Declaration on the question of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood : October 15, 1976 : with commentary


r

Ct^Hvou ^Ghtu^cfn. COAS^odh'O pco dodnrlwk.
_pQc$an^on on -Hoe (Question q£. ^ oucWirss,; 6n of-

en +D f

W

l rn\ru5ftrio4 priesVUoed
^Ho: Infer I nS^ritoneo iz ^ltsU. . ffbt ZfSiy

DECLARATION

ON THE QUESTION OF THE

ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/declarationonqueOOcath



SACRED CONGREGATION FOR
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION

ON THE QUESTION OF THE

ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

October 15, 1976

With Commentary

1977

Publications Office

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005



DmcMRo#



SACRED CONGREGATION FOR
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION

ON THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN

TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

INTRODUCTION

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN MODERN SOCIETY AND THE CHURCH

Among the characteristics that mark our present age, Pope
John XXIII indicated, in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11,

1963, “the part that women are now taking in public life . . . This
is a development that is perhaps of swifter growth among Chris-
tian nations, but it is also happening extensively, if more slowly,

among nations that are heirs to different traditions and imbued
with a different culture”.

1 Along the same lines, the Second Vat-

ican Council, enumerating in its Pastoral Constitution Gaudium
et Spes the forms of discrimination touching upon the basic

rights of the person which must be overcome and eliminated as

being contrary to God’s plan, gives first place to discrimination

based upon sex. 2 The resulting equality will secure the building

up of a world that is not levelled out and uniform but harmoni-

ous and unified, if men and women contribute to it their own
resources and dynamism, as Pope Paul VI recently stated. 3

In the life of the Church herself, as history shows us, women
have played a decisive role and accomplished tasks of outstand-

ing value. One has only to think of the foundresses of the great
religious families, such as Saint Clare and Saint Teresa of Avila.

The latter, moreover, and Saint Catherine of Siena, have left

writings so rich in spiritual doctrine that Pope Paul VI has in-

cluded them among the Doctors of the Church. Nor could one
forget the great number of women who have consecrated them-
selves to the Lord for the exercise of charity or for the missions,

and the Christian wives who have had a profound influence on
their families, particularly for the passing on of the faith to

their children.

3



But bur age gives rise to increased demands. “Since in our

time women have an ever more active share in the whole life
of society, it is very important that they participate more widely

also in the various sectors of the Church’s apostolate". 4 This

charge of the Second Vatican Council has already set in motion

the whole process of change now taking place: these various ex-
periences of course need to come to maturity. But as Pope Paul
VI also remarked,5 a very large number of Christian communi-

ties are already benefitting from the apostolic commitment of

women. Some of these women are called to take part in councils
set up for pastoral reflection, at the diocesan or parish level;

and the Apostolic See has brought women into some of its work-
ing bodies.

For some years now various Christian communities stemming
from the sixteenth-century Reformation or of later origin have

been admitting women to the pastoral office on a par with men.
This initiative has led to petitions and writings by members of
these communities and similar groups, directed towards making

this admission a general thing: it has also led to contrary reac-

tions. This therefore constitutes an ecumenical problem, and

the Catholic Church must make her thinking known on it, all
the more because in various sectors of opinion the question has

been asked whether she too could not modify her discipline and

admit women to priestly ordination. A number of Catholic theolo-
gians have even posed this question publicly, evoking studies

not only in the sphere of exegesis, patrology and Church history

but also in the field of the history of institutions and customs,

of sociology and of psychology. The various arguments capable

of clarifying this important problem have been submitted to a

critical examination. As we are dealing with a debate which

classical theology scarcely touched upon, the current argumen-

tation runs the risk of neglecting essential elements.

For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from

the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself

made in his letter of November 30, 1976,
6
the Sacred Congrega-

tion for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that

the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not con-

sider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.
The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present

juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position

4



which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will be-

come apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deep-

ening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.

1

THE CHURCH’S CONSTANT TRADITION

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal

ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical

sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the

exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was

immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered
it as unacceptable in the Church . 7 It is true that in the writings of

the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices un-

favorable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that

these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral ac-

tivity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and

above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds

expressed—especially in the canonical documents of the Anti-
ochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely,
that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its
true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type

of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and care-

fully maintained by the Apostles . 8

The same conviction animates medieval theology
,

9 even if the

Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data

of faith, often present arguments on this point that modern

thought would have difficulty in admitting or would even rightly

reject. Since that period and up to our own time, it can be said
that the question has not been raised again, for the practice

has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.

The Church’s tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in

the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt

the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which

was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged.
But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest

itself, it witnessed to the Church’s desire to conform to the model

left to her by the Lord.

5



The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the
Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point is all the

more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline
admits of a great diversity. At the present time these same
Churches refuse to associate themselves with requests directed

towards securing the accession of women to priestly ordination.

2

THE ATTITUDE OF CHRIST

Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the
Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform

to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was
quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and

courageously broke with it.

For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples

Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27);
he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman
who had suffered from haemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22), he allows
a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Phari-
see (cf. Lk 7:37 ff.); and by pardoning the woman taken in
adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe

towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (cf.
Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law

in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men
and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11;
Mt. 19:3-9).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by

the Twelve but also by a group of women: “Mary, surnamed the

Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the
wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, Susanna, and several others who
provided for them out of their own resources” (Lk 8:2-3). Con-

trary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value

to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was never-

theless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing
the risen Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to

take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (cf.

Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the

latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

6



It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately

obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of

God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach

the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate

meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts

cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here

a number of convergent indications that make all the more re-

markable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic

charge 10 to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely asso-
ciated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable

role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not

invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the

Fathers to present her as the example of Christ’s will in this

domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of

the thirteenth century. “Although the Blessed Virgin Mary sur-

passed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless

it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of

the Kingdom of Heaven”. 11

3

THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES

The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of
Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place
in the little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the
Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called
to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the election that

resulted in the choice of Matthias: those who were put forward
were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men
and women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1-14). yet the proclamation of the
fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by “Peter
and the Eleven” (Acts 2:14).

When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish
world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the
Greco-Roman civilization impelled them to break with Mosaic
practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have en-
visaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been
convinced of their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In

the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was

7



entrusted to priestesses. In fact the Greeks did not share the

ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers taught the in-

feriority of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the ex-

istence of a certain movement for the advancement of women
during the Imperial period. In fact we know from the book of the

Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked
with the Apostle for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint
Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of

the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence
on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla,

who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf.
Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae

(cf. Rom 16:1). All these facts manifest within the Apostolic
Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism.

Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ord-

ination on these women.

In the Pauline Letters, exegetes of authority have noted a dif-

ference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes

indiscriminately “my fellow workers" (Rom 16:3; Phil 4:2-3)
when referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate
in one way or another; but he reserves the title “God’s fellow

workers" (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thess 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and him-

self, thus designated because they are directly set apart for the

apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite
of the so important role played by women on the day of the
Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by Saint Paul

to the official and public proclamation of the message, since

this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission.

4

PERMANENT VALUE OF THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS

AND THE APOSTLES

Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus

and the Apostles, which has been considered as normative by the

whole of tradition up to our own day? Various arguments have

been put forward in favor of a positive reply to this question,

and these must now be examined.

It has been claimed in particular that the attitude of Jesus

8



and the Apostles is explained by the influence of their milieu

and their times. It is said that, if Jesus did not entrust to women
and not even to his Mother a ministry assimilating them to the

Twelve, this was because historical circumstances did not per-

mit him to do so. No one however has ever proved—and it is
clearly impossible to prove—that this attitude is inspired only by
social and cultural reasons. As we have seen, an examination

of the Gospels shows on the contrary that Jesus broke with the

prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations

practiced with regard to women. One therefore cannot maintain

that, by not calling women to enter the group of the Apostles,
Jesus was simply letting himself be guided by reasons of ex-

pediency. For all the more reason, social and cultural condition-

ing did not hold back the Apostles working in the Greek milieu,

where the same forms of discrimination did not exist.

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that

one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint
Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some as-
pects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted

that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the

period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of

minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women
to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no

longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle’s forbidding

of women “to speak" in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1
Tim 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its mean-

ing in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he else-

where recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the
assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the

official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint

Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of crea-

tion (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see
in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten

that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the
New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women,
as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Therefore there is
no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we
note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration
that he asks of them in his apostolate.

But over and above these objections taken from the history

9



of apostolic times, those who support the legitimacy of change
in the matter turn to the Church's practice in her sacramental

discipline. It has been noted, in our day especially, to what extent

the Church is conscious of possessing a certain power over the

sacraments, even though they were instituted by Christ. She has

used this power down the centuries in order to determine their

signs and the conditions of their administration: recent decisions

of Popes Pius XII and Paul VI are proof of this . 12 However, it

must be emphasized that this power, which is a real one, has

definite limits. As Pope Pius XII recalled: “The Church has no

power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say,

over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear wit-

ness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign ".
13

This was already the teaching of the Council of Trent, which de-
clared: “In the Church there has always existed this power, that

in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their sub-

stance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she
considers more fitting either for the benefit of those who receive
them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according
to varying circumstances, times or places ". 14

Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the sacramental signs

are not conventional ones. Not only is it true that, in many re-
spects, they are natural signs because they respond to the deep

symbolism of actions and things, but they are more than this:

they are principally meant to link the person of every period to

the supreme Event of the history of salvation, in order to enable
that person to understand, through all the Bible’s wealth of peda-

gogy and symbolism, what grace they signify and produce. For

example, the sacrament of the Eucharist is not only a fraternal

meal, but at the same time the memorial which makes present
and actual Christ’s sacrifice and his offering by the Church.

Again, the priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it en-

sures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the

Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those func-

tions. Adaptation to civilizations and times therefore cannot

abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to con-

stitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself.

In the final analysis it is the Church, through the voice of her

Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can

change and what must remain immutable. When she judges that

10



she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows

that she is bound by Christ’s manner of acting. Her attitude,

despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism but of

fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light. The Church

makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord’s promise and the

presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery

of Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich

content.

This practice of the Church therefore has a normative char-

acter: in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it

is a question of an unbroken tradition throughout the history of

the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to

repress abuses immediately. This norm, based on Christ’s ex-

ample, has been and is still observed because it is considered

to conform to God’s plan for his Church.

5

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

IN THE LIGHT OF THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST

Having recalled the Church’s norm and the basis thereof, it

seems useful and opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the

profound fittingness that theological reflection discovers between

the proper nature of the sacrament of Order, with its specific

reference to the mystery of Christ, and the fact that only men
have been called to receive priestly ordination. It is not a ques-

tion here of bringing forward a demonstrative argument, but

of clarifying this teaching by the analogy of faith.

The Church’s constant teaching, repeated and clarified by the

Second Vatican Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod
of Bishops and by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith in its Declaration of June 24, 1973, declares that the
bishop or the priest, in the exercise of his ministry, does not

act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ,
who acts through him: “the priest truly acts in the place of
Christ”, as Saint Cyprian already wrote in the third century. 15 It

is this ability to represent Christ that Saint Paul considered as

characteristic of his apostolic function (cf. 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14).

11



The supreme expression of this representation is found in the

altogether special form it assumes in the celebration of the

Eucharist, which is the source and center of the Church's unity,

the sacrificial meal in which the People of God are associated

in the sacrifice of Christ: the priest, who alone has the power
to perform it, then acts not only through the effective power

conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi,
16 taking the

role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he

pronounces the words of consecration. 17

The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature:

the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes

from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible 18

and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease. The

whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs,

on symbols imprinted upon the human psychology: “Sacramental
signs," says Saint Thomas, “represent what they signify by

natural resemblance." 19 The same natural resemblance is re-
quired for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the

Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be

this “natural resemblance" which must exist between Christ and

his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in

such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image

of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.

Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women as
well as men: the unity which he re-established after sins is such

that there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave

and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (cf.

Gal 3:28). Nevertheless, the Incarnation of the Word took place

according to the male sex: this is indeed a question of fact, and

this fact, while not implying an alleged natural superiority of

man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the economy
of salvation: it is, indeed, in harmony with the entirety of God’s

plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery

of the Covenant is the nucleus.

For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union
with him to which they are called—in short, the Covenant

—

took on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privil-

eged form of a nuptial mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen

as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish and Christian tradition

has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love by reading and

12



rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain

faithful even when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is

unfaithful to God (cf. Hos 1-3; Jer 2). When the “fullness of

time’' (Gal 4:4) comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh

in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in

his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be for-

given. His death will gather together again the scattered children of

God; from his pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born

from Adam’s side. At that time there is fully and eternally ac-

complished the nuptial mystery proclaimed and hymned in the

Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church is his Bride,

whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made
her glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth he is

inseparable from her. This nuptial theme, which is developed

from the Letters of Saint Paul onwards (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-

23) to the writings of Saint John (cf. especially Jn 3:29; Rev 19:7,

9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom’s

friends must not fast as long as he is with them (cf. Mk 2:19);
the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his

son’s wedding (cf. Mt 22:1-14). It is through this Scriptural

language, all interwoven with symbols, and which expresses and

affects man and woman in their profound identity, that there is
revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which

of itself is unfathomable.

That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.
And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this

symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted
that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in
which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom

and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry

of salvation—which is in the highest degree the case of the
Eucharist—his role (this is the original sense of the word
persona) must be taken by a man. This does not stem from any

personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but only

from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service.

Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly condi-
tion, from now on it is a matter of indifference whether he be
represented by a man or by a woman, since “at the resurrection
men and women do not marry” (Mt 22:30)? But this text does
not mean that the distinction between man and woman, insofar

13



as it determines the identity proper to the person, is suppressed

in the glorified state; what holds for us holds also for Christ.

It is indeed evident that in human beings the difference of sex
exercises an important influence, much deeper than, for example,
ethnic differences: the latter do not affect the human person as
intimately as the difference of sex, which is directly ordained

both for the communion of persons and for the generation of
human beings. In Biblical Revelation this difference is the effect
of God's will from the beginning: “male and female he created

them" (Gen 1:27).

However, it will perhaps be further objected that the priest,

especially when he presides at the liturgical and sacramental func-
tions, equally represents the Church: he acts in her name with
“the intention of doing what she does." In this sense the theo-

logians of the Middle Ages said that the minister also acts in

persona Ecclesiae
,
that is to say, in the name of the whole Church

and in order to represent her. And in fact, leaving aside the

question of the participation of the faithful in a liturgical action,

it is indeed in the name of the whole Church that the action is
celebrated by the priest: he prays in the name of all, and in the
Mass he offers the sacrifice of the whole Church. In the new
Passover, the Church, under visible signs, immolates Christ

through the ministry of the priest. 20 And so, it is asserted, since

the priest also represents the Church, would it not be possible

to think that this representation could be carried out by a woman,
according to the symbolism already explained? It is true that the

priest represents the Church, which is the Body of Christ. But

if he does so, it is precisely because he first represents Christ

himself, who is the Head and Shepherd of the Church. The Sec-
ond Vatican Council 21 used this phrase to make more precise and
to complete the expression in persona Christi. It is in this quality

that the priest presides over the Christian assembly and cele-

brates the Eucharistic sacrifice “in which the whole Church offers

and is herself wholly offered.” 22

If one does justice to these reflections, one will better under-

stand how well-founded is the basis of the Church’s practice; and
one will conclude that the controversies raised in our days over

the ordination of women are for all Christians a pressing invita-
tion to meditate on the mystery of the Church, to study in greater

detail the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood, and to

14



rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the

community of the baptized, of which he indeed forms part but

from which he is distinguished because, in the actions that call

for the character of ordination, for the community he is—with
all the effectiveness proper to the sacraments—the image and
symbol of Christ himself who calls, forgives, and accomplishes

the sacrifice of the Covenant.

6

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD ILLUSTRATED BY

THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

It is opportune to recall that problems of sacramental theology,

especially when they concern the ministerial priesthood, as is the

case here, cannot be solved except in the light of Revelation. The

human sciences, however valuable their contribution in their
own domain, cannot suffice here, for they cannot grasp the reali-

ties of faith: the properly supernatural content of these realities

is beyond their competence.

Thus one must note the extent to which the Church is a

society different from other societies, original in her nature and

in her structures. The pastoral charge in the Church is normally

linked to the sacrament of Order: it is not a simple government,

comparable to the modes of authority found in States. It is not
granted by people's spontaneous choice: even when it involves
designation through election, it is the laying on of hands and

the prayer of the successors of the Apostles which guarantee

God’s choice; and it is the Holy Spirit, given by ordination, who
grants participation in the ruling power of the Supreme Pastor,
Christ (cf. Acts 20:28). It is a charge of service and love: “If

you love me, feed my sheep" (cf. Jn 21:15-17).

For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose
the admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality
of rights of the human person, an equality which holds good also
for Christians. To this end use is sometimes made of the text
quoted above, from the Letter to the Galatians (3:28), which

says that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men
and women. But this passage does not concern ministries: it
only affrms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the
same for all. Moreover, and above all, to consider the ministerial

15



priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its nature
completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public

ministry in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the

honor or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God

and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratu-

itous vocation: “You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I

commissioned you. . (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4).

It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals that

some women feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood.
Such an attraction, however noble and understandable, still does

not suffice for a genuine vocation. In fact a vocation cannot be

reduced to a mere personal attraction, which can remain purely

subjective. Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which

the Church has received the charge and the control, authentica-

tion by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive

part of the vocation: Christ chose “those he wanted” (Mk 3:13).
On the other hand, there is a universal vocation of all the bap-
tized to the exercise of the royal priesthood by offering their

lives to God and by giving witness for his praise.

Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood
are doubtless motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the

Church. And it is not surprising that, at a time when they are be-

coming more aware of the discriminations to which they have

been subject, they should desire the ministerial priesthood itself.

But it must not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form

part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy
of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The priestly office can-

not become the goal of social advancement; no merely human
progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access

to it: it is of another order.

It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the

nature of the real equality of the baptized which is one of the

great affirmations of Christianity: equality is in no way identity,

for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual

has his or her role. The roles are distinct, and must not be con-

fused; they do not favor the superiority of some vis-a-vis the

others, nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only

better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor

12:13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the min-

isters but the saints.

16



The Church desires that Christian women should become fully

aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of

capital importance, both for the renewal and humanization of

society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of

the Church.

His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to

the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on October

15, 1976 approved this Declaration, confirmed it and ordered

its publication.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine

of the Faith, on October 15, 1976, the feast of Saint Teresa of

Avila.

FRANJO CARDINAL SEPER
Prefect

+ Fr. Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium

Secretary

NOTES
1 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 55 (1963), pp. 267-268.
2
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 29

(December 7, 1965): AAS 58 (1966), pp. 1048-1049.
3
Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the members of the Study Commission on

the Role of Women in Society and in the Church and to the members of the
Committee for International Women's Year, April 18, 1975: AAS 67 (1975),
p. 265.

4 Second Vatican Council, Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, 9 (November
18, 1965): AAS 58 (1966), p. 846.

5
Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the members of the Study Commission

on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church and to the members
of the Committee for International Women’s Year, April 18, 1975: AAS
67 (1975), p. 266.

6
Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid., pp. 600-601.

7 Saint Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I, 13, 2: PG 7, 580-581; ed. Harvey,
I, 114-122; Tertullian, De Praescrip. Haeretic. 41, 5: CCL 1, p. 221; Firmilian
of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, Epist., 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen,
Fragmentum in I Cor. 74, in Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909),
pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, Panarion 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4: vol. 2,
GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.

6 Didascalia Apostolorum, ch. 15, ed. R. H. Connolly, pp. 133 and 142;
Constitutiones Apostolicae, bk. 3, ch. 6, nos. 1-2; ch. 9, nos. 3-4: ed F. H.
Funk, pp. 191, 201; Saint John Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio 2, 2: PG 48, 633.

9 Saint Bonaventure, In IV Sent., Dist. 25, art, 2, ql, ed. Quaracchi, vol.

4, p. 649; Richard of Middleton, In IV Sent., Dist. 25, art. 4, n.l, ed. Venice,

1499, f° 177 r ; John Duns Scotus, In IV Sent., Dist. 25: Opus Oxoniense, ed.
Vives, vol. 19, p. 140; Reportata Parisiensia, vol. 24, pp. 369-371; Durandus
of Saint-Pourcain, In IV Sent., Dist. 25, q.2, ed. Venice, 1571, f° 364v .

10 Some have also wished to explain this fact by a symbolic intention of
Jesus: the Twelve were to represent the ancestors of the twelve tribes of

17



Israel (cf. Mt 19-28; Lk 22:30). But in these texts it is only a question of
their participation in the eschatological judgment. The essential meaning
of the choice of the Twelve should rather be sought in the totality of their
mission (cf. Mk 3:14): they are to represent Jesus to the people and carry
on his work.

11 Pope Innocent III, Epist. (December 11, 1210) to the Bishops of Palen-
cia and Burgos, included in Corpus luris, Decret. Lib. 5, tit. 38, De Paenit,
ch. 10 Nova: ed. A. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 886-887; cf. Glossa in Decretal.
Lib. 1, tit. 33, ch. 12 Dilecta, v° lurisdictioni. Cf. Saint Thomas, Summa
Theologiae, III, q.27, a. 5 ad 3; Pseudo-Albert the Great, Mariale. quaest. 42,
ed. Borgnet 37, 81.

12 Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, November
30, 1947: AAS 40 (1948), pp. 5-7; Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution
Divinae Consortium Naturae, August 15, 1971: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 657-
664; Apostolic Constitution Sacram Unctionem, November 30, 1972: AAS
65 (1973), pp. 5-9.

13 Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis: loc. cit.,
P. 5.

14 Session 21, chap. 2: Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum
1728.

15 Saint Cyprian, Epist, 63, 14: PL 4, 397 B; ed. Hartel, vol. 3, p. 713.
16 Second Vatican Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 33

(December 4, 1963): "... by the priest who presides over the assembly in
the person of Christ ...”; Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10 (No-
vember 21, 1964): “The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys,
molds and rules the priestly people. Acting in the person of Christ, he
brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of
all the people ...”; 28. “By the powers of the sacrament of Order, and
in the image of Christ the eternal High Priest ... they exercise this sacred
function of Christ above all in the Eucharistic liturgy or synaxis. There, act-
ing in the person of Christ Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2 (December
7, 1965): "... priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are marked
with a special character and are so configured to Christ the Priest that
they can act in the person of Christ the Head"; 13: “As ministers of sacred
realities, especially in the Sacrifice of the Mass, priests represent the
person of Christ in a special way”; cf. 1971 Synod of Bishops, De Sacerdotio
Ministerial

i

I, 4; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, De-
claratio circa catholicam doctrinam de Ecclesia, 6 (June 24, 1973).

17 Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III, q.83, art. 1, ad 3: “It is to be
said that [just as the celebration of this sacrament is the representative
image of Christ’s Cross: ibid, ad 2], for the same reason the priest also
enacts the image of Christ, in whose person and by whose power he pro-
nounces the words of consecration”.

10 “For since a sacrament is a sign, there is required in the things that
are done in the sacraments not only the ‘res' but the signification of the
‘res' ”, recalls Saint Thomas, precisely in order to reject the ordination of
women: In IV Sent., dist. 25, q.2, art. 1, quaestiuncula l a , corp.

19 Saint Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 25, q.2, quaestiuncula l a ad 4um .
20

Cf. Council of Trent, Session 22, chap. 1: DS 1741.
21 Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 28:

“Exercising within the limits of their authority the function of Christ as
Shepherd and Head”; Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2; “that they can
act in the person of Christ the Head”; 6: “the office of Christ the Head
and the Shepherd”. Cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei: “the
minister of the altar represents the person of Christ as the Head, offering
in the name of all his members”: AAS 39 (1947), p. 556; 1971 Synod of
Bishops, De Sacerdotio Ministeriali, I, 4; “[The priestly ministry] ... makes
Christ, the Head of the community, present ...”.

22 Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965:
AAS 57 (1965), p. 761.

18



COMMENTARY ON THE DECLARATION OF THE SACRED
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ON THE

QUESTION OF THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE
MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

Circumstances and origin of the Declaration

The question of the admission of women to the ministerial priest-
hood seems to have arisen in a general way about 1958, after the

decision by the Swedish Lutheran Church in September of that year

to admit women to the pastoral office. This caused a sensation and
occasioned numerous commentaries 1 . Even for the communities stem-

ming from the sixteenth-century Reformation it was an innovation: one

may recall, for example, how strongly the Confessio Fidei Scotiae of

1560 accused the Roman Church of making improper concessions to
women in the field of ministry2 . But the Swedish initiative gradually
gained ground among the Reformed Churches, particularly in France,
where various National Synods adopted similar decisions.

In reality, the admission of women to the pastoral office seemed to
raise no strictly theological problem, in that these communities had

rejected the sacrament of Order at the time of their separation from

the Roman Church. But a new and much more serious situation was
created when ordinations of women were carried out within communi-
ties that considered that they preserved the apostolic succession of

Order3 : in 1971 and 1973 the Anglican Bishop of Hong Kong ordained
three women with the agreement of his Synod 4

;
in July 1974 at Phila-

delphia there was the ordination in the Episcopal Church of eleven

women—an ordination afterwards declared invalid by the House of
Bishops. Later on, in June 1975, the General Synod of the Anglican

Church in Canada, meeting in Quebec, approved the principle of the

accession of women to the priesthood; and this was followed in July
by the General Synod of the Church of England: Dr. Coggan, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, frankly informed Pope Paul VI “of the slow but
steady growth of a consensus of opinion within the Anglican Com-
munion that there are no fundamental objections in principle to the
ordination of women to the priesthood” 5 . These are only general prin-
ciples, but they might quickly be followed by practice, and this would
bring a new and serious element into the dialogue with the Roman
Catholic Church on the nature of the ministry6 . It has provoked a warn-
ing, first by the Archbishop for the Orthodox in Great Britain, Athen-

agoras of Thyateira 7
,
and then, more recently, by Pope Paul VI himself

in two letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury8 . Furthermore, the ecu-
menical sectors brought the question to the notice of all the Christian

denominations, forcing them to examine their positions of principle,

19



especially on the occasion of the Assembly of the World Council of

Churches at Nairobi in December 19759 .

A completely different event has made the question even more
topical: this was the organization under United Nations’ auspices of

International Women’s Year in 1975. The Holy See took part in it with

a Committee for International Women’s Year, which included some

members of the Commission for the Study of the Role of Women in
Society and the Church, which had already been set up in 1973. En-

suring respect for and fostering the respective rights and duties of

men and women leads to reflection on participation by women in the
life of society on the one hand, and in the life and mission of the

Church on the other. Now, the Second Vatican Council had already

set forth the task: “Since in our times women have an ever more ac-
tive share in the whole life of society, it is very important that they

participate more widely also in the various fields of the Church’s

apostolate” 10 . How far can this participation go?

It is understandable that these questions have aroused even in

Catholic quarters intense studies, indeed passionate ones: doctoral

theses, articles in reviews, even pamphlets, propounding or refuting

in turn the biblical, historical and canonical data and appealing to the

human sciences of sociology 11
,
psychology and the history of institu-

tions and customs. Certain famous people have not hesitated to take

sides boldly, judging that there was “no basic theological objection to

the possibility of women priests” 12 . A number of groups have been
formed with a view to upholding this claim, and they have sometimes

done this with insistence, as did the conference held in Detroit (U.S.A.)

in November 1975 under the title “Women in Future: Priesthood Now, a
Call for Action”.

The Magisterium has thus been obliged to intervene in a question

being posed in so lively a fashion within the Catholic Church and

having important implications from the ecumenical point of view. Arch-

bishop Bernardin of Cincinnati, President of the United States Na-

tional Conference of Catholic Bishops, declared on October 7, 1975

that he found himself “obliged to restate the Church's teaching that

women are not to be ordained to the priesthood”; Church leaders, he
said, should “not seem to encourage unreasonable hopes and expec-

tations, even by their silence” 13 . Pope Paul VI himself had already re-

called the same teaching. He did so at first in parenthetical fashion,

especially in his address on April 18, 1975 to the members of the

Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the Church
and the Committee for the Celebration of International Women’s Year:

“Although women do not receive the call to the apostolate of the
Twelve and therefore to the ordained ministries, they are nonetheless

20



invited to follow Christ as disciples and co-workers ... We cannot
change what our Lord did, nor his call to women” 14 . Later he had to

make an express pronouncement in his exchange of letters with Dr.

Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury: “Your Grace is of course well

aware of the Catholic Church’s position on this question. She holds

that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very
fundamental reasons” 15 . It is at his order that the Sacred Congregation

for the Doctrine of the Faith has examined the question in its entirety.

The question has been complicated by the fact that on the one hand

arguments adduced in the past in favor of the traditional teaching are

scarcely defensible today, and on the other hand the reasons given by

those who demand the ordination of women must be evaluated.

To avoid the rather negative character that must mark the conclu-

sions of such a study, one could have thought of inserting it into a

more general presentation of the question of the advancement of

women. But the time is not ripe for such a comprehensive exposition,

because of the research and work in progress on all sides. It was

difficult to leave unanswered any longer a precise question that is being

posed nearly everywhere and which is polarizing attention to the detri-

ment of more urgent endeavors that should be fostered. In fact, apart

from its non-acceptance of the ordination of women, the document

points to positive matters: a deeper understanding of the Church’s

teaching and of the ministerial priesthood, a call to spiritual progress,

an invitation to take on the urgent apostolic tasks of today. The

bishops, to whom the document is primarily addressed, have the mis-
sion of explaining it to their people with the pastoral feeling that is

theirs and with the knowledge they have of the milieu in which they

exercise their ministry.

The Declaration begins by presenting the Church's teaching on the
question. This in fact has to be the point of departure. We shall see
later how necessary it is to follow faithfully the method of using loci
theologici.

Tradition

It is an undeniable fact, as the Declaration notes, that the constant

tradition of the Catholic Church has excluded women from the episco-
pate and the priesthood. So constant has it been that there has been

no need for an intervention by a solemn decision of the Magisterium.

“The same tradition”, the document stresses, “has been faithfully
safeguarded by the Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point

is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline
admits of a great diversity. At the present time these same Churches
refuse to associate themselves with requests directed towards securing

the accession of women to priestly ordination ” 16

21



Only within some heretical sects of the early centuries, principally

Gnostic ones, do we find attempts to have the priestly ministry exer-

cised by women. It must be further noted that these are very sporadic

occurrences and are moreover associated with rather questionable

practices. We know of them only through the severe disapproval with
which they are noted by Saint Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses 17 f

Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum ]a
,

Firmilian of Caesarea

in a letter to Saint Cyprian 19
,
Origen in a commentary on the First Letter

to the Corinthians20
,

and especially by Saint Ephiphanius in his

Panar/on 21 .

How are we to interpret the constant and universal practice of
the Church? A theologian is certain that what the Church does she
can in fact do, since she has the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This

is a classical argument found again and again in Saint Thomas with
regard to the sacraments22 . But what the Church has never done—is
this any proof that she cannot do it in the future? Does the negative

fact thus noted indicate a norm, or is it to be explained by historical

and by social and cultural circumstances? In the present case, is an

explanation to be found in the position of women in ancient and
mediaeval society and in a certain idea of male superiority stemming

from that society’s culture?

It is because of this transitory cultural element that some argu-
ments adduced on this subject in the past are scarcely defensible

today. The most famous is the one summarized by Saint Thomas
Aquinas: quia mulier est in status subiectionis23 . In Saint Thomas’

thought, however, this assertion is not merely the expression of a

philosophical concept, since he interprets it in the light of the ac-

counts in the first chapters of Genesis and the teaching of the First

Letter to Timothy (2:12-14). A similar formula is found earlier in the

Decretum of Gratian24
,
but Gratian, who was quoting the Carolingian

Capitularies and the false Decretals, was trying rather to justify with Old

Testament prescriptions the prohibition—already formulated by the
ancient Church 25—of women from entering the sanctuary and serving
at the altar.

The polemical arguments of recent years have often recalled and

commented on the texts that develop these arguments. They have also
used them to accuse the Fathers of the Church of misogyny. It is
true that we find in the Fathers’ writings the undeniable influence of
prejudices against women. But it must be carefully noted that these
passages had very little influence on their pastoral activity, still less on

their spiritual direction, as we can see by glancing through their cor-
respondence that has come down to us. Above all it would be a serious
mistake to think that such considerations provide the only or the

most decisive reasons against the ordination of women in the thought

22



of the Fathers, of the mediaeval writers and of the theologians of the

classical period. In the midst of and going beyond speculation, more

and more clear expression was being given to the Church’s awareness

that in reserving priestly ordination and ministry to men she was

obeying a tradition received from Christ and the Apostles and by which

she felt herself bound.

This is what had been expressed in the form of an apocryphal litera-

ture by the ancient documents of Church discipline from Syria, such as

the Didascalia Apostolorum (middle of the third century) 26 and the

Apostolic Constitutions (end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth

century) 27
,
and by the Egyptian collection of twenty pseudo-apostolic

canons that was included in the compilation of the Alexandrian Syno-

dus and translated into many languages28 . Saint John Chrysostom, for

his part, when commenting on chapter twenty-one of John, understood

well that women’s exclusion from the pastoral office entrusted to

Peter was not based on any natural incapacity, since as he remarks,

“even the majority of men have been excluded by Jesus from this

immense task.” 29

From the moment that the teaching on the sacraments is syste-
matically presented in the schools of theology and canon law, writers

begin to deal ex professo with the nature and value of the tradition

that reserved ordination to men. The canonists base their case on the

principle formulated by Pope Innocent III in a letter of December 11,

1210 to the Bishops of Palencia and Burgos, a letter that was in-

cluded in the collection of Decretals: “Although the Blessed Virgin

Mary was of higher dignity and excellence than all the Apostles, it

was to them, not her, that the Lord entrusted the keys of the King-

dom of Heaven"30 . This text became a locus communis for the glossa-
tores31 .

As for the theologians, the following are some significant texts:
Saint Bonaventure: “Our position is this: it is due not so much to a
decision by the Church as to the fact that the sacrament of Order is

not for them. In this sacrament the person ordained is a sign of Christ

the Mediator” 32 . Richard of Middleton, a Franciscan of the second half

of the thirteenth century: “The reason is that the power of the sacra-
ments comes from their institution. But Christ instituted this sacra-
ment for conferral on men only, not women’’ 33 . John Duns Scotus:
“It must not be considered to have been determined by the Church.
It comes from Christ. The Church would not have presumed to deprive
the female sex, for no fault of its own, of an act that might licitly

have pertained to it" 34 . Durandus of Saint-Pourcain:" . . . the male
sex is of necessity for the sacrament. The principal cause of this is
Christ's institution . . . Christ ordained only men ... not even his
Mother ... It must therefore be held that women cannot be or-
dained, because of Christ’s institution" 35 .

23



So it is no surprise that until the modern period the theologians

and canonists who dealt with the question have been almost unani-
mous in considering this exclusion as absolute and having a divine
origin. The theological notes they apply to the affirmation vary from

“theologically certain” (theologice certa) to, at times, “proximate to

faith” (fidei proxima) or even “doctrine of the faith” (doctrina fidei)36 .

Apparently, then, until recent decades no theologian or canonist con-

sidered that it was a matter of a simple law of the Church.

In some writers of the Middle Ages however there was a certain
hesitancy, reported by Saint Bonaventure without adopting it himself37

and noted also by Joannes Teutonicus in his gloss on Caus. 27, q. 1,

c. 23 38 . This hesitancy stemmed from the knowledge that in the past
there had been deaconesses: had they received true sacramental ordi-

nation? This problem has been brought up again very recently. It was

by no means unknown to the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theo-

logians, who had an excellent knowledge of the history of literature. In
any case, it is a question that must be taken up fully by direct study

of the texts, without preconceived ideas; hence the Sacred Congregation

for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that it should be kept for the

future and not touched upon in the present document.

The attitude of Christ

In the light of tradition, then, it seems that the essential reason

moving the Church to call only men to the sacrament of Order and
to the strictly priestly ministry is her intention to remain faithful to

the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and care-

fully maintained by the Apostles. It is therefore no surprise that in the

controversy there has been a careful examination of the facts and

texts of the New Testament, in which tradition has seen an example
establishing a norm. This brings us to a fundamental observation: we
must not expect the New Testament on its own to resolve in a clear
fashion the question of the possibility of women acceding to the
priesthood, in the same way that it does not on its own enable us to
give an account of certain sacraments, and especially of the structure

of the sacrament of Order. Keeping to the sacred text alone and to

the points of the history of Christian origins that can be obtained by

analyzing that text by itself would be to go back four centuries and

find oneself once more amid the controversies of the Reformation.

We cannot omit the study of tradition: it is the Church that scrutinizes
the Lord's thought by reading Scripture, and it is the Church that

gives witness to the correctness of its interpretation.

It is tradition that has unceasingly set forth as an expression of

Christ’s will the fact that he chose only men to form the group of
Twelve. There is no disputing this fact, but can it be proved with

24



absolute certainty that it was a question of a deliberate decision by

Christ? It is understandable that the partisans of a change in discipline

bring all their efforts to bear against the significance of this fact.

In particular, they object that, if Christ did not bring women into the
group of the Twelve, it was because the prejudices of his time did

not allow him to: it would have been an imprudence that would have

compromised his work irreparably. However, it has to be recognized

that Jesus did not shrink from other “imprudences”, which did in fact

stir up the hostility of his fellow citizens against him, especially his

freedom with regard to the rabbinical interpretations of the Sabbath.

With regard to women his attitude was a complete innovation: all the
commentators recognize that he went against many prejudices, and the

facts that are noted add up to an impressive total.

For this reason greater stress is laid today on another objection: if

Jesus chose only men to form the group of the Twelve, it was because
he intended them to be a symbol representing the ancestors of the

twelve tribes of Israel (“You who have followed me will also sit on
twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel”: Mt 19:28; cf. Lk

22:30); and this special motive, it is added, obviously referred only to the

Twelve and would be no proof that the apostolic ministry should there-

after always be reserved to men. It is not a convincing argument. We
may note in the first place how little importance was given to this
symbolism: Mark and John do not mention it. And in Matthew and Luke

this phrase of Jesus about the twelve tribes of Israel is not put in the

context of the call of the Twelve (Mt 10:1-4) but at a relatively late

stage of Jesus’ public life, when the Apostles have long since been
given their “constitution”; they have been called by Jesus, have worked

with him and been sent on missions. Furthermore, the symbolism of Mt

19:28 and Lk 22:30 is not as certain as is claimed: the number
twelve could designate simply the whole of Israel. Finally, these two

texts deal only with a particular aspect of the mission of the Twelve:

Jesus is promising them that they will take part in the eschatological
judgment39 . Therefore the essential meaning of their being chosen
is not to be sought in this symbolism but in the totality of the mission
given them by Jesus: “he appointed twelve; they were to be his com-
panions and to be sent out to preach” (Mk 3:14). As Jesus before
them, the Twelve were above all to preach the Good News (Mk 3:14;
6:12). Their mission in Galilee (Mk 6:7-13) was to become the model of
the universal mission (Mk 12:10; cf. Mt. 28:16-20). Within the mes-
sianic people the Twelve represent Jesus. That is the real reason why
it is fitting that the Apostles should be men: they act in the name of
Christ and must continue his work.

It has been described above how Pope Innocent III saw a witness
to Christ’s intentions in the fact that Christ did not communicate to

25



his Mother, in spite of her eminent dignity, the powers which he gave

to the Apostles. This is one of the arguments most frequently repeat-

ed by tradition: from as early as the third century the Fathers present

Mary as the example of the will of Jesus in this matter40 . It is an

argument still particularly dear to Eastern Christians today. Neverthe-

less it is vigorously rejected by all those who plead in favor of the
ordination of women. Mary's divine motherhood, the manner in which
she was associated with the redeeming work of her Son, they say,
put her in an altogether exceptional and unique position; and it would

not even be fair to her to compare her with the Apostles and to
argue from the fact that she was not ranked among them. In point
of fact these assertions do have the advantage of making us under-

stand that there are different functions within the Church: the equality

of Christians is in harmony with the complementary nature of their
tasks, and the sacramental ministry is not the only rank of greatness,

nor is it necessarily the highest: it is a form of service of the Kingdom.

The Virgin Mary does not need the increase in “dignity” that was once

attributed to her by the authors of those speculations on the priest-

hood of Mary that formed a deviant tendency which was soon dis-

credited.

The practice of the Apostles

The text of the Declaration stresses the fact that, in spite of the

privileged place Mary had in the Upper Room after the Ascension, she
was not designated for entry into the College of the Twelve at the time

of the election of Matthias. The same holds for Mary Magdalen and
the other women who nevertheless had been the first to bring news of
the Resurrection. It is true that the Jewish mentality did not accord

great value to the witness of women, as is shown by Jewish law. But
one must also note that the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of

Saint Paul stress the role of women in evangelization and in instruct-
ing individual converts. The Apostles were led to take a revolutionary

decision when they had to go beyond the circle of a Jewish com-
munity and undertake the evangelization of the Gentiles. The break

with Mosaic observances was not made without discord. Paul had no
scruples about choosing one of his collaborators, Titus, from among
the Gentile converts (Gal 2:3). The most spectacular expression of the

change which the Good News made on the mentality of the first Chris-
tians is to be found precisely in the Letter to the Galatians: “For as

many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:27-

28). In spite of this, the Apostles did not entrust to women the strictly
apostolic ministry, although Hellenistic civilization did not have the

same prejudices against them as did Judaism. It is rather a ministry

26



which is of another order, as may perhaps also be gathered from

Paul’s vocabulary, in which a difference seems to be implied between

“my fellow workers" (synergoi mou) and “God's fellow workers"

(Theou synergoi)41 .

It must be repeated that the texts of the New Testament, even on

such important points as the sacraments, do not always give all the

light that one would wish to find in them. Unless the value of un-

written traditions is admitted, it is sometimes difficult to discover in

Scripture entirely explicit indications of Christ’s will. But in view of the

attitude of Jesus and the practice of the Apostles as seen in the

Gospels, the Acts and the Letters, the Church has not held that she

is authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.

Permanent value of this practice

It is the permanency of this negative decision that is objected to

by those who would have the legitimacy of ordaining women admitted.
These objections employ arguments of great variety.

The most classic ones seek a basis in historical circumstances. We
have already seen what is to be thought of the view that Jesus’ atti-

tude was inspired solely by prudence, because he did not want to

risk compromising his work by going against social prejudices. It is

claimed that the same prudence was forced upon the Apostles. On
this point too it is clear from the history of the apostolic period that

there is no foundation for this explanation. However, in the case of

the Apostles, should one not take into account the way in which they

themselves shared these prejudices? Thus Saint Paul has been accused

of misogyny and in his Letters are found texts on the inferiority of

women that are the subject of controversy among exegetes and theolo-
gians today.

It can be questioned whether two of Paul’s most famous texts on

women are authentic or should rather be seen as interpolations, per-
haps even relatively late ones. The first is 1 Cor 14:34-35: “The

women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted
to speak, but should be subordinate as even the Law says". These

two verses, apart from being missing in some important manuscripts
and not being found quoted before the end of the second century,

present stylistic peculiarities foreign to Paul. The other text is 1 Tim
2:11-14: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over
men". The Pauline authenticity of this text is often questioned, al-
though the arguments are weaker.

However, it is of little importance whether these texts are authentic

or not: theologians have made abundant use of them to explain that
women cannot receive either the power of magisterium or that of jur-

27



isdiction. It was especially the text of 1 Timothy that provided Saint

Thomas with the proof that woman is in a state of submission or
service, since (as the text explains) woman was created after man and
was the person first responsible for original sin. But there are other

Pauline texts of unquestioned authenticity that affirm that “the head

of the woman is the man” (1 Cor 11:3; cf. 8-12; Eph 5:22, 24). It
may be asked whether this view of man, which is in line with that of
the books of the Old Testament, is not at the basis of Paul’s convic-

tion and the Church’s tradition that women cannot receive the ministry.
Now this is a view that modern society rejects absolutely, and many
present-day theologians would shrink from adopting it without qualify-

ing it. We may note however that Paul does not take his stand on a
philosophical level but on that of biblical history: when he describes,

in relation to marriage, the symbolism of love, he does not see man’s

superiority as domination but as a gift demanding sacrifice, in the

image of Christ.

On the other hand there are prescriptions in Paul’s writings which
are unanimously admitted to have been transitory, such as the obliga-

tion he imposed on women to wear a veil (1 Cor 11:2-16). It is true
that these are obviously disciplinary practices of minor importance,

perhaps inspired by the customs of the time. But then there arises

the more basic question: since the Church has later been able to

abandon prescriptions contained in the New Testament, why should
it not be the same with the exclusion of women from ordination? Here
we meet once again the essential principle that it is the Church herself
that, in the different sectors of her life, ensures discernment between

what can change and what must remain immutable. As the Declara-

tion specifies, “When she judges that she cannot accept certain changes,
it is because she knows that she is bound by Christ’s manner of act-

ing. Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism

but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light. The Church

makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord’s promise and the pres-

ence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery of

Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content.”

Many of the questions confronting the Church as a result of the
numerous arguments put forward in favor of the ordination of women
must be considered in the light of this principle. An example is the fol-

lowing question dealt with by the Declaration: why will the Church

not change her discipline, since she is aware of having a certain

power over the sacraments, even though they were instituted by Christ,

in order to determine the sign or to fix the conditions for their admin-

istration? This faculty remains limited, as was recalled by Pius XII,

echoing the Council of Trent: the Church has no power over the

substance of the sacraments42 . It is the Church herself that must dis-

28



tinguish what forms part of the “substance of the sacraments” and

what she can determine or modify if circumstances should so suggest.

On this point, furthermore, we must remember, as the Declaration

reminds us, that the sacraments and the Church herself are closely tied

to history, since Christianity is the result of an event: the coming of

the Son of God into time and to a country, and his death on the Cross

under Pontius Pilate outside the walls of Jerusalem. The sacraments

are a memorial of saving events. For this reason their signs are linked

to those very events. They are relative to one civilization, one culture,

although destined to be reproduced everywhere until the end of time.

Hence historical choices have taken place by which the Church is

bound, even if speaking absolutely and on a speculative level other

choices could be imagined. This, for instance, is the case with bread

and wine as matter for the Eucharist, for the Mass is not just a frat-

ernal meal but the renewal of the Lord’s Supper and the memorial of

his Passion and thus linked with something done in history43 .

It has likewise been remarked that in the course of time the Church

has agreed to confer on women certain ministerial functions that
antiquity refused to give them in the very name of the example and

will of Christ. The functions spoken of are above all the administration

of baptism, teaching and certain forms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

As regards baptism, however, not even deaconesses in the Syriac-

speaking East were permitted to administer it, and its solemn admin-

istration is still a hierarchical act reserved to bishop, priest and, in

accessory fashion, deacon. When urgently required, baptism can be
conferred not only by Christians but even by unbaptized people whether

men or women. Its validity therefore does not require the baptismal
character, still less that of ordination. This point is affirmed by prac-

tice and by theologians. It is an example of this necessary discernment

in the Church’s teaching and practice, a discernment whose only guar-
antee is the Church herself.

As regards teaching, a classical distinction has to be made, from

Paul’s Letters onwards. There are forms of teaching or edification that

lay people can carry out and in this case Saint Paul expressly men-

tions women. These forms include the charisms of “prophecy” (1 Cor
11:15). In this sense there was no obstacle to giving the title of Doctor
to Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena, as it was given to illustrious
teachers such as Albert the Great or Saint Laurence of Brindisi. Quite

a different matter is the official and hierarchical function of teaching

the revealed message, a function that presupposes the mission re-

ceived from Christ by the Apostles and transmitted by them to their
successors.

29



Examples of participation by women in ecclesiastical jurisdiction are
found in the Middle Ages: some abbesses (not abbesses in general, as
is sometimes said in popularizing articles) performed acts normally re-

served to bishops, such as the nomination of parish priests or con-

fessors. These customs have been more or less reproved by the Holy

See at different periods: the letter of Pope Innocent III quoted earlier

was intended as a reprimand to the Abbess of Las Huelgas. But we must
not forget that feudal lords arrogated to themselves similar rights. Can-

onists also admitted the possibility of separating jurisdiction from

Order. The Second Vatican Council has tried to determine better the

relationship between the two; the Council's doctrinal vision will doubt-

less have effects on discipline.

In a more general way, attempts are being made, especially in

Anglican circles, to broaden the debate in the following way: is the

Church perhaps bound to Scripture and tradition as an absolute, when

the Church is a people making its pilgrim way and should listen to

what the Spirit is saying? Or else a distinction is made between essen-
tial points on which unanimity is needed and questions of discipline ad-

mitting of diversity: and if the conclusion reached is that the ordina-

tion of women belongs to these secondary matters, it would not harm
progress towards the union of the Churches. Here again it is the

Church that decides by her practice and Magisterium what requires

unanimity, and distinguishes it from acceptable or desirable pluralism.

The question of the ordination of women impinges too directly on the
nature of the ministerial priesthood for one to agree that it should

be resolved within the framework of legitimate pluralism between

Churches. That is the whole meaning of the letter of Pope Paul VI to

the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The ministerial priesthood in the light of the mystery of Christ

In the Declaration a very clear distinction will be seen between the

document’s affirmation of the datum (the teaching it proposes with

authority in the preceding paragraphs) and the theological reflection

that then follows. By this reflection the Sacred Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith endeavors “to illustrate this norm by showing

the profound fittingness” to be found “between the proper nature of the

sacrament of Order, with its specific reference to the mystery of

Christ, and the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly
ordination”. In itself such a quest is not without risk. However, it does

not involve the Magisterium. It is well known that in solemn teaching

infallibility affects the doctrinal affirmation, not the arguments in-

tended to explain it. Thus the doctrinal chapters of the Council of

Trent contain certain processes of reasoning that today no longer seem

to hold. But this risk has never stopped the Magisterium from endeavor-

30



ing at all times to clarify doctrine by analogies of faith. Today espe-

cially, and more than ever, it is impossible to be content with making

statements, with appealing to the intellectual docility of Christians:

faith seeks understanding, and tries to distinguish the grounds for

and the coherence of what it is taught.

We have already discarded a fair number of explanations given by
mediaeval theologians. The defect common to these explanations is

that they claimed to find their basis in an inferiority of women vis-a-vis

men; they deduced from the teaching of Scripture that woman was

“in a state of submission”, of subjection, and was incapable of ex-

ercising functions of government.

It is very enlightening to note that the communities springing from

the Reformation which have had no difficulty in giving women access

to the pastoral office are first and foremost those that have rejected

the Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of Order and profess that the

pastor is only one baptized person among others, even if the charge

given has been the object of a consecration. The Declaration therefore

suggests that it is by analyzing the nature of Order and its character

that we will find the explanation of the exclusive call of men to the

priesthood and episcopate. This analysis can be outlined in three

propositions: 1) in administering the sacraments that demand the char-

acter of ordination the priest does not act in his own name (in persona
propria), but in the person of Christ (in persona Christi); 2) this form-

ula, as understood by tradition, implies that the priest is a sign in

the sense in which this term is understood in sacramental theology;

3) it is precisely because the priest is a sign of Christ the Savior that

he must be a man and not a woman.

That the priest performs the Eucharist and reconciles sinners in the

name and place of Christ is affirmed repeatedly by the Magisterium
and constantly taught by Fathers and theologians. It would not appear

to serve any useful purpose to give a multitude of quotations to show
this. It is the totality of the priestly ministry that Saint Paul says is

exercised in the place of Christ: “We are acting as ambassadors on
behalf of Christ, God, as it were, appealing through us”—in fact this
text from 2 Corinthians has in mind the ministry of reconciliation

(5:18-20)
—

“you have received me as an angel of God, even as Christ
Jesus” (Gal 4:14). Similarly Saint Cyprian echoes Saint Paul: “The
priest truly acts in the place of Christ” 44 . But theological reflection

and the Church’s life have been led to distinguish the more or less
close links between the various acts in the exercise of the ministry

and the character of ordination and to specify which require this char-
acter for validity.

Saying “in the name and place of Christ” is not however enough

31



to express completely the nature of the bond between the minister and

Christ as understood by tradition. The formula in persona Christi in

fact suggests a meaning that brings it close to the Greek expression

mimema Christou 45 . The word persona means a part played in the an-
cient theatre, a part identified by a particular mask. The priest takes

the part of Christ, lending him his voice and gestures. Saint Thomas
expresses this concept exactly: “The priest enacts the image of Christ,

in whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of

consecration" 46 . The priest is thus truly a sign in the sacramental sense

of the word. It would be a very elementary view of the sacraments if

the notion of sign were kept only for material elements. Each sacra-

ment fulfills the notion in a different way. The text of Saint Bonaven-

ture already mentioned affirms this very clearly: “the person or-

dained is a sign of Christ the mediator"47 . Although Saint Thomas
gave as the reason for excluding women the much discussed one of
the state of subjection (status subiectionis), he nevertheless took as

his starting point the principle that “sacramental signs represent what

they signify by a natural resemblance" 48
,

in other words the need for

that "natural resemblance" between Christ and the person who is his
sign. And, still on the same point, Saint Thomas recalls: “Since a
sacrament is a sign, what is done in the sacrament requires not only

the reality but also a sign of the reality" 49 .

It would not accord with “natural resemblance", with that obvious

“meaningfulness", if the memorial of the Supper were to be car-

ried out by a woman; for it is not just the recitation involving the ges-
tures and words of Christ, but an action, and the sign is efficacious

because Christ is present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist,
as is taught by the Second Vatican Council, following the Encyclical

Mediator Dei50 .

It is understandable that those favoring the ordination of women
have made various attempts to deny the value of this reasoning. It
has obviously been impossible and even unnecessary for the Declara-

tion to consider in detail all the difficulties that could be raised in

this regard. Some of them however are of interest in that they occa-
sion a deeper theological understanding of traditional principles. Let

us look at the objection sometimes raised that it is ordination—the
character—not maleness, that makes the priest Christ's representa-
tive. Obviously it is the character, received by ordination, that enables

the priest to consecrate the Eucharist and reconcile penitents. But the

character is spiritual and invisible (res et sacramentum). On the level
of the sign (sacramentum tantum) the priest must both have received

the laying on of hands and take the part of Christ. It is here that Saint

Thomas and Saint Bonaventure require that the sign should have
natural meaningfulness.

32



In various fairly recent publications attempts have been made to

reduce the importance of the formula in persona Christi by insisting

rather on the formula in persona Ecclesiae. For it is another great

principle of the theology of the sacraments and liturgy that the priest

presides over the liturgy in the name of the Church, and must have

the intention of “doing what the Church does”. Could one say that the

priest does not represent Christ, because he first represents the

Church by the fact of his ordination? The Declaration’s reply to this

objection is that, quite on the contrary, the priest represents the Church

precisely because he first represents Christ himself, who is the Head

and Shepherd of the Church. It indicates several texts of the Second

Vatican Council that clearly express this teaching. Here there may well

be in fact one of the crucial points of the question, one of the important

aspects of the theology of the Church and the priesthood underlying

the debate on the ordination of women. When the priest precides over
the assembly, it is not the assembly that has chosen or designated him

for this role. The Church is not a spontaneous gathering. As its name
of ecclesia indicates, it is an assembly that is convoked. It is Christ

who calls it together. He is the head of the Church, and the priest
presides “in the person of Christ the Head” (in persona Christi capitis).

That is why the Declaration rightly concludes “that the controversies
raised in our days over the ordination of women are for all Christians a
pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of the Church, to study

in greater detail the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood, and

to rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the com-

munity of the baptized, of which he indeed forms part but from which

he is distinguished because, in the actions that call for the character

of ordination, for the community he is—with all the effectiveness
proper to the sacraments—the image and symbol of Christ himself who
calls, forgives, and accomplishes the sacrifice of the Covenant.”

However, the objectors continue: it would indeed be important that

Christ should be represented by a man if the maleness of Christ played
an essential part in the economy of salvation. But, they say, one can-
not accord gender a special place in the hypostatic union: what is

essential is the human nature—no more—assumed by the Word, not
the incidental characteristics such as the sex or even the race which he

assumed. If the Church admits that men of all races can validly rep-
resent Christ, why should she deny women this ability to represent
him? We must first of all reply, in the words of the Declaration, that
ethnic differences “do not affect the human person as intimately as the
difference of sex”. On this point biblical teaching agrees with modern
psychology. The difference between the sexes however, is something
willed by God from the beginning, according to the account in Genesis
(which is also quoted in the Gospel), and is directed both to com-
munion between persons and to the begetting of human beings. And

33



it must be affirmed first and foremost that the fact that Christ is a
man and not a woman is neither incidental nor unimportant in rela-
tion to the economy of salvation. In what sense? Not of course in the
material sense, as has sometimes been suggested in polemics in order

to discredit it, but because the whole economy of salvation has been
revealed to us through essential symbols from which it cannot be sep-

arated, and without which we would be unable to understand God’s
design. Christ is the new Adam. God's covenant with men is pre-
sented in the Old Testament as a nuptial mystery, the definitive reality

of which is Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. The Declaration briefly pre-

sents the stages marking the progressive development of this biblical

theme, the subject of many exegetical and theological studies. Christ
is the Bridegroom of the Church, whom he won for himself with his
blood, and the salvation brought by him is the New Covenant: by using
this language, Revelation shows why the Incarnation took place ac-
cording to the male gender, and makes it impossible to ignore this
historical reality. For this reason, only a man can take the part of
Christ, be a sign of his presence, in a word “represent” him (that is,

be an effective sign of his presence) in the essential acts of the Cov-

enant.

Could one do without this biblical symbolism when transmitting the
message, in contemplating the mystery and in liturgical life? To ask

this, as has been done in certain recent studies, is to call into ques-

tion the whole structure of Revelation and to reject the value of Scrip-

ture. It will be said, for example, that “in every period the ecclesial

community appeals to the authority it has received from its founder

in order to choose the images enabling it to receive God’s revelation.”

This is perhaps to fail even more profoundly to appreciate the hu-

man value of the nuptial theme in the revelation of God’s love.

The ministerial priesthood in the mystery of the Church

It is also striking to note the extent to which the questions raised

in the controversy over the ordination of women are bound up with a
certain theology of the Church. We do not of course mean to dwell
on the excessive formulas which nonetheless sometimes find a place in

theological reviews. An example is the supposition that the primitive

Church was based on the charisms possessed by both women and
men51 . Another is the claim that “the Gospels also present women
as ministers of unction” 52 . On the other hand, we have already come
across the question of the pluralism that can be admitted in unity and

seen what its limits are.

The proposal that women should be admitted to the priesthood be-
cause they have gained leadership in many fields of modern life today
seems to ignore the fact that the Church is not a society like the rest.

34



In the Church, authority or power is of a very different nature, linked

as it normally is with the sacrament, as is underlined in the Dec-

laration. Disregard of this fact is indeed a temptation that has threat-

ened ecclesiological research at all periods: every time that an attempt

is made to solve the Church’s problems by comparison with those of

States, or to define the Church's structure by political categories, the

inevitable result is an impasse.

The Declaration also points out the defect in the argument that

seeks to base the demand that the priesthood be conferred on women
on the text Galations 3:28, which states that in Christ there is no

longer any distinction between man and woman. For Saint Paul this
is the effect of baptism. The baptismal catechesis of the Fathers often

stressed it. But absolute equality in baptismal life is quite a different

thing from the structure of the ordained ministry. This latter is the

object of a vocation within the Church, not a right inherent in the

person.

A vocation within the Church does not consist solely or primarily

in the fact that one manifests the desire for a mission or feels attracted

by an inner compulsion. Even if this spontaneous step is made and
even if one believes one has heard as it were a call in the depths of

one’s soul, the vocation is authentic only from the moment that it is
authenticated by the external call of the Church. The Holy Office re-

called this truth in its 1912 letter to the Bishop of Aire to put an end

to the Lahitton controversy53 . Christ chose “those he wanted’’ (Mk
3:13).

Since the ministerial priesthood is something to which the Lord

calls expressly and gratuitously, it cannot be claimed as a right, any

more by men than by women. Archbishop Bernardin’s declaration of
October 1975 contained the sound judgment: “It would be a mistake
. . . to reduce the question of the ordination of women to one of in-
justice, as is done at times. It would be correct to do this only if ordina-

tion were a God-given right of every individual: only if somehow one’s
human potential could not be fulfilled without it. In fact, however, no
one, male or female, can claim a ‘right’ to ordination. And, since the

episcopal and priestly office is basically a ministry of service, ordination

in no way ‘completes’ one’s humanity”54 .

The Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith ends by suggesting that efforts in two directions should be fos-
tered, efforts from which the pastors and faithful of the Church would
perhaps be distracted if this controversy over women’s ordination were
prolonged. One direction is in the doctrinal and spiritual order: aware-
ness of the diversity of roles in the Church, in which equality is not
identity, should lead us—as Saint Paul exhorts us—to strive after the

35



one gift that can and should be striven after, namely love (1 Cor 12-13).

“The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the

saints”, says the Declaration. This expression deserves to be taken as

a motto.

The other direction for our efforts is in the apostolic and social order.

We have a long way to go before people become fully aware of the great-
ness of women's mission in the Church and society, “both for the

renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by be-

lievers of the true countenance of the Church”. Unfortunately we also
still have a long way to go before all the inequalities of which women
are still the victims are eliminated, not only in the field of public, pro-

fessional and intellectual life, but even within the family.

NOTES
1 Note especially: J. E. HAVEL, La question du pastorat feminin en Suede

,

in Archives de sociologie des religions

,

4, 1959, pp. 207-249; F. R. RE-
FOULE, Le probleme des femmes-pretres en Suede, in Lumiere et Vie, 43,
1959, pp. 65-99.

2 No. 22 (W. NISEL, Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen . . . ,
Munchen, 1939, p. Ill): “quod . . . foeminis, quae Spiritus sanctus ne
docere quidem in Ecclesia patitur, illi [papistae] permittunt ut etiam Bap-
tismum administrarent”.

3 The position of the Catholic Church on this point was made clear by
Leo XIII in the Letter Apostolicae Curae of September 13, 1896 (Leonis
XIII Acta, 16, 1897, pp. 258-275).

4
Earlier, in 1944, his predecessor Bishop Hall called a woman to the

priesthood, but she had to refrain from exercising the ministry because of
the energetic intervention of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, who
for ecumenical motives repudiated the action of the Bishop of Hong Kong.

5 Letter of July 9, 1975 to the Pope, in L’Osservatore Romano (English
edition), September 2, 1976.

6 Cardinal Willebrands stated this to some United States Episcopal
Bishops in September 1974, according to the account published in Origins
—NC Documentary Service, October 9, 1975.

7
Italian translation published in L’Osservatore Romano, June 16-17,

1975.
8 Letters of Paul VI to Dr. Coggan, November 30, 1975 and February 10,

1976: cf. AAS 68(1976), pp. 599-601.
9 At the WCC's Assembly in New Delhi in 1961, the Department on Faith

and Order was asked to prepare, in collaboration with the Department on
Cooperation of Men and Women in Church, Family and Society, a study on
the theological questions raised by the problem of women's ordination (cf.
Nouvelle-Delhi 1961, Neuchatel, 1962, pp. 166, 169). On the discussion of
the problem at the Nairobi Assembly, see E. LANNE, Points chauds de la
Ve Assemblee mondial du Conseil oecumenique des Eglises a Nairobi . . . ,
in Revue theologique de Louvain, 7, 1976, pp. 197-199: Les Femmes dans
I'Eglise.

10 Second Vatican Council, Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, 9.
11 This intrusion of sociology into hermeneutics and theology is perhaps

one of the most important elements in the controversy. This has been
rightly stressed by B. LAMBERT, L’Eglise catholique peut-elle admettre des
femmes a I'ordination sacerdotale, in Documentation Catholique 73, 1976,
p. 774: “en corrigeant dans (’interpretation de la Tradition et de I’Ecriture
ce qui etait lie a des formes socio-culturelles, historiquement necessaires
et conditionnees, mais aujourd'hui depassees, a la lumiere de revolution
de la societe et de L’Eglise’’.

36



,2 The very phrase (reported in Le Monde of September 19-20, 1965)
used by J. DANIELOU during the Council at a meeting of the Alliance In-
ternationale Jeanne d’Arc. He returned to the subject, introducing perhaps
more shades of meaning, in the interview he gave at the time of his
promotion to Cardinal, L’Express, 936, 16-22 June 1969, pp. 122, 124:
“II faudrait examiner ou sont les vraies raisons qui font que I’Eglise n’a
jamais envisage le sacerdoce des femmes.”

13 Origins—NC Documentary Service , October 16, 1975: “Honesty and
concern for the Catholic community . . . require that Church leaders not
seem to encourage unreasonable hopes and expectations, even by their
silence. Therefore I am obliged to restate the Church’s teaching that women
are not to be ordained to the priesthood.”

14 AAS 67 (1975), p. 265.
15 Letter of November 30, 1975: AAS 63(1976), p. 599.
16

Cf., for example, the theological conversations between Catholics
and Russian Orthodox at Trent, June 23-28, 1975: L’Osservatore Romano,
July 7-8, 1975: Documentation Catholique, 71, 1975, p. 707.

17
1, 13, 2: PG 7, col. 580-581; Harvey edition 1, 114-122.

16
41, 5: CCL 1, p. 221.

19
In the Letters of Saint Cyprian, 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818.

20 Fragments published in Journal of Theological Studies , 10 (1909),
pp. 41-42 (No. 74).

21 Panarion, 49, 2-3: GCS 31, pp. 243-244;—78, 23 and 79, 2-4; GCS
37, pp. 473, 477-479.

22
St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae , p.10, a. 12; 3a pars, q.66, a. 10;

q.72, a.4 and a. 12; q.73, a.4; q.78, a.3 and a. 6; q.80, a. 12; q.82, a. 2; q.83,
a.3 and a. 5;—cf. In IV Sent. Dist. 20, q.l, a.4, q.a 1 ff; Dist. 23, q.l, a.4,
q. a 1, etc.

23
St. Thomas, In IV Sent. Dist. 19, q.l, a 1 q a 3 ad 4um ; Dist. 25, q.2,

a.l, qa 1; cf. q.2, a. 2, q a 1, ad 4; Summa Theol., 2a 2ae , q. 177, a. 2.
24 Dictum Gratiani in Caus. 34, q.5, c.ll, ed. FRIEDBERG, t. 1, col.

1254; cf. R. METZ, La femme en droit canonique medieval, in Recueil de
la societe Jean Bodin, 12, 1962, pp. 59-113.

25 Canon 44 of the collection called after the Council of Laodicea; H. T.
BRUNS, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum . . . t. 1, Bertolini 1839,
p. 78; St. Gelasius, Epist. 14, ad universos episcopos per Lucaniam,
Brutios et Siciliam constitutos, March 11, 494, no. 26: A. THIEL, Epistolae
Romanorum pontificum . . . , t. 1, Brunsbergae, 1868, p. 376.

26 Chap. 15: ed. R. H. Connolly, pp. 133 and 142.
27

Lib. 3, c.6, nn.1-2; c.9, 3-4; ed. F. X. Funk, pp. 191, 201.
28 Can. 24-28;—Greek text in F. X. FUNK, Doctrina Duodecim Aposto-

lorum, Tubingen, 1887, p. 71; T. SCHERMANN, Die allgemeine Kirchen-
ordnung . . . , t. 1, Paderborn, 1914, pp. 31-33;—Syriac text in Octateuque
de Clement, Lib. 3, c. 19-20; Latin text in the Verona ms., Bibl. capit. LV,
ed. E. TIDNER, Didascaliae Apostolorum, Canonum Ecclesiasticorum, Tra-
ditionis Apostolicae Vers/ones Latinae, Berlin, 1965 (TU 75), pp. 111-113.
The Coptic, Ethiopian and Arabic versions of the Synodos have been
translated and published chiefly by G. HORNER, The Statutes of the
Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici, Oxford University Press, 1915 (=1904).

29 De Sacerdotio 2, 2: PG 48, 633.
30 Decretal, Lib. V. tit. 38, De paenit., can. 10 Nova A. FRIEDBERG, t.

2, col. 886-887: Quia licet beatissima Virgo Maria dignior et excellentior
fuerit Apostolis universis, non tamen illi, sed istis Dominus claves regni
caelorum commisit.

31
e.g., Glossa in Decretal. Lib. 1, tit. 33, c.12 Dilecta, V° lurisdictioni.

32
In IV Sent., Dist. 25, art. 2, q.l : ed. Quaracchi, t.4, p. 649: Dicendum

est quod hoc non venit tarn ex institutione Ecclesiae, quam ex hoc quod
eis competit Ordinis sacramentum. In hoc Sacramento persona quae ordi-
natur significat Christum mediatorem.

37



33
In IV Sent. Dist. 25, a.4, n°l; ed. Bocatelli, Venice, 1499 [PELLECHET

—POLAIN, 10132/9920], f° 177 R : Ratio est quod sacramenta vim habent
ex sua institutione: Christus autem hoc sacramentum instituit conferri
masculis tantum, non mulieribus.

34
In IV Sent., Dist. 25, Opus Oxoniense, ed. Vives, t. 19, p. 140; cf.

Reportata Parisiensia, ed. Vives, t. 24, pp. 369-371. Quod non est tenendum
tamquam praecise per Ecclesiam determinatum, sed habetur a Christo:
non enim Ecclesia praesumpsisset sexum muliebrem privasse sine culpa
sua actu qui posset sibi licite competere.

35
In IV Sent., Dist. 25, p. 2; ed. Venice, 1571, f° 364v : . . . sexus virilis

est de necessitate sacramenti, cuius causa principalis est institutio Christi
. . . Christus non ordinavit nisi viros . . . nec matrem s uam . . . Tenendum
est igitur quod mulieres non possunt ordinari ex institutione Christi.

36 Details of these theological notes can be found in E. DORONZO,
Tractatus Dogmaticus de Ordine, t.3, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1962, pp. 395-
396; cf. also F. HALLER, De Sachs Electionibus, 1636, quoted in J. P.
MIGNE, Theologiae Cursus Completus, t.24, col. 821-854; many present-
day objections are surprisingly anticipated in this work, which goes so far
as to qualify as periculosa in fide the opinion that would admit women’s
ordination in general, and as haeretica that which would admit them to
the priesthood, col. 824; cf. also H. TOURNELY, Praelectiones Theologicae
de Sacramento Ordinis, Parisiis, 1729, p. 185, notes as an error contra
fidem this assertion with regard to episcopate, priesthood and diaconate.
Among canonists: X. WERNZ, lus Decret., t.2, Romae, 1906, p. 124: iure
divino (he quotes several writers); P. GASPARRI, Tractatus Canonicus de
Sacra Ordinatione, t.l, Parisiis, 1893, p. 75; Et quidem prohibentur sub
poena nullitatis: ita enim traditio et communis doctorum catholicorum
doctrina interpretata est legem Apostoli: ed ideo Patres inter haereses
recensent doctrinam qua sacerdotalis dignitas et officium mulieribus tribitur.

37
St. BONAVENTURE, In IV Sent., Dist. 25, art. 2, q.l, ed. Quaracchi, t.4,

p. 650: Omnes consentiunt quod promoveri non debent, sed utrum possint,
dubium est (the doubt arises from the case of the deaconesses); he con-
cludes: secundum saniorem opinionem et prudentiorum doctorum non
solum non debent vel non possunt de iure, verum etiam non possunt de
facto.

30 This canon deals with deaconesses. At the word ordinari, Johannes
Teutonicus states: Respondeo quod mulieres non recipiunt characterem,
impediente sexu et constitutione Ecclesiae: unde nec officium ordinum ex-
ercere possunt . . . nec ordinatur haec: sed fundebatur super earn forte
aliqua benedictio, ex qua consequebatur aliquod officium speciale, forte
legendi homilias vel evangelium ad matutinas quod non licebat alii. Alii
dicunt quod si monialis ordinetur, bene recipit characterem quia ordinari
facti est et post baptismum quilibet potest ordinare.

39
Cf. J. DUPONT, Le Logion des douze trones, in Biblica, 45, 1964, pp.

355-392.
40 The documents cited in notes 26-28 above. Note also the curious

Mariale, falsely attributed to Albert the Great, quaest. 42, ed. Borgnet, t.

37, pp. 80-81.
41

I. DE LA POTTERIE, Titres missionnaires du chretien dans le Nouveau
Testament (Rapports de la XXXIeme semaine de Missiologie, Louvain,
1966), Paris, Desclee de Brouwer, 1966, p. 29-46, cf. pp. 44-45.

42 Council of Trent, sess. 21, c.2 and Pius XII, Constitution Sacramentum
Ordinis, November 30, 1947, quoted in the Declaration.

43
Cf. Ph. DELHAYE, Retrospective et prospective des ministeres fem-

inins dans TEglise, in Revue theologique de Louvain 3, 1972, pp. 74-75.
44 Epist. 63, 14: ed. Hartel, CSEL t.3, p. 713: sacerdos vice Christi vere

fungitur.
45

St. Theodore the Studite, Adversus Iconomachos cap. 4; PG 99, 593;
Epist. lib. 1, 11: PG 99, 945.

46 Summa Theol., Ill, q.83, a.l ad 3um .

38



47 Above, note 32: persona quae ordinatur significat Christum media-
torem.

48
In IV Sent., Dist. 25, q.2, a. 2, q d 1, ad 4um : signa sacramentalia ex

naturali similitudine repraesentent.
49

Ibid, in corp. quaestiunculae: Quia cum sacramentum sit signum, in
e/s quae in Sacramento aguntur requiritur non solum res, sed significatio
rei.

50
il Vatican Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum on the Liturgy, no. 7;

Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, AAS 39 (1947),
p. 528.

5
' Cf. Concilium 111, 1976, La femme dans I'Eglise, French edition,

pp. 19, 20, especially 23: “Au temps de Paul, les fonctions de direction
etaient reparties et reposaient sur I’autorite charismatique".

52 Theological Studies 36, 1975, p. 667.
53 AAS 4, 1912, p. 485.
54

In Origins—NC Documentary Service, October 16, 1975.

39