The question of women’s ordination in the Roman Catholic Church is a volatile question for any Catholic feminist, and one that opposes a definitive position the magisterial teaching of the Vatican has chosen to stand upon. Examining the Catholic magisterial teaching against the ordination of women from the perspective of feminist theologian John Wijngaards, I will seek to probe the question, “Why shouldn’t women be ordained,” questioning the ethical stance of the Church denying women ordination, through the works of Mary Daly (Gyn/Ecology), Carol Gilligan (In A Different Voice), and Beverly Harrsion (Justice in the Making). Noting the feminist ethic to equate notions of equality and justice with treatment as sameness between the sexes, for example, not preferring one to a position of ordination above the other, feminist theorists critique the ethic of differentiation within Catholic theology that appears to hierarchically order the value of men above women. Describing how Daly’s Sado-Ritual syndrome, Gilligan’s treatment of an alternative method of moral development, and Harrison’s discussion of justice coming from relationship and the idea of mutuality in human communion, I will contrast the results of each feminist perspective to the question of women’s ordination and propose a synthesis of critiques to the Catholic Church’s doctrinal positional against the ordination of women.
Examining the feminist understanding of the Vatican’s reasons why women cannot be ordained, one finds arguments against based on two Apostolic statements: Inter Insigniores issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith under Pope Paul VI in October 15, 1976 and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by Pope John Paul II on May 22, 1994. In these two documents, two theological arguments are employed to refute the ability of the Catholic Church to ordain women: the “Iconic argument” and the “argument from authority.” Laying the groundwork for feminist critique in these two arguments, I will attempt to present how proponents of women’s ordination perceive the Vatican’s arguments before addressing the specific ways Daly, Gilligan, and Harrison would respond to the same question of why women cannot be ordained.
The iconic argument is based on the embodied person of the Christ, Jesus, who came down to earth in the biological sex of a man. Pope John Paul II described the ministerial Priest as “the sacramental representation of Christ the Head and Shepherd,” This is to say that the priest is an icon of Christ the Priest that is divinely written by the Holy Spirit (cf. Catechism 1142). “Chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head,” priests serve their community as an “icon,” a physical representation of the priesthood of Christ. Presiding at the Eucharist is noted as the chief means through which the priest “icons” Christ “because the priest is the minister of Christ’s Sacrifice and of His mercy, the priest is indissolubly bound up with the two sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation.” Unable to act in persons Christi because of her gender, the Vatican rules that a woman is incapable of fulfilling the icon of Bridegroom expressed in the Bridal imagery used regarding Church’s salvific marriage to Christ. If the Church is the bride of Christ, the Vatican reasons, is it not fitting that ministerial priests should be male so as to symbolize this reality?
The second argument presented against the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is based on a historical theological argument from authority. Based on tradition, reason, and scripture the Catholic Magisterium states that it does not have the authority to ordain women to ministerial priesthood. Asserting that the priesthood was instituted at the last supper, the Magisterium prohibits women from priesthood for two reasons: The Apostles were exclusively male, and the Church must perpetuate Christ’s example in ordination. The Vatican also rests its claim that women cannot be ordained on the fact that the New Testament provides no guidance for the ordination of women. Citing this as lack of historical precedent, the Vatican also references the fact that Patristic statements indicate that women should not be ordained as evidence against its authority to ordain women.
Mary Daly’s Pattern of Sado-Ritual Syndrome as Misogynistic Dominance of Women:
The Sado-Ritual syndrome pattern demonstrates one of the misogynistic male contrivances Daly accuses male society of having dominated women with. This system is one the means, Daly claims, that male society has erased its involvement in the oppression of women and often successfully shifted the blame from male oppressive agents to female, creating a construct of misogyny of women. In Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, Daly would apply the seven elements of Sado-Ritual syndrome to discount the Vatican’s negative answer to the question of women’s ordination.
Applying the first symptom of the syndrome to the Catholic Magisterium, Daly would accuse the Vatican of relegating women to the stated of ‘victim’ by creating an environment dominated by male obsession with physical and spiritual ‘purity’ where inherently female traits (such as menstrual blood) are considered unclean. Daly’s view of the all-male Magisterium where women have no voice in the hierarchy would cite Patristic biology, based off the male anatomy, as reason for denying women leadership. Judged to be inferior to men, in a state of punishment for sin because of Eve’s participation in the Fall, women are smothered under masculine control .
“The second element is the total erasure of personal responsibility for the atrocities performed by such rituals.” In stating such, Daly communicates the perceptions of the men themselves who are doing the abusing, committing “castrating” atrocities to women: delusional, imagining they are acting on the behalf of a divine command, those who initiate ‘purifying’ atrocities against women unconsciously separate their personal sensibilities from the role which permits them to terrorize women. Prohibiting women from enacting perceived calls to the priesthood, the Vatican robs women of their own ability to approach God without the mediatorship of man.
“Third, gynocidal ritual practices have an inherent tendency to ‘catch on’ and spread,” through an appeal to imaginations within patriarchal domination. Framing this premise within a hierarchical structure, Daly suggests patriarchal imagination inspires a desire amongst the laity for increased hierarchical power through repetition of elitist practices. Since Daly theorizes that atrocities against women begin at the highest level of society which subscribe devoutly to hierarchical authority, she assumes while the lower echelons of society will only allow the free exercise of priest-like leadership among women for a certain amount of time before mimicking these abuses in the belief that by such actions lower class males can gain elite status.”
“Fourth, women are used as scapegoats and token torturers” to further disguise male intention and involvement in the actual horrors committed against women, crippling womanhood further by castrating the fruitfulness of female-to-female relationships. Employing women to do the dirty work, men disguise the legalistic propagation of an all-male hierarchy through those women who are manipulated to rebut their own sisters. Creating a polarity between women on the ordination issue, use of women as token figures of male-contrived destruction isolates women from one another, preventing an effective demand for the priestly office. “Fifth, we find compulsive orderliness, obsessive repetitiveness, and fixation upon minute details which divert attention from the horror.” Daly describes this element of the sado-ritual system as a misdirection of emphasis from the victim women’s pain and distress to issues of purity. Instead of being able to focus on the cause of justice for male/female equal authority, orthodox belief as a matter of purity is presented as opposing feminist perception of justice.
“Sixth, behavior which at other times and places is unacceptable becomes acceptable and even normative as a consequence of conditioning through the ritual atrocity.” Having noted the Vatican’s opposition of orthodox belief to equal rights, Daly says that these cause a splitting of the consciousness into false opposites. Though the denial of equal rights to men and women may once have been personally perceived as an atrocity, the repetition of such a practice in hierarchical office creates a duality of rights: personal desire for what is good, and external imposition that ‘good’ is whatever the ritual dictates good to be; in this case, the subjugation and mutilation of woman into silence by men.
Finally, Daly states that “a legitimization of the ritual by the rituals of ‘objective’ scholarship—despite appearances of disapproval.” Daly states that the Sado-ritual is legitimized not by questioning cultural assumptions, but by ignoring the reality of atrocities committed within the ritual. This final element of the Sado-ritual system is the abstraction of the masked atrocity from tangible abuse to abstract, ‘objective’ truth, which is assimilated back into the repetition of the ritual system. Daly’s contribution of the Sado-ritual system to Catholic Theology on why women cannot be ordained permits a rejection of the theology as misogyny. While Daly analyzes the appearance of the theology versus the reasons the Vatican claims it was developed, her application of the Sado-ritual syndrome to Magisterial teaching directly supports feminist theology in favor of women’s ordination.
Carol Gilligan’s System of Moral Development from an Ethic of Care:
Based on her study of women’s decision making processes regarding abortion, Carol Gilligan’s In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Woman’s Development offers a system of moral development in women through an ethic of care to the question of why women should not be ordained. In developing the ethic of care in regard to the issue of women’s ordination, I will examine a potential process for a woman who desires to receive ordination.
Through shifting perspectives of morality, or the development of moral position, the ethic of care evolves from an initial place of selfishness, i.e. what is best for me. Self preservation being the natural state of human beings from which to consider moral issues (“preconventional”), selfishness is the first stage in which Gilligan hypothesizes people develop an ethic of interaction. At this point in the reasoning of the ordination issue, an individual is simply thinking about herself, equating what is good with her own desire to be ordained, or her position in support of ordination as the right position to advocate. Directing her care entirely towards her own position, an individual remains fixated at the first state of development (selfishness) until a transition in her thinking begins.
The transition between the first stage (selfishness) and the second stage (goodness) is the recognition of relationship with others. Once responsibility becomes concerned first with the well-being of others, self-preservation is a selfish in comparison to attachment to others in light of social participation. Goodness becomes defined as what is best for another, and the self understands its own worth and moral quality based on how well it is able to care and protect for others. Finding the epitome of goodness in care for others, identified through societal values (“conventional”), the woman initially inclined to advocate a favorable position towards women’s ordination feels compelled to adopt the value of self-sacrifice motivated out of a responsibility not to others. Since Catholic Magisterial teaching conventionalizes the receptivity of women, a woman becomes torn between her independent desire for leadership and the expectation that she will support male leadership. As Gilligan puts it, “the logic of this position is confused in that the morality of mutual care is embedded in the psychology of dependence,” when a woman is paralyzed between “passivity of dependence and the activity of care. ”
The second transition occurs when a woman, scrutinizing her application of care in relationship of self and of other, realizes the contradiction to a morality of care, involving the harming of self in order to benefit the other. Realizing a responsibility for herself as well as for herself, a woman shifts the basis of her moral decisions and judgments from principles of goodness to principles of truth. The third stage of the development of an ethic of care is “postconventional,” defining moral decision-making as encompassing both the needs of the individual as well as others. Personal advocacy of women’s ordination is no longer regarded as “selfish,” but also right and fair. Rejecting the concepts of self-sacrifice as “immoral in their power to hurt,” a woman’s reasoning of moral equality between self and other complicates her decision-making process, which has the potential to devolve into a utilitarian ethic.
Gilligan’s development of the ethic of care in decision-making through three stages poses the possibility of a “gray” (neither absolutely right or wrong) position in regards to the position of women’s ordination. Recognizing that “uncertainty about her own worth prevents a woman from claiming equality,” Gilligan’s development of moral reasoning through care evidences the need for a healthy perception of self and others when discerning a stance in the issue of women’s ordination. Release “from the intimidation of inequality finally allows women to express a judgment that had previously been withheld,” allows a woman in favors of ordination to freely express this, rejecting violence perceived as inherent within inequality.
Applying Harrison’s New Paradigm of Sexuality to the Question of Women’s Ordination:
Referring to Christianity’s implication in “antisensual, antiwoman praxis,” Harrison identifies “old paradigm” teaching on sexuality as repressive and objectifying of sex, setting up a belief system which took the form of “institutional control of women’s sexuality.” Identifying the controversy of women’s ordination with the “old” paradigm of negative sexuality, Harrison notes that deviation from “normative” (according to hierarchical, heterosexual standards), sexuality was viewed as exemplifying sexual anxieties. Since Harrison would guilt this paradigm of sexuality with the offence of prohibiting women from hierarchical leadership, a new, inclusive understanding of the human person must be reached. The new paradigm of sexuality Harrison proposes involves “celebrating and making normative all deep, respectful, sensuous relationships, which, wherever they exist, ground our well-being and the bonds of mutual respect.”
This new paradigm suggests that the human capacity for relationship in sexuality “is a condition for freeing ourselves from patterns of compulsive and controlling sex, so widespread in our churches.” This embodied way of being maximizes the human sensual experience of life and action within the world, including “our power to affect and be affected by each other.” To prevent an individual from church leadership by virtue of their sexuality would be a denial of the beauty of human sexuality, relegating sexuality to a negative aspect of human being and amounting to a rejection of bodily experience. Since the church is an embodied reality of individual lives, “a disembodied faith and a disembodied church” become “dead, ponderous, boring, and unable to touch people’s souls.” Embodied church has the spiritual power of reaching into and affecting the concrete sufferings of daily life, encouraging and moving through lively relationship of members.
For Harrison, embodied church draws no distinction based on sexuality (which she equates with a definition similar to Gilligan’s, that inequality is a kind of violence or injustice): nothing could be a bigger turn-off from God than to experience a deep feeling of unwelcome on the basis of sexual judgment. Setting aside sexual repression, Christian theology should reflect the reality of God’s relationship with His people. Describing God, as our Lover, being reciprocally moved in relation with us, Harrison debunks bases of sexual differentiation in the body of Christ as objectification and external control, noting these qualities are not present in the love-relationship between God and the Christian. Applying Harrison’s arguments to the question of women’s ordination, we find that to distort the balance of right relationship by forcing women to struggle for justice (equality) in ordination causes the community to “lose a living vision of God.” Reasoning from a liberation theology perspective where “our relationship to God is intrinsically shaped through our relations to each other,” to no longer desire to act towards one another in right relationship (i.e. to assert the power of one gender over another) is to lose a value of the whole person in their embodied, breaking “the power of relation in our midst” which diffuses our experience of the power of God.
Framing the question of women’s ordination in Harrison’s discussion of right relationship as undifferentiated equality between the genders, the Harrison’s primary contribution to pro ordination discussion is her emphasis of an embodied solidarity devoid of sexual discrimination as both a manifestation of Christian-God relationship as well as a participation in that relationship. Harrison’s ethic suggests that right relationship between the sexes would be furthered by the ordination of women. This right relationship can only be reinstated by transitioning from a deontological framework of one sex’s obedience to the other as an external source of control, to a new relational pattern of accepting our cohumanity by considering our own rights alongside one another. Calling on the example of Christ as a strong love, which sustains actions toward “right relation, even unto death,” Harrison advocates the seizing of abundant life in “embodying a solidarity with one another that is deeply mutual, which is to say, reciprocal.”
Having examined three feminist ethical theories in relation to the Catholic position against women’s ordination, similarities in the critiques against and principles, which implicitly advocate the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood. Mary Daly’s Sado-ritual syndrome offers a critique of the Catholic Magisterium’s motivation behind excluding women from the priesthood on the basis of male desire to control women. Judging the reasons offered for a male-only priesthood as purely sexist, Daly’s syndrome advocates women’s ordination through value-laden language that evidences exclusion of women from the ministerial priesthood as unjust. Carol Gilligan’s ethic of care does allow for critique of Catholic theological convention that men alone should hold priestly office based on a woman’s experience of alignment with the priestly calling. Moving beyond purely selfish striving for ordination, beyond sacrifice of desire or call towards ordination, can a consideration of inequality as violence to society (both woman and men) provide a constructive answer to the question of women’s ordination? Beverly Harrison’s development synthesizes both Daly’s recognition of sexual differentiation as a barrier to right relationship and Gilligan’s emphasis on the ethical reasoning considering self and others with the Christian relationship with God. Tying this personal relationship to integral connection with community, Harrison’s argument advocates the perspective that only through allowing equal opportunity for both men and women in the Catholic ministerial priesthood can Christians realize the mutuality of relationship with one another, reflecting the reciprocity of relationship with God.
Bibliography:
Daly, Mary. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaphysics of Radical Feminism. 2nd Ed. Beacon Press: Boston, 1990.
Gilligan, Carol. “Concepts of Self and Morality,” Chapter 3. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1982. 64-105.
Harrison, Beverly Wildung. “Human Sexuality and Mutuality,” Chapter 7. Justice in the Making: Feminist Social Ethics. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 2004. 50-65.
