27. Assorted Responses

An Argument Against Priestesses

Race & Sexuality. You suggest that race is just as constitutive of the human person as sexuality; however, while the latter touches the essence of the human person, I can find nothing to substantiate the former. What is the basis for thinking that race, a mere accidental, is something necessarily resurrected in the life to come? In any case, it says nothing to counteract the argumentation against women priests. Later, you make this same error about Jesus' Jewishness which was not considered essential even in Apostolic times. What is your background? Can you understand the difference between accidents and things essential? This business I thought I had clarified in my first letter.

Marriage Analogy & Relationship of Christ to the Church. Again you reject the marriage analogy. Actually, I do not think that Fr. Hauke ever declares the two images to be absolutely identical. Indeed, such a happenstance is totally counter to what analogies are about. They are dissimilar but also alike. You would discount it entirely. Rather, recognizing that all analogies fall somewhat short, he echoes the Church's perennial usage of this analogy as conveying some hint or truth as to the mystery of Christ's union with the Church. The analogy finds its roots in both the Old and New Testaments. Your repudiation of the marriage analogy as a "fundamentalist rationalization," which it is not, is supplanted with nothing better. You know full well that women cannot be ordained as long as this analogy is the foremost manner in which the Church sees her relationship to Christ. You are in opposition to a constant teaching of the Church. Now, you have not only abandoned an orthodox view of orders, but of ecclesiology, and of sacramentology. The Vatican II documents speak about it and it is at the nucleus to the chapter on Mary as the Mother and Model of the Church. The catechism says this about marriage: "The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant" (#1617). This truth is also echoed from the council of Trent (DS 1799).

Proclivity of Males Toward Authority. While Fr. Hauke states that "the sociological findings, based on biology" make it clear that men tend more toward authority roles than women, you simply suggest that it is "cultural conditioning." Is this conclusion the result of a scientific study of your own or only blind opinion?

Made in the Image of God. You take exception to Fr. Hauke's distinction between the sexes based upon an orthodox interpretation of the Trinity. However, your comment based on Genesis, "Both man and woman are created in the image of God," and you add, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" does not imply a intrinsic conflict either. Like God, our spirits possess intellect and will. The Trinity has left his mark upon all creation. If you disagree with the teaching of the divine generations between the persons of the Trinity, and I am not sure you do, then this would be another theological weakness to shore up. However, using the Trinity as an analogy for understanding the complementarity of the sexes, particularly in regard to the Christian family, is not anything new. You really say nothing to challenge Fr. Hauke here either.

Maleness of Christ Essential. You have not moved from your position that extracts Christ's maleness from his humanity. Can you not understand that such is important in the context of the paschal mystery? Such a mutilation of Christ's identity is foreign to genuine Christianity. Both the maleness of Christ and the femininity of Mary as a model of the Church are essential to the redemption.

Vocation of Mary. Yes, Mary's unique vocation is superior to all, except for Christ's. Of course, she is also a model to women, indeed, to sinners of both genders, of what we can achieve by God's grace, holiness. She is Christ's first disciple, but not his last. Further, her vocation is intimately tied up with Christ's. Looking upon her crucified Son, his pain becomes her pain. This is at the heart of the old title, "co-redemptrix." The roles are different, but not in opposition or utterly separate.

Apostolicity & Male Nurturing. I suspect that you misunderstand Fr. Hauke when he writes: "For the clergy does not constitute the essence of the Church (as Church), but is only its necessary accident." How you construe the word "accident" as a denial of the Church's apostolicity is beyond me. He cites the female author, Oda Schneider, and her work, Priestertum, as the source for this assertion. Of course, if you reject the marriage analogy, it is no wonder that this is all too much for you. The word "apostolic" means several things in the Catholic context. Your constant repetition of such slogans as "not male-apostolic," are only in contradiction to the historical and ordinal aspect of its meaning. First, there is no getting around the fact that the apostles were all men. Second, the apostles were the only ones invited by Christ to share his Last Supper at which he instituted the Eucharist. Third, the apostles ordained episcopoi and presbyters to assist them and to minister in their stead. These aspects of the word apostolic are relegated to the male sex. Fourth, the Church herself, both in her clergy and in her laity, is founded upon the apostles and nurtured by the blood of the martyrs. This latter group was both male and female. Fifth, the Church is apostolic because she continues to teach the one true faith that was given the apostles and which constitutes the deposit of faith. Sixth, the Church is apostolic because she utilizes the sacraments of Christ as an integral facet of her inner life. Your assertion that, "A feminine presence in the hierarchy will make visible the maternal expression of God's mercy, as Jesus longs to do," would ironically severe the apostolic cord of the Church that you find so important. As I have previously said, you are presumptuous of Christ's will. As for Luke 13:34b, Jesus' nurturing role, compared to a mothering hen, is a challenge to all men called to priesthood and forces us to expand our view about real manhood. I told you once before, if you want to interpret this passage in a fundamentalist way, then it is not women priests you want but chickens!

Women Priests: Destruction of the Church. Huh? How can you suggest that the experience of the Anglican "communion" has made this concern mute? Their church is dying, the priesthood and Mass is dubious, and heresy is rampant. The Australians have even pushed for an eradication of the priest altogether in allowing laity to preside at the Eucharist. The matter of women priests is tearing what ecclesial reality they possess to pieces. They are precisely evidence that the Catholic view is true. Their orders are null-and-void to begin with. Now many of their most devout and intelligent thinkers are agreeing with us. You should have caught the series with former Anglican priests on EWTN's cable program, St. Charles Forum. There is such an inrush of new recruits into the catholic Church that there is some fear of a restoration of the old anti-Catholic laws in England. My goodness, sometimes you are your own worse enemy.

Jesus' Exclusion of Women Not Culturally Determined. Jesus was not discouraged from including women among the twelve simply because it would have been too shocking. If it had been the right thing to do-- the model Jesus wanted imitated-- he would not have hesitated. Jesus was sensational in most things he did; why would he hesitate here? You are grasping at straws again.

Deficiency in the Holy Spirit? Do you really think that the Holy Spirit has to be more arduous in moving the Church toward women priests? What a statement! You misunderstand Fr. Hauke once more. His implication is that such a change is not warranted. But, I suppose you say what you do out of jest. Be careful, nevertheless, that you do not actually ascribe any deficiency to God as God. The truths of Christ and the mystery of the Church is unfolding precisely as the Holy Spirit intends. Having disagreed with the Magisterium, are we going to argue with God now?

Consistency in the Organic Development of Doctrine. In repudiation of the counter-cultural role of male-priests in the Gentile world in healthy tension with the learning and teaching responsibilities of women in domestic life, you wonder if a seed was not planted that might bloom into a female priesthood. Actually, it has been so argued. The trouble is that such development cannot in itself violate truths that are more firmly entrenched. So, the answer is ultimately, no.

Iranaeus' Condemnation. Here, you are correct, it is taken for granted that women priests is wrong, and in the case of Iranaeus, condemned alongside sorcery. Exactly so. It represents the beginning of a new religion.

Heretics Accepted Women Priests. You claim that the heretics did the right thing (ordained women) although their reasoning was false. But, many of their reasons are your reasons! The whole subject is a distortion. They precisely did the WRONG thing because they had the WRONG reason. Like yourself, they appealed to a Gnostic and heretical interpretation of Galatians. They negated the value of the incarnation of Christ just as you minimize it by disavowing his masculinity a role in his saving actions.

Epiphanius Mentions That Even Mary Not Ordained. I will not enter upon a debate on your definition of "merit," as I again fail to see what this has to do with the quote from this bishop of the early Church. Epiphanius knows full well that Mary is "full of grace" and yet she is not gifted with the ordained priesthood. As the model for the Church in general (the essence of the Church as described by Fr. Hauke) and for women in particular, this lack of ordination is telling.

The Will of Christ. You say that you cannot find any direct revelation or saying from Christ that would forbid women's ordination. You do not want to find it. Nevertheless, you can find it in the testimony of the Church fathers, the Scriptures properly interpreted by the Magisterium, and in the official declarations of the Church, like the new catechism. This latter work does not deal with speculative matters, only with those things that are settled teaching. You are surrounded by sources of Christ's will regarding women's ordination; but, you are blind to see it.

No Woman Ever Called To Orders. Well, here it is; you write, "Just because the Church has been doing something wrong for two thousand years is no reason to keep doing it wrong." Such an approach to tradition is an ignorant renunciation of the very nature of what living tradition is all about. It is a blasphemy against the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. You have not noted one shred of evidence in any of your correspondence to show how tradition accords room for women priests; pushed against the wall, you would now shove it all aside-- not necessarily for the Protestant sola scriptura approach, but for the sola-Wannabe one.

Fourth Century Verdict: Women Priests Are Heretical. You note regarding Epiphanius' statement and its interpretation by Fr. Hauke, that he is simply noting that deacons cannot say Mass Actually, it says deaconesses cannot do such a thing because of their exclusion from sacramental priesthood. This becomes obviously evident considering Fr. Hauke's citation of the Montanists and the Collyridian women. You really have not read this book, have you? How can you hope to speak on this topic if you fail to do the groundwork? How can you dare even have an opinion? Do you claim to possess infused knowledge?

Further Disregard for Tradition. You minimize faith to creedal statements and reject the wisdom of Saints Augustine, John Damascene, and John Chrysostom against women priests. Theirs is the faith of the Church given flesh in the new catechism. Once you reject one tenant, the foundation for holding the rest is shattered. Such a faith becomes arbitrary and open to whims. Later, in reference to the burden of proof on those wanting change, you dismiss repetitive past behavior. Well again, that is precisely what tradition is. Where is your burden of proof? Many of the Anglicans admitted that they did not have any-- they just allowed women priests anyway for current sociological reasons.

Pope Gelasius Bans Women Priests as Heretical. "Everything that is entrusted exclusively to the service of men is performed by the sex [women] that has no right to do so." The pope is quite right. No one person [as an individual] has a
"right" to priesthood (as you understand the term); however, the male sex [in general] as a "right" as properly disposed for the priesthood.

Thomas' Exclusion of Women Based on the Incarnation. Despite your careless dismissal, this reasoning, echoed by the Pope himself still applies. The priest signifies Christ the head because such is also the case in the natural order. But again, you deny the marriage analogy its rightful place in the Church's self-understanding.

What Does Luke 2:23 Actually Say? You cited this Scripture both against Aquinas and against Bonaventure. The latter contends that ". . . according to the sounder and wiser opinion of the doctors', this fact [the Church never having ordained women] is significant not only legally, but in principle: women are incapable of receiving the sacrament of orders." Looking up Luke 2:23, I have to wonder what kind of bible you have. My reads as, ". . . just as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord, . . . .'" Huh? How does this apply? This custom of the old dispensation was supplanted by baptism in the new. How does it apply today? The Levitical priesthood would sacrifice their offering, just as the priest today blesses first the gifts of the offertory and then renders the exchanged gift of Christ's very self. Looking specifically at the text, the Jewish rite of purification, normally for the female, found a parallel in an old Christian ritual abandoned in living memory. Verse 23 regards Jesus as the firstborn son whom the old law demanded to be consecrated to the Lord. The New American translation suggests in the footnotes that there is a parallel to 1 Samuel 1:24-28 in which Hannah offers Samuel for sanctuary services. It is in regard to this that my thoughts turn to the late Cardinal O'Boyle. He never failed to preach about the virtue of mothers who offered their sons to the Church as priests. Mary is the first mother in this line. The new catechism remarks: "The presentation of Jesus in the temple shows him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord. With Simeon and Anna, all Israel awaits its encounter with the Savior -- the name given to this event in the Byzantine tradition. Jesus is recognized as the long-expected Messiah, the 'light to the nations' and the 'glory of Israel,' but also 'a sign that is spoken against.' The sword of sorrow predicted for Mary announces Christ's perfect and unique oblation on the cross that will impart the salvation God had 'prepared in the presence of all peoples'" (#529). Again, did you cite the wrong Scripture passage? The stress on Christ as "son" seems to assist my argument.

Duns Scotus: Women's Ordination Counter to Christ's Will. I am almost embarrassed by your attitude at this point. Please try to think logically for a moment as I offer the quote again from this doctor of the Church: "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." There is a syllogism here. Did you not take philosophy and right reasoning in school? Think!

I have mentioned several of the Church fathers, a whole host of saints, etc. to verify the tradition of the Church. You have yet to name one. Where are your facts? Where are your Scripture quotations-- some that make sense? Where are your citations from authoritative Church documents? Except for slogans, and I hate to be cruel in saying this, you have offered nothing to substantiate your counter-claims.

Radical Feminists as Modern Gnostics Holding True Womanhood in Contempt. All you can say here is the empty word, "nonsense." Yes, I quoted the heretical and apocryphal Gospel of Thomas that says only "a woman who makes herself a man will enter the Kingdom of heaven." It is expressive of the contemporary Gnosticism that many moderns disguise behind the rhetoric of equality and liberation. Is this particular work the only such? I do not know. Certainly many speak of the great androgyny. Sometime during the second century a Gnostic retelling of John was composed, called The Dialogue of the Savior. We read: "The Lord said, 'Pray in the place where there is no woman.' Matthew said, 'Pray in the place where there is no woman,' he tells us, meaning, 'Destroy the works of womanhood,' not because there is any other manner of birth, but because they will cease giving birth.' Mary said, 'They will never be obliterated.' The Lord said, 'Who knows that they will not dissolve and . . . ." We discover in the Second Apocalypse of James, "He was the virgin, and that which he wishes happens to him." In another document, The Thunder, we read, "I am the bride and the bridegroom." Also extant is the tractate Zostrianos that says, "She was called Barbelo because (of her being) thought; the triple [race] (which is) male, virginal (and) perfect and her knowledge through which she came into being in order that they might not [. . .] her down and that she might not come forth anymore through those in her and those who follow her." I know, just scraps. The Christian community was quite good at erasing the Gnostic legacy. Will we be as successful in combating their spiritual heirs today? I hope so.