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.