20. Rebellion Against the Church

An Argument Against Priestesses

"The Church is seriously mistaken in its prohibition against women priests."

Here we begin to see the real colors of this temptor to ecclesial rebellion. It would have us do in the Church what they tried to do in heaven-- fracture! By saying that the Church may be seriously mistaken, the Holy Spirit which guides the Church is blasphemed. (The unpardonable sin?) By contending that authorities recognize the callings of women but lie about them is a projection of the other side's deceit. No one will tell them different. No one will tell them what to believe. No one will change their minds. Gosh! The sin of the devils really is the sin of men. From the early Protestant reformers to the dissenters today there has been an arrogance that refuses to submit to the teaching authority established by Christ. Instead of faith seeking understanding, we frequently find a methodical athiesm in religious guise, that tears down not only the individual dicta of faith but their ecclesiological underpinnings as well. In the end, they would leave us with nothing. If the Church cannot be accorded accuracy on an issue as important as the sacrament of holy orders, then it cannot be relied upon about the rest of religious truth either. Fr. Stravinskas writes: "The Holy Father has consistently said that the Church cannot ordain women; not that she also does not want to do it, just that she does not have the power to do so. The reason is that Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church, chose only men. 'But Christ was limited by His own culture which had a low opinion of women,' comes the retort. That might be true, at least in the sense that our Lord had to preach the Gospel to a people who were limited by their own cultural conditioning. However, Jesus never hesitated to break with other cultural patterns of His day (e.g., dining with sinners). How do we explain this apparent inconsistency, except to say that the all-male apostolic ministry is an expression of divine will?" (The Catholic Answer Book, p. 36).

For one person the matter is women priests, for another it is the consciousness and identity of Jesus, for another it is original sin, for another it is the real presence, for another it is contraception, for another it is abortion, for another it is the homosexual orientation and lifestyle, for another it is the role of Mary and the saints, and the list goes on and on. All together, the Church has never faced such an unslaught upon the faith as in our times. All the heresies of two thousand years, including New Age pagan worship, has resurfaced to battle the Rock of Peter in these last days. But no matter what the particular issue of contention is, they all are united in their repudiation of the Church's teaching authority. In the final analysis, and my former professor Fr. Curran was right at least regarding this, the only question is one of ecclesiology. The Church's identity and credibility is at stake. I can well understand why militant feminists would offer a hooray on this note against the so-called oppression of women by an insensitive, sexist, and patriarchal hierarchy seeking to defend its powerbase. However, it is a lie. Indeed, I suspect that their arrogance hides the fact from them that what they are really looking into is a mirror. Despite their contention, power has little to do with the matter. Some of us, maybe most of us in the worldwide community, understand the Church's position in a more positive light. Priesthood is a gift. It is not something that anyone deserves, either male or female. It represents no spiritual superiority over women because in itself it is no guarantee of holiness. It represents no natural superiority because our common and complementary humanity disposes us equally to receive baptism and all the subsequent graces for salvation. All possess equal dignity in the eyes of God. Ordination denotes, not so much a natural superiority of the male over the female, as it represents but one more example of the complementarity between the sexes. Granted, it is a crucial vocation for the sake of the believing and worshipping faithful, but it is still one calling among many. I think I have written before that saints like Theresa of Avila and Clare, as well as many non-ordained men, did much to revitalize the faith and to bring the Gospel to others. They did not have to be priests to do this. Indeed, despite those who have attempted to stretch the facts too far, even the Virgin Mary was not made a priest. But, oh yes, the critic here told me in one response to keep Mary out of this debate. Sorry, but you know, Mary has the tendency to pop up into most debates about her Son. Just as she was instrumental in the theological defense of his Christological unity in the battle with Nestorius, soo too does her witness apply here. Maybe God only appointed men as priests to make Christ present upon our altars since he had already allowed the Woman to conceive him in her womb?