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.


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home