Women in the Priesthood Melinda Selmys Originally published in Issue IX of Vulgata, December 2002.

One of the most controversial issues in the modern Church is that of women’s ordination. Unfortunately, many faithful Catholics have little idea of the reasons against it – some hold to the Church’s teaching simply out of obedience to the Magisterium, while others wonder if the failure to ordain women might really be grave failing on the part of the Church. Much of the problem stems from the fact that the feminist argument seems so reasonable.  If we look at the churches that do ordain women we find that ministerial positions are usually held by faithful women who are really trying to serve God, and who sometimes offer beautiful sermons, motherly concern for their parishes, and a fresh set of feminine insights into the Christian life. Why then, given that women seem perfectly capable of carrying out the necessary responsibilities, and that the Church’s position on this issue is tremendously unpopular, should we continue to bar women from the priesthood?

We need to begin by being aware of some of the fundamental facts about the priesthood. Feminists tend to behave as if we are withholding from them something which is (or should be) theirs by right. If this is the case, there needs to be very good reason for barring them from ordination. However, to see Priesthood as something that any human being, male or female, is entitled to by right is to mistake the nature of the office. Priesthood is a vocation, a gift which God grants to those whom He chooses – not to those who choose it. Hence, no one has a right to demand ordination, or to expect that he, or she, will have the option of becoming a Priest. Priesthood is not a necessary condition of human dignity, or of holiness; in fact, it is only conducive to holiness amongst those whom have a vocation.

Most of those who believe that it should be a right do so on the basis that it is sexist to withhold from women an office which is available to men. It is usually assumed that sexism is a grave sin, and that therefore God is not sexist, which implies that the responsibility for this unjust discrimination lies with the Church.

To examine this charge, we must define sexism. We must obviously do this in a way that differentiates between sexism and justified gender discrimination. The simplest, most reasonable definition is to say that sexism occurs when a person is, on the basis of gender, prevented from doing something which they are perfectly able and qualified to do.  It is perfectly legitimate to call only women mothers since there are considerable physical limitations preventing men from undertaking the work – and it also means that we don’t have to start lobbying bra manufacturers to use an equal balance of male and female models in their advertising. But does it save the Church from the charge of sexism when she restricts women from entering the priesthood?

There is no denying that women are capable, and sometimes even exceptional, organizers, preachers, teachers, counselors, and so forth – and if that were the sum of all the duties of a Priest, the argument would end here and the Church would stand convicted. What we have missed, though, is the essential, defining action of the Priesthood: the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. What we must consider, then, is not whether a women is able to excel at any of the peripheral duties of a Priest (obviously teaching, counseling and so forth are important, but they are certainly not central), but whether she is able to perform this sacrifice.

For our first clue in answering this question, we look to the one who instituted the sacrifice. Is there any evidence of what Jesus thought about the question? In this case, He preached no sermons on the subject, but He did leave us an example: He ordained twelve people, all of them male. We cannot object that perhaps there were no suitable women around – we know that He was followed by a group of women, and that, indeed, in the final analysis the women were more faithful than the men. Jesus, who could read hearts, who knew that Simon Peter would deny Him and Judas would betray Him must equally have known that Mary Magdalene and His mother would stand firm and would be there at the foot of the cross – yet He did not choose to ordain them. The evidence suggests that these women were, in many ways, more qualified, and that they were certainly more deserving, yet Christ did not choose them. Why?

The most popular argument is that He did not ordain women because it would not have been culturally appropriate. People would only accept the gospel if it were spoken by males, and, therefore, it was only prudent to ordain men. Unfortunately, this argument is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, it is impossible to reconcile this position with what we know of the character and behaviour of Jesus Christ. Just as it would have been prudent to ordain men, it would have been prudent to choose men from Jerusalem, men with a talent for oratory, men of position and respect – if Jesus had been ruled by pragmatic considerations, we should expect that the Last Supper be attended by 12 men like Saul of Tarsis. But it was not. Instead, He called 12 peasants: fishermen, tax collectors – men who had no cultural qualifications whatsoever.  Not only that, but He also wandered around Palestine making statements that, far from winning Him a tip of the cultural hat, won Him the infamy of crucifixion. The entire point of early Christian history is that God did not choose those who were culturally appropriate: He chose those who could not possibly have won converts under their own power, and He did it so that it would be clear that the growth of the Church was not due to the cleverness, or popularity, or influence of the Apostles, but rather to the action of the Holy Spirit. This being the case, it is absurd to suggest that the Holy Spirit could not have worked equally effectively through a group of mixed men and women, had God so intended.

Secondly, this argument suggests that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against women in order to pander to cultural prejudices. Since Jesus is God, and God is not capable of sinning, then it follows that (if this argument is true) such discrimination is not wrong. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to restrict women from positions of power and influence on the basis that they are disqualified by cultural factors – i.e. by a cultural bias against women. If this is true, then the feminists have just demolished their own foundations: if co-operation with cultural prejudice is justifiable on pragmatic grounds, then it is perfectly acceptable for a business to refuse to hire women on the grounds that the stock-brokers think men are more capable, political groups are justified in choosing only male leaders if they think it will boost their popularity, the police force should be able to exclude women on the grounds that people are more receptive to male authority, and so forth. Of course, those who are pushing for women’s ordination are unlikely to agree that this is acceptable; and so we are forced to conclude that their argument is self-defeating, since they themselves will not accept its implications.

The second argument that is often put forward in order to evade the clear example of Christ is that, by the same logic used to restrict women from the Priesthood, we should bar Gentiles as well. After all, Jesus did only ordain Jews. This argument also faces a couple of flaws. The first is that the question was dealt with during the apostolic era; while Christ Himself did not ordain Gentiles, the conflict between St. Paul and the Judaeisers caused the Apostles to make specific proclamations showing us that His intent was to allow Gentiles equal participation in all aspects of Christian life, including the Priestly ministry. This is important, because the period of public revelation does not end with the death of Christ, but rather with the death of the Apostles. This means that we can have certainty, based on scripture, that Christ did intend the ordination of Gentiles. We can have no such scriptural basis for claiming that He intended to ordain women. Secondly, Jesus explicitly states that He has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles; however, He commissions His Apostles to go forth and make disciples of all nations. In other words, there is a clear, theological and scriptural basis for believing that Jesus would have ordained only Jews while intending that His followers would ordain Gentiles, but there is not equivalent basis on which we can argue that, while He only ordained men, He intended that His Apostles would ordain women.

The question that remains, then, is why would Jesus have made this choice? The grounds must, we have shown, be theological and not merely cultural, so we must ask what theological barriers exist to the ordination of women. In order to answer this question, we must return to our earlier consideration: can a woman fulfill the duties of a Priest in carrying out the Eucharistic sacrifice? The Church has clearly proclaimed that no, she cannot. She cannot, because, in the context of the Eucharistic celebration, the Priest stands in persona Christi, he represents Christ, both His humanity, which is undeniably male, and His divinity. He also stands, in relation to the congregation, as a symbol of Christ the Bridegroom inviting His bride, the Church, to the wedding feast of the lamb. A woman cannot fulfill either of these symbolic roles. If she attempts to do so, she must undermine the humanity of Christ and the significance of the incarnation. Her femaleness draws our awareness away from the historical reality in which Christ was incarnate as a male, and focuses us, instead, upon His transcendence. This is inappropriate in a celebration, such as the Eucharist, which is centered in the historical realities of the incarnation and the crucifixion. It would also be particularly damaging in an era such as ours when people are all too likely to view the Eucharist in purely symbolic or spiritual terms, ignoring the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharistic sacrifice. Furthermore, the presence of a woman in the role of Priest implies a sort of lesbian wedding, which is symbolically fruitless. In both cases, she is unsuitable to fulfill the symbolic requirements of the sacrament.

It may be objected that God also has feminine qualities which a woman would be able to represent, and which a man cannot. This is true, in a certain sense – the Holy Spirit does brood and labour over the world and over the Church, God does remember us as a mother remembers her children, and so forth; however, these characteristics are not central to the Eucharistic celebration. They are attributes of God which must be made manifest in the world, and which women are able to present in a way that men cannot, but that is not an argument for women in the Priesthood. Quite the opposite, it is an argument in favour of the traditional feminine vocations of motherhood and virginity, which are specifically designed to allow women to carry out their call to spiritual motherhood.

Some might argue that these are merely symbolic obstacles, that we can develop a new Eucharistic symbolism in which women play a central role. Such an argument overlooks the fact that the constitution of the sacraments is essentially symbolic. This is not to imply that sacraments are mere symbols in and of themselves -- they are real events in the order of grace -- but they are real events that are effected symbolically.  We can no more substitute a priestess for a priest than we can substitute beer for wine -- Christ chose His symbolic instruments with care, and when we abandon His choices we arrive at a Eucharistic celebration which, rather than reflecting the paschal feast of Heaven as celebrated by the Universal Church on Earth, merely reflects the personal associations of individual liturgists. A liturgy in which a new symbolism was developed in order to allow the coherent integration of a female celebrant would be just such a liturgy, and would quickly become, as so many feminist liturgies do, nothing more than the community celebrating itself, with God pushed to the far extremities of the celebration.

Another of the common arguments in favour of women’s ordination is that it is a practical necessity. Just as Christ, supposedly, did not ordain women out of deference to practical consideration, the modern Church should ordain them for the same reason. Proponents point specifically to the vocations crisis within the Western church and claim that, if the seminaries were opened to women, they would quickly be filled again. The first problem with this solution is that it is rather like solving Ontario’s medical crisis by throwing open the doors of the medical profession to anyone who thinks they can heal your ailments by manipulating your aura or waving around bits of crystal. It would be nothing more than a superficial solution, allowing it to appear as if there were enough Priests to go around, while actually simply filling the vacuum with people who weren’t actually capable of performing the most important duty of the job. Yet, even if we ignore this rather substantial obstacle, we must ask ourselves whether the vocations crisis would be best solved by such an action. We must begin by remembering that, far from attracting candidates to the priesthood, the liberal agenda consistently repels them. Liberal seminaries have difficulty filling their classrooms, while some orders and seminaries known for their commitment to orthodoxy are forced to turn away potential Priests because they haven’t the resources to train them. Before we start panicking, this would suggest that the simplest solution to the vocations crisis lies in cleaning up the seminaries – a step which the Church has been encouraging with increasing urgency in recent years. Secondly, the vocations crisis is strictly endemic. You cannot help but notice, living in Canada, that many of our Priests are not local – while liberal democracies (and with them liberal Catholic schools and liberal seminaries) are killing vocations, in other countries the Church is thriving, and is producing enough vocations to save the lukewarm Western Church from an otherwise crippling shortage of Priests. Obviously this is not the ideal state of affairs, but it does show that the situation is not so dire that we have to start abandoning tradition and Church teaching.

Furthermore, there are other practical considerations which the proponents of women’s ordination would rather not mention. The first and most important is that it would undermine confidence in the authority of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. We are already living in an age where many are reluctant to believe that, when the Church teaches something like the evil of contraception in an encyclical, we are obliged to obey. The ordinary Magisterium teaches, and has consistently taught, that women are not eligible for the priesthood. If this doctrine were to be changed simply on the basis of social pressures, it would encourage and increase dissent within the Church, and it would seriously, if not irreparably, weaken the Church’s claim to be the defender and keeper of God’s immutable truth. It would also have a tremendously schismatic effect on the Church, dividing her along both ideological and geographical lines, which would only serve to exacerbate the current problem Christian disunity.

Finally, we must take a serious look at what else the advocates of women’s ordination are saying. Realistically, if we take a look at their writings, they are not, for the most part, otherwise orthodox women who disagree with the Church on this one point. In fact, the majority of the most vocal proponents of the movement are sufficiently heretical that one is often forced to wonder why they want to be Catholic Priests at all, since they don’t seem to believe in very many Catholic doctrines. Many of them see women’s ordination as the first battle in a series of campaigns against traditional Catholic belief, morality and structure. They hope to secure the ordination of women in order that, by giving women (and thus feminists) greater power and influence with in the Church, they will be able to change Church teaching on such issues as contraception, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality. They also hope to seriously overhaul Church practice, doing away with the hierarchical structure of the Church in order to liberate the lay Catholic, and changing the liturgy to exclude all references to sin, all traces of subservience towards God, and to bring the community and the individual into the center of worship – essentially so that we will worship ourselves as the body of Christ, rather than worshipping Christ Himself. This is not to say that everyone who believes in women’s ordination is this far from authentic Christian teaching, but it is the declared intention of the leaders of the movement, and almost all of its serious proponents – including the women who are ready to line up at the seminary doors – believe, at least, in serious changes to Catholic sexual morality.

We are left, then, with a number of simple facts. First, that God may ordain whom He pleases, that He did not ordain women during His earthly ministry, and that His Church, which He has promised to preserve from error, has consistently taught that He never intended women to be ordained. Secondly, that women are unable to fulfill the symbolic requirements of the sacramental life of the Church, and that, therefore, God has perfectly solid ground upon which to elect only men to this office. Finally, we can see that the effects of women’s ordination upon the Church would be nothing short of disastrous, that far from saving the Church from her current vocations crisis, it would create numerous far more serious crises, and would, ultimately, destroy the foundations of Church authority. From these facts we can only possibly draw one conclusion: that the Church should not, indeed, cannot permit the ordination of women.