In his encyclical “Ordinatio Sacerdetolis”, Pope John Paul II definitively taught that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. One of the principle reasons given is the example of Christ, who only chose men to be among the twelve Apostles.
The most common retort is something like this:
"Jesus would have liked to ordain female Apostles, but He knew the cultural misogyny of those times would not have tolerated priestesses or female preachers. But now we live in more enlightened and egalitarian times. Thus we can and should ordain women to the ministerial priesthood."
What do we say to that?
A Scandal to the Gentiles:
Pope Benedict XVI remarked upon this same argument in his interview book "The Light of the World". Here was the exchange:
Seewald: "Critics see this as a form of discrimination. The only reason Jesus did not call women to be priestesses, it is said, is that this would have been unthinkable two thousand years ago."
Benedict: "That is nonsense, since the world was full of priestesses at the time. All religions had their priestesses, and the astonishing thing was actually that they were absent from the community of Christ, a fact that in turn is a point of continuity with the faith of Israel."In other words, an exclusively male priesthood may have been normal for the short time Christianity was confined to Israel. But it would have been an enormous source of controversy as soon as it stretched into Gentile lands - where priestesses, prophetesses, and oracles were normal.
This is likely why Saint Paul had to address it in his first letter to Timothy. There he does not explain how Jesus was accommodating sexist attitudes or was helpless the face of misogyny. Rather, Paul appeals to the order of creation found in Genesis:
"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." - 1 Timothy 2:12-14I'll admit this sounds bad to modern ears. But the point is that the Inspired Word does address why women aren't in positions of ordained, ministerial teaching authority. And it does not say Jesus was just acquiescing to Hebraic social norms.
A Counter-Cultural Christ:
The second thing to point out is that when it came to Hebraic social norms... Jesus did not seem to give a fig. The Gospel accounts are filled with ways in which Jesus cut against the grain to of ancient Jewish culture.
For instance:
- Pushing the boundaries of how the Sabbath was observed. [Matthew 12:1-8, John 5:16-18]
- Publicly associating with sinful people. [Matthew 9:10-11]
- Speaking publicly with Gentile women. [John 4:7-9]
- Challenging the dietary laws. [Mark 7:18-19]
- Ignoring the customary, pre-meal washing rules. [Mark 7:5]
- Taking it upon Himself to rewrite Moses' divorce laws. [Mark 10:2-9]
- Losing nearly all His followers when He insisted they drink His blood. [John 6:52-66]
- Claiming to be God incarnate. [John 8:58-59]
"Does that fit in with Jesus' overall pattern of behavior?"No, not really.
Did Jesus Care?
A variation of this argument says Jesus was aware of biases against women and only chose men for Apostleship because of practical reasons.
In first-century Judea the testimony of women was not valued. Some sources say women were not able to provide testimony in court. Thus, it is supposed, Jesus had to exclusively choose men if He wanted the Gospel to get a fair hearing. If He didn’t, His whole saving mission would have been for nothing.
Well… this argument goes wrong in two ways.
First, the conclusion doesn’t match the premise. Yes, the testimony of women was not valued in many ancient societies. This could explain why Jesus would not choose a completely female group of Apostles.
But there is still no reason why Jesus couldn’t have a mixed group. Or even more modestly, Jesus could have ordained one woman Apostle to signal to future (enlightened) generations that female ordination is a possibility.
Second, the premise is based on assumptions of what your average, results-oriented person would decide. However, we're not talking about any pragmatic leader - we’re talking about Jesus Christ.
Let's grant that ancient societies were skeptical of female witnesses. Now we have to ask: “Did Jesus care that women were less likely to be listened to?”
And there was have to answer: No.
For instance, Jesus did not necessarily send out the Samaritan woman. But He certainly knew their conversation would lead to her being a witness in her town. Did He stop and consider whether the testimony of a sexually impure female outcast would be the best way to start off in that village? Apparently not.
A second example would be the women who came to the empty tomb on Easter morning. Christ ordained that the first witnesses of the Resurrection would be from among His female disciples. These women were indeed greeted with incredulity – but this is beside the point. The point is Jesus sent them out as witnesses despite cultural biases.
So the person proposing this theory has an issue. If Jesus only chose male Apostles out of deference to sexist incredulity... why didn't He take that attitude all the time?
A Sovereign Choice:
All of this is to say one thing: Jesus made a sovereign choice in selecting an exclusively male Apostolic college. His hand was not forced by any cultural pressures or taboos. People may discuss what Jesus was trying to tell us by only choosing men. But the argument that Jesus did it to acquiesce to ancient misogyny is simply unworkable.
In Romans, Paul said the teaching of Christ was offensive to both Jewish and Gentile cultures. The cross forced them to re-evaluate their expectations, priorities, and ideologies. The modern philosophies of sexual egalitarianism and interchangeability are no different.
The assent of faith demands everyone place their ideologies at the feet of Jesus.
Well written
ReplyDelete