{"id":1489,"date":"2019-09-24T18:01:33","date_gmt":"2019-09-24T17:01:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/?p=1489"},"modified":"2019-09-24T18:01:47","modified_gmt":"2019-09-24T17:01:47","slug":"dr-marianne-schlosser-on-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-priesthood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/2019\/09\/dr-marianne-schlosser-on-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-priesthood\/","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Marianne Schlosser on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dr. Marianne Schlosser, professor of theology at the university of Vienna and member of the International Theological Commission, has seen it necessary to distance herself from the preparatory group responsible for the topic of women in the Church<\/a> for the \u201csynodal way\u201d of the German Church, which focused too much on the issue of ordination. One of the prominent advocates for women\u2019s ordination in the working group was Sr. Katharina Ganz, Superior General of the Oberzeller Franciscan sisters. Marianne Schlosser recently (the exact date of the letter is not indicated in the text published online yesterday, September 23, 2019) wrote the following open letter to Sr. Katharina Ganz, defending and explaining the Church\u2019s teaching on this point. Translated by Fr. Joseph Bolin from the German original<\/a>, put online by Die Tagespost<\/em> (removing the headings, which appear to have been added by the press): <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dear Madam Superior\nGeneral, esteemed colleague!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You recently sent me\na link to your interview in the FAZ 13.09.2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the topics you\ndiscuss are on concern to many people, I would like to comment on a\nfew points and have decided to do so in the form of an open letter,\nbecause a letter to the editor would not provide the space for a\ndifferentiated opinion. I write with the awareness that I am not\nalone in my view, but to give a voice to many others who do not\nusually make themselves noticed by their vocality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already the\nheadline, “Women must pose the question of power”, rather\nunsettled me. You associate the “question of power” mainly\nwith the sacrament of Holy Orders and see in the fact that the Roman\nCatholic \u2013 as also the Eastern Churches \u2013 does not entrust women\nwith the apostolic ministry, a violation of the equal rights of men\nand women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honestly: I do not\nwant to have anyone above me in the Church, man, woman, or collective\nwho or which holds such a notion of “power” or of the\nsacrament of Holy Orders. “Christ freed us to freedom”\n(Gal. 5: 1). There is to be no power in the Church other than the\nauthority of Jesus Christ \u2013 and we know what it is supposed to look\nlike (“You know that the powerful … but with you it should not\nbe like this …” Mark 10 , 43, Luke 22:26).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I certainly will not\ndeny that there is a de facto abuse of office and the rank associated\nwith it. And it is painful to me that, even to the present, religious\nnuns are sometimes as a matter of course treated by clerics and\nothers as servants and do not receive the esteem due them. You do not\neven have to look to Africa or South America for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe it would be “just” that not only men should be allowed to be able to abuse power. It would not, however, make the situation better.. You admit yourself that this expectation would be quite unworldly. Not to mention that de facto<\/em> “power” is not exercised only by persons who hold an office … I fear that Augustine was right when he considered the hunger for power, i. e. the temptation to rule over others, to be inherent to the human being \u2013 not the male sex! As long as he \/ she does not convert, i.e. take on the mind of Christ (Phil. 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Especially in the\ncontext of the recent abuse scandal by clerics, the old question has\nonce again come into the limelight: Does the Church (who is that?)\nneed women as priests? Meanwhile, it sounds rather the other way\naround: women need access to the ordained ministry; they have a right\nto it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do not want to insinuate anything of anyone. But if someone needs an office for themselves, then the abuse of the associated position is inevitable. Anyone \u2013 man or woman \u2013 who thinks they have a right to it is, mistaken. That’s why it is, in my judgment, a mistake to use the language of equal rights<\/em> in this context. Gregory the Great, a truly experienced shepherd, was of the opinion that it was better not to ordain people who press for ordination. For he who is so convinced of him- or herself that he\/she has never been driven to terror by fear or at least a shadow of self-doubt in the face of what lies ahead in such an office, one man doubt his \/ her special vocation to follow the Good Shepherd. This necessarily means, after all, a kind of “expropriation” of one’s own plans and interests \u2013 which as a rule also involves resistance within oneself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is it which one would need to increase awareness of, so that the church grows together into a “fraternal” community. The fact that your patron saint and model, Francis, not only had a very high esteem for priests, “because of their ordination” (as he writes in his “Testament”), but could also himself be downright authoritarian, cannot, incidentally, be totally overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A position of\nresponsibility brings with it a special danger, as the whole\nspiritual tradition knows. To not confuse responsibility with\npatronizing, patience with with indifference, modesty with\nsubmissiveness, affability with conformity, etc., requires a great\nspiritual maturity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the\nbehavior of public officials is at times an anti-testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But where would the\nsuggestion you made at the end of your interview lead, to separate\n“the sacrament of Holy Orders” and “power”? Who\nshould then exercise “power” with which qualification, with\nwhat right? The time of the prince-bishops, who were laymen according\nto canon law, is over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Church binds the\ndelegation of authority and special responsibility to criteria,\nincluding a lengthy education and an examination of the character and\nreligious qualifications of a candidate in order to minimize risks.\nAnd the rite of consecration expresses confidence in believers\u2019\nprayer that the Holy Spirit will not remain idle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this just a spiritual castle in the air, far from reality, an all too power-filled reality?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As long as the\noffice of leadership (“munus regiminis”) \u2013 even if that\nwere just a distant ideal! \u2013 is dialectically connected with the\n“diakonia Christi” (Jn 13: 13-16; Lk 22,27), that is to\nsay, with the alienation of oneself, if need be unto the giving up of\none\u2019s life, there is at least hope that some, many, if possible all\nof them \u2013 hope that one will not lose sight of the summit, even if\none were to relapse. If, on the other hand, you declare the summit\nnon-existent, you will remain in the fog of the valleys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the\npossibility of women’s access to Sacred Orders, especially to the\npriesthood, you assume that John Paul II’s “Ordinatio\nsacerdotalis” does not the degree of ultimate binding force\nexpressly claimed by the document itself (n.4), that it lacks the\nformal explanation pronouncement as dogma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it has now been repeatedly explained (most recently by Cardinal Ladaria on May 29, 2018) that, and why!, this letter is binding as an expression of the ordinary Magisterium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) Response ad propositum dubium concerning the Teaching Contained in \u201cOrdinatio sacerdotalis\u201d, 28 October, 1995; (2) Concerning the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Teaching Contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 28 October 1995, http:\/\/www.vatican.va\/roman_curia\/congregations\/cfaith\/documents\/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_commento-dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html; (3) In response to certain doubts regarding the definitive character of the doctrine of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 29 May 2018., Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, http:\/\/www.vatican.va\/roman_curia\/congregations\/cfaith\/ladaria-ferrer\/documents\/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180529_caratteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By no means\neverything that is “de fide”, that is to say to be accepted\nin faith, is formally dogmatized. But if some circles insist on it,\nthey might achieve just that \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That would at any\nrate be easier than the opposite way. For that would not only rescind\na document of the papal Magisterium (which could scarcely be\nformulated more emphatically!), but abdicate a tradition of the whole\nchurch, which was not merely practice, but a practice that had\nundergone reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such a case one\nwould have to in my opinion even ask the question, whether a church\nthat had for 2000 years discriminated half of the faithful \u2013 and\nthe more fervent half at that! – can be really the church of Jesus\nChrist, led by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the question is relevant\nonly if one maintains \u2013 and I believe we both do \u2013 that the\nChurch together with its basic structure is built on the will of\nChrist \u2013 otherwise it would not matter anyway; in that case nobody\nneeds something like a sacramental ministry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You then declare\nfrankly that certain theological arguments do not convince you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do not deny that\nin the course of reflection on the sacrament of Holy Orders and its\nrecipients, less judicious or viable arguments were brought into\nplay. For good theologians (like Thomas Aquinas) they were however\nnever the main reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But fundamentally:\nwhat degree of persuasiveness can theological arguments achieve in so\nfar as they rest on the historical revelation of God? If there really\nis revelation, if the eternal truth of God has become man in Jesus\nChrist, then this is given to us as an event. In other words, that\nand how God acts in the history of salvation cannot be demonstrated\nwith “conclusive reasons,” because this action is rooted in\nthe freedom of God. The theological arguments can only show the inner\ncoherence, the connection with the whole of revelation. There will\nalways be leeway for assent to the argument. This also applies to the\nquestion under discussion here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You ask why the\nrepresentation of Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church, that is to\nsay, of his actions, especially during the celebration of the\nEucharist, cannot assumed by a woman, since men are also present in\nthe pews. Literally, challenged by your interviewer’s provocative\nquestion, you said, “Why should sexual masculinity be a\nnecessary condition to represent the man Christ when, conversely, the\nchurch is to be the bride of the Bridegroom of (sic) Christ? Then the\nchurch should consist only of women. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, if that were\nthe church’s argumentation, I would also not find it convincing! For\none thing, the sacramental representation of Christ does not simply\ndepend on nature, “the Y chromosome.” Otherwise every man,\nqua man, could represent Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, there\nseems to me to be a misunderstanding of the notion of representation,\na probably widespread misunderstanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the “symbolic”\nlanguage of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, the\npeople of God as such, composed of men and women, is “feminine”\n(in the sense of “receiving”) in relation to God, and all\ntogether form the “body”, none of the members is the head.\nMoreover, every creature is receptive in relation to God, every soul\n\u2013 as the mystics of both sexes say \u2013 is the “bride of the\nword of God,” which must first be received so that mortal man\nmay “bear fruit that remains.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This also applies to\nthose members of the Church who are ordained to the priesthood. Even\na priest is and remains “receiving” in relation to God,\nremains a member of the body of Christ. One can also say with Pope\nFrancis that he must not forget the “Marian” dimension of\nChristianity, which is the first and fundamental vocation of the\nChurch, the “Prae” before the “Petrine” vocation.\nTherefore, only a baptized person can be ordained, and ordination\ncannot replace baptism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That a priest can\n“represent” the “vis-\u00e0-vis” of the church, that\nis, Christ as head and bridegroom, is only possible because of the\nsacrament of ordination. This enables him to “re-present”\nsomething he can never become. The persons in the pew, on the other\nhand, do not “represent” the church \u2013 at best in the\nsense that the whole may be present in one part \u2013 they are it by\nreason of their membership in the body of Christ through baptism (cf\nCan. 204 – \u00a7 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But why cannot this\nsacrament of representation be conferred on a woman?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sacrament always\nincludes institution by Christ, i.e. the linking of a visible object\nor operation with a new meaning and an effect guaranteed by Christ\nHimself. In principle, he could have ordered it differently, he could\nhave completely foregone the sending of the apostles, or he could\nhave left everything (and not just a lot) to later development in the\nbelieving community. But if something is to be a “sign”,\nthen it must point to the designated content in the best possible way\n(significance). Oil or wine have a different significance than water.\nAt a “wedding dinner” we think of something other than a\nbirthday party, however lavishly it might be celebrated. This aspect\nis not playing around with pictures, but relevant, because the\nsacraments are by definition “perceptible signs” for an\ninvisible reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it seems to me\nvery reasonable that a woman is not a significant sign for the\nbridegroom of the church. Likewise, a man is not a significant sign\nof the Church as bride. So religious women often receive a ring on\nthe day of profession, whereas that is unusual for monks \u2013 although\nthey both live the bridal love for Christ, they are a visible sign of\nit in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reasonableness\nof the argument is based not only on a natural preconception \u2013 just\nas the sacraments are not merely religious variants of natural rites\n\u2013 but on the connection between the reality of creation and the\nhistorical revelation of God; One could also say that the reality of\ncreation and its symbolism is used for the communication of\nsalvation. Christ “interprets” creation when he establishes\nthe sacraments. The symbols used in the Scriptures as the deposit of\nthe self-communication of God are therefore not simply “pictures”\nthat could be replaced as desired. Rather, they are the way the\nunfathomable divine mystery of Christ’s love is made accessible to\nus. That the relationship between Yahweh and his beloved people be\ndescribed as a marriage bond, that the Gospels designate Jesus as the\n“Bridegroom,” that Paul speaks of the Bride Church (2 Cor\n11: 2; Eph 5), who owes her life to the Bridegroom, or that the\neschatological fulfillment, the joy without end, whose sacramental\nanticipation is the Eucharistic celebration, resembles a wedding\nfeast (eg Rev 22), is not arbitrary imagery, but expresses that\nhumanity, indeed the individual, will be wooed by God’s love. Not the\nother way around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That this reasoning seem strange to not a few people, because premises of thought have changed, says nothing about the truth. It could also be the premises that need testing and metanoia<\/em>. The content of faith is not simply what one just finds obvious. Karl Rahner once wrote in an “open letter” (in the context of the priestly way of life): “Christianity is still a highly unfashionable thing; also in that area about which I have so long tried to write. Thank God it is. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greetings in Christ,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marianne Schlosser<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr. Marianne Schlosser, professor of theology at the university of Vienna and member of the International Theological Commission, has seen it necessary to distance herself from the preparatory group responsible for the topic of women in the Church for the \u201csynodal way\u201d of the German Church, which focused too much on the issue of ordination. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[52,60],"class_list":["post-1489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-natural-theology","tag-priesthood"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1489"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1490,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1489\/revisions\/1490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}