Explaining why instead of why not

Dissidents — usually feminists — regularly challenge the issue of women priests, which they think is unsettled. It’s settled. Always was, and ever shall be, in the Catholic Church. Finally, the most authoritative book on the subject is about to come out, and it is complete and thorough. It was written by the best theologian on the subject, Sr. Sara Butler–once a prominent voice for the cause of women priests.

“The Catholic Priesthood and Women” will be released on March 1, though you can pre-order it now. I’ve read through some of it and I think it exceeds all the good work Sr. Butler has already published on the subject. She knows this teaching so well not only because she’s a brilliant theologian but because, as one of the early leaders of the cause for women priests, she understands perfectly the arguments and the questions about why women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church. She used to make those arguments better than just about anybody else. She knows the criticisms well, and the critics largely remained her friends when she aligned with Church teaching.

What made that happen? I interviewed Sr. Butler several years ago when she was one of the first two women named to the International Theological Commission by Pope John Paul II, and her story is a journey of scholarship and the devoted pursuit of truth. Butler read her way through what the Church teaches and worked through it intellectually and spiritually. She said that when the Vatican declaration Inter Insigniores was issued in 1976, she and others read it to refute it, but when she was asked to explain it to an ecumenical commission, she really studied it. That made all the difference.

And then when Pope John Paul II issued his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, “on reserving priestly ordination to men alone,” she saw the rich and deep tradition behind the teaching, and has been a leading voice on it ever since.

It’s an inspiring story, part of which is woven through this article that ran in Women for Faith & Family’s Voices magazine about the “fundamental reasons” for the male priesthood.

Even before we inquire about the “fundamental reasons”, it is crucial to frame the question properly and to establish the correct starting point. In the opening statement of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II asserts that “from the beginning” priestly ordination “has always been reserved to men alone” in the Catholic Church. Then, in a compact definition, he specifies what he means by “priestly ordination”: ordination to the priesthood “hands on the office entrusted by Christ to His apostles of teaching, sanctifying, and governing the faithful”. By saying this, he recalls the Church’s faith — confidently proposed by the Second Vatican Council — that the ministerial priesthood has its origin in Christ, is passed on through the apostles and their successors, and confers on the person ordained the authority to carry on Christ’s threefold ministry with respect to the faithful. According to the pope, then, the proper starting point for a consideration of this issue is a tradition and doctrine of the priesthood that involves the Lord Jesus, the Twelve, and their successors.

We may also note that this doctrine of priesthood characterizes the Catholic judgment — by contrast with that of the heirs of the Reformation — on the possibility of ordaining women. For Catholics, the answer to the question “Why men only?” is bound up with the conviction — a matter of faith — that Holy Orders is a sacrament instituted by Christ, and that His intention for the priesthood is known by way of the mission He gave the Twelve. If the Church does not have the authority to change her tradition or practice, it is because this ministry is a gift “entrusted to the apostles” by the Lord — a gift that she feels bound to preserve.

This teaching regarding the priesthood is not a new doctrine, and the reservation of priestly ordination to men is not a new practice. Prior to the current controversy, the Catholic Church had observed this tradition so firmly for centuries that there seemed no need to define it. The explanation given today has, however, a rather new focus — a focus that corresponds, in fact, to the challenge put in our time. To those who contend that this traditional practice must be changed because (to take one example) it is no more than an unexamined way of doing things based on an outdated and faulty estimation of women, the pope replies: the Church is not free — does not have the authority — to change this practice because it is rooted in the will of Christ. This conviction has been “preserved” in the tradition, but (he acknowledges) it has been “firmly taught by the Magisterium” only in its “more recent documents” (art. 4), indeed, in documents from the past thirty years. (emphasis added)

All this — including Sr. Butler — can be heavy reading for some, understandably, but it’s worth every minute spent. There’s no ‘cliff notes’ version of it, which would be handy in the face of this “current controversy”, especially one that could be handed to the media…

So, in this WFF article, Sr. Butler recalls the need by the Vatican to re-visit the reasons for the teaching when the Anglican church began ordaining women, prompting more calls for that to be done in the Catholic Church.

A little more than one year later, in response not only to developments in the Anglican Communion but to the escalating debate in Catholic circles, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration Inter insigniores (On the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood). Reviewing this in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II cites only the conclusion, namely, that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination”.

He notes, however, that Inter insigniores explains the “fundamental reasons” that underlie this teaching, and…  calls attention to the Declaration’s assertion that “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to His time”.

…which is often the charge of the ‘women’s ordination’ activists.

 He then quotes Pope Paul VI’s pithy summary of this Declaration (from an Angelus address of January 30, 1977): “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology — thereafter always followed by the Church’s tradition — Christ established things in this way”.

It’s as fundamental as that. Though that requires all kinds of theological explanation.

Although the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II does not rehearse the “fundamental reasons” from Inter insigniores (arts. 1-4), it is useful for our purposes to do so. The Declaration first appeals to the tradition of sacramental practice: there is an unbroken, universal tradition, common to East and West, of admitting only men to ministerial priesthood. Next, it traces this tradition to the example of Jesus who chose only men to belong to the Twelve. Third, it appeals to the practice of the apostles, who are presumed to be faithful to the Lord’s will. Finally, it asserts that this tradition remains normative for the Church.

Following? Sr. Butler is very methodical in walking through the “fundamental reasons.”

As noted above, the Declaration distinguishes these “fundamental reasons” from the “theological arguments” (arts. 5-6) that it advances in support of this teaching.

Key distinction.

The latter are advanced to elucidate why the Lord’s choice of men but not women is “fitting” or appropriate, and to explain why this does not constitute unjust discrimination against women.

Emphasis added again, to highlight yet another allegation “women’s ordination” advocates always make.

First, there are arguments related to the mystery of Christ: these address the question of sacramental symbolism, and the related topic of the theological relevance of Jesus’ maleness. The reasoning is now quite familiar. It is fitting that the priest be male because he is — especially when he acts in persona Christi in the celebration of the Eucharist — a sacramental sign of Christ in His Covenant relationship to the Church as Head, Shepherd, and Bridegroom. The natural symbolism of gender, the Declaration asserts, serves to make Christ visible in His ministry of salvation vis-à-vis the Church. If the maleness of Christ is theologically significant, it is because, according to God’s plan at creation, the sexes are different — not because men are superior to women. (emphasis added)

That can’t be emphasized enough.

Second, there are arguments related to the mystery of the Church. These address the nature of the Church and the equality of the baptized. The Church is not like other societies, but is original in her nature and structure. The true equality of the baptized is celebrated in — not cancelled out by — a diversity of ministries, for the Church is an internally-differentiated body in which the Spirit’s many gifts contribute to the good of the whole. Equality, in any case, is not identity.

Emphasis added for obvious reasons.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not appeal to the “theological arguments” of the Declaration. It does not refer, for example, to the nuptial symbolism — the priest as “sacrament” of Christ the Bridegroom vis-à-vis the Church as Bride — invoked by the Declaration. This does not mean that the symbolism in it is unimportant. (In other teaching documents, the pope clearly relies on it to elucidate the meaningfulness of reserving the priesthood to men.12) It does mean, however, that this symbolism does not provide the ultimate foundation for the Church’s doctrine and practice. The focus of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, instead, remains squarely on the “fundamental reasons” that engage the authority of the Magisterium, namely, the arguments from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Just a bit more….

Sr. Butler elaborates at this point of the article on the “fundamental reasons”, and right off, makes critical points, especially about JPII’s Apostolic Letter on the dignity and vocation of women.

Does Pope John Paul II contribute anything new to the explanation given in Inter insigniores in his apostolic letter of 1994? Yes, he does. As noted above, he first recalls his own earlier reaffirmation (in Mulieris Dignitatem, art. 26) of Christ’s “sovereign” freedom in “calling only men as His apostles”. If one grants that the Lord freely broke with the customs, traditions, and laws of His time in relating to women, one can hardly maintain that He excluded women from apostolic ministry as a concession to those same cultural norms. Freedom in the one case argues for freedom in the other.

Emphasis added, to show what a good argument Sr. Butler is advancing here.

Next, the pope adds an important paragraph, based on scriptural evidence and grounded in the teaching of Vatican II, which explicates more fully certain facets of the “fundamental reasons”. Jesus’ free choice of the Twelve, he notes, was made after prayer. Drawing together several New Testament references to highlight the Trinitarian aspect of this event, he asserts that the Son chose “those whom He willed” in union with the Father “through the Holy Spirit”. Because this choice reflects “God’s eternal plan”, it cannot be dismissed as an historically-conditioned decision open to subsequent development. The Church has always recognized that the Lord’s example in choosing the men who became the foundation of the Church (cf. Rev 21:4) provides a perennial norm in the matter of admitting candidates to the ministerial priesthood.

The consequences of this choice are then explained: these twelve men were not simply given a function that any member of the Church might later fulfill. Rather, they were drawn into a specific and intimate association with Christ; they were given the “mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer”. They, those fellow workers to whom they would entrust this ministry, and all who carry on the apostles’ mission were included — the pope teaches — in this choice.

There’s much more to this particular article, but the real bounty is in Sr. Butler’s new book. I’m going to absorb it, and the next time I encounter an argument about what the priesthood is not, I’ll be better able to talk about the beauty of what it is.