POINT OF DEPARTURE
In 1994 Pope John Paul II attempted to put an end tofurther discussion on the subject of women’s ordination. He declared in his apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that:"the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women". As the sole support for his proclamation, the Holy Father cited, “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men”
From this “example” (of Christ being male and choosing the original twelve from among other males), the formal Churchpresupposes and adamantly teaches that only males can image God and are therefore solely eligible to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is the fundamental basis of Canon Law#1024, which states that “only baptized males can be ordained”. Our beloved Pope Francis in what appears as his sincerefaithfulness to previous papal pronouncement has adhered strongly to this declaration. This paper will re-examine Jesus’ intention in choosing the twelve and the validity of the Church’s teaching on denying women’s ordination.
IS IT TRUE?
First of all, is it true that Jesus chose his apostles solely from among men? Scripture itself validates the presence of many women in the early Church who were considered “fellow workers” as they carried out a variety of ministries including that of apostle, presbyter, deacon, and teacher. In his Letter to the Romans, for instance, St. Paul refers to a woman apostle named Junia, whom he describes as “outstanding”, and to awoman deacon named Phoebe, whom he also highly commends.Most notable among these women is Mary Magdalene. In the third century she was named, “the apostle to the apostles” by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome in recognition of her formal commission by the risen Christ to be the first witness and messenger of his resurrection. There is little doubt that the Church would have acknowledged this calling as yet another affirmation of a “male only priesthood” if it had been Peter, not Mary, whom Jesus selected for this task. It is imperative to acknowledge that Mary’s apostolic commission by the risen Christ to proclaim his resurrection to Peter and the male disciples began the Church’s fundamental message of Easter.Mary indeed is truly the Apostle to the Apostles.
To these observations, we add St. Paul’s admonition in his letter to the Galatians, that neither gender (nor culture, nor social status) has any bearing on one’s capacity to be identified withChrist: ”There is neither male nor female” he declares, “but all are one in Christ Jesus.” St. Paul further clarifies, that it is Baptism - not gender - which activates our identification with Christ and our capacity to image him, “You who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” .
Perhaps the words written on a popular bumper sticker best capture this meaning: “Ordain women, or stop baptizing them!”
WHAT ABOUT THE TWELVE?
So what do we make of the first male disciples whom Jesus seems to have selected in a particular way and who later came to be known as the twelve apostles? Is the Church correct in presuming that Jesus’ intention in choosing these men was to maintain an exclusive male lineage of ordained ministry? Or incalling these men to follow him, was Jesus’ intention entirely different than what the Church has for centuries presumed?
Let us consider for a moment that Jesus selected these men not for the purpose of asserting that only males could image the Divine, but rather for the purpose of initiating among the malesa paradigm shift in consciousness. In this regard, we may say that Jesus’ hope for these men was to begin to transform their fixed orientation towards male supremacy, and awaken in them a new understanding of their humanity. No longer empowered by political and society domination or military might, Jesus would teach and model Divine empowerment, gender equality, forgiveness and non-violence. Such a visceral transformation in one’s self-perception and values would require an initiation of great focus and intensity.
If such a dismantling of the patriarchal structures of power and domination was indeed Jesus’ primary meaning in calling these twelve men, did the women, who were generally the objects of this domination, really need to be part of this particular group and its intended re-orientation? Most likely they did not. We discover much support for this perspective as we consider the teaching opportunities Jesus engaged in with his twelve male companions.
LESSONS FOR THE MEN
Basic to the formation of the twelve was Jesus’ instruction to not “lord it over” but instead to consider themselves “slave and servant”. Just hours before his death, as if to seal into their memory the primacy of this teaching, Jesus would take on the posture of a slave and humbly stoop to wash the feet of his disciples. He would also admonish Peter to “put down yoursword” when Peter attempted to physically protect him on the night of Jesus’ arrest. On an earlier occasion, in similar fashion, Jesus rebuked James and John for their retaliatory intention to call down a divine fire of destruction after being rejected in a certain village. It is interesting to note that in the NASB translation, Jesus hints for them to instead discover within themselves their “truer nature.
On several occasions, such as with the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, and the Storm at Sea, Jesus allowed his male companions to face their personal limitations, vulnerabilities andfears, while simultaneously inviting them into an experience of true Divine empowerment. While in a state of trepidation and confoundment, the twelve would witness by some force outside themselves the multitudes being fed and the storm quieted. In addition, Jesus often challenged his disciples’ linear, left-brainedway of thinking. He frequently invited them through the use of parable and metaphor to consider a more soulful way to perceive their existence and experiences. Finally and quite pertinent to this study, Jesus modeled for the men a deep regard and reverence for the feminine gender.
In light of these and many other examples found in Scripture, it seems a compelling argument that Jesus’ intent in choosing the twelve was to liberate them from a well entrenched patriarchalsystem based in domination, power and privilege. Women were generally not the culprits of this mind-set - indeed were often the victims of it, and therefore were not included in the calling of the original male disciples and the particular initiation intended for them.
LESSONS FOR THE WOMEN
Differing from his approach to the males we may observe a variety of examples in which Jesus acted to affirm and empower the women he encountered. He often encouraged them to trusttheir inner guidance and not be intimidated by male power. We find a poignant example of this as Jesus defended the woman who entered the exclusive dinner party daring to anoint his feet with her love-filled tears. Could this have possibly been the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose dignity and life Jesus restored, and who even at the risk of further powerful male criticism did not fear finding her way back to him so that she might convey her profound gratitude?
We remember as well how Jesus championed Mary of Bethany who chose “the better part” of being present to him, heart to heart, soul to soul in that most endearing human encounter. Healso defended her when she too anointed him at a dinner partyand was sharply criticized by his apostles. This event is especially noteworthy when one considers that similar anointings recorded in the Hebrew Scripture were given by male prophets and high priests. Mary it seems stepped beyond accepted gender roles, and Jesus clearly defended her in doing so.
Likewise, in varying ways, throughout the gospels we observe Jesus encouraging women to stand up straight, to persist in their intentions and to not be dissuaded by male criticism or the unjust mores of a male-dominated religious establishment. Such was his purpose it would appear, whenhe harshly engaged the Syrophoenician woman, provokingher to remain true to her intention and determined for her daughter’s healing, and when he publicly affirmed the woman with the issue of blood who dared to touch his garment, courageously defying the social and religious norms of her day.
In similar fashion, again violating the established standardsof Jewish culture, Jesus initiated conversation at the well of Jacob during broad daylight with a Samaritan woman.While his disciples stood confounded at such an encounter, Jesus revealed to her, unbeknownst to them, his Messianic presence. Her conversation with him was life-changing. Her subsequent testimony led to the conversion of many people in her Samaritan village. Might we dare to liken her witness to that of an apostle?!
As Jesus publicly championed these women, affirming their right to challenge the oppressive mores of their culture, he thereby modeled to the twelve a new way of regarding them and relating to them. In all his encounters with both males and females, the realization of their truest nature would be Jesus’ enduring intention.
IN CONCLUSION
For centuries the Roman Catholic Church has maintained that only males can fully image God and therefore are solely eligible to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. At its very core this position seems a flagrant oversight of the human potential for both males and females to image God as is assured us in the creation text of Gen. - “and God created them male and female, in the image of God he created them”. These words alone should be sufficient to allow for an open re- examination of the Church’s antiquated ruling concerning ordination.
Further points referenced in this study strongly suggest that theargument used to deny women’s ordination is invalid. Thepresupposition that Jesus chose the twelve male disciples to promote the notion that only males can image God is not only unsupported through this study but suggests a flagrant exploitation of Christ for the purpose of perpetuating a patriarchal and male dominated system of power .
Rather than insuring a future all male clergy, Jesus, as this paper asserts, chose the original twelve disciples for the purpose oftransforming within them the long-established patriarchal understanding of power. In this regard he taught and modeled for the twelve, throughout his ministry, a new way of being male, inviting them continually towards servant-hood, non-violence, gender equality, and the potential of true Divine empowerment. Women, who were often the victims of patriarchal rule, did not need to be part of this focused orientation. Instead, as we have observed, Jesus consistently affirmed and supported women as they courageously followedtheir inner guidance, crossing over oppressive norms. Ultimately Jesus’ intention was to liberate both men and women from the false power of patriarchy and into the true power of Love. Following the Resurrection both women and men were called by virtue of baptism and the empowering of the Holy Spirit to image Christ in the enacting of this Love.
As noted by former president, Jimmy Carter, in the introduction to his book, A Call to Action – Women, Religion, Violence and Power, “all the elements in this book concerning discrimination, prejudice, war, violence, distorted interpretations of religious texts, physical and mental abuse, poverty and disease, fall disproportionately on women and girls”. In light of these realities, the Roman Catholic Church has a moral obligation to address these gender injustices and the devastating effects they ultimately have on the entire planet. By allowing the full inclusion of women’s gifts, presence and leadership, the Church can extend a powerful message to the world in correcting the atrocities borne to this day by the female gender.
We may rightly conclude from this study that the Church does indeed possess the Christ-given authority to confer priestly ordination on women. Moreover, in as much as the world looks to it for moral guidance, the Church also bears an urgentimperative in the name of Christ and humanity to do so.
Clare Julian Carbone
3220 South 900 East #1
Salt Lake City, UTAH 84106
julian.prayer@juno.com
