Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church
The Conclusion of Chapter VIII, on the priesthood, examines the questions of the ordination of women and priestly celibacy.
(Continued from
Are there any recent documents on the impossibility of the ordination of women?
Incorporating the teaching of different synods, the Code of Canon Law states the principle: “A baptized male (vir) alone receives sacred ordination validly.”1 In his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of May 22, 1994, Pope John Paul II also restated the traditional doctrine:
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 my 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.2
What is the authority of this teaching?
Like all the popes after Vatican II, John Paul II was loath to engage his authority infallibly. Despite certain appearances, he did not do so here. He recalled the traditional doctrine, but by invoking the authority of the ordinary magisterium of the Church instead of personally exercising the charism of infallible teaching with which he was endowed as pope.
Is this teaching th
en fallible or infallible?
The teaching of the Church on the impossibility of the ordination of women is indeed infallible, but its infallible character comes from the fact that this truth has always been the object of its ordinary magisterium and not from Pope John Paul II’s document.3
77) What is the fundamental reason why women cannot be priests?
The fundamental reason why women cannot become priests is rooted in the order of creation. The relation between man and woman reflects the order of creation. Man is the symbol of God, and woman, that of creation. Consequently, the woman by her very nature is not capable of being the authorized representative of God.
Isn’t such a position discriminatory against women?
It is not a matter of establishing a priori principles (like discrimination or non-discrimination), but of observing reality and of acting in conformity with it. Only rank ideologues refuse to admit the difference that exists between the sexes.
How do the differences between man and woman have a bearing on divine worship?
To the unbiased observer, it is clear that man has a more active, enterprising, and commanding nature. His part is to act upon the world and to transform it. That is why his role is to govern and direct society. Woman’s nature, on the contrary, is more passive and receptive. Her domain is firstly the close circle of family and children; her lot is more to be directed than to direct. That is why St. Paul says: “...the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23). This is also why, in sacred Scripture, God is represented with the traits of a man.
God transcends the distinction of sex: He is in Himself neither male nor female. Could He not also be represented under the traits of a woman?
In fact, in holy Scripture, God is represented with masculine traits. He is the Father and Spouse of the Chosen People. Praying “Our Mother,” as is done in some places, goes against Revelation and blasphemously parodies the Gospel. All the religions that believe in a creator God conceive a masculine idea of Him, at least as regards the principal deity. Female deities are found, on the contrary, in pantheistic religions that discern no essential difference between God and the world. It is not by chance that, becoming incarnate, God became a man, and not a woman.
Does the fact that Jesus Christ is man imply that priests must be men?
Since the fall of the first Adam, who, as head of the human race, dragged it down in his wake, Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, the only Pontiff, the only High-Priest. The priests of the New Testament are only instruments He has chosen to continue His work, and whom He associates with His priesthood. From the fact that, in order to be “the new Adam,” the Word of God became incarnate in a male nature, only men can share in His priesthood.
What does contemporary woman’s clamoring to be ordained reveal?
The polemics surrounding the ordination of women reveals the false idea of priesthood that holds sway today. If the priest is considered to be merely a social leader presiding over the local assemblies of the People of God, consoling the afflicted and fostering the religious sentiment of the faithful, there seems to be no good reason why a woman could not fulfill this role. But a priest is something else entirely: an alter Christus (another Christ).
78) Cannot the Church be accused of keeping women in a state of inferiority?
Women were kept in a state of inferiority in pagan societies. This is still the case today amongst the Jews and the Moslems. Christianity, on the contrary, has given woman her nobility: she enjoys the same dignity as man, of whom she is–especially in marriage—the companion and not the servant. But this recognition does not exclude that she is different from him and has other duties to fulfill.
But has it not been said that man symbolizes the Creator; and woman, the creature?
Here it is a question, as the word indicates, of a simple symbol. By his nature, man is just as much a creature as woman and so must, like her, learn obedience and submission.
How did the Church render to woman her dignity?
The Catholic Church honors the woman beyond all measure in the person of Mary, virgin and Mother of God. She venerates her as the queen of all saints, elevated above every creature—apostles, bishops, popes, and even every rank of angels. The honor paid to Mary naturally overflowed to all women—in the measure that they resemble Mary.
In this vein, what in particular should be said about the honor paid to the Blessed Virgin?
Mary’s principal title of glory, the one that allows her to be honored above every creature, is specifically feminine: she is the mother of God (and, subsequently, the mother of all men in that they are called to be incorporated in her Son Jesus Christ). Unlike the “feminists,” the Church exalts woman in that which specifies her feminine nature, and not by denying it. On the other hand, Mary is not a priest. Pope Innocent III wrote a letter on this subject to the Bishop of Burgos: “Though the Virgin Mary is above all the Apostles taken together, the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven to them, and not to her.”4
What should be said about contemporary feminism?
In its so-called “women’s liberation,” contemporary feminism in reality manifests the utmost contempt of womanhood since it tries to fit it to the masculine model rather than to develop properly feminine values. Indeed, woman then does find herself at a disadvantage: a woman will always make a poor man!
79) Why does the Church require priests to be celibate?
As another Christ, the priest must belong entirely to God and to our Lord Jesus Christ. Since he goes to the altar every day to offer the sacrifice of divine love, he must also offer his heart to God in an undivided love. An additional reason is that the priest must be at the disposition of all souls, as the father and brother of all, which would not be possible if he had to take care of his own family.
The Catholic priest thus perfectly resembles Jesus Christ, who was not married either, and who lived entirely in the love of His Father and of immortal souls.
Are there other reasons why priests should be celibate?
Our Lord, who was a virgin, desired that both St. Joseph and our Lady, with whom He lived for 30 years, be virgins; that His precursor, St. John the Baptist, be a virgin; that the disciple whom He loved, St. John, also be a virgin. From this the rule can be drawn that to draw close to our Lord one must be a virgin. Now, the priest is the minister of the holy Eucharist.
•
Isn’t celibacy a great sacrifice for the priest?
Celibacy is undoubtedly a sacrifice, but sacrifice is the law of natural life (nothing can be chosen without, by the very fact, renouncing something else) and still more so of supernatural life and fruitfulness. Just as Christ redeemed the world by His passion, so also the priest will not be able to do very much for the Church and the salvation of souls unless he lives a life of sacrifice. Our age, so inclined to see in human love and sexuality the only joy of life, has for this very reason a great need of the example of priests and religious, who remind people of higher values and ideals.
80) Isn’t celibacy an inhuman constraint against nature?
Marriage is an image of the love that should exist between God (or Christ) and the soul. But it is, precisely, only an image, and not the reality. That is why marriage is ended by death. In heaven there will be no more marriage (Mt. 22:30); then everyone will live in the love of God only, which for consecrated souls is already the only love. Celibacy is thus an anticipation of what life will be in eternity.
But doesn’t marriage respond profoundly to the needs of human nature?
Human nature also gives man understanding and free will which allow him to dominate his passions and sometimes to fight against them for the sake of a higher ideal. But man can (and often must) renounce the satisfaction of his sensible passions for a greater good. If he does not do so, he sinks to the level of the animal.
Why is the absolute celibacy of priests not found outside the Catholic Church?
When young men renounce the happiness of founding a family so as to give themselves totally to God, they give a beautiful proof of the Church’s vitality and of the enthusiasm the Faith can communicate. If the communities that separated from the Church abandoned celibacy very quickly, it is because they were unable to communicate this strength to their adherents.
81) Wouldn’t the suppression of celibacy help remedy the shortage of priests?
The suppression of celibacy might lead in the short-term to an increase in the number of ordinations, but the problem would not thereby be resolved; one would have only capitulated before it. Many would be ordained who were not truly called by God, or who would not avail themselves sufficiently of the means to respond to His call. Rather, we should ask why there used to be enough men ready to make the sacrifice of celibacy, while this is no longer the case today.
Doesn’t celibacy remain, nevertheless, a barrier?
Celibacy is a very useful barrier to those who are not called. Without it, many men would tend towards the priesthood for futile reasons: a sure job enjoying a good reputation; a social promotion (this is the case in many Third World countries), etc. For the greater good of the Church and of the faithful, these people are kept far from the priesthood, at least for the most part, by the obligation of celibacy.
82) Is celibacy of apostolic origin?
Celibacy is of apostolic origin (this is at least very probable); it was consequently the rule in the Church from the start. In the beginning of the Church, married men could become priests and bishops, but they had to abstain from marriage after their ordination; if they could still live with their spouse, it was only as brother and sister.
Doesn’t St. Paul speak explicitly of the bishop’s wife?
When St. Paul cites amongst the qualities required to become bishop or deacon the fact of being “the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3:2; 3:12), this does not mean that deacons and bishops could continue to live in marriage after their ordination. It means rather that the fact of being remarried was considered as the sign of an inability to live in continence. One who still feels the need to remarry after the death of his first spouse does not seem to be able to live in celibacy. This prescription can have no other meaning, for if the churchman could continue to exercise the marriage right, a second marriage could not be an impediment to ordination.
Did the Fathers of the Church address this question?
One Father of the Church, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403), testifies:
Priests are chosen firstly from among virgin men, or else from among monks; but if persons apt to fulfill this service are not found among monks, priests are customarily chosen from among those who live in continence with their spouse or who, after one marriage, have become widowers.5
Was this rule observed everywhere?
The same Father of the Church laments that this rule is not observed everywhere, and makes this comment:
In several places, priests, deacons and sub-deacons are still begetting children. I answer that this is not in accordance with the rule, but it happens because of the heedlessness of men.6
Don’t the laws concerning ecclesiastical celibacy date from the fourth century?
The first explicit laws that we know of on the celibacy of clerics indeed were promulgated in the fourth century. It should be noted, however, that they were not presented as a novelty, but as a reminder of the ancient discipline. The Fathers of the African Council of 390 referred explicitly to the apostolic tradition when they taught anew the obligation of celibacy.7
How do you explain that some authors date priestly celibacy from the 12th century?
The affirmation according to which celibacy would be an invention of the 12th century contains only one element of truth: In 1139 the second Lateran Council decided that marriages contracted by clerics having already received major orders would no longer be only illicit, but henceforth also invalid. (Previously, the marriage of a priest or deacon was gravely sinful but nonetheless valid.)
83) Why are priests of the Catholic Eastern Rites allowed to be married?
The Church in the East, in a council held in the seventh century at Constantinople (the Council in Trullo of 691), made concessions to a widespread practice: it allowed priests to continue to live in a marriage concluded before their ordination. This Council kept the ancient discipline of celibacy for bishops only. Subsequently, this rule was then tolerated by popes for priests of the Eastern Church who returned to unity with Rome.
The Oriental usage is then only a tolerance?
The Oriental usage is only a tolerance, and it marks a break with the primitive ideal. The Church of the Orient has, however, kept some vestiges of this ideal: the deacon or priest may continue to live in a marriage contracted before his ordination, but he cannot contract a marriage. If his wife dies, he must then observe celibacy. Most of the time, bishops are selected from among monks, for these are always celibate. Were a married man to become bishop, however, he would have to separate from his wife.
What do the faithful think of these married priests?
The faithful of the Eastern Church often consider married priests as inferior to priest-monks. They feel more or less that the celibate priest perfectly realizes the ideal of priesthood, and they prefer to go to confession to them.
1 1917 Code, Canon 968, 1 (1983 Code, Canon 1024).
2 “On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone,” English version online at www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii / apost_letters/documents.
3 On the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, see Question 19 of this catechism.
4 Decretal Nova quaedam, X.
5 Expositio Fidei, 21; PG 42, 824.
6 Adversus Hæreses, 54, 9; PG 41, 1024.
7 See further the excellent book by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J., Origines apostoliqlues du célibat sacerdotal (Paris-Namur: Lethielleux, 1981).
Current Issue
