Research Work

Archived Posts from this Category

14 November 2009

Exegesis of Galatians 3.18-25… Gentiles and Jews Co-Inheritors With Abraham of the Spirit of Promise through Jesus Christ

Posted by Leshem Shamayim under Research Work
Leave a Comment

The Apostle Paul caused quite a controversy in his day by maintaining a theology inclusive of Gentile peoples without requiring them to first convert to Judaism. In the epistle to the Galatians, one finds the tenuous agreement between Paul and orthopraxic Jewish Christians to a “two gospel”[1] version of the Gospel of Christ ruptured by certain parties whom commentators commonly term as “Judiazers,” trying to convince the Galatians that circumcision is necessary to enter into the covenant of Christ. Recounting his own conversion story in the first chapter of the epistle to add certainty to any speculation about his call to preach Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, Paul recounts his own perspective of the events which were addressed at the Jerusalem Council in the second chapter. In his passionate style, recounts his interaction with the Apostles, particularly Peter, in strong language when Peter relapsed from an ecumenical practice on circumcision to segregating the Gentile Christians. Paul’s tone is authoritarian and defensive, suggesting that the conflict between the apostle and infant church, that the Galatians are tempted to depart from the gospel Paul has preached to them. What is this gospel and what distinctions between it and the message of his opponents does Paul resurrect? Both of these questions can be answered from a careful exegetical study of Galatians 3.18-25, revealing Paul’s own exegesis of Hebrew scriptures: while his opponents exegete a harmony between the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis and the Mosaic covenant in Exodus, they perpetrate that one must follow the law (receive the sign of circumcision) in order to enter into the promises of Abraham, while Paul reverses the preferencing, inclusively uniting both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith to be rendered righteous in Christianity.

While some commentators, such as Walter Hansen, suggest that the conflict of Galatians was a return to paganism because of Paul’s words about “exchanging their experience of the Spirit for dependency on the flesh,”[2] Udo Schnelle and the majority of commentators I read believe that Paul’s references to being perfected by the flesh in Galatians 3.3 are linked to Jewish Christians, commonly referred to as Mosaic, who believed that all Gentile Christian converts must conform to the rites of the Mosaic covenant mediated through Moses. Beginning our exegesis with Galatians 3.18, Paul states a radical position in opposition to the “evangelization” of his orthopraxic Jewish-Christian opponents: that the inheritance of salvific relationship with God does not come from the law. Rather, here Paul introduces a new exegetical movement in his reading of the Torah: a preferencing of the Abrahamic covenant, blessings by faith, over the necessity follow Mosaic law. From this position, Paul supports his argument that the Gentile converts do not need to receive circumcision to enter into the covenant that God made with Abraham.

Paul’s argument regarding Mosaic Law in Galatians 3.18-25 finds itself embedded in the larger context of a polemical epistle most likely written to the Gauls in Northern Galatia. Paul is arguing against doubts the Galatian church is harboring about their part in the salvific covenant God made with Abraham because they have not received the external sign of circumcision with which God sealed this covenant to the Jewish people. Recounting the results of the Antioch conflict over Gentile circumcision debated at the Jerusalem Council, Paul asserts that since the council, Peter and others have gone against the agreed position that Jewish converts would maintain their religious distinctive as Christians, but Gentiles were not bound to take on these distinctions.[3] Paul seems greatly distressed over a conflict in which some Judaizers[4] have raised doubts in the minds of the Galatians both to the truth of Paul’s preaching and validity of his apostleship, as well as the validity of their own faith without circumcision. Paul maintains his argument that circumcision is not necessary to be included in the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant. This being said, Paul insists that the Mosaic Law was still divinely inspired; simply that it did not instill in human nature the ability to follow in its righteous directing to right relationship with God.

Ultimately, Paul faults the fallen condition of man to find complementarity between the Mosaic Law and the Abrahamic covenant, though he does make the controversial distinction that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises in Christ make Law observance extraneous and even detrimental to the faith of those who were not first under the Law. Asserting the oneness of God and Christ as the Promised Seed of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul opposes his fellow Jewish Christians in regards to the necessity of entering into faith in Christ through the Law of Moses. Recognizing that Moses’ Law was inspired by God for His Chosen People the Jews, Paul equalizes the places of Jew and Gentile before God as sinners. Though the Jews had the path of Righteousness in the Law, they lacked the ability to walk in that path, and therefore were worse off in sin than the Gentiles because they had knowledge of it. Paul frames his argument regarding the Galatian’s assurance of co-inheritance with Christ by addressing the doubts Judaizers have instilled in their minds regarding Law observance and Gentile faith conditions.

Verse 18 of the selected passage addresses Paul’s overall conclusion regarding the Law: If one must pass through the requirements of Mosaic Law to embrace the faith of the Abrahamic covenant, negates the Abrahamic promises. Paul contrasts the term “ἐκ νόμος” (through the Law) with “ἐκ ἐπαγγελία” (through the promise)to point out that if the inheritance of righteousness comes through the Law, God has nullified His previous covenant to Abraham.[5] Madera indicates that this verse contains the only undisputed reference to “κληρονομία”[6] in all of Paul’s epistles, referring to an inheritance of “the promised Spirit” mentioned in Galatians 3.14.[7] Given the overall context of the passage, it indicates that the blessing of Abraham through its fulfillment in a person of promise, Jesus Christ, allowed both Jew and Gentile to “receive the promised Spirit through the faith.”[8] Recognizing the Spirit of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, Paul affirms that God gave Abraham this inheritance through promise. “χαρίζομαι”[9]translated as “has given” or “granted” is set in the present tense, though God obviously made His covenant with Abraham ages ago. Madera notes that this ”points to the gracious and enduring aspect of God’s promise to Abraham.”[10]

Verse 19 ponders why Mosaic Law observance for the Galatians would negate faith in the Abrahamic promises, and why was the Law given at all. The Law, as an impossible standard of righteous living to all sinful men, brought Jewish awareness to the fact that their condition was as sinful as the next Gentile. Inability to fulfill the Law spurned Jewish expectancy of the Promised Seed of Abraham; Paul plays on the singularity of the term “σπέρμα”[11] to introduce Christ as the seed promised to Abraham.[12] Not only did the Law bring about realization of sin amongst God’s chosen people, but Paul also points out its lesser status to the Abrahamic promises because it was given through mediation rather than direct communication. In verse 19, Paul rhetorically questions the purpose of the law, considering that he has asserted that Jewish and Gentile salvation come through the covenant of promise God made with Abraham. This verse is packed with Paul’s exalted Christology, pointing to Christ as the promised offspring of Abraham, who fulfilled the promise made. Paul makes note of two pieces of information with regard to the giving of the law in this verse: first, that “it was added because of transgressions” and that “it was put into place through angels by an intermediary.”[13] These are two negative purposes, the first regarding transgressions more controversial than the law’s subservient status to the Abrahamic promises because of mediation. What does Paul mean that the Law was given “because of transgressions?” Paul uses the Greek work “παράβασις,”[14] which is translated “transgressions,” which has two different meanings in Greek: to go over or to disregard or violate.[15] The second meaning seems to indicate a relation to law, and a developed state of mind in which sins “take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused.”[16] Along with this premise, Paul supplies a second, that of the Law being given through angels and communicated by an intermediary, is lesser than the directly given promise from God to Abraham.

While Paul’s Judaizer opponents “probably appealed to both these traditions (the Abrahamic covenant of promise and the Deuteronomic covenant of blessings/curses under law) to persuade the Galatians that their lack of circumcision was a breach of God’s covenant and Law, and thus, in accordance with the witness of scripture, brought them under the Law’s curse.”[17] It is likely that these Judaizers prefaced entrance into sharing the Abrahamic covenant with the Jewish people, and the chief seed of Abraham (Jesus Christ), with conformity to Mosaic code, a physical affiliation. Paul spiritualizes the idea of being a “progeny of Abraham” by making the requirement faith rather than circumcision (Galatians 3.9). Paul’s purpose in subordinating the Mosaic code to the Abrahamic promise is not to nullify the Mosaic code as a central observance in Jewish faith, serve his polemical agenda. Verse 20 continues Paul’s explanation of the subordinance of the Mosaic law to Abrahamic by further discussion of mediation as a negative factor in the giving of the law. How does “but God is one”[18] affirm “an antithesis to what is said about the mediator” of the Mosaic covenant[19]? It seems that Paul’s point of controversy about the mediation of the Law is that to preference a covenant which was given through angelic parties and indirectly mediated through Moses to the Jews would divide the God of the Jews from the God of the Gentiles, demonstration that “it is fitting that He should provide one way of salvation for both—the way of faith.”[20] Verse 20 supplies an explanation of why mediation makes the Law secondary to faith. While commentators speculate about the mediatorship remark, but seem to indicate that the affirmation “God is one” means that both Jew and Gentile operate on the same playing field when approaching righteous living. Thus faith in Christ as the one means of fulfilling the Abrahamic promises for both: “it is fitting that He should provide one way of salvation for both—the way of faith.”[21]

Affirming that God is the same for Jew and Gentile, Paul’s insistence that righteousness living under the law is no greater than those who follow Christ without the law, but then turns to say that since the Mosaic law and the Abrahamic promises are both of God, they cannot oppose one another. Paul’s “innovation” as it were, is the conclusion that “the law as a means of justification and life, in terms of Lv. 18.5, has been superseded by faith in terms of Hab 2.4.”[22] Paul seems to be reading Habakkuk 2.4 as his own scriptural proof text against a legalistic reading of Leviticus 18.5, saying the just will live by faith, not that life is only found when one keeps the laws and customs of the Mosaic law.[23] Yet he does not separate the Abrahamic promises and Mosaic Law, noting that if one could give life by a law, “righteousness would indeed be by the Law.”[24] Paul insists that it is not possible to find the law to be a source of righteousness, because the nature which the law is to direct is more fundamentally corrupted than the law can compensate for. Thus Paul says, if one could follow the law, it would maintain a righteous course. This argument strikes at Paul’s opponents, who have been trying to persuade the Galatians that to enter into the Abrahamic covenant,

Verse 21 proposes that if there is only one way into the salvific covenant of promise, do the requirements of the Mosaic Law contradict the Abrahamic promises? No, Paul responds, for if one were capable of fulfilling the Law, one would be living righteously. The problem is not the presence of the Law, but rather human nature: reception of Mosaic Law does not perfect fallen human nature; rather, it draws out the inability of man to please God of his own initiative. Thus the Law is unable to “ζῳοποιέω,”[25] impart life, but in more than a physical sense, a righteousness “of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life;”[26] inferring from context a sense that the Law was incapable of providing the sort of spiritual and physical resurrection required by human nature. Linking the first clause of this verse to the second, Paul says if the Law could give life, righteousness, “the state of him who is as he ought to be…the condition acceptable to God,”[27] would come from the Law. Since it would seem that the Law was not intended to provide righteousness, the Law merely “offers apparent righteousness devoid of life.”[28] Paul’s negative description of the Law as not providing life from which righteousness would spring as a transformative effect of the life points towards the effects of faith after the heritage of Abraham.

Interestingly in verse 22, Paul notes that “Scripture (γραφή)[29] imprisoned everything under sin,”[30]not the Law (νόμος)[31]. Matera describes Paul’s use of Scripture over Law as “a personification of God’s will.”[32] So what is this Scripture Paul is employing to say that man is trapped in a sinful condition? Habakkuk 2.4 is cited as the main proof text his assertion that the only way out of man’s sinful condition is to partake in the “promise by faith of Jesus Christ.” Matera notes that Paul cites other passages from the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the sinful condition of man in Roman 3.9-28: Proverbs 1.16, 20.9; Psalms 5.9, 10.7, 14.1-3, 36.1 53.1-3, 140.3; Jeremiah 5.16; Isaiah 59.7-8.[33] Based on these Scriptural backings, Paul feels confidant to claim that faith in Jesus, then, is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant of promise. Paul structures his argument employing the term “ἵνα,”[34]which allows the conclusion to be derived “that the promise is given to those who believe.”[35] Referring back to verse 19, the coming of Jesus as “the seed…to whom the promise (of Abraham) was made,” could be seen as the solution to man’s transgressions which were exemplified as unsolvable by the Law because He brought a new nature and adoption as sons for those with faith. Paul here is reinterpreting the faith of Abraham by “the subjunctive genitive, ‘faith in Christ.”[36]

Referring to the time “before faith came,”[37] Paul changes from speaking of the expectant faith of Abraham to the presence of Christ, the fulfillment of the promises in faith. Speaking of the Jewish people’s condition in verse 23, Paul changes his discussion of faith from Abraham to Jesus, saying that since the Law did not provide solutions to transgressions, the Jewish people under the Law were cut off from the realization of faith as a means of renewing their natures, returning to God. In a way, the Law incubated a helpless state of incapacitated obedience amongst the Jewish people since they were unable to maintain salvific promises. Thus to be “’under Law’ is in practice to be ‘under sin’—not because law and sin are identical, but because law, while forbidding sin, stimulates the very thing it forbids.”[38] Painting the weight of the Law as a kind of captivity from which the redemption of Christ is liberating, Paul’s emphasis that all are under sin brings all into the judgment of the Law, in need of liberation. Yet at the same time, the presence of the Law under which both Jews and Gentiles are “captive” draws a separation between Jews and Gentiles by subjecting all to penalization, but keeping: “the Gentiles out of the privilege of God and kept Israel apart from the rest of mankind; this divisive force has been overcome by the unifying effect of Christ’s redemptive act.”[39]

Calling the Law a schoolmaster or guardian in verse 24, Paul credits the presence of the Law with giving the Jewish Christian enough realization of their sins to know Law observance was impossible without faith, and that this faith found its justification in Jesus Christ without necessarily navigating through the Mosaic Law. The supervision of the Law is given in a temporal context, “εἰς Χριστόν” best translated “until Christ.”[40] The temporality of this phrase indicates that a kind of supervision was necessary (or perhaps fortification) until the object of promise, Abraham’s Seed, arrived as the fulfillment of his offspring’s inheritance of faith. F.F. Bruce considers the fulfillment of this promise to be the act of justification that was expected by Abraham[41] when his faith was accredited as righteousness before the coming of the promise. Interpreting “the appearance of Christ gave effect to the purpose of God—‘that we (Jews and Gentiles without distinction) should be justified in faith,’ in accordance with the promise to Abraham.”[42] According to Paul, God’s justification of the Abrahamic covenant through faith in Christ removes the Law as a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, uniting them in a common inheritance with Abraham in Christ.

Paul draws his Law and Promise discourse regarding the legitimacy of Gentile inheritance of the Spirit through Abraham-like faith draws to a conclusion in verse 25, demonstrating to the Galatians that the Mosaic Law brought about the realization that man could do nothing on his own to achieve inheritance-status in the Abrahamic covenant. While the Law would prepare the people for a leap of faith by disclosing their own depravity, Paul exegetes Genesis to claim that the Seed promised to Abraham would complete the righteous justification man needed in order to maintain obedience to God. Thus for the Jews, the coming of Jesus as the Promised Seed of Abraham would bring about a culmination of their entire expectant history, while for the Gentiles, Paul draws opposite conclusions. It is all very well and good for the Jewish converts to observe the Mosaic Law since it is part of their redemptive history with God. For the Galatian Gentiles, however, Paul says that to turn to Mosaic Law in order to partake in the Abrahamic covenant to which they have already been enjoined by faith in Christ would be a denial rather than an acceptance of the promise of Christ. As Schnelle notes, “Paul’s Christ hermeneutic necessarily presupposes that the Law/Torah as a soteriological principle has been annulled, for otherwise Christ would have died for nothing.”[43]

[1] “two-gospel” approach refers to the agreement of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 that Gentiles could be admitted to Christianity without first assuming the Mosaic precepts of the Jewish faith, summed up under the symbols of circumcision, Sabbath, and food regulations. The settling of the Antioch conflict at the council was that Jewish Christians would maintain their Jewish heritage, but would be deemed no better or lesser than the Gentile Christians.

[2]Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement, Series 29. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. 97.

[3] These distinctions were symbolized by the ritualistic circumcision.

[4] Most likely “Mosaic” according to most commentaries; orthopraxic Jewish Christians who believed Gentiles should receive circumcision to share in the benefit of the Abrahamic promises.

[5] Madera, Frank. Galatians. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 9. Ed. Daniel J. Harrison, S.J.. Collegeville, A Michael Glazier Book from The Liturgical Press. 127.

[6] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for klēronomia (Strong’s 2817)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2817&t=ESV>.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Galatians 3.14, ESV.

[9] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for charizomai (Strong’s 5483)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5483&t=ESV>.

[10] Madera, 127-8.

[11] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for sperma (Strong’s 4690)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009.<http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4690&t=ESV>.

[12] Matera, 131.

[13] Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Galatians 3.19.

[14] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for parabasis (Strong’s 3847)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G3847&t=ESV>.

[15] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for parabasis (Strong’s 3847)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 11 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G3847&t=ESV>.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Wilson, Todd. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. Pg. 57

[18] Galatians 3.20

[19] Most commonly held to be Moses.

[20]Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982., pg. 179.

[21]Bruce, F.F., 179.

[22] Ibid., 180.

[23] Leviticus 18.5, ESV.

[24] Galatians 3.21, ESV.

[25] Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.21 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[26] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for zōopoieō (Strong’s 2227)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G2227&t=ESV>.

[27] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for dikaiosynē (Strong’s 1343)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G1343&t=ESV>.

[28] Madera, 135.

[29] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.22 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[30] Galatians 3.22, ESV

[31] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.21 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[32] Madera, 135.

[33] Romans 3.9-18; The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. 10 November 2009. < http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203.9-18&version=ESV>.

[34] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.22 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[35] Madera, 135.

[36] Ibid., 135.

[37] This is rendered in the Greek “πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν,” translated literally as “Before of-the yet to-be-coming the belief,” [“Galatians 3.23,” Greek Interlinear Bible (NT). Scripture4all Foundation. Interlinear PDF files Copyright © 2009 Scripture4all Foundation. 10 November 2009. <http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/gal3.pdf>.] which Bruce reads as implying a temporal force, suggesting a fulfillment, or a coming after of the thing which was promised to Abraham (183). Thus the coming of “faith” is not the expectant faith of Abraham which expected promises that were yet to be fulfilled, but the fulfillment itself.

[38] F.F. Bruce, 182

[39] Ibid. 182.

[40] Ibid. 183.

[41] Ibid. 183, referring back to Paul’s quotation of Genesis 15.6 earlier in chapter 3, vs. 6 “just as Abraham ‘believed God, it was counted to his as righteousness?”

[42] Ibid. 183.

[43] Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Boring, M. Eugene, translator. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. 285.

The Apostle Paul caused quite a controversy in his day by maintaining a theology inclusive of Gentile peoples without requiring them to first convert to Judaism. In the epistle to the Galatians, one finds the tenuous agreement between Paul and orthopraxic Jewish Christians to a “two gospel”[1] ruptured by certain parties whom commentators commonly term as “Judiazers,” trying to convince the Galatians that circumcision is necessary to enter into the covenant of Christ. Recounting his own conversion story in the first chapter of the epistle to add certainty to any speculation about his call to preach Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, Paul recounts his own perspective of the events which were addressed at the Jerusalem Council in the second chapter. In his passionate style, recounts his interaction with the Apostles, particularly Peter, in strong language when Peter relapsed from an ecumenical practice on circumcision to segregating the Gentile Christians. Paul’s tone is authoritarian and defensive, suggesting that the conflict between the apostle and infant church, that the Galatians are tempted to depart from the gospel Paul has preached to them. What is this gospel and what distinctions between it and the message of his opponents does Paul resurrect? Both of these questions can be answered from a careful exegetical study of Galatians 3.18-25, revealing Paul’s own exegesis of Hebrew scriptures: while his opponents exegete a harmony between the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis and the Mosaic covenant in Exodus, they perpetrate that one must follow the law (receive the sign of circumcision) in order to enter into the promises of Abraham, while Paul reverses the preferencing, inclusively uniting both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith to be rendered righteous in Christianity.

[3] These distinctions were symbolized by the ritualistic circumcision.

[4] Most likely “Mosaic” according to most commentaries; orthopraxic Jewish Christians who believed Gentiles should receive circumcision to share in the benefit of the Abrahamic promises.

[5] Madera, Frank. Galatians. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 9. Ed. Daniel J. Harrison, S.J.. Collegeville, A Michael Glazier Book from The Liturgical Press. 127.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Galatians 3.14, ESV.

[10] Madera, 127-8.

[12] Matera, 131.

[13] Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Galatians 3.19.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Wilson, Todd. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. Pg. 57

[18] Galatians 3.20

[19] Most commonly held to be Moses.

[21]Bruce, F.F., 179.

[22] Ibid., 180.

[23] Leviticus 18.5, ESV.

[24] Galatians 3.21, ESV.

[28] Madera, 135.

[30] Galatians 3.22, ESV

[32] Madera, 135.

[35] Madera, 135.

[36] Ibid., 135.

[38] F.F. Bruce, 182

[39] Ibid. 182.

[40] Ibid. 183.

[41] Ibid. 183, referring back to Paul’s quotation of Genesis 15.6 earlier in chapter 3, vs. 6 “just as Abraham ‘believed God, it was counted to his as righteousness?”

[42] Ibid. 183.

[43] Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Boring, M. Eugene, translator. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. 285.

7 May 2009

A Church of Her Own: Renewed or Recreated Priesthood? Priesthood through the Experience of Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Posted by Leshem Shamayim under Just Homework, Looking for Jesus, Research Work
1 Comment

A Church of Her Own: Renewed or Recreated Priesthood?

Priesthood through the Experience of Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Introduction:

Each woman’s story is different; each woman’s experience of vocation is individual and unique, adding to the multiplicity of possible vocations which can be qualified as “women’s experience.” Approaching the debate over male and female vocations in the Roman Catholic Church, I will analyze one aspect of female experience which offers many complex and ambiguous theological and ethical reflections: the office of the ministerial priest. While the Catholic Magisterium has historically silenced the discussion of possibly ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood, women have continued to find this dialog crucial to the tenuous relationships we hold with God and our communities. A frequent critique of the magisterial position by feminist authors is that women’s experience of vocation has been interpreted through masculine perceptions, unbalancing the appeal of Church towards a male population. According to feminist theologian Marian Ronan, “’Women’s experience’ is not the self-evident ground of feminist theology, but that which needs to be explained.”[1] Do the experiences of women leading to the development of the Roman Catholic Womenpriest movement indicate a movement towards a renewal of the priesthood as defined by the Catholic Magisterium, or lay the groundwork fir an entirely different sort of church leadership?

Approaching the question of women’s leadership in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, one finds two positions concerning the Magisterial position of excluding women from the ministerial priesthood: the first which considers men to be best disposed to image Christ; the second position viewing this exclusion of women from a priestly office as sexist, many movements advocating the sacramental ordination of women into the priesthood have rallied around the person of Christ as a literal symbol of holiness.[2] Focusing on some Roman Catholic women’s struggles over the question of ordination, I have studied most specifically on the Roman Catholic Women Priest movement (RCWP), an international association of women and men who have begun to ordain and train women to be priests in the Catholic liturgical tradition.[3]

I have conducted a qualitative research process into the experiences of a Roman Catholic womenpriests, questioning what led them to ordination and how their expectations of ordination have changed after having received a form of ordination. Through the testimonies of some of these ordained women via interviews, conversations at a mass presided by a women, different articles and documents these women have written, newspaper reports about ordination events and a collection of books written from the perspectives of men and women who advocate or analyze the possibility of women participating in the ministerial priesthood, I have compiled an argument from many women’s experiences that suggest reform to the current Catholic priesthood and sacramental life, crucial components to be considered in the conversation regarding whether or not women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Combining the interviews I conducted (with one womanpriest in person, another via internet exchange, and a third through conversation at a mass I attended) and observations derived from women who have felt a call towards priestly vocation with written reflection on female leadership that differs from the priesthood, I will analyze aspects of several women who have wrestled on a vocational level with the question of equality on an institutional level in the Catholic Church.

An issue on which I could find no analysis was that of the language used by the womenpriest movement to distinguish their clergy members. To clarify the use of some terms used throughout this paper, I would like to discuss the use of “womanpriests,” “womandeacons,” “womanbishop,” and “woman-mass.” The insertion of “woman” or “women” before the typical titles of deacon, priest, and bishop suggests a kind of female-centeredness to the whole movement which would be worthy of future inquiry.

Uncovering these specific stories through interviews by myself and other scholars, I will briefly trace the history of the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement to its inception, then discussing the ordination movements beginning in 2002. Since the RCWP movement was officially birthed with the first ordinations in 2002, minimal literature has been produced by women in movement itself, forcing me to rely primarily on newspaper and popular magazine articles to disclose the experiences of the movement’s members. While a few of the womenpriests have composed documentaries or academic journals discussing the RCWP movement, the majority of my literary material were books by other scholars and religious writers reflecting on the question and consequence of women priests. Referring to the Episcopal women priests as a point of comparison for what a dual gendered priesthood might look like in the Roman Catholic Church, I will trace the paper trail of Vatican documents written in reaction to the Episcopal ordinations of women against which the RCWP movement is reacting. While the RCWP does not see itself as separating schismatically or moving in an opposite theological position from that of the Catholic Church under the Magisterium, I propose that the ordinations and structural models followed by members of the RCWP depart from the historical definition of “Catholic” as defined by the Catholic community at large.

Women’s Ordination before the Womanpriest Movement:

Relying on the history compiled by Hellena Moon from her interviews with seven ordained womenpriests and two womendeacons, one finds the roots of the womanpriest movement reaching to the early secular feminist victories of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Tracing a connection between political and academic interest in women’s issues in the early 60s, Moon claims that feminist theologies “benefited and collaborated with this dual academic/activist endeavor as part of the second-wave feminist movement.”[4] Describing the struggle for women’s rights as the “third great social movement originating in the sixties,” Susan Jacoby notes that in the 1960s the women’s rights movement was purely secular. Utilizing secular intellectual frameworks as bases for religious activism, Christian and Jewish “feminists voiced their concerns in 1965 by calling for a ‘radical challenge to the Church.’” [5] Noting that religious feminists would fundamentally disagree that the roots of their egalitarian movements are secular, Jacoby claims that patriarchal religions such as Catholicism are so fundamentally disposed to a male bias, that “religion and feminism can be reconciled only through a radical reconstruction of traditional religious practices and beliefs.”[6]

How would a radical reconstruction of the traditional practices and beliefs regarding the ministerial priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church be effected by feminist theologians and ethicists? Would the reconstructive movements introduce a secular ideology into the community of the Church? Such questions faced those male and female feminist theologians and ethicists who gathered together with sympathetic priests and Religious in the first Women’s Ordination Conference held in Detroit 1975. The WOC movement, named after that first gathering, formed the following year committed to “ordination of women and creation of a renewed church and ministry or the radical transformation of the hierarchical church.” WOC advocated the ordination of women by publishing the first issue of “Project Priesthood” in 1978, identifying and describing experiences of women who perceived a call to the ministerial priesthood.[7]

While the inception of a women’s ordination movement in America in 1975 centered on a political understanding of women’s ordination, “to seek an acknowledgment of women’s full valuation—of their equality in the Church,” a change in the mentality of WOC participants evidenced itself in the Baltimore conference of 1978. Conference speakers responded to Inter Insignores (released by Pope Paul VI in 1976) by challenging “the fundamentalism of the clericalist system” and calling for a renewal of the priestly office and understanding of its ministry.[8] Gaining public face through some members’ protest at the annual American bishop conference in Washington D.C. in 1978, women of the WOC were invited to meet with bishops in 1979 to discuss issues of women’s ordination to the diaconate and ministerial priesthood. Attendees, including feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Reuther, felt ignored and unappreciated, leaving the conference more frustrated than before.

Founding the Women of the Church Coalition (which later became the Women-Church Convergence or WCC), feminists such as Reuther[9] and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza[10] sought to begin a grassroots, inclusive movement reinterpreting the patriarchal theology of the Catholic Magisterium. Lobbying with the WOC, WCC activists declaimed the Catholic Magisterium and supremacy of the papacy as patriarchal sexism, oppressing women.[11] Strategizing for the ordination of both men and women a priesthood of sexual equality, the conferences held by WOC led to a focus on the discipleship of equals in 1995. In 1996, nine members of the WOC attended the first European Women’s synod, hoping to establish an international coalition to advocate the ordination of Roman Catholic women to the ministerial priesthood. In 2000, this goal was achieved by the founding of the Women’s Ordination Worldwide (WOW) with attendees of, “an international network of national organizations working for women’s ordination.”[12] This coalition was composed of fourteen countries “including Germany, Austria, Spain, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, the United States, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the Philippines.”[13] Interpreting justice towards women as joint vocations with men in the Roman Catholic ministerial priesthood, WOW chose to advocate the ordination of men, but particularly women, to “to a renewed priestly ministry in a democratic church, and to stand in solidarity with women who are ordained in the ongoing renewal of the church.”[14]

In 2001, the first meeting of WOW was convened in Dublin, Ireland from 29 June- 1 July under the conference title of “NOW IS THE TIME – A Celebration of Women’s call

To a Renewed Priesthood in the Catholic Church.”[15] Attended by 370 individuals representing 26 countries and 6 continents, the conference resolved not only to continue the petitioning for a female diaconate and priesthood, but also encouraged women to begin studying for these offices. Spokeswoman Soline Vatine referenced an interesting acknowledgement in the conference notes to a woman who is most likely the first woman in the 20^th century to be ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop, Ludmila Javorova.[16] Calling for others to follow the example of Javorova, WOW supported individuals who had illicit experiences of ordination, or were unable to be ordained because of Vatican legislature, in witnessing the oppressive/repressive stance of the Catholic Magisterium against the ordination of women.[17] This international movement ignited a fire with global manifestations just the following year on the Danube River, instigating a blatant break with the hierarchical value of all-male priesthood.

The Roman Catholic Womanpriest Movement:

Episcopal Background to Catholic Conversation on Women’s Ordination

The fruition of the women’s ordination movement with the first ordinations in 2002 by the womenpriests “actually represents the culmination of more than 30 years of lobbying and activism by the Washington, D.C.-based Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC).”[18] However, author Catherine Wessinger accuses the Vatican of formulating positions on the women’s ordination issue in constant reaction to Anglican developments which remain the closest in polity to the Roman Catholic Church out of the Protestant denominations.[19] In 1973, General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States narrowly avoided the ordination of women in , though eleven women were irregularly on July 29, 1974 by three retired Episcopal bishops.[20] Four more women were “irregularly” ordained until the General Convention convalidated the ordinations, approving of women priests in 1976.[21]

In response to this the Convention’s acceptance of women into the Episcopal priesthood, Pope Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to compose the first Vatican document explicitly addressing women’s ordination in 1976, Inter Insigniores, affecting Catholic women’s future hopes for contributing to the ministry of the Church. Because of the shortage of male priests, women were “called upon to make important contributions, and they are responding enthusiastically and with dedication.”[22] From the absence of male presence to maintain the hierarchy, women’s involvement in the local parish and diocesan ministry grew more and more apparent. Inter Insigniores offered a theological rationale for the priesthood using a nuptial analogy which the male priest represents Jesus Christ through the male figure in the marital imagery. While Wessinger asserts that this “analogy was not meant to be taken literally, and feminist women (and men) were insulted by the statement that women could not image Christ.”

As a response to the irregular Episcopal ordinations of women, Roman Catholic women held a conference in Detroit in 1975, out of which Ruth Fitzpatrick organized the national Women’s Ordination Conference.[23] The Women’s Ordination Conference held three more events in Chicago (1983), Cincinnati (1987), and Albuquerque (1993) before Pope John Paul II composed Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on 22 May 1994, directly echoing Paul VI’s sentiments on the ordination of women. In the meantime, however, the Episcopal Church elected its first woman as bishop, Barbara C. Harris, in 1988. The Pope’s statement Mulieris Dignitatum (“On the Dignity and Vocation of Women”) was published to aid the American Bishops in issuing a statement that affirmed the equal human dignity of women, though conceptualizing “women’s vocation in terms of the sexual condition of the Virgin Mary, as being either virginity (for nuns and Sisters) or motherhood (for married women).”[24] Questioning whether American Catholic women will perceive the Church’s dictates on female vocational roles to be sexist and punitive, Wessinger notes that hierarchical ecclesial positions remain closed to women. Serving at a grassroots level of leadership, “the great majority of lay parish ministers are Sisters and laywomen” who are aiding in the development of institutional structures to aid and support lay leadership in ministry.

Writing on “Ministerial Attitudes and Aspirations of Catholic Laywomen,” Virginia Sullivan Finn[25] advocates that “listening to experiences voiced by laywomen ministers is the most imperative step of all” (263) to supporting lay ministry in the Roman Catholic Church.

Many of the women Finn interviewed felt a sense of call toward her particular ministry from three sources: “an interior, spiritual sense of God’s call, baptismal call, and confirmation by others.” (264) In light of their perceptions of the needs of the people of God and call to service, Finn questioned many laywomen ministers regarding their desires concerning ordination. While the issue of ordination did not seem “necessary for them to be effective ministerial leaders who are trusted by the people they serve, the issue of ordination does not fade.” (265) while some voiced ordination as decreasing in importance, the sense of separation and isolation from full, sacramental ministry within her home church left many a woman counting the “cost of remaining a disciple within the Roman Catholic tradition (to) seem even more sacrificial.” (265-6). This sense of alienation from ministry because of their gender impelled many of the women within the RCWP movement to seek a remedy for the “sin” their church was committing against their ministerial vocation, either by seeking ordination in a schismatic sense with Rome, or converting to the closest sacramental denomination to their own religious tradition, the Episcopal Church.

History of the Womanpriest Ordinations

From the testimony of their website and members of the Roman Catholic Womanpriest organization, this movement of women asserting a right to the sacramental priesthood of the Catholic Church began internationally with the ordination of seven women in 2002 (referred to as the “Danube Seven”). All but two of these seven women were German, including American Angela White/Dagmar Celeste and Austrian Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger.[26] The excommunication of these women was announced in January 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI), giving the women twelve days to “seek the forgiveness of the Catholic church.”[27] The Catholic Magisterium opposed the ordinations as void, violating the 1924 code of Canon Law[28] because of the schismatic position of ordaining Bishop, Romulo Antonio Braschi, founder of “the Catholic-Apostolic Charismatic Church of Jesus the King,”[29] In spite of the Vatican’s refusal to lift the excommunications, the RCWP continued to ordain another woman in 2003 (Patricia Fresen of South Africa) and coronate their first two bishops, Mayr-Lumetzberger and Forster so as to enable the women to continue ordinations without relying upon male priests. During these early years of organization of the RCWP, the structure that emerged became a mirror of the magisterial priesthood, a progression from deacon to priest, priest to bishop.

By 2004, the RCWP had conformed to the magisterial sacramental ordination system, only ordaining sacramental deacons. Out of the six deacons ordained in 2004, two were American (Victoria Rue and Jane Via). Three of these women, Rue, Benay, and Birch-Connery, were ordained into the priesthood the following year, along with 2005 deacons Marie David and

Jean Maire Marchant. Five other women entered the diaconate as well that year, while Fresen became a bishop. 2006 evidenced a widespread interest in women to be ordained; RCWP welcomed ten women into the sacramental diaconate, eleven women into the priesthood, and consecrated Ida Raming as bishop. The most publically recognized ordinations to the occurred during 2007 when the locations as which these ordinations were held crossed the “neutral” boundaries (typically the Danube river or some other boat-like setting where a diocese could not specifically interfere with the rites). Fifteen womendeacons were received into the congregation of the Roman Catholic Women Priests, along with eleven womenpriests.[30]

The publicity afforded to the St. Louis ordinations, taking place under Rabbi Susan Talve, of the Central Reform Congregation, seems to have served as an opportunity for the Womenpriests publicize an otherwise unrecognized voice.[31] The wide-spread publicity of these ordinations allowed the two women ordained under Womanbishop Fresen, Rose Marie “Ree” Hudson, of Festus, and Elsie McGrath, of south St. Louis, to tell their stories as examples of women leaders and voice their silent internal struggles with a faith they found impossible to break with. Joining the ranks of 22 other American Catholic Womenpriests, both women converted to Catholicism from Protestant denominations through marriage to Catholic men. McGrath shared her call to priestly ministry occurred while accompanying her husband Jim through training for the permanent diaconate. When her husband Jim was ordained and she was not, in spite of having received the same training, McGrath described that she felt like she was “being stabbed in the heart.” Womanbishop Fresen, the presider of the ordination, shared that her own background was that of a Dominican nun, adding to the diverse expression of pre-ordination vocations present in St. Louis. Expressing their personal frustrations with magisterial ordinance against the ordination of women, the testimony of these womenpriests inspired responses for women who shared their exasperation.[32]

News reporters were fascinated by the tension between the womenpriests and the magisterial officials: the womenpriests almost seemed to aggravate the Canon Law-driven hierarchy by sending a letter to St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke announcing the ordination. In response , the Archbishop threatened all womenpriest candidates (and in actuality some attendees as well) with excommunication.[33] On October 1^st, the Archbishop received a letter expressing the women’s hope for his reaction as a representative of the Magisterium’s position on women’s ordination:

We do not expect you to support us or condone our actions, but we pray that you may accept that God is calling us to priesthood and that the Spirit is preparing the way, in justice, for women as well as men to be called to priestly ministry. (Hinman)

In spite of Burke’s letter to Rabbi Talve threatening that allowing the ordinations to proceed as planned would threaten Catholic-Jewish relations; Talve tactfully responded that “It would be terribly unfortunate for the Catholic Church to make a decision on their relationship with all the Jewish community based on the actions of one congregation.” Local priests were also supportive, anonymously approving that this was an action Jesus would have desired Himself.[34]

Last year in 2008, the RCWP grew by ten womendeacons, fourteen womenpriests, and one womanbishop, Dana Reynolds of the western region of the United States. Reynolds’ claim to apostolic authority comes through the hands of the first womanbishops in Stuttgart, Germany, where Reynolds was ordained on April 9^th. Only four months later on August 9th, Reynolds ordained Lexington, Kentucky woman, Janice Sevre-Duszynska. Throughout the entire year, RCWP celebrated ordinations in eight locations in the United States and Canada.[35] In a press release “The Case for Women Priests,” Womanpriest Bridget Mary Meehan shared the current position of the RCWP with Magisterial doctrine, viewing Pope John Paul II as having erred in ‘infallibly’ declaring that the Church was incapable of ordaining women in his Apostolic letter on 1994, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[36]. Since his statement did not represent what the RCWP felt to be the faith of the believing community (Meehan states that “according to recent surveys about 70 percent of Catholics approve of women’s ordination, including some of the world’s bishops”). Not having taken vows of obedience to the Pope in their ordination, but rather to the Gospel as guide for their community,

Roman Catholic Womenpriests reject the penalty of excommunication issued by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on May 29, 2008 stating that the “women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated latae sententiae.” [37]

Considering the fact that women and men of the RCWP movement do not hold themselves under obligatory obedience to the ecclesial structure of the Roman Catholic Church, one might inquire what it means for these women and men of the RCWP movement to call themselves Catholic. Is this break with the traditional heritage of Catholicism one that contributes to a restructuring of the Church, or a movement so divergent as to conceive an entirely separate Church movement?

Reformative Goal of the Womanpriest Movement?

The December 7, 2007 edition of National Catholic Reporter ran a cover story on the St. Louis ordinations, giving the RCWP movement a platform to discuss their history and mission, running biographies of five of their womenpriests, and discuss the hardships of their ministries and following the calls they had discerned. Transitioning from a focus on the actual event of the ordinations to the lives of the women involved in the RWCP, this article entitled, “Though Church Bans Women Priest More and More Women are saying ‘Why Wait?’” opens what author Kelley Raab calls a “Pandora’s box” of an issue rooted in women’s experiences.[38] Author of the National Catholic Reporter article, Pamela Schaeffer reports that Womanbishop Fresen relayed during an interview. As of the November 2007 ordinations, 50 priests had been ordained in the RCWP movement, including several men, amassing mostly in North America with thirty-seven ordained priests in the RCWP movement.

Most of the candidates who came forward for ordination were “the very women diocese and parishes have relied on to fill ministry gaps as the number of Catholic clergy have declined,”[39] composing a population of women typically in their 60s with faithful Catholic histories of service. Schaeffer notes that one of the common themes among the women desiring ordination is a long-felt call to the priesthood that these women attempted to live out by serving wherever possible, setting aside hopes for ordination. The age factor of women in the movement evidences the women’s desire to leave for their children and grandchildren a different church. Fresen indicated that the cause of the majority of priestly vocations occurring in America is somewhat related to the fact that many Catholic women in America have already studied theology, fulfilling RCWP’s requirement of 1-2 years of studying sacramental theology and mentorship by a priest. These mentors are “ordained men, including former priests and active priests who support the movement.” (15) A large quantity of the inquiries regarding ordination came from women religious who had harbored desires to be or witness women as priests.

Yet, as noted, while the majority of ordained individuals are women in the RCWP movement, the organization lives up to its message of justice by ordaining men who could not be priests under the current teaching of the Magisterium. In 2007, of the six men ordained by the womanpriest movement, two were openly gay, two were married, and two had physical handicaps for which they were refused entrance into seminary. Viewing the ordination of only celibate men to the priesthood as unjust, the RCWP welcomes all married, gay, or disabled to serve in a ministerial vocation as priest if the call is perceived. Since hierarchical structure is preserved only in as much as the womenpriests themselves claim legitimate apostolic succession, every other similarity to the current Catholic priesthood is abandoned. In place of a hierarchical structure, some associates such as Gerry Rauch, a board member of the Women’s Ordination Conference, advocate “a variety of forms of priestly roles for women, ranging from ordination to a ‘discipleship of equals,’ in which all symbols of power, including ordination would be obsolete.”[40]

While womenpriests advocate for a total reform of the church, they diminish hierarchical structure in favor of “more democracy, less political posturing and more diversity.”[41] Former WOC coordinator Andrea Johnson expressed sadness rather than hostility towards a Church unwilling to ordain anyone other than celibate men rather than spite/anger. Instead of ordaining married men, Johnson lamented that the Church would rather lose a crucial element of personability by build bigger churches to hold fewer masses. Bridget Mary Meehan, a womanpriest who has actively spoken on behalf of the RCWP movement, noted that if any of the women had been angry with the church authorities had redirected that passion to fulfilling not only their personal dreams, but the needs of the parishes. Shaeffer’s interviews were backed by the work of Jane Redmont, author of Generous Lives: American Catholic Women Today (1992) who noted that the majority of women she interviewed were in favor of women’s ordination, as well as revoking the celibacy standard. “Often, they felt that priestly celibacy, women’s exclusion from priesthood, and teachings on sexuality and reproduction were related to one another, and that the link among them was the fear of women and sex.”[42] Is the democratization of Church leadership as it has evolved in the RCWP movement? Advocating a democratic system of ecclesial leadership by asserting their different experiences of Church inequality, is the RCWP promoting a renewal or reconstruction of the current ecclesial structure?

Women Being Priests: Experience of Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Intimate Liturgical Experience

In exploring the variety of experiences members of RCWP found themselves in which impelled them towards ordination, I attended a mass offered by one of the womenpriests residing in Los Gatos. Held in an ordinary looking home from the outside, the meeting place of the Magdala Catholic Community offered a homey feeling of community when the small congregation of approximately 20 people (7 men and 13 women), including only 5 visitors (a young family and myself) under the age of 60. I noted a lack of racial and class diversity: all the individuals seemed to be white, of a middle class background. While the number of women exceeded the men present, composed of several former nuns, Jesuit priests, and lay people who had either left their faith communities and married or simply departed from vowed religious life. The dynamics of the group were explained to me over the course of the evening, while in the meantime I and the other guests were immediately and warmly welcomed into the community.

True to their claim of inclusivity, the pastor and assistant pastor of the community expressed a lack of interest in the denomination of any of the congregants: while recognizing that some were not Catholic, the type of Christian was unimportant. In one of my interviews with the pastor, she expressed that at this bi-monthly mass, the usual attendees were people who had been through such difficult struggles in life that none of them “give a damn about denomination anymore,” according to one member of the community. Concerned for the care of souls in spite of denomination, the pastor expressed her own honest feelings of inability to be the arms of Christ and wrestle with all the personal and pastoral questions that arose from the great responsibility of her office.

Yet in spite of a clear sense of ordination (the assistant pastor celebrating the mass wore traditional liturgical robe and stole), the mass was clearly an activity of the whole community rather than being restricted to the community. Beginning the mass by involving the community in prayers said in inclusive language, the assistant pastor invited the entire community to walk the journey of the sacrifice being made. Following ordinary Catholic mass structure, opening prayers were followed by different scripture readings as prescribed the lectionary for that day. Even though a new guest, I was invited to read as a lectionary from the epistle of St. Paul. These readings were done from the various locations around the room where we were seated. Even the Gospel was not proclaimed from the altar.

A creative homily calling for personal reflection on the symbol of the cross in place of a sermon brought together intimate groups of 2-3 congregants to share about how the cross symbolized life to us. Preparing for the Eucharist with a warm sharing of the sign of peace, congregants embraced and kissed each other with a genuine joy. The community offered up the prayers of consecration, hands outstretched towards the Sacrament, as if we were a community of priests concelebrating a mass. In fact, that was the emphasis of the pastor as she and I dialogued about the mass en route back to Berkeley. Coming together in communion of believers, Catholic and not, the baptismal priesthood of any believer was celebrated as members of the congregation administered the Eucharist to one another. Even the final blessing of the mass was administered by each of the congregants to each other before dispersing to share a meal, reminiscent of early church gatherings.

Chatting with the members of the community over the dinner, I witnessed a strong bond between these people, drawn together by a strong sentiment of worship. According to the pastor, the aging individuals of deep intensity and spiritual commitment whom I met at this woman-mass were representative of most of the communities served by the Bay Area womenpriests. Married couples, divorcées, homosexual couples, people from all walks of life were invited to experience the sacraments and real, un-judging community. Evaluating the overall experience, I was struck by how sincerely caring each person I spoke with was concerning my own spiritual journey, regardless of my faith heritage. Liturgically, the form of the Vatican II ordinary mass was quite obvious, and all components of the mass were present, even if the actual celebration by the people without an extremely differentiated view from the celebrant herself would have been criticized by orthodox, magisterial liturgists. At least in the celebration of the Eucharist, the womanpriest mass remained true to the RCWP goal of evidencing a church structure which is:

A more inclusive, Christ-centered Church of equals in the twenty-first century. Women bishops ordained in full apostolic succession continue to carry on the work of ordaining others in the Roman Catholic Church. We advocate a new model of priestly ministry united with the people with whom we serve. We are rooted in a response to Jesus who called women and men to be disciples and equals living the Gospel.[43]

Ministerial Situations

The willingness of the RCWP to receive vocational calls of marginalized Catholics (women, deformed men, and gay men) may defy the Magisterium to encourage many who have envisioned a more equal-opportunity priesthood, but at a great cost to its proponents. Of the women Schaeffer interviewed for her article in National Catholic Reporter, three Church-employed lost jobs over their involvement with RCWP:

Fresen, fired from a prestigious teaching post and expelled from her religious order; Jane Marchant, forced to resign her position as head of health care ministry for the Boston archdiocese; Meehan, facing income losses now that Liguori, a Catholic publishing house, has removed her books from its lists.[44]

Even Rabbi Talve, the facilitator of the November 2007 ordinations in St. Louis suffered as a result of her support of the RCWP movement, being disinvited from an interfaith event at a Catholic university. The ministry of the womenpriests was not dampened by this ‘persecution;’ Fresen viewed discouragement from mainstream, hierarchical Catholicism as evidence of a need to minister to marginalized Catholic culture. By margins of Catholic culture, Fresen referred to:

The huge numbers of Catholics who, if church law were strictly applied, would be barred from receiving the sacraments. These include men and women who have divorced and remarried without getting their first marriage annulled by the church; gays and lesbians living with partners; people who have received or supported an abortions, or couples who are unrepentant about the fact that they use contraceptives to limit family size.[45]

By not assuming any titles, such as ‘Mother’ or ‘Father,’ the womenpriests seek to draw the entire community towards Christ-like love and acceptance, devoid of hierarchical class distinctions. Redmont emphasizes the reformative nature of a womanpriesthood by suggesting that “structural change in church government, a stronger role for the laity, and the broader concerns of women in the life of the Church” are the chief preoccupations for those who support the womanpriest movement (328).

Interviewing one of the womenpriests, a native of the Bay Area, she shared how difficult supporting herself was as a “renegade” womanpriest: with a small congregation who did not regularly tithe, the vocation this woman felt most fulfilled in compensated her least. This womanpriest I interviewed travels over an hour twice a month to serve mass in Los Gatos as pastor of the Magdala Catholic Community, receiving little if any compensation and paying for liturgical robes and other items out of her own pocket. Holding down three jobs (as counselor, priest, and wedding coordinator), this pastor not only offers wedding celebrations and private mass, but also counsels professionally. According to this woman, all of the other womenpriests are just as busy, struggling to make a living and maintain the vocations for which they have placed themselves at odds with the rest of their Church.

While the womenpriests have been officially excommunicated, the overall rejection of clericism in favor of the Eucharistic celebration in a democratic environment allows them to minister to those who feel marginalized because of being excluded from Eucharistic communion under the administration of the Magisterial Catholic Church. In the woman-mass I attended, the inclusivity towards people of varying life situations was freely discussed, as many of the attendees were formerly committed to religious celibacy and had now married, openly gay and lesbian individuals, or divorcees, all of whom would be traditionally denied the Eucharist.

Critiques of the Womanpriest Movement: Inclusive of All Community?

Separation from or Service to Community?

Witnessing the vision of RCWP movement male and female priests lived-out in current ministry; a component of critique arises when considering the contest in which the priests express their ordination. Researching the experience of women in priestly roles, I interviewed an ordained Episcopal woman priest who changed ecclesial communities from Roman Catholic to Episcopal twelve years ago over the issue of women’s ordination, she questioned the purpose of ordination objectively, and specifically of the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement. Considering ordination to be a sacrament conferred not just by the clerics, but by the laity as well, this woman priest saw the defining purpose of ordination as rooted in community: service to and for the people of God by designated ministers. How can one minister without a community, she asked? Should one’s ordination be used entirely as an instrumental protest against a misogynistically structured ecclesial community which prohibits women from serving at the altar?

Experiencing a daily struggle in her own certain call of ordination, my interviewee feels deeply Catholic in her heart, and remains torn between the two ecclesial communities of the Episcopal and Catholic Churches. Noting the commonality of Christian faith to both, the Episcopal priest mourned the emphasis of divisive factors between church communities and denominations. All the differences are beautiful diversities to be celebrated, but not to inhibit communion, she communicated, sounding very much like one of the womenpriests. Since ordination into a community that would recognize with her the priestly vocation to which she felt called was the defining factor in this woman’s change of ecclesial communities, she expressed a deep personal preference of not contradicting the position of an ecclesial community from within. Still in an organic stage, torn over the ambiguity of the symbol of a woman at the altar, questioning maintains an open conversation in this woman’s life.

Certain that someday the majority of lay people will be recognized by the Catholic Magisterium in opening the priesthood to women, my interviewee was more curious as to the form the feminine priesthood would take in a Catholic context. Roman Catholic women are still the most passionate feminists, she conveyed, probably because they are still tying to gain recognition which is assumed by most every other ecclesial community and denomination. Hedging a bet that this distinctive element of Catholic theology, the all-male priesthood will eventually dissolve into the position shared by other churches, this priest concluded our discussion ecumenically, wondering if perhaps the most fundamental of all positions, whether liturgically, scripturally, or traditionally, would not soar out of the recent return to conservative distinctiveness by embracing a more unified position on issues like the ordination of women. Perhaps the real question behind women’s ordination is not the weight of tradition or gender conflicts, but insecure personal identities. From our discussion, I affirm that the conflict of women’s ordination becomes even more ambiguous through an analysis of women’s experiences with the multiplicity of issues raised in the conversation.[46]

Truly Inclusive of Diversity?

Marian Ronan takes the entire Women’s Ordination Conference, including the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement, to task for not practicing the inclusivity they claim. In her article “Ordination and Apartheid,” Ronan compares the ordination issue of women in the Roman Catholic Church to two social phenomena linked to women’s liberative issues through the Civil Rights Movement: the racial oppression of minorities under white society and the fact of women obtaining the right to votes fifty years after males of all races. Reflecting in solidarity with the WOC activist in the desire “that women should be recognized as equals in the ecclesial tradition we love and hate, seems less and less likely to be fulfilled in the foreseeable future, our responses are increasingly full of pain and anger,”[47] Ronan is not content to merely dwell in these negative emotions.

Writing in 2005, Ronan questions whether or not the white woman, whose comparison of racism and sexism she compared, has any right to draw a direct connection between these oppressions. Such a comparison from a woman in the WOC seems trite, since only 1-2% of the attending population of ordinations of the most recent ordinations (then in Ottawa, Canada) were people of color.[48] Wondering about the analogy between racial oppression and the repression of women in ecclesial office in the Catholic Church, Ronan wonders:

Why exactly is our movement so white? By definition, women who seek ordination in the Catholic Church are highly educated members of the professional managerial class. All of the women ordained on the Danube and in Ottawa were white.[49]

Accusing the whole women’s ordination movement as a whole of being “un-nuanced” in the assertion of racial and sexual analogy, Ronan incriminates herself in desiring to find a solution to the currently white conversation of ordination in the intersection of racial and gendered conversation. If remaining so focused on the legitimizing of ordained women in the ministerial priesthood “excludes Black Catholics, how analogous are racial oppression in society and the oppression of (some) women within the Catholic Church?”[50]

One has only to glance through the Roman Catholic Womanpriest website, looking over the limited biographies of ordained individuals, to see that there is no racial diversity obvious among the ordained, but that they are all white. Having noted the typical age of individuals in this movement to be in their mid 50s or early 60s, my own experience of a white, middle class, mostly older congregation of predominantly women seems to assimilate into the typical picture of the communities these womenpriests preside over. One might even wonder about the language used in this religious feminist movement: womanpriest? Womanbishop? Womandeacon? While this movement advocates inclusivity for people of all race, gender, sexual orientation, or state of life, it appears, even from the official website, that mostly middle aged, middle class white people are attracted to this movement. Discovering only two published profiles of male priests ordained in this movement, one might wonder whether reverse sexism will result from the passionate sentiment Ronan noted. Holding up a mirror for RCWP to see itself in, Ronan’s critiques should be readily accepted by a movement interested in more than gender issues, as Victoria Rue voiced, “As Roman Catholic Womenpriests, we are not just interested in gender equity. We are focused on a more sweeping landscape, the transformation of the Roman Catholic Church. Womenpriests are one step in the changes that need to take place.”[51]

What Might Hierarchical Mothers Look Like?

Women Restructuring Church

Looking at the historical shift in the RCWP from renewing the Catholic priesthood to forming a new kind of priesthood, theological implications haunt a devout reader: What would the Catholic Church look like if both Mothers and Fathers were permitted service at the altar? This question has haunted the imaginations of feminist theologians and thinkers through the years following the ordination of women into the Episcopal priesthood as well as the genesis of the Women’s Ordination Conference. The Roman Catholic Women Priest Movement has sought to envision the possibility of womenpriests in an isolated ecclesial context, arousing numerous questions regarding how women would administer the sacramental office of priesthood.

Kelly Raab’s When Women Become Priests: the Catholic Women’s Ordination Debate imagines the reforms women could bring to the life of the Church, especially in regards to the celebration of the Eucharist and structure of Church authority.[52] Arguing through five ideas she perceives pertinent to the women’s ordination conversation in the Catholic Church, Raab outlines the differences between male and female priestly ministry in terms of: gender reversal, maternal envy, Christ as woman, and gender, sex and God.

In her first point, Raab claims that while the Church prohibits women from joining the priesthood, “both the Catholic priesthood and the notions of the church have ‘feminine,’ particularly maternal, origins” even in the celebration of the Eucharist.[53] Noting that the Eucharist is a maternal image rooted at its heart in the mother-infant relationship, Raab describes the priesthood as a feminine office populated only by celibate men.[54] Blaming the opposition to women priests on “unconscious dynamics concerning male gender identity issues,” Raab accuses men in the hierarchical Catholic priesthood of having (consciously or unconsciously) contracted a sense of womb envy. Noting this envy of the female biological capacity to bear children, Raab links this with the centrality of sacrifice to the Catholic Eucharistic theology.[55] Suggesting that the priesthood has become a site for psychological transference, Raab proposes that women altar celebrants “would serve as a template for maternal transferences.”[56] Analyzing these transferences as both positive and negative, womenpriests would resurrect questions Christology and how women can represent Christ to parishioners.

Viewing these tenants as means of women serving in a Catholic priesthood, Raab “began to see ritualizing as a way of creating an alternative reality, as opening an avenue for individual and social change” in an institutional structure from her interviews with ordained Episcopal women.[57] Through an experience of mass at the hands of a female Episcopal priest, Raab felt she had encountered a female Christ who in turn allowed her to experience herself “intuitively affirmed and more included in the service.”[58] This refreshing experience of the Eucharistic ritual reenacted to Raab “the primordial drama of identification with and differentiation from mother” portrayed by women offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.[59] This maternal body is necessary, Raab argues, if Western dualism is to be overturned in favor of a more holistic experience of the gospel.[60] Erasure of this dualism comes through the recovery of Christ as a sexual being, eliminating “misogyny, homophobia, and denigration of sexual pleasure.” [61] Besides a sexual liberation, Raab finds enormous symbolic significance to women’s ordination: affirmation of an egalitarian sense of church in order to further catholic sentiment of all being equal before God in terms of salvation; improve ecumenical dialog through portrayal of equal rights for all people; and furthering the Church’s ideal as utopia, “representing a future, eschatological, or saved, community.”[62]

Raab’s perception of a more communitarian, egalitarian church organization with the dawn of a female priesthood aligns with the ideals of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests. Caught between the fact of remaining within the liturgical definitions of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution and rejection of many of the principles governing the Catholic Church, my interview with member of the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement and personal interaction with members of her community suggests that the experience of the women involved in RCWP advocated a reformation and reexamination of Church structure, specifically pushing an egalitarian organization (often anti-clerical) and acceptance of varying life styles as equally valid within the Christian community. Rather than seeking to replace male priests with women and exclude men from the Church, the RCWP serves as a thought-provoking challenge to current Church structure around the celibate, male priesthood. According to Meehan:

Women as priests remind us that women are equal symbols of the holy and that the identity of priests should reflect the experiences and spiritual authority of women. Women priests help the church to recognize women’s rightful place as equals in the governing structures of the church. Reclaiming our ancient spiritual heritage, women priests are shaping a more inclusive, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered church of equals in the 21st century.[63]

A Woman’s Touch: Feminizing the Church?

Many supporters of the movement for women’s ordination to the Catholic ministerial priesthood have been faced with an accusation that ordaining will “feminize” the Church. But what is meant by feminization? According to statistic provided by John Allen, Jr. in his article “The Feminization of the Church,” women are already the majority of congregants and lay ecclesial ministers, composing the general population of the Church.[64] Yet according to the majority of these women expressing “feminine” opinion, the priesthood is in need of reform.[65] Redmont’s survey of women’s opinions on priestly leadership resulted in a variety of opinions centering on the same theme of reforming the celibate, male-only sacramental order.

Decentralizing the priesthood as the sacramental focus of liturgical life, laywomen such as Abigail McCarthy hold a more democratic view of Church leadership. If all congregants are priests, the priest should just be selected from amongst the people by the people, rather than being assigned by some hierarchical order.[66] Focusing on the primacy of the Eucharist, “Eucharistia facit Ecclesiam, (‘The Eucharist makes the Church’).”[67] Fr. William Shannon suggests that the celibate, male variety of Eucharistic celebrants is secondary to the actual celebration of the Eucharist. Discovering that some women favored ordination in principle, Redmont found at the heart of this position a deeper set of questions regarding structure and ministry of the Church, which was “unlikely to be ‘sacramental priesthood as it is presently structured and understood.’” Noting the need for women ministers, laywomen choose to view ministry in a larger context than merely ordination, considering men and women to be called in the same way.[68]

Ambiguity about church structure, while desiring inclusive positions for women if there is to be a hierarchical structure, pervades a large number of women’s analyses of the women’s ordination conversation. For few is the question as simple as whether or not to ordain women along with men, but rather, whether or not anyone should be ordained at all. Kathryn Schuler, a college student interviewed by Redmont, expressed distaste for the women’s ordination conversation because it encourages women to buy into nonsensical, cult-like tradition.[69] Mary Hunt, another interviewee from among Catholic laywomen, desired to “forsake ordination in favor of ministry,”[70] though she would demand “justice” of ordination (equal-opportunity ordination between men and women). Because she had little hope of the institutional ordaining, Hunt relayed a premonition that the institutional church would attempt to pacify women desiring ordination by allowing women deacons. Voicing this opinion, Hunt aligns with Redmont to concur with one of the basic principles of the RCWP movement—to accept only a priestly ordination from the Vatican rather than settling for diaconate.[71]

From a feminist perspective of Women-Church, not only does rejection ordination allow for a more consensually structured church community, but “also implies a move toward self-determination and a change in the traditional understanding of the sacraments.” [72] Redmont’s experience of interviewing women who ministered within the Catholic Church was that they worked both within and outside church structures, utilizing Traditions when convenient and innovating to best meet the needs the were faced with. “Most of the women who spoke to me of a call or vocation to ministry (ordained or not),” Redmont recalled,” made clear to me that the church community was always part of this call.’[73] Perhaps then, a feminine contribution to the Church community’s sense of call reconciles both an inner, personal sense of call and the invitation of a community of faith to allow for a variety of ministries within and outside of a hierarchy.[74] Many members of the RCWP movement “believe not only in women’s ordination, but also that total reform of the Church is needed. They advocate for less hierarchy and more democracy, less political posturing and more diversity — and making celibacy for priests optional.”[75]

Conclusion: WomenCommunity- Choosing the Battles

Having analyzed the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement through its history originating in the Women’s Ordination Conference, an array of experience culminating in democratic, egalitarian, a decrying of clerical celibacy and decentralization of the clerical office in favor of a communal Eucharist demonstrates a fundamental shift away from the tradition which is recognized on a social and magisterial level as “Catholic.” Maintaining a deep appreciation for Eucharistic sentimentality, members of RCWP advocate personal experience over the tenants of traditional religion. Does this favoring of individual experience over structural principles change the entire tenor of the Eucharistic sacrifice to a non-Catholic context? Noting that the womanpriest I interviewed felt that the RCWP’s decentralization seemed more Protestant than Catholic, I recall Susan Jacoby’s analysis of the secularization of traditional religion.

While a high percentage of Catholics in Europe and America favor the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood,[76] the roots of the religious feminist movement seems to be related to the initial, secular women’s rights movement.[77] Referring to the Catholic Magisterium’s theological position on the ordination of women as conservative, Jacoby argues that “that mainstream American religion has become more secularized as a result of its accommodation to feminism.”[78] Not tied to the same regard for tradition, Protestant theology in both the eighteen and nineteen centuries was most easily “secularized” than Catholicism by expose to Enlightenment thought and evolutionism.[79] Recognizing feminist thought as a challenge to the Catholic structure of Church, Jacoby notes that “the pope’s resistance [to women’s ordination] is based on theology, not sociology, and is perfectly comprehensible within his historical frame of reference.”[80] The expectation of the RCWP and the WOC as a whole that the Church will operate from some democratic process are the results, Jacoby would suggest, of secularization in society. Women’s ordination from a magisterial understanding of the Catholic faith is not only a threat to the patriarchal structure of the Church hierarchy, but a danger to the most central mystery of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist:

The essence of a secularist and rationalist worldview is the de-sacralization of mysteries and taboos that defy logic and the laws of nature, and that is American feminism has elicited such a fierce and enduring enmity from the religious right. As its core, feminism can only be understood as an attack on the sacralization of man-made customs governing relations between the sexes.[81]

It is this socio-theological threat to Catholic culture which causes “the status of women is a line in the sand, a measure of their unwillingness to let secular laws and new secular customs overturn centuries of religious dogma and tradition.”[82] How can the RCWP movement, if it threatens the very mystery which the proponents seek to liberate from patriarchal structure, claim to remain Catholic? Perhaps a more critical application of women’s experiences of vocation must be applied before entirely departing from a Catholic frame of reference.

Ronan addresses this subject of seemingly binary discourse through the work of Mary McClintock Fulkerson’s Changing the Subject.[83] Developing a particularly female tool in her discussion of different women’s experiences, “the analytic of women’s discourses,” Fulkerson critiques an unconscious reproduction of the Cartesian mind-body split in the discourse of women’s ordination by “uncritical appeal to women’s experience.” The patriarchal system has already subordinated women through production of a “Cartesian binary framework” in society. Only by a critical application of women’s experiences to social situations by “textualizing” does Fulkerson believe the “the supposed naturalness of the various components of this [patriarchal] social order by showing how the positioning of signs in texts and actions, and the intersections between them, literally construct differences.”[84] Noting theology as the context, not the origins, of theological and ethical reasoning, Fulkerson offers a challenge to the very experientially-based RCWP movement. RCWP’s “secular” principles of democratic, egalitarian, anti-clerical leadership run contrary to the theologically-based Catholic Magisterial tradition, and that its appeal to experience may work against its very goals of egalitarianism, I suggest that perhaps the RCWP is not a renewal of the Catholic priesthood, but a reinvention of it.

While the Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement ordains women into the apostolic succession claimed by the hierarchical Catholic Church, there are diverse opinions amongst these women as to whether or not women should seek to participate in oppressive male structures of ecclesial organization. Advocating two main themes in their theological expressions, the Womanpriest movement focuses on consensual (even anticlerical) leadership and equal access to the Eucharist for all people. Since the majority of Catholics in the American church seem to be in favor of ordaining women, the RCWP voices the opinions of many women and men in the Church in active movements such as the Women’s Ordination Conferences or Women-masses that gender-oriented arguments prohibiting women from exercising full sacramental ministry are simply sexist. Imagining the possibilities of womenpriests within the hierarchical structure if the Catholic Magisterium through the biased experiences of ordained Episcopal women, many women tend to favor a position that moves out of hierarchy entirely to a simply communitarian, egalitarian form of church structure. Noting that the demographics of the male and female participants in the womanpriest movement tend to be pre-Vatican II Catholics (many from former religious life), one might wonder whether the great range of fluctuation in doctrine and practice after the council affected the disenchantment of religious and priests who left their vowed lives for lay-like positions in frustration with the hierarchy.

Bibliography:

Allen Jr., John L. “The fennmzation of the church.” National Catholic Reporter 43, no. 34 (August 17, 2007): 13-17. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 20, 2009).

Alliaume, Karen Timble. “The Risks of Repeating Ourselves: Reading Feminist, Womanist Figures of Jesus.” Cross Currents, Summer 1998, Vol. 48 Issue 2. 31 August 2008. <http://www.crosscurrents.org/alliaume.htm>.

Binger, Annette. “The Ministry of Women,” Eureka Street.com.au. 14 January 2009. <http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=934>.

Byrny, Lavinia. Women Before God: Our Own Spirituality. Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1988.

Dittrich, Mary, Trans. “Ludmila Javorová.” Translation of a report entitled “Yes, I am a Catholic woman priest!” by Werner Ertel and Georg Motylewicz in Kirche Intern vol. 9 (1995) no 11, pp. 18-19. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.womenpriests.org/called/javo_rep.asp>.

Donovan, Gill. “Excommunications of seven women confirmed.” National Catholic Reporter 39, no. 14 (February 07, 2003): 6. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009).

—-.”Though church bans women priests. (cover story).” National Catholic Reporter 44, no. 6 (December 07, 2007): 15-18. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009),

Finn, Virginia Sullivan. “Ministerial Attitudes and Aspirations of Catholic Laywomen in the United States.” Religious Institutions and Women’s Leadership: New Roles Inside the Mainstream. Ed. Catherine Wessinger. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. 243-68.

Gardiner, Anne Marie, Ed. Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision. Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference 1975. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Hinman, Kristen. “The Church Ladies,” Riverfront Times (RFT). November 07, 2007 at 12:13pm. Accessed 19 April 2009. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2007-11-07/news/the-church-ladies>.

Hopkins, Julie M. Towards a Feminist Christology: Jesus of Nazareth, European Women, and the Christological Crisis. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Jacoby, Susan. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. New York : Metropolitan Books, 2004.

Anonymous Womanpriest. Interview. 7 March 2009.

—. Interview [Roman Catholic Women Priest Mass]. 14 March 2009.

Meehan, Bridget Mary. 4 August 2007. Online Video Clip. RomanCatholicWomenPriests.org. “Roman Catholic Womenpriests:A New Model of Ordained Ministry in RC church.” Hosted at Google Videos. 18 April 2009. <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6902242394506973453&hl=en>.

Moon, Hellena. “Womenpriests: radical change or more of the same?” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. University of Indiana Press, 22 September 2008. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-35599677_ITM?email=hmecaskey@op.dspt.edu&library=Alameda%20Free%20Library>.

Larson-Miller, Lizette. Episcopal Priest, Personal Interview.

Purvis, Sally B. The Stained Glass Ceiling: Churches and Their Women Pastors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Raab, Kelley. When Women Become Priests: The Catholic Women’s Ordination Debate (Columbia University Press: New York, 2000).

Raming, Ida. The Priestly Office of Women: God’s Gift to a Renewed Church, A History of Women and Ordination, Vol. 2. Ed. By Bernard Cooke and Gary Macy. Kanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2004.

Ronan, Marian. “Ordination and Apartheid.” Women’s Ordination Conference. This article was first printed in Vol. XIV, No. 3, the December 2005 – February 2006 issue, of EqualwRrites, the newsletter of the Southeastern WOC. Accessed 2 February 2009. <http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/63/117/>.

—“ Reclaiming Women’s Experience: A Reading of Selected Christian Feminist Theologies.” Cross Currents, Summer 1998, Vol. 48 Issue 2. Online Edition. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.crosscurrents.org/ronan.htm>.

Redmont, Jane. Generous Lives: American Catholic Women Today. New York: William Morrow and Company , Inc., 1992.

Rue, Victoria. “Womenpriests in the Roman Catholic Church.” Crossroads. Lincoln Theological Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Manchester, UK. July 12-14, 2006. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/59/117/>.

Schaeffer, Pamela. “Though church bans women priests. (cover story).” National Catholic Reporter 44, no. 6 (December 07, 2007): 15-18. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009).

“Someday church will ordain women priests. (John Paul II’s opposition to women’s ordination).” Date: June 17, 1994 | COPYRIGHT 1994 National Catholic Reporter. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. 15 March 2009. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15534078.html>.

Vatine, Soline. “Conference Proceedings of Now is the Time.” Women’s Ordination Worldwide Conference. 29 June-1 July 2001. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.we-are-church.org/it/attual/Congresso.donne.prete.html>.

—. “RESOLUTIONS TO THE MEMBER ORGANISATIONS OF WOW AS PASSED AT THE WOW ECUMENICAL CONFERENCE IN DUBLIN, IRELAND, JULY 2001.” Women’s Ordination Worldwide Conference. 29 June-1 July 2001. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.we-are-church.org/it/attual/Congresso.donne.prete.html>.

Wessinger, Catherine. “Women’s Religious Leadership in the United States,” Religious Institutions and Women’s Leadership: New Roles Inside the Mainstream. Ed. Catherine Wessinger. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996.

Wijnigaards, John. Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests? Essex: McCrimmon’s, 1986.

–.Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests? Essex: McCrimmon’s, 1986. 15 March 2009. Online version at: <http://www.iol.ie/~duacon/wompr1.htm>.

–. The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church: Unmasking a Cuckoo’s Egg Tradition. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd Ltd., 2001.

Winter, Miriam Therese. “Ludmila’s Story,” Beliefnet. Inspiration. Spirituality. Faith. Excerpted from ‘Out of the Depths’ by Miriam Therese Winter. (c) 2001. Used with permission. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2001/05/Ludmilas-Story.aspx>.

“Women Are the Backbone of the Christian Congregations in America.” The Barna Group. Barna.Org. 6 March 2000. 17 January 2009. <http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=47>.

“WomenPriests: Breaking Barriers in the Catholic Church. Interview with Jane Via and Jean Marchant.” 27 November 2008. Online Video Clip. The Today Show on MSNbc.com. 19 April 2009. <http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/27942799#27942799>.

Women Priests: The Case for Ordaining Women in the Catholic Church. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.womenpriests.org/default.asp>.

Zagano, Phyllis. “Catholic women’s ordination: the ecumenical implications of women deacons in the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church of Greece, and the Union of Utrecht Old Catholic Churches,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Published: 1 January 2008. 15 March 2009. <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34352917_ITM>.

[1] Marian Ronan. “Ordination and Apartheid.” Women’s Ordination Conference. This article was first printed in Vol. XIV, No. 3, the December 2005 – February 2006 issue, of EqualwRrites, the newsletter of the Southeastern WOC. Accessed 2 February 2009. <http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/63/117/>.

[2] The position within the Roman Catholic culture advocating women as fit candidates for the ministerial priesthood is espoused by several different groups and organizations. WomenEucharist ( written about in book titled WomenEucharist by Sheila Durkin Dierks http://wovenword.com/WomenEucharist.htm) describes women presiding over the Eucharistic celebration in home congregations. The Women-Church Convergence [WC-C] considers itself “a coalition of autonomous Catholic-rooted organizations/groups raising a feminist voice committed to an ekklesia of women which is participative, egalitarian and self-governing.”(Statement from homepage, accessed on 2 May 2009: http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/home.htm.). The Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC),founded in 1975, is considered the oldest and largest foundation “working solely for the ordination of women as priests, deacons, and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic Church.” (According to the title statement on the WOC home page accessed 28 April 2009, http://www.womensordination.org/ ). Another group which sincerely believes that the Vatican is wrong to prohibit Catholic women from ordination to the ministerial priesthood is the Women Priest organization, seeking to negotiate the ordination of women under a state of obedience to the Pope (http://www.womenpriests.org/index.asp). FutureChurch, a movement of Roman Catholics founded in 1990 in Solon, Ohio, currently active in 28 parishes throughout North East Ohio. Future Church is concerned about the related issues of women in ministry, optional celibacy, inclusive language, and Church decision-making that involves all the faithful, as called for by Vatican II, deferring these to the primacy of the Eucharistic celebration (derived from self-acclaimed statement on the FutureChurch website, http://www.futurechurch.org/about.htm, accessed 2 May 2009). The final group which I will make mention of is the Roman Catholic Womenpriest movement, not only advocating for the ordination of women, but claiming there is no supremacy of the Pope’s authority over that of the entire baptized church, have gone ahead and claimed ordination for women and men into a “renewed,” inclusive priesthood, against papal decree (according website http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/index.php). It is on this final movement which this paper will focus to analyze the experience of some women’s vocations to an ecclesial office within the Roman Catholic community.

[3] Roman Catholic Womenpriest Website. This website was created and is maintained by RCWP-USA, Inc., a California 501©3 non-profit corporation, as an educational and information service to the public. RCWP-USA promotes and supports the ordination of women and men in renewed priestly ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. This website provides information about RCWP worldwide, with special focus on RCWP in North America. Every ministry convened by a Roman Catholic Woman Priest operates separately and independently from the RCWP-USA, Inc. non-profit. © 2009 Roman Catholic Womenpriests 77847. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/index.php>.

[4] Hellena Moon. “Womenpriests: radical change or more of the same?” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. University of Indiana Press, 22 September 2008. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-35599677_ITM?email=hmecaskey@op.dspt.edu&library=Alameda%20Free%20Library>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Susan Jacoby. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. New York : Metropolitan Books, 2004. 338.

[9] Moon.

[10] Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza is included as one of the foremost speakers for the reformulating of patriarchal theology Women/Church Convergence (According to the Women-Church Convergence website history accessed 28 April 2009, <http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/herstory.htm>).

[11] Moon.

[12] Moon.

[14] Women’s Ordination Worldwide.” Women’s Ordination Conference.

[15] Soline Vatine. “Conference Proceedings of Now is the Time.” Women’s Ordination Worldwide Conference. 29 June-1 July 2001. Accessed 2 May 2009. <http://www.we-are-church.org/it/attual/Congresso.donne.prete.html>.

[16] Javorona, a Czechoslovakian member of underground Roman Catholic Church known as “Koinotes” (Winter, “Ludmila’s Story”), was ordained on December 28, 1970 by Bishop Felix Maria Davidek, witnessed by his brother Leo. Javorona found reason for her ordination y Bishop Davidek “was that in women’s prisons nuns and other inmates had died without priestly support or the sacraments. But it was also clear to us that a woman is much better at dealing with women’s problems than a man is. Just think of the sacrament of reconciliation.” (Ertel and Georg Motylewicz). (Vatine, Soline. “RESOLUTIONS TO THE MEMBER ORGANISATIONS OF WOW AS PASSED AT THE WOW ECUMENICAL CONFERENCE IN DUBLIN, IRELAND, JULY 2001.”)

[17] Soline Vatine. “RESOLUTIONS TO THE MEMBER ORGANISATIONS OF WOW AS PASSED AT THE WOW ECUMENICAL CONFERENCE IN DUBLIN, IRELAND, JULY 2001.”

[18] Kristen Hinman. “The Church Ladies,” Riverfront Times (RFT). November 07, 2007 at 12:13pm. Accessed 19 April 2009. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2007-11-07/news/the-church-ladies>.

[19] Catherine Wessinger. “Women’s Religious Leadership in the United States,” Religious Institutions and Women’s Leadership: New Roles Inside the Mainstream. Ed. Catherine Wessinger. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. 22.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 23-5.

[24] Ibid., 24.

[25] Virginia Sullivan Finn. “Ministerial Attitudes and Aspirations of Catholic Laywomen in the United States.” Religious Institutions and Women’s Leadership: New Roles Inside the Mainstream. Ed. Catherine Wessinger. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. 243-68.

[26] The names of the women ordained at the first Danube ordination in 2002 are the following, as cited by the Roman Catholic Womenpriest website (http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/history.htm):

Pia Brunner (Germany); Angela White/Dagmar Celeste (USA); Gisela Forster (Germany); Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger (Austria); Iris Muller (Germany); Ida Raming (Germany); Adelinde Theresia Roitinger (Germany)

[27] Gill Donovan. “Excommunications of seven women confirmed.” National Catholic Reporter 39, no. 14 (February 07, 2003): 6. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009). The women were ordained June 29^th 2002 by Romulo Braschi, whom Donovan describes as a “schismatic Argentine bishop.” Threatened with excommunication a month later, the women refused to acknowledge any sort of scandal or invalid/null ordinations, and subsequently the Vatican issued a decree of excommunication on August 5^th 2002. While these women appealed for their excommunication to be revoked, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith confirmed the excommunication on December 21^st, 2002, forbidding the seven women ability to celebrate sacraments and sacramental rites, as well as receiving “the sacraments and to exercise any function in ecclesial office, ministry or assignment.” This decree was published on January 27^th 2003, and has remained intact since that time. Pamela Schaeffer offers a detailed account of the St. Louis 2007 ordination in “Though church bans women priests. (cover story).” National Catholic Reporter 44, no. 6 (December 07, 2007): 15-18. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009), supplying background details to the earlier history or RCWP.

[28] Gill Donovan “Vatican excommunicates women ordained in June.” National Catholic Reporter 38, no. 36 (August 16, 2002): 13. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009). In spite of incurring excommunication, none of the newly ordained womenpriests agreed to the terms set forth by the Vatican: no participation in administering or receiving the sacraments.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Hinman.

[31] From news reports made on the days leading up to the ordinations, November 7, 8, 9, etc (Hinman, Kristen. “The Church Ladies,” Riverfront Times (RFT). November 07, 2007 at 12:13pm. Accessed 19 April 2009. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2007-11-07/news/the-church-ladies>.)

[32] Schaeffer.

[33] Hinman.

[34] Hinman.

[35] Information concerning the 2008 ordinations of the Roman Catholic Women Priest movement were derived from press releases issued by RCWP representative Bridget Mary Meehan in “Roman Catholic Womenpriests Ordain U.S. Bishop” (Release date: April 9, 2008. Accessed 17 April 2009.) and “Peace and Justice Activist to Be Ordained a Roman Catholic Womanpriest” (Release date: July 30, 2008. Accessed 17 April 2008.) both from the Roman Catholic Women Priest website: <http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/Kentucky%20RCWP%20Press%20Releases.zip>.

[36] John Paul II. Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference,1994.

[37] Bridget Mary Meehan. “The Case for Women Preists,” Global Ministries University. 18 July 2008. Accessed 19 April 2009. <http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/Kentucky%20RCWP%20Press%20Releases.zip>.

[38] In her book When Women Become Priests: The Catholic Women’s Ordination Debate (Columbia University Press: New York, 2000), Kelley A. Raab induces possibilities for the priesthood of women in the Roman Catholic Church from interviews with Episcopal priests, noting that “many conflicting and controversial issues on sexuality would surface, and additional discussions on the issue would be critical” (206) if women could be ordained.

[39] Finn.

[40] Pamela Schaeffer. “Though church bans women priests. (cover story).” National Catholic Reporter 44, no. 6 (December 07, 2007): 15-18. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 19, 2009)

[41] Hinman.

[42] In Generous Lives: American Catholic Women Today (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992. 325-6) Jane Redmont’s interviewees as a majority suggested that women’s ordination would “be good for the Church” as a whole (327). “The women’s ordination movement has never focused on what Mary Hunt calls the ‘add women and stir’ formula,” but aims to renew the church and reexamine the meaning and definition of priesthood just as much as advocating the ordination of women (327).

[43] Mission Statement.” Roman Catholic Womenpriests. Copyright 2009. Accessed 20 April 2009. <http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/index.php>. This website was created and is maintained by RCWP-USA, Inc., a California 501©3 non-profit corporation, as an educational and information service to the public. RCWP-USA promotes and supports the ordination of women and men in renewed priestly ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. This website provides information about RCWP worldwide, with special focus on RCWP in North America. Every ministry convened by a Roman Catholic Woman Priest operates separately and independently from the RCWP-USA, Inc. non-profit.

[44] Schaeffer.

[45] Schaeffer.

[46] Lizette Larson-Miller, Episcopal Priest. Personal Interview. 21 April 2009.

[47] Ronan, “Ordination and Apartheid.”

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Rue, “Womenpriests in the Roman Catholic Church.”

[52] Kelley Raab. When Women Become Priests: The Catholic Women’s Ordination Debate (Columbia University Press: New York, 2000).

[53] Ibid., 16.

[54] Ibid., 16

[55] Ibid., 17.

[56] Ibid., 17.

[57] Ibid., 23.

[58] Ibid., 19.

[59] Ibid., 197.

[60] Ibid., 199.

[61] Ibid., 207.

[62] Ibid., 236.

[63] Bridget Mary Meehan. “The Case for Women Priests.”

[64] John L. Allen Jr.,”The fennmzation of the church.” National Catholic Reporter 43, no. 34 (August 17, 2007): 13-17. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 20, 2009).

[65] Jane Redmont. Generous Lives: American Catholic Women Today.

[66] Ibid., 326

[67] Ibid., 328.

[68] Ibid. 329.

[69] Ibid., 329.

[70] Ibid., 329.

[71] Ibid., 329-30.

[72] Ibid., 330.

[73] Ibid., 331.

[74] Jane Redmont. “’You’re a What?’ Catholic Women as Ministers,” Chapter 8. Generous Lives: American Catholic Women Today.

[75] Hinman, Kristen. “The Church Ladies.”

[76] Moon.

[77] Jacoby, 338-9.

[78] Ibid., 339.

[79] Ibid., 340.

[80] Ibid., 340.

[81] Ibid., 340.

[82] Ibid., 340.

[83] Ronan, “Reclaiming Women’s Experience: A Reading of Selected Christian Feminist Theologies.”

[84] Ibid.

Leshem Shamayim: “For the sake of heaven.”

Research Work

Exegesis of Galatians 3.18-25… Gentiles and Jews Co-Inheritors With Abraham of the Spirit of Promise through Jesus Christ

A Church of Her Own: Renewed or Recreated Priesthood? Priesthood through the Experience of Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Episcopal Background to Catholic Conversation on Women’s Ordination

History of the Womanpriest Ordinations

Reformative Goal of the Womanpriest Movement?

Women Being Priests: Experience of Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Intimate Liturgical Experience

What Might Hierarchical Mothers Look Like?

Women Restructuring Church

A Woman’s Touch: Feminizing the Church?

Conclusion: WomenCommunity- Choosing the Battles

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Top Posts

Blogroll

Categories

Blog Stats