The Man of the Church

Last time, we discussed why only men can be priests. We only got as far as the decisions of Jesus and the original 12 apostles. This time, we’ll discuss more of the history as well as the theological reasoning.

There are a number of things that changed in the time since the time of the apostles. For example, women wearing veils was something that was actually a discipline and has since been changed. Why should the prescription on priests be different? Well, there’s a slight difference between a discipline and the priesthood. See, the ministerial priesthood (the ordained priesthood) is started by a sacrament, Holy Orders. The problem with a sacrament is that it is an outward sign of grace. They were instituted by Christ, and we don’t have the authority to change them.'

We can’t make the Eucharist coffee and donuts instead of bread and wine, just because the culture thinks it’s a better idea. We can’t change that, because the bread and wine thing was instituted by Christ, and the outward sign is actually a part of the sacrament. It actually does make a difference that it be men, and this has been recognized for essentially the entirety of the Church. In the Council of Nicaea in 325, twelve, out of twenty, of the canons dealt with ordination. These canons are official, definitive, authoritative statements from the Church. The most obvious, though, would be canon 19. It deals with the ordination of women as deacons, and explicitly says that there are many females who are called deacons, but they should be counted among the laity.

The very nature of the priesthood, though, also rules out the idea of using women. Why? Because in the Catholic Church, the priest acts in the person of Christ. It’s not merely a role in a show, though. Let’s pretend it is only that simple and mundane, though. The priest is acting as Christ. Let’s find something similar. The movie Braveheart, starring Mel Gibson, is a pretty popular one. What if the role of William Wallace was played by a woman? Let’s take… Shirley Temple? Or maybe Julia Roberts? How about Jennifer Anniston? Seeing any of these women trying to play the role of the epitome of a man’s man is nothing short of laughable.

Even with all that, though, will come the claim that women have a “right” to the priesthood. Well, this claim involves a fundamental misunderstanding about the priesthood. It is not a right. It has never been about rights. If anything, the priesthood is a sacrifice, a painful thing, that should be taken very seriously. There’s an old saying that goes “the road to hell is lined with the skulls of priests.” Every priest automatically carries responsibility for his flock. He is the one responsible for them to make it to heaven. In the book of James, there’s a warning- “Let not many become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). It’s not a call to take lightly.

And ultimately, that is what it is. The priesthood is a calling. Christ chooses his priests. We don’t decide to be priests for him. It is not about rights. Ultimately, it isn’t even about the symbolism. At the very heart and soul of the issue is the fact that Christ chooses his priests. And the Church, speaking with the authority of Christ, as she has done since the time of Christ, has spoken definitively, saying that Christ has always, and will always, only choose men.