Rationalists find it hard to understand role of symbolism in welcome debate of women in church

IN HER article (March 13), Colette Browne was not sparing in her criticism of my contribution to ‘The Marian Finucane Show’ the previous Sunday. The topic was our ex-President’s Rome address. On the show, I said that I found it difficult to take seriously such immoderate language, especially when used by one of Ireland’s most prominent women, who has such a distinguished background in law, and who had served Ireland with such dignity and poise as President.

I also questioned the fittingness of an ex-President of Ireland using her status to make such an attack on the Catholic Church. (What happened to the separation of church and state?) And of course, as I pointed out, dialogue isn’t best promoted by demonising those whom you seek to convince by shouting insults at them from the podium of an international conference intended to be broadcast to the world.

Reading Ms Browne’s attack on me, it was clear to me that not only should “the geriatrics in the Vatican” turn up their hearing aids, as the ex-President said (ageism?), but also the youthful Ms Browne herself might have to get a pair. She seems not to have been listening. She evidently did not hear how I had conceded early on in the discussion that Mary McAleese, indeed, had a point, namely that a discussion on the role of women in the church could be beneficial.

Ms Browne apparently was not listening when I tried to point out that, contrary to public perception, the church’s hierarchy – in particular at the highest level in Rome – had not ignored the appeal of women to be given more responsibility in the church. My evidence included the recent appointments of women to various departments in the Roman Curia, as well as appointments as judges in the church’s various canonical courts throughout the world. (One could also include leadership roles women are playing in the administration of local churches, as the late vice-chancellor of New York Archdiocese).

To illustrate how the church listens to women, I mentioned the church’s recognition of four women as Doctors of the Church. In other words, these extraordinary women’s writings are recognised as setting the gold-standard for all theologians.

In 1976, Rome replied to the question as to why the church, as she always claimed, was not authorised to ordain women as priests. In other words, the church is convinced she can’t ordain women, even if she wished. Contrary to the assumption of those who claim the church is out of touch, the 1976 instruction on this very subject, ‘Inter Insigniores’, starts by acknowledging the changed circumstances with regard to the role of women in society at large. Its opening sentence affirms: “Among the characteristics that mark our age, Pope John XXIII indicated in [...] 1963 ‘the part that women are now taking in public life ...’.” The text goes on to say that it is this new status of women in society that spurned theologians (Catholic and others) to advocate a change in the church’s practice.

That new status prompted Anglican and Protestant churches to allow women be ordained. Together with the Eastern Orthodox, the church believes that, according to the mind of Christ, it does not have the authority to ordain women – despite the way Jesus broke with so many other cultural and religious taboos in his relations with women. I tried to make similar points on ‘The Marian Finucane Show’, but was anyone listening?

Quoting the theologian Gertrud von le Fort (1876-1971), I pointed out on the show that the reason why today we cannot appreciate the church’s teaching on the priesthood is that we moderns tend to be rationalist and functionalist in our thinking. Our modern mindset makes us unable to be moved by symbolic reality and so understand its implications for human (and ritual) behaviour. Consequently, it is difficult for us today to understand the meaning of the sacraments as symbolic rituals that effect our inner transformation in Christ. This means that masculinity and femininity also have significances that are sacral, indeed reflect the very being of God (cf. Genesis 1:27) as Pope John Paul II explored in his theology of the body.

THE relationship of Christ the bridegroom to the church, his bride, can only be understood in sacral, symbolic terms. In the Protestant tradition, ministry is seen primarily in functional terms and so can be filled by either men or women. But Catholic and Orthodox traditions see priesthood otherwise, namely in sacramental terms – ie symbolic gestures that effect what they symbolise. An ordained priest or bishop, when he administers the sacraments thus is said to act effectively “in persona Christi”.

It is Jesus Christ who effects the healing of souls through those who are ordained, such as forgiving sins, confirming faith, making himself really present in the Eucharist, handing on the Apostolic ministry in ordination.

At least since the 1960s, cultural attitudes to sexuality and gender have undergone a profound change. And that change is at the basis of modern feminism, originally inspired by Simone de Beauvoir’s manifesto, ‘The Second Sex’ (1949). Space does not permit me to develop this any further, except to point out that, whatever about the discussion about the role of women (and indeed laymen) in the church today, which is urgently needed, the question of why the church is unable to ordain women to the priesthood must be seen as the point of entry into the discussion. This infallible doctrine of the church raises profound theological and cultural issues.

They have been extensively treated by such contemporary women theologians as Alice von Hildebrand, Ronda Chervin, and Prudence Allen, to mention a few. They, and others, need to be heard by all sides and could enrich our own debate, also within the Irish Church, when – if ever – we get around to it. Our much-loved ex-President Ms McAleese has reopened the discussion. This is to be welcomed.