Published by As this article is written, the intent is not really to theologize but to express support to women empowerment. Women are observably more active in the Catholic Church than men. This is sociologically verifiable. Almost everywhere, for example, more women are attending Church services or liturgies than men; in the same manner, more women are engaged in Church works than men. But, women are denied that they cannot be ordained. More than the rite, we mean by ordination here the position of leadership that the one who is ordained is able to hold. If one considers that the Church is indeed local, then the very manifestation of Church is the parish. And the parish is led by an ordained minister. On this account, there is no denying that women are disqualified from ordained leadership position in the Church. For this, what constitute the reason for Church’s limitation of ordination to men?
Actually, the Catholic Church’s supreme leader already considers this issue closed. Codex Iuris Canonici cano. 1024 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1577 are very clear on this: only a baptized man (in Latin, it’s vir; loosely translated, him who is “penised” or in possession of penis) validly receives ordination. And accordingly this line of thought is a matter of divine law. In the 1976 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document — Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood — one reads: the (Catholic) Church does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. John Paul II reiterated this position in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (31).
And for this restriction as to who may validly receive the grace of ordination, the Church banks on the support of the Bible.
First, Rome (referring to the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith and the Holy Father) holds that Jesus Christ did not call any woman to be part of the Twelve. We knew, of course, that Jesus Christ was open to women — thus, he was “romantically linked” for example to Mary Magdalene. And this testifies that Jesus did not yield to social opinion of his time.
Second, when or because Jesus did not include women as part of his “inner group”, he actually established permanent norm (to guide the Church in her consideration of, say, inquiries pertinent to this issue).
Third, Rome reasons that even Mary who surpassed in dignity and excellency the apostles — her role as recounted by the Gospels was simply incomparable — was not bestowed with the apostolic ministry.
Fourthly — and this time, Rome turns to Paul’s Letters — while Rome admits the lack of normative value of 1Corinthians 11:2-16, the negative influence that the faulty exegesis on the said pericope has had on Church Fathers and scholastic theologians are still overlooked.
Finally, Paul has distinguished between male and female co-workers and colleagues in the ministry. For one, Paul dissuaded women from teaching and presiding on communities. And, in addition to the norm set by Jesus Christ (as if it were not enough), Rome holds that Paul’s action established for Catholic Church a norm too.
Reading the preceding compendium of Rome’s “favorite line of argument” out of their reading of the Scriptures, one may raise the question: can this line of reasoning withstand scholarly and even common-sensical scrutiny?
Can it be that Jesus Christ was simply cognizant of the social predominance of men in his time? Of course, while God is always revolutionary, he is also known as respectful of human pacing.
Is it logically valid to argue from something which Jesus did not do to establish a permanent norm? Because if it is, when definitely Jesus did not also will to establish the Church. He was clear and forthright that he came for the lost sheep of Israel.
What disposes men to receive holy ordination is the dignity that is effected by the sacrament of baptism. If men AND women are made to be endowed with this dignity, why can’t women receive the same sacrament that men are receiving?
Paul was very clear in teaching us about the equality of men and women (see Galatians 3:27-28). Can this be not enough to dispose women to share in priestly ministry?
After all is said and argued, we face the reality that the final word is to proceed from Rome…
A hopeless case?
Nope. For one finds that the fire of hope that in the future the Church reconsiders its position is sustained by these findings — opposing these may be — by the Biblical Commission, or the advisory body to advise Rome on matters of scriptural relevance. These findings are: that the New Testament does not settle in a clear way… (1) whether women can be ordained as priests, (2) that scriptural grounds alone cannot are not enough to exclude the possibility of women ordination, and (3) [that] Christ’s plan would not be transgressed if the Church ordains women minister (see Simone Pierre. The Struggle to Serve. Jefferson: MacFarland and Company, Inc., 1994).
Will it happen soon in the Catholic Church? It does not matter. What matters is the Church could possibly have women priests.
Pope Paul VI, on November 30, 1975, in a letter to
Archbishop Coggan of Canterbury said: “Your Grace is of course well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on this question. She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing His Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the
exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for His Church.” As the Doctrinal Congregation said, over the centuries there was no attack – the disobedience of a few Bishops, reproved by the Pope, does not constitute an attack by way of teaching, only by way of disobedience. Besides, as we indicated above, Pius XII, in “Humani generis” (DS 3885),
said that if a Pope deliberately publishes in his Acta a decision on something currently debated, it is removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ: “He who hears you, hears me.” A promise of Christ cannot fail. Let us site a concrete example in a parish. We cannot distuingsih a true macho man between a parish priest and a parochial vicar (celibacy). How much more if the parish priest is a woman and his assistant a man.Theres a big chance to have sexual intecourse.What do we call to a convent a sexual den. For me, it will never be.
It will be, Empty Shells. The Catholic Church is simply guarding the status quo. That is why it is making appeal to its dogmatic assertions. In this age of philosophical and scholarly sophisticaton, dogma is being looked upon as the fortress of those who simply cannot put with the fast changing world. By nature, it’s hardline — signaling a halt to any further discussion because it’s insecure to stay put on its basis.
I understand, Empty Sheels, that you are fearful of the future. The Germans have a word for that — it’s angst. It’s a feeling of dis-ease because by nature the future is uncertain. We cannot know what lies ahead. And, in anticipation of what is to come, we usually use our born out of our experience of the present. Thus, all the more we become fearful. For the future cannot be supplied by the present…
Well having said that, moron savant..it might be possible or then to be followed to have ordained girl bishops/archbishops, women cardinals, madam apostolic nuncio and a lady pontiff…whew..in the future..
Yup… The tragic thing about this, Empty Shells, is we are not going to be alive to see these future developments. We appease ourselves with the thoughts that it’s going to be the future generation to break their brains in making sense out of these forthcoming progress.