On Saturday, June 24, 2023, an article appeared in the Dispatch-Argus, captioned, High-profile nun inspires hope for Catholic women.
“(Pope) Francis … has already done more than any modern pope to promote women by changing church laws to allow them to read scriptures (on the altar) and serve on the altar as eucharistic ministers, even while reaffirming that they cannot be ordained as priests. He has changed the Vatican’s founding constitution to allow women to head Vatican offices, and (has) made several high-profile female appointments, none more symbolically significant than that of (Sister Nathalie) Becquart’s.
“As undersecretary in the synod of bishops, Becquart was de facto granted the right to vote at the upcoming October synod.
“In April, the Vatican announced that 70 non-bishops would vote alongside (the bishops) in October, and that half of them were expected to be women.”
So, as a male and a life-long Catholic, how do I feel about the pope changing the church’s constitution? I can only sincerely applaud. The pope’s work seems entirely consistent to me with Paul’s dictum in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
We are all aware, of course, of other seemingly contrary dicta attributed to Paul, such as 1 Corinthians 14:33–35: " Women should remain silent in the churches; they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
So how can the two passages be reconciled? Modern scholars have taken at least three tacks.
1. Some argue that Corinthians 14:33-35 is a “post-Pauline interpolation.” 2. Others argue that the passage must not be read out of context, but that it must be read in conjunction with verse 36 that immediately follows: "What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?" 3. While a third group, argues that the passage is utterly inconsistent with how St. Paul treated the women who were his co-workers: especially, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia. Paul honors Phoebe with the title, “deacon,” and Junia as a “prominent apostle.”
If it was truly “disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church," how could they have functioned as “deacon” or “prominent apostle” in the churches Paul founded?
And then, of course, Luke 8, 1-3 tell us that certain Jewish women were among Jesus' earliest followers. They included Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna, who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry, and supported him out of their private funds.
As a Catholic, I’ve watch numerous women serve as lectors and eucharistic ministers, and I have no doubts whatsoever that they read scriptures and distribute the eucharist every bit as well as any of the men.
But as I have grown old, I have attended more and more funeral services in various Protestant churches, and in the Jewish Synagogues. In the process, I have watched a fair number of women ministers/rabbis conduct the services. In almost every such service that I have attended, I think the women ministers/rabbis have conducted warmer, more-feeling services than their male counterparts. From the work I have seen the women ministers/rabbis do, I have no doubts whatsoever that mature Catholic women could do a fine job as priests.
I realize that all twelve of Christ’s original apostles were men. I am certain that the Protestant denominations realize the same thing. Somehow, they have come to the conclusion, before Rome, that “there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Recognizing the equality of women within the church also seems to me consistent with “loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.” Treating women as second-class Catholics doesn’t.
Christ chose 12 Jewish men to be his apostles. Does that mean that only Jewish men can be Catholic priests?
Pope Francis is bucking nearly 2000 years of church tradition. But he clearly sees that without a sufficient number of priests, that while Satan may not be able to prevail against the church, the church hamstrings itself.
If the church is short of priests, there clearly are two great pools from which it can draw: married men, and women.
A friend of mine, a Catholic priest, has told me that “there is no good reason for the church not to ordain married men, who are Catholics in good standing, who have successfully raised their families.” He points out that three synoptic gospels say that Peter had a mother-in-law. Peter, therefore, was either married, or had been.
Early in the history of the church someone made a rule that women could not be priests. If, however, earlier popes or churchmen had power to tighten the rules to bar women from the priesthood, Pope Francis has power to loosen them. Matthew 18:18.
If a mature Catholic woman, like Sister Nathalie Becquart, can function effectively as undersecretary to a synod of Catholic bishops, there is scant likelihood that she couldn’t effectively serve as a priest.
My priest friend also reminds me that “Rome tends to move at a glacial pace.” Pope Francis, perhaps sensing his own mortality, seems to be moving a good bit faster. Good!
We are all aware, of course, of other seemingly contrary dicta attributed to Paul, such as 1 Corinthians 14:33–35: " Women should remain silent in the churches; they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
So how can the two passages be reconciled? Modern scholars have taken at least three tacks.
1. Some argue that Corinthians 14:33-35 is a “post-Pauline interpolation.” 2. Others argue that the passage must not be read out of context, but that it must be read in conjunction with verse 36 that immediately follows: "What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?" 3. While a third group, argues that the passage is utterly inconsistent with how St. Paul treated the women who were his co-workers: especially, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia. Paul honors Phoebe with the title, “deacon,” and Junia as a “prominent apostle.”
If it was truly “disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church," how could they have functioned as “deacon” or “prominent apostle” in the churches Paul founded?
And then, of course, Luke 8, 1-3 tell us that certain Jewish women were among Jesus' earliest followers. They included Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna, who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry, and supported him out of their private funds.
As a Catholic, I’ve watch numerous women serve as lectors and eucharistic ministers, and I have no doubts whatsoever that they read scriptures and distribute the eucharist every bit as well as any of the men.
But as I have grown old, I have attended more and more funeral services in various Protestant churches, and in the Jewish Synagogues. In the process, I have watched a fair number of women ministers/rabbis conduct the services. In almost every such service that I have attended, I think the women ministers/rabbis have conducted warmer, more-feeling services than their male counterparts. From the work I have seen the women ministers/rabbis do, I have no doubts whatsoever that mature Catholic women could do a fine job as priests.
I realize that all twelve of Christ’s original apostles were men. I am certain that the Protestant denominations realize the same thing. Somehow, they have come to the conclusion, before Rome, that “there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Recognizing the equality of women within the church also seems to me consistent with “loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.” Treating women as second-class Catholics doesn’t.
Christ chose 12 Jewish men to be his apostles. Does that mean that only Jewish men can be Catholic priests?
Pope Francis is bucking nearly 2000 years of church tradition. But he clearly sees that without a sufficient number of priests, that while Satan may not be able to prevail against the church, the church hamstrings itself.
If the church is short of priests, there clearly are two great pools from which it can draw: married men, and women.
A friend of mine, a Catholic priest, has told me that “there is no good reason for the church not to ordain married men, who are Catholics in good standing, who have successfully raised their families.” He points out that three synoptic gospels say that Peter had a mother-in-law. Peter, therefore, was either married, or had been.
Early in the history of the church someone made a rule that women could not be priests. If, however, earlier popes or churchmen had power to tighten the rules to bar women from the priesthood, Pope Francis has power to loosen them. Matthew 18:18.
If a mature Catholic woman, like Sister Nathalie Becquart, can function effectively as undersecretary to a synod of Catholic bishops, there is scant likelihood that she couldn’t effectively serve as a priest.
My priest friend also reminds me that “Rome tends to move at a glacial pace.” Pope Francis, perhaps sensing his own mortality, seems to be moving a good bit faster. Good!
First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 2, 2023.
Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment