ARTICLES

It's Lamentable

"Paucity of Evidence" for Women's Ordination in the Early Church

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

"I appreciate your questions," said "womanpriest" Victoria Rue in an April e-mail reply to me. I had contacted Rue, a professor at San Jose State University, for an I article I was writing on her "ordination" to the Catholic priesthood ("Who Knows How Things Will Change?" June 2006 Faith). I wanted Rue to explain how she, a Catholic, justified her "priesthood" in light of the magisterium's repeated teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Rue did not answer my questions directly; rather, she forwarded to me her public answer to the diocese of San Jose, which had declared her ordination invalid. She referred me, as well, to the web site www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org, which, she said, might prove "helpful."

I have found that proponents of women's ordination, like Rue, make the surprising assertion that the priestly ordination of women is nothing new. To prove their point, they muster what may at first seem like an impressive array of historical references to ordained women priests, some textual, some epigraphical. But I also found that the evidence they muster is at best highly uncertain. Even the article widely quoted by woman's ordination proponents, "The Problem of Women in the Early Christian Priesthood," penned in 1991 by Professor Giorgio Otranto of the University of Bari, Italy, admits this. Though Otranto tries to make the case that women were ordained priests in the early centuries of the Church, he himself confesses the "lamentable paucity of evidence" for the claim.

Still, in her April reply to the San Jose diocese, Victoria Rue wrote, "there is a clear history of women apostles, office holders, deacons, priests and bishops in the early church." She gave the following examples: "Mary of Magdala, who was the first witness of the resurrection, was commissioned by Jesus to preach the Easter message. Phoebe the deacon was praised by Paul for her leadership of the church of Cenchreae. St John Chrysostom, 4th century bishop recognized Junia as a member of the apostolic circle. Bitalia, a woman priest, is depicted attired in a red chasuble and celebrating the Eucharist in the catacomb of St. Januarius in Naples. St. Brigit of Kildare, according to Celtic tradition, was ordained a bishop by St. Mel in fifth century Ireland. Bishop Theodora, 820 A.D., is memorialized with her predecessor bishops, Sts. Pudentia and Praxedes, in the church of St. Praxedes -- just a block from the Roman Basilica Santa Maria Maggiore."

St. Mary of Magdala (St. Mary Magdalene) a priest? I had heard the claim before, but really.... I admit I am no scholar, but it is not clear (at the very least) to me that Christ's charge to St. Mary to "go to my brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'" is a priestly ordination. Nor is it clear to me that when Paul in Romans 16:1 commends Phoebe "our sister, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrae" (diákonon tais ékklesias) that he is necessarily signifying that she was a deacon (diákonos) in the same sense that St. Stephen was. The meaning of diákonos is "minister" or "servant." It could simply mean, as the English translation of Romans indicates, that Phoebe exercised a ministry at Cenchrae, not that she held what today we understand as the order of deacon.

The case of Junia sheds little more light. For one thing, I found, it is unclear whether the person mentioned by Paul in Romans 16.7 is Junia (feminine) or Junias (masculine); it depends on how one translates the Greek accusative Junian, which could be a form of either name. Paul does refer to her (or him), along with Andronicus, as "distinguished among the apostles;" but this does not clearly place her (or him) among the Twelve or as equal to Paul, the "thirteenth apostle." It would seem more is needed to conclude that "apostle" here indicates what the Church understands as "priest."

As for Bitalia, pro-women's ordination writer José Arana describes the catacomb depiction of her. In the article, "Women Priests in Ancient Times," found at the www.womenpriests.org/classic2/aran04.asp, Arana says the fifth century picture is "painted in a niche 'arch' of the Catacomb of Saint Januarius of Naples" and shows Bitalia "wearing a red dress, maintain[ing] the Word of God" and "in a celebratory posture in front of a type of altar." He further notes that "it must have been one of those Pope Gelasius did not like either." In other words, even if the "type of altar" before which Bitalia stands "in a celebratory posture" is really the altar of sacrifice (which is not clear), the picture might be portraying the very practice the fifth century Pope Gelasius condemned as an abuse (more on him below).

I found the case of St. Brigit (or Brigid or Bridget) equally unconvincing. The episode to which Rue refers is found in the seventh century Book of Lismore, which relates that when St. Brigit came to St. Mel the bishop to receive her veil as a nun, he, by mistake, read over her the rite of episcopal ordination. "It came to pass then, through the grace of the Holy Spirit," reads the Book of Lismore, "that the form of ordaining a bishop was read out over Brigid. Macaille said that a bishop's order should not be confirmed on a woman. Said Bishop Mel, 'no power have I in this matter. That dignity hath been given by God unto Brigid, beyond every (other) woman.' Wherefore the men of Ireland from that time to this give episcopal honour to Brigid's successor."

The website of St. Patrick's Church in Washington, D.C., which carries the passage from the Book of Lismore, notes the story of Brigit's episcopal ordination "most likely ... relates to the fact that the Roman diocesan system was unknown in Ireland. Monasteries formed the centre of Christian life in the early Church of Ireland. Therefore, abbots and abbesses could hold some of the dignity and functions that a bishop would on the Continent. Evidence of this can be seen also at synods and councils, such as that of Whitby, which was convened by Saint Hilda. Women sometimes ruled double monasteries; thus, governing both men and women. Bridget, as a pre-eminent abbess, might have fulfilled some semi-episcopal functions, such as preaching, hearing confessions (without absolution), and leading the neighbouring Christians." Rue and others might argue that this is but one possible interpretation of the text, but, then, so is theirs. It does not prove their point.

But others besides Rue have argued that the early Christian Church have bestowed holy orders on women. In the article I referred to above (found at Women's Ordination Catholic Internet Library, a link to the page Rue had referred me in April), Giorgio Otranto says he intends "only to emphasize that the tradition of the first five to six centuries has not been so unanimous in condemning the female priesthood as is usually held." As evidence, he cites an epistle written by Pope Gelasius in 494 to bishops in southern Italy and Sicily, in which he takes them to task for allowing women to exercise certain clerical duties. "Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance," wrote Pope Gelasius, "that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong." Otranto says that "we may infer from an analysis of Gelasius' epistle that at the end of the fifth century, some women, having been ordained by bishops, were exercising a true and proper ministerial priesthood in a vast area of southern Italy" -- though nowhere does Gelasius call this practice a "true and proper ministerial priesthood."

The phenomenon of women acting as clergy was nothing new even in Gelasius' time, according to Otranto; however, he can cite almost no textual evidence accept to what refers to heretical sects. "In the Orient," he says, "in Asia Minor, in Gnostic and Montanist settings in particular, records of women with the functions of presbyters or of bishops, which the Church had condemned, have been found up to the second century"-- and Otrano cites Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, and Firmilian of Caesarea -- all of whom condemn the practice.

Otranto refers as well to ancient references to women called presbytera (from the masculine presbyteros, presbyter or priest) and diákona or diákonissa (from diákonos, deacon). No one denies that the early Church in the East had deaconesses; however, the exact character of that office is not certain. According to Otranto, "in Greek and Byzantine areas, from the third century, women exercised the diaconate; at the end of the fourth century women were equated with male clerics, since, like the male clerics, women received ordination by the laying on of hands, according to a precise ritual, with precise obligations and juridical conditions."

That women received some sort of ordination as deaconesses is true, I found. But, as Father William Most points out (in an article found at www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OTRANTO.TXT), that even when such words as "to ordain" are used in relation to women, it is not clear what is meant. "In any field of knowledge," says Most's article, "it takes a long time to develop precise terminology except for those things for which words are coined on the spot." Thus, the Greek word cheirotonein, which often means "to ordain" in our present sense, has "the dictionary meaning ... to choose by a show of hands. In that sense, the people, in Didache 15, are told to 'choose bishops' for themselves. Of course, they did not ordain bishops. So, the word cheirotonein could mean imposition of hands -- but not always -- and even then we would have to determine what function was conveyed by that word. Similarly, the Greek kathistani/kathistemi, sometimes translated as 'ordain,' is very broad. It means basically to establish in a position." Otranto does not speak to the precise meaning of the words he cites.

Otranto, like other proponents of women's ordination, places a good deal of weight on ancient inscriptions where women are called presbytera or even episcopa (from episcopus, bishop.) A case of the latter Rue references as the ninth century "Bishop Theodora with her predecessor bishops, Sts. Pudentia and Praxedes." The inscription, however, found in the church of St. Praxides in Rome, does not refer to Pudentia and Praxedes as bishops, though it places the words Theodo episcopa next to a picture of Theodora. But, most scholars have argued, this refers to the fact that Theodora was the mother of the reigning pope, the episcopus of Rome, and thus called episcopa. (She was to be buried in the chapel where the inscription occurs.) Likewise, Otranto admits that his is a minority opinion at best and that, as far as presbytera is concerned, at least in one case it "recurs in the sense of 'wife of a presbyter.'" And in the case of the "woman bishops" he cites, "the Catholic historiographic tradition considers 'episcopa' as the wife of the bishop ... and such a reading is found also in the canons of diverse councils held in Gaul ... in the sixth century," he admits.

So where else does Otranto go to support his contention that women exercised the priesthood in the early Church? A ninth century epistle of Atto, bishop of Vercelli, to a priest named Ambrose. Ambrose, it seems, had asked Atto how to understand the terms presbytera and deaconess "in the canons." Atto goes on to explain that because in the primitive Church, "many were the crops and few the laborers, for the helping of men even religious women were ordained caretakers in the holy Church." Mentioning Phoebe, he goes on to say that "not only men, but also women were in charge of the Churches." But he continues that "Canon 11 of the Laodicean Council later prohibits this practice when it says that it is not allowed for those women who are called 'priests' [presbyterae] or 'those presiding' to be ordained in the Churches."

Atto acknowledges that presbytera and "deaconness" refer to the wives of presbyters and deacons. But, he says, "we believe that women deacons were truly ministers of such duties," not simply the wives of deacons. The duties he mentions are baptizing of women so that their bodies "might be touched by them without any deeply felt sense of shame." But then he continues, "for just as these women who were called priests [presbyterae] had assumed the duty of preaching, ordering, and instructing, in the same way the deaconnesses had assumed the duty of ministering and baptizing, a practice which today is not at all in use."

Otranto makes much of Atto's statements. He notes that the bishop uses "were ordained" (ordinabantur) in relation to the presbyterae and deaconesses; that they were leaders of communities; that presbyterae had the duties of preaching, directing, and teaching. "These three duties define the role of the sacrament of priesthood," asserts Otranto.

But do they? What of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass? Is it not significant that Atto nowhere says that presbyterae were sacrificing priests? And whom did these women ministers direct and teach? Were they equivalent to pastors of parishes? To bishops? Or did they merely preside over women believers, just as an abbess or prioress presides over her charges? It would be strange if they had an authority over men, for did not Paul tell the Corinthians that he taught "in all the chruches of the saints" that women were to "keep silence in the churches" and that they are to be "submissive, as the law also says ... for it is unseemly for a woman to speak in church"?

Nevertheless, Otranto asserts that Atto's letter "is a striking and significant testimony of female priesthood in antiquity." If others have not found it so, it is because, he says, "it was not in line with what seemed the unanimous tradition," though it "might at least have provoked some doubt." In the end, says Otranto, "there has been a predetermined interpretation of the paucity of testimonies regarding the exercise of sacerdotal ministry by women."

Of course, one might wonder whether the interpretations of the likes Otranto and Rue are not themselves predetermined. It is not clear to me, at least, that theirs is a serene and unencumbered interpretation of the "lamentable paucity of evidence" for women's priestly ordination in the early Church.

The September Faith will look at what the Church has said about the possibility of women's ordination.

TOP