Priesthood ordination debates in the Catholic Church

J.W (1996) Reported that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, continued to ban priestesses as they have for almost 2,000 years, the fate of many evangelical congregations continue to shift back and forth. "Scripture does not support the ordination of women, God created men and women [morally] equal but with different roles" (W, 1996).

The practical argument for opening the priesthood to women and to married men is that there are not enough priests. These steps would provide the church with a wider pool of candidates. However, Woodward (2002) stated that he thought that a married clergy, while possibly solving one problem, would create others in its place. Pastoring a congregation is stress-ridden work. The pay is low and the hours rough on spouses and children. There is no reason to believe that many married men -- or their wives -- would be attracted to the priestly ministry. Moreover, Catholics typically give less on Sunday to the church than Protestants. Are they willing to treble their donations to provide a living wage for families? In addition, how would the church handle divorced and remarried priests and bishops?

Woodward (2002) believed that ordaining women presented an even greater problems in the Catholic Church than having married priests. He asked the question of whether or not married women with children would be included. If not, once the novelty of female priests wore off, would many single women choose the low-status job of parish priest in lieu of high-status careers? Alternatively, would they all aim for the job of bishop? Woodward's main concern was that ordaining women would fatally feminize a religion that already appeals far more to women than to men. On any given Sunday, in Protestant as well as Catholic churches, there are always more women than men. More women than men study for the ministry in the major divinity schools. Most Christians do not get their formation in the faith from men but from women: Mom, the Sunday-school teacher, or the nun who prepares kids for their first communion. As he saw it, the last bastion of male presence in the church is the altar and the pulpit. In all of these issues, the question is what arrangement would best serve the mission of the church.

(Williams, 1996) documented that in document of Oct. 28, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave an affirmative answer to the question, "whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women belongs to the deposit of faith." In explaining its affirmative response, the congregation asserted that this teaching was infallibly set forth by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church as a teaching "founded on the written Word of God" and "from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church."

One of the tasks of the theologian in the effort to understand the congregation's statement is to explore the "tradition of the church" to which the congregation refers. What did Aquinas teach about the ordination of women, and where do we find that teaching? It is well-known that he never finished the Summa Theologiae. When he stopped writing, he had not completed the section on the sacraments. For this reason the material on holy orders is found, not in the Summa itself, but in its Supplement, written by followers of Aquinas, who borrowed from his earlier writings. We can be confident that these followers knew the master's thought and therefore were able to write what Aquinas himself would have written, had he been able to complete the work. Hence, to simplify matters, reference is made to Aquinas as the author of the Supplement, even though it did not come directly from his pen (Williams, 1996).

Question 39 of the Supplement discusses impediments that might debar a person from being ordained. It consists of six articles, expressed as follows; 1) whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving orders; 2) whether boys and those who lack the use of reason can receive orders; 3) whether the state of slavery is an impediment to receiving orders; 4) whether a man should be debarred from orders on account of homicide; 5) whether those of illegitimate birth should be debarred from receiving orders; 6) whether lack of [bodily] members should be an impediment.

In all of these envisioned situations except one, the Supplement argues that if a person who fit one or other of these categories were ordained, the ordination would be valid but not licit. In other words, it should not be done; but if it is, the ordination would "take." The person would be a priest.

The one exception is the case of a person of the female sex. If a woman were ordained, the Supplement teaches clearly, her ordination would be invalid as well as illicit. The author argues that the male sex is required for both the lawfulness and the validity of the sacrament of orders. To clarify this point the Supplement draws an interesting parallel. "A healthy man," it asserts, "cannot receive extreme unction. For to receive extreme unction requires a sick person, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly," the text continues, "since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of orders" [italics added]. The heart of this argument, has been the church's constant tradition, is the belief that women are in a "state of subjection" (Williams, 1996).

Statements expressing the subjection of women to men abound in the Summa Theologica. To take but one example: Commenting on the Genesis text that says woman was made to be a help to man, Aquinas makes clear that "she was not fitted to help man except in generation, because another man would have proved a more effective help in anything else"(Williams, 1996).

Reflecting on this presentation of St. Thomas as representative of tradition, one begins to realize that the fundamental argument of the tradition is ontological. That is, it is based on the nature of women. Bishop Austin Vaughan, auxiliary bishop of New York, when he said at the U.S. bishops' meeting in November 1992 that a woman could no more be a priest than he could give birth to a child, was closer to the tradition than are many of the arguments given today for the non-ordain-ability of women. By his very nature, a man cannot bear a child. Therefore, the bishop was saying that by her very nature a woman cannot be a priest. While one might find it difficult to warm to the argument he fashions, his analogy does indeed represent quite clearly the tradition that has been handed down to us.

Please note carefully: In the tradition, as represented by St. Thomas, what is at stake is not the maleness of Jesus (as is true of so many contemporary arguments), but maleness itself. Maleness itself, rather than the ability to represent the maleness of Jesus, is what the tradition presents as essential for ordination. That is why a male slave could be validly ordained, because, while it is true that he is in a state of subjection, it is a subjection that comes not from nature itself, but from circumstances. A woman, however, cannot be ordained because she is in a state of subjection by her very nature. Circumstances can change; nature cannot.

The magisterial documents asserting that the church has no authority to confer ordination on women nowhere state that this teaching is based on the fact that women are by nature in a state of subjection. Quite the contrary. These documents are clearly most anxious to proclaim the equal dignity and worth of women and men. This seems to be curiously at odds with the tradition in the teachings of St. Thomas, as outlined above (Williams, 1996).

In fact, it appears that in the documents there is a movement from saying that there is something about the nature of women that bars them from ordination to the affirmation that there is something about the nature of orders that prevents the ordination of women. The reasoning may be expressed in this way. The ordained person represents Christ. However, Christ was male. Therefore, the only eligible candidates for orders are those who are male. Moreover, the ordained priest represents Christ, who is spouse, in union with his bride the church. The bridal symbolism requires that the priest be a male, for a woman cannot represent one who is husband.

This way of arriving at the belief that women cannot be ordained centers around the very nature of orders and the symbolism the sacrament of orders involves. Put in simplest terms, ordination demands that the one ordained represent the maleness of Jesus. However, a woman cannot do this. Hence, there is something about the nature of orders that prevents even the possibility of a woman being ordained.

There is also the argument from silence, from non-esse to non-posse. This historical argument rests on the premise that Jesus, despite the fact that his attitude toward women differed radically from that of his contemporaries, did not choose women, not even his mother, to be apostles. He did not choose women to be priests.

It was not (Williams, 1996) intention to attempt to evaluate the strength or weakness of the argument from the nature of orders or from the example of Christ. After all, they have the weight of the papal magisterium behind them. She simply intend to point out that, however strong the validity of these arguments may or may not be, the one thing that seems clear about them is that they are new arguments.

For it has only been in the present century that the question of women's ordination has been seriously raised. The church of past ages would not even have given serious thought to posing the question. Committed as they were to the position that women were by nature in a state of subjection, it would hardly have occurred to them even to ask: Can a woman be ordained to the priesthood?

(Ingebretsen, 1999), stated that there are parallels between men's and women's roles cease and the complications, particularly and painfully gendered increase. In popular speech, and sometimes in liturgical celebration, nuns are the 'bride' of Christ. Since the church, too, is the spouse of Christ, confusion abound. Further, since Christ, as a model of the clergy, is pointedly unmarried and surely asexual, to enfold him within rhetoric of marriage undercuts the very asexuality church ideology wishes him to represent. Asexuality is to point with nuns also, since they are 'sisters' persons around whom any hint of sexuality invokes the taboo of incest. In this instance, the nun's sexuality is ideologically linked to the time-honored method of managing the feminine.

At the end of the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens raised the issue that the elimination of psychological fears and historical barriers was necessary to acknowledge the fitness of women in all ministries (American [A], 1986).

(Roberts, 2004) reported that in the middle of the summer, on the last day of July2004, the Vatican released a letter to the world's Roman Catholic bishops " on the collaboration of men and women in the church and the world."

Zagano,( 2003) stated that the International Theological Commission approved a study on the deaconate during its meeting in Rome from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4, 2002. After news services correctly reported that women deacons were not ruled out, the commission's general secretary, Georges Cottier, O.P., insisted that the document "tends to support the exclusion" of women from the deaconate. In fact, the 70-page French document leaked to the media neither allows for nor disallows women deacons. As a working paper, which may go before the planarian of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the document is a short and selective exploration of the history and theology of the deaconate.

The question of women deacons has been before the commission for at least 20 years she reported. The original study on women deacons, requested by Pope Paul VI, was suppressed. While that document remains unpublished, an article published in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 1974 by then-commission member Cipriano Vagaggini concluded that the ordination of women deacons in the early church was sacramental. What the church had done in the past, he suggested, the church may do again. Other scholars, before and after Vagaggini, have reached similar conclusions, but the current document only refers to the debate and strenuously avoids concluding that women ever received the sacrament of holy orders (Zagano, 2003).

What is unfortunately clear is that the new document is both carefully nuanced and fundamentally flawed by a need to prove its unstated point: that women never were ordained and never can be ordained. The study omits a large body of historical-theological evidence that women were sacramentally ordained. It also tries to argue that the diaconate's participation in the sacrament of holy orders eliminates women, latching on to language that implies that the deacon, like the priest, is so configured to Christ that women are eliminated.

One commission member explained privately that the salient points in the ongoing conversation over the years, as the document grew from 18 to 70 pages, were: 1) What did women deacons do? 2) Were women deacons ever sacramentally ordained? 3) Does the ordained diaconate share in the sacrament of order? 4) Does the ordained diaconate share in the sacrament of order in such a way that it is part of the sacerdotal priesthood? This last point caused deep debate within the commission (Zagano, 2003).

While the work of women deacons-always rooted in the word, the liturgy and charity-differed regionally, the fact of women deacons is undeniable. The commission recognizes that St. Paul called Phoebe a deacon (not a deaconess) of the church at Cenechrae. However, the commission ignores or relegates to footnotes significant epigraphical and literary evidence. There is a scattershot approach in the document to what is known about ordained women, and a general attitude that all persons called "deacon" are male, even though women deacons of the early church were called by their job title.

The commission states at the outset, citing Cardinal Walter Kasper, that it is impossible to take a few historical facts and make an argument, yet that is clearly what it attempts even as it recognizes deaconesses as one of "the two branches of the diaconate." Over 40 years ago Cardinal Jean Danielou, a French Jesuit, noted four ministerial areas of women deacons: 1) evangelization, catechesis and spiritual direction, 2) liturgical roles equivalent to porter, acolyte, lector and deacon, 3) care of the sick, including anointing and 4) liturgical prayer. Danielou actually argued that women sacramentally anointed the sick, citing Epiphanius: "the woman deacon is delegated by the priest to perform his ministry for him." This raises a deeper question and underlies the quandary imbedded in the document: can women be given the power of holy orders (Zagano, 2003)?

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: "O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery." Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

The commission recognizes only a no sacramental "ordination" through the laying on of hands for "deaconesses," by implication a minor order. In discussing this point, the commission does not mention the scholarship of its former member, Cipriano Vagaggini, except in a footnote referring to the famous debate about women deacons of the 1970's and early 1980's that included Vagaggini, Roger Gryson, and Aime Georges Martimort. Gryson carried out a definitive exploration of texts and concluded that women were sacramentally ordained. Martimort argued against that interpretation. It is telling how carefully the Commission follows Martimort, as well as writings that are more recent by a subcommittee member, Gerhard Muller.

Zagano (2003) reported Echoing the Council of Trent, the commission finds that the majority theological opinion since the 12th century supports the sacramentality of the diaconate and says this finding must be considered in propositions regarding women deacons. The not-so-hidden agenda of the document-to prove that the diaconate shares in the sacrament of order in such a way as to exclude women-is not magisterial teaching. As the document repeats several times, the deacon is ordained not to the priesthood but to the ministry ("non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium").

The study notes that the documents of the Second Vatican Council presuppose the sacramentality of both modes of the diaconate (permanent and transitional). It then devotes considerable space to distinguishing between how the priest acts in persona Christi capitis ("in the person of Christ, head [of the church]") and a new term this document uses to describe how the deacon acts, in persona Christi servi ("in the person of Christ servant"). If in persona Christi capitis cannot be applied to a woman, then in persona Christi with any extension cannot be applied to a woman, argues the document.

The commission's somewhat tortured logic in this respect-splitting and then rejoining the concept of Christ-head and Christ-servant-does not contribute to an understanding of the diaconate as a separate and permanent vocation and part of the sacrament of order. Neither does the new term in persona Christi servi reflect traditional magisterial teaching, which presents the deacon as the representative of the church (Zagano, 2003).

The unstated fear evident in the document is the specter of women priests: If you can ordain a woman a deacon, you can ordain a woman a priest. The commission argues that if the diaconate is part of the sacerdotal priesthood, women are excluded from the diaconate. However, such an argument could backfire. There is overwhelming historical evidence that women were ordained deacons by bishops intending to perform a sacrament. If women were sacramentally ordained deacons and the diaconate shares in the sacerdotal priesthood (as the commission argues), then women have already shared in the sacerdotal priesthood.

As for the diaconate, the universally accepted theology of the diaconate shows the deacon acting in the name of Christ in his church, as opposed to in the person of Christ, head of the church. The document, however, does all it can to conjoin the three grades of order. The clear attempt to define the sacrament of order narrowly, at any level, as part of the (male) priesthood of Christ to which women need not apply, makes church teachings about the equality of all persons less credible. Aside from the insinuation that women cannot represent Christ, even as servant (cannot act in persona Christi servi) the commission ignores the essential weaknesses of in persona Christi theology. In fact, the humanity of Christ overcomes the limitations of gender, and no church document argues an ontological distinction among humans except documents that address the question of ordination. This view is not likely to dampen growing worldwide enthusiasm for women deacons (Zagano, 2003).

The genuine question, "Why not?" has remained constant since Vatican II. In 1985 the late Basil Cardinal Hume, archbishop of Westminster and president of the Episcopal conferences of Europe, told an Italian journal he would be very happy if the church decided to ordain women deacons. Women already exercise the diaconate, he said, and the diaconate is not part of the sacerdotal priesthood.

Hunt (1997) stated though Vatican authorities had declared as a matter of "infallible" teaching the prohibition against ordination of Roman Catholic women, it was considered judgment that such ordination was imminent, for better or for worse. Hunt went further to state that she believed that the Vatican would sway on the question of the ordination of women. Hunt believes that there are three interlocking dimensions to the situation. First, mounting evidence that the Roman Catholic church would have to ordain women in the next century in order to maintain its sacramental character; secondly, the feminist case for doing so as a matter of justice and pastoral integrity; and thirdly, the feminist case for insisting on substantive structural changes in kyriarchy as part of the process (Hunt, 1997).

(Malcolm, 1997) reported that the Vatican presented its most comprehensive case to date in Jan 24 on why it believes that Roman Catholic Church will never ordain women.