 |
| Left to right: Bridget Mary Meehan ARCWP, Clare Julian Carbone ARCWP at priestly ordination in Salt Lake City |
NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER
In 1994 Pope John
Paul II declared in his encyclical, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “The Church has no authority whatsoever to
confer priestly ordination on women".
He substantiated his papal pronouncement with reference to, “the example recorded in the Sacred
Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men”.
The unquestioned logic presented here (ie. Jesus was male and
chose only male apostles therefore the Church has no authority to ordain women)
has been presented to the Church’s faithful as the unalterable ecclesiastical stance
on the subject. Pope Francis, in his faithfulness
to Church teachings, has adhered strictly to this position. In faithfulness to Jesus, however, and the
inclusive message of the Gospel he entrusted to us, I am compelled to question the
validity of this argument. Did Jesus really mean to forever establish a male
dominated system of power within the Church? Was this not the very kind of
political structure he came to dismantle? Are there other theological and scriptural implications
which assist us to better understand Jesus’ intentions in choosing the original
twelve disciples as his close associates?
In a recent NCR article Christian Weisner wrote “When asked, Pope
Francis has declared the door to priesthood closed to women. But he does after
all use the image of a door, and for this door, maybe a theological key may be
found. [1] This
paper will re-examine the validity
of the argument presented in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis and attempt
to offer a theological key for opening the door to women’s ordination.
IN THE BEGINNING: MALE AND FEMALE
Genesis 3 reassures us that the human person was created in the
image of God, male and female, without prejudice to either gender. St. Paul’s
admonition in his letter to the Galatians continues to assert that gender has no
bearing (whatsoever!) on one’s capacity to be identified with Christ: ”There is
neither male nor female”, he declares, “but all are one in Christ Jesus.” Paul further clarifies that it is Baptism, not gender, which specifically
activates our identification with Christ and our capacity to image him, “You
who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” [2]. The words written on a popular bumper sticker
perhaps best capture the essence of Paul’s meaning: “Ordain women, or stop baptizing them!”
St. Paul further acknowledges 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 Paul refers to a woman
apostle named Junia, whom he describes as “outstanding”, and to a woman deacon named Phoebe, whom he also highly
commends.[3]
Most notable of course among the women who followed Jesus and
served in the early Church 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 witness and messenger
of his resurrection.[4] 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. It
does not seem unreasonable to presume that the Church would not have hesitated
to acknowledge this particular commission as yet another affirmation of a male
only priesthood if it had been Peter, not Mary, whom Jesus selected for this
task. Instead the Church, over the centuries, has regrettably obscured the
ramifications of Mary’s unique calling and witness.
RE-THINKING THE TWELVE
But what do we make of the original twelve male disciples whom
Jesus seems to have selected in a particular way? What was Jesus’ purpose in
choosing these men to be his close associates?
Was it really to maintain patriarchal leadership among his followers or
was something else intended? Might Jesus
have been attempting to convey to these men something they did not yet grasp?
Was his intimate presence to them meant instead to create a paradigm shift in their
consciousness?
To assist us with this premise let us imagine for a moment Jesus
coming to America in our own day and age and selecting a group of individuals
from an alt right community to follow him.
Some might strongly insist that Jesus selected these individuals to
affirm their ideology and ensure that this world view be perpetuated after his
departure. Others might convincingly argue, given Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness,
that he chose these individuals to teach and expose them to a more inclusive, diversified
way of being true citizens.
Similarly, it may be argued that Jesus’ intention in choosing
the original twelve males was not to validate the generally accepted
orientation towards male supremacy but to expose it as contrary to God’s way.
Jesus worked intimately with these men, not for the purpose of ensuring a
system of patriarchal rule among his followers, but as a means of transforming their
self-perceptions and deepening their understanding of Divine inclusive love. Such a visceral shifting in their innate self-regard would require an initiation of intense
focus. Thus we have the choosing of the twelve original companions as men to be
initiated into a new way of understanding their humanity.
If such a dismantling of the traditional structures of power and
patriarchal rule was indeed Jesus’ primary meaning in calling these twelve men,
did the women, who were generally the objects of male domination, really need
to be part of this particular group and its intended orientation? Let us
examine now the teaching opportunities Jesus engaged in with both his male
companions and with the women he encountered as we consider these alternate
perspectives.
LESSONS FOR THE MEN
Basic to the formation of the twelve was Jesus’ instruction to not “lord it over” but instead to consider themselves “slaves and servants”.[5] Just hours before his death, as if to seal into their memory the primacy of this teaching, Jesus would assume the posture of a slave and humbly stoop to wash the feet of his disciples. Peter in particular expressed resistance to such a radical gesture, which purpose, according to theologian Beatrice Bruteau, was to bring about “a mutation in consciousness”. She writes, “[i]to be in Christ is to enter into the revolutionary events of Holy Thursday by experiencing the archetypal death and resurrection, letting an old modality of consciousness die and seeing a new one rise to live”.[6]
Jesus would continue to challenge Peter’s ingrained defensive responses admonishing him to, “put down your sword”[7] and prophesying to him how he would one day embrace the ultimate posture of entrusting his soul’s safe keeping into the hands of Divine love.[8] In similar fashion we note an earlier occasion of Jesus rebuking James and John for their retaliatory response to call down a divine fire of destruction after being rejected in a certain village. Jesus challenges their natural tendency to win and dominate. In the NASB translation of this event, Jesus instructs them to instead discover their “truer nature[9].
Basic to the formation of the twelve was Jesus’ instruction to not “lord it over” but instead to consider themselves “slaves and servants”.[5] Just hours before his death, as if to seal into their memory the primacy of this teaching, Jesus would assume the posture of a slave and humbly stoop to wash the feet of his disciples. Peter in particular expressed resistance to such a radical gesture, which purpose, according to theologian Beatrice Bruteau, was to bring about “a mutation in consciousness”. She writes, “[i]to be in Christ is to enter into the revolutionary events of Holy Thursday by experiencing the archetypal death and resurrection, letting an old modality of consciousness die and seeing a new one rise to live”.[6]
Jesus would continue to challenge Peter’s ingrained defensive responses admonishing him to, “put down your sword”[7] and prophesying to him how he would one day embrace the ultimate posture of entrusting his soul’s safe keeping into the hands of Divine love.[8] In similar fashion we note an earlier occasion of Jesus rebuking James and John for their retaliatory response to call down a divine fire of destruction after being rejected in a certain village. Jesus challenges their natural tendency to win and dominate. In the NASB translation of this event, Jesus instructs them to instead discover their “truer nature[9].
On other occasions, such as with the Miracle of the Loaves and
Fishes, and the Storm at Sea, Jesus allowed his male companions to face their fears,
personal limitations and vulnerabilities, while simultaneously exposing them to
experiences of true Divine empowerment. While in a state of trepidation or
confoundment, for instance, the twelve would witness a storm being quieted, and
a great multitude of people miraculously being fed by some force beyond their
personal resources.[10] By way of these experiences and through his continued
use of metaphor and parables Jesus consistently attempted to penetrate the concretized
perceptions of his disciples; offering opportunities for them to perceive a
more soulful understanding of human life in relationship to their Creator.[11]
It seems a compelling argument that Jesus’ intent in choosing
the twelve was to liberate them from a well entrenched patriarchal system based
in male 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 particular group initiation intended for the men. In contrast
to the political structure of his time and quite pertinent to this study, Jesus
often modeled for them a deep regard and reverence for the feminine gender.[12]
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 trust their inner guidance and not be intimidated by male power. We find a poignant example of this when Jesus defended the woman who entered the exclusive dinner party daring to express her unabashed love and gratitude as she touched him and washed his feet with her tears.[13] In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus would again defend a woman who anointed him with precious ointment, criticizing his apostles for their obstinacy, and commanding them to “Leave her alone. She has done a beautiful thing to me…and will be remembered.” [14] This event is especially noteworthy when one considers that anointings recorded in the Hebrew Scripture were seemingly reserved for male prophets and high priests. Moreover, I am astounded as I become aware of the immediacy of Judas’ decision to ‘go out and betray’ Jesus in the wake of his rebuke. Was Judas’ betrayal directly related to Jesus provoking too deeply the very sensitive nerve of established patriarchy?
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 trust their inner guidance and not be intimidated by male power. We find a poignant example of this when Jesus defended the woman who entered the exclusive dinner party daring to express her unabashed love and gratitude as she touched him and washed his feet with her tears.[13] In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus would again defend a woman who anointed him with precious ointment, criticizing his apostles for their obstinacy, and commanding them to “Leave her alone. She has done a beautiful thing to me…and will be remembered.” [14] This event is especially noteworthy when one considers that anointings recorded in the Hebrew Scripture were seemingly reserved for male prophets and high priests. Moreover, I am astounded as I become aware of the immediacy of Judas’ decision to ‘go out and betray’ Jesus in the wake of his rebuke. Was Judas’ betrayal directly related to Jesus provoking too deeply the very sensitive nerve of established patriarchy?
Throughout the gospels we observe Jesus consistently challenging
the barriers of gender inequality. He encouraged women to stand up straight[15],
to persist in their intentions and not be dissuaded by male criticism, and on
notable occasions, encouraged their disobedience to the unjust mores of a
male-dominated religious establishment. Such was his purpose it would appear, 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[16]; or
when he initiated conversation with a Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob
during broad daylight. 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. [17] Might we dare liken her witness to that of
an apostle?!
Lastly, I have heard varying interpretations of Jesus’ harsh
encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Perhaps he was having a bad day, was
one suggestion! I have wondered,
instead, if his unusual provocation was actually intended to strengthen the
woman’s determination for her daughter’s healing despite seeming authoritative
male distain. [18]
As Jesus publicly championed these women, affirming their right
to challenge the oppressive mores of their time, 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 and equality before God, would be Jesus’
enduring intention.
JESUS AND THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
Finally let us examine the parallels between these first called
male followers of Jesus and possible parallels with the 12 tribes of Israel. Scholars
have long acknowledged an association between these two groups. Are there
implications here for us to discover related to our study?
In her brilliant psychological commentary on the book of
Genesis, Jewish theologian, Avivah Gottlieb makes two stunning observations
relevant to our study. In her chapter entitled, “What if Joseph Hates Us?”, Dr.
Gottlieb brings our attention to the expression of fear uttered by Joseph’s
brothers after the death of their father Jacob. What we may have thought of as true
reconciliation among the brothers when Joseph wept and revealed himself to them
and subsequently took them in and cared for them, was according to Gottlieb a
pretense of forgiveness for the sake of Jacob. The brothers’ expressed concern,
“What if Joseph hates us?” is a better indication of the their fears that
Joseph was all along harboring hatred and resentment. Now that Jacob was no
longer among them, Joseph was free now to reveal his true intentions of
retaliation for their attempt to kill him, depriving him all those years of his
father’s love, his home and his culture. Gottlieb underscores the trepidation, guilt
and distrust which lingered in the hearts of the brothers as they expressed concern
for their own safety. “What if Joseph hates us and pays us back for all the
evil that we did to him?”
Here we are dramatically presented with the deeper unreconciled
nature of their relationship and the unhealed wound lingering within the
foundational core of the House of Israel.
By referencing Cabala reflections Gottlieb presents us with the
astounding insight that Joseph’s brothers never did receive Joseph’s face to
face words of forgiveness before he died, and hence were never truly resolved
of their sin against him. [19]
In addition we are informed that in the context of his final blessing to his
sons prior to his death, Jacob became aware that the Shekinah (the Divine
Presence) “had withdrawn” and was not accessible to inspire his words. He was
left to bless his sons without the prophetic guidance of Shekinah.
As we note both Jacob’s awareness of the absence of Shekinah, and
of the unreconciled rift among the brothers, it behooves us to further consider
Jesus’ greeting to his disciples after his resurrection. He greets them face to
face with the word, “Peace!” – (ie. Be whole, Be reconciled. You are forgiven)
He then breaths on them the Holy Spirit - (ie. He restores the Shekinah, the
abiding Divine presence among God’s people). Might we say that in choosing the
twelve, in addition to the insights offered above, Jesus was also revisiting the
deep unhealed brokenness related to Joseph and his brothers? By his face to face encounter after his
resurrection with those who abandoned him was Jesus recreating and completing
the longed for reconciliation buried deep within the House of Israel, and thereby
restoring eternal relatedness with Shekinah, the Holy Spirit of God?
It is interesting to note Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospel
Luke as it may apply to this insight, “Thus it is written that the Christ would
suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, (ie. a new
perspective) for forgiveness of sin would be preached in his name to all
nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.”[20]
IN CONCLUSION
For
centuries the Roman Catholic Church has
maintained the stance that only males can fully image the Divine and therefore
are solely eligible to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. At its very core
this position is a grave oversight of the human potential for both males and
females to image God as is assured us in the creation text of Genesis -
“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. Paul further substantiates this concept as
noted above when he declares that our baptism identifies us with Christ in whom
there is neither male nor female.
Rather
than insuring a future all male clergy, Jesus, as this paper asserts, chose the
original twelve disciples for the purpose of leading them past a perceived
culture of male domination, power and privilege. 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 for 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 followed their
inner, intuitive guidance, oftentimes crossing oppressive cultural and
religious 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[21]
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”.[22]
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
urgent imperative in the name of Christ and humanity to do so.
Clare Julian Carbone3220 South 900 East #1
Salt Lake City, UTAH 84106
julian.prayer@juno.com
[1]
Weisner, Christian; Interim Results: Pope Francis Revitalizes Vatican ll
Reforms. National Catholic Reporter, March 13, 2017
[2]
Galatians 3:27-28
[3]
Romans 16:1,7
[4]
Hippolytus
first described Mary of Magdalene as the “apostle to the apostles” in his Commentary
on the Song of Songs, 25.6-7. See also John Paul II, On
the Dignity and Vocation of Women, # 16 n. 38.)
[5]
Mt.20:25-28; Mk. 10:42-44
[6]
Bruteau, Beatrice; The Grand Option; Notre Dame Press; 2001; pg 172
[7]
Mt. 26:52
[8]
Jn.11:21
[9]
Lk. 9:54-56 (NASB)
[10]
Mt. 14-13-21; Lk. 8:23-25
[11]For
instance: Jn.4:32-38. Note also the many parables Jesus used to teach his
disciples
[12]
For instance: Lk. 7:36-50;
Jn.4:1ff;Jn:12:3-9
[13]
Lk.7:36-50
[14]
Mt. 26:6-13
[15]
Lk. 13:10-16 Jn.12:3; Lk. 10:39ff
[16]
Lk.8:43-48
[17]
John; 4:1ff
[18]
Mt. 15:21-28
[19]
Gottlieb Zornberg, Avivah; The Murmuring Deep; Schocken Books New York; 2009;
pgs.313-343
[20]
Lk 24:46ff
[21]
Acts 1:6-15; Acts 2:1-4; Luke tells us that about 120 men and women
were present in the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost and were empowered by
the Holy Spirit to be witnesses of the Gospel “to the uttermost parts of the
earth”.
[22]
Carter, Jimmy; Call to Action, Women, Religion, Violence and Power, pg. 1;
Simon and Schuster, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment