1. Sexism or Truth?

An Argument Against Priestesses

"The Eucharist is the 'source and summit' of our life in the Church and is crucial to our approach to God; does not a male-only priesthood distort our view of God and the Church?"

I wish I had five cents for every time those words "source" and "summit" are borrowed from Vatican II. Yes, you are right in that the Eucharist incorporates us into the very life of God. The pattern is clear in the prayers of the Mass. We address the Father in our orations, the epiclesis and doxologies invoke the Holy Spirit, and the Christ who mediates our prayer and renders our worship is made present. However, as for God, I fail to fathom what distortion you mean. God as God is spirit and neither male nor female. And yet, the Second Person of the Trinity is also a male human being. There is nothing we can do to change that. Attempts to feminize the Spirit suffer in light of the Annunciation and the subsequent overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit. In the current battle over the ICEL translation of the Mass with inclusive language, we must not forget that our tradition of imaging God as Father is revealed truth. Might it suggest that there is something peculiar to fatherhood that most accurately reveals the face of God? I think so. As for the Holy Spirit, biblical imagery paints a mothering picture of the Third Person in the Trinity, but not one of actual gender signification.

"But does not sexism in the Church disrupt the unity in Mystical Body of Christ?"

My answer to this would be to ask what you mean by "sexism"? If you infer that the exclusion of the priesthood to men is pejoratively sexist, then I would have to disagree. It is just the way it is, like women having babies. Some might even argue that it is God's way of creating balance. Just as a woman can bear new life, as Mary did in Bethlehem; the priest can consecrate the food of everlasting life, making Christ again present-- this time on the manger of the altar. Continuing on this theme, several years ago I talked with a few Latin American women who suffered under brutal machismo in their home society. Not one of them wanted to be a priest, nor did they think that women should be. However, they still saw the Church as the one sanctuary where there was liberation from pervasive oppression by males. Home, babies, and women's work was all that they were allowed. One of their husbands told me, "The Church is for women and small children!" This is the kind of sexism that threatens the Church in its most populous regions. Radical feminism, which infects much of the well-to-do West, had not yet touched these women who saw the Church on the side of true human dignity. They cared for the Church, made banners and decorations, lead rosaries and novenas, had meetings on various topics, etc. No where else could they do this. They viewed the Church as a source of empowerment. For them, as it should be for us, the proposal of women priests is a non-issue. Even in our own country, most women to whom I speak in the parish are against the ordination of females. The television and newspaper polls which seem to show a majority leaning the other way are not only faulty because of the ways in which the question is asked, but also because of who they question. If only 28% of our people are regular Sunday churchgoers, then this is the group who should be interviewed. Those who are already in violation of a precept of the Church that binds them under the penalty of mortal sin will obviously further dissent in high numbers on other issues.

"While the Church has acquiesced regarding altar girls, is not the exclusion of women (exhibiting all the signs of a call) from seminaries a black mark against the Gospel and to our shame as a Church? With the shortage of priests, would it not be for the good of souls to ordain women?"

You ask loaded questions that already presuppose an answer. I do not believe it is God's will. True shame would come if we ordain women in violation of God's will. God's glory is not furthered in surrendering to our own selfishness and dissent. If it is impossible to ordain women, and I contend attempts to do so are null-and-void, then what good of souls would be promoted-- especially with the loss of the Eucharist? None. I believe it would come to our condemnation.

"Priesthood is a gift and it is an exaggeration to say that women wanting to be priests are seeking access to ecclesiastical power."

Yes, you are right that ordination to priesthood is not a right that can be established in some social justice agenda. And yes, Christ is the one who calls and the Church mediates it; however, such are not two operations but one inextricably linked. You seem to divide them. Nor would I say that all who advocate women's ordination are radical feminists; although they may have subliminally attached themselves to their ideas. In any case, they have made themselves their bedfellows. As for the matter of stereotypes, sometimes categorization helps and sometimes it does not. Depending upon the issue people are rarely consistent.

While it might be an over-generalization to say that those women desiring ordination are "seeking access to ecclesiastical power," it is certain that those most vocal on this subject perceive it as precisely that. What God gives as only a gratuity to a few men, and not to women, has been engineered into a political goal. You say that we should "recognize that the ordination of women is a legitimate ecclesial issue," but for Catholics it is not. You are obliged to render religious assent to the Holy Father even if you have ideas of your own on the issue. This is an ingredient of holy obedience. The recent solemn definition of the Pope was one word shy from a full-blown dogmatic announcement. It was leaked that the Holy Father intended to do this but was advised that since the doctrine was already a well-established tenet of the deposit of faith, it might be better received if less stringent in tone.

"Christ did not limit women to six sacraments while prescribing seven for men."

You mean to say that unless a person is a priest, that sacrament has no value for him or her? No, as a sacrament of service, all benefit from the priesthood. I know of no requirement for us to receive all the sacraments. Most people do not become clergy. Many die before receiving the final anointing. Some people never marry. Are they any less Christian? No. Nor is the priesthood any guarantee of holiness. Do not fall prey to this "Gimme" ethic which would selfishly reduce the sacraments to a grocery list which we must receive; what is most important is that we should be saved from our sins and go to heaven.