From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Galileo and Infallibility
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:14:15 GMT

     Dear JJ, Obviously, the question you ask is the 
$64,000 question! There are two possibilities (at
least). The male priesthood could be a reflection of
cultural attitudes that prevailed in the past but
that we can now see in the light of gospel principles
to be inadequate. From this point of view the fact
that Jesus only chose men to be Apostles was an
accommodation on His part to the social realities of
that time. St. Paul's stricture against women excercising
authority in the Church can be seen in the same light. 
Galatians 3:28 would contain the deeper principles in
the light of which St. Paul's other statements should
be evaluated for their continuing relevance (or lack
of it). 
      The other possibility is that the male priesthood
is truly part of the Apostolic Tradition, and as such
unchangable.
      I believe the second possibility is in fact the
case. I do not expect to convince you. But I can suggest
some of the reasons that I, personally, find compelling.

      (1) I start with different presumptions about
sexuality. Let me emphasize that I have no view that
women should be "kept in their place". My mother was
one of the first women to get a Masters degree from
Yale (in English lit.) -- not bad for a girl from a
little Catholic college in Connecticut who was dis-
couraged from applying because of her gender! My paternal
grandmother had a Ph.D. in Psychology. Very unusual in
those days. My wife has a Master's. I have a little girl
who I regard as a genius at the age of 2 :-). So I 
am not afraid of intelligent or capable women.
    However, I believe that the sexual difference is 
very fundamental to who we are. (Male and female created He them).
I believe men look for certain things in women, and women
look for certain things in men. Every human society has
had ideas about masculinity and femininity. Obviously there
is some plasticity to these ideas, and there is a great
variety of cultural forms. I am not an anthropologist, but
I suspect that there are certain invariants here. Men 
and women are differentiated in every society. There
are physical differences that are closely connected with
the roles men and women are found to play in most societies.
To take a random example, babies like high pitched voices.
In every society adults who talk to babies put on a high-
pitched voice that has been called "mother-talk". 
Men are physically stronger, and more aggressive. In most
(all?) societies it is regarded as a part of the male
role to defend his family. Men are usually the dispensers
of physical discipline and punishment for children. (The
primary dispensers.) I see how little boys and little
girls behave. (I have observed my own children, those
of my friends, and sat in on classes.) They show systematic
and characteristic differences. Anyway, I do not believe
these are purely cultural artifacts.
     That is where I start from. That is, I am simply not
surprised that God chose to have an all male priesthood.
   
     (2) There is far more evidence for the dogmatic 
character of this teaching than for that of ANY other
dogma except for the existence of God. Frankly, if this
is not a dogma nothing is. We have (a) Old Testament
types. The sacrificial animals that prefigure Christ are
"unblemished males". Adam, Noah, Moses, etc. who are types
of Christ are male. The Levitical priesthood was restricted
to males. And on and on. Other religions had female priests
and female deities. I don't think God is so careless in
choosing His symbols. If we believe in Providence or in
Inspiration at all we cannot lightly dismiss these features
of the Old Testament. (b) We have a whole constellation 
of scriptural symbolism. The Church as a mother, Mary as 
a type of the Church (As St. Augustine said the Church
is a virgin mother who constantly in her whom continues
the work of the incarnation, giving birth to new members
of the body of Christ.) Christ as a bridegroom (see 
the gospels where Jesus calls himself that, as well as Revelation,
and the Epistles of Paul.) The Word of God as a seed. The
APostles as those who plant the seed of the Word. (OOPS
I spelled womb 'whom' above!) God as 'Father'. And on and on.
(c) We have the example of Christ in choosing His Apostles,
though many women went around with Him, and He appeared
first to them. (d) We have the example of the Apostles in
choosing bishops, and the explicit injunctions of the
Apostle Paul. (e) We have the *unbroken* 2,000 year old
tradition of the Church. (f) We have the obviously important
theological notion of "headship" as stated by Paul in several
of his epistles, according to which "the man is head of his
wife" as Christ is of his body the Church, and indeed as
God is "head of Christ". Obviously, "headship" involves
some notion of authority. 

     (3) I see some meaning to the sexual differentiation 
involved in Christian symbols and sacraments. A Mother God
would suggest a God who gave birth to the world, that is, it
would suggest that the world is an emanation from the divine.
But in the Jewish/Christian symbolism, God creates the world
outside of Himself. The Word also comes into the Church from
the outside. In the Old Testament infidelity on the part of
God's people is referred to as "whoring after strange gods".
Mary conceived not by the seed of man, but by God's seed--
the Word. What the Church teaches is also not from man but
from God. From outside herself, as it were. 
    God is also a God of wrath as well as a God of mercy. He
loves, but he also chastises. This also must have something
to do with why He is called Father rather than Mother.


    Can we find any other doctrine ttaught so clearly by
Old Testament types, Christ's example, the explicit teaching
of an Apostle, the unbroken tradition of the Church, 
closely tied to key theological concepts found in scripture
such as "headship"? Compared with even central truths such
as the Trinity, the real presence, the Eucharist as sacrifice,
the virgin birth, I dare say even the divinity of Christ,
the weight of evidence for the male priesthood is enormous!
For example, there are only a couple of scriptural passages
that explicitly say Jesus is God and those are ambiguous. There 
are a number of passages where Jesus seems to put Himself on
a lower level than the Father (these are well-known). The
Trinity as stated by Paul and others was often "God, Christ,
and the Holy Spirit". As late as the third century a large
part of the bishops of the world accepted Arianism. The 
divinity of Christ creates problems of understanding which
dwarf any difficulties that the male-priesthood creates!
Look at any doctrine and ask "is the weight of evidence
from Scripture and Tradition greater or clearer than th   
evidence for the male priesthood?" 

     A liberal priest once asked me "isn't absurd to suppose
that God from all eternity would have planned that only men
would be priests?" No. I think God "from all eternity" 
planned that there should be men and women, not just 
"persons". He had something in mind I suspect. I am 
getting tired so I'll stop. 
  
ApostLES as those who plant the seed of the Word.