Heads up: This is another long post. Do leave a comment to let me know if you make it through!
One of the biggest problems I had with the Catholic Church was the fact that women couldn't be ordained priests. What a bunch of sexist bologna! There is nothing that would make a man a better priest than a woman - if anything, women are better at ministering to others than men!
None of the few Catholics I knew were able to explain this to me - for the most part, they agreed with me and didn't see why women were excluded from the priesthood. When I questioned my RCIA leaders about it, I could kind of see what they were getting at with their answers, but I was left unsatisfied.
But I needed to hurry up and figure it out, because Easter was looming closer! And how could I honestly profess that I believed everything the Church taught if I disagreed with this?
I bought and read The Catholic Mystique, about women who gave up being Protestant preachers to become Catholic laypeople. It was good and had some stirring stories, and included these women's personal reasons for coming into the Church. (I do recommend it.) But I was still wanting to hear a clear explanation of why the rule existed.
I didn't get one. I was trying to cram a complete understanding of Catholicism into about two months of reading, while simultaneously trying to finish my prospectus for grad school in record time and also enduring a long-distance marriage, flying across the country every couple weeks. This question didn't get answered, and suddenly it was Easter. This was a really big leap of faith for me - could I actually say I believed everything that the Church taught? Did I?
I realized I did. I had accepted the authority of the Magisterium and realized that meant trusting them on this big issue, among others. It didn't mean I had to like it or understand it, but it did mean I had to accept it. (Of course liking and understanding are preferable, though!)
I figured this was one of those issues like contraception - once I discovered the logic behind the teaching, I would be amazed at the insight and wonder how everyone else missed it! But in my first six months of being Catholic, I had so far not been overwhelmed by any astounding explanation. I did start to gain a deeper understanding of the sacraments, though, and that helped me understand how the priest is acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) during the Eucharist and Reconciliation.
WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS
Pope John Paul II in 1994:
"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)
And then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1995 said that this:
"requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)."
Bam. Case closed. It's not gonna change, so stop complaining about it.
BUT WHY?
Okay, so it's clear that this is definitely what the Church teaches. But I still couldn't see why. In order to answer that question, I turned to The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church. This was written by a religious sister who for years and years had been a vocal opponent to this teaching. I figured she'd understand it all better than anyone who had just been on one side or the other, and if she'd changed her mind and even written a book about it, well, she must have something to say.
And she did. She calmly and thoroughly stepped through the rationale behind and arguments against this teaching. It's of course impossible for me to explain in one post what took her a whole book, but I'm going to try to highlight her major points. Really I'm just focusing on the parts that resonated with me, but rest assured that there's more to the book, and I encourage you to check it out if you're interested! (Or if I just botch it up too much!)
Also, while I'm taking more of a historical/intellectual approach, it's really important to remember that that's not enough. Faith and prayer are critical to accepting and understanding any teaching!
Now, on to the book.
FUNDAMENTAL REASONS VS THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
One thing that Sister Butler makes abundantly clear is the need to differentiate between the actual "fundamental reasons" that the Church teaches this and the various "theological arguments" proposed to explain them. The fundamental reasons are, well, the actual reasons. The theological arguments are theologians' attempts to understand why these reasons exist.
"["Argument from fittingness"] are offered to elucidate why the Lord's choice of men and not women is appropriate, and not discriminatory against women. Most popular expositions of Catholic teaching on this matter overlook the "fundamental reasons" and offer instead reasoning drawn from the "theological arguments." It is important to realize, therefore, that the authority of the declaration's teaching is attached to the fundamental reasons" and not to the "theological arguments." (pg 9)
Some (but certainly not all) theological arguments from back in the day (you know, before the 1900s) were based on a belief in the superiority of men to women. (Remember, that's what pretty much everyone back then thought, not just Christians.) The Church officially rejects these types of reasons, and goes to great lengths time and again to state that men and women are absolutely and inherently equal in dignity and worth.
Sister Butler demonstrates how the Church has opened up to the leadership and participation of women in many ways. Plus there's the fact that the Church has always loved women (can you say the Virgin Mary? not to mention St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese of Lisieux, all "Doctors of the Church").
So to make it clear from the get-go: the priesthood is not reserved for men because of any sexist ideas about women.
THE FUNDAMENTAL REASONS
So what are those fundamental reasons? Pope John Paul II identified three in Ordinatio sacerdotalis: "Christ's example of choosing only men as apostles (the argument from scripture), the Church's constant practice in imitation of the Lord (the argument from tradition), and the consistent teaching that this practice is "in accordance with God's plan for his Church" (the witness of the magisterium)." (Butler, pg 5)
Christ's Example
Jesus didn't call any women to be part of the Twelve. This is a major point, and not naive or weak. True, to ordain women would have been very counter-cultural at the time. But the thing is, Jesus was counter-cultural, specifically in his interactions with women! John Paul II called this the "Gospel Innovation" - that Jesus did not conform to societal expectations and treated men and women equally.
"No one however has ever proved - and it is clearly impossible to prove - that [Jesus'] attitude is inspired only by social and cultural reasons. As we have seen, an examination of the Gospels show on the contrary that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations practiced with regard to women. One therefore cannot maintain that, by not calling women to enter the group of the Apostles, Jesus was simply letting himself be guided by reasons of expediency." Inter insigniores
And it's not like there weren't any women around that were good enough to do it - there were plenty of holy women that followed Jesus! When elaborating on ancient canonical explanations, Butler points out:
"Mary's dignity and the women disciples' holiness are presumed to recommend them as candidates for ordination; the fact that they were not chosen, then, is not dictated by a deficiency on their part, even though it is related to their "nature." Because the Lord did not call even his mother to belong to the Twelve, despite her great dignity and excellence, it is inferred that he did not intend women to assume priestly functions. Third, the inclusive character of Jesus' company is confirmed: it was not for lack of eligible candidates that the Lord did not entrust sacerdotal functions to women." (pg 65)
Jesus Christ (you know, our all-powerful Lord who could do whatever the heck he wanted?) was free to choose his apostles. After a lot of prayer (Luke 6:12), he called twelve men.
The Gospels never explicitly say "Only men can be priests" (though the above are "convergent indications" that support this). The New Testament, on its own, is not enough to answer this question.
The Apostle's Imitation of This
The 12 disciples, their successors, their successors' successors, and so on all continued this tradition. For example:
"First, when it came time to replace Judas, only men (andres) were deemed eligible (Acts 1:21), despite the fact that the Virgin Mary occupied a privileged place in the community. Second, on Pentecost the public proclamation of the Gospel was made only by Peter and the Eleven (Acts 2:14), despite the fact that the Holy Spirit had descended on a large gathering of men and women (Acts 2:1; 1:14). Third, although the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world entailed the abandonment of many Mosaic practices, and although the status of women in the Hellenistic world would have allowed for their admission to public ministry, and although many women were engaged with Paul in the service of the Gospel, there is no evidence that women received a commission to the apostolic ministry by "a laying on of hands." In other words, in the Hellenistic milieu the apostles could have done otherwise, if fidelity to the Lord's will had not held them back." (Butler, pgs 69-70)
Basically, even if we did want to blame the Jewish society of Jesus' time for him not picking women, that would not work with the Apostles and later generations of Christians. They were going into other cultures where this could have happened.
God's Plan for His Church
For Catholics, tradition has "normative value." When it comes to women and the priesthood, the tradition is clearly constant and traceable (and not only based on a faulty view of women). In fact, John Paul II points out, the magisterium does not have authority to change this. That's how seriously they take tradition.
This doctrine also pertains to a specifically Catholic understanding of Holy Orders as a sacrament and of apostolic succession. These are the foundations of not only the male priesthood, but the Catholic faith.
THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
So why do these fundamental reasons exist? That's a question to be explored by theological arguments. I'm already getting a bit long and have more to say, so I'll just note two of them here.
The Christological Argument, as explained by Butler: "First, the priest acts "in the person of Christ" (in persona Christi) in certain sacramental functions. Second, the formula in persona Christi implies that the priest is himself a "sign," as understood in sacramental theology. And third, because he is a sign of Christ, who was and remains a man (vir), it is fitting that the priest be a man." (pg 79)
The "Great Analogy": The analogy of Christ and the Church and the sacrament of marriage (along with the older analogy of God and Israel and the marriage covenant) is really important.
HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM PROTESTANTISM?
I think it's important to understand how this differs from a Protestant view of ministry. But first, a comment on how it doesn't differ. Catholics still believe that individuals are part of "the priesthood of all believers." All baptized Christians are called to proclaim Christ (even if it seems some denominations get that more than others). It's just that this "priesthood" is different from the ordained priesthood.
Since the Reformation, Protestants have had a different understanding of the ordained ministry. So when Protestant denominations started ordaining women, the Church didn't really worry too much about it. "They were confident that the office to which such women were admitted was the preaching ministry of the Reformation, not the Catholic priesthood" (Butler, pg 6). And it was. The arguments centered on Paul's teaching about relationships between men and women; the 12 Apostles and the representation of Christ in the sacraments didn't really have much to do with it. However, laypeople were and are generally unaware of the difference between the Protestant ministry and the Catholic priesthood, and don't understand why Protestants ordain women (especially since the Anglicans got in on it) and Catholics don't.
Ordination to the Catholic priesthood is a calling, not a right. (This is not to say that Protestant ministers feel otherwise - they all also feel they were "called.") Butler explains,
"From the perspective of Catholic doctrine, the priesthood is not a "leadership role" gained on the basis of one's own efforts and accomplishments... The feminist objection is rooted in the supposition that the priesthood and the episcopate represent the pinnacle of achievement for the members of the Catholic Church. Those who are prevented from achieving this status are thought to be deprived of access to a station that might in some way be their due. But this is not the case. The priesthood is not a "career."" (pg 42)
As the Church states in Inter insigniores:
"[T]he priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement; no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it: it is of another order."
THE END
The funny thing is, it's not so much the Church's responsibility to defend this tradition, but the opposition's responsibility to show why changing it would be a development, as opposed to a corruption. This stems from Cardinal Newman's principle that "in the face of a unanimous and unbroken tradition, the burden of proof rests on those who challenge the Church's teaching, not those who uphold it" (Butler, pg 111). It seems to me that this is way too often ignored, when it comes to all kinds of teachings!
Personally, the only two "proofs" I had to challenge the male priesthood are (1) that the tradition is based on a sexist view of women and (2) that Jesus only picked men because of the restrictions of his time. As we've seen above, those two arguments don't hold water. So even though it's hard to understand and even harder to explain and defend, I'm embracing the all-male priesthood.
Just in case I didn't go on long enough for you, here's are some links to other (shorter) articles about this:
Why No Women's Ordination? http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp
What Church Fathers Said: http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp