pelicanweblogo2010

Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 19, No. 3, March 2023
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page
Front Page

motherpelicanlogo2012


Challenging Religious Patriarchy:
Did Jesus Rule Out Women Priests?

Pauline Chakkalakal

March 2023


23.03.Page24.Banner


23.03.Page24.Book
The blanket ban on women’s ordination in the Catholic Church has not deterred right-thinking women and men from studying the evolution and development of priesthood in its various dimensions: scriptural, theological, sociological, and liturgical. At stake is the patriarchal structure of the institutional Church, which in essence follows a pre-Vatican Council II ecclesiology.

The Second Vatican Council upheld equality of men and women by condemning various forms of discrimination. ”Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language, or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as a contrary to God’s intent” said Gaudium et Specs (see the ‘Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World’, no. 29). Despite this declaration, for all practical purposes, the Church still remains a hierarchically structured institution, firmly established on the rock of patriarchy. It perpetuates the sin of discrimination as all the main decision-making and leadership positions are controlled by male clergy.

In spite of our dear Pope Francis’ earnest efforts to enhance women’s leadership potential, Church structures seem unprepared for a radical transformation. According to Vatican Report (dated 4th April 2013) Pope Francis, emphasized the ‘fundamental’ importance of women in the Roman Catholic Church saying they were the first witnesses of Christ and have a special role in spreading the faith. Pope also emphasized: “In the Gospels, however, women have a primary, fundamental role…The evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses. This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria.” However, as Virginia Saldanha observes, “While women appreciate the steps Pope Francis has taken to bring reform in the Church and the Roman Curia, his response on women’s ordination has disturbed a lot of progressive thinking women and men, especially when he calls it as a theological problem.”

A return to Jesus is the imperative of the hour. The Church must recapture the original vision of Jesus and move toward realization of a community of “discipleship of equals” (E. Schussler-Fiorenza). Only then shall there be no room for male domination and female domestication in the Church. Instead, mutuality, inclusiveness, participatory decision-making and co-responsibility will become hallmarks of its community. Egalitarian values have to govern the lives of all members. Church leaders must trust in the power of the Spirit at work --in women as well as in men. Eligibility for any ministry should be determined not in terms of gender but in accordance with one’s particular charisma and ability for leadership.

The Essence of Jesus’ Priesthood

The word ‘priest’ is derived from the secular Greek word presbuteros, meaning ‘elder’, ‘city father’, which describes a person of some experience or importance in a social group. But it has become a synonym for the Latin sacerdos or the Greek hiereus, both signifying a person who is “sacred” (sacer in Latin, hiereus in Greek), that is one “filled with divine power” and/or “consecrated to the deity” and so “belongs to the divine sphere.”[1] As such the priest performs a specific religious role, that of an official mediator between the divine and the human which includes both ascending (humanity to God) and descending (God to humanity) mediation.[2]

In the letter to the Hebrews where Jesus is called high priest, we find the following to be of paramount importance in his priesthood:

  • to be called by God (Heb 5:4);
  • having suffered himself, to be able to help those who are tempted (Heb 5:1-2);
  • to be able to sympathise with people’s weaknesses (Heb 4:14-16);
  • to be able to deal gently with the ignorant and the wayward (Heb 5:1-10).[3]

If we go by these qualifications, masculinity need not become intrinsic to the theology of priesthood. Jesus himself lays stress on values such as love and service (Jn 13:12-16,35) rather than accidentals like being a man, even on the level of the sacramental sign. What makes one like Christ is the readiness to serve, not the power to dominate (Mt 20:24-28). It is precisely by washing the feet of others and not by presiding at table alone that the disciple resembles the Master.

To state that Jesus was male and therefore only a male can represent Christ is theologically suspect. The concept of incarnation is not to be understood in terms of Jesus’ male sexuality, “but in terms of that generic human nature which in Genesis is both male and female.”[4] As Rosemary Ruether rightly points out, to make maleness essential to incarnation would have, in traditional orthodoxy, excluded women, not merely from ordination, but from salvation. This is so because all the arguments define women in terms that exclude them from ‘full humanity and capacity for grace. [Ibid]’[5] As ancient patristic theologians put it, “that which is not assumed (by the human nature of Christ) is not saved.” Hence it is absurd to define the human nature of Christ in terms which make maleness essential.

Approaching the problem from an Orthodox viewpoint, C. N. Yokarinis[6] affirms that the critical point of the dispute is the ‘male character’ of the incarnate ‘God-Logos’. Yokarinis’ research into the writings of John of Damascus and Gregory of Nysea further strengthens her arguments. According to patristic understanding, “all the attributes of the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being body and the intelligent and the rational soul,”[7] constitute the elements of the human nature of the incarnate Logos. This implies that biological characteristics are absent from the “image and likeness”, and that the image is only one or both sexes, male and female.[8]

The patristic insights contradict the traditional view that priesthood belongs exclusively to men because the incarnate Logos was a male human being. Such an argument “reduces the archetype of all human beings to the level of a natural resemblance.”[9] Furthermore, “the sacrifice of the Cross is a sacrifice of the God-man, not of his maleness.”[10] Therefore the male character of Jesus’ humanity cannot be used as a criterion for denying women the right to ordained ministry. We may recall that in baptism we have become sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26-27). All Christians participate in the royal priesthood of Christ. (1 Pet 2:5-9; cf. Rev 1:6; 20:6). Altogether we constitute “a kingdom and priests to our God” (Rev 5:10). This common priesthood is given through the sacrament of baptism, which is conferred on men and women alike without any distinction. If we accept this truth, the only way to defend the tradition of excluding women from ordained ministry is to “invent a new distinction between the natural and the sacramental plane.”[11] How could women who are equal to men in the image of God (Gen 1:27) be incapable of imaging Christ?

The root of this contradiction lies in the Thomistic tradition based on patriarchal anthropology which subscribes full, normative human nature to the male only.[12] It is not surprising then that the 1976 Vatican Declaration against the ordination of women contradicts its theological starting point of equality of men and women in the image of God. The Vatican’s preoccupation with maintaining its traditional teaching betrays its understanding of biblical revelation in Gen 1:26-27. If both men and women are created in God’s image and likeness, then there is no longer any basis for declaring that women cannot represent Christ sacramentally.[13] Having ‘put on Christ’ and become ‘one’ with him through baptism, men and women are equal in nature and grace. Therefore it is illogical to say that women cannot ‘resemble’ Christ or be his ‘image’. Women could perform the priestly role of ‘representing’ Christ just as well as men. Drawing on Wijngaards scholarship, whatever may be required for ordination to the ministry, it cannot be a “sacred’ reality that would make one person intrinsically superior to another.[14] Vatican II is explicit on this:

There is a common dignity of members deriving from their rebirth in Christ, a common grace as children, a common vocation to perfection, one salvation, one hope and undivided charity. In Christ and in the Church there is, then, no inequality arising from race or nationality, social condition or sex… Although by Christ’s will some are established as teachers, dispensers of the mysteries and pastors for the others, there remains, nevertheless, a true equality between all with regard to the dignity and the activity that is common to all the faithful in the building up of the Body of Christ.[15]

Did Jesus Rule out Women Priests?

The argument that Jesus chose no women for the ordained ministry fails to critique the very concept of priesthood and its development. Did Jesus ordain anyone, as we understand ‘ordination’ today? Did he lay down norms regarding priesthood?

Ordination is our contemporary term, and as Reumann so aptly says: “Ordination, it is well to remember, does not appear, full blown and in our sense of the terms, in the Scriptures.”[16] Following Schillebeeckx, Barbara B. Zikmund notes that ordination was originally for the purpose of preaching and teaching.[17]

Jesus did not institute a cultic priesthood, modelled after the Israelite priesthood, which has been “largely borrowed from the priestly institutions of neighbouring peoples in the ancient Near East.”[18] Moreover, he did not belong to a priestly class. As Soares-Prabhu observes, “Jesus appears in the Gospels as non-clerical, even as a somewhat anti-clerical figure…and he is shown in continuing conflict with the priestly establishment which ultimately arranges for his death…Jesus does not call himself, nor his disciples, priests. His horizons are prophetic, not priestly.” (cf. Mt 9:13; Mk 2:13-15; 7:1-23; Lk 10:29-37)[19] A similar view has been expressed by Wijngaards: “Jesus abolished the priesthood as a sacred institution. He himself did not belong to the priesthood of Aaron. As representative of all, he abolished that priestly dignity which was linked to bodily descent,”[20] and established a new priesthood built on “the power of indestructible life” (Heb 7:16).

The traditional belief of an exclusively male presence at the Last Supper is crucial to Catholic teaching. It is the foundation on which an all-male Catholic priesthood is solidly built. Critiquing this mind-set S. Anand says, the basic text is: “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples…” (Mt 26:26).[21] He finds an illuminating parallel between the usage of verbs in Matthew 26:26—lambanô (take), eu-logeô (bless/thank), klaô (break), didômi (give) and in the accounts of the multiplication of loaves (Mt 14:19; 15:36; Mk 6:41; 8:6; Lk 9:16; Jn 6:11). A similar pattern is found again in the accounts of the meal Jesus had with his disciples after his resurrection (Lk 24:30; Jn 21:13).[22]

A feminist reading of the basic text (Mt 26:26) reveals that it was bread and wine that Jesus chose to represent him, and not Peter or John.[23] Hence, it is absurd to cling on to the ‘Last Supper’ episode as an exercise in barring women from presiding at the Eucharist. Basing on a profoundly Catholic notion that the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14) in the womb of a woman, the logical conclusion would be that if at all anyone is worthy of representing Christ, it is only his mother, Mary of Nazareth (Lk 2:7). Moreover, it was she who stood along with other women disciples (John was the only male disciple) at the foot of the cross and joined her son in his self-offering to God for the redemption of humanity (Jn 19:25-26). Furthermore, if the Church truly believes that having been ‘baptised into Christ’ and ‘put on Christ’, we have become one in Christ (Gal 3:26-29) and share the one bread, it follows that “men and women cannot have different eucharistic identities.”[24] No wonder T. Torence wrote so compellingly:

We conclude that in spite of long-held ecclesiastical convention, there are no intrinsic theological reasons why women should not be ordained to the Holy Ministry of Word and Sacrament; rather, there are genuine theological reasons why they may be ordained and consecrated to the service of the Gospel. The idea that only a man, or a male, can represent Christ or be an ikon of Christ at the Eucharist, conflicts with basic elements in the doctrines of the incarnation and the new order of creation…[25]

The mention of the Twelve (Mt 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13) probably refers to the twelve tribes of Israel which the Twelve will judge (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30). Presumably the Twelve served as a sign for the reconstitution of Israel which Jesus proposed to bring about. The Twelve was not considered a perpetual institution, since the conditions of membership could be met only by the first generation of Palestinian Christians.

From our survey of women in biblical tradition, we have already seen the vigorous involvement of women in Jesus’ movement. Far from side lining them, Jesus accepted their partnership in his mission. Most amazing of all, the risen Jesus entrusted to them the resurrection kerygma upon which the church was founded (Jn 20:11-18; cf. Mk 16:9 and Mt 28:9-10). This gesture of Jesus is an affirmation of women’s dignity and mission in God’s plan of salvation. But today women are deprived of their rightful place in the Church, based on the myth of Jesus’ institution of an all-male priesthood.

Feminist theologians unanimously agree that such a myth cannot be maintained by a Church that proclaims the equality and oneness of all in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). Therefore, a new ecclesiology that promotes an egalitarian system must be developed. At this point we ought to acknowledge some of the outstanding Indian feminist theologians committed to fostering a God-centered and people-oriented justice system that nurtures both humans and all created realities: Monica J. Melanchthon, Rekha Chennattu, Kochurani Abraham, Evelyn Monteiro, Pearl Drego, Astrid Lobo-Gajiwala, Cyrilla Chakkalakal, Philo Thomas, Pushpa Joseph, Aruna G, A Metti, Evangeline A.R, L. Ralte, Philomena D’Souza, Julie George, and Patricia Santos (more names could be added).

Implications for Gender Justice in the Anthropocene

There is extensive literature to the effect that religious patriarchy induces not only gender injustice but also social and ecological injustice.[26]

As rightly mentioned by the late Dr. K. C. Abraham, one of my doctoral research guides, former Director of the South Asia Theological Research Institute (SATHRI), and an active member and ex-President of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians (EATWOT), “Sr. Pauline is critical of an all-male church governance that keeps women and the laity in general at the bottom of the church hierarchy.”

In my view, women form part of a patriarchal society/religion, wherein they experience great discrepancy between the idealized concept of women and their real-life situation. On the one hand women are exalted and praised, on the other, they are subjugated and sidelined. Despite the Goddess worship in our temples and shrines, Marian veneration in our churches and grottos, and the assurance of equal opportunity guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, as well as by the empowering declarations of the official documents of Second Vatican Council, women are still struggling to find their own space to redefine their identities and roles. In both the so-called developed and developing countries, women are victim of multiple inequalities, which are by-product of socio-cultural, religious, economic and political discriminatory practices.

The situation is all the more serious in the context of India with its culture, predominantly rooted in the Hindu ethos that is strongly entrenched in the caste system. Regrettably, women in general have internalised the patriarchal ideology that fosters the myth of male superiority and power, and female inferiority and powerlessness. Women ought to claim their rightful space both in society and in the church. Like our foresisters/foremothers in the faith, today we shall function as powerful witnesses and spokespersons of God’s liberative action in favor of the voiceless, faceless and marginalized, including exploited children and mother earth. Towards this end let me propose the following points:

  • Affirm the personhood of women and their right to a dignified way of life as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and recommended by the Second Vatican Council (1960-1965), a landmark in the history of the Catholic Church.
  • Educate women and men to acknowledge that women too are subjects of human right, hence deserving dignity, liberty and equal opportunity for development in all spheres of life.
  • Ensure that women’ education is aimed at their empowerment and not enslavement to oppressive customs and traditions which cripple their intellectual, psycho-spiritual and emotional growth.
  • Empower women with sound knowledge in all disciplines: social, cultural, economic, political and religious, in order to effectively participate in discussions and deliberation.
  • Initiate structural changes in the existing all-male hierarchical system by encouraging women to participate in all ministries and at all levels of decision-making within the church.

Conclusion

The New Testament presents the call of Jesus to discipleship and ministerial service as universally inclusive. They were not restricted by sex, marital status, gender roles, social class, race or nationality. According to Jesus' standard, eligibility for ministry is determined not in terms of gender roles, but in accordance with God's choice of persons, considering their particular charisma and leadership qualities. In the letter to the Hebrews (5:1-10) where Jesus is called ‘High Priest’, the emphasis is on love and service, and not on masculinity or femininity. It is precisely by washing the feet of others and not by presiding at table alone that the disciple resembles the Master/Guru (John 13:12-16, 35).

There is no fundamental biblical or theological objection to women preaching or teaching in the Church. As rightly voiced by enlightened scholars, a purely canonical argument can never be ultimate in theological field. It is time the hierarchy and the laity acknowledged that our Church has been impoverished because the faithful are deprived of feminine insights and perspectives in official teachings and ministries, especially at the liturgical celebrations where people gather in large numbers.

Recapturing the original vision and praxis of Jesus, the institutional Church is called to move towards the realization of a community of ‘discipleship of equals’ (Matthew 23:9-10). The exclusion of women from ordained ministries solely on the basis of sex is incompatible with the Christian principles of equality and oneness of all the baptised in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26-28; cf. Genesis 1:26-28). Church leaders should call into question the contradiction between the theological interpretation of ministry as service, and the practice of clerical privileges and exclusion of women from decision-making bodies.

References

[1] Gottlob Schrenk, art. “hieros” in TDNT, Vol. III, p. 222. Though “priest” is etymologically related to Presbyteros or elder, its semantic content is determined by the Greek hiereus or "sacred minister." This explanation has been obtained from George M. Soares-Prabhu, “Christian Priesthood in India Today: A Biblical Reflection,” VJTR, Vol. 56, No.2 (Feb. 1992), p. 61. The word ‘priest’ was used in pre-Christian Hellenistic religion for one who offers sacrifice to a god, as well as of sacrificing priest of the High priests of the first century Judaism. For further insights on this, see Lavinia Byrne, Woman at the Altar, pp. 1-9.

[2] See William Oxtobey, art. “Priesthood: An Overview,” in Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Religion, vol. 2 (Macmillan: 1987), pp. 528-534, who locates the ‘core’ meaning of the priest in the Western use of the term. G. Soares Prabhu has explored this notion and the development of the Catholic Priesthood in his article cited above: “Christian Priesthood in India Today…,” pp. 6l-68.

[3] John Wijngaards, Did Christ rule out Women Priests? (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1978), pp. 83-84.

[4] R .R. Ruether, “Male Clericalism and the Dread of Women,” in Robert. J. Heyor, ed., Women and Orders (New York: Paulist Press, 1974), p. 2.

[5] Ibid.

[6] C. N. Yokarinis, “The Priesthood of Women,” Focus, Vol. l0, Nos.l-2 (1999), p. 39.

[7] John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 13 (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers), 2nd series, Vol. 9, p. 57.

[8] C. N. Yokarinis, “The Priesthood of Women,” p. 39.

[9] Ibid., p. 42.

[10] Ibid.

[11] R. R. Ruether, “Women’s Difference and Equal Rights in the Church,” Concilium (1991/6), p. l5. See also C. E. Gudorf, “ Encountering the Other: The Modern Papacy on Women,” in C. E. Curran, et al., eds., Feminist Ethics and the Catholic Moral Tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1996), pp. 66-89.

[12] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.92.

[13] Edward Schillebeeckx makes an insightful observation. See Robert J. Schreiter, ed., Schillebheeckx Reader (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, l986), p. 238: “… in a pre-Conciliar way, the connection between church and ministry is again broken in favour of the relationship between eucharist (sacred power) and ministry. In particular, all kinds of feminine ‘impurities’ have unmistakably played a part throughout the history of the church in restricting women’s role in worship, as also in the Levitical legislation and in many cultures. What were originally hygienic measures are later ‘ritualised’. All this is in no way specifically Christian.”

[14] John Wijngaards, Did Christ rule out Women Priests? p. 81.

[15] “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” No. 80 in Vatican Council II.

[16] Reumann, “What in Scripture Speaks to the Ordination of Women?” Concordia Theological Monthly 44 (1973), p. 6. See also E. H. Maly, ed., The Priest and Sacred Scripture (Washington: US Catholic Conference, 1972), p. 3.

[17] B. B. Zikmund, “Changing Understandings of Ordination,” in M. J. Coalter, et al., eds., The Presbyterian Predicament: Six Perspectives (Lousville: John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 149-158. In her helpful survey, B.B.Zikmund lists three major tensions in current interpretations of Ordination.

[18] George M. Soares-Prabhu, “Christian Priesthood in India Today: A Biblical Reflection,” VJTR, Vol. 56, No. 2 (February 1992), p. 63. On the origins and early evolution of Priesthood, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, ed., Women and Priesthood: Future Directions, esp. pp. 25-68.

[19] Ibid, p. 71; see also pp. 75-76. [20] J. Wijngaards, Did Christ rule out Women Priests?, p. 79. In his latest book, Wijngaards maintains that opposition to women’s ordination does not come from Christ. It has not been decreed by God, “but pagan sexist bigotry which squashed the true Christian tradition of women’s call to ministry.” See Wijngaards, The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church – Unmasking a Cuckoo’s Egg Tradition, p. 6. Examining the historical evidence, the author who is a biblical scholar and church historian dismantles the theological and scriptural arguments of the Vatican against women’s ordination.

[21] Subhash Anand, “The Inculturation of the Eucharistic Liturgy,” VJTR, Vol. 57, No.5 (1993), p. 274.

[22] Ibid., pp. 274-275. In a highly thought-provoking manner, the author has dealt with the Eucharist. See pp. 269-293.

[23] I was delighted to find a like-minded view in the work of Lavinia Byrne, Woman at the Altar: The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church, p. 104.

[24] Lavinia Byrne, Woman at the Altar, p.107.

[25] T. F. Torrance, The Ministry of Women. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1992, pp.12-13.

[26] On the intersection of patriarchy, religious patriarchy, and social/ecological justice see, for example:

  • Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford University Press, 1986.
  • Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Zed Books, 1986.
  • Claudio Naranjo, The End of Patriarchy and the Dawning of a Tri-une Society, Amber Lotus, 1994.
  • Robert McElvaine, Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History, McGraw-Hill, 2001.
  • Elizabeth Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love, Bloomsbury, 2014.
  • Allan Johnson, The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, Temple University Press, 2014.
  • Alexandra Aikhenvald, How Gender Shapes the World, Oxford University Press, 2016.
  • Robert Jensen, The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men, Spinifex Press, 2017.
  • Carol Gilligan & Naomi Snider, Why Does Patriarchy Persist?, Polity, 2018.
  • Riane Eisler & Douglas Fry, Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future, Oxford University Press, 2019.
  • Susan Hawthorne, Vortex: The Crisis of Patriarchy, Spinifex, 2020.
  • Nancy Folbre, The Rise and Decline of Patriarchal Systems: An Intersectional Political Economy, Verso, 2021.
  • Judith Lorber, The New Gender Paradox: Fragmentation and Persistence of the Binary, Polity, 2022.
  • Jan-Olav Henriksen, Theological Anthropology in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering Human Agency and Its Limits, Springer Nature, 2023.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sr. Pauline Chakkalakal, DSP, of the Daughters of Saint Paul, holds a Doctorate in Biblical Theology. She is a regular contributor to academic journals and popular periodicals on feminist (meaning inclusive, egalitarian, contextual, prophetic, assertive, not aggressive). She is a member of various Biblical & Theological Associations in India and abroad, besides being an active member of ‘Satyashodhak’, a Mumbai-based Feminist Collective. She has also served as President of the Society for Biblical Studies India (SBSI), an ecumenical Bible scholars’ forum. In addition to her academic engagements (eg., teaching Pauline Letters, Biblical Prophets & Prophetesses), she is associated with a few secular and church-related women’s organizations, people’s movements and is actively involved in Women empowerment programmes, and passionately committed to fostering Interreligious (over 25 years) and Ecumenical activities. Sr. Pauline’s writings cover a variety of topics: Dialogue & Partnership amid Religious Pluralism; Significance of Ecumenism; Gender Justice; Proclamation of the Good News through Communication Media; Laity in the Post-Vatican II Church; Vatican II & Women and other current topics. Email: paulinedsp13@gmail.com.


|Back to Title|

LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE          LINK TO THE HOME PAGE

"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind
only the slime of a new bureaucracy."


Franz Kafka (1833-1924)

GROUP COMMANDS AND WEBSITES

Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Group Website
Link to the Home Page

CREATIVE
COMMONS
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Page 24      

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

[groups_small]

Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: