With the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), held from 1962 to 1965, the debate surrounding women’s role in the church opened up, especially after the Belgian Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens raised the issue of the male-only composition of the Council delegates, leading to the appointment of sixteen women ‘observers’ by Pope Paul VI.[1] Papal documents, such as the encyclical Pacem in Terris in 1963, specifically referred to women’s role in public life, within the context of equal rights and responsibilities for everyone in society.[2]
The Vatican II documents include many relevant passages on priesthood and the nature of sacraments, particularly baptism and the priesthood of all believers: ‘The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, share in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise that priesthood too by the reception of the sacraments, by prayer and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life, self-denial and active charity.’[3] The gathering of senior Church leaders for the Council, known as Council Fathers, also considered the roles of men, women and the laity in general.[4] There was a sense that the focus had shifted and that it would only be a matter of time before women were ordained. Later, when the Anglican Communion began actively to consider the issue, Roman Catholic voices were also raised and it was hoped that the two churches would work together towards a truthful and harmonious solution.[5]
The 1975 Assisi Conference, an ecumenical gathering of representatives from the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, was convened to examine the issue of women’s ordination. One delegate, Eric Doyle OFM, wrote a paper on the position of the Roman Catholic Church, in which he asserted, after due consideration of the various viewpoints, including that of the Anglican Communion, that the matter could legitimately be revisited by all the Christian faith groups that did not currently permit ordination for women. He concluded by stating:
. . . there is a growing body of theological opinion which maintains that there is no serious doctrinal argument against the ordination of women and that God did not exclude women from the priesthood. Therefore, it must be recognised that the question about women priests is an open question both theologically and pastorally in the Roman Catholic Church.[6]
In an essay on the same subject, published later in a collection relating to Anglican women’s ordination, he shows how some prominent theologians changed their position, particularly Karl Rahner, who wrote that many of those who offered theological arguments against the ordination of women ‘are unconsciously and without realizing it working from positions deriving from an age which is no longer with us and with which we no longer need to identify ourselves’.[7]
2.2.1 Pontifical Biblical Commission report
Subsequently, in the mid-1970s, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) was asked to look at scriptural evidence about the place of women in the Gospels and in the early Church to help in considering their role in the modern Church, in particular whether Scripture would support or deny women ordination to the priestly role. In a careful and balanced study, the Commission, a body composed only of ordained priests, mainly from religious congregations including several Jesuits, Dominicans and a Franciscan, reviewed the Old Testament evidence and the teachings of Jesus on the role of women. In 1976, it concluded unanimously that: ‘It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate [role and function of priesthood].’[8] In an essay reviewing the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s statement (alongside the document Inter Insigniores, see 2.2.2), John Donahue provided the voting figures for the Commission’s conclusion. In addition to its initial judgement, a majority of the members (12:5) agreed that Scripture alone could not exclude the possibility of ordaining women and the same number agreed that ordaining women in the future would not of itself transgress the plan in the mind of Christ for his Church.[9] Combined with the unpublished views of the Assisi Conference the previous year, this seemed to leave the debate very much open and, at this stage, a considerable number of scholars turned their attention to the historical and scriptural questions around women’s ordination, encouraged by this result and by the work of the Anglican Communion and the belief that further study of the subject, especially around the issue of women deacons, could lead to changes in the future. Given the judgements of the earlier documents on the inconclusive scriptural evidence, the state of the debate at that stage would seem to indicate that it was only the unvarying tradition of reserving ordination to men which remained as the argument underpinning the Church’s position on the issue.[10] Nonetheless, the papal documents and those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) continued to assert that it is Christ’s choice of only men in the Twelve and their choice of other men to join them—including Matthias, along with the seven (male) deacons whose appointment is described in Acts 6—which form the basis for the policy that women cannot be ordained. John Donahue’s article, mentioned above, is helpful in this respect, as he showed how the nature of the two different Vatican offices (CDF and PBC) issuing these reports and statements played a part in their respective conclusions on the subject. He described how the CDF document, Inter Insigniores (see 2.2.2), used a selective exegesis to support contemporary Church teaching on the subject, while the Pontifical Biblical Commission took a more measured and academic approach to the biblical text, refusing to read into it what is not there on the page. The CDF accepted the limits of the biblical data, but added to it the deposit of faith and the tradition of the Church in coming to conclusions on matters outside the scope of scholarly exegesis.[11] Donahue himself recalled the Vatican II document on revelation, Dei Verbum, which asserted that it is the job of Scripture scholars to ‘look for the meaning which the sacred writers, in given situations and granted the circumstances of their time and culture, intended to express and did in fact express, through the medium of a contemporary literary form’.[12] Eric Doyle goes further by arguing that rather than it being contrary to the Church’s tradition to ordain a woman as generally asserted, it would be more accurate to say that it was a matter of long-standing ‘practice’.[13] The latter term is in fact used by the 1976 Declaration itself (as noted below).
Despite the result of this Vatican-authorised report, the selective approach to evidence from both Scripture and centuries of reflection and writing on doctrine and discipline continues to be evident in the documents produced towards the end of the 20th century on the subject of women in society and in the church, as on other topics. We will address this issue in more detail as we consider this material, but it is worth briefly considering the way the Church similarly treats its own theology of the Eucharist, very relevant to the subject of priesthood and ordination.
Thomas O’Loughlin points out the incompatibility of the two languages used when speaking about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, the one about ‘gathering’, in which the celebration of the Eucharist is a work of the community, with the priest presiding; the other ‘canonical’, in which the Eucharist is an ‘object’ independent of the community, which can only be found in the presence of the priest, and without his presence, it is nowhere. Thus a Christian community can never of itself be ‘eucharistic’ (despite Mt. 18:20), unless a priest is present to say the words of institution.[14] As ever, language plays a large part in these discussions. O’Loughlin highlights the way in which those involved seem unaware of the two linguistic registers in use, even when one writer or speaker is making use of both at the same time.
It is common for Scripture to be used in a selective way, giving evidence for a particular point of view. Texts are taken out of context, sometimes with reason, to provide a spiritually uplifting message, or to offer hope or light in troubled times. But they may also be used as retrojected explanations of current norms in liturgy or practice, and have even been applied in potentially harmful ways, to support aggression or punishment of particular types of behaviour, or to justify war or domination in God’s name.
In their arguments against the ordination of women, the Vatican documents use scripture where it seems applicable, but interpreting it in a very particular way, to support the prohibition, while not allowing evidence which seems to indicate a contrary view. (In an essay addressing the bias against the teaching of Jean Calvin, Marilynne Robinson states somewhat acerbically: “We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for extenuation. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgement as to invalidate evidence that does not confirm us in it”[15].) We will highlight such examples where they occur. In particular, the use of the term ‘ordination’ to apply to the practice in the very early Church of appointing leaders of communities, seems inappropriate, since the development of the role variously known as presbyter, sacerdos, bishop, priest and deacon took place slowly over centuries, as we will see later, and the ceremonial ritual of ordination did not become established until fairly late in the process.
2.2.2 Inter Insigniores
This ‘Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood’, known as Inter Insigniores,[16] was issued by Pope Paul VI in 1976. As Leonard Swidler pointed out,[17] the Declaration provided only a partial response to the ecumenical dialogue on the subject of women’s ordination, the flourishing of feminist discourse and the movements for gender equality, especially in the West. Pope Paul VI’s plea against the unilateral move by the Anglican Communion towards the ordination of women was disregarded,[18] and within the Church, women’s response to the call by the Vatican Council for ‘full, active, conscious participation’ by all the laity[19] in the life of the Church and its liturgy aroused the desire of many people to contribute their gifts and talents to service of the whole Church, inevitably leading to consideration of priestly vocations among women. The Declaration is a fairly brief statement, covering women’s role in the Church, the various authorities invoked and, with its final word on the subject, inviting the full participation of women within the limited sphere to which they are called. It begins by citing the encyclical of John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, both of which refer to the increasing part played by women in public life, and challenge discrimination in all its forms. It goes on to highlight outstanding holy women—canonized saints such as Clare of Assisi (1194–1253), Catherine of Siena (1347–80) and Teresa of Avila (1515–82), all religious sisters—and praises the ‘apostolic commitment of women’ in the Church in modern times.[20] While accepting that there are many new areas of study addressing this subject in religion and science, it asserts the claims of the past over those of the present: ‘As we are dealing with a debate that classical theology scarcely touched on, the current argumentation runs the risk of neglecting essential elements.’[21]
The Declaration’s arguments against women’s ordination come under three main headings:
- the constant tradition of the Church expressed in the writings of the Patristic Fathers and the mediaeval scholars;
- the attitude of Jesus Christ; and
- the apostolic practice of the early Church.
These three aspects of the subject are held to bind the Church’s overall practice, no exception being possible for the prohibition on women’s ordination. These same arguments were invoked by the mediaeval writers, as discussed in this book, along with other ideas now discarded. As regards tradition—excepting a few heretical sects in early times, such as the Gnostic followers of Marcion, condemned by Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 203), and perhaps the Collyridan heresy, noted by Epiphanius (315–403)—the Declaration asserts that the Church has only ever ordained men and, in this respect, has remained faithful to the will of Christ and the practice of the apostles. The notion of the ‘unbroken tradition’ of the Church is considered to be the practice of the apostles and their successors, and so reflects the practice of the very earliest times.
Although much in the Church and in the world has changed beyond all recognition in the past two thousand years, the assertion of the Church, as expressed in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, is that the fullness of God’s revelation is in Christ and therefore ‘no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ’.[22] Inter Insigniores offers a selection of writings by the Church Fathers to demonstrate ‘[t]he Church’s Constant Tradition’[23] as evidence for this. It is the only place in recent times where this is done in an official text, later documents simply repeating the same references or the conclusions of Inter Insigniores itself, up to the statement, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, by John Paul II, which reiterates the assertion in similar terms that the Church has no authority to ordain women.[24]
The Declaration concedes that many of the arguments of the mediaeval scholastics, such as the emotional and intellectual weakness of women, their incapacity as teachers, and so on[25] (explored later in this book), can no longer be considered justified and acceptable. Nonetheless, it asserts along with the mediaeval writers that, despite Jesus’ own attitude and practice, shown in his unorthodox approach to women (as described by the various Gospel stories), the role of women in his life, their role as the first witnesses to the Resurrection and the supreme status of his mother,[26] he still did not include women among the Twelve—assumed to be those men present at the Last Supper to whom the traditional teaching of the Church asserts he gave the Eucharistic instruction (‘Do this in memory of me’). Hence, the Church cannot override this divine will by ordaining women and thus giving them the ‘apostolic charge’.[27] It refers in particular here to St Bonaventure, Blessed John Duns Scotus and Richard of Middleton, in their commentaries on Book IV, Distinction 25, of the Sentences of Peter Lombard,[28] which will be examined in Chapter 4.
The Declaration then considers the practice of the apostles, mainly St Paul who, it states, followed Jesus’ example in giving women and men an equal role in the early Church communities and commending women for their contribution and help to the apostles themselves, but without conferring ‘ordination’ on them. It mentions the use by Paul of the term ‘my fellow workers’ for both men and women, but, when speaking of men only, he would instead use the term ‘God’s fellow workers’, indicating that these are men intended for apostolic mission, by which the Declaration assumes is meant the ordained state.[29] It gives these variations in terminology a preponderant weight, somehow indicating a specific reservation of a particular role to men not available to women, even at this early stage in the Church’s life.
Similarly, while no longer requiring women to cover their heads in Church as Paul did (a matter of custom), the modern Church asserts that it cannot break his rule that women should not ‘speak’ in the assemblies, as this was more than simply custom, rather being part of God’s divine plan, another argument used by the scholastics.
Above all, however, the Declaration affirms the limits of the Church’s power over sacramental practice. Although the signs and rituals used to administer the sacraments can be and have been changed over the centuries, the essentials of the sacraments, including those fit to receive them, cannot be changed: ‘Priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service, it ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions.’[30] The fundamental motive for refusing change is fidelity to the will of Christ and to God’s plan for the Church.
The other primary point made is that the priest must be a man in order to constitute an effective sign of Christ who himself was a man. The priest is acting in persona Christi, a term used extensively by the Church Fathers and the scholastic masters, particularly Bonaventure and St Thomas Aquinas, whom the document quotes.[31] The document asserts that the maleness of the priest as a sign of Christ is important as ‘the faithful must be able to recognise him with ease’.
The maleness of Christ and the priest is also a factor in the recurring image of the chosen people as the spouse of God who is the bridegroom, and of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as bride, the nuptial metaphor from Old Testament literature transferred to the New. It is used widely by the mediaeval and early writers, not just in the theological texts cited in this volume, but throughout spiritual and liturgical works.[32] For the Declaration, this particular argument is incontrovertible: ‘That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And therefore . . . his role (this is the original sense of the word persona) must be taken by a man.’[33] Although the priest also represents the Church, personified as the female side of the nuptial image, he first has to represent Christ, the head of this ‘female’ Church in the Pauline sense, as the husband is head of his wife (Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:3). Again, the Declaration refers to the mediaeval theologians who, it asserts, stated that, as well as being the imago Dei and acting in persona Christi, the priest also acts in persona Ecclesiae, despite the female imagery of the Church as bride, since he is acting in ‘the name of the whole Church and in order to represent her’.
Inter Insigniores concludes by defending its position against the claims of science. It acknowledges one of the counter-arguments as being that the developments in psychology, biology and physiology, as well as social and cultural changes during the twentieth century, pose challenges to the continued refusal by the Church to allow women access to ordained ministry. However, in the final section, the Declaration answers this by saying that, where faith is at issue, science has no competence and, although remaining part of the society in which it is located, the Church nevertheless has an existence above and beyond the material world and therefore cannot be bound in every respect by the rules and conventions of human society. Despite the teaching of Paul in the letter to the Galatians, ‘in Christ there is no longer male and female, slave and free’ (3:28), this does not apply to ministry—‘baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry in the Church’.[34] This counters the assertion that baptism is the ‘gateway to the sacraments’, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church[35] and in canon law,[36] as the Declaration here differentiates the Sacrament of Orders from the other sacraments. Duns Scotus raised this point in his Commentary on the Sentences,[37] (4.4), and could find no entirely satisfactory solution to it, concluding that, if women cannot be ordained, then it must be according to the will of Christ and part of the hidden mystery of faith. According to the Declaration, ministry is not a human right; it is a call from God, to be authenticated by approval by the Church. So, even women who feel they have a vocation are mistaken, because God does not choose and call women to the priesthood. Within the Church, all are equal, but ‘equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual has his or her role’.[38] The document concludes by making the modest assertion that: ‘The Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.’
2.2.3 ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’[39]
Simultaneously with the Declaration, a ‘Commentary’ on it was produced, expanding and illustrating further some of the points made by Inter Insigniores. After briefly covering the history of the debate about women’s ordination, and mentioning those Christian churches which have decided to appoint women as ordained ministers, such as the Lutheran Church of Sweden and Non-Conformist churches, it explains that, once parts of the Anglican Communion had also taken this step, the Roman Magisterium felt the need to respond to these decisions, especially as, following International Women’s Year in 1975, the debate became more vigorous. This is all the more important as ‘on the one hand, arguments adduced in the past in favour of the traditional teaching are scarcely defensible today, and on the other hand the reasons given by those who demand the ordination of women must be evaluated’.[40]
The ‘Commentary’ goes on to explain that the Church, in refusing ordination to women, is no longer invoking traditional arguments around women’s inferiority. Nonetheless, it reiterates and apparently accepts them in a qualified way, especially Aquinas’ statement that woman is subject to man,[41] which it explains by saying that Aquinas was referring to the biblical data, from the first chapters (1–2) of Genesis and from the first letter to Timothy (2:12–14), rather than just expressing a philosophical concept (and certainly not making a misogynistic statement). The ‘Commentary’ accuses twentieth-century writers on this subject of polemicizing and judging the Fathers of the Church as misogynistic. But today, it repeats, the Church has recourse only to the example of Jesus Christ and the unbroken tradition of reserving ordination to men, quoting the scholastic doctors’ references to Christ’s institution and conferral of ordination on men only in support of this.[42]
As discussed later (7.4), the historical reality of the development of the sacramental nature and ritual around ordination is somewhat different from the picture painted by official Church documents of Jesus ‘ordaining’ the Twelve at the Last Supper[43]. In terms of what the Church has itself allowed historically—‘what the Church does she can in fact do, since she has the assistance of the Holy Spirit’[44]—there is now plenty of evidence to show that women were indeed ordained as deacons in the early Church and up until the Middle Ages, especially in the East before the schism, thus undermining the argument from tradition.[45] The ‘Commentary’ had asked for this investigative work to be done,[46] acknowledging the presence of indications long recognized in legal and theological texts placing restrictions on the ordination of women deacons as evidence that this was in fact practised fairly widely, despite explaining it as time- or locus-dependent, for the purposes of ministry to women only in the interests of propriety in particular communities.
The ‘Commentary’ supports the challenge by Inter Insigniores to those who say that Christ’s choice of the Twelve to continue his work is symbolic only of the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel,[47] dismissing its significance in the Gospel texts. Instead, the ‘Commentary’ affirms that the role of the Twelve is to represent Christ himself for subsequent generations.[48] It goes on to reiterate the case of Mary the Mother of Jesus, not included among the apostles or given the status of ‘priest’, despite being the most exalted of human beings for her motherhood of the Son of God. The argument from the Fathers of the Church, repeated in the ‘Commentary’, is that this special status of Mary did not need the further ‘increase in dignity’ which priesthood would confer. And yet Inter Insigniores says that ‘the priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church’.[49]
At this point, the ‘Commentary’ seems to bemoan the deficiencies of Scripture, in not being sufficiently clear in its ban on women’s ordination: ‘It must be repeated that the texts of the New Testament, even on such important points as the sacraments, do not always give all the light that one would wish to find in them . . . it is sometimes difficult to discover in Scripture entirely explicit indications of Christ’s will.’[50]
It was precisely this point that Eric Doyle was making in the previous year, as we have seen above (p.7),[51] hence the reliance on the perceived tradition and practice of the Church from earliest times. The ‘Commentary’ itself points out that two of the proof texts extensively used by the scholastics against the ordination of women are in fact questionable in their authenticity within the writings of Paul, particularly 1 Cor. 14:34–35, forbidding women from speaking in the assembly. Having said this, it then asserts that whether or not they are in fact by Paul himself is irrelevant as they have been accepted since the earliest times and used to support the prohibition on women’s ordination.[52] Here and elsewhere as we have seen, the very earliest texts of Christian literature, both the Gospels and apostolic writings, fail to provide the necessary support for a complete ban on ordaining women, so the subsequent ‘tradition’, and the patristic writings are used, despite their locus in the society and conventions of their own periods and milieux, where women are rarely if ever given authority or status on a par with men.
The ‘Commentary’ goes on to argue that further texts from Pauline writings use scriptural evidence mainly taken from Genesis to assert women’s subjection to men and that later Papal documents, such as Mulieres Dignitatem and Christifidelis Laici (see 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 respectively), also use the first three chapters of Genesis extensively to support the particular view of the complementarity and natural roles of men and women in creation. These arguments are discussed in more detail later (see Chapter 5 on Scripture). While acknowledging that, socially speaking, the view that women are subordinate to men is no longer acceptable,[53] the ‘Commentary’ asserts that Paul is not using the text in philosophical terms, but as a historical affirmation of the nuptial symbolism of Christ and the Church, another reference to the bridegroom metaphor for Christ. It asserts that, when Paul is speaking in the context of ‘the symbolism of love’, he is speaking only of man’s superiority being given to the woman ‘as a gift demanding sacrifice, in the image of Christ’.[54]
The argument that the Church has abandoned particular practices and rules (the veiling of women in particular) and therefore could, if it wished, also permit women’s ordination, is answered with the assertion that the Church’s judgement is paramount: ‘it is the Church herself that . . . ensures discernment between what can change and what is immutable’.[55] So finally this particular sign, the gender of the presider at the Eucharist, the ministerial priest, is fixed and is part of the ‘substance of the sacraments’. The ministerial priesthood is the sacrament of apostolic ministry, providing continuity through the centuries from Jesus’ own ministry and his mandate to his disciples to preach the Gospel to all people.
Because sacraments are memorials of events, they are viewed as historical realities as well as spiritual graces and are linked to particular places and cultures. It seems to follow that, despite the universality of the Church in place and time, the locus of the Eucharist is first-century Palestine and it therefore must reflect the reality of that time and place in the representation of Christ’s actions at the Last Supper and in his Passion and death.[56] Thomas O’Loughlin highlights the special treatment given to the ‘event’ known as the Last Supper in the Gospels, “It is as if this meal is somehow immune to all the problems, long recognized, about the historicity of events in the life of the historical Jesus….gospels – all four of them – and Paul are read as if they could be mined for a ‘real-time’ narrative of the evening before the death of Jesus…who was there and who was not…”[57]
The ‘Commentary’ refers to other ministerial functions that women are now permitted to perform, including the administering of baptism, teaching the faith, and the exercise of jurisdiction.[58] These exceptions are allowed for solely practical reasons. In the case of baptism, any lay person may confer it in an emergency.
Teaching is permitted to women in general terms, though the ‘Commentary’ still seems to distinguish between two forms of ‘teaching’: firstly, as ‘catechesis’, such as might be given to children in a parish or in school, and ‘prophecy’, a gift of the Spirit – often manifested by women in the first-century Christian communities; and, secondly, as the ‘official and hierarchical function of teaching the revealed message, a function that presupposes the mission received from Christ by the apostles (meaning the Twelve, presumably) and transmitted by them to their successors’. The latter is the teaching given to the faithful by the Magisterium, in the form of official documents (the Catechism and so on), as well as the teaching delivered by the priest or ordained deacon in the homily during the celebration of the Eucharist, when a woman may not ‘speak’ as Paul instructs.
As for jurisdiction in the Church, this has frequently been an area of dispute where women in positions of authority, such as abbesses, have been perceived as exceeding their powers, appropriating to themselves what was proper to the local bishop, for instance. The ‘Commentary’ quotes in this regard the famous case of the Abbesses of Las Huelgas in Spain, who continued to assert their own jurisdiction up to the nineteenth century despite being reprimanded by a number of bishops and popes, from Innocent III (reigned 1198–1216) onwards.[59] It does not mention any more recent examples of this problem, perhaps because since then the central jurisdiction of the Church has been much tighter. Nonetheless, there have been many individual examples of women’s communities and individual women religious being disciplined over the centuries, even today.[60]
The ‘Commentary’ goes on to discuss the position of the Magisterium on the status of the teaching on ordination, making it clear at this time that it did not constitute an infallible statement of doctrine, but rather related to the ‘fittingness’ of the male ministerial priesthood with reference to the mystery of Christ.[61] It also understands that, in modern times, ‘it is impossible to be content with making statements, with appealing to the intellectual docility of Christians: faith seeks understanding, and tries to distinguish the grounds for and the coherence of what is taught’.
The arguments from mediaeval scholars that were based on the inferiority of women are set aside by the Church today, claims the ‘Commentary’, and thus it is the nature of the Sacrament of Orders itself which is considered to determine the necessity for a male priesthood. The priest acts in persona Christi, in administering the sacraments, and thus constitutes a sign in accordance with the principles of sacramental theology. Hence, ‘because the priest is a sign of Christ the Saviour he must be a man and not a woman’.[62]
Essentially, the ‘Commentary’ repeats the view of Aquinas, who required the ‘natural resemblance’ between Christ as a man and the priest as a man to be maintained.[63] The ‘Commentary’ goes on to say that this natural resemblance would fail if the Eucharist were celebrated (‘the memorial of the Supper were to be carried out’) by a woman, as it requires not only the words and gestures of Jesus Christ to be repeated, but also the actions. At that moment, ‘Christ is present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist.’[64] The authors of the ‘Commentary’ do not believe there is any purpose in countering challenges to this reasoning, except where this could encourage deeper reflection and understanding of traditional principles.[65] They simply assert that, whereas the character of the sacrament of orders gives the priest power to consecrate the Eucharist and give absolution to penitents (the core roles of the priest in this context), it is in the laying on of hands and his taking on the role of Christ (again using the metaphor of the actor invoked by the Greek word persona) that the ‘meaningfulness’ of the sacrament consists.
The ‘Commentary’ then goes on to answer one particular objection that has often been made to the literal interpretation of in persona Christi: namely, if the maleness of Christ matters, does not his Jewishness also matter?[66] This question was asked in an article by Simon Francis Gaine[67] exploring the significance of both gender and ethnic origin in the person of Jesus. Gaine’s conclusion agrees with that of the ‘Commentary’ that, while Christ’s maleness is appropriate in terms of the metaphorical language conventionally used to describe Christ in his relationship to the Church and the Father (bridegroom/son), despite accepting that there is no suggestion that God is somehow male, his Jewishness is only relevant in terms of his role as the representative of the human race to God, in other words, as the Jewish Messiah, the promised Saviour. Gaine is understandably cautious about this explanation, which does not satisfactorily counter the argument that the maleness and Jewishness of Jesus are both theologically important and essential to Jesus himself, so that if one is necessary to priesthood (maleness), so is the other (Jewishness) and if one is not, then perhaps the other need not be. The Declaration itself says that Jesus’ ethnicity is not such an intimate matter as his sex. It is essential in the economy of salvation that Christ is a man because, among other things, he is the new Adam, the saviour who will restore the covenant broken by Adam and Eve. The Genesis account of creation is a keystone of the argument against women’s ordination here and also for the scholastics.[68] Christ is also the Bridegroom of his Church, as his sacrifice on the cross is the ‘definitive reality’ of the nuptial imagery of the covenant of God in the Old Testament,[69] as explained by Inter Insigniores. Thus, it is a matter of revealed truth that the gender of the Saviour should be a man and, therefore, only another man can ‘re-present’ him at the altar.
In its final section, the ‘Commentary’ looks at the role of priesthood within the Church, categorically dismissing the remaining arguments around women’s leadership and ministry in the Church. Despite the presence of women in such roles in the early Church—described as the ‘primitive’ Church—these are limited in their scope and cannot be extended to the ordained, ministerial priesthood.[70] Modern developments in women’s equality and opportunity are irrelevant to the Church, as ‘the Church is not a society like the rest’. Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 that there is no distinction between ‘slave and free, male and female’, also does not apply to ordained ministry, as this is a vocation, a calling from God through the Church.[71] The document closes by briefly asserting the importance of the search for love, rather than the rights of individuals, and of the necessary work still to be done to eliminate inequality and injustice, which make victims of women in all spheres of life.[72]
2.2.4 Mulieris Dignitatem
The new Code of Canon Law was published in 1983, maintaining the legal position of reserving ministerial priesthood to men only, as seen above. John Paul II then issued two documents in 1988, the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem and the Exhortation following the Synod of Bishops, Christifidelis Laici,[73] both of which reiterated clearly the standard teaching and arguments. The Apostolic Letter presents a particular vision of women, a very positive, spiritual image of their ‘dignity and vocation’, particularly emphasizing the examples of Mary, Mother of God and the holy women down the centuries who served the church and lived lives of exemplary sanctity, offering them as models for modern women.[74]
Mulieris Dignitatem bases its presentation on the ontology of human beings as either male or female and on the complementarity of the sexes, using Genesis again as its starting text. It contains no mention of alternative models of understanding sexual gender and expression, asserting that ‘human beings should always and only exist as a woman or a man’,[75] and offers only an ideal model of the human family, based on that of Joseph, Mary and Jesus – father, mother and child – as best expressing the intentions of God for the human race. It is Mary who gives women their special dignity, her actuality as woman, and as both virgin and mother, offers women the choice between these two options of living their lives. Explaining the consequences of the first sin of human beings, the document sees man’s dominance of women in the married state as part of the fragmentation of the human condition caused by sin. The mutuality of marriage is capable of healing this brokenness, as ‘Only on the basis of this principle can both of them, and in particular the woman, “discover themselves” as a true “unity of the two” according to the dignity of the person.’[76] There is no explanation of why the woman, more than the man, needs this process of self-discovery. The document concentrates on the scriptural teaching about women, particularly the story of Mary of Nazareth and the Eve–Mary diptych, extensively used by the Church Fathers and also by the scholastic teachers, describing Mary, mother of Jesus, as the new Eve, the woman who restores through her life what Eve destroyed or damaged.[77] It also focuses on women’s vocations as being either marriage, instituted by God in Genesis, or virginity, exemplified by Mary herself, the Virgin Mother. The English translation of Mulieris Dignitatem is confusing, using the single term ‘man’ as the equivalent of both the Latin words homo and vir,[78] a problem that arises frequently in discussing this subject in languages other than Latin, as we will see later (7.4.1).[79]
Mulieris Dignitatem does not refer directly to scholastic teaching on ordination, but repeats the images of Christ as bridegroom,[80] emphasizing the gendered metaphorical language used in Inter Insigniores, which it ascribes to the words God uses of himself through the prophets in the Old Testament, illustrating the necessity of the priest, acting in persona Christi, to be male. Again, it addresses the argument that Christ’s call to men only as apostles was in accordance with the cultural and social demands of his time, where women were of inferior status and voiceless in society or law. Although Christ welcomed women as followers, he did not confer on them the special place reserved to his male apostles who ‘alone received the sacramental charge’ at the Last Supper, in the institution of the Eucharist.[81] MD links this appointment of the apostles to the nuptial mystery of the relationship of Christ and the Church. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and on the altar is equated with the ‘gift of self’, already described when referring to Adam and Eve, and with the creation of human beings as male and female, complementarity in the ‘unity of two’ there from the beginning, intended by God.[82] The document goes on to say that this explanation of the ‘priestly service of the Apostles’, intended by Christ to express the relationship between man and woman, ‘confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores’, thus making it clear that priesthood by its very nature is unsuitable for bestowal on women, and pushing the spousal metaphor even further.
2.2.5 Christifideles Laici
The other important document issued at the end of 1988, Christifideles Laici, makes the same points about the role of women in the Church, asserting the equal dignity of all human persons, condemning abuse and ill treatment of women and their position as ‘victims’ of discrimination, but saying that it is women’s responsibility to fight against this kind of attitude and ‘that unjust and deleterious mentality which considers the human being as a thing, as an object to buy and sell, as an instrument for selfish interests or for pleasure only’.[83] Nonetheless, it repeats, without reference to particular authority, the basic principle that women are ‘not called to the apostolate of the Twelve, and thereby to the ministerial priesthood’ and again refers to Genesis and the creation of human beings as ‘male and female’, with women having their ‘specific vocation’, different from that of men, and, as always, mainly focused on the role of wife and mother and the caring professions.[84] While lamenting the absence of men in so many areas of Church life (§52), the document repeats the statement of the Council Fathers at the Second Vatican Council that they ‘have recognized the special capacities of women, such as their attention to others and their gifts for nurture and compassion, most especially in their vocation as mothers’. It also reminds woman that she must recognize her own need to be ‘evangelized’ and ‘be able to distinguish what truly responds to her dignity as a person and to her vocation from all that, under the pretext of this “dignity” and in the name of “freedom” and “progress,” militates against true values’,[85] possibly an oblique reference to the ‘women’s liberation movement’.
2.2.6 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
During the latter part of the twentieth century, as various parts of the Anglican Communion around the world began ordaining women routinely, the Roman Catholic Church continued to hold the official position that it did not have the authority to ordain women. In response to the growing number of voices within the Church—from the laity and from priests, religious and theologians—speaking in favour of women priests (as described in the ‘Introduction’ to this book), in May 1994 Pope John Paul II issued the brief Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, ‘Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone’.[86] It highlights the reverence the Church owes to women who ‘have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God’. This contribution is made by ‘holy martyrs, virgins and the mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith, and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel’.
The document gives the need to remove any doubts as an explanation for reasserting its position and declaring ‘that the Church has no authority whatsoever [facultatem nullatenus habere] to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitely held by all the Church’s faithful’. It was reported at the time that John Paul II wanted the ban described as ‘irreformable’, but many bishops present refused to accept that. Finally, in October 1995, the then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger issued another statement as a ‘Reply to the “Dubium” raised concerning the doctrine contained in Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”’, which was effectively a pre-emptive statement about possible questions on the status of the assertion in the Apostolic Letter that the teaching it expresses is to be held definitively by all the faithful. The Reply says that, indeed, this teaching does require ‘definite assent’ as it ‘has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium’. This meant that, although it is not an ex cathedra infallible teaching by the Pope himself, it is nonetheless a matter of doctrine, official Church teaching, and therefore all the baptized should accept it as an essential item of faith, to be held unquestioned. The intention was to end the debate and to an extent it succeeded, as after that the academic debate, certainly within Catholic institutions, began to dwindle. Finally, the CDF further explained, in its ‘Commentary’ on John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem,[87] that, although this issue was not a matter of divine revelation, and thus infallible dogma, nonetheless it is an infallible teaching by the Magisterium and it might in future be declared a doctrine ‘to be believed as divinely revealed’.[88]
Subsequent to these, in one of his own documents[89] as Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger commented extensively on John Paul II’s documents, Mulieris Dignitatem in particular, using Genesis 2 to emphasise the supportive nature of women’s role, and also the nuptial imagery: ‘Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom.’ (n. 16), thus indicating that reserving ordination to men in no way excludes women from their rightful role in the Church – as responsive brides. In her essay commenting on this, Susan A. Ross demonstrates how such a picture of women as those who ‘respond, who listen, who wait’, being a model for the laity in general, excludes the possibility that women and the laity in general could ever themselves take the initiative in the Church, or have an active role in spreading the Good News.[90]
2.3 Responses to the Vatican position within the Catholic world
It is clear from all these documents that they rely heavily on some of the arguments proposed by the scholastic theologians against the ordination of women. The documents explicitly draw on the writings of Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and Aquinas and one or two of the other scholastic teachers, as well as the early Church Fathers, to support their arguments. The will of Christ, the unbroken traditions of the Church, and the representational quality of the sex of the priest are the primary reasons given as to why women cannot receive the sacrament of orders. As discussed later (3.1), canon law until the late twentieth century also excluded women even from the sanctuary, so the later documents described here may have had a secondary intention of reaffirming the impossibility of women’s ordination after the relaxation towards the roles of women in the liturgy—introduced by Vatican II and confirmed by the 1984 Code of Canon Law—allowing them to be readers, acolytes and special ministers of the Eucharist. There was also a definite intention to draw a firm line between the Catholic and Anglican positions once it became clear that the latter was moving towards acceptance of women’s vocations to the priesthood.
Aside from the Vatican documents, until lately very little scholarly work has been published objecting to the idea of women’s ordination to the priesthood. Perhaps it was felt that the official Church line had said all that was necessary. There are dozens of conservative websites and blogs that offer explanations based on the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church and on the present Vatican rulings as to why it is impossible for the Church to change its teaching on this subject. A few writers did address the issue following the Vatican line. Benedict Ashley gave a coherent account in his book Justice in the Church,[91] from the point of view of someone opposed to the ordination of women. Sara Butler also offers a thorough study of orthodox Church teaching, as well as answering some of the objections to the ban on women’s ordination.[92] In a lecture given in 2007, she summarized her thinking on the subject and, along with the official documents, showed that it was again the nuptial/sexual imagery that carried the most weight for her:
Can we not appreciate the ‘fittingness’ of asking only men – in fact, only some men – to take his role as Head and Bridegroom insofar as he ‘faces’ the Church, his Body and Bride, and offers her his ministry? The symbolism is, indeed, nuptial or spousal. It beautifully displays God’s covenant love for his people and reminds us of Jesus’ sacrificial love for the Church.[93]
On the other side of the argument, within the Roman Catholic Church, organisations such as Catholic Women’s Ordination, We Are Church, A Call to Action and Catholics for a Changing Church, all have the ordination of women at the top of their various agendas. And in 2016, Pope Francis established a commission to investigate the subject of women’s ordination to the diaconate, at the request of the International Union of Superiors General, the heads of religious orders, the report from which is still pending, as the commission was disbanded in early 2019, with a request for yet more research. Recent surveys show that the majority of Catholics support the ordination of women.[94] Previously, it was feared that people holding leadership roles in the Church might be disciplined if they deviated from a strictly orthodox position on issues such as the ordination of women, celibacy for priests, and ordination of married men, but the latter two topics are well and truly on the table again. There is a sense of greater freedom in the air – a feeling that there is once more some purpose in pursuing the discussion, with some retired bishops feeling able to speak out on the subject; once more the windows opening, in John XXIII’s phrase, to let in the fresh air.
[1] Carmel McEnroy, Guests in their Own House: The Women of Vatican II (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1996) 41. Suenens is reported as saying: ‘Women too should be invited as auditors: unless I am mistaken, they make up half the human race.’
[2] Pacem in Terris, §1 (11 April 1963).
[3] Lumen Gentium, §10, in A. Flannery OP (ed), The Basic Sixteen Documents Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees and Declarations (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1996) pp. 14–15.
[4] Lumen Gentium, especially §10 and ch. IV; and Sacrosanctum Concilium, §11 (4 December 1963); Gaudium et Spes, §12, (7 December 1965); Presbyterorum Ordinis (7 December 1965); Apostolicam Actuositatem (18 November 1965); all Flannery (ed.), Vatican II.
[5] See, for instance, Ruth A Wallace, ‘Bringing Women In: Marginality in the Churches’, Sociological Analysis, 36(4) (winter 1975): 291–303, where Wallace argues from a positive perspective that there are strategies for moving forward in bringing women closer to ministry, but there is a danger of the impetus being lost; J Kobler, ‘Towards a History of Vatican II’, Chicago Studies, 2 (1999): 177–91; Kevin O’Shea CSSR, ‘The Background, Seen from the Present Time’ paper presented to the Clergy Assembly (Melbourne, 7 February 2000).
[6] Eric Doyle OFM, ‘The Ordination of Women: The State of the Question in the Roman Catholic Church’ (paper submitted to the Working Group on the Ordination of Women, Canterbury, convened by the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Consultation) published in Assisi Commission Report 1975, Dr P. Staples (ed.), Assisi Commission Report 1975 (Utrecht: Interuniversity Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical Research, 1975).
[7] Eric Doyle OFM, ‘The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church’, in Feminine in the Church, Monica Furlong (ed.) (London: SPCK, 1984) 33; from Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations VIII: Further Theology of the Spiritual Life, vol. 2 (London/New York: DLT, 1971)
[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, ‘Can Women be Priests?’ Origins, VI(6) (July 1976) 92–6.
[9] John Donahue, ‘A Tale of Two Documents’, in Arlene Swidler and Leonard Swidler (eds), Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration (New York: Paulist Press, 1977) pp. 25–34.
[10] So, as Doyle says in ‘The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church’, there is a ‘non-tradition’ of ordaining women, rather than a tradition of not ordaining women (p. 40).
[11] Donahue, ‘A Tale of Two Documents’, p. 30.
[12] Dei Verbum, §12, in Flannery (ed.), Vatican II, p. 106.
[13] Doyle, ‘The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church’, p. 39.
[14] Thomas O’ Loughlin, ‘Sacramental Languages and Intercommunion: Identifying a source of tension between the Catholic and Reformed Churches’, Studia Liturgica, Vol 47 (2017), 2, pp. 138-150. “…the clear vision of the Church inherent in all these canons is that the lay community is an accidental aspect of the sacrament; and so it is not their liturgy in the sense of it really ‘belonging’ to them.”
[15] Marilynne Robinson, The Death of Adam: Essays in Modern Thought (Picador, New York, 2005), p. 27.
[16] Inter Insigniores (15 October 1976); and in Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1996). This is a useful collection on this subject.
[17] Swidler and Swidler (eds), Women Priests, p. 4.
[18] Women were ordained as deacons and as priests in parts of the Anglican Communion from the 1940s. The first official ordinations in the Episcopal Church in the USA took place in 1976, the same year as Inter Insigniores, and the Church of England ordained the first women priests in 1994.
[19] Sacrosanctum Concilium, ch. II, §1.
[20] Inter Insigniores, § 2.
[21] Inter Insigniores, ‘Introduction’.
[22] Dei Verbum, §4 in Flannery (ed.), Vatican II, p. 99.
[23] Inter Insigniores, ‘Introduction’.
[24] Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, §4 (22 May 1994).
[25] Inter Insigniores. §§6–7.
[26] Inter Insigniores, §2.
[27] Inter Insigniores, §13.
[28] Peter Lombard, The Book of the Sentences, book 4, translated by Giulio Silano (Rome: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2011).
[29] Inter Insigniores, §17
[30] Inter Insigniores, §22.
[31] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (ST), part III, q. 83, a. 1, ad. 3: ‘in cuius persona et virtute verba pronunciat ad consecrandum’. Chapter 4 deals with this point in some detail.
[32] For instance, Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Ps. 74 §4; Augustine, Sermon on the Feast of Pentecost, Sermon 267, §4, Sermons 230–272B on the Liturgical Seasons (New York: New City Press, 1993) 271; Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs, Kilian Walsh OCSO (tr.) (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Fathers, 1980) especially sermons 7, 21 and 86.
[33] Inter Insigniores, §30.
[34] Inter Insigniores, §36.
[35] Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1213: ‘Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.’
[36] The Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London: Collins, 1983) canon 849: ‘Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation’.
[37] Duns Scoti Opera Omnia, vol. 24: Reportata Parisiensia, edited by Luke Wadding (Paris: Vivès, 1894) Book 4, d. 25, q. 2, pp. 367–71.
[38] Inter Insigniores, §39.
[39] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’, 55–75.
[40] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 57.
[41] Several references from Aquinas’ writings, including Scriptum super Sententiis, from Corpus Thomisticum (Pamplona: Fundación Tomás de Aquino, Universidad de Navarra, 2006) Book IV, d. 19, q. 1, a. r. 1; and ST, Part IIa, IIae, q. 177, a. 2: ‘quia mulier est in statu subiectionis’.
[42] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 59.
[43] ‘The Lord, having loved those who were his own . . . instituted the Eucharist . . . and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return, “thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament” (Council of Trent (1562))’: Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1337, p. 301.
[44] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 61.
[45] For the evidence and examples of the liturgies and rituals used in ordaining women as deacons, see Phyllis Zagano, Holy Saturday: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church (New York: Crossroad, 2000); Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig and Phyllis Zagano, Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future (Danvers, MA: Paulist Press International, 2012); John Wijngaards, Women Deacons in the Early Church (New York: Herder & Herder, 2002).
[46] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 57.
[47] Matt. 19:28: ‘you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’.
[48]‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 62.
[49] Inter Insigniores, §6.
[50] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 65.
[51] Doyle, ‘The Ordination of Women: The State of the Question in the Roman Catholic Church’.
[52] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 66. This kind of circular argument will be seen again and again. The simple fact that ‘the Church has always done this’ is sufficient, even though the evidence on which the ruling or action was originally based is faulty or insubstantial.
[53] Although ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’ (p. 66) states: ‘It was especially the text of 1 Timothy that provided St Thomas with the proof that woman is in a state of submission or service, since (as the text explains) woman was created after man and was the person first responsible for original sin.’
[54] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 65.
[55] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 67.
[56] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 68.
[57] Thomas O’Loughlin, The Eucharist: Origins and Contemporary Understandings, (London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), p. 23.
[58] As Eric Doyle again points out, ‘The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church’, p. 39, this undermines the ‘in persona Christi’ argument.
[59] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 69.
[60] For instance, St Angela Merici, founder of the Ursuline Order in the sixteenth century, Venerable Mary Ward, founder of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the seventeenth century, and Mother (now Saint) Mary MacKillop, nineteenth-century Australian educator and founder of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, excommunicated by her bishop for ‘insubordination’ over educational matters in the schools she had founded. Although reinstated by the Vatican, she constantly came into conflict with local bishops who attempted to control her activities as her order opened schools across Australia. She was canonised by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. The recent disagreements between the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the United States and the Vatican (comprehensively reported by the National Catholic Reporter) show that women religious are still a problem for the Church.
[61] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 70.
[62] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 71.
[63] Aquinas, ST, Suppl., q. 39, a. 1: ‘for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions’, New Advent; in addressing the point in his Commentary on the Sentences, Aquinas makes the same point, Book IV, d. 25 q. 2, a. 2, qc. 1, ad. 4: ‘signa sacramentalia ex naturali similitudine repraesentent’ (sacramental signs represent what they signify by a natural resemblance), as quoted in Inter Insigniores, p. 27. For a summary of the Church’s eucharistic theology, according to the teaching of Aquinas, see E.J. Kilmartin, ‘The Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic Theology: Towards the third millennium’, Theological Studies, September 1994.
[64] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 72.
[65] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 72.
[66] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 73.
[67] Simon Francis Gaine OP, ‘Ordination to the Priesthood: “That the One Who Acts in the Person of Christ the Head Must Needs Be Male, but Need not Be a Jew”’, New Blackfriars, 83(975) (May 2002): 212–31. For a fuller exploration of this point, see also Benedict M. Ashley OP, Justice in the Church: Gender and Participation (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1996).
[68] Chapters 4 and 5 this volume.
[69] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 74.
[70] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 75
[71] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 75
[72] ‘A Commentary on the Declaration’, p. 76.
[73] Christifidelis Laici (CL) (30 December 1988).
[74] Mulieris Dignitatem (MD) (15 August 1988).
[75] MD, §1.
[76] MD, §6.
[77] MD, §11
[78] For instance, MD §6: ‘Homo persona est, pariter vir et mulier: ambo namque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei personalis creati sunt [Man is a person, man and woman equally, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God].’
[79] The translation problem is referred to a little later in the same section (§6), with reference to Gen. 2:23. Woman is created from the body of the man in this version of the creation story and, therefore, says the Hebrew text, she is called ‘issah, as she was taken from the man ‘is. Clearly, the Latin text uses two different words, vir and mulier, which have no etymological link to each other, whereas the English words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are linked (‘woman’ from Old English wifman). Hence, the English translation of the Latin text makes no sense: ‘In biblical language this name indicates her [woman’s] essential identity with regard to man . . . something which unfortunately modern languages are unable to express’: although the Latin text quotes the Vulgate, which uses the word virago at this point for ‘issah/woman, an unfortunate choice perhaps, as meaning ‘female warrior, etc.’ in classical Latin, with overtones of ‘stoutness’.
[80] For instance, Bonaventure, Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, Classics of Western Spirituality Series, translated by Ewart Cousins (London: SPCK, 1978) ch. 4, para. 5: ‘our Saviour asserts that the whole Law and the prophets depend on these two commandments: love of God and of our neighbour. These two are signified in the one Spouse of the Church, Jesus Christ, who is at the same time our neighbour and God, brother and Lord, king and friend.’
[81] MD, §26.
[82] MD, §26.
[83] CL, §49.
[84] CL, §51.
[85] CL, §51.
[86] Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; and in From ‘Inter Insigniores’ to ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’, p. 185.
[87] John Paul II, Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem.
[88] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of Professio Fideo https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm (accessed 11 September 2018).
[89] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, Benedict XVI (author) (Vatican City: CDF, 2004).
[90] Susan A. Ross, ‘Christian Anthropology and Gender Essentialism’, in The New Pontificate: A Time for Change? Eds. E. Borgman, M. Junker-Kenny and J. Martin Soskice, (London, SCM Press, 2006) p. 47ff.
[91] Ashley, Justice in the Church.
[92] Sister Sara Butler, The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church (Chicago, IL: Liturgy Training Publications, 2007).
[93] Sister Sara Butler, ‘Women’s Ordination: Is It Still an Issue?’, Lecture at St Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, New York (7 March 2007).
[94] 88% of US Catholics would be ‘comfortable’ with the ordination of women, according to the Shriver Report, Catholics in America (2015). Another survey in 2014 by Univisión, US Hispanic TV network, showed that, globally, the majority of Catholics would like to see women have equal standing in ordained ministry: in France (83%), Spain (78%), Argentina (60%), Italy (59%), and Brazil (54%): https://www.womensordination.org/resources/fact-sheet-on-catholic-womens-ordination/ [last accessed September 2018]