Monday, November 29, 2004

42. Links on the Subject of Women Priests

Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood

NCCB Response to the CTSA Statement

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Statement on the CDF Responsum

The Male Priesthood: The Argument from Sacred Tradition

Women's Ordination: Politics or Theology

Women's Ordination: A Sacrament, Not a 'Right'

Texts on Ordination of Women

Vatican Ban on Women Priests is Infallible

Authoritatively No Authority to Ordain Women

Why Women Can Never Be Priests

Why Women Can't Be Priests

Why Women Can't Be Priests (another essay)

Women Priests -- No Chance

Women Priests?

Women's Ordination: Taking No for An Answer

Ecclesia Speramus - Ordination of Women Priests

Vatican Emphatic Against Women Priests

Women and the Priesthood

Sunday, November 28, 2004

41. Capacity for Ordination: Another Difference Between the Sexes

An Argument Against Priestesses

Do you know that there is no single cell in the human body (with the exception of gametes for reproduction) which is not sexually imprinted as either male or female? I will not go into an elementary lecture on the structural differences between the sexes or the differing roles in the marital act. Although a few contest it, there are differences in the characteristics of mind and spirit, too. Women seem to have a heightened receptivity and religious sense. Their powers of intuition and emotion also seem more pronounced over the male's analytical approach to life and ideas. These kinds of distinctions must be considered in any debate regarding women minsters, and even more so, about the possibility of women priests. It is my view that the differences between the sexes and the subordination of women does not imply inferiority and is ultimately the will of the Creator.

I am among the school holding that Pope Pius XI's encyclical on marriage, Casti Connubii, fulfills the requirements for infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. All the world bishops were consulted and it was received everywhere, by the shepherds and laity alike. Dr. William May and Dr. Germain Grisez are also of one mind about this. The encyclical condemned artificial contraception. But, what is more, it corrected the modern view about the "equality of rights" of the spouses. The Holy Father wrote, ". . . there must be a certain inequality . . . which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life" (paragraph 77). This "hierarchical" ordering of marriage implied not denigration of women, "for if the man is the head, the woman is the heart" of the family (paragraph 27f). Similarly, Pius XII emphasized that the particular qualities of the sexes had to be given recognition, especially the social leadership of men and the maternal traits of women. The voice of the true Vatican II, not the nebulous and often contradictory "spirit of" remarks that the differences between the sexes be acknowledged and nurtured. In the Declaration on Christian Education, we read, ". . . pay due regard in every educational activity to sexual differences and to the special role which divine Providence allots to each sex in family life and in society" (#8). I digress into all this to stress that the sexes are not the same. Further, the Church and her tradition puts much weight on the marriage analogy in understanding ecclesial identity and its expression in the Mass. Seen in this light, it appears that the ordination of women is counter to female human nature as it arises from the creative providence of God.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

40. The Ultimate Revolution: Can Women Become Men?

An Argument Against Priestesses

Just a few years ago, many Europeans celebrated the anniversary of the French Revolution. The Church was heavily criticized for not taking an active part in the festivities. Why did the Church refuse to join in the memorial of an uprising that espoused, "liberty-equality-fraternity"? Well, the answer went deeper than the religiosity of the fallen crown. Liberty for some meant persecution and death for others. Catholic priests were murdered by the thousands. Church properties were confiscated. The faith was mocked. No, the revolution might have been a watershed in French history, but it was also a tragedy of man's inhumanity to man. What does the Church have to show for this revolution? Less than 18% of the French go to Sunday Mass. The cathedrals are empty. Their over-emphasis upon individual freedom found its way into existentialist philosophy. Simone de Beauvoir wrote in her book, The Second Sex, that she envisioned young girls as "thwarted boys, that is, children that a re not permitted to be boys," and defined the adult female as an "abortive man." Akin to our radical feminists, although they deny it, she concludes that women can only achieve true emancipation by liberating themselves from their femininity. This changes the question, "Can women become priests?" to "Can women become men?" This is not a ridiculous question. The rectory cook tells me there was a talk-show just the other day that hosted a panel of women who through hormonal treatments and drugs had undergone sex changes. Men are also confused about gender and sexuality. Doctors are seriously considering experiments with the implantation of embryos into the stomach linings of homosexual men. Yes, they want to be mothers! It is in this context of gender confusion that the question of women priests arises. Many like yourself proceed with the untenuated assumption that sexual differentiation is primarily a sociological matter. Minimizing the underlying biology, the social roles a re interpreted as interchangeable. Feminist theology, analyzed within a Marxist matrix, is one of the contemporary liberation theologies. Its ultimate end is an androgynous utopia in which there is full "mathematical" equality between the expectations and assignments of the sexes. This is in contrast to the Christian goal of a state of holiness and the acquisition of the greatest good, God. This end is achieved by the grace of God and through the complementary (but not always identical) instrumentation of gender-differentiated human beings. I sometimes have to wonder if even in regard to their official feminist stratagem, if radical feminists are honest; is it really equality they want or superiority? How does the old song from a musical go? Ah, yes, "Anything you can do, I can do better than you!" I suspect this is part of their not so well disguised agenda.

Friday, November 26, 2004

39. Not Women's Ordination But Subordination

An Argument Against Priestesses

St. Paul is the source for the major texts on the "subordination" of women. Nevertheless, critics of the status-quo often quote his words about equality in grace found in Galatians. Paul is not schizophrenic. His words must not be forced to say things that he did not intend. Regarding ministry and marriage, Paul is clear. "What I want you to understand is that Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. . . a man . . . is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but woman is the reflection of man's glory . . . and man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. . . . However, though woman cannot do without man, neither can man do without woman, in the Lord; woman may come from man, but man is born of woman -- both come from God" (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-8, 11-12). Speaking of the organization of spiritual gifts, he demands: "Women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must keep in the background as the Law itself lays it down. . . . Anyone who claims to be a prophet or inspired ought to recognize that what I am writing to you is a command from the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:34, 37). Illustrating his sincerity, he repeats himself to Timothy: "During instruction a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. . . ." (1 Tm. 2:1-14). Similarly, when writing upon marriage, Paul asserts: "Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her, to make her holy. . . . In the same way husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself. A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is how Christ treats the Church, because it is his body -- and we are its living parts. . . . This mystery has many implications; but I am saying it applies to Christ and the Church" (Ephesians 5:22-25, 28-32). It is this analogy that is operative at Mass, wherein the priest signifies Christ, the head of the Church, and the congregation, the Mystical Body. The priest is one with the divine bridegroom and the assembly, representative of the bride of Christ, the Church. As I have mentioned before, unless one is going to overlook sacramental lesbianism, a woman cannot fulfill the function of priest in such a setting. Paul wanted women to know their faith and to hand it on in the domestic setting; however, they were not allowed to offer the official teaching that is associated with the presbyter at liturgy. Paul makes it definitively clear that this prescription is tied up with the God-given order of creation (1 Cor. 11:7; Gn. 2:18-24). He further admits to a specified "command from the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). Although this command is not known to us, it should not be dismissed. Paul is not a liar. Christ is perceived as the ultimate author of a corpus of religious teaching that must be handed on in exact detail and preserved by the teachers of faith (1 Cor. 11:23, 15:1-2; 2 Tm. 1:13). Several times Paul encountered serious assaults upon his person and office (1 Cor. 1:12, 4:3; 2 Cor. 10-12); if he had invented this "command from the Lord" to shore up his arguments, he would quickly have been stripped of his authority and unveiled as a deceiver. Such did not happen. Will we allow the truths of Christ via Paul to speak to us today? I pray it will be so. I only hope it is not too late. As an experiment I read these passages to several fine women in my parish and even the most docile took some offense. How deep is the secular infection in the hearts and minds of believers?

Thursday, November 25, 2004

38. Does Not the Apostolic Tradition Support the Male-Only Priesthood?

An Argument Against Priestesses

Yes, it ratifies it at every turn. The early Christian community kept faith with the practice of Jesus in depending entirely on male priests.

Although the Virgin Mary occupied an honored status among them (Acts 1:14), there was never any hint that she should replace Judas as one of the twelve (Acts 1:15-26). Further, on Pentecost, despite the universal showering of the Holy Spirit
upon the infant Church (Acts 1:13-14), it was left to "Peter and the Eleven" to take on the initial preaching of the Gospel (Acts 2:1, 14). Looking to St. Paul, it is evident that he relied heavily upon the help of women, maybe even more than Jesus did. Paul makes known Phoebe who served the Church in Cenchreae and also many other women who assisted him in his labors (Romans 16:1-16). He counted Priscilla and her husband Aquila among his friends (Romans 16:3), even entrusting to them the completion of his instruction of Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul, who said some formidable things about the place of women, is left speechless when Lydia insists that he receive her hospitality at Philippi (Acts 16:14f). The great apostle takes it for granted that men and women alike will pray and prophesy when the community gathers for public worship (1 Cor. 11:4-5, 13). Yet, even in the face of all this, he insisted that the leadership in the community and the official teaching come from male office-bearers. I mention all this because sometimes certain feminists caricature the early Church as a woman-haters' club. Far from it, the Apostolic community was in many ways more liberating for its women than pagan society; however, women were still not ordained. They felt the very real need to perpetuate the model of ministry established by Christ.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

37. What is the Mind & Attitude of Christ Regarding Women's Ordination?

An Argument Against Priestesses

Seriously, hold back the urge to spout slogans; removing our personal biases for a moment, what does our Lord reveal to us in the Scriptures? It is crystal clear that he did not call any women into the number of the apostles (Mark 3:13-19). First, this fact alone takes on heightened importance because certain women accompanied the group on their journeys and financed their needs (Luke 8:2-3). None of them were given priesthood. Second, Jesus did not hesitate in dismissing current religious and cultural attitudes in relating to females. He disregarded the hemorrhaging woman's legal impurity (Matthew 9:20f); he allowed the disreputable woman in Simon the Pharisee's house to approach him (Luke 7:37f); he sided with the adulteress (John 8:11); and he undermined the Mosaic law in espousing the equal rights of men and women in marriage, protecting the woman from abandonment in divorce (Mark 10:2f; Matthew 19:3f). Obviously, Jesus could not be coerced by societal prejudices to prohibit women priests; it must have been his own choice. Third, he illustrated in his stories an unheard of empathy with the lives of women as in the parable of the good housewife (Luke 15:8-10) and of the widow before a crooked judge (Luke 18:1-8). It can be assumed that Jesus did not feel that his exclusion of women from orders was any real slight to them. Fourth, as his disciples, many of the women showed a courage greater than that of the apostles, even so far as to stand at the foot of his cross (Mark 15:40-41). Individual qualifications apparently took a backseat to other concerns; perhaps the inability of female humanity to image Christ as the head of the Church? Does not the laity, as feminine, still look upon the cross now transformed into an altar at which the priest renders Christ's sacrifice? Yes. Fifth, they were the first to proclaim the Good News on Easter morning, and to the apostles themselves (Matthew 28:7f; Luke 24:9f; Jn 20:11f). Does this not tell us how much the Lord prizes the laity in the Mystical Body? Maybe the problem is not that we esteem the ordained priesthood too highly, but that we look upon the laity too disdainfully. The bulk of all evangelism is still done by the people in the pews. However, despite all this, the women were not at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17f). Surrounded only by the apostles, this absence is made all the more striking since the Passover is a family meal at which women and children were customarily present (Exodus 12:1-14). In light of this evidence, one can readily conclude that the exclusion of women from priesthood must have been freely and directly willed by Christ.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

36. Trust the Holy Spirit's Guidance of the Pope & Magisterium

An Argument Against Priestesses

You say or at least intimate that you are not in league with the radical feminists; and yet, your views are largely their views taken to their logical conclusions. Freedom of choice, equal rights in all things, unencumbered self-possession and self-determination, an indeterminate sexual nature, an arrogant presumption of the will of God as identified with their own narcissistic goals, pragmatic reasoning from utility that disregards ontic questions of reality, interchangeable gender, avoidance of or reinterpretation of unsupportive data, anger and belligerence-- all these are elements in their opposition to the status-quo, be it regarding women's ordination or any other topic. Many of these factors also appear in your argumentation, although there may be some contradictory renunciation.

Have you read the Holy Father's book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope? He writes: "I think that a certain contemporary feminism finds its roots in the absence of true respect for woman. Revealed truth teaches us something different. Respect for woman, amazement at the mystery of womanhood, and finally the nuptial love of God Himself and of Christ, as expressed in the Redemption, are all elements that have never been completely absent in the faith and life of the Church. This can be seen in a rich tradition of customs and practices that, regrettably, is nowadays being eroded. In our civilization woman has become, before all else, an object of pleasure" (p. 217). Do you see the irony in all this? Remove the unique significance of gender and its all important difference to our personhood and we begin to make impersonal objects of one another. The radical feminists, by their calculated destruction of structures and customs deemed as sexist, have created a situation in which the truly feminine is disfigured and the woman is knocked from the pedestal of the sacred to be profaned as but a source of transitory pleasure. Objects can be interchangeable, human persons cannot. There was a time when good women called forth what was best in men. Now that things have been reduced to mathematical equality, we are worse off than cattle. We can see the gender differentiation on the level of genitalia but refuse to admit that such distinction goes any deeper. Our technological world has, in a sense, reduced the human to identical mechanical parts. Such runs contrary to the Christian teaching that everyone is irreplaceable and precious. A woman is desired for her flesh, not for her soul. This should not be. To some extent, the same derogation of our nature can be seen in many women's preoccupation with men's bottoms and hairy chests. The radical feminists talk about personhood, but they have essentially redefined it. For them the person is not who you are but what you want. Like yourself, they must displace the marriage analogy of Christ the groom to the Church his bride in both the Mass and in the way we understand ecclesial structure and dynamics. This runs contrary to revelation and tradition. If signifying Christ's full identity, including his maleness, is not important in the Mass then gender is logically qualified as insignificant. This is the contention of moral separatists who acknowledge a role for the two genders in mutual physical "recreational" stimulation; but, who disavow that it signifies any communication of core identity. Capitulation on this issue, allowing women priests, would be the most controversial change in Church teaching since her foundation two millennium ago. More than a new reformation, it would signify the beginning of a new faith and a new cultis.

35. Women's Ordination: An Ancient Heresy & a New Church

An Argument Against Priestesses

Do you really think that allowing women to be ordained would be an improvement for priesthood? Akin to Gnosticism is another heresy of the early Church called Docetism. It claims that Christ's body only appeared to be real and therefore his suffering and death was a pretense. In Gnosticism, Christ the Redeemer is really one of the aeons (cosmic and semi-divine powers) who descends upon the human Jesus in order to reveal the saving knowledge or gnosis. Similarly, he did not really become a man and die on the cross. Both saw the material as evil. Removing the sexual requirements from sacerdotal priesthood "is a Docetism as romantically superhuman as that which engages plans for a non-institutional Church, free of the trivia of administration" (Priest and Priestess by George William Rutler, p. 79). Fr. Rutler writes: "It places the burden of integrity on the individual's talents rather than on the simple fact of his sexual existence, scorning the Messianic precedent which chose a specifically masculine human nature with all its limitations for the earthly representative of the High Priesthood of Christ Himself" (Ibid., pp. 79-80).

Last March, the National Catholic Review ran an article about 72 lay women at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. In the course of the report, Dean Hoge, a sociology professor at our local Catholic University noted that studies he had conducted suggest that if ordination was opened to women, only about 3,600 would take up the offer by the millennium. While I am not convinced of his figures, I have to wonder what kind of women would make up this group. It gives me cause to shudder. One student at CTU remarked, "It isn't the eucharistic part [I should hope not], I'm attracted to that. It's the clericalism, the celibacy and the political system that I couldn't stand." Ah, so the nature of priesthood and our ecclesiology would have to be revamped before many women would embrace orders. It makes sense. Indeed, would not the ordination of women itself imply such a transformation? Yes, I think so. There would be a new priesthood for a new Church. It would also mean the end of real Christianity.

34. Discarding the Deposit: Reckless Dissent Against Church Doctrine

An Argument Against Priestesses

It is evident from the Epistles and the Acts of Apostles that the roots of our ordination teaching is pre-Nicene. While insufficient to remedy the break in apostolic succession that afflicted the Anglican ordinal early in England's reformation, it is true that their priests and bishops who have shored their orders up with Old Catholic and Orthodox Bishops concelebrating their ordinations and consecrations may indeed be sharers in holy orders. When the Anglican Archbishop of London was recently received into the Roman Catholic Church, he was not re-ordained as is the usual practice but was conditionally ordained a priest. This exception was shown because he was able to show with some certitude his pedigree of orthodox precursors. Otherwise, the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curiae, still holds: Anglican orders are null and void. All this aside, the point I want to make is that the exclusion of women is a long held tradition that cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. Indeed, it is a fitting example of the canon discerned by St. Vincent of Lerins: a practice of belief common to the Church "everywhere, to everyone, at all times," would possibly allow for the organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of a human body from infancy to maturity. But, and this comes straight from John Henry Newman, this development while real must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine involved. This cannot be said of your position. The faithful Catholic must "guard the deposit" (1 Timothy 6:20), the revelation enshrined in the Scriptures and interpreted in the Church's tradition by the Magisterium.

I guess this letter brings us full circle. In your initial correspondence, you cited and dissented from the promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church. This work has been given the Imprimi Potest by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself, head of the Congregation of the Faith. It is introduced by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, by Pope John Paul II. He writes: "It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church." He makes no qualification in declaring "it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." A couple of paragraphs later, he says it again: "This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine . . . ."

Nevertheless, by dissenting against the teaching of the male-only priesthood, you logically seek to undermine the truthfulness of the entire document and the God-given authority of the Church to teach it. You castigate the Magisterium as murders. You relativize what should be objective truth. You reinterpret Scripture according to your own "personal" enlightenment and dismiss the exegetical role of the teaching Church. You ignore tradition as irrelevant or pretend that it is somehow in your favor. You do all this, and yet you plead to be a good Catholic because you say your beads and are pro-life. I have Mormon friends, polytheists and not really Christian at all, who fight abortion. I have Islamic friends, who deny Christ and the Trinity, who venerate Mary and say their prayer beads. Be careful. Little dissents grow into bigger ones and yours seems to be enlarging all the time.

Let us look at what the catechism says about women priests:

[1577] "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination" (CIC, can. 1024). The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible (Cf. John Paul II, MD 26-27; CDF, declaration, Inter insigniores: AAS 69 [1977] 98-116).

Prior to the Pope's most recent pronouncement on this issue, the catechism cited Inter insigniores. I will take it for granted that you have a copy and there is no need to reproduce it for you. Much of its backing I have already touched upon in earlier letters. It leaves no room for discussion. It says: ". . . the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." A sentence or so later it reiterates the point: "The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women." Hum, as I reread this document, it seems to answer many of your erroneous suppositions. Have you really read it? Of course, sometimes it would seem you have not really taken my poor miserable letters to heart either.

33. Rejection of a Flawed Interpretation of Galatians

An Argument Against Priestesses

You have handled yourself so poorly in this debate that I feel like a overwhelming raiding party of Indians, encircling your poorly defended wagon with ever shrinking revolutions. One of your principal armaments, St. Paul's statement to the Galatians about equality in grace, has proven itself to be like many of our modern tanks, an awesome weapon but largely manned by soldiers who cannot understand the working directions. Such is your confusion over the hackneyed use of what is a baptismal formula and not a justification for women's ordination. Your use of this passage in this distorted way is particularly disreputable.

To say that "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" is a qualification for priestesses is nothing much then a cheap classical reductionism. What is the statement actually saying? The phrase, "neither male nor female" is not focused on biology or psychology, just as "nether slave nor free" is not a statement of sociology and "neither Jew nor Greek" fails to center on anthropological realities. Moving away from your fundamentalism or literalism, the statement in Galatians is heavenly, even apocalyptic language. This particular unity does not emanate from a common humanity but rather from God's election. It is similar to that for which Jesus appealed: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, thatthey may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me" (John 18:20-23).

This unity for which Christ prays is not yet fully realized. During our earthly pilgrimage, the Church must be sufficiently sacramental so as to perceive the current realities of sex, position, culture, etc., raising up that which is of value in each and discarding that which profanes both God and men. Fr. George Rutler writes:

Secular exploitation of sexual differences in fields which theoretically have no sexual restrictions violate the Christian mind but that is a far different matter from the divine discrimination which merely states the reality of different sexes. St. Paul's statement about male and female eradicates the fact of maleness and femaleness no more than his statement about bond and free or Jew and Greek denies the reality of Onesimus and Philemon or the fundamentals of geography. Certainly his readers know this; that is the source of one of the great ironies of the ordinal controversy: proponents of priestesses quickly label St. Paul an anti-feminist on the grounds of his abiding awareness of the different order of men and women yet they simultaneously use his own writing in Galatians 3:28 as a proof text for the indistinguishability which he himself found so grim. Having sighted the careful line between representation and misrepresentation, these exegetes have approached it with all the temerity of Caesar at the Rubicon. (Priest and Priestess, pp. 21-23).

Monday, November 22, 2004

32. Priest or Priestess

An Argument Against Priestesses

Maybe we should both stop using the phrase, "woman priest"? It seems to me that the modern abhorrence of the word "priestess" is a telling fact. Even our unconscious psyches are uncomfortable with the possibility and this Orwellian word game is somehow an attempt to bypass our revulsion and the theological absurdity. Fr. George Rutler remarked in his Episcopalian days: ". . . and to say 'woman priest' is semantically as androit as saying 'female rooster'." Perhaps we avoid the word priestess because it tears to shreads any conception of this notion as fresh and modern? The word may even be older than "priest". The new Episcopalian priestesses are not so much one with true Catholic priests as they are with their western European and Mesopotamian forebears who rendered sybilline declamations over animal entrails.

Since you like Scripture, even if you insert new meanings into the texts, here is one of my favorites: "But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). Paul addresses himself in the subsequent text to some of the lesser and changeable traditions (like Mass veils), but his theological underpinnings are what constitutes the revealed truth. A woman cannot signify the groom, Christ the head. An even greater scandal erupts if such a priestess were literally married. She who is subject to her husband would then seek the submissiveness of the Church, including her husband, to her. A contradiction would emerge. Your disagreement with the marriage analogy is not ultimately with me, but with St. Paul. If you can cast aside the teachings of popes and apostles, how can you be so sure that you have the mind of Christ regarding women's ordination? No, Luis, you talked before you had it all thought out and now you are covering up. You are wrong and maybe afraid of the consequences in admitting it.

31. Seduction of Radical Feminists: No Basis for Certitude

An Argument Against Priestesses

What is your motivation in arguing for women priests? Over and over again, you speak as if there is a certainty that they are being called to holy orders; however, what proof have you for this supposed state of affairs? This befuddles me. There is nothing that the handful of women clamoring for priesthood can do to demonstrate objectively such a change in the structures instituted by Christ. Where do you get your certitude? Convoluted arguments that distort Scripture and Tradition are to no avail; the Magisterium is decidedly against it. What is your source of infallible insight regarding this matter?

The radical feminists I can understand. Viewing priests and bishops in terms of power, they hope to wrestle it away. Anger and hatred are forces that have long moved human history. There is no arguing with them, but that is okay. As long as they frantically deride the leadership in the Church as patriarchally oppressive, I am quite happy to leave them alone. They will not get far. Already many women normally sympathetic to their cause are themselves steering clear of these fanatics. Many of them will burn themselves out. Biologically speaking this is also true since their ranks include many avowed lesbians. Of course, it is admitted that even some of them want children. Many could not understand why there were so many lesbians and homosexuals at the NOW rally in Washington, D.C. a few years ago. For the lesbians, the answer was simple. They wanted to insure that after the use of a stud service or artificial insemination, that if the child conceived was male, they could abort it and try again. What was it one woman said? Oh yes, "To have sex with any man, even your husband is rape, to give birth to a male child is to be raped a second time." When the bishops' pastoral on sexism was being discussed, I attended workshops and encountered many of these angry women demanding the priesthood. They were insulted by my presence. Normal, happy women, stayed away. Where were your holy women wanting priesthood, then? This phenomenon was repeated throughout the nation. What kind of priests would they make? If they want to overthrow men whom they interpret as oppressors, it is only so that they can oppress us for real. Yes, I understand these people and they sicken me.

Those who try to be less impassioned usually dialogue in utilitarian terms. They see the priest shortage as a danger to the Church. Little is said about the fact that encouragement has been lacking for men to consider priesthood. Families have fewer kids and then want grandchildren. Immediate self gratification, including promiscuity, and driving ambition for the good life is a potent force in our society. These are things we are told to deny ourselves in seminary. Priests display their discontent, and then wonder why there are so few to follow in their footsteps. The reputation of priests in general has been denigrated by the foul actions of a few and the news media hungry for gossip. Religious education has been abysmal, giving us several generations of baptized Catholics illiterate of their faith and/or taught heresy. Vocations directors turn down men for being too conservative and bishops either close seminaries or fail to sponsor candidates. No, women priests are not the answer. We will get as many priests as we want; we just don't want any. The West falters while the third world in places like Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa, is exploding with vocations. Some of those who pose the utilitarian need may be acting in good faith, but they fail to see the manipulation of the need. Secular considerations must not force an unwarranted alteration of the theological obstacles to women's ordination. No natural argument suffices because the priesthood touches the supernatural. "Be on your guard; do not let your minds be captured by hollow and divisive speculations, based on traditions of man-made teaching and centered on the elemental spirits of the world and not on Christ" (Colossians 2:8). We are to follow the traditions established by Christ and the teachings of the Church, instead. Do we listen to a logic inspired by the spirit of the world or by that guarded and nurtured by the Holy Spirit?

30. C. S. Lewis: A Modern Apologist Rejects Priesthood for Women as Impossible

An Argument Against Priestesses

Did you know that Walter Hooper, the last personal secretary to C.S. Lewis, not only converted to Catholicism but became a priest. He claimed that if Lewis had lived slightly longer, he would have followed his old friend Tolken's advice, and have made the further step in his recovery of Christianity to be received into the Catholic Church. Collected in a book entitled, God in the Dock, are a series of Lewis' essays. Among these is one pertinent to our discussion: "Priestesses in the Church?" His initial concern shows that his foresight about the Anglican communion was not infallible: ". . . I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Orders. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities," (p. 235). However, he does astutely observe, and remember he died back in 1963, the same day that President Kennedy was shot: "To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence" (p. 235).

He contends that those who want the change are too sensible. They see the priest shortage and are impressed with the abilities of women. He asks, rhetorically, "What then, except prejudice begotten of tradition, forbids us to draw on the huge reserves which could pour into the priesthood if women were here, as in so many other professions, put on the same footing as men?" (p. 235). Hum, perhaps Lewis did have some foresight, for why else would he have written this article? Maybe he wrote it for you and those like you? He notes that the reverence for the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages might have been exaggerated, and yet nothing "remotely resembling a sacerdotal office" was ever attributed to her. She is the Woman of Faith who is united with the Word in her womb. She stands at the foot of the cross. But she is missing from the picture at the Last Supper and on Pentecost. Remarking about the question of cultural prejudice, he states: "Nor can you daff it aside by saying that local and temporary conditions condemned women to silence and private life. There were female preachers. One man had four daughters who all 'prophesied', i.e. preached. There were prophetesses even in Old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses" (p. 236). He observes that part of the discomfort that comes from his side of the issue is that the traditionalists and the "sensible" reformers do not share a common definition of the priesthood. Lewis writes: "To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us" (p. 236).

Returning to the subject at hand, and notice his inclusion of the marriage analogy which you detest, he speculates: "Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to 'Our Father.' [Which your fellow separatist, albeit in morals and not Christology, Fr. Charles Curran does regularly at Mass.] Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does" (pp. 236-7). Here comes the punch: "Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity" (p. 237). He contends that God himself has taught us how to speak of him. Those who would contend that both males and females are the same types of icons for Christ would be mistaken. "To say that it does not matter
is to say that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery" (p. 237). Thus, "image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit" (p. 237). Now, I want you to read these words as if he has written them specifically for you: "The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters" (p. 237). Like bees in a hive, this might be the model for workers in the modern State, but the Church must restore us to "reality". "There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body" (p. 238). Against the equality for which you contend, C. S. Lewis states, and his words are far better than mine: "The point is that unless 'equal' means 'interchangeable', equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable (like counters or identical machines) is, among humans, a legal fiction. It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures" (p. 238).

Being a great fan of C. S. Lewis' works, I love to quote his insightful wisdom. Paraphrasing the man who became famous for cutting to the quick seems redundant. It does occur to me though, why should you listen to a school master if you will not even accept the teaching of the Pope? But, I feel compelled to try. As much as thirty years ago, Lewis was having to contend with religious people who for all intensive purposes, had displaced mystery with what he calls "common sense". This worldly wisdom would find a home with Scripture scholars and philosophers as methodical doubt and among the throng of weekend Christians as a kind of atheism. They would hold that those things which are unreasonable cannot be true. If man can re-think and change the priorities of God, then man is God. The pinnacle of this process was reached not when the Anglicans approved the ordination of women, but when one of their bishops preached in his cathedral that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. He caused some controversy, but remained a bishop in good stead in the Church of England. Obviously what he said was no longer all that shocking. If Lewis had lived into his nineties, I am sure that he would have seen a connection between these two events. Thinking upon the nature of what the true Church must be, he writes: "The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. [Is this not what the Anglican diocese of Sydney is doing by allowing the laity to officiate at holy communion?] If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it -- as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. . . . If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion" (p. 238). In other words, we go backwards.

Towards the end of the essay, he concludes: "Only the one wearing the masculine uniform [military analogy] can [until the Parousia] represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles" (p. 239).

29. Early Christianity Elevated Women's Dignity Outside of Priesthood

An Argument Against Priestesses

As I reflect over what I have written you, I cannot extract from my memory that you would allow Jesus the commission of even "lesser" evils. Jesus was not one to permit the constraints of time and place to distort his proclamation of the Gospel and the new dispensation. Surprisingly, the early Church would take after her Master. Having not long ago celebrated the Epiphany, and the revelation of the great light of salvation to the Gentiles, it might be good for us to ponder their faith and the solemn trust given them.

Their avoidance of priestesses, this is the true word, was not simply omission, but calculated avoidance. Since the Church was very much open to other aspects in the Hellinization process, this avoidance is singularly remarkable. With the multiplication of ministries in the early Church and the functioning of the holy widows and virgins (deaconesses); are we to conclude that it never occurred to women to petition for priesthood? No this seems far fetched. Indeed, given the proliferation of goddess worship and their accompanying priestesses, such a notion was probably more apparent to them than to ourselves. The worship of the Mother Goddess had even taken place in Palestine, according to ancient Syrian records. It is likely that a number of Jezebel's pagan prophets were priestesses for the goddess Asherah. They probably had their throats cut alongside male counterparts when Elijah discredited their sacrifice. Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos encountered priestesses as well. The substitution of baptism for circumcision, eliminated gender requirements for both those being initiated and for the ministering attendants, (as you yourself mentioned), why is it then that Christians in the Greek and Roman world continued to avoid their use? St. Paul wrote that in Christ there was neither male nor female; but still, no women became priests. They were given roles to play, but forbidden the priesthood. Remember too that these early Christian women were not shy fragile things. Some of them would become holy martyrs for the faith. Athenagoras, himself an archbishop of the Church, remarked: "Our poor Lord did not include in His cabinet of twelve any of those women who contributed with their substance for His sustenance." Well, neither did his later Greek adherents.

I suspect that arguments for the exclusion of women from priesthood seemed too obvious in the early Church to even be mentioned. There is really no clear written testimony until the fourth century. The silence of the New Testament cannot be interpreted as consent on this matter. The community was not prejudicial against the institution of women priests for cultural reasons, indeed, there were many enticements. The only conclusion we are really left with is that the reasons against it were recognizably theological. They saw the male-only priesthood as a mandate from Christ. The situation remains unchanged.

28. Responses to Criticisms of Fr. Hauke's Work

An Argument Against Priestesses

Good gracious, I have now reached the final page of Fr. Hauke's quotations-- please read his book. You have made clear to me that you think the ministries of acolyte and reader were excluded to men only because of sexism. No, it only points to an important difference. The theology behind male servers was simple, as an extension of the priests hands, assisting him in the liturgy, should he not also be male? Many of us would say yes, but it is a discipline that has been abrogated. What it will do in terms of future vocations, I shudder to think.

As for a devotion to Christ's maleness, sorry it has already happened. In every masculine pronoun the mystery of the incarnation of Christ as a male human being is reiterated: "I give myself and consecrate to the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, my person and my life, my actions, pains and sufferings, so that I may be unwilling to make use of any part of my being other than to honor, love and glorify the Sacred Heart. This is my unchanging purpose, namely, to be all HIS, and to do all things for the love of HIM, at the same time renouncing with all my heart whatever is displeasing to HIM. I therefore take you, O Sacred Heart, to be the only object of my love, the guardian of my life, my assurance of salvation, the remedy of my weakness and inconstancy, the atonement for all the faults of my life and my sure refuge at the hour of death. / Be then, O Heart of goodness, my justification before God the FATHER, and turn away from me the strokes of HIS righteous anger. O Heart of love, I put all my confidence in you, for I fear everything from my own wickedness and frailty, but I hope for all things from your goodness and bounty. / Remove from me all that can displease you or resist your holy will; let your pure love imprint your image so deeply upon my heart, that I shall never be able to forget you or to be separated from you. / May I obtain from all your loving kindness the grace of having my name written in your heart, for in you I desire to place all my happiness and glory, living and dying in bondage to you" (Act of Consecration to the Sacred Heart by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque). I bet you there are very few feminists and dissenters who offer this prayer and those who try probably alter its wording.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus is a male heart that beats in the chest of the God-Man. His is the heart that brings him to the cross out of love for sinful humanity.

Regarding Mary, your changes to the points from Fr. Hauke again show your disregard for the poignant beauty and truth of the marriage analogy. Can you really be Christian and disregard it? The Son of God aside, the greatest human being to ever walk the earth is a female, the Virgin Mary. Precisely as female and mother she has an abiding role to play in the redemptive process. Your assertion that this is "not because she is a woman" makes no sense in this context whatsoever. Because it smacks of the most disagreeable error, I will continue to pray for you as requested.

Your final addendum is false. You write, "I dissent only with CCC 1577." Your ideas threaten orthodox Christology (who is Jesus?), Ecclesiology (the nature of the Church), Sacramentology (regarding marriage), Liturgiology (the priest as a true icon of Christ), the theology of the transmission of dogma and doctrine, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the teaching about Authority and the Magisterium, etc. I am sure, if properly explored, you would find that your "small" dissent is a reflection of a whole host of heresies.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

27. Assorted Responses

An Argument Against Priestesses

Race & Sexuality. You suggest that race is just as constitutive of the human person as sexuality; however, while the latter touches the essence of the human person, I can find nothing to substantiate the former. What is the basis for thinking that race, a mere accidental, is something necessarily resurrected in the life to come? In any case, it says nothing to counteract the argumentation against women priests. Later, you make this same error about Jesus' Jewishness which was not considered essential even in Apostolic times. What is your background? Can you understand the difference between accidents and things essential? This business I thought I had clarified in my first letter.

Marriage Analogy & Relationship of Christ to the Church. Again you reject the marriage analogy. Actually, I do not think that Fr. Hauke ever declares the two images to be absolutely identical. Indeed, such a happenstance is totally counter to what analogies are about. They are dissimilar but also alike. You would discount it entirely. Rather, recognizing that all analogies fall somewhat short, he echoes the Church's perennial usage of this analogy as conveying some hint or truth as to the mystery of Christ's union with the Church. The analogy finds its roots in both the Old and New Testaments. Your repudiation of the marriage analogy as a "fundamentalist rationalization," which it is not, is supplanted with nothing better. You know full well that women cannot be ordained as long as this analogy is the foremost manner in which the Church sees her relationship to Christ. You are in opposition to a constant teaching of the Church. Now, you have not only abandoned an orthodox view of orders, but of ecclesiology, and of sacramentology. The Vatican II documents speak about it and it is at the nucleus to the chapter on Mary as the Mother and Model of the Church. The catechism says this about marriage: "The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant" (#1617). This truth is also echoed from the council of Trent (DS 1799).

Proclivity of Males Toward Authority. While Fr. Hauke states that "the sociological findings, based on biology" make it clear that men tend more toward authority roles than women, you simply suggest that it is "cultural conditioning." Is this conclusion the result of a scientific study of your own or only blind opinion?

Made in the Image of God. You take exception to Fr. Hauke's distinction between the sexes based upon an orthodox interpretation of the Trinity. However, your comment based on Genesis, "Both man and woman are created in the image of God," and you add, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" does not imply a intrinsic conflict either. Like God, our spirits possess intellect and will. The Trinity has left his mark upon all creation. If you disagree with the teaching of the divine generations between the persons of the Trinity, and I am not sure you do, then this would be another theological weakness to shore up. However, using the Trinity as an analogy for understanding the complementarity of the sexes, particularly in regard to the Christian family, is not anything new. You really say nothing to challenge Fr. Hauke here either.

Maleness of Christ Essential. You have not moved from your position that extracts Christ's maleness from his humanity. Can you not understand that such is important in the context of the paschal mystery? Such a mutilation of Christ's identity is foreign to genuine Christianity. Both the maleness of Christ and the femininity of Mary as a model of the Church are essential to the redemption.

Vocation of Mary. Yes, Mary's unique vocation is superior to all, except for Christ's. Of course, she is also a model to women, indeed, to sinners of both genders, of what we can achieve by God's grace, holiness. She is Christ's first disciple, but not his last. Further, her vocation is intimately tied up with Christ's. Looking upon her crucified Son, his pain becomes her pain. This is at the heart of the old title, "co-redemptrix." The roles are different, but not in opposition or utterly separate.

Apostolicity & Male Nurturing. I suspect that you misunderstand Fr. Hauke when he writes: "For the clergy does not constitute the essence of the Church (as Church), but is only its necessary accident." How you construe the word "accident" as a denial of the Church's apostolicity is beyond me. He cites the female author, Oda Schneider, and her work, Priestertum, as the source for this assertion. Of course, if you reject the marriage analogy, it is no wonder that this is all too much for you. The word "apostolic" means several things in the Catholic context. Your constant repetition of such slogans as "not male-apostolic," are only in contradiction to the historical and ordinal aspect of its meaning. First, there is no getting around the fact that the apostles were all men. Second, the apostles were the only ones invited by Christ to share his Last Supper at which he instituted the Eucharist. Third, the apostles ordained episcopoi and presbyters to assist them and to minister in their stead. These aspects of the word apostolic are relegated to the male sex. Fourth, the Church herself, both in her clergy and in her laity, is founded upon the apostles and nurtured by the blood of the martyrs. This latter group was both male and female. Fifth, the Church is apostolic because she continues to teach the one true faith that was given the apostles and which constitutes the deposit of faith. Sixth, the Church is apostolic because she utilizes the sacraments of Christ as an integral facet of her inner life. Your assertion that, "A feminine presence in the hierarchy will make visible the maternal expression of God's mercy, as Jesus longs to do," would ironically severe the apostolic cord of the Church that you find so important. As I have previously said, you are presumptuous of Christ's will. As for Luke 13:34b, Jesus' nurturing role, compared to a mothering hen, is a challenge to all men called to priesthood and forces us to expand our view about real manhood. I told you once before, if you want to interpret this passage in a fundamentalist way, then it is not women priests you want but chickens!

Women Priests: Destruction of the Church. Huh? How can you suggest that the experience of the Anglican "communion" has made this concern mute? Their church is dying, the priesthood and Mass is dubious, and heresy is rampant. The Australians have even pushed for an eradication of the priest altogether in allowing laity to preside at the Eucharist. The matter of women priests is tearing what ecclesial reality they possess to pieces. They are precisely evidence that the Catholic view is true. Their orders are null-and-void to begin with. Now many of their most devout and intelligent thinkers are agreeing with us. You should have caught the series with former Anglican priests on EWTN's cable program, St. Charles Forum. There is such an inrush of new recruits into the catholic Church that there is some fear of a restoration of the old anti-Catholic laws in England. My goodness, sometimes you are your own worse enemy.

Jesus' Exclusion of Women Not Culturally Determined. Jesus was not discouraged from including women among the twelve simply because it would have been too shocking. If it had been the right thing to do-- the model Jesus wanted imitated-- he would not have hesitated. Jesus was sensational in most things he did; why would he hesitate here? You are grasping at straws again.

Deficiency in the Holy Spirit? Do you really think that the Holy Spirit has to be more arduous in moving the Church toward women priests? What a statement! You misunderstand Fr. Hauke once more. His implication is that such a change is not warranted. But, I suppose you say what you do out of jest. Be careful, nevertheless, that you do not actually ascribe any deficiency to God as God. The truths of Christ and the mystery of the Church is unfolding precisely as the Holy Spirit intends. Having disagreed with the Magisterium, are we going to argue with God now?

Consistency in the Organic Development of Doctrine. In repudiation of the counter-cultural role of male-priests in the Gentile world in healthy tension with the learning and teaching responsibilities of women in domestic life, you wonder if a seed was not planted that might bloom into a female priesthood. Actually, it has been so argued. The trouble is that such development cannot in itself violate truths that are more firmly entrenched. So, the answer is ultimately, no.

Iranaeus' Condemnation. Here, you are correct, it is taken for granted that women priests is wrong, and in the case of Iranaeus, condemned alongside sorcery. Exactly so. It represents the beginning of a new religion.

Heretics Accepted Women Priests. You claim that the heretics did the right thing (ordained women) although their reasoning was false. But, many of their reasons are your reasons! The whole subject is a distortion. They precisely did the WRONG thing because they had the WRONG reason. Like yourself, they appealed to a Gnostic and heretical interpretation of Galatians. They negated the value of the incarnation of Christ just as you minimize it by disavowing his masculinity a role in his saving actions.

Epiphanius Mentions That Even Mary Not Ordained. I will not enter upon a debate on your definition of "merit," as I again fail to see what this has to do with the quote from this bishop of the early Church. Epiphanius knows full well that Mary is "full of grace" and yet she is not gifted with the ordained priesthood. As the model for the Church in general (the essence of the Church as described by Fr. Hauke) and for women in particular, this lack of ordination is telling.

The Will of Christ. You say that you cannot find any direct revelation or saying from Christ that would forbid women's ordination. You do not want to find it. Nevertheless, you can find it in the testimony of the Church fathers, the Scriptures properly interpreted by the Magisterium, and in the official declarations of the Church, like the new catechism. This latter work does not deal with speculative matters, only with those things that are settled teaching. You are surrounded by sources of Christ's will regarding women's ordination; but, you are blind to see it.

No Woman Ever Called To Orders. Well, here it is; you write, "Just because the Church has been doing something wrong for two thousand years is no reason to keep doing it wrong." Such an approach to tradition is an ignorant renunciation of the very nature of what living tradition is all about. It is a blasphemy against the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. You have not noted one shred of evidence in any of your correspondence to show how tradition accords room for women priests; pushed against the wall, you would now shove it all aside-- not necessarily for the Protestant sola scriptura approach, but for the sola-Wannabe one.

Fourth Century Verdict: Women Priests Are Heretical. You note regarding Epiphanius' statement and its interpretation by Fr. Hauke, that he is simply noting that deacons cannot say Mass Actually, it says deaconesses cannot do such a thing because of their exclusion from sacramental priesthood. This becomes obviously evident considering Fr. Hauke's citation of the Montanists and the Collyridian women. You really have not read this book, have you? How can you hope to speak on this topic if you fail to do the groundwork? How can you dare even have an opinion? Do you claim to possess infused knowledge?

Further Disregard for Tradition. You minimize faith to creedal statements and reject the wisdom of Saints Augustine, John Damascene, and John Chrysostom against women priests. Theirs is the faith of the Church given flesh in the new catechism. Once you reject one tenant, the foundation for holding the rest is shattered. Such a faith becomes arbitrary and open to whims. Later, in reference to the burden of proof on those wanting change, you dismiss repetitive past behavior. Well again, that is precisely what tradition is. Where is your burden of proof? Many of the Anglicans admitted that they did not have any-- they just allowed women priests anyway for current sociological reasons.

Pope Gelasius Bans Women Priests as Heretical. "Everything that is entrusted exclusively to the service of men is performed by the sex [women] that has no right to do so." The pope is quite right. No one person [as an individual] has a
"right" to priesthood (as you understand the term); however, the male sex [in general] as a "right" as properly disposed for the priesthood.

Thomas' Exclusion of Women Based on the Incarnation. Despite your careless dismissal, this reasoning, echoed by the Pope himself still applies. The priest signifies Christ the head because such is also the case in the natural order. But again, you deny the marriage analogy its rightful place in the Church's self-understanding.

What Does Luke 2:23 Actually Say? You cited this Scripture both against Aquinas and against Bonaventure. The latter contends that ". . . according to the sounder and wiser opinion of the doctors', this fact [the Church never having ordained women] is significant not only legally, but in principle: women are incapable of receiving the sacrament of orders." Looking up Luke 2:23, I have to wonder what kind of bible you have. My reads as, ". . . just as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord, . . . .'" Huh? How does this apply? This custom of the old dispensation was supplanted by baptism in the new. How does it apply today? The Levitical priesthood would sacrifice their offering, just as the priest today blesses first the gifts of the offertory and then renders the exchanged gift of Christ's very self. Looking specifically at the text, the Jewish rite of purification, normally for the female, found a parallel in an old Christian ritual abandoned in living memory. Verse 23 regards Jesus as the firstborn son whom the old law demanded to be consecrated to the Lord. The New American translation suggests in the footnotes that there is a parallel to 1 Samuel 1:24-28 in which Hannah offers Samuel for sanctuary services. It is in regard to this that my thoughts turn to the late Cardinal O'Boyle. He never failed to preach about the virtue of mothers who offered their sons to the Church as priests. Mary is the first mother in this line. The new catechism remarks: "The presentation of Jesus in the temple shows him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord. With Simeon and Anna, all Israel awaits its encounter with the Savior -- the name given to this event in the Byzantine tradition. Jesus is recognized as the long-expected Messiah, the 'light to the nations' and the 'glory of Israel,' but also 'a sign that is spoken against.' The sword of sorrow predicted for Mary announces Christ's perfect and unique oblation on the cross that will impart the salvation God had 'prepared in the presence of all peoples'" (#529). Again, did you cite the wrong Scripture passage? The stress on Christ as "son" seems to assist my argument.

Duns Scotus: Women's Ordination Counter to Christ's Will. I am almost embarrassed by your attitude at this point. Please try to think logically for a moment as I offer the quote again from this doctor of the Church: "I do not believe, namely, that any office useful for salvation has been withheld from any person through institution by the Church or prescription of the apostles, and much less still from an entire existing sex. If, then, the apostles or the Church cannot justly withhold from a person any office useful for salvation unless Christ, as their head, has so determined, and much less still from the entire female sex, therefore Christ alone first prescribed this, he who instituted the sacrament." There is a syllogism here. Did you not take philosophy and right reasoning in school? Think!

I have mentioned several of the Church fathers, a whole host of saints, etc. to verify the tradition of the Church. You have yet to name one. Where are your facts? Where are your Scripture quotations-- some that make sense? Where are your citations from authoritative Church documents? Except for slogans, and I hate to be cruel in saying this, you have offered nothing to substantiate your counter-claims.

Radical Feminists as Modern Gnostics Holding True Womanhood in Contempt. All you can say here is the empty word, "nonsense." Yes, I quoted the heretical and apocryphal Gospel of Thomas that says only "a woman who makes herself a man will enter the Kingdom of heaven." It is expressive of the contemporary Gnosticism that many moderns disguise behind the rhetoric of equality and liberation. Is this particular work the only such? I do not know. Certainly many speak of the great androgyny. Sometime during the second century a Gnostic retelling of John was composed, called The Dialogue of the Savior. We read: "The Lord said, 'Pray in the place where there is no woman.' Matthew said, 'Pray in the place where there is no woman,' he tells us, meaning, 'Destroy the works of womanhood,' not because there is any other manner of birth, but because they will cease giving birth.' Mary said, 'They will never be obliterated.' The Lord said, 'Who knows that they will not dissolve and . . . ." We discover in the Second Apocalypse of James, "He was the virgin, and that which he wishes happens to him." In another document, The Thunder, we read, "I am the bride and the bridegroom." Also extant is the tractate Zostrianos that says, "She was called Barbelo because (of her being) thought; the triple [race] (which is) male, virginal (and) perfect and her knowledge through which she came into being in order that they might not [. . .] her down and that she might not come forth anymore through those in her and those who follow her." I know, just scraps. The Christian community was quite good at erasing the Gnostic legacy. Will we be as successful in combating their spiritual heirs today? I hope so.

26. Fr. Hauke's Masterful Work: Women in the Priesthood?

An Argument Against Priestesses

(Available from Ignatius Press)

Christ is Still a Man: Sexuality is Forever. "After the resurrection of the body, to be sure, the physical functions become spiritualized, so that the sensual reproductive urge ceases, but the particular sexual identity that was bestowed by the Creator does not, as such, change" (pp. 250-251).

Marriage Analogy & the Church: Genders Not Interchangeable. "The Roman declaration on women in the priesthood thus goes to the heart of the symbolism of the sexes when it interprets the mystery of Christ and his Church in terms of the images of bridegroom and bride. In this, intellectual content is closely linked to expressive form, for the symbols are not interchangeable" (p. 256).

Men Inclined Toward Authority Roles. "Now, bearers of authority are more often men than women. On this point, the sociological findings, based on biology, speak in exceedingly clear terms. Advocates of the ordination of women like to contest this fact but often enough tend to confirm it in an indirect way. Time and again, we hear from them the slogan that office does not imply ruling but serving, but in this it is presupposed that women have a greater facility for subordination, for serving" (p. 261).

Male Images the Logos. "Thus we find in the Holy Spirit certain characteristics that can link up with feminine symbolism, such as immanence, relationality, and above all his identity as receptive. . . . Not the Spirit but the Logos is the image of the Father. The ultimate reason for this lies in the fact that the Pneuma arises not from the cognitive side of the Father, in which -- as indicated by the image of propagation -- an imaging tendency is inherent, but from the reciprocal love between Father and Son, that is, from a process of mental-spiritual conation" (p. 296).

Maleness of Christ Essential. "If the masculinity of Christ is essential to his redemptive work, then so, too, is the femininity of Mary to the representation of the Church which opens herself to that work" (p. 298).

Male Office Insures Feminine Receptivity of Church. "The only reason that the Church is endowed with male office is 'so that she . . . does not forget her primary womanliness'. That office must 'represent the self-giving Lord of the Church', 'but within her feminine receptivity'. 'The Church is first of all -- and this primacy is an enduring one -- feminine, before she receives her supplementary masculine side in the form of ecclesiastical office.' To be sure, in 'office', the male (more precisely, some males) is 'head' of the female (and not only of the female), but, at the same time, he is dependent on the Marian as the 'sheltering hearth and exemplary realization' of being a Christian. For the Christian existence of office-bearer, the 'Marian principle' is 'the more comprehensive and all-embracing'; 'everything in it that is majestic, authoritative, hierarchical [must] be lived out and permeated by the spirit and by the attitude of the Marian Fiat'" (p. 324).

Feminist's Misconception of Real Womanhood. "A 'desire for ecclesiastical office in a woman [can] arise only from a misconception of her proper position of worth within the Church (as Church) . . . , a misconception that levels down the mystery of the sexes instead of living it out in its open and consummate tension and fruitfulness'. Leo Scheffczyk therefore remarks that the figure of Mary is given, 'in consequence of a correct instinct, no [attention] at all' by the advocates of a female priesthood" (pp. 324-5).

Advocates of Women Priests Exaggerate the Masculine Element of the Church. "From this perspective, attempts by women to enter the official priesthood would be explicable by assuming that the critical Marian dimension of the Church had not been sufficiently internalized. At the same time, a certain overvaluation of the masculine element in the Church may be suspected, and perhaps even a hidden clericalism. For the clergy does not constitute the essence of the Church (as Church), but is only its necessary accident. In any case, as the relevant sociological data show quite clearly, women will never be able to play a role equivalent to that of men even if admitted to the clergy. The specific worth of woman becomes all the more clearly apparent when the priesthood is prohibited to her" (p. 325).

Women Priests: Destruction of the Church. [Quoting Gertrud von le Fort] "'The Church was not able to entrust the priesthood to women, since she would thereby have destroyed the proper significance of women in the Church -- she would have destroyed a part of her own essence, that part whose symbolic representation was entrusted to women'" (p. 325).

Jesus Not Stymied by Cultural Prejudices. "In short: Jesus' attitude toward women was, in his times, 'revolutionizing'; through him, woman is placed 'side by side with man, having equal rights as a child of God'" (p. 329).

Gender is Significant in Revelation. Do you hear yourself when Fr. Hauke echoes the qualm, "The emphasis on Jesus' masculinity is foreign to the New Testament. It is his humanity that remains decisive" (p. 335)? I think you do. He replied, "The Bible offers no comprehensive 'recipe book' for questions raised by later times. In revelation, much is contained only in budlike form and cannot come to blossom until later on, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Precisely progressive theologians ought not to reject such new ideas from the very start. Also, I do not mean to emphasize sexual differentiation more than humanity here, but simply to take seriously the fact that 'humanity' occurs only as 'being a man' or 'being a woman'. That being, specifically, a man or a woman plays a role in revelation . . ." (p. 335).

Maleness of Priest Resonates with Christ's. "The relationship between Christ and his official representatives is not merely an external legalistic but rather 'a sacramental significative one, with the signifier being, however, the whole living person'. This imaging relationship has its foundation in the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood, through which, in a way that goes beyond baptism by virtue of its character indelebilis, an ontological approximation to Christ is realized. Just as Christ, as mediator of salvation, 'can exist in his totality only if his masculine identity is included', so things stand too regarding his priestly representative" (pp. 338-9).

Male-Only Priesthood Counter-cultural in St. Paul's Gentile World. Regarding the writings of St. Paul, Fr. Hauke notes that the exclusion of women from teaching (at least in an official and cultic setting) and their subordination, while perhaps influenced by the synagogue tradition, was considered anachronistic in much of the Gentile world, and, nevertheless, possessed clear differences from Judaism. Learning is no longer prohibited but encouraged, indeed, made a duty. Older women are "teachers in what is good" in the framework of day-to-day living.

Iranaeus Condemns Women Priests. "Iranaeus (second century) tells of women who, on the advice of a Valentinian sorcerer named Marcus, felt themselves driven to celebrating the Eucharist by the Holy Spirit. This incident took place in Asia Minor. The anger of the Church Fathers was directed primarily at the sorcery of Marcus, but condemnation of celebration of the Eucharist by women is obviously presupposed" (p. 408).

Heretics Gradually Accepted Women Priests. "But even the Montanists [who granted women more extensive participation in the liturgy than did the Church] seem to have generally respected the ban on ordination of women. Not until Epiphanius (fourth century) were there reports of female clergy in an offshoot of the sect. There, women were active as bishops and presbyters, and their ordination was justified on the basis of Galatians 3:28. The difference between the sexes was held to play no role, for, in Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female" (p. 408). Ironically, "the deciding argument for the refusal of female priesthood is the appeal to the directives of Saint Paul, which is supplemented elsewhere by additional important considerations" (p. 409).

Epiphanius Argues That Even Mary Not Ordained. [Quoting Epiphanius' Adversus haereses from the fourth century] "'If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood [ierateuein] or with assuming ecclesiastical office [kanonikon ti ergaz estai en Ekklnhsia], then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But did not find this [the conferring of priesthood] good. Not even baptizing was entrusted to her; otherwise, Christ could better have been baptized by her than by John'" (pp. 416-17).

Call to Holiness Not the Same As a Call to Orders. "For Epiphanius, women can appear as an outstanding example of wickedness but also as a model of all-surpassing holiness. Priesthood for women does not, therefore, depend on their holiness or unholiness but on the will of Christ" (p. 417).

Epiphanius: No Woman Ever Called to Orders. [Quoting Epiphanius] "'From this bishop [the brother of the Lord, James in Jerusalem] and the just-named apostles, the successions of bishops and presbyters in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses'" (pp. 417-18).

Fourth Century Verdict: Women Priests Are Heretical. "The ecclesiastical office of deaconess (diakonisdwn tagma!) is 'not conferred for priestly service or functions of that sort, but rather, for the preservation of the dignity of the female sex when baptism is administered or when care for sickness and infirmity is required.' . . . Thus we see that Epiphanius anchors the exclusion of women from the sacramental priesthood in the will of Jesus, which corresponds to the divine plan for salvation. Female priesthood is therefore not described as a mere infringement of disciplinary order, but is represented as a heresy. Accordingly, the ecclesiastical practice of not ordaining women as priests appears as an obligatory component of sacred Tradition and must therefore remain closed to all contrary influences from the sociohistorical environment (Montanists and the Collyridian women)" (p. 418).

Augustine & John Damascene Agree That Orders for Women Violates the Faith. "It should be noted that Augustine, as the high point of the Latin Fathers, had an important influence on the later Church history, and that John Damascene, so to speak, set the final seal on the Greek Fathers. Both authors expressly categorized female priesthood under the rubric 'heresy', that is, it contradicts the binding Faith of the Church" (p. 418).

John Chrysostom: Jesus Called No Women Apostles. "The deciding factor in the argumentation [of John Chrysostom] is thus obviously provided by the example of Christ, who had called no woman to the office of apostle" (p. 419).

Early Papal Ban on Women Priests. "In 494, Pope Gelasius issued the following ban: 'As we have noted with vexation, contempt for divine truths has reached such a level that even women, it is reported, serve at holy altars; and everything that is entrusted exclusively to the service of men is performed by the sex that has no right to do so'" (p. 423).

Thomas Aquinas: Exclusion Based in Male Incarnation of Christ. "For Thomas, the nonordination of women is thus ultimately grounded in the Incarnation, even if this relation is not expressly brought out: Christ became man as a male because he represents 'being the head' of the Church in a sensibly perceptible way as well; only a male can receive the sacrament of orders because he is 'head' of the female. Both of these ideas can be tied to one another through the priestly representation of Christ, which is grounded in its sacramental character and completes itself most fully in the Mass: 'A priest bears the image of Christ, in whose person and power he pronounces the words of consecration" (p. 451).

Bonaventure: Females Incapable of Receiving Ordination. "[Bonaventure] observes that never in the Church was a woman admitted to sacred orders. 'And according to the sounder and wiser opinion of the doctors', this fact is significant not only legally (de jure), but in principle (de facto): women are incapable of receiving the sacrament of orders. . . . The reason for this thesis 'arises not from institution by the Church, but from the fact that the sacrament of orders is not appropriate for women. In this sacrament, namely, the person who is consecrated signifies Christ as Mediator; and since the Mediator belonged only to the male sex and can be signified only by the male sex, the capacity for receiving ordination is therefore appropriate only for men, who alone can represent [Christ] by nature and can bear the sign of the [ordained] character conformably with its reception'" (p. 452).

Duns Scotus: Women's Ordination Counter to the Will of Christ. "[Duns Scotus] grounds exclusion of women from ordination not only on the basis of symbolic representation, the Pauline statements and the will of Christ but postulates an
explicit command of the Lord. Because the nonordination of women is determined by Christ, more is at issue than merely a question of propriety or a mere command of the Church. Rather, at the basis is a fundamental state of affairs that ultimately derives from a directive of Jesus. Otherwise, exclusion of women would be immoral: 'I do not believe, namely, that any office useful for salvation has been withheld from any person through institution by the Church or prescription of the apostles, and much less still from an entire existing sex. If, then, the apostles or the Church cannot justly withhold from a person any office useful for salvation unless Christ, as their head, has so determined, and much less still from the entire female sex, therefore Christ alone first prescribed this, he who instituted the sacrament'" (pp. 454-55).

Radical Feminists Put True Womanhood in Contempt. "It does not, therefore, seem presumptuous to put forward a twofold thesis: the demand for female priesthood, which was provoked historically by certain forms of the emancipation movement, ultimately stems -- whether consciously or unconsciously -- from a Gnostic-like contempt for women: only 'a woman who makes herself a man will enter the Kingdom of heaven'. . . . Nonordination of women is grounded, however, in a high estimation of the specifically female nature" (p. 471).

Burden of Proof on Those Wanting a Change. "In any case, this consideration suffices to give faithfulness to the will of Jesus absolute priority over any changing of Church practice. Accordingly, the burden of proof rests not on the side of Tradition but on the side of those who want to change the behavior of the Church. If it is not known with absolute certainty whether the behavior of Jesus is binding or not, then there is but one possibility, namely, to remain with Tradition. Any change of practice would have to result from authentic religious insight and be based on an ability to refute decisively all opposing arguments. A mere adaptation to existing social structures or a catchword appeal to Galatians 3:28 ('in Christ there is neither male nor female'), especially from the perspective of modern equality slogans, would not do justice to the standards of faith" (p. 473).

Male-Only Priesthood a Matter of Divine Law. "If my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is correct, then it is not difficult to formulate the result: by force of divine law, only a baptized male can validly receive consecration to
priesthood. . . . First Corinthians 14:37-38 has the same structure as a conciliar or papal anathema: 'If any one says that . . . , he is under a ban'" (p. 476).

Speaking about the Church Fathers, Fr. Hauke must immediately make mention of the Gnostic influences. In connection with Paul's prohibition, Tertullian writes in De virginibus velandis: "It is forbidden for a woman to speak in church; she is also not allowed to teach, to baptize, to sacrifice or to presume to the rank of male office, not to mention priestly service" (p. 407). It should be qualified that even today, while many women serve as readers and extraordinary ministers, it is still by way of exception; under current ecclesial law, only MEN can be officially installed into the ministries of Lector and Acolyte. Following this rule, most dioceses restrict the installations to seminarians and use unoffical readers and servers in the parishes. However, even in this case, and it has become more the rule than the exception, the person must be a Catholic in good standing. However, even this sensible requirement is often violated in nuptial Masses. As with altar servers, the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska only uses males for these parish liturgical roles. However, even though the qualifications for readers and servers should be reserved to the Church's ruling, the ordination of women is a matter restricted to God's providence, and he has judged it in the negative.

25. Three False Understandings

An Argument Against Priestesses

1. You negate the over-riding presumption of a male-only priesthood in the Gospels and tradition since the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas is the only one that explicitly declares a person must be male as a condition for priestly ordination. There is no logic in this negation at all. Even heretics agree on some points of orthodox doctrine. The burden of proof is still yours. Seeking through two Greek and one Latin version of this Gospel (centering on the childhood of Jesus), I failed to find the passage to which you made reference. Then I recalled that there was another Gospel of Thomas, usually marked (II,2). Bingo! The original Greek text of this gospel, maybe written even before 140 AD has been lost. A Coptic version was located at Nag' Hammadi in 1945. Coming from a Gnostic-Manichean background, it contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Perhaps my eyes are growing bad, but I cannot find your reference in this work either. Could you give me the number of the saying? The closest I could determine was the last one: "Simon Peter said to them, 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'" I suspect that you have misinterpreted this text just as you did the baptismal formula from Paul. Although you can find no genuine support for your thesis in the canonical and inspired writings, this Gospel of Thomas (actually by Didymos Judas Thomas), despite your protests, is in some agreement with your dissent. The translation blurs this somewhat; but if we put aside a fundamentalist mentality, we can begin to see more clearly. Remember, the original author of this work lived long ago in an entirely different culture than ours. Remember, too, that he was a Gnostic heretic, dismissing the value of the material for the spiritual. Even Jesus is really not human, but is as "a righteous angel" (13), and confusing the distinction with the Father, the "one not born of woman" (15). The word "male" here is not used in the manner common among us. Remember, the Gnostics possessed women priests. Rather, it signified the ideal. Mary as such is no different from them, according to this teaching, she too is in need of salvation. This salvation does not so much come with baptism but in acquisition of the secret "Gnostic" truths and detachment from all flesh. The woman, particularly because of the cycle of her fertility, is symbolic of a flesh that is in bondage to the earth, the material. Again, this faith was not Christian and denied the incarnation. They use heavily symbolic language.

Some of them believe in a spiritual pre-existence to which they want to return (Platonic?). You are reading words but not understanding them. The introduction to the text as found in the collection of such writings, edited by James M. Robinson, is particularly revealing: "The theme of recognizing oneself is further elaborated in sayings (cf. 50, 51) which speak of the knowledge of one's divine origin which even Adam did not share, although 'he came into being from a great power' (saying 85).

Salvation is obtained in stripping off everything that is of the world (cf. sayings 21a, 37, 56). The disciples must 'pass by' the present corruptible existence (saying 42). The existence of the ideal gnostic disciple is characterized by the term 'solitary one,' which describes the one who has left behind everything that binds human beings to the world (cf. sayings 16, 23, 30, and 76). Even women can obtain this goal, if they achieve the 'maleness' of the solitary existence (saying 114)." Thus, although I would love to have an ancient source, even from heretics, that confirmed the teaching of a male-only priesthood, saying 114 is not it.

Remember too, if Jesus' flesh is not important or real, as Gnostics would contend, then his crucifixion becomes a pretense. The Mass ritual is emptied of any sacrificial meaning. Due to this rejection of matter, the Gnostics saw no problem with either men or women functioning as priests, as long as both of them had embraced the saving gnosis and asceticism denoted by the theological term "male" in saying 114. As the offspring of Gnosticism, Manichaeism would propose that the crucifixion is not a historical event. Rather, it represents the bondage of the soul to matter. So much for point one, timber!

2. Again, just as you tried in the first point, you attempt to ascribe overwhelming doctrinal content to silence. The issue of women's ordination has only become a point of contention in modern times. Previously, it only emerged when discussing heretical groups. It would be redundant to call the Apostles male at every turn since all knew well that they were men. You make much out of nothing. The Apostles and their successors, the episcopoi and presbyters, are men. Rather than as a fact that is merely taken for granted, it is a truth confirmed throughout the centuries and around the world as divinely willed and instituted. Just as you would split Christ, despite your protestations and desire to do otherwise, you would also divide the mind and intention of Christ from that of the Church-- a tricky business!

3. Yes, our Lord is pro-life. And yes, it is a core doctrine of the Church. But, must we hear again that not ordaining women is a vocational contraception and abortion? Rubbish! There is no seed. Ordaining women would do for the ministries what lesbianism has done for morals. Not until the bishop calls a man by name does he know for sure that there is a calling. There is no vocation in utero that can be induced to miscarry.

24. Distorted Scriptures

An Argument Against Priestesses

John 3:16-17; 6:54-56 - Bread of Life & Cup of Salvation

The first reference to John merely states that God sent his SON into the world that it might be saved through HIM. As for the second, look at what Jesus says in the prior verse, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the SON OF MAN and drink HIS blood, you do not have life within you." Sorry, this reinforces the teaching of an exclusively male Christian priesthood. What bible are you reading?

Matthew 4:1-10; John 18:36 - Servant Messiah

I fail to see how Matthew's rendition of the temptation scene is applicable to your argument. Do you just pick verses at random and hope they apply? Notice the footnotes in the New American translation: "Jesus, proclaimed SON of God at his baptism, is subjected to a triple temptation. Obedience to the FATHER is a characteristic of true SONSHIP, . . . ." The second citation is Christ's admission that his kingdom is not of this world. Again, what does this have to do with women priests? After Pentecost, we know his kingdom will be breaking into the world through the vehicle of his Church.

John 4:27; 16:13; Galatians 3:27-28; Hebrews 7; Acts 15 - New Order

Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman. However, instead of being evidence that Jesus was sympathetic to the notion of women priests, it merely illustrated that his message of repentence, faith, and salvation should have universal significance. Indeed, this case illumines the fact that Jesus was not hesitant to shake the status-quo, as in this instance wherein he speaks to a foreigner, heretic, and a promiscuous "unclean" woman. Nevertheless, he still did not create a female priesthood. Sorry, you just scored a point for the other side! The second citation reflects the fact that the Lord simply did not want to overwhelm his disciples. Later would come the Paraclete who would confirm them in the truth. You take things out of context and give them unsubstantiated and false content. Jesus did not refrain from instituting women priests because he would have to impose them by force; rather, it was because such was counter to his will and the elected economy of salvation. The mention of Galatians has nothing at all to do with ordination but is a baptismal formula expressing ethnic, socio-economic, and sexual equality in Christ the Savior. This putting on Christ is inseparable from our acquisition of salvific grace. As for Hebrews, the entire letter reinforces the status-quo. Christ as the SON of God is forever the perfect priest: "For the law appoints MEN subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a SON, who has been made perfect forever." Jesus is still SON. Earthly priests who participate in his high priesthood must literally be SON. Your citation of Acts 15 is too vague to know what you want to draw from it. Certainly at the Council of Jerusalem, baptism was given precedence over circumcision as the rite of initiation; but, what does this have to do with priesthood. Yes, there is a new order or dispensation, but the rupture with the past is not complete. There is also continuity and progression from the Jewish inheritance, most notably in the Jewish Messiah who is the SON of God. The letter to the Apostles seems to stress the male leadership of Christ's Church: "The apostles and presbyters (priests), your BROTHERS, to the BROTHERS in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings." Again, a clear and honest review of the texts contradicts your position.

Matthew 12:8; 16:19; 18:18 - Authority to Ordain Women

The first citation is in reference to Christ, not the Church. "For the SON of MAN is Lord of the sabbath." Right, and if it is the will of Christ that only men can be ordained, then ONLY CHRIST can change it. The Church is BOUND by what it has formally received. The citations about the keys are crucial, especially regarding sin and pardon, the precepts of the Church, and disciplinary aspects of the Church's structure and tradition. However, if the Church were to act against the will of Christ, as you would force it to do, Jesus could rightly say from verse 23: "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." Thus, the authority of the Church, placed in Peter, is not unlimited. The Church can get rid of women's Mass veils, the subdiaconate, the agape meal, etc. BUT there are revealed things at the core of the Church's deposit of faith that are unchangeable-- things like the resurrection, the eucharistic presence, the ten commandments, the male priesthood, etc. Just as God gave us the decalogue, divine positive laws, the Church is powerless to abrogate them. However, where she is the lawgiver, as in the precepts, she can alter them according to the powers invested in the keys. Please read von Balthasar's book, The Office of Peter.

John 10:10 - Abundant Life of Grace

Huh? Okay, Christ comes to give us abundant life, but I suspect by surplanting your will over that of Christ and his Church on the issue of women priests, you are more like the thief in this passage who comes to steal and slaughter and destroy. I see no connection with this topic. Any link between the Church and the thief is contrived and unscriptural.

Matthew 19:11-12 - Priestly Celibacy

Actually the citation for celibacy is in verse 10 and this one is misplaced in your handout. The citation here goes under your next heading. The Church contends that all men called to priesthood will also be given the charism of single-hearted love. Christ works with his Church and gives his priests the necessary graces to fulfill their vocations. I dare anyone to show me a man who has left priesthood for the love of a woman who did not on some level forget his life of prayer and his union with the Church, the bride of Christ.

Acts 1:21-23 - Against Compulsory Celibacy

There is nothing in this citation about any kind of celibacy. Rather, it is about the selection of another MAN to take the place of Judas, who turned traitor.

John 6:35-58; 17:21-23; Colossians 2:9-12 - Gifts Transcend Gender

The elements of the institution are FOOD, Jesus gives them an identification with HIMSELF. It is unnecessary to see gender in the accidents of the Eucharist. Later in chapter 6, Jesus says: "For this is the will of my FATHER, that everyone who sees the SON and believes in HIM may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day. . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the SON of MAN and drink HIS blood, you do not have life within you." You must not take passages out of context. You twist their meaning. The second citation is a reference to work on the sabbath and Jesus contrasts circumcision (purifying the man by a removal of flesh) with his healing of a man (person) on the sabbath. If one is legitimate then so must the latter be. Nothing at all is said about women or ordination. It is not topical to these verses. The citation from Colossians as in Paul's baptismal formula is specifically regarding initiation into the Body of Christ, not Holy Orders. Baptism conforms the faithful to Christ as his body, making possible the laity's active discipleship in society while passively disposing them to the receptivity necessary in regards to the sacramental life. Ordination builds upon the first sacraments, more perfectly aligning and sealing the Christological identity of the "sacerdotal" priest with Christ the head, taking a secondary role in the political life which he admonishes upon but relegates to the laity; while he ascribes to himself as an "alter Christus," the active task of shepherding through preaching and administering the divine mysteries, particularly the Eucharist and Penance. There is a difference.

Not a single one of your Scripture quotations has anything to do with this topic and is just filler for the vacuum in your research. This is all getting rather embarrassing. Do you have any new approaches to the question of women's ordination or are you just going to continue with the same aborted lines of thought previously presented? It is my hope that I will so saturate you with the futility of your endeavor that you will see sense and give it up. Your last couple of responses really were poor and did nothing to take away from my observations. And I should say, I am putting only minimal effort into this project. Before you write further, I would urge you to acquire Manfred Hauke's book, Women in the Priesthood? from Ignatius Press. It is probably the best current treatment on the question. I must warn you that it is a concise work by a serious German scholar and is just shy of 500 pages. Newman Bookstore near Catholic University can get it for you. For the sake of a truly educated dialogue, hold your correspondence until you are well versed with his treatment of this subject. It will save you from more errors and unnecessary work. Hopefully it will systematically answer the many questions that necessity forces me to ramble upon as a simple parish priest.