When events outrun theological consensus

National Catholic Reporter, Dec 15, 1995 by Augustine Di Noia

If the episcopal church had not decided in 1976 to ordain women, there would almost certainly have been no Inter-Insigniores in 1977, nor Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, nor a further clarification of the issue now, in 1995. Just because the decision was taken by a major ecclesial body, and even before a theological consensus had taken shape, the Holy See was forced to articulate the Catholic position on the matter in this, series of official documents.

The Episcopal church's action appeared to represent a departure from what had generally been perceived as a common understanding, shared with the Catholic and Orthodox churches, concerning ecclesiology, the sacramental economy, and the nature of orders. Implied in this understanding was the conviction that, because the immemorial practice of admitting only men to orders derived from the dominical institution of the sacraments, the church is not authorized to do otherwise.

In effect, absent the Episcopal church's decision to ordain women, the question would not have arisen as a serious institutional question for the Catholic church. And so it happened, as it had before in the history of doctrine -- for example, with the emergence of Arianism in the fourth century -- that events outran theological consensus. Even though a fully elaborated theological argument for the traditional practice was not yet in place, the Catholic church felt obliged to affirm that the restriction of priestly ordination to men was not simply a matter of discipline and that she was not authorized to do in this area what Christ himself did not do.

Controversy has obscured the fact that the case advanced by Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in support of the traditional practice is an extraordinarily modest one, from a theological perspective. Both documents avoid appeal to gender-specific traits, female/mate role differentiation or to Christ's maleness. As the official commentaries have indicated, such considerations can at best have only illustrative force. The Holy See leaves to theologians the task of determining the role of such considerations in developing arguments for the traditional practice.

The documents themselves chart a more modest course. They appeal to the fact that Christ did not choose women to be among the Twelve Apostles and that the apostles adhered to the injunction implied in this nonselection by declining to accord women an official status in the ministry of the early Christian community. An unbroken tradition attests to the church's constant adherence to this decision and its apostolic witness.

The magisterium does not claim to possess any direct knowledge of the reasons for Christ's decision, but it is certain that the nature of the evidence is such that it could never be established and, in any case, seems unlikely that Christ and the apostles were motivated by circumstantial considerations. Our Lord's dealings with women were markedly nonconformist. Even at the risk of dismaying his fellow Jews, he could have invited women to be among the Twelve. Furthermore, with their positive attitudes toward women, the apostles could easily have found a place for women priests in the newly formed Christian communities. Such roles for women were common in the Hellenistic religious environment.

That Christ did not choose women to be among the Twelve, and that he was followed in this by the apostles, is understood therefore by the church to be not a concession to circumstances but an injunction with regard to future policy which she cannot contravene.

It is clear from the evidence of the scripture that there were no women among the Twelve. The magisterium in effect argues that the significance of this nonselection is not accessible to a purely historical or exegetical reading of the texts. It can only be grasped when these texts are read precisely as scripture, for example, when they are read in their divinely willed capacity to nurture, guide and sustain the Spirit-filled Christian community. Read in this way, the scriptures induce the conviction that Christ's nonselection of woman entails a permanently valid injunction for the church.

Furthermore, since Catholic faith involves the presumption that divine wisdom is embodied in Christ's dispositions for the sacramental economy, the church is not authorized to tamper with the natural signification or constitutive reference of the sacraments. In affirming that the restriction of orders to men is part of the deposit of the faith, the recent responsum underscores this point about the sacramental economy.

In none of the official documents on this matter has the magisterium said any more than this. The challenge for Catholic theologians is to develop the kind of consensus that will catch up with the church's teaching about this mystery.

There is another challenge as well. As Pope John Paul Il insisted in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the role of women "is of capital importance ... for the rediscovery of the true face of the church." In their 1994 pastoral letter, "Strengthening the Bonds of Peace," the American bishops took up the challenge to find "alternative ways in which women can exercise leadership in the church" and insisted that "we recognize the equal dignity of men and women and consistently act on that recognition."