Correspondence About Women Priestesses

An Argument Against Priestesses

This website is the product of correspondence to a proponent of women's ordination. Following are the letters, minus the material extracated into separate headings. The notation of the links is offered for the reader's easy review. The name of the dissenter has been changed to that of Miss Wannabe for literary effect. It should be noted that the letters supporting a revisionist position have not been saved, only the responses to them. Some may cry foul, but I feel no obligation to help further a hopeless cause. Please note that while I may have some fun with the topic, as shown in the illustrations, I intend no demeaning of women or of their high dignity given them by God.

FIRST LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

Since the Holy Father has rightfully judged that speculation regarding women priests (actually priestesses) places one outside Catholic orthodoxy, it was with much chagrin that I read your argumentative dissent. While I knew many respectable arguments for women priests before the Vicar of Christ "solemnly" defined it as an impossibility; many of your convoluted statements would not have been among them. If you are going to become a Protestant, then at least become a credible one. Although I do not have the time for a full-scale dissertation, and logical proofs rarely convert fanatics anyway, I will offer a few correctives to your pre-suppositions:

[See links 1 thru 8]

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, the most holy and faithful of Christ's disciples, but not a priest, intercede for you to her Son.

May the incarnate boy-baby of Bethlehem bless you!

Sincerely, a sharer in the male-priesthood of Christ,
Father Frank Fides

SECOND LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

I was wondering how long it would take you to bring Galileo into it. If there was any mistreatment by Church authorities in this bureaucratic matter, the present Pope has made amends for it. However, since the controversial particulars of this case related to science and not to faith, I fail to see its pertinence to the question of women priests. Anyway, Galileo brought his own integrity into question by his broken promises to the Church, his superstitious practice of astrology, and believe it or not, dubious assertions regarding the Eucharist. By the way, your question, "Do you still think that the earth is flat?" has more to do with Columbus than with Galileo and his development upon Copernicus that the sun (and not the earth) is the center of our planetary system. Further, his view, not unique to him, was still thought dangerous to simple people who might equate a truth of the physical universe with the spiritual. The faith tenet that was at stake and which still binds, regardless of where the earth is positioned, is the centrality of self-conscious corporeal-spiritual creatures in the scheme of creation-- a nucleus to which the second Person of the Blessed Trinity would join himself.

I am increasingly feeling that this dialogue is a waste of time. Despite correctives, not unique to me but from the inheritance of the Church, you refuse to yield from your original positions. Your proofs suffer from the same incongruity as your citations, only applicable in an extensively revisionist and re-interpretive light; your suppositions remain in actuality only uncollaborated slogans. Since I mentioned in my first correspondence that these letters could only offer the most cursory replies, I will leave it to you to do the basic academic research into this and into parallel questions of faith, like that of Galileo. While I have misplaced the book in my library that speaks of repercussions from Galileo's thought upon eucharistic teaching, I will try to summarize it briefly from memory. As you may know, traditional teaching regarding the real presence and transubstantiation is intimately couched in Aristotelian categories via the likes of Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics. This theology (very philosophical in nature) speaks of the accidents of bread and wine remaining while the substance or essence is replaced (destroyed as in sacrifice) by the Lord himself-- body, soul, and divinity. Galileo found himself at odds with the scholastic philosophers while he himself was more comfortable as a scientist. It was Galileo's assumption that all the workings of nature could only be expressed mathematically. If anything could not be analyzed as a mathematical abstraction, like the accidents (secondary sense qualities), essences, and causes, then they were either purely subjective or non-existent-- NOT objectively real. I guess you see the possible problem. For more research, Catholic University's Mullin Library and the one at Dominican House of Studies should prove most enlightening in this regard.

I would offer these points against your contentions:

[See links 9 thru 14]

Borrowing his words, "Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived,..."

May the boy-child of Bethlehem continue to bless you,
Fr. Frank Fides

THIRD LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

After I had sent my last response to you, I recollected a series of articles in different journals by Bishop Kenneth E. Untener. Misunderstanding sexuality, the two of you share misconceptions about the action of the priest at the altar "in persona Christi." His confusion sheads light upon yours. He also naively misrepresents and dissents from its traditional interpretation. He is quite a man. As a seminary rector, he is said to have shown porno films to seminarians, exposing them to the "so-called" real world.

[See links 14 thru 23]

The issue of women's ordination pales in comparison to the crucial threat the two of you pose in Christology.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr. Frank Fides

FOURTH LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

Early on I mentioned that my response, and it has been a drawn out one, could in no way place itself on a truly scholarly level. Its lack of order and brevity is due to the fact that it was composed "on the run" during the stolen moments of the evening. However, I hope it does seek to remind us that we must always examine our motives and arguments critically before challenging the teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit.

It is my conviction that a dissent on this teaching is neither the actual will of Christ, nor of his Church.

Seriously, in my own piety, I find no problem with the doctrine of orders as it now stands. Within the Christian perspective, "woman" has the sublime vocation of being man's historical God- and Christ-bearer; in Mary, she conceives the High Priest of God. Women reflect Mary who is the Mother of all the living. Men reflect Christ who offers his very self on the cross for our sake. Rather than seen as an occasion of inequality; we should rejoice that God should make use of both sexes to bring us salvation. The position of Scripture and tradition regarding the woman as man's mutual helper, the mother, the one subordinate in loving obedience to the exercise of authority from the husband and father has been seriously criticized in this present age; but, the verdict as to its continued strength is still out. It is no wonder that priesthood as we know it is challenged in an age when secular humanism would seek to destroy the distinctions between the sexes which give our race strength and our personhood dignity.

I should further like to say that dissent against the Magisterium should not be made public. Even some bishops fail on these grounds and they inadvertantly threaten schism. It is not our task to tear the Church down or to give scandalous support to those who already hate her. Several years ago, the press and liberals throughout the country made a big deal about Archbishop Haunthausen. The harm he caused is still being felt in his diocese. Thank God he is now retired. You may recall that he shut down his diaconate formation program in protest of the prohibition of women from holy orders. He said the program would remain closed until the role of women in ministries was more adequately addressed to his liking. Several questions arose.

Although he seemed very sensitive to our continued need to appreciate the gifts of women, did not his action disregard the gifts of men called to the diaconate? Admittedly, he had the authority to take this measure, especially since many other bishops opted not to implement such programs altogether; however, should it have been used as a wedge to manipulate the Church into reconsidering women in ordained ministries? Furthermore, a week prior, he told his candidates that there would be a program and that they would be ordained in a few days. Is it just to so quickly break a promise? Would he not have been more consistent to also shut down his seminary program for priests? Might he have refused to be present at the consecrations of other bishops? After all, deacons are usually presumed as the least hierarchial and powerful of the orders. Of course, these actions would have brought him immediately back to the notice of Rome. However, since the American Episcopacy was and is powerless to change our tradition without schism from the universal Church, was it not Rome that he was trying to coerce? Sure.

Taking a look at some of the Scriptures you cited to me, I have to wonder if you have the tools really to sustain this inquiry:

[See link 24]

I am sorry that the reply you received was "a bit too technical," however, just as the science of the physical world is complicated, we should not pretend that theological science is less so. Your definition of our Lord as one person (divine) with two natures (divine and human) in perfect unity is in total accord with the definition of Chalcedon. I accept your word that you did not intend to espouse a separation; however, even poor Nestorius probably did not have this intention. Nevertheless, his opposition to Theotokos was interpreted as such by the Church. Bishop Nestorius was afraid that this title, translated in the West as Mother of God, would allow simple people to readily fall back into pagan goddess worship. St. Augustine faced a similar problem. The cults of Diana and Isis had been supplanted by a reverence to Mary that had to be carefully watched lest it become idolatry. Even many of the older statues were kept and simply given Mary's name. Returning to our discussion, it is important that the understanding of the priest acting at the altar "in persona Christi" is understood as the Church has defined it. The Church has the right to use its terminology as she sees fit. The divine person of Christ is at the altar rendering sacrifice; however, this facet of his identity is just as inseparable now from his full humanity as it was in the historical Christ. The redemption wrought by the sacrifice of Christ has universal significance. Yes. But, its cultic re-enactment or re-presentation for the sake of us all does require a man of faith called by Christ through the mediation of the Church. In contradiction to your opinion, the male-only priesthood is entirely compatible "with the concrete totality of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church." Let me respond to your letter's three points that contend the contrary:

[See link 25]

Now, let me look at your new arguments in the debate. The first, as you say, is an argument against it, and the second is your rebuttal.

Using an anonymous source in support of Church teaching--

Ordination is not a good of the recipient required in justice, but is ordered to the good of the faithful. Thus, their exclusion, commanded by divine law, is neither an injustice nor a depravation of sanctity. The response then cites those who have refuted heretical groups ordaining women, i.e. St. Augustine, On Heresies, no. 27 and St. John Damascene, On Heresies, no. 49). Yes, this much is all accurate; there was indeed a misinterpretation of Galatians 3:28 and an avoidance of passages like Corinthians 12:29. The exclusion of women from the priesthood is by divine law.

You grant his point that it is not an injustice toward women or a deprivation from personal sanctity. However, you then assert that it is an INJUSTICE towards the faithful who will not benefit from the ministry of ordained priests. Okay, he didn't start with a metaphysical argument, but he finished with one. Would it not be a greater, or should I say, a genuine evil to go through the motions of ordaining women whom God would neither give the sacramental character nor charisms of priesthood? Sure. As many of us would contend, they would only be counterfeit priests and the Mass would be reduced to empty ritual. No, there is the real injustice. How can you be so imprudent? If wrong, would you be willing to bear the full weight of your error-- cutting hundreds of millions off from the sacramental life? How could you be so foolhardy. If you can be wrong about little things, where does your infallibility upon this issue come from? Let us get serious!

As for the matter of divine law, I have already argued that it is so presumed and that only the giver of the law has the charge to change it. Having looked at how you interpret texts, scriptural and otherwise, who is calling the kettle black in saying that such a view is fundamentalist. You are. You think that if something is not explicitly forbidden that it is necessarily allowed. I can think of several sins not mentioned in the Gospel, are they permitted? You are climbing up a tree in danger of falling. You add damage to insult by suggesting that Jesus' selection of only men as apostles was his decision to compromise to a lesser evil. What?! How can Christ commit any kind of evil? He is the source of all goodness! Goodness, gracious! You have made our Lord into a utilitarian ethicist. Christ did no such thing and neither must we. Evil is evil. Strike up another heresy. You'd be best off just to leave this matter to magisterial theologians. Say your prayers, go to Mass, assent in humble obedience and trust-- for the sake of your immortal soul. The whole pattern of Christ's selection of the apostles and in turn their choosing of successors is a substantiated fact and clear revelation of the Lord's providence.

Taking a historical approach he then moves from 1700 years ago to 800 years ago when Pope Innocent III forbade Spanish women from hearing confessions. Yes, this too is understood as a sacerdotal power; however, did these women see their actions as the sacrament of penance? I am unfamiliar with the happening and thus cannot say. I do recall that in the early Church there was a group called the living martyrs. These men had been tortured to the verge of death, but did not die. They refuse to recant their Christian faith. It was a common practice for "traditors" (traitors), those who had denied their association with Christ and his Church, because of fear and persecution, to confess their apostasy to these living martyrs. Because it was thought that the meritorious sufferings canceled out the cowardly weakness of the other, it was not uncommon that apostates were then returned to the ranks of the Church. Others went to those imprisoned and who were condemned to die, requesting that they would pray for them once they had entered heaven-- since a martyr's death was considered a sure thing. Often with a rescript in hand, signed by the condemned person, the fallen away Christian would present this to Church authorities after the execution as proof of heavenly intercession, and would also be readmitted to the Church. (By the way, the origin for indulgences is in these practices.) But again, especially since confession had to evolve from second penance, these practices can not be identified with the sacrament of reconciliation.

He goes on to relate the analogy of priesthood to marriage, which I have also done for you. The priest must be the natural sign of the one signified. Yes, again, right. And yes, just as water represents cleansing in the natural order, it does so as well in the supernatural. Similarly, the priest's male body is a natural sign to represent the historical, sacrificial body of Christ. Yes, this is correct, too. You're going to refute this?

Again, you confuse the salvific role of Christ's humanity in redeeming us, with the anamnesis of this event and the person of Christ made manifest in the Eucharistic celebration. Baptism is the doorway to the sacraments, filling us with saving grace. The Eucharist re-presents the act of our redemption and grants actual graces to the faithful who are already redeemed and not in mortal sin. There is a difference. Anyone can baptize. The initiated person becomes a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. Such a person experiences an infusion of God's grace and becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. Such a person is conformed to the Lord on the level of salvation, becoming a new Christ, a member of his body. Here is the essential part of this scenario. The reception of the Eucharist and participation as a member of the Mystical Body-- this is the role of the laity. The role of Christ the head is reserved to the priest whose identity, including his maleness, resonates perfectly with the Lord's. By virtue of ordination, he can celebrate the Mass "in persona Christi" and "in persona Ecclesia." Have I not talked about this before? Are you listening? You are willing to grant that gender is a constitutive element of the human being, deeper than race or any other bodily or mental characteristic, but you still insist the the corporeal-spiritual composite is central without deference to gender. You are still a separatist! What you give, a few words later, you take away. Every body is differentiated by gender. We cannot speak of a body as otherwise. Even the language of a spiritual/corporeal composite should be carefully used lest it infer that human persons are one or the other. A ghost is not a person. A body without a soul (corpse) is not a person. Natural law dictates that a human body with an infused immortal substantial form (soul) without gender is a theoretical construct with no basis in reality. The God-Man Jesus saves us all, men and women alike. However, in the re-presentation of this mystery, only men by virtue of their natural resemblance can fulfill the function of sacerdotal priest. Do I hear an echo?

What he next says is true, although a bit graphic for my usual tastes: "Christ in his Sacrificial Body initiated the act of giving redemption just as the husband has to initiate the marital act. At that initial stage, the wife has to receive the husband's expression of love as the Church had to receive Christ's expression of love, that is, redemption. Then, the fruit of the husband's union with his wife, the child, has to develop in the wife just as the fruit of Christ's union with His Church, God's redeemed people, has to develop in the Church through the sacraments. Finally, just as the husband must receive the child from his wife at birth, so also Christ has to receive from the Church the children of God who are spiritually reborn and grow in Her." Hum, yes, quite right. So that's how it works. The biological side of it seems a bit complicated. Thank God for celibacy! The marriage analogy of Christ to his Church does indeed rule out female priests since the gender roles are complementary but not reversible. Yep! Smart fella!

I am a bit ill-at-ease here. I am not a married man, obviously, but having known men and women who are, I would tend not to want to overuse marriage as an idyllic analogy of the relationship of Christ to his Church, particularly regarding the marital act. It might sound surprising in this sex-crazed society of ours, but I have no appreciation of this form of love other than that which comes from books and confessions. While analogies give us hints of the truth, all analogies fall somewhat short. This I will grant. However, I would offer a few emendations. Marriage is not a 50/50 proposition. Both spouses are called to give a 100% of themselves. When two people do this, they fill each other with love and are never empty. When only one or neither does this, the marriage begins to starve. The wife is submissive to her husband and he in return is willing to even surrender his life for her. Here is the complementarity you mentioned. The husband is the head of the home, but the wife is its heart. Which do we usually consider more important? In any case, if we were to make this analogy realistic, do we know any people minus either a head or a heart? No. Christ has told us to love one another. The Church is his body in which the sacred heart beats with love for each and every member. It beats with the blood of Christ, shed so that we might have eternal life. The priest signifies Christ, the head. The laity, men and women alike, fulfill the female or bridal role which is passive in regard to the reception of the sacraments but active in terms of making the family of faith function on a day-to-day basis. The priests, signifying Christ the head, actualize the male role or that of the groom, and actively offer the sacraments and teach with authority, while taking a secondary, if not passive role, in the Church's pursuit of social justice and the heralding of the kingdom.

You say that the wife is not born of her husband as the Church is born of Christ. There is some truth in this, but you are the one taking the analogy further. In any case, women have often taken their husband's last names. Did not Christ often give his followers new names as well? We all bear the name of CHRISTIAN. Marriage brings with it a new life and as a couple, a new identity. The husband is a special symbol for Christ, but he is not really Christ. Oh, if only husbands and men were, relationships and society would be so much better off. The analogy breaks down somewhat because of human selfishness and sin. But, remember, it is figurative. We should not allow the 20th century experience of broken homes and single mothers to destroy its symbolic value. Locked into the analogy, you would take it full circle and fall into error. This will happen with any analogy pushed to the breaking point. You must stop being so fundamentalist. You criticize others for this but then fall into it yourself. It is a pattern of rebuttal you might emerge from if you would study more GOOD books on the subject. Yes, there are bad books, too. While the husband as male is always husband and the wife as female is always wife, there are aspects of their roles that are interchangeable; but, their specific relationship as such is determined by their gender. They are not the same. You must give greater importance to this fact. I have no idea from where your next sentence of rebuttal is deduced: "The priestly ordination of women is in perfect continuity with apostolic tradition and, rather than detract from it, will significantly enrich the sacramental representation of Christ's sacrificial body." Huh? All because you erroneously thought you had debunked the marriage analogy as faulty "liturgical language"? You're spouting slogans again without any supporting argumentation. Well, you'll get no Amen, Alleluia from this choirboy!

He is also on the mark that the Church has not the authority to alter the natural signs. The historical Christ is a man, the Word incarnate, eternally Son, not daughter, of the heavenly Father. And boy, I just love phrases like, ". . . the Logos is the Son, not the Daughter, begotten by the Father as progenitor, not as progenitrix." Yep! I also find merit in the contention that women would be wiser to affirm their dignity by developing their gift as a sacramental sign of Christ's Mystical Body instead of seeking to usurp the role of the God-Man, Christ the head.

Finally, he makes mention of women ministers in other denominations. His observations are legitimate. Do they consider ordination a sacrament? Do the consecrating bishops possess apostolic succession? And, he infers that the ordination of women would create an impassible wall between ourselves and the Orthodox Churches, just as the Episcopalians have done. In conclusion, he contends, "It is an issue regarding irreversible sacramental signs." It makes sense to me.

Do you actually believe that the priestly ordination of women has nothing to do with radical feminism or seeking ecclesiological power? You're fooling yourself! I've known many of these women and have had debates with them. For all of them feminism is at its root and all feminism seeks power. I only wish it did mean a concern for giving God the glory and ministering to souls. For the most part, it does not. Even your views, sometimes almost word for word, I can trace back to feminist theologians. Rosemary Ruether wrote a book and several essays using the same jargon and short-sighted opinions that motivate your letter writing. I would recommend her to you to improve the quality of this debate; but, hers are the BAD books that I mentioned and I fear you would be readily swayed even deeper into their camp of dissent and half-truths.

You think that the discernment of divine providence relative to women's ordination is already underway in the Anglican communion." Underway? It has happened! Of course, in England, more Catholics go to church than all Anglicans combined. Five bishops, including the former bishop of London who was conditionally ordained a Catholic priest recently, and some 8000 Anglican priests, have formally requested reception into the Roman Catholic Church-- because this issue confirms that theirs is not "the middle way" but a church that has long since forfeited apostolic succession in ministry and in teaching. Now, even their pretense to the contrary is dismissed. It is only a shell, an empty husk of the church that used to exist-- and you would have us imitate them? No way Jose'! The Lord is with his true Church and has spoken through Pope John Paul II. God's will is being done. Glory be to God!

The greatest icons of all are the men who stand at Christ's altar. The presence of a woman in this role would shatter the icon and breach its inherent link to the Lord who sacrifices and gives himself to us as spiritual food. This is just the way it is. Modern attempts to strip the living icon of gender distort the image. To substitute female gender is to image a new savior entirely. The followers of the feminine God-Woman, "Christi," well recognize this. With breasts hanging out, her crucifix is advertised for sale along with that of the male Christ in some religious goods stores. For the feminists, the passion and crucifixion is translated into the rape and murder of the divine female by the satanic male. Theirs is the truly sexist religion and you would legitimize their ritual. Ultimately, the acceptance of women priests is the adoption of goddess worship and the feminine principle. The psychology guru, Jung, who has so displaced Christ in spirituality, and who hated the Catholic Church with a vengeance, would be proud of this transfer of paradigms. It means the end of the old Church and the beginning of a new worship entirely. Will there be any place for you in this new religion? Think things through. Read Manfred Hauke's book!

Not having heard from you for a few weeks, I take it you are doing the further research I suggested. Fr. Hauke's book, Women in the Priesthood? is the best single source available today on this topic. The first half of the book can be quite difficult, and yet it renders the groundwork for the discussion. He speaks about the phenomenon of emancipation, the question in non-Catholic circles, traits of feminist theology, anthropological assumptions, the feminine dimension of the divine, and the biblical view about the relation of men and women in primal history. The second half immediately touches upon the arguments you have put forward. To assist in your study, you might consider these extracts:

[See link 26]

It might also be fruitful to reflect on these titles for Christ which also speak to his maleness. It looks almost like a litany, the beginning of that devotion to Christ's masculinity with which you once reproached me?

Jesus Christ is imaged as...

LORD

HUSBAND

TEACHER & MASTER

KING

JUDGE & LAWGIVER

Please, allow yours to be a faith humbly seeking understanding.

Yours in the God-Man Jesus,
Fr. Frank Fides

P. S. In my first correspondence to you I made a distinction between the use of the words "male and female" and "masculine and feminine." While the first two immediately denoted the genders themselves, I discerned that the latter two more accurately expressed characteristics attributed to the sexes. While I still think that such a distinction helps to keep matters clear, it must be noted that both Fr. Hauke and the Pope use the latter two words much as you do, to distinguish the sexes themselves. I do not know whether this usage is in the original texts or is the result of subsequent translations. In any case, their context makes their meanings quite clear. Further, one of the letters in the barrage I sent you, commented that the phrase, "symphony of faith," had been misused much as the "seamless garment" had, to legitimize dissent in a larger body of assent. Correctly, few except Thomas Aquinas had even attempted a comprehensive overview of the faith, linking all the truths together in a single compendium. Well, it looks like the Holy Father is rescuing the phrase by using it correctly in Fidem Depositum, the Apostolic Constitution to the new catechism with which you dissent: "This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the 'symphony' of the faith."

FIFTH LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

[See links 27 to 35]

You ask at the end of your last communication if I could send you the parallel to CCC 1577 in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. And yet, the Protestant reformers, to whom this council was a response, did not yet dissent regarding a male-only ministry. You must know this. I may be wrong, but I think the closest approximation comes in the chapter on orders under the subheading entitled, "On whom Orders are not to be conferred." We read, "Finally, persons who are maimed, or who labor under any remarkable personal deformity, are also excluded; such defects offend the eye, and frequently incapacitate for the discharge of the duties of the ministry." Certainly the new catechism expresses the restriction in a less offensive and more direct manner. At one time, and in certain places, there was a ceremony in which the candidate for orders would sit in a chair while in a robe or cassock without undergarments and a minister (subdeacon?) would reach through a hole in the middle of the chair to insure that the candidate had the necessary genitalia. Then he would chant either, "Habet" or "Non Habet." No penis and testicles, no ordination! This was to insure that neither defective and/or castrated males (at least not without the approved dispensation) nor women would be ordained by accident or by subterfuge. A woman cannot properly re-present the icon of Christ at the altar respective of his masculinity. As such, her pretense as a priest "offends the eye" and signifies a deformity in ritual and ministry. Ah, but you neither accept this nor the marriage analogy!

Parody of Your Flyer:

On the Priestly Ordination of Women

in the Catholic Church

RoMAN Pontiff

53777 Melchisedek Drive, Sacerdos, ECCLESIA 247778

Testimony from an Early Bishop of Rome. Written toward the end of the first century of the Christian era, St. Clement's (papal) Letter to the Corinthians, a document older than the Book of Revelation, was argued by some as having such high dignity as to deserve inclusion in the New Testament canon. Upon the matter of holy orders, he wrote: "From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city they preached, and from among their earliest converts appointed MEN whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers." We are those future believers. The legacy of a male-only priesthood is firmly grounded in tradition and is only questioned by revisionist historians who displace collaborated facts with subjective hypotheses emerging from contemporary concerns and dissent.

Pattern Given By Christ in the Calling of the Twelve Not Culturally Determined. Against the broad background of the "great mystery" expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the "Twelve." In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ's way of acting. "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men" (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth's behavior. Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the "Twelve." "Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (Jn 20:23). Jesus, the Son of God, was quite literally, his own man. He may have been the first man not to compromise what he knew to be the truth. Jesus neither called women to the Twelve nor to the priesthood for reasons of his own, an expression of divine election and purpose, not because of social taboos and coercive pressure.

The Paschal Mystery as Understood in the Marriage Analogy. We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom because "he has given himself": his body has been "given," his blood has been "poured out" (cf. Lk 22:19-20). In this way "he loved them to the end" (Jn 13:1). The "sincere gift" contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God's love. As the redeemer of the world, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present and realizes anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of Christ, who "creates" the Church, his body. Christ is united with this "body" as the bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained in the Letter to the Ephesians. The perennial "unity of the two" that exists between man and woman from the very "beginning" is introduced into this "great mystery" of Christ and of the Church. / Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he there by wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is "feminine" and what is "masculine." It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts "in persona Christi" is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. At the altar, the priest signifies Christ the bridegroom and the congregation, the Church, is in the position of the bride. Only an ordained man can image this analogy in the Church. Otherwise, it would corrupt itself into some kind of sacramental lesbianism.

Baptismal Priesthood: The Response of the Church, Christ's Bride. The Second Vatican Council renewed the Church's awareness of the universality of the priesthood. In the New Covenant there is only one sacrifice and only one priest: Christ. All the baptized share in the one priesthood of Christ, both men and women, inasmuch as they must "present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God (cf. Rom 12:1), give witness to Christ in every place, and give an explanation to any one who asks the reason for the hope in eternal life that is in them (cf. 1 Pt 3:15)." Universal participation in Christ's sacrifice, in which the Redeemer has offered to the Father the whole world and humanity in particular, brings it about that all in the Church are "a kingdom of priests" (Rev 5:10; cf. 1 Pt 2:9), who not only share in the priestly mission but also in the prophetic and kingly mission of Christ the Messiah. Furthermore, this participation determines the organic unity of the Church, the People of God, with Christ. It expresses at the same time the "great mystery" described in the Letter to the Ephesians: the Bride united to her Bridegroom; united, because she lives his life; united, because she shares in his threefold mission (tria munera Christi); united in such manner as to respond with a "sincere gift" of self to the inexpressible gift of the love of the Bridegroom, the Redeemer of the world. This concerns everyone in the Church, women as well as men. It obviously concerns those who share in the "ministerial priesthood," which is characterized by service. In the context of the "great mystery" of Christ and of the Church, all are called to respond -- as a bride -- with the gift of their lives to the inexpressible gift of the love of Christ, who alone, as the Redeemer of the world, is the Church's Bridegroom. The "royal priesthood," which is universal, at the same time expresses the gift of the Bride. The ordained priest functions "in the person of Christ the head" while the laity signify "the body" of the Lord.

Excluded from Ordained Priesthood; Womanhood is Exalted in Mary, Figure of the Church. This is of fundamental importance for understanding the Church in her own essence, so as to avoid applying to the Church -- even in her dimension as an "institution" made up of human beings and forming part of history -- criteria of understanding and judgment which do not pertain to her nature. Although the Church possesses a "hierarchical" structure, nevertheless this structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ's members. And holiness is measured according to the "great mystery" in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom. She does this "in the Holy Spirit," since God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given over to us" (Rom 5:5). The Second Vatican Council, confirming the teaching of the whole of tradition, recalled that in the hierarchy of holiness it is precisely the "woman," Mary of Nazareth, who is the "figure" of the Church. She "precedes" everyone on the path to holiness: in her person "the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph 5:27)." In this sense, one can say that the Church is both "Marian" and "Apostolic-Petrine." Not being an ordained priest was no shortcoming for Mary.

Excluded from Ordained Priesthood; Women Still Able to Assist in Apostolic Service. In the history of the Church, even from earliest times, there were side-by-side with men a number of women, for whom the response of the Bride to the Bridegroom's redemptive love acquired full expressive force. First we see those women who had personally encountered Christ and followed him. After his departure, together with the Apostles, they "devoted themselves to prayer" in the Upper Room in Jerusalem until the day of Pentecost. On that day the Holy Spirit spoke through "the sons and daughters" of the People of God, thus fulfilling the words of the prophet Joel (cf. Acts 2:17). These women, and others afterwards, played an active and important role in the life of the early Church, in building up from its foundations the first Christian community -- and subsequent communities -- through their own charisms and their varied service. The apostolic writings note their names, such as Phoebe, "a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreae" (cf. Rom 16:1), Prisca with her husband Aquila (cf. 2 Tim 4:19), Euodia and Syntyche (cf. Phil 4:2), Mary, Tryphaena, Persis, and Tryphosa (cf. Rom 16:6, 12). St. Paul speaks of their "hard work" for Christ, and this hard work indicates the various fields of the Church's apostolic service, beginning with the "domestic Church." For in the latter, "sincere faith" passes from the mother to her children and grandchildren, as was the case in the house of Timothy (cf. 2 Tim 1:5). / The same thing is repeated down the centuries, from one generation to the next, as the history of the Church demonstrates. / In every age and in every country we find many "perfect" women (cf. Prov 31:10) who, despite persecution, difficulties and discrimination, have shared in the Church's mission. It suffices to mention: Monica, the mother of Augustine, Macrina, Olga of Kiev, Matilda of Tuscany, Hedwig of Silesia, Jadwiga of Cracow, Elizabeth of Thuringia, Brigitta of Sweden, Joan of Arc, Rose of Lima, Elizabeth Ann Seton and Mary Ward. / The witness and the achievements of Christian women have had a significant impact on the life of the Church as well as of society. Even in the face of serious social discrimination, holy women have acted "freely," strengthened by their union with Christ. Such union and freedom rooted in God explain, for example, the great work of St. Catherine of Siena in the life of the Church, and the work of St. Teresa of Jesus in the monastic life. Ordained priests are not the only ones to build up the kingdom.

Excluded from Ordained Priesthood; The True Dignity of Women Defended by the Church. By defending the dignity of women and their [true] vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who -- faithful to the Gospel -- have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins, and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel. There is no wronging of women in their exclusion from the ordained priesthood. Despite the ravings of critics to the contrary, the Church has protected and elevated the place of women.

A Calling to Holiness, Not Holy Orders. In our own days too the Church is constantly enriched by the witness of the many women who fulfill their vocation to holiness. Holy women are an incarnation of the feminine ideal; they are also a model for all Christians, a model of the "sequela Christi," an example of how the Bride must respond with love to the love of the Bridegroom. Do some confuse a call to holiness with that of orders? Yes.

Except for the introductory passage from St. Clement of Rome, all information in this section is taken verbatim from Mulieris dignitatem 26-27.

Yours in Christ,
Fr. Frank Fides

SIXTH LETTER

Dear Miss Wannabe,

[See links 36-41]

I do not know how the Holy Father can make things plainer. Look at what he says: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of the ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Some critics have remarked that the difference between this and an infallible definition is only a matter of splitting hairs. For all intensive purposes, it is the same thing. It is a definition to remove ALL DOUBT and taught from the fullness of the PETRINE MINISTRY to be DEFINITIVELY held by ALL THE FAITHFUL. It is not that the Church does not want to do it; it is a simply she CANNOT DO IT. The only options left to you are assent or abandoning the Church. No room is left for debate; the matter is closed. This is the final word.

Your servant in Christ,
Fr. Frank Fides

NOTE: The catalyst for my presentation were a series of letters from Luis T. Gutierrez, also a Maryland native. He has made himself well known as a dissenter in articles and Internet discussions. My correspondence with him was entirely through snail mail. After awhile, he contended that I was not one with the right spirit to continue the debate. In otherwords, I was not tolerant of error and not above making fun of the positions held by such liberal revisionists. Indeed, while not preserved here, I even sent him a few letters purportedly from demons, i.e. goddesses, who commended his reasoning and gave him "further lies" to confound those with weak minds and tottering faith. It proved too much for him and I never heard from him again. I guess I scared him away.