From a woman who believes she has a priestly vocation

I am very concerned about the conflation of patriarchal gender ideology and revealed truth in our sacramental theology:

Meditations on Man and Woman, Humanity and Nature
http://pelicanweb.org/CCC.TOB.html

These meditations are based on my understanding of St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The current hiatus in official discussion of the issue by bishops is just that, a hiatus. Let's keepraying and working for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.

Martin believes there is a tradition:
"that only clerics may enter the sanctuary. This until the 1970s included those in minor orders such as acolyte and lector. These were necessarily all male as only males can be clerics".
Practices sidelining women and excluding them from the sanctuary took root and became more common, according to research by Cipriano Vaggaggini (a Vatican theologian of the ITC), over later centuries of the first millennium and early centuries of the second millennium, and until then, women were ordained within the sanctuary, and served as deacons. The reason for the gradual rejection of women is not creditable: the 14th century canonist Matthew Blastares trying to explain it says: "They were forbidden access and performance of [services in the sanctuary] by later fathers because of their monthly flow." In our time, this kind of discrimination is as unacceptable as it was thankfully absent in the earlier church. The Roman Catholic church contains a wide range of strands of liturgy and theology in history and the present. This should be a strength for us all, but practices which contradict God's love for all creation can surely not be sustained, even if they have been common in a number of centuries before our own.

I am not a traditionalist, T or t, or for that matter a liberal. Just an ordinary Catholic. The issue you raise however is clear. The Church has ruled on this matter. The Priesthood is reserved to males. Full stop. Nothing to do with fear, just fact. Nothing you or I can do about it.

The priesthood is not by definition celibate, only so by long custom and experience.

There is ample scope for women and men. In fact we are required, male and female, by Christ, not the Church, to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, to help strangers, cloth the naked, visit the sick, visit the imprisoned.

So let us all get on with it.

'Semper reformanda' We already have married priests, we will have women deacons and we will continue to discuss these difficult issues whilst seeking the truth in the messiness of our communities and the reality of our domestic church.
Anon, may you be blessed with patience and peace.

2) Those of us who are of a more traditionalist outlook do not believe the laity ought to touch the Sacred Host at all, as this should be reserved to the consecrated hands of the clergy and to reduce the dangers of sacrilege, so I object to Extraordinary Ministers not on the grounds that they're women, but that they exist at all.

"When certain prelates bewail the presence of women in the sanctuary as readers, extraordinary ministers or (heaven forbid) altar servers then I, for one, smell a rat."

Then you're wrong.

1) The strong Tradition of the Church is that only clerics may enter the sanctuary. This until the 1970s included those in minor orders such as acolyte and lector. These were necessarily all male as only males can be clerics. The changes (in the novus ordo - these changes do not apply to the usus antiquior) following the 1970 new missal were gradual and incremental and, indeed, were largely based on abuse and disobedience. Rome has made repeated attempts to rein them in. For instance, female altar servers have only been permitted since 1994, and only as a result of protracted disobedience. Extraordinary Ministers have become the norm but in law they are only supposed to be used when absolutely necessary. The Tradition, therefore, is for male only service on the sanctuary. The idea of women serving at the altar, for instance, has been condemned by numerous popes up to and including John Paul II. This is obviously because the clerical state (even the minor orders) was naturally seen as being part of the same sacred state as the priesthood, even if of a lower order, and on the path to the priesthood (as it still is, in terms of altar service being part of a vocation process).

Opposition to ordination of women may be a symptom of deeply ingrained sexism but it may surely also be a sincerely-held conviction. Can one can distinguish the two cases by seeing whether the conviction goes hand in hand with a genuine commitment to equality and the full use by all of their God-given gifts. When certain prelates bewail the presence of women in the sanctuary as readers, extraordinary ministers or (heaven forbid) altar servers then I, for one, smell a rat.

The reservation of priestly ordination to men is to be held as definitive 'quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens'. Grounded as it is in Scripture and Tradition it is infallibly set forth as part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. JP II reaffirmed that it was not simply a discipline which could be a matter for debate.

It is also an article of faith (for Catholics) that the sacramental priesthood was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper.

Catholics who argue for women's ordination find themselves in the anomalous position of maintaining that the Church has the competence to do so, while at the same time denying her competence in deciding what belongs to the deposit of faith and what does not.

However, if they wish to keep discussing it, no-one is stopping them.

The reasoning that prohibits the ordination of women because Christ called only men is fatuous. There is lots that Jesus didn’t do that the Church does (and reasonably so); Jesus didn’t ordain deacons or priests and managed quite well without cardinals.

There is no mention of entitlement in the original post and this is not a matter of gender equality. Furthermore, those calling for the ordination of women don’t seek to prove the Holy Spirit wrong. Rather, they are prompted by that same Spirit to correct the erroneous of thinking of a divinely inspired and male dominated Church.

John Paul II’s interdiction on the mere discussion of women’s ordination was beyond his competence. I see no evidence that a priest’s gender has ever been more than tradition with a small ‘t’. It’s is not an article of faith. It is something all Catholics of good faith should discuss without fear and with open minds and hearts. Seeking the purpose of the Spirit, I’m quite prepared to change my mind should the will of God become clear in sincere, informed and honest discernment.

The church says it can't ordain women priests....but in reality, it chooses not to.

The Church does not have the authority to ordain women. The pope may be infallible but he is not omnicompetent.

... continued....

Your commitment to your ministries indicates that you are inspired by the Holy Spirit in what you are doing as are many other women, whose commitment is also not fully appreciated by the hierarchy, though may be much appreciated by many church members.

I suspect that many girls and women feel the pain of injustice, discrimination and exclusion in being denied the opportunity test or practise the vocation to the priesthood that they feel the Holy Spirit may have called them to participate in.

Could the denial of the priesthood to women be considered a sin against the Holy Spirit, who is calling them to serve in that role?

The prohibition on discussing the possibility of ordaining women priests only emphasises the weakness of the arguments against doing so. If the arguments against women priests were at all convincing, there would be no point in preventing that discussion. Res ipsa loquitur.

The Church needs people like you, whether or not you are an ordained priest. Thank you for speaking up and explaining your vocation and the limitations that are imposed on the practice of what you feel called to do in ministering within the church.

The church needs the empathy and experience, the pastoral and spiritual insights and the personal commitment that women can offer. These are qualities that many priests could do more to develop, perhaps with your help and the help of women like you.

When much of the early church was based within the family, who can really say, exactly how involved women were in ministry of the early church, though they certainly appear to have been involved in the diaconate.

What is written down may not be the whole picture, as society at that time did not give women equal status with men. But I am not aware of any passage in the New Testament that specifically prohibits the ordination of women.

Even though society treated women as inferior in the past, it is evident from the ability that women show in all professions nowadays, including the priesthood in other denominations, that they have been created equal to men. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is recorded as coming to all the believers who were gathered there, not only to the men.

Claims of 'entitlement' to specific vocations smack of self-interest, rather than self-sacrifice for the love of God and neighbour. Claimed entitlement to the priesthood (diaconate or religious life) has a distinct whiff of frustrated clericalism: the clericalism sadly evident in the antics of some in lay ministry with their fetishes for titles and committee positions.

There is a vocation to which all have access - regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, abilities or disabilities, marital status or any other characteristic we possess or label which is applied to us - the call to sanctity.

This wonderful gift and opportunity from God is the vocation to which He calls all - and it is the vocation to which we should all aspire.

"The use of grandiose terms such as “ontologically impossible” does not dignify an opinion: it remains no more than an unsupported assertion."

On the contrary, it is both the teaching of the Church and the very crux of the matter.

Our Lord did not select a woman to be amongst the apostles he sent out. Therefore the Church may not do so.

A woman could not, therefore, validly receive ordination even if it were to be purported that she had done so - been through all the training and the ceremonies and wore the vestments and celebrated mass - she would not and could not be a priest. This means that all of those comments advocating this on the grounds that "soon there'll be no priests and wouldn't you rather have a woman than no priest at all", or alternatively "a woman would be just as good, why not let her use her gifts" are just completely missing the point.

A woman who was a priest would be no priest. Nothing she did would be valid. She would be nothing better than a protestant minister, with no sacramental powers.

"So, if you are saying it is impossible to have women priests, what is your answer to the lack of male vocations?"

Try encouraging them. Male-only altar service, preaching on the need for frequent confession and on vocations, liturgical rectitude and reverence. It works for old rite communities which have pro rata many more vocations than those of the new rite.

I see, once again, that the secular notion of discrimination and the idea of women doing the job raise their heads again below. This is just simply not a prism through which this issue can be seen.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of secular feminism has led to the view that the Holy Spirit has been incorrect for 2000 years?

After reading all the comments, I think kaythegardener sums them up very simply. If, and when, parishioners are left without a resident pastor, and the church building is due to be closed (sold), then let them decide what they must do to save their spiritual home--unless they really don't care. As kaythegardener said so well: "Since priests don't use their genitals in the service of the People of God, but their hearts, minds & talents -- then why can't women be ordained??"

What on earth is a "lay deacon"? No such office exists.
Aside from that, it is a pity that many comments on this topic are focusing on the difference between men and women as purely physical/sexual. The Church's position on male priesthood is not based on this argument alone(which, of course, provides no justification for a male-only priesthood). The maleness of Christ, and the male-only nature of the priesthood he instituted, has to be understood in terms of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Only viewing the specific priestly role of offering the sacrifice of the Mass in terms of the nuptial union between Christ and his Church provides a valid starting point for this discussion. The priest is not JUST a shepherd. And of course, women are equally as competent to hold positions of authority in the Church. It is a great pity that the Church does not wish to open up the role of cardinal to women. That would be a far better way to promote their role in decision-making and pastoral oversight of the Church.

Since priests don't use their genitals in the service of the People of God, but their hearts minds & talents -- then why can't women be ordained??

Let's start with women lay deacons!!

The recent meeting on women's cultures is a sign of hope. However, as long as the Church remains attached to the patriarchal norm of choosing only males for the ministerial priesthood, we are effectively using "burqas made of flesh" to obscure the mystery of the Incarnation. The body is a sacrament of the entire person, but is not the entire person. This applies to human persons and even more so to Christ, who is a divine Person. What matters for the redemption is that the eternal Word became "flesh," maleness is incidental (important for concreteness, but incidental). The sacraments are what they are, but the Church chooses who are the ministers of the sacraments. In the life of the Church, the male-only priesthood supports and exemplifies the very kind of objectification of the human body that negates the subjective dimension of human nature, male and female.

What a sensible approach to the whole concept of priesthood! Like this writer, I love the Catholic Church and although I have no active desire to be a Catholic priest I have to say I am perfectly happy to accept the role if there aren't enough men willing to serve.

The role of priests is to stand as shepherds leading us to heavenly pastures not to imitate Peter's successors. Over too long a time in history holders of the title have been infected by the example of temporal leaders - kings, emperors and the like while papal (and in turn episcopal) courts have modelled themselves on royal lines.

We need to work together to make the Good News real news and to spread the message of the Gospel as far as we can. Squabbling about who does it is totally unproductive. To worry whether one is male or female is irrelevant. If the job is there, waiting to be done, just get it done – with the minimum of fuss and enough faith to move mountains.

Good on you Anonymous. The Church needs women like you. Keep knocking on the door and one day, maybe not in your lifetime, there will be women priests. Also married priests. Why? Because times are a changing and the Church must evolve to grow and better communicate the Good News of Jesus to an increasingly Godless world. As good Pope Francis says we must always bear in mind the "supreme law" of the Church - the salvation of souls.

Let me be clear that I am a male Anglican priest and write from that perspective. For a long time I took the view that ordination to the priesthood for women should be subject to agreement of the whole church. But I began to see this was a cop-out: there was no prospect of such a discussion, let alone agreement. Then I began to see that the only honest way of approaching this difficulty was with the individual who believes she is experiencing a vocation. It must be tested as a man's vocation is tested, no more no less. If it appears to be a real call from God then it must be acted upon. It is no answer to say "This is ontologically impossible". All things are possible with God. If God is calling the writer of this blog, he will make it clear if it is tested by exactly the canons always used. The big question is whether the Church is confident enough to take such a huge step of faith. My church did, and I believe it has been blessed in doing so.

Oh! dear! I read this usual pretty fundamentalist point of view such as that of Martin or Ben Trovado with some exasperation. "It is ontologically impossible..." or it is delusion to think that things will change - nonsense!!! Being of a woman does not preclude her from ordination just as being black did not preclude people from having equal rights or being a Saudi woman prevent her from being able to drive. Discrimination, male chauvinism, patriarchal systems apparently make it ontologically or intellectually or biologically or humanly impossible for some men - and unfortunately some women too - to challenge their fixed minds. Or am I to understand that Jesus would have broken the sexual discrimination legislation had he lived today? I doubt it!
I shall probably die before the Church sees the need for a change, but this out-dated minority view will also die out and so the change will eventually come unless the Church - a human institution like many others - ceases to exist before that time because it will have become so irrelevant to the human race. That would be a shame!
The "ontological" argument can no longer be used for married men since Anglican priests can now be ordained in the Catholic Church. Not sure that this approach is progress, but it does demonstrate that the impossible is possible.
"We shall overcome" (Martin Luther King 1960s).

I am a Catholic convert from Anglicanism. As an Anglican I received the ministries of excellent male and female priests, as well as exercising a liturgical and pastoral ministry as an Anglican priest. Many Catholics of both sexes availed themselves of my pastoral ministry. I testify from experience to the ability of men and women to exercise wonderful priestly ministries towards me as a penitent, but I have to say that as a Catholic I miss being able to receive the rite of reconciliation from a woman in a same sex spiritual understanding. In my opinion we need far more Catholic women both celibate and married to be trained in theology, spiritual direction, counselling and governance than we have presently available as well trained laity, in a renewed institution that makes the best possible use of all it's members talents. I would not wish to be a priest in the present structures that discriminate against half her members. Una Kroll

For many years, as a man of 50+ years, I have been an opponent of female ordination. My views have changed greatly, and I now think it is time for the Church to reconsider this important issue. If we are all called to see Christ in all people, why is it that women are banned from the altar, because they do not present an adequate image of Christ via their sexuality? It seems to me that the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. Having been blessed with many Christ-like women in my life, including my wife and my mother, to me it seems untenable that half of Catholic humanity is still held apart from sacrificial service simply by the fact that they were born as women. I do not consider myself a "liberal;" the one thing that most hurts me in today's Anglophone Church is the lack of a feeling of the Sacred, of ritual, of the "in illo tempore" extra-temporal sense of sacred space which had been the Mass for so many years and has now been replaced by an easy-going, group therapy session, often involving (always appropriate?) humour. And, nota bene: this is the Mass celebrated by men. Perhaps if we were to open the Communion Rail to women with a priestly calling, we would regain some of the dignity our services deserve. Good luck, Anonymous, indeed!

To those who say that it is impossible for a woman to become a priest, don't we all need to stop and pause and reflect on how we see the future of the church. If we carry on as usual, with precious few celibate males coming forward for ordination, I suspect the Catholic Church will almost be extinct by the end of the century. To refuse genuine callings to the priesthood, just because the person has the wrong body parts, amounts to sheer lunacy and a distinct inability to see the wider and bigger pastoral picture. So, if you are saying it is impossible to have women priests, what is your answer to the lack of male vocations? But I won't hold my breath. I look to my church leaders to help to bring me closer to Jesus Christ and I don't care one iota whether that person is male or female nor, do I suspect, many other lay people. All power to Catholic Women's Ordination....I pray that they may grow and prosper.

IT is so sad that this short sightedness exists and I pray that one day al will wake up to and remember the place women played in the distant past and recognise what they do in the present in order to build an inclusive Church in the future for all which is not based upon patriarchy and exclusion, thank you so much for all that you do and for sharing your experiences.
in sisterhood and solidarity,
jacqui

Strange to find this topic receiving superficial treatment YET AGAIN. There really is no point in coming at this with the mindset of a civil servant (i.e. there is work to be done, I could get the job done, so why not me?). The Church reserves certain states of life to men (priesthood) and others to women (e.g. consecrated virgins - yes that's right, no male religious or lay person can be consecrated as a virgin). There is nothing discriminatory about this. The Church simply believes that gender has a bearing on the types of spiritual service to which men and women are called. We should celebrate this rich and beautiful difference!

I admire Anonymous for her honesty and sincerity. Clearly, she is a much-needed servant of the Gospel and we are all grateful to so many like her for their generous sacrifice and service.

However, sadly, she is mistaken. The Church teaches humbly and clearly that God has ordered the world in a particular way - and that this ordering is part of his wider plan for creation. Thus men and women are different: equal, complementary, but different. Part of this 'ordering' of the entirety of creation includes, for example, the fact that women alone are able to conceive a child and give birth. That's part of the 'essence' of womanhood. And a fabulous blessing ... Such it is with he priesthood and maleness.

Admittedly, our secular liberal society wants to blur these boundaries and have everyone be who they want to be, rathe than who they'v been created to be. The world noisily and aggressively confuses us and we lose sight of the Gospel.

Thank God, Anon, for your generosity, vision and witness. We need more like you: as wives, mothers, grandmothers, astounding witnesses and loving parishioners. But it is not God's plan that you should, or could, be a priest.

Good Luck Anonymous!
Send this - and the Comments - to Rome, with your telephone number. You never know......
I am sure you, as a woman cleric, would not have spent €15,000 on a bath tub like the "bishop of bling" and then been given a job in the Curia.
Sadly, you would have remained sacked.

Regrettably many posters here are coming at this from completely the wrong angle.

I cite "we do not care whether the priest is male or female, married or single, gay or straight...as long as we have one!" for instance.

This is precisely the point. We need the priesthood, to confer the sacraments. But it is ontologically impossible for a woman to receive orders. The Church cannot confer them, validly, on a woman even should it wish to do so. A woman ordained as a priest would not be ordained validly, and the sacraments would not be confected effectively.

In sum: she could wear the vestments, do the job, but not validly absolve or say mass. In attempting to use this as a remedy to save the priesthood, you would destroy it.

This woman needs to use her gifts to give service in another way, as she is doing, and forget these ideas.

Our anonymous friend shows her earnest spirit, especially in her desire to be of service. Theologian Michael Novak addressed some of the issues commonly noted about this subject, in his 1993 essay "Women, Ordination and Angels" at http://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/04/002-women-ordination-and-angels

Pope Francis has a blinkered attitude towards women. He is equally naive about mandatory celibacy.
Anon writes, "Married men may become priests soon". Sadly, apart from ex-Anglicans, that's very unlikely.

Former Anglicans have proved very popular and effective. So would women priests - given the chance.

After reading this, I felt very sad. Pope John Paul's edict that women priests must not even be discussed showed a distinct lack of respect to other members of the church, clerical and lay and a further indication of how the hierarchy seek to infantalise its members. There appears to be little difference in the way the Vatican and the Kremlin operate. But, despite John Paul, the Catholic Church, if it still exists by the middle of this century, I suspect that it WILL have women priests because more and more lay people do not accept the current ban and will demand that the hierarchy take the commonsense action to address the crisis in male vocations. In other words, we do not care whether the priest is male or female, married or single, gay or straight...as long as we have one!

There's an interesting counterpoint to this moving account which is published just today in National Catholic Reporter at ncronline.org. There, Nicole Sotelo writes about "St Teresa of Avila's survival guide for Catholic women" and the saint's struggles for women in the church in the 16th century. In one quote, St Teresa tells her fellow sisters that God will give them the courage they need. She suggests that if "one or two ... fearlessly do what is best," things will begin to change.

Why can't we start with ordaining women as deacons as lots of women already fulfill that role in their parishes

I feel sorry for this poor woman. It would seem that her heart is in the right place, but her head has been filled with error. The reason St John Paul ii said that women's ordination was not discussable is the simple fact that it isn't. We don't discuss changing things that cannot change. Imagine 'discussing' whether we should still believe in the Trinity. There is nothing new about this: St John Paul ii simply clarified it; the Church will not, indeed cannot (see the Catechism) change that teaching. Bishops, Priests, and others who pretend others are responsible for leading poor souls like this astray. Anyone who thinks our present Holy Father is going to (or even would like to) change this fact is deluding herself or himself.