apostles choice to exclude women from their group was based on prejudice against women. In the decisive moments of Christ s messianic mission, women were at the forefront: at the foot of the Cross (Jn 19:25) and in the tomb. Scripture says that there were many faithful women (Mat 27:55); in contrast, as far as the Twelve are concerned, it is known only of John that he remained faithful. By excluding women from the priesthood, the Church is following the (poor) example of the Apostles of trying to keep women away from the Lord and willfully ignores the biblical examples of physical proximity and spiritual intimacy between women and Christ. Rather than follow the Apostles and keep women away from the altar (i.e. from the ordained ministries that serve at the altar), the Church should follow Jesus Christ. Third and finally, one wonders why Rome focuses specifically on the masculinity of the Twelve as a permanent norm for the modern-day priesthood. Why does Rome not focus on other characteristics of the Twelve? For example, Jesus appointed only Jews among the Twelve, no Gentiles. Why does Rome not insist that non-jews be excluded from the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church? Jesus at one point told the Twelve to wear no sandals and have no money in their belts, yet we see that many of today s Roman Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals as well as the Pope live quite comfortably. If all the other elements of the original appointment of the Twelve are apparently considered to be transitory, why does masculinity constitute a norm? Again, there is no indication whatsoever in the Bible that masculinity was a selection criterion used by Jesus, let alone as a permanent norm. 4. The argument of a constant Church tradition Argument: By calling only men to the priestly order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to [the model left her by the Lord, i.e.] the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles. According to Rome, this faithfully safeguarded tradition [...] has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance in the life of the Church. Response: What Rome claims as a constant tradition of ordaining only male priests is really not so constant or, at least, the tradition does not go all the way back to the first century CE. Recent scholarly research on the early Church 20 has shown that: there were women apostles, such as Junia whom St. Paul mentions in Rom 16:7 as prominent among the apostles ; women held clerical offices such as diakonoi (meaning at first: assistants to the episkopi or overseers, and later: deacons as presently understood), as widows (a clerical function along with bishops, presbyters and deacons), and as presbyters (meaning at first: elders or councilors, and later: priests as presently understood); women were formally and ritually ordained into these positions at least until the 13 th century; through these positions, ordained women played many roles now reserved to deacons, priests and bishops, including in some cases the celebration of the Eucharist. For examples, scholars agree that a stone carving found near Poitiers, France, dated between the fourth and sixth centuries CE, refers to Martia the presbytera (priest) who celebrated the Eucharist along with two men, Olybrius and Nepos. Personally, I do not think that this research is very effective in countering Rome s argument of a constant tradition of ordaining only men to the priesthood. Rome can always claim that these ordinations are to be considered heretical and that they either were condemned at the time or 10

11 should today be condemned retroactively. There is also the problem that the definition of ordainment changed significantly in the 12 th century from a wide to a narrower definition. So while research shows that the Church cannot claim a perfectly constant tradition going back to the first century CE, at least there is a constant tradition since the 13 th century when the present definition of ordainment was introduced, and women were concomitantly excluded from the ministries that serve at the altar, i.e. those of subdeacon, deacon, and priest. What the mentioned research does show is that the Church not only has belittled and condemned ordinations of women but also has tried cover them up and deny them. It also shows that when women became more effectively excluded from the Church hierarchy based on the narrower ordainment definition introduced in the 13 th century, this was based on sexist arguments, i.e. the belief that women are physically, mentally and spiritually inferior to men. I think that there is a much simpler and effective way to counter Rome s argument that its constant tradition moves it to continue ordaining only male priests today. Any tradition can be changed, and should be changed if its reasons for existence become suspect with the passage of time. The Church herself has in fact broken many traditions. For example, for many centuries the Church: condemned the practice of lending money in return for interest, considering such interest usury; defended the legitimacy of slavery; banned menstruating women from participating in the sacraments and from approaching the altar; held that there could be no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. In all of these cases, the Church s underlying teaching was supported by reference to Scripture, was firmly held and enforced, and was maintained for considerable time. Yet at some point, because of new insights, moral sensibilities and reasoned challenges to these doctrines, the Church eventually realized that she had upheld erroneous interpretations of the biblical texts and abandoned the traditions. The mere existence/longevity of a tradition can never be a sufficient argument for maintaining that tradition forever and ever. It is a poor argument to even mention. In fact I believe that Rome does herself a disfavor by mentioning it, considering that (1) the Church herself has broken many traditions and (2) research shows that the Church s constant tradition of ordaining only men to the priesthood is tainted by the sin of sexism which nowadays is rejected by the Church (Vatican II). To mention the constant tradition in post-vatican II documents like Inter Insigniores (1976), Mulieris Dignitatem (1988) and the Letter to women (1995) does not really help Rome s case The iconic argument Argument: Rome posits that the priest, in the exercise of his ministry, and especially during the Eucharist, acts in persona Christi; he takes the role of Christ to the point of being His very image; he is an icon of Christ. Rome furthermore argues that this key ability to represent Christ in the exercise of his ministry must be perceptible, i.e. easily recognizable to the faithful: there must therefore be a natural resemblance between the priest and Christ. Hence the priest, as icon of Christ, must be male, for Christ himself was and remains a man. In this argument Rome draws extensively on the biblical metaphor (in particular in Eph 5:25-32 but also Is 54:4-6, Mk 2:19-20 and 2Cor 11:2) that sees Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church and the Church as the Bride of Christ, which symbolism, according to Rome, confirms Christ s masculinity and, consequently, the necessity of a priest s masculinity. While both men and women can be the Bride of Christ through the Church, only men can be the Bridegroom of the Church through Christ. Response: One must realize that any metaphor for God is partial, imperfect and problematic, considering that God is transcendent and a mystery to human beings. To apply such a metaphor (in this case: Bridegroom), meant to explain certain characteristics of God, to human beings (in this 11

12 case: priests) is even more perilous. The Church really overextends the purpose of a metaphor (namely: to help explain or clarify certain concepts) and turns it into a teaching in itself (namely: that Christ, as Bridegroom, is male). This perverts the metaphor and makes it untrue. In Mulieris Dignitatem, the same document in which Pope John Paul II uses the Bridegroom-Bride metaphor for the Christ-Church relationship and emphasizes that the symbol of the Bridegroom is masculine, he also explains that the fatherhood in God is completely divine and free of the masculine bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood and is meant in a ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense, as God is spirit (Jn 4:24) and neither feminine nor masculine. If this is the case for the Father, I do not see why it does not also apply to the Son. If, according to the Catechism (nr. 370), God is pure spirit and neither man nor woman, and if Christ is the Son of God, in full communion with the Father and the Holy Ghost and fully divine, then how can the masculinity of the historical Jesus, God s Incarnation, be any more significant than for example His Jewish ethnicity, His Galilean village roots, and the social class into which He was born? None of these human characteristics of Jesus reveals anything about the nature of God. If God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them (Gen 1:27), then I do not see why women cannot represent Christ as well (or as poorly) as men can. 22 Finally, it should be noted that the Bible contains several other metaphors for the Christ-Church relationship than the Bridegroom-Bride metaphor favored by Rome in its documents on women s ordination. Examples are: the vine and the branches (Jn 15:5); the gate/door and the sheep (Jn 10:7,9); the head and the body of Christ (Rom 12:4-5, 1Cor 12:12-13,27, Eph 1:23, 4:12, 15-16, 5:30, Col 1:18, 24, 2:19). These alternative metaphors are not as anthropomorphic and certainly not as gender-laden as the metaphor preferred by Rome. The ample availability of biblical metaphors for the relationship between Christ and Church raises the question: why does the Church select precisely the one metaphor that is so gender-laden? Why does the Church insist on using a metaphor for Christ and Church that can be misused in the interest of patriarchy? The Holy Ghost defeats prejudice Testimony by Maria Khaleel, Jamaican-born founder and senior pastor of New Life Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church in Pembroke Pines, Florida: About one-third of our congregation is Caribbean. Caribbean men are strong and they dominate their culture. A Caribbean gentleman from Jamaica came to our church. The one who invited him did not tell him there was a female pastor. The moment he saw me on the platform he said he became angry and said, This is not right. That s against God. He decided to stay because he didn t want to offend his friends. He said that, once I started to preach and he saw and felt the presence of God, all of that melted away. Eventually he gave his heart to the Lord, was baptized in the Holy Spirit, and served on our board and in various positions of leadership The 1994 clincher/silencer Argument: In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) and the Responsum ad Dubium (1995) Rome declares that the Church s teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ordained priesthood is set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium and is to be held definitively, always, everywhere, and by all, as it is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith. 12

13 Response: The fact that Rome, having presented a combined total of five arguments against women s ordination in Inter Insigniores (1976) and Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), still deemed it necessary in 1994 to demand obedience by decree and thereby legislate a definitive end to the discussion is regrettable. It appears to me that Rome s choice to ultimately resort to its authority to declare an instance of infallible teaching is an indirect admission of the weakness of Rome s first five arguments. It is certainly not a sign of strength. In addition, it creates an anti-intellectual theological climate within the Church. I would therefore tend to agree with Gaillardetz who contends that appeals to the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium are ill-suited for resolving controversial matters related to the Christian faith. 25 He points to Canon Law 749, paragraph 3, which states that no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such. According to Gaillardetz, this rule puts the burden on the magisterium to not simply assert and declare such teachings, but to also substantiate and clearly establish them. If magisterial infallibility on the part of human beings is to have any meaning in an admittedly fallen world, it should be accompanied by humility, hence by efforts to debate and persuade rather than dictate. 5. Conclusion: stalled aggiornamento The task of Vatican II was no less than to spell out what kind of church the Roman Catholic Church should be as she adjusted to the contemporary world and moved into the future. What does it mean to be church? The Latin and Greek words for church, ecclesia and ekklesia, mean congregation and assembly; hence a church is essentially a community or gathering of people. Indeed, a church should be a dynamic community, thrust forward on its shared mission by the Holy Ghost. A church should be a living, breathing organism, indeed the Body of Christ, that not only heralds God s Kingdom but also seeks to embody the Kingdom by making every effort to renovate herself. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church has become today more an institution than a community. Worse, she is an institution that runs the risk of becoming a monument, if she remains fixated on maintaining her constant tradition and turns her back on the aggiornamento promised by Vatican II. Vatican II certainly brought change. Doors were opened for women, especially theologians and lay women, and women now have a wide variety of roles in the Church. However, some doors that were opened were subsequently closed again by the post-vatican II popes who favored a more traditional church. This definitely was the case as far as women s ordination was concerned, as this paper has tried to show. Rome has enforced the status quo on this matter by using arguments based on faulty logic and poor exegesis, by willfully ignoring biblical studies that draw different conclusions, by employing her argument of last resort, i.e. infallibility, and by increasing punitive measures. In the process, the Church has lost much credibility and authority. As formulated by Pope Paul VI, Vatican II was meant to start a dialogue between the Church and the contemporary world. Dialogue means that Rome does not do all the talking and also listens, including to dissenting voices. Dialogue means that one engages people rather than closes the door on them; one communicates rather than ex-communicates. For there to be true aggiornamento, Rome must learn to live constructively with those who, out of love for God and God s people and committed and loyal to God s Church, criticize her respectfully and responsibly from within, to help build an ecclesia that is not authoritarian but authoritative, that is strong but also fair, and that is inclusive and makes full use of all its diverse resources, male and female. 13

14 On his recent visit to Curaçao on the occasion of Pentecost 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio to the Caribbean sub-region served by the Antilles Episcopal Council, His Excellency Archbishop Nicola Girasoli, said that it is time for changes in the Church and that the faithful play an important role in this regard: they must not stand on the sidelines but rather extend a helping hand to the Church. It is in the spirit of this invitation that I have prepared this paper. It is an act of conscience 26 that extends a hand to help the Church confront her principal challenges in this postmodern age: her loss of credibility and authority. It has done so by criticizing the Church s position on the question of women s priestly ordination in an attempt to show the need for continued dialogue on these and other issues. There is a need, moreover, to resume and reinvigorate the aggiornamento that the Church initiated at Vatican II to build a Church able to lead the community of faithful toward the Kingdom of God, where there will be neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). 14