Priestesses in the Church: Preposterous Propaganda!

by Emanuel Valenza

CHRIST COMMANDED His Apostles: "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Alas! many successors of the Apostles are not obeying Christ's command. Instead of converting people to Catholicism by preaching the "good news," perfidious guardians are essaying to substantially change the Church—an impossible task given the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Mystical Body—by incorporating into the Church propaganda which they try to pass off as public opinion, or as "an idea whose time has come," to hide their intention to destroy the Church in order to facilitate its realization.

The genesis of the propaganda cannot always be pinpointed. Whether it begins with bishops and priests, or the laity, or outside the Church is often difficult to determine. However, one thing is certain: the radicals do not believe that the Magisterium has the authority to teach, interpret, and protect the Deposit of Faith. Rather, they hold that the learning Church—which encompasses all those who profess the divinity of Jesus—dictates what the Church is to believe. Accordingly, the Church teaches, governs, and sanctifies by assimilating the ideas of both Protestants and Catholics.

One of the ideas "whose time has come," according to the rebels, is priestesses in the Church. They maintain that women have been stepped on and used for nearly two thousand years. Their exclusion from Holy Orders, it is said, is the result of a "sexist" Church which has failed to "come of age." The Church has evolved into a patriarchal institution, a male-dominated society, and the hierarchy maintains the status quo by prohibiting the ordination of women, say the revolutionaries. This situation can no longer be tolerated . Women must take their rightful places alongside men in the Sacrament of Orders. If the Church is to be updated, it must grant women equal rights, aver the radicals.

This is pure propaganda. Theological arguments are not used because the revolutionaries know they do not have a leg to stand on. The next step, the logical one, is to employ propaganda; for it is the only tool—save sheer force—available to those who cannot hope to win over the opposition to their interests. The enemy of the propagandist is truth, because propaganda is inherently untruth.

Contemporaneous with this inane assault on Holy Orders are two other preposterous predilections: the movements to eliminate the so-called male-dominated language of the Bible and of the Godhead, respectively. The contemporanity of these utterly foolish attacks on Christianity have a common root: the Women's Liberation Movement and its supporters—including those in the Catholic Church. The feminists feel "left out" in the Catholic religion. They cannot "identify" with a strictly male priesthood; nor with the language in the Bible which is, they say, exclusively masculine; nor with a God Who is referred to as "Father," and His Son Who, oddly enough is called "Son." It is asserted that the traditional understanding of all three—the priesthood, the Bible, and God Himself—must be abandoned because it fosters a male-dominated Catholicism and theology.

These three assaults on the Church are so interrelated that to support one of them involves support of all three. Thus, to approve any of them is to abet in the attempt to destroy the Church. For example, to advocate priestesses in the Church necessarily entails 1) rejecting the positive Divine law prohibiting female ordination; 2) doubting that the Apostles understood this law; 3) changing the traditional conception of the priest as a representative of God; 4) obliterating the traditional understanding of God as Father in the most perfect sense (Eph. III, 15); tampering with Holy Writ in order that it is congruous with these changes; 6) rewriting the dogmas to correspond to the new religion; and 7) changing the prayers, since the prayers of the Church (lex orandi) must reflect what she believes (lex credendi).

Although there are a myriad of revolutionaries who fully understand the deadly impact the ordination of women would have on the Church—much like Luther knew that substantial changes in the Mass would destroy the Catholic Faith—many proponents of female ordination—blind to the logical and inevitable "domino" effect—naively think the question of whether or not priestesses should be allowed in the Church is one of equal rights. It is a matter, they say, of correcting a long standing injustice. Aren't women just as holy, as pious, and as learned as men—if not more so? If this is the case, why cannot women be ordained? What better time, so goes the reasoning, to right this wrong given the shortage of priests? If women were allowed to apply their abundant gifts to Holy Orders, they would be doing a tremendous service to the Church by alleviating the severity of the present crisis.

Needless to say, no one doubts that there are women eminent for their holiness and piety. Moreover, suppose women in general are more conspicuous for holiness than men. Even more, suppose there are more women who possess the cardinal virtues than men. The question, "Who is holier, men or women?" is not pertinent because the exclusion of women from Holy Orders is not based on their sanctity—either individually or collectively.

Nor is the admittance of women to Holy Orders a question of equal rights. Strictly speaking, no one has a right to the priesthood; for no one has rights over and against Christ. The office of the priesthood—the highest and most dignified office on earth—is a gift. The priest is a man chosen from among men and "is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. 5:1). But God does the choosing, not man: "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you" (John 15:16).

Furthermore, the very act in which the priestly power is transferred—the imposition of hands—is symbolic of the gift character of the priesthood. By this rite, the bishop calls down the Holy Ghost on the candidate for ordination. The Apostles—who used the imposition of hands for baptism, confirmation and holy orders—maintained that it is symbolic of the gifts and graces bestowed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:6; 8:17; 13:3; 19:6; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim. 1:6).

Finally, the gift character of the priesthood is shown by the fact that the bishops can exclude anyone they deem unworthy. St. Paul warns: "Do not lay hand hastily upon anyone . . ." (I Tim. 5:22). In addition, he says that all candidates for ordination must be investigated. Those found unworthy are to be excluded (I Tim. 5:24).

It is fashionable today to evoke rights which are nonexistent. Murderers, pro-abortionists, sodomites, and lesbians are examples. One can add women who babble about their right to Orders to the list.

To prove that women should not be excluded from Orders, one must show that 1) Christ, the eternal High Priest (Heb. 5:1-10) who instituted the Sacrament of Orders at the Last Supper, did not intend to exclude women; and/or 2) the Apostles disobeyed Christ's commission to "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Acts 14:22), insofar as they ordained only men instead of both men and women. Both propositions are absurd.

That the prohibition of priestesses in the Church is based on positive Divine law is clear from the following: 1) Christ Himself is a man; 2) Christ chose only men to exercise the apostolate of Holy Orders; 3) At the Last Supper only the Apostles were present (Lk 22:14). If Christ willed that women be ordained, is not it safe to assume that they would have had a representative at the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Order? 4) Christ gave the Holy Ghost with the power to forgive sin only to the Apostles, and not to any women, on Easter Sunday evening (Jn. 20: 23); 5) The Church has ordained only men for nearly two millennia.

The Apostles obviously knew about the prohibition to ordain women. They confidently and courageously carried out Christ's commission 1) to teach all nations (Matt. 28:19); 2) to exercise the power of the priesthood, a power which is used chiefly by offering the Sacrifice of the Mass (Lk 22: 19), and by forgiving sins (John 20: 22-23); 3) to fulfill the duties of fraternal correction (Matt. 18:15-17), and of making and revoking laws—"binding and loosing" (Matt. 18:18).

After the Ascension the Apostles began the herculean task of subjugating the world. These are changed men: whereas the Apostles deserted Christ in Gethsemane, they embark now on a most difficult venture. There are no doubts, no hesitations. They are not troubled by questions like: How are we to convert the world? Why did Our Master leave us with only twelve men? What are we to say? What are we to do? How are we to remember all that He taught us? What if we mistakenly teach things that He did not teach us? Instead of being filled with doubts, the Apostles are confident that they will transmit the teachings of Christ exactly as they received them. The source of their confidence? Christ promises that He will be with them until the end of the world (Matt. 28:20), and that He will send them a Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, to guide them in all Truth (John 14:16, 26; 15: 26; 16:7).

Moreover, Saint Paul expressly states that women are to remain silent at public worship: "Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak, but let them be submissive, as the Law also says" (I Cor. 14:34) Again St. Paul: "Let a women learn in silence with all submission. For I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over men; but she is to keep quiet" (I Tim. 2:11-12). If women are to be silent and submissive at public worship; if they are forbidden to teach; and if they are not to exercise authority over men, then by these very facts they are not to be made priestesses. Some comments are in order.

Although St. Paul is concerned with order in the churches in I Cor. 14: 33-40, his prohibition against women speaking in the assemblies refers to speaking as such, not merely to disorderly speech. Paul does not make a distinction between speeches which are permitted and those which are forbidden. He simply asserts, ". . . for it is not permitted them to speak . . ." (verse 34), and again, ". . . for it is unseemly for a woman to speak in church" (verse 35).

Nor is St. Paul merely stating his own opinion on the matter. He appeals to the authority of Christ: ". . . the things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (verse 37). Needless to say, the prohibition against women speaking in the churches is one of the commandments, since verses 34-35 are central to I Cor. 14:33-40.

I Timothy 2:11-12 refers to authority, teaching, and leadership in the Catholic Church. St. Paul is excluding women from positions of government. This is obvious from the context: the passage is couched between statements concerning the pastoral office (that prayers, intercessions, and supplications should be made on behalf of all men), and statements on the qualities that bishops, priests and deacons should possess (cf. I Tim. 2—3:13).

That St. Paul in this passage is prohibiting only the teaching and the exercising of authority in the hierarchical functions of teaching and ministering in the Church, and not teaching and exercising authority as such, is clear from his instructions to Titus, in which he sanctions the teaching of younger women by older women in the way of Christian life, especially Christian home life (cf. Titus 2:3-5).

As pointed out earlier, the sanctioning of priestesses in the Church not only entails rejecting positive divine law, a law which the Apostles were familiar with and passed on to their successors, but it also involves discarding our understanding of the priest as a representative of God, which moreover, logically and inevitably leads to the destruction of the Church and the rewriting of Holy Writ, as will now be shown.

The priest is an intermediary between God and man. His is a man taken from among men and appointed for men in the things that appertain to God (Heb. 5:1). He is a representative of God in a twofold sense: he represents God to man and man to God. Therefore, he acts in God's name; he does what Christ did. Presbyterorum Ordinis says: "Through that sacrament [Holy Orders] priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the Head " (no. 2).

That the priest is able to represent Christ, that he is able to "act in the person of Christ the Head," is in no small measure due to his being a man. This is not to say that a man represents Christ better than a woman can because he is holier. No. Rather, the priest can represent Christ because he is a man. Conversely, a woman cannot represent Christ because she is a woman.

As mentioned earlier, it is not coincidence that the movements to eliminate the putative male-dominated language of the Bible and the "one-sided" language with reference to the Godhead, respectively, are contemporaneous with the propaganda campaign for the ordination of women. They go hand in hand. Thus "Son of God" becomes "God's child"; "only-begotten Son" becomes "only-begotten child"; "Son of Man" becomes "Son of the human race," or "the human one"; "man" is translated "person"; God is referred to as "Mother and Father"; the pronoun "he" when referring to God is replaced with the word "God." (If you think these abominations are the product of a healthy imagination, take a gander at The Inclusive Language Lectionary, a "translation" of selected biblical passages published recently in the United States by the infamous National Council of Churches.) Such is the fruit of considering the Godhead as female or as androgynous. Consider some of the consequences for Catholicism:

•  The Fatherhood of God in the true sense is rejected. Christ is no longer believed to be God's Son. Statements of Christ such as the following must be translated anew: "I praise Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. . . all things have been delivered to me by My Father and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except and Son and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matt. 11:25, 27). "But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Mk. 13:32). "Again the high priest began to ask him, and said to him, 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said to him, 'I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven'" (Mk. 14:61-62. cf. also Matt. 16:16-17; John 5:26; and Mk. 12:1-9).

•  Similarly, the Fatherhood of God in a metaphorical sense is discarded (cf. Dt. 32:6; John 1:12; Gal. 4:5 et seq.).

•  Certain prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament which are fulfilled in the New Testament must be "re-evaluated" or "re-interpreted," as the Modernists are fond of saying. For example, prophecies concerning His genealogy and offices. Genealogy: Eternal Son of God (Ps. 2:7; cf. Heb. 1:5), the Son of the Virgin (Is. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:31), the son of Abraham (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8), of Isaac (Gen. 26:4), and of Jacob (Gen. 28:14; Num. 24:17-19), and David (II Kings 7:14-16; I Paral. 17:12-13; cf. Heb. 1:5). Offices: Prophet (Deut. 8:15; cf. Matt. 21:11), Priest (Ps. 109:4; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb. 5:6), King (1 Kings 2:10; Ps. 44:7; cf. Heb. 1:8ff), Prince of Pastors (Ezech. 34:23-24; 37:24; cf. John 10:11,16).

Notice: Prophet, not prophetess; priest, not priestess; king, not queen; Prince of Pastors, not princess of pastors.

•  If the Word, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is called Daughter, then the mystery of the Incarnation is disbelieved in favor of contemporary propaganda.

It is interesting to note here that, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the ministers of Christ must be in conformity with Him, the God-Man. St. Thomas explains the nature of this conformity:

Thus there is an essential relation between the twofold nature of Christ as fully God and fully man, on the one hand, and the strictly male priesthood which Christ empowered to administer the sacraments, etc., "unto edification and not unto destruction," on the other.

•  The bridegroom-bride relation between Christ and His Church is grossly distorted, to say the least. Christ is often referred to as a Bridegroom in the New Testament because His intimate union with His Church is compared to the close union between husband and wife (Matt. 9:15; 25:1ff.; John 3:29).

The Church is referred to as the bride in Eph. 5:22ff., and Apoc. 21:2, 9.

If Christ is just as well female, or androgynous, then to compare His relationship to the Church to the nuptial union is ridiculous.

•  To call Christ the "Second Adam" makes sense only on the basis that He is a man (cf. Rom. 5; I Cor. 15:22, 45-49).

•  Before His death, Christ said to St. John, "the disciple whom He loved": "Behold thy mother." With these words Christ commanded us to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary, our heavenly mother. Now the revolutionaries would have to assert that we have two heavenly mothers—Mary and God.

•  After the baptism of Jesus, "a voice from the heavens said, This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased'." The revolutionaries are forced to change "Son" to "Daughter" in this passage.

•  Needless to say, a vast number of prayers must be "re-translated" to conform to the beliefs of this new religion.

This is the crux of the matter: the inevitable consequence of the ordination of women is a new religion. The formula used by the revolutionaries is simple. A priest is a man who represents God to man and man to God. Since women cannot represent God, He—presto!—is viewed as both male and female, and—presto!—women can now represent God because He represents a woman. Again, it is no accident that the revolutionaries challenge the belief in the Fatherhood of God as well as the manhood of His Son; while they clamor for priestesses in the Church. After all, what better way to have women represent God than to "change" both God the Father and His Divine Son into women? As shown, this abomination leads to an avalanche of abominations and to a new religion.

The Catholic Church's rejection of priestesses rests 1) on positive Divine Law; 2) on the clear teaching of St. Paul, who, moreover, urged Church leaders to hand on not only what he has written, but what he has said (II Thes. 2:14-15; II Tim. 1:13), and this is exactly what they have done; and 3) on the Church's understanding of the priest as a man who represents God to man and man to God. The Church cannot reverse her position on the strictly male priesthood anymore than she can change her teachings on the Fatherhood of God and the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ!