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.

Priestess of Christ?

Last time, we talked about the truth behind the myth of Pope Joan. We ended with a question, though. Why does it matter that only men can be priests?

Well, in 1976, it was formally and officially put into words by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in their letter to the world, Inter insignores. In that letter, and in Pope John Paul II’s document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it was stated that the priesthood was reserved for men, and men alone, and there was nothing the Church could do about it. Now, these two letters were not authoritative in themselves. However, they were authoritative in that they were the teaching of the entirety of the Magisterium, meaning that reserving the priesthood for men alone is an official and formal teaching of the Catholic Church, and none can, in good conscience, reject this teaching and remain Catholic.

Why is this, though? Why do we stick with the “archaic” idea that only men have the “right” to be priests, even after Paul says in Galatians that “there is no male and female” (Galatians 3:28). Well, there are a number of reasons.

The first, and most obvious, reason we don’t allow for women to become priests is the very simple reason that Jesus didn’t choose any women to be among his twelve apostles. Instead, Jesus chose twelve men to lead his Church after he left.

The objection to that is usually that choosing women to be priests would have been incredibly unusual and would have thrown everyone off of his message and driven most of his people away. Except for one minor point. In that time, the Jews were the weird ones for not having priestesses. The Romans had the Vestal Virgins, the Greeks had Oracle at Delphi, among others, the Egyptians had Cleopatra and God’s Wife of Amun. The list goes on and on with the different priestesses in the region around Israel. Priestesses actually would have been normal.

Beyond just the normality of priestesses in the world at the time, though, Jesus wasn’t exactly known for following social customs. He spoke to a Samaritan woman, a known adulteress, while in Samaria, breaking at least three different social taboos simply acknowledging her existence. He dealt with the ritually unclean on a nearly daily basis. One of the twelve was a tax collector, the absolute lowest of the low in the world of Jewish social customs. A woman would probably actually have been closer to normal than some of the other things he did.

There’s also the fact that Jesus did actually greatly respect women in his ministry. The first people he appeared to after the Resurrection were women. Jewish tradition would have thrown out their testimony, but they were the ones who were to bring testimony to the Apostles, yet they were never to be counted among the number of the 12. Mary, the very mother of God, the absolute pinnacle of womanhood, without whom Jesus isn’t born, wasn’t even numbered among the twelve. The one with the strongest claim to any authority outside Christ held none.

Beyond just what Jesus did, though, the Apostles continued the trend of not choosing women. After Judas died, in the upper room, Mary had been present, but instead of choosing God’s mother, the obvious choice, they chose Matthias. Mary wasn’t even the other top choice, it was Barsabbas. Even when the Apostles move out to the rest of the world and start spreading the Gospel in a culture that welcomed and accepted priestesses, there was never a woman ordained, only those who aided in the mission of the Church as lay ministers.

Next time, we’ll take a more in-depth look at some of the history after the apostles of this teaching, as well as some theology about it. 

Rejoice, Let Them Rejoice

“What makes this night different from all other nights? Because once we were slaves and we are slaves no longer.” This line from the movie, The Passion of the Christ, taken from the Jewish Passover commemoration, is an excellent question to begin the night of Holy Saturday with. Tonight marks the celebration of the Easter Vigil around the world, the greatest Mass of the year, the great celebration of the Resurrection of Christ and our deliverance from the slavery of sin. The first thing said at the ambo tonight is a great reflection of this idea.

Three Holy Days

Today is Holy Thursday. It is officially the last day of Lent and the beginning of a new season, the Triduum. However, just because Lent is over doesn’t mean that Lenten penances are over. No, the next few days mark the holiest days of the year. Good Friday marks the day of the Crucifixion of Christ. Holy Saturday holds the Easter Vigil, the greatest Mass of the year. Easter Sunday is the highest holy day of the Church calendar, marking the Resurrection of Christ, without which, Paul says, our faith is in vain.

Happy Sunday

Last time, we talked about a few of the reasons behind the idea of a Sabbath in general, and more specifically, what it was meant to be as a celebration of God. Today, we’re going to see how we went from celebrating the Sabbath to Sunday.

Keeping the Sabbath

It’s time to take a little break from history and go in a different direction. So today, we’ll begin to discuss a certain trend in the history of the Church that we in modern times, and especially in America, have forgotten: Sunday.