by Louis Bouyer
from Man, Woman, and Priesthood, pp. 63-67, edited by
Peter Moore, SPCK London, 1978.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.
LOUIS BOUYER (b. 1913), educated at Strasbourg and Paris Universities, was a Lutheran minister until the Second World War. He is a priest of the French Congregation of the Oratory. He was a Professor of the Institut Catholique in Paris until 1963, and has since taught at universities in England, Spain, and the U.S.A., where he is at present Visiting Professor at the Catholic University of America. Twice appointed by the Pope to the International Theological Commission of the Roman Catholic Church, he has been a consultant in the Vatican Consilium for the Liturgy, the Congregation of Worship, and the Secretariat for Christian Unity. His numerous publications include, in English translations, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (1963) and three volumes of The History of Christian Spirituality.
The possibility of conferring the Christian priesthood upon women has become, for many people, an essential item in what they call the 'liberation of women'. However, it can be seriously doubted whether this would contribute to the end for which it is introduced, while it seems clear that it would ruin not only the whole conception and reality of the Christian priesthood but some of the most basic elements of any Christianity worthy of the name.
To begin with, to introduce a Christian priesthood of women accepts, at least by implication, the idea that the founder of Christianity, Christ himself, could be wrong on a central point of his teaching practice. It is useless to retort, as some try to do, that if Christ did not include women among his apostles, or more generally, those to whom he gave some part in the preaching of his gospel like the seventy, it was just a matter of chance or of a lack of opportunity. He did not call women, just as he did not call pagans, or blacks, or any other kind of foreigners—but, as these people say, the purely negative fact cannot permanently exclude women from the priesthood any more than it has excluded in the past converts from paganism, Negroes, or other people introduced into the Church at a later stage. The obvious answer is that our Lord had no actual opportunity to call any of the people mentioned, while he had just as many opportunities to meet women as he had to meet men. But even to say this is to say too little. In fact Jesus, in open contradiction to the usual practice of the rabbis, and although he was not a married man as they were, did not hesitate to admit women into his closest company, into his dis-cipleship. Therefore, if he did not call them either to the apostle-ship proper, or to any kind of apostolic ministry, it must have been as a matter not of chance, nor of a lack of practical and actual opportunity, but of principle.
Nor can it be said that he acted in such a way merely to counteract contemporary prejudices. First of all, no such prejudices existed. Among the priesthoods of antiquity, in his own times, many were open to women as well as to men, and some of the most respected ones were a special privilege of women. It is true that it was a distinctive feature of Judaism, following the tradition of the early Hebrew religion, that women were not admitted any more among the rabbis than among the priests. But the explanation sometimes given, that that could be accounted for only as a reaction against the nature-worship of the other Semitic people, which had led them to confer the priesthood upon women (who were in fact prostitutes), is self-destructive. In those shrines of the Babylonians or Canaanites, the 'sacred' prostitution of men as well as of women was accepted as a part of their priesthood.
More generally speaking, in the Old Testament already and in Judaism as well, the exclusion of women from the priesthood or the public teaching of doctrine, far from being linked with any diminished or impoverished idea of womanhood, went together with an esteem of women and a legal (and practical) situation for them in society which had no equivalent in antiquity, especially in the Greek-speaking world.
Against this, none of the objections often raised can stand. For example, how many times has the bereka (prayer) daily said by Hebrew males been quoted: '... Blessed art thou, O Lord, to have made me a man and not a woman .. .'? But it has been forgotten that the women were advised to say for their own part: 'Blessed art thou ... to have made me according to thy will.. .' (a sentence, let it be said, probably echoed in the answer of the Virgin Mary to the Angel). The rabbis explained that the men were taught to speak in that way to inculcate into them the idea that their responsibility for the divine worship was not to be interpreted so much as a burden (from which women were dispensed as a compensation for their family duties) but as an honour.
The Jewish tendency to keep women inside the family circle could not be given as the motive for Jesus' failing to call them to the ministry of the gospel. It seems that he made it clear that women were henceforth not only to be freely admitted on a footing of perfect equality, together with men (as the rabbis already agreed), to participation in the service of the people of God, but that now they were to be made partakers of the full collective responsibility for its celebration. It is certainlv under his personal influence that, from the very beginnings of the Christian Church, women were admitted to take part, exactly as men were, in the prayers of the faithful, in the offering of the gifts for the Eucharist, and in the communion. They were equally admitted, very early, to a diaconal ministry, which seems to have been an exact equivalent of that of men-deacons; but they were never called, nor supposed to be able to be called, to the apostolic functions of exercising pastoral responsibility, together with publicly announcing the Word, and presiding at the eucharistic consecration. This, from the first, has been understood as an apostolic ordinance backed by the practice and the undoubted intention of Christ himself.
That it did not mean any aspersion on the possible equality of women with men concerning spiritual things is made perfectly clear by two considerations. The first is the very high regard for the Virgin Mary in Christian esteem, already manifest in Luke and John. It went so far indeed that very early it was accepted that in the Church Mary had a position and a role not only as high as those of the apostles, of the Twelve, and St Paul, but much higher —although hers was not the same role as theirs. The second evidence for the same point is in the position officially recognized in the ancient Church of the 'Virgins' and the 'Widows'. It is not an exaggeration to say that they were very early acknowledged as two 'orders' of consecrated persons, having in the Church an official status of which there was no equivalent even for male ascetics.
Here, maybe, we have the final clue to the distinctive vocations ascribed to men and to women in the Church from the beginning. The special public vocation of man in the apostolic ministry was seen as a vocation to represent, among all the members of Christ, the Head, a vocation which, like that of the Head itself, belongs to men only. Similarly, the public vocation of women was understood as a vocation to represent the Church as a body, as the Bride of Christ, in its unity as well as in its eschatological integrity. This could be the vocation of women only, as it had been the special vocation of Mary. Once again, no possible idea of inferiority could be connected with that specialization, since the Virgin Mary was soon to be considered as higher, in the Church, than the Twelve and St Paul.
We come to a very remarkable correspondence with something which has been revealed by the most recent researches in both psychology and sociology, about the 'equality' of women with men. As the Dutch scholar Buijtendijk has said very impressively in his book on Woman, it is only at an embryonic stage of modern 'feminism' that it was naively supposed that equality for women had to mean doing all those things that men do. This, as he points out and demonstrates very conclusively, far from involving a true acknowledgement of the positive and unique contribution of women to humanity, was a last attempt to subject them to purely masculine criteria and, therefore, a way of admitting them to full humanity only through depriving them of their femininity. The true, and the only true, way to an equality with men, which will not prove destructive of their own integrity, is not their admission to a kind of bogus masculinity, but the admission of the unique importance of what they only can do and be. Their contribution to human existence is no less important or honourable than (though fundamentally different from) the masculine contribution.
If there is a field where this has to be understood and applied, it is par excellence that of the Christian ministry. We are, certainly, to restore to women those ministries they had in the primitive and early Church, which have since fallen into disuse. And we should be aware of the many still too little (or not at all) used opportunities we have of putting their proper gifts to the service of the Church. But let us not fancy we could do them any real service by encouraging them to do and to be what could only result in a loss of identity. We are precisely where we, theologians and canon lawyers, have found ourselves in so many other cases since the sixteenth century. That is to say, when we intend to be 'modern', 'up to date', 'with it', and so on, we usually just manage to consecrate and introduce into the very temple of the one true God the idols of yesterday, at the exact time when the children of the world, who are no fools, are seeing through them, exploding them, and sweeping away the dust of their broken images. May we once again be saved from that sham 'modernity' which will only succeed in making us the laughing-stock of our more perceptive contemporaries, while diluting in tepid and polluted waters the ever-fresh mainspring of Christianity. We are to transmit it from one generation to another, certainly adapted ever anew, although the same always; however, true adaptations have never been, and will never be, of a refashioned gospel of mere fancies, but only of the true gospel, the true reality of mankind... womankind!
Thanks for posting this.
ReplyDeleteI do not intend here to make an argument for women in the priesthood, but I would like to point out what I see as weaknesses in Bouyer's argument.
1)In paragraph 2, Bouyer makes the following argument:
Jesus did not call women as apostles even though he had plenty of women disciples. Therefore we can conclude that Jesus excludes women from the priesthood on principle.
Bouyer does not address the possibility that Jesus may have had some other pragmatic reason for not including women among his apostles. Maybe he thought it was radical enough to include women as disciples, and that to include them as apostles would be going too far given the cultural norms of his day.
Maybe he tries to address this in paragraph 3, but I don't understand his arguement there. What difference does it make that pagan religions had both male and female prostitutes? Jesus was preaching primarily among Jews, so he may have wanted to abide within their norms to the extent possible.
2) In paragraph 6
"but they [women] were never called, nor supposed to be able to be called, to the apostolic functions of exercising pastoral responsibility, together with publicly announcing the Word, and presiding at the eucharistic consecration. This, from the first, has been understood as an apostolic ordinance backed by the practice and the undoubted intention of Christ himself."
(a) Then why was St. Thecla considered a saint instead of insubordinate when she preached the gospel? Is the difference that she was preaching to non-Christians rather than proclaiming the Word during a liturgical service? Even today, however, women are allowed to read Scripture (though maybe not the gospel) publicly in a Roman Catholic service. Would Bouyer be opposed to that practice today, or is he thinking of the homily when he uses the phrase "publicly announcing the Word"?
(b) Bouyer does not mention Junia, who is listed as an apostle by Paul in Romans 16:8. Does he question her gender (which according to Wikipedia few scholars do today), or does he question her apostleship? According to Wikipedia, those who question her apostleship interpret Paul's words to mean that she was "well known to the apostles" rather than "prominent among the apostles." Not knowing Greek, I cannot comment on this, but it seems to me that Bouyer should. If Paul did indeed recognize Junia as a female apostle it would weaken Bouyer's argument that the from the beginning the early church did not accept women in that role (and his further inference that their reason for doing so was because they had been taught that by Jesus).
3) I agree with much of what Bouyer has to say in paragrpah 9 (regarding Buijtendijk's work). However, this is only an argument that for a woman to be fully human may, in some respects, be something different than for a man to be fully human. It is not an argument that the priesthood is necessarily only a male domain.
tst
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDelete[posted for jh]
ReplyDeletewell this is the third time i've attempted to post a comment response
my life is not my own
nor is this blog
the argument bouyer is using in reference to buijtendijk is a criticism of contemporary prejudices regarding feminism...it is a point used by JPII in his encyclical on women mulieris dignitatem where he argues for the fullness of femininity against what is perceived as a real constriction of feminine spirit brought about by more modern social theory
it is helpful to recognize that the early christians did not decide against women in the priesthood it was inconcievable and therefor not a question
it is also helpful to bear in mind that the preaching aspect of early christianity was not necessarily part of the ritual aspect....people preached where they could...and that some brave women entered into that witness is unmistakeable
the paradigm utilized as we approach the year 200AD is that of the temple....temple worhip was finished for the jews at that time and the christians co-opted the pattern into their ritual life - with christ at the center instead of other kinds of offerings - and they utilized the friday evening sabbath prayers which were often memorized by jewish men and thus jewish/christian men
so the pattern of worship was organized around temple synagogue and home...or the memory of these in jewish culture
i like bouyer's reference to the exalted position granted women in the christian dispensation from the outset - providing places of sanctuary and freedom for women taking them out of the very limited roles of society and granting them purpose which was understood as higher (if we may) than the roles of men...they (as we should) put a lot of stock in the power of prayer in womens' communities
they utilized the justifying language of paul which was linked to the understanding of domenstic necessity at that time
(i suppose now that women are not so much in need of protection that some reconsideration is in order....????)
[... continuing, from jh]
ReplyDeletewhat bouyer does not say and what hans urs von balthasar does say is that the "icon" the image is somehow more significant than the role....it would be inconcievable to create an icon with the image of a woman for christ...in the same way the church imagined the mass as a continual re-enactment of the last supper (and that is at the essence of it today) and so the significance of having an alter christus perform the role and speak the words was essential - and this requires male attention
(now one could rightly ask about the image with long hair and a beard...in orthodox practice this was a given the priest is expected to bear some outward physical resemblance to the images of christ passed down)
the service role of ritual priesthood is not the issue for me but the greater role of how women influence and serve the church...it appears that the first communities saw the mass and the stewards of the mass in a supporting role for the work of women and their communities
with this argument von balthasar has pointed out that the desire for priesthood amongst women is actually a dangerous denigration of femininity and the senseless compromising of the rite itself
again i think within the context of early christian world understanding - it was most certainly expected that some women would give powerful public witness
the conducting of private ritual was reserved for men because that's what the men always did
and the performance of the ritual required one like unto christ in appearance and image
and they naturally understood it as re-imaging the person of christ
the blessed mother was then understood as the paradigm for the roles of women
but
the head serves the body
this flies in the face of our contemporary imaging from the social theories of freud etc and gender preoccupations of today
but i'm a conservative when it comes to this stuff
i prefer the absolute limits of presentation in the icon to speculations of more and more imaginitive ways in which we can be christians
also i think it fair to say that the way women served and loved christ was distinct from that of the male disciples...as it should be
women it seems to me are in need of tapping into the vital riches that are peculiarly feminine
and then their riches will bear fruit in the christian community
your arguments are all
ReplyDeletewell and good
but when i read them
i feel put down
that men feel like they
have to coach women
on how to be real women
like somehow we're not doing it right
but if we'd just listen to you men
we'd get it right
(in your eyes at least)
there are many ways to be a woman
and many ways to be a man
and each one of us struggles
to discover how to be truly human
in the unique way that God calls each of us
it seems to me that we ought to be able
to support each other in this journey
rather than criticize
i don't have any desire to be a priest
but if there are some women who do
let's listen to them
and try to understand
what it is that God is stirring
in their hearts
i do feel a sense of freedom
in what buijtendijk is saying
but that sense of freedom disappears
when bouyer uses buijtendijk
to bolster his own idea
of what he thinks a woman is supposed to be
my sense is and i've argued this
ReplyDeletethat there's been this huge compromise
and it's been deliberate and maybe it was focussed on women and how women need to be in the world and this was feminism
bouyer is saying more
this is how it's been this is how the christian community saw it initially
and i think his caution is
do not be conformed to this world
for me the pie in the face selfconfidence
of the feminine spirit is really coming out of
more existential this world demands
and that then is imposed within the church
he further infers that the status of women
was benefitial to men
it was as if the trends and tendency of ministry had to pass through the womens' council
it would seem to me that
ideally women and men could listen to one another and know the christian possibilities and limits of mutual influence
i don't know
i like listening to you
if the demands are for this world justice
then i think we're playing a senseless game
with this issue
if the desire is for optimal efficacy in service to the one lord
it seems to me the workload needs proper definition
mty experience of this and my view derives from my being deeply immersed in the catholic tradition...i appreciate the strong view from the outside looking in
i suppose i would read bouyer's words differently were i a woman
but i think his argument is one of hope
and belief that perfection is possible
and that women have already given plenty of evidence of doing it right and genuine
it seems to me that witness
at least in catholic ranks is blurred over now
maybe it's more vital more in keeping with the vision of christ in the protestant ranks
i don't know
my worry is that this issue threatens to be stressing things toward a schism
and i think that would be unfortunate
as well as unnecessary
i suppose i posted this because of some words delivered to our community by timothy radcliffe
i was so impressed with his sense of good sense and charity regarding how confused and "live wire" some folks in the catholic world are about this issue
one example is a funeral i went to in montana
for a methodist pastor who'd been in helena almost 60 years of his life...the pastor conducting the service was a woman whom i'd learned had been a catholic nun...twice during her lengthy eulogie(s) she took direct shots at the catholic church (and this was in a gymnasium at a catholic college) making some attemt to assure everyone thee that what we were doing was far more authentic and far more in keeping with the mind of the pastor being eulogized...at the first jibe my father looked at me with a wry smile and said...gee, thanks a lot...
anyway i suppose i could say that the issue as it so obnoxiously presents itself forces some broader thinking around the imbalances and tensions in catholic life...and maybe just maybe god is working through all this at a more profound level than i allow....i'm willing to contemplate that
thanks
for your healthy passion
!
I am coming late to this discussion, in part out of a concern when I saw this pointing that it would evolve along predictable lines. And I suppose it has.
ReplyDeleteLet me try to engage Bouyer nevertheless.
Bouyer speaks of what Christ did during his ministry as recorded in the New Testament -- the period from roughly 4AD to 30 AD as if it was dispositive. Yet we as Christians do not believe that Jesus's death by crucifixion represented the end of Jesus's life. For surely, we confess that Jesus lives! And this is not a hyperbolic, theoretical claim. It is a part of our Christian experience.
And so, contra Bouyer, just because Jesus did not do something for the first 33 years of his active ministry on earth does not exclude the possibility that he's not doing it now. Jesus still teaches us. The Holy Spirit still works among us. God still creates in his relationship with humanity, trying to win our hearts.
amen stu
ReplyDeleteyet
those first efforts at establishing a concensus
the creed for instance
and the patterns of worship
tend to be set pretty firmly
i mean we're going through a process now
of stating more literally the words of the creed despite translation problems
for me the only question for women who have assumed priestly status in say the anglican ranks is-
how is this so wrong?
i tend to go in the direction of a limited
canvas...and some very well placed ideas within the canvas
but the acceptance of the frame is also
an invitation to a greater freedom
of this i am convinced
autumnally
jh
actually
ReplyDeletereading over things
i find i was surprised by sally's interjection and
very pointed and insistent critique
of the critique
bouyer's writing beckons us to contemplation
jh
This just popped up. It seemed somehow relevant, if only from a zeitgeist perspective: Rule of Male Succession to British Monarchy Is Abolished
ReplyDelete... interesting
ReplyDeletethanks stu
the final line of the article, a quote from a Roman Catholic archbishop was precious:
“It’s not unreasonable for the head of the Church of England to be an Anglican,” he said.