Views On Priestly Ordination

To The Editor:

The recent exchange of views on priestly ordination in letters to The Bee has been a source of confusion. A newspaper letters section is hardly the appropriate venue for a careful examination of the historical evidence and theological foundations of the catholic ministerial priesthood. However, certain comments by Leo McIlrath are so plainly uninformed that fairness demands a clarification.

I address my comments to two particular statements: that the claim in a recent church bulletin at St Rose of Lima to the effect that the male-only priesthood rests on the decision of Christ to call only men to orders in “ludicrous” (March 3 Bee); and that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has never “addressed” the fact that the reasons given for limiting ordination to celibate men are not found in sacred scripture or unwritten tradition (March 17). Both statements betray a deep misunderstanding of the church and the ministerial priesthood.

As to the first. It cannot be seriously doubted that Christ called only men to the priesthood. In making that choice, Christ passed over the most holy of all creatures, his mother. She was not given power to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sin. His decision not to chose the most worthy of all for the ministerial priesthood speaks volumes as to his intention. Moreover, Christ constantly challenged the customs and traditions of his society and age as they related to women. They were among his most faithful disciples and were chosen to be the first witnesses to the risen Lord. He spoke publicly with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:27), took no notice of the legal impurity of woman suffering from hemorrhages (Mt 9:20-22), extended mercy to the adulterous woman (John 8:11), permitted the sinful woman to touch him in the home of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37), and did not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to marriage (Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9). His manner of acting with regard to women clearly demonstrates that he was not culturally conditioned in his selection of men alone for the priesthood. The claim that Christ’s choice as a foundation for a male-only priesthood is “ludicrous” also ignores the profound mystery of his assumption of human nature as a man.

In Inter Insigniores, published in 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offered a beautiful meditation on the relationship between Christ the Bridegroom and the Church as Bride. This nuptial theme, repeated often in sacred scripture (Mk 2:19; Mt 22: 1-14; John 3:29; Rev 19:76,9; 2 Cor.11:2; Eph 5:22) is directly applicable to the male-only priesthood. Sacramental signs represent what they signify by natural relation. This is no less true for persons then for things. A priest acts in persona Christi, taking the role of Christ, in those actions which demand the character of ordination. In these matters – the highest degree of which is the Eucharist – Christ himself (the Bridegroom) is represented by the priest. Since Christ was and remains a man, his role must be taken by a man. Thus it is not meaningful to argue, as Mr McIlrath does, that resting the decision to limit ordination to men on Christ’s example is logically indistinguishable from limiting it to those who are married, Jewish, fishermen, or tax collectors, because Christ also limited his calling to such men. Those characteristics are not associated with the priestly role in persona Christi. I recognize that Mr McIlrath and others do not share this view. I respectfully disagree; I do not label their opinions “ludicrous.”

As to the second point. Contrary to Mr McIlrath’s claim, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has repeatedly explained the doctrine concerning the male-only priesthood, grounding its teaching on sacred scripture and tradition – written and unwritten. A brief summary could include the Catechism of the Catholic Church; John Paul’s letters, Ordinatio Sacerdotalsi and Mulieris Dignitatem; Inter Insigniores, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 1 Timothy, Titus, St Clement of Rome’s Epistula ad Corinthios, Pope Paul VI’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Vatican Council II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church nn 19-20; and Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n.2., and that can be found in a quiet Internet search. Try ewtn.com.

One final point. Kathy Pond wrote a fine response (March 10 Bee) to Mr McIlrath’s first letter. However, I believe she was mistaken in writing that the church may someday expand the priesthood to include female ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalsi, John Paul II wrote: “{I}n order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter… which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” One year later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that John Paul’s teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalsi belongs to the deposit of faith and “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” As such it is an irreformable part of the dogma of the Catholic Church.

Very truly yours,

Tom Davis

40 Horseshoe Ridge Road, Sandy Hook                   March 20, 2000