Women's Ordination to Catholic Priesthood

Your Holiness, John Paul,
and all Your Eminences and Excellencies, the Bishops Who Share Apostolic Succession with His Holiness, Pope John Paul II

Grace to you and peace from God our Father. We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the holy ones because of the hope reserved for you in heaven.

What is our purpose in writing?

We are laypeople and believing and practicing Roman Catholics writing under the duty of canon 212.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law to manifest to our sacred pastors our opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, with our understanding that we also have a right to make our opinion known to other Christian faithful. This letter is being circulated publicly and to the laity by the laity and for the laity via email, inviting each agreeing recipient to send their concerns to their respective bishop.

We are writing because we have not found a statement of the Churchs position on the ordination of women that has helped us to submit our intellect or give definitive assent to the Holy Fathers statements in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the Church is not authorized to ordain women. Indeed, as we weigh the arguments for and against the ordination of women, we have become more convinced that the question must remain open. Indeed, it appears to us that the documentary evidence of infallible or authoritative statements made by the Church strongly suggests that women may have been ordained in the past, and should be ordained in contemporary society.

Overview of the official Vatican position:

His Holiness, John Paul II, issued an Apostolic Letter on May 22, 1994 entitled Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in which he stated that the Church is not authorized to ordain women, and that such a position is to be definitively held as part of the deposit of faith. This letter briefly reiterates arguments articulated in more detail under the authority of Pope Paul IV through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF) in a document issued October 15, 1976 entitled Inter Insigniores. The basic arguments set forth in these letters are as follows:

Priesthood was instituted exclusively among the Twelve, according to tradition at the Last Supper. The Twelve were exclusively male, and we must follow Christs manner of acting.

The New Testament provides no guidance for the ordination of women.

Sacred Tradition is interpreted as excluding the possibility of womens ordination due to a lack of historic precedent and a number of authoritative, though not infallible statements indicating women should not be ordained.

The priest acts in persona Christi, (in the person of Christ) and therefore must be male as Christ was male.

The bishop represents God the Father to the People of God, and all ordination to lower Orders are directed toward the episcopacy.

The Church is the bride of Christ, and it is therefore fitting that ministerial priests should be male to better symbolize this reality.

Is the current teaching part of the deposit of faith?

It is our contention that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an exercise of ex cathedra papal authority, and therefore, cannot be considered with certainty to be part of the deposit of faith. The CDFs October 28, 1995 Responsum Ad Dubium regarding this letter did clarify that our interpretation is correct. A subsequent letter issued by his eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, stated that the non-infallible authority of the Holy Father witnessed to the infallible authority of the ordinary universal magisterium, which we understand to be the carefully and deliberately considered consensus of the entire college of bishops according to Lumen Gentium 25.2. Under Canon 749.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a doctrine cannot be understood to be defined infallibly according to the ordinary universal magisterium unless this has been manifestly demonstrated.

At the very least, we would like to know if the Holy Father consulted with the college of bishops for a carefully considered opinion on the matter before issuing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?

What was the example of Christ?

The arguments set forth most strongly in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Inter Insigniores seem to indicate that our current teaching is derived from Christs manner of acting in selecting the Twelve as a model for ordained ministry. Special emphasis is placed on the presence of the Twelve at the Last Supper. It seems to us that it is at least plausible that there were others than the Twelve present at the Last Supper, and that Christ permitted women among those he selected for apostolic ministry:

It seems implausible that Christ, whose attitudes toward women were so shocking in their day, would not have permitted women to serve him in priestly ministry (see John 4:27).

In Mark14: 47-52, an unnamed bystander runs from the garden of Gethsemane naked. Tradition holds that this was Mark, himself, who was not a member of the Twelve. If he were present in the garden, was he not also present at the supper? This is suggestive that others than the Twelve were present at the Last Supper.

The number of soldiers that come arrest Christ in Johns gospel is estimated at 600 soldiers which is too large for a small band of twelve men. This is also suggestive that a larger group than twelve was present at the Last Supper. (see Jn 18:3 footnote 3 of the New American Bible)

Luke 10:1-2 indicates that Christ ordained 72 people other than the Twelve. Saint Eusebius also interpreted Luke 10:1-2 in this same fashion in Book 1.12 of The History of the Church.

Likewise, Luke 24:13-35 indicates that a disciple named Cleopas recognized Christ in the breaking of the bread on Resurrection Sunday. It would seem that Cleopas was present at the Last Supper as the condition for the possibility of this recognition in a clear Eucharistic reference.

In all four Last Supper accounts in the gospels, no exclusive reference is made to the presence of the Twelve or those with the title Apostle. Scripture uses the more inclusive reference to Christs disciples.

The Eucharistic prayers of the Church have also preserved the word disciple, preserving the tradition of a broader interpretation.

If our Blessed Mother was at the foot of the cross in Jerusalem on Good Friday, it seems plausible that she shared the paschal feast the prior evening with her own son in this city so far from home.

Likewise, it has been suggested by many contemporary popular writers that there were women who cooked and served the meal.

Mary Magdalene and other women were the first to come to faith in the resurrected Lord, and they witnessed to the Eleven in all resurrection accounts.

Our Blessed Mother was present in the upper room (Acts 1:14).

Aside from the issue of ordained ministry, Scripture contains no reference to controversy over the presence of women at the celebration Lords Supper in the post-resurrection accounts. This is indicative of the possibility that the inclusion of women was clearly rooted in Christs manner of acting, perhaps including the presence of women at the actual Last Supper itself.

In other words, the gospels paint a plausible picture of the Last Supper as a banquet more akin to a wedding feast foreshadowing that heavenly wedding banquet where we will eat and drink with the Master with the Father. Perhaps the Twelve sat at the head table, but it seems likely many others were present. Throughout his public ministry, our Lord showed a deep reverence and respect for women that lead us to believe it is possible that Christ ordained them.

What was the example of the Apostles in the New Testament?

The Holy See has asserted that the New Testament provides no guidance for the ordination of women, since women were not included among the Twelve. The Twelve function as representatives of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes Israel (Mt 19:28), and were not the sole ministers of the New Covenant in the early Church. Indeed, Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:13-19, and Lk 6:12-16 cannot even agree on their names, indicating that there were larger group than Twelve who were considered members of Christs inner circle. In the post resurrection New Testament period, Paul assumes the title of Apostle, and as many as 500 witnesses to the resurrection may have shared this title (1 Corinthians 15: 6 and 9, Book 1.12 of Eusebius History of the Church). Many other ministries are initiated under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament period. Some of these ministries included women.

Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila as his co-workers in Romans 16:3.

Paul also calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, and the term is usually translated as minister. He uses the same gender and case that is applied to Christ in Romans 15:8, implying the word as title, rather than a functional description. This is an ordained ministry in Catholic theology, and we have seen no convincing arguments why the contemporary Church does not recognize Phoebes ministry as an ordained ministry.

Paul also calls a woman named Junia by the title of Apostle in Romans 16:7. We have not seen any convincing arguments that the original Greek texts do not refer to a woman in this passage, or that Paul does not use the term Apostle as a title, as he so frequently does elsewhere.

In 1 Timothy 5:1-2, the term "presbuteras" is used, typically translated as "elder women". In reference to men, "prebuteros" is typically translated as "prebyter" to denote the title of ministerial priests. The young men and young women of the same verses are neoterous and neoteras respectively, indicating a role somewhat like a novice. In verse 17 of the same chapter, it is clear that the term presbyter is a title. Verse 17 is referenced in Lumen Gentium no. 28 footnote 183, in a usage implying priesthood. Indeed, 1 Timothy 4:14 is referenced in footnote 155 of LG 20,21 in statements on apostolic succession. So, it seems that the word presbyter was applied to women in an identical fashion to men.

Titus 2:1-5 uses the term presbyter in reference to women, and the young women in these verses are neas, which are women of marriageable age (different from the novices of 1 Timothy 5:1-2).

Exhortations to silence placed on women in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 cannot be understood as absolute since Paul offers women instruction for prophesying in the same letter in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Furthermore, verse 28 of the chapter 14 provides instructions for men to be silent in certain circumstances. Rather than an absolute prohibition to women speaking in Church, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is addressing the issue of orderly worship within the context of a highly charismatic community, clarified already in chapter 13.

Nor can the theology of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 be used against womens ordination. Paul backs away from an argument that seems to be implying female inferiority by using the word choris in verse 11 to distinguish women from men. This word is sometimes translated as independent, but more accurately simply means different from or distinct from. Thus, the statement should read, A woman is not different from a man rather than, A woman is not independent from a man. Such a reading is consistent with Pauls view of the equality of the sexes outlined in Galatians 3:28, and allows for women prophesying in Church as outlined in verse 5 of the same passage.

Likewise, the contexts of 1 Timothy 2:7-15 is likely aimed at new converts, rather than mature women of faith. The permission spoken of in verse 12 in regards to a womans right to teach is from the Greek, epitrepsein, which is a word that could be more accurately translated as I do not permit for now Again, there is no prohibition against womens ordination in this passage when it is understood within its historic context. Scripture finds stronger justification for slavery within the New Testament than condemnation of womens ordination.

So, it seems highly probable from the New Testament witness that women were considered ordained, either by Christ, or his immediate disciples.

What does tradition say?

The Holy See indicates a lack of historic precedence for the ordination of women. If we turned the arguments from ambiguity against men as we do with women, we find it hard to argue that Christ ordained anyone, or that ofrdination occurred at all prior to the second century.

The Holy See through the CDF quote the Apostolic Constitutions as forbidding the ordination of women. Yet, the Apostolic Constitutions 3.16 provide justification for womens ordination to the deaconate, and command it of the bishop for specific incidences. The texts sited by Inter Insigniores from the Apostolic Constitutions 3.6 refer to a separate role of widows.

Indeed, many texts quoted from Inter Insigniores as evidence of an early prohibition to womens ordination are taken out of historic context, and probably do not refer to womens ordination at all, as indicated to you in the Catholic Theological Society Association (CTSA) Resolution of 6 June 1997.

Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 1,13,2 condemns Gnostic women involved in superstitious magic. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Irenaeus opposed womens ordination rather than the practice of superstition.

Tertullians De Praescriptione Haereticorum 41,5 does seem to object to women teaching and baptizing, but these are functions permitted of women by the Church in certain circumstances today. Furthermore, Tertullians orthodoxy has always been questionable, and his view of women as the gateway to the devil is notoriously mistaken.

The Didascalia Apostolorum 15 also seems to object to women preaching and baptizing, though these functions are permitted in certain circumstances today. The authorship of the Didascalia Apostolorum is questionable, and the work was lost for centuries. Yet, even in chapter 16 of the Didascalia, we do find instructions for the ordination of women to deaconate.

Firmilian is quoted in a letter to Cyprian (no. 75) as being opposed to heretical baptisms and Eucharist performed by women. However, his concern seems to be more that they are heretics under demonic influence than that they are women. It is also interesting that Firmillian and Cyprian were opposed to the Popes readmission of these heretics to the Catholic faith, indicating that some of Firmillians views about these women may have been mistaken.

Origen does argue against women preaching in the Church in Fragmenta in I Cor. 74. However, the practice of women preaching in the Church is permitted in certain circumstances today, and Origens orthodoxy is at times as questionable as Tertullians.

Only in Saint Epiphanius writing in the late fourth century do we begin to find clear opposition to womens ordination to priesthood by a source considered orthodox (Panarion 79,1.6). Yet, in Panarion 78, 13, Epiphanius admits of women deaconesses, without clarifying how they are not sacramentally ordained.

Finally, the CDFs quotation of Saint John Chrysostom argues against womens ordination to the episcopate (possibly referring specifically to the papacy) based on the greatness of the task. This passage really says nothing of ordination of women to the presbyterate, and is based on a notion that women are inferior to men. The Vatican rejects the argument of female inferiority today.

None of these passages are recorded in sources that would be considered to carry infallible authority. What we see in these passages is a gradual devaluation of women in the Western Church that provides a historical understanding of how women came to be prohibited from ordination to ministerial priesthood. However, this evidence does not explain why women are excluded, and seems to indicate that this exclusion was not the original practice of the Church.

Canon 15 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon provides instruction for ordaining women, using the same word that is used for men (cheirotonia). While an argument is sometimes made that Canon 15 of Chalcedon must be read in light of Canon 19 of Nicea, it seems clear to us that Nicea was dealing specifically with a case of the readmission of Paulinist heretics to the Catholic faith. Indeed, it seems that Nicea justifies counting the Paulinist deaconesses among the laity precisely because they received no imposition of hands from a bishop, where the bishops are instructed to lay hands on the deaconess in Chalcedons Canon 15. It is valid to ask why the Paulinist deaconesses were not re-ordained at Nicea. However, this question does not prove that women in general cannot be ordained, since it seems to be contradicted by Chalcedon and dealt specifically with a heretical sect.

An examination of ordination rituals for male and female deacons reveals some local distinctions in the functions and authority of deaconesses compared to deacons, but no substantial difference in the matter and form of a gesture that appears in every way sacramental. Indeed, it seems to us that denying the sacramentality of the rite of ordination to deaconesses calls into question the validity of male deaconate as a sacramentally ordained ministry. Furthermore, since there are only seven sacraments, anyone ordained a deacon or deaconess is already initiated to the same sacrament received by priests and bishops.

It seems possible that the ordination of women was actively suppressed only around the late fourth and fifth century through actions that nobody would argue are infallible taken by them selves. For example, the local synods of Laodicea, Nimes and Orange in the West prohibited womens ordination in the late fourth and early fifth century. We already saw that the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon would over-rule these local councils in 451 AD. Furthermore, the prohibitions themselves imply that some bishops were already ordaining women. This practice seems contrary to the notion that the ordinary universal magisterium has always and everywhere held to the exclusion of women from ministerial priesthood.

Pope Gelesius expressed his concern over this matter. While he placed a stop to further ordinations of women in the West, there is nothing in his statements that can be interpreted as a nullification of past ordinations or an infallible prohibition against future ordinations for all times. In other words, even the prohibitions against womens ordination in the West during the fourth and fifth century indicate that there were validly ordained and orthodox bishops who were ordaining women. Why else would a local prohibition be passed?

It does not seem that the exclusion of women from ordained ministry was rooted in early Church practice.

Rather, the practice of ordaining women hinted at in the New Testament gradually eroded under growing patriarchy, lack of educational opportunities in secular society for women, and non-infallible actions of local synods, especially in the West. In other words, the Churchs attitudes about women gradually shifted in a similar manner to our attitude towards Judaism, until it reached a point where it was sinful.

Why should we ordain women?

Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his 29 June 1995 letter to women at the Beijing Conference has recently admitted to a sinful and progressive growth of sexism that even effects the Church. This is similar to our Holy Fathers admissions of anti-semiticism within the Church. His eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his commentary on Dei Verbum has admitted that there exist a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition, such that tradition needs to examined both affirmatively and critically (Ratzinger, 185 quoted in the CTSA Resolution of 6 June 1997).

Guadium et Spes 29 states that it is contrary to Gods will to deny a woman a state of life based on gender alone. Nobody has a right to the priesthood, per se. Certainly, it would be silly to argue that all women should be ordained. The Church has a right to test a vocation externally and confirm or deny it through the bishops. However, it would appear contrary to Gods will to deny a qualified person with a desire to serve at the altar the opportunity to do so based on gender alone.

In our secular world, an analogy can be drawn to occupations. Not all applicants for a particular occupation have a right to the specific job. Yet, the most qualified candidate does have a right to the job over and against corporate cultural bias. It is morally wrong to deny someone a job on the basis of gender, race, orientation, ethnicity, creed, and so forth. In like manner, it is morally wrong to deny a state of life to person based on gender according to GS 29. The enforcement of an exclusively male ministerial priesthood seems to undermine the moral authority of the Church to speak to issues of gender discrimination.

Are their theological reasons for womens ordination?

Yet, the argument is not simply one of human rights, but of the nature of the sacraments themselves. The Holy See has set forth the argument that the ministerial priest acts in the person of Christ, and must, therefore, be male. Lumen Gentium 10 indicates that through baptism, we all share in the unique and singular universal priesthood of Christ. This sharing in the priesthood of Christ is expressed through a vocation to either the common priesthood, or the ministerial priesthood.

Together, we comprise the body of Christ. In baptism, we are immersed in the death of the Lord to rise with him cleansed of sin as a new creation. The liturgy of the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives of faith, towards which all activity is directed, and from which all grace flows (SC 10 of the Vatican II decrees). The ministerial priesthood is ordered to the common priesthood to call the community together to become who we are. We become what we receive in the Eucharist.

Christ offers himself to us, as we offer ourselves to him, and all is offered to the Father. In a very real sense, there is only one Mass offered throughout all time, including the Last Supper and every Mass said throughout history in one divine event.

It is true that there is a distinction between the different actions of each individual Mass said in concrete historic existence, while maintaining the unity of the one sacrifice across all times. Each action permits unique graces, such that each Mass in time and space is an individual source of grace to the believer. Yet, in asserting the unity of the various actions expressed throughout all time as a singular sacrifice, we are affirming our substantial unity with Christ. What we are saying is this:

God the Father, as the creator of time, is eternal. God transcends time in a constant now with no past or future. Yet, in his omnipresence, God is throughout all time (God can do anything, so it is not impossible for him to be in two modes of time at once). In eternity, the Father receives all Masses as one offering of the entire body of Christ in that heavenly banquet which we taste each time we participate in the local and historically conditioned action of the Church. The Mass is not simply a play reenacting past events. It is an eternal act of worship whereby each baptized Catholic Christian offers her or his very self to God in Christ.

In Jesus Christ, the Trinity offers the perfect self-revelation of God in concrete historicity in finite time. By becoming a human person, God revealed the infinite value of the human person. In effect, God says to us, Stop looking for me in the heavens. Look around you at your neighbor.

The Trinity is three persons in one being, forming their personhood in relationship with one another. We image God in our relationships with one another, including our gender relationships. The Mass continually invites us into this reality of divine relationship encountered in the persons around us, so adequately expressed to humanity in the symbol of a common meal.

By referring to the meal as a symbol, we do not mean a sign pointing beyond itself to an absent reality. Such a notion would deny real presence, and affirm a real absence. We are saying that symbol is reality. The concept of symbol provided by Saint Augustine is a sign that points to its self and is layered with multiple meanings. Thus, we never exhaust exploring the meaning of the Eucharist.

In another example of symbol as reality, our bodies are symbols of our personhood! Individual personhood has infinite depth and meaning in the mind of God, who created each of us in finite time in his image. This is the meaning of the revelation of Gods incarnation as a human person! Christianity is the ultimate form of humanism, and we should be ashamed when secularists hold themselves to higher standards of humanism than we use to measure ourselves. When institutions deny the full personhood of the individual, structural evil is promoted.

To say that the individual has an infinite depth and meaning in the mind of God does not make us equal to God. By analogy, just as the set of all even numbers is smaller than the set of all whole numbers, so the infinity of individual personhood is smaller than the infinity of God. So, we are not arguing for some New Age or Mormon concept that we are gods equal to The God. Rather, we are finitum capex infinitum, the finite capable of the infinite. We are the image of God, as affirmed in Genesis 1:26-27. Woman is an image of God, and denying that a woman can act in the person of Christ is a denial that she images the divine.

Having stated that symbol is reality, we can say that bread and wine are symbols of the real and substantial presence of Christ on the altar. Another way of saying this is to phrase it as a question: Why bread and wine? Why not some other objects?

Bread and wine mean something to us, and God is aware of that (analogically speaking). Thus, Christ selected symbols that would have significant value to human persons to become the substances that he would change into his very self-offering unto us. Aquinas said that the sacraments cause grace by signifying grace. The Eucharist signifies Gods self-offering to us, as we offer ourselves with Christ.

The substance we call bread and wine becomes the substance we call body and blood of Christ for us, by Gods initiative. The broken bread and poured wine remind us of Christs broken body and shed blood on the cross as a total self offering to the Father for the remission of our sins. However, we need to be careful of reifying the Eucharist. We do not receive an inanimate object in the Eucharist. We receive a living person! In receiving this substance, we ourselves are transubstantiated. We come to share in the very inner life of the Trinity a life of relationship.

The persons of the Trinity derive their personhood in their eternal relationships with one another. A person, as a philosophical category, is an identity that is formed and completed on the very basis of relationship to another. Thus, we image God most in our relationships. It is in this sense that Saint Augustine could ask How can you who receive the body and blood of Christ in your hands so reverently, then turn and drop your brother, who is the body of Christ?

Tying all this together with the issue of womens ordination, the entire Church is the body of Christ. Christ is substantially present in the Church, just as he is under the accidents of bread and wine on the altar. When we say this is real and substantial, we are answering the question What is it? as this question is applied to the Church.

At the same time, we are not saying that the substantial presence of Christ in the Church is a physical presence, like we have in the consecrated bread and wine on the altar, or the physical human body that hung on the cross approximately 2,000 years ago. Substance, as a category, can be applied to non-corporeal beings: such as angels, or Christs consubstantiality with the Father, etc. The category of substance refers to the answer to the question What is it? and can be defined as the underlying reality of a thing.

If Christ is truly and really present in the Church, then we are calling this substantial presence as we have defined it. Moreover, it would seem logical that if Christ is substantially present in the Church, the entire body could, would, and should find expressions of the vocation to ministerial priesthood among the various people being brought into this divine relationship. Christ is substantially present in women!

In other words, just as non-Jews have their full personhood affirmed through the ordination of select non-Jews who serve as ministerial priests, women who are called to the common priesthood of the faithful would find their personhood affirmed in the symbol of some women being called to ministerial priesthood. The argument for excluding women from ministerial priesthood makes no more sense than an argument for excluding Gentiles from ministerial priesthood posed in the first century.

Exclusion of anyone from ministerial priesthood based on an ontological reality, would seem to symbolize that this particular ontology is not fully united to the universal priesthood of Christ not able to be an image of Christ not fully a participant in the divine life of the Trinity not fully an image of God not fully admitted to the divine relationships formed in the community not fully saved! In other words, the exclusion of women from ministerial priesthood leads one naturally and logically into the heresy that women are not saved as women.

At the same time, admitting the difference between the sexes admits of the reason that it is imperative that the discipline of exclusively male celibate ministerial priests needs to be revised. If the differences between the sexes are not expressed among the body of ministerial priest, we are saying that only one sex images Christ and only one sex is saved! If women complement or complete men, as the Holy Father has recently indicated, then the ministerial priesthood is an incomplete representation of salvation to humanity without women ministerial priests.

This cannot be the intent of Christ!

As stated above, Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that we image God as male and as female. Women image the divine, and ordaining women would perfectly symbolize this. Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28 that we are no longer male and female due to our baptism in Christ. We are one and totally equal.

Can God be imaged as a female?

The Holy See maintains that the ordination of women would undermine the symbolism of a bishop as a representative of the love of God the Father. Scripture itself uses female images or feminine words to describe God.

In Proverbs chapter 1, starting at verse 20, divine Wisdom is portrayed as a woman crying in the streets. This feminine divine image continues throughout Proverbs, especially in chapter 8.

Paul uses the female image of divine Sophia (Wisdom) to describe Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

In Luke 13:34, Jesus compares God the Father to a mother hen.

The Hebrew word most typically associated Gods love, mercy, or compassion in the Old Testament is hesed, which is rooted in the notion of a woman in labor pains.

On Saturday of every third week of the Liturgy of the Hours, priests around the world pray during Lauds from the Book of Wisdom:

God of my fathers, , Indeed, though one be perfect among the sons of men, if Wisdom, who comes from you, be not with him, he shall be held in no esteem. Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send her forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure. (NAB Wis 9:1,6,9-10)

Note that Wisdom is female, and with God at creation coeternal with the Father. Sophia is either identical to the Logos (as Paul seems to indicate), or Sophia is the Holy Spirit!

Likewise, there is traditional piety that applies motherly images to God and even to Christ, such as the writings of Julian of Norwich in the fourteenth century. The image of Mary in the Church is also interpreted by many to be a representation of our Catholic intuitive sense of the divine nature being revealed through a woman, even though we do not admit that Mary herself is divine. Traditionalists sometimes argue that God must be Father in order to impregnate Mary. However, this line of reasoning is not supported by theology. God can create ex nihilo and does not need to be either male or female to conceive a child in Marys womb. Jesus entered the womb of Mary as an entering into the fullness of the human condition, since we are all born of woman. However, God the father did not have sexual relations with Mary. The notion of gods having sex with women is only found in pagan myth. Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God can legitimately be called Mother:

Paragraph 239 , God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. ,, We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

Finally, the maleness of Christ cannot be assumed to be indicative of Gods intent for ordination. The incarnation is only significant for all humanity if it is Christs general humanity that is significant. The significance of Christs maleness, as maleness, lies in the communication of Gods self-emptying and divestment of power for the empowerment of others. Had Christ come as a female, it is doubtful that men would have understood the moral demands of a gospel that holds culturally considered feminine traits as so virtuous. In the patriarchal Greco-Roman world and the context of first century Judaism, who would have noticed that a woman turns the other cheek and prays for forgiveness for those who injure her? We have seen this in women throughout history who endure abusive spouses. Only a man behaving this way could overturn the system of male patriarchy that resulted from original sin. So, men sharing decision-making and spiritual authority equally with women in a collaborative ministerial effort will continue the example of the Master. Catholics should feel a certain shame that our Protestant and Jewish siblings have seen this truth ahead of us!

Conclusions on the bridal imagery of the liturgy and the issue of womens ordination:

Given the arguments above, and the fact that the statements by Paul VI and John Paul II can be demonstrated to be of non-infallible authority, we believe that it is of grave necessity that the Church continue to keep the issue of womens ordination open.

The Holy See has encouraged theologians to reflect more deeply on the bridal imagery of Christs love for his Church as an appeal to popularize the current discipline. While the Biblical groom and bride metaphors proposed by the Vatican in response to the issue of womens ordination has some poetic appeal, the metaphor does not seem to capture the true sense of the faithful on this issue. Indeed, carried to its logical extreme, it would almost seem that this metaphoric language would imply no place for celibate priests. Likewise, it appears that the Church has not probed deeply enough into the implication that all male members of the common priesthood of the faithful are ontologically feminized under too literal rendering of this metaphor. It seems to us that this metaphor is stretched to far at best, and a rationalization for injustice at worst.

The real meaning of this metaphor lies in our eschatological hope for a personal union with God as intimate as the marriage bond, and it is in the sacrament of marriage that many of us encounter the foreshadowing of this mystery. In the Eucharist, it is not the priest who symbolizes this union with God to the People of God. Rather, the reception of the consecrated bread and the hearing of the Word of God penetrating our hearts symbolize this union.

Why we believe we can dissent and remain in the Church?

Being mostly laypeople, we realize that we may be in better position than a bishop or Cardinal to press the argument without facing reprisals from the Holy See. Even if we are mistaken in Gods eyes, we believe that we raise the issues that opponents of womens ordination need to address more thoroughly if we, as a Church, are to gain a deeper appreciation of revelation. Thus, we feel it is our duty to share our thoughts and questions with our pastors and to continue the discussion.

Furthermore, in Galatians 2:11, Saint Paul sets a precedent for responsible dissent from papal authority. The specific issue at hand was Peters hypocritical treatment of Gentile Christians. While Peter affirmed their equality in word, his deeds spoke otherwise. We believe that the Vaticans current position is similar to our first Popes treatment of the Gentiles. Paul made his dissent public in written testimony for consumption among the laity of the Church. This Spirit inspired model of responsible dissent has become enshrined in Sacred Scripture. This idea of responsible dissent was later affirmed in Gaudium et Spes 62, which states that all the faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, tempered by humility and courage in whatever branch of study they have specialized.

We do not leave the Church because we love the Catholic faith. In all of our argumentation we have appealed to the Churchs own authoritative documents, her own history, her own Sacred Scripture and a sound theology of Catholic baptism, Eucharist, Church and priesthood.

Many of us also believe that the ordination of women will make the saving sacraments of the Church available to more people, and alleviate the decline in male vocations to ministerial priesthood that may be a signal of the Holy Spirits desire to initiate change in the Churchs current disciplines. Many of also believe that women will add uniquely female insight into the interpretation of our Sacred Tradition that will draw some of the non-believers or fallen away to the sacrament of the Church. Many of us feel greater confidence in women leaders who have historically demonstrated less incidences of sexual misconduct than our current clerical leadership.

We remain faithful to Catholicism because we rely on the atoning merit of Christ our Lord and the prayers and intercession of the Catholic saints. To leave the Church would be to separate ourselves from apostolic succession, papal primacy, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, our Blessed Mother, and the web of relationships in the community of faith that we believe forms the body of Christ. The Catholic Church remains a unified body while being the largest and most multi-cultural expression of Christianity in the world. This is important to us. Our prayers for the dead would find no home in many other religious bodies. Our need for the sacrament of reconciliation would go unfulfilled. Our belief in the Ten Commandments and morality might fall under question if we denied our Church at its infallible roots, and we do not believe that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an expression of infallible Catholic tradition. We accept the great councils and the infallible doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. We realize too that other religious institutions are effected by the frailty of human sin, and that the path to reform is not to leave the body, but to prayerfully and lovingly work for change. For all these reasons, and many others, we remain faithful to our Catholic heritage and faith.

Please prayerfully consider the sense of the faithful as well as the doctrinal and Scriptural points raised above in your conversations with Rome and your brother Bishops.

May the peace of the Lord be with you always.

Yours in Christ!

Joe Cecil
and the undersigned lay persons and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church