As promised, and just one day late, I am now going to highlight the false notion of the priesthood that often underlies arguments for women in the priesthood, that of priesthood as a career just like that of a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. The priesthood is not commensurate with those types of work. To clarify the points that I am about to make, I want to first define two terms–vocation and avocation. Vocation refers to as one’s state in life, that through which they encounter the world and live out their call to sanctity; the two vocations to which Our Lord calls persons are married life and “single for the Kingdom” (ie, consecrated life and the priesthood). One’s avocation, on the other hand, is how one works in the world from one’s vocation. For example, my vocation is to be a wife/mother and my avocation is to be a writer and teacher (not exactly sure yet how the two will synergize–check back in twenty years).
So, I propose that those who argue for women in the priesthood confuse vocation and avocation. When it comes to avocations, there is little that women and men cannot share, especially in today’s world, and so those who view the priesthood as a very special avocation rankle that women are kept from it. After all, if women and men are equal, why can’t women do the same work men can? Case in point, there is a dear confused priest who is currently touring the country giving a speaking tour titled, “Shatter the Stained Glass Ceiling: Women and the Priesthood.” “Glass ceiling” is a term used to describe discrepancies in the value and dignity of male/female work. By applying it to the vocation of the priesthood, this priest demonstrates an misunderstanding of his own vocation.
The priesthood, of course, is a vocation, though it often serves as one’s avocation, in view of the fact that most priests are not also doctors or attorneys or teachers. This is the reason that we call the priest, “Father”; it connotes his state in life just as “wife and mother” describes my vocation. I will reflect more later on the nature of the priesthood, so it suffices for now to simply point out that the priesthood is a vocation, not avocation.
Okay, so, follow me here. First, we recognized that the women-priesthood push is grounded in a Marxist dialectic and employs a false view of equality as homogeneity, highlighting the Christian view of male/female equality as equal in dignity but different and complementary in gifts and obligations. Then, we noted the difference between vocation and avocation and the confusion that many display of the priesthood as a very special avocation. At this point, I know that I am making huge leaps in my logic and can already hear various objections. Certainly, the interlocutor will want to pulverize my assumption that men and women are different and complementary. Read “Man and Woman He Created Them”; I don’t have the time nor intellect to offer John Paul II’s amazing reflections as well as he. Then, the liberation “theologian” will want to protest my description of the Christian life as emptying oneself and becoming a slave, arguing that this passivity has led to the poor remaining poor and the oppressed remaining oppressed for many centuries. I would say this–liberation theology is also grounded in a Marxist dialect (Marxism is so darn insidious) and, well, liberation “theology” seems to head in the same direction that feminist “theology” does, namely, out of the Church.
Okay, I would next like to offer a few personal reflections upon the male priesthood, grounding them especially in Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body, as well as marveling a little at the wondrous beauty in the Church that is the complementarity between women and men. We are only beginning to appreciate and live this complementarity of gifts and vocations. I can’t wait until the Church begins to fully live the call to women that is offered in Mulieris Dignitatem and Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women. But, let me stop before I am run away with my excitement. I love this stuff!
Beautiful reflection, Katie. I love this distinction between vocation and avocation – not one I have heard before. Your thoughts on women and motherhood are intellectually satisfying in a way that University education sometimes isn’t (yes, I got fed the Marxist and feminist line, too, albeit it not in theology. Something in me (the Holy Spirit, I guess) said ‘don’t get involved in that department!’)
I know we are looking specifically at women, but I personally would love a little scenic diversion through your throw-away comment about liberation theology leading people out of the church. (Romero? How does he fit in?) I don’t say liberation theology is right- just – I would appreciate hearing more of your views! Thank you. PS Beautiful picture of Adele in the grass! Blessings from this UK Catholic (wife, mother, writer) to your family.
Hi Katie,
I understand your last two posts, but the arguments you have been arguing against: arguments based on entitlement, equal rights, equal work, etc are arguments I have heard in Christian settings. I’ve heard these arguments outside Christian circles pointing at how corrupt the Church is, but I’ve really not heard them from the inside.
The arguments I have heard a lot more often are along these lines:
* Paul’s arguments in the Bible against women as teachers made sense in the old times because women were not respected like they are today. Allowing women to preach could have damaged Christianity’s position in a male dominated society. But Paul’s words don’t apply today, because we don’ have the same attitude towards women today.
* Women are such great, natural leaders/communicators/teachers/counselors. We especially need them today as priests and pastors.
* Some who have all these skills and feel a calling to serve in the Church should have the role that best fits their skills. Just as with men, sometimes that role is as pastor.
* Now that some “ecclesial communities” are ordaining women, we know that their work has been extremely fruitful in terms of calling people to Christ, etc. God is obviously working through these women and not making them fruitless because of their disobedience.
* Churches that govern themselves exclusively with men are missing out on a critical perspective both in practical discussion (women’s superior ability to communicate) and in the unique way women discern God’s word and will. This is especially needed in the Catholic church where bishops are not married.
etc. – these are the arguments I hear.
From my perspective, Katie, women are already priests, and important ones. We share in the common Christian priesthood in the sense that we are all priests, prophets and kings. But, for women, the responsibility is greater in the sense that we are at the heart of our domestic church. (Read JPII on that too.) We create the Church in the heart of our families: by teaching our children to pray, by teaching them about God, and by sacrametalizing our family feasts and festivals. We are the ones to bring Christ into Christmas and Easter, to celebrate Advent and Lent, to initiate the fasts around our tables, to give thanks before and after every meal. We are the ones to place icons on our walls, and small statues on our children’s bedside tables. We are the ones to initiate the family Rosary in the great Marian months of May and October. And our marriages have the vocation of bringing our husbands closer to God and accompanying in our common walk of faith. Our role as priests is HUGE!
Thanks, everyone. Okay, let me see if I can respond.
Jonathan, I have already addressed two of the arguments you mentioned, the second and third ones you list, dealing with the natural skills of women. Certainly, as I already said, if we are looking at the priesthood solely as pastoral ministry, women are a great fit. And, as I also already said, for Protestant communities, women can make great pastors because theirs is not a sacramental/mystical role but simply one of leading worship, preaching, teaching on the Sacred Scriptures, etc.
In addition, I agree that St. Paul’s comments about women covering their heads and women speaking in the assembly are culturally conditioned; he seems to be speaking in those instances not from the New Law of freedom but from practices appropriate for his time.
I don’t think, however, and I am speaking with the Church here, that, by disregarding his statements that are culturally conditioned, we end up with women as priests. We don’t. We end up with women in lots of ministry positions and teaching positions and leadership positions, as is certainly the case in the Church today. Goodness, sometimes I look at the altar during Mass and wish that more men were involved; we have female lectors and Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and cantors and acolytes. Sometimes, our Catholic parishes feel unbalanced in their ministry to and from women. It almost feels uber-estrogen sometimes, and I long for a bit more emphasis on where men belong and how men fit in parish life.
What I am about to get to in full, now that I have noted a few common objections in my past two posts, is why the ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church is one for which men are only suited. Please stick with me.
And, Rachel, absolutely. I am in no way meaning to denigrate the priesthood of believers in which women share. Certainly, we live daily the words of Christ, “This is my body, given up for you.” The reason I am focusing solely on the sacramental priesthood of the Catholic Church, however, is because that was the issue raised by Devin last week and questioned by a few readers. Yes, we could certainly write books and books about the “sacramental” life in the home that is fostered and initiated by women; that is emphasized beautifully in “Familiaris Consortio”. But, again, that’s not the focus of these posts.