2. Maleness Matters

An Argument Against Priestesses

"The masculinity of Jesus is insignificant to his priesthood, only his humanity matters."

Oh, how many gender-neutral people do you know? It is peculiar that some proponents of a female priesthood would claim not to be radical feminists when they have accepted their central premise that gender is irrelevant. I would also qualify how the term, "masculinity" is used here. Properly speaking, it is a characteristic quality often associated with the male gender; it is not an absolute synonym for that gender. If "masculinity" was the essential trait to be discerned for priesthood, I know several "manly" women who could readily line up for the job. Looking past the terminology, the assertion is a transposition of the separatist teaching of Charles Curran and Richard McCormick from the moral to the sacramental arena. In both cases it is a fallacy. The maleness of Christ is not an accidental like hair or ethnic origin. Sexuality goes to the very core identity of the person. This was understood by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century which prohibited the laying on of hands to women since only those sharing Christ's manhood were configured to make him present in holy orders.

"It can be said that the woman is in the man and the man is in the woman."

No, no, no-- we are not androgynous! Often those who make such statments want things both ways and will make a case for differentiation when it suits them. The sexes are complementary but you would reduce sexuality to an equal sign [=]; rather, it is like two distinct pieces of a interlocking puzzle, an analogy even actualized in our human flesh. Maleness, like femaleness, is neither a "limitation" for ourselves nor for Christ. It is a fulfillment open to possibilities. It is ridiculous to minimize gender as an incidental to our humanity; it is not. No rewording of this hypothesis will disguise its separatist leanings!

Despite numerous critiques of this approach, proponents of this view refuse to budge, even though their stance remains unconvincing. One dissenter used debates on this question, less for correction and more for new material to further convolute and sustain an argument that was inherently fallacious. Critics would do well to research the nature of man by reading books such as von Balthasar's, Christian Anthropology or von Hildebrand's Man and Woman.

"Ministerial priesthood is a gratuity of the Sacred Heart of Christ and not from his maleness; after all, would you contend that we instigate a pious devotion to the sacred (intrinsic) maleness of Jesus to shore up arguments for a male-only priesthood?"

(Hum, what an idea!) But, actually, there is something crass about the way you talk about such prayer forms. The Sacred Heart is a devotional symbol of the infinite love that brought Christ to his cross. At the core of this appreciation is the teaching from Trent that it was the accumulative sins of all humanity throughout all time that murdered Christ. His forgiving love which the world does not give, and fails to understand, is given sacramental expression in the Mass. If this is what you mean, I can follow you so far. However, the business about a devotion to his maleness escapes me. I guess you mean it in a cynical fashion. Perhaps I should answer it in the same vein and clamor about the embarrassingly passionate piety and devotion that certain women mystics exhibited in their words and swooning over the male Jesus? No, I will skip that. I will simply reiterate that the ordained priest at Mass celebrates a repeatable sacramental act that, unlike one-time baptism, requires a closer affinity in all essentials with the historical act of Christ which it re-presents. Maleness is fundamental in this regard.

Just as the Immaculate Heart of Mary is feminine; the Sacred Heart is masculine by virtue of the particular incarnation of Christ. A new devotion to his maleness is unnecessary, and if taken to the extreme, may come full circle to your position that it is something that can be dissected from the rest of his identity.

"The maleness of Jesus is merely a historical accident and implies nothing regarding the priesthood."

Of course, in the end, you must know that such reasoning would lead you out of the Church. Divine providence leaves no room for historical accidents. Our whole salvation history is made up of various incidents, major and minor. Who is to say what historical facts are not essential? Without the various historical happenings, there is no such thing as a mystery as a whole. Even in the liturgical seasons, we celebrate individually the various particular events which make up the saga of salvation. By this statement are we to presume that gender is simply an accident with no significant meaning? Modern psychology, (not the parlor tricks kind that looks for an unsubstantiated and unverifiable "collective subconscious" in the sensus fidelium when personal religious notions unravel), affirms that gender and sexuality touches every fiber of the person. Christ and the eleven were male; and even if unforeseen developments could lead to a female priesthood, this historical fact could never be eradicated. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, Christ is male. He is not a woman-- he is not neuter-- he is not a composite of both sexes. The question becomes, does this maleness which reached into the deepest core of who he was and is have a bearing upon his priesthood. The answer of the Church is yes.

I will leave you with Fr. Stravinskas' reflection: ". . . it's important to recognize that in the Christian Faith sexuality is not a matter of indifference, for Christianity is an incarnational religion which takes the flesh seriously. In the early Church the Gnostic sects tried to say that sexual differences did not matter; the reader will recall that the Gnostics had problems accepting the humanity of Christ. The Church responded by asserting the symbolic value of the flesh, as well as its real meaning as part of God's Creation. In the Christian scheme of things, neither sex is better than the other, just different" (THE CATHOLIC ANSWER BOOK, p. 36).