Gary Macy, a professor of theology at Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, told attendees at a Monday night lecture at the Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee, there is little room for historical doubt that women were ordained in the Catholic Church until about the end of the 12th century.
Macy’s lecture, entitled “A Higher Calling for Women? Historical Perspectives in the Catholic Church,” was given at Benton Chapel on the Vanderbilt campus. The university’s news service described the lecture this way: “The very idea of the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church is dismissed by many as contrary to basic church doctrine. Gary Macy, the John Nobili, S.J. Professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, says historical evidence is overwhelming that for much of the church’s history, the ordination of women was a fact.”
Macy has held his post at Santa Clara University since September 2007. Before that, he taught at the University of San Diego for 29 years. “During his years in San Diego, Dr. Macy published several books and over twenty articles on the theology and history of the Eucharist and on women’s ordination,” says the Santa Clara University web site. Among his books is The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination, published in 2007.
According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. “Women were considered to be as ordained as any man… they were considered clergy,” he said. [reference]
And of course we remember some of the writings of those women priests/bishops and the historical record retains plenty of their names. This is why supporters of women’s ordination bring up plenty of facts about specific women priests and bishops. Oh wait. I do wonder about how somebody convinces themselves that this is true and then teaches it as certainty. People though can convince themselves of anything if they want it to be true.
In the past the women’s ordination movement has tried to say that a statue portrays a women bishop when in fact it is a statue of of mother of a bishop. They make this claim because this is pretty much all they have. If the historical record supported the claims of this professor at a Jesuit institution they would have been touting it for quite a while.
The idea that this was a common practice and then changed in the 12 century has a Dan Brown ring to it. This is just kind of nutty. If true we would certainly have seen some documentation about the problem this would have caused. If in the 12th century all of a sudden they said that women’s ordination was not allowed than you would have major problems with the result of priests and bishops ordained by these so-called women bishops and there would have been a lot of turmoil concerning the validity of some lines of bishops. Strangely May mentions this problem as a “theological dilemma.” Of course such a controversy does not exist in the historical record. So much for overwhelming evidence.
In fact the historical record shows something quite different. There were cases of break off heretical groups that did ordain women and there was comments about this by some of the early Church Fathers. There are also plenty of historical records and results of councils concerning deaconesses and the fact that they are not ordained.
Council of Nicaea I
Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in.this position although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity (canon 19 [A.D. 325]).
Council of Laodicea
[T]he so-called “presbyteresses” or “presidentesses” are not to be ordained in the Church (canon 11 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius
It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess (ibid.).
The Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD)
A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Annaóthose women of great reputationólet her be chosen into the order of widows (ibid., 8:25).
A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women (ibid., 8:28).
Gary Macy ends the article with the parting shot used by so many dissidents.
“The Holy Spirit is alive and well,” said Macy. “And what She wants, She gets.
17 comments
Please send this information to Vanderbilt and whatever else you know about this issue with a reminder that it would be the Christian thing to post “facts” regarding the Catholic Church vs fiction … for the good of their souls and His Kingdom. Thank you for the data you posted.
Wow, great pull with the historical references. I had read in Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition regarding the women assisting in baptisms, but this is the most explicit documentation I’ve seen yet regarding the positive proof of lack of female ordination. Good job!
“Oh, we’re dealing in FACTS…my mistake…”, said Dr. Macy, “I was under the illusion that we were working on political and social agendas, thereby re-writing actual history.”
Academia is a strange land filled with strange people.
I wonder if anyone at Vanderbilt challenged him. Given it is a historically Methodist Divinity School, he’s kind of preaching to the choir on that issue. Still, they have some fine Church history faculty there, that in the interest of real facts, would typically challenge circumstantial (or non-existent) evidence. At least when I was there….
Yes (sigh)– it’s my alma mater. I’m assuming this is the annual Antoinette Brown Lecture on women’s issues in Christianity.
I’d give them a piece of my mind if they hadn’t clued in that I’m never giving them any money ever.
OK, got curious, did some background checking–not the A Brown lecture, but sponsored by a couple of offices in the Div School.
I did easily find a podcast of the lecture if people are interested in listening to it–google Vanderbilt Gary Macy.
Jeff, I’m wondering if you’ve read Sr. Sarah Butler’s book on what she learned of these alleged ordinations.
It’s long been on my reading list, wondering if I should try to find a copy of it to read this summer (which starts Monday for me) as defined as “I don’t have to read Grad-assigned-stuff until August.”
Anyone? My impression is that she goes deep into history and is converted from her original position when she finds Truth of this dogmatic position that only men have been ordained to the priesthood.
I went to vandy as an undergrad, and most-recently my (ex-catholic) roommate from college just graduated from the div school.
The div school is not necessarily methodist any more. In reality, it is swept by the post-modern trends of various so-called “criticisms” of mainstream and historical christianity.
One of these perspectives is the ‘feminist criticism’, which seeks to re-read the doctrine and history of christianity in the light of feminism and seeks to “free” women and the church from the ‘historically oppressive’ structures that it perpetuates. (e.g. all-male clergy, the hierarchy in general, and a theology which calls god ‘father’, etc. etc.)
the words from vandy are not surprising, IMHO.
the irony is that in this very same Benton chapel, the Vandy Catholic community meets weekly for mass… continue to pray for vanderbilt, for while the div school is ‘otra cosa’, the vandy catholic ministry is quite strong.
Clearly there are few records of women being priests because they were all destroyed by 12 century men, who happen to be the same people who altered the early documents to exclude women from the priest hood.
Hasn’t this been the premise for several of Dan Brown’s books? I think it has.
Maybe Macy’s found a shadow of a penumbra in the writings of the early Church which shows there were womynpriests ™.
“The div school is not necessarily methodist any more. In reality, it is swept by the post-modern trends of various so-called “criticisms” of mainstream and historical christianity.”
–It was this way in the 1980s/early 90s too. Many of my Methodist friends weren’t particularly thrilled by that either.
“One of these perspectives is the ‘feminist criticism’, which seeks to re-read the doctrine and history of christianity in the light of feminism and seeks to “free” women and the church from the ‘historically oppressive’ structures that it perpetuates. (e.g. all-male clergy, the hierarchy in general, and a theology which calls god ‘father’, etc. etc.)”
Yep. Now to be fair, Christian history has not been 100% good to women (to put it mildly). I think you’re pointing to the phenomenon of seeing a ghost behind every tree, as that kind of criticism tends to foster.
“the words from vandy are not surprising, IMHO.”
They aren’t, but I’m intrigued by the idea of it all. Why bring in a Catholic to affirm their own set of beliefs? And uh, what about their Chair of Catholic Studies there? It’s just weird.
“the irony is that in this very same Benton chapel, the Vandy Catholic community meets weekly for mass… continue to pray for vanderbilt, for while the div school is ‘otra cosa’, the vandy catholic ministry is quite strong.”
So I’ve heard! I did the VCC many years ago–glad to hear it is strong. In my day, undergrad sorority sisters didn’t want to be seen going to a Catholic mass, or else they’d catch it…sigh….
Interesting post, it made me think of an article I wrote in 2000 in college, about the first female Jesuits who got ousted! I posted it if your interested, http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc5c6pvc_0d54z7fct
I check out Bridget Mary Meehan’s blog at least once a week. Should have nominated her for Cannonball’s Batshit Crazy award. Seriously though, it is sad to see the scales that lay on the Womenpriests’ eyes.
By the way, I don’t think that women should be priests, Do those people even read the Holy Father’s teachings?
As if anyone in hierarchical Church has disputed that the Holy Spirit isn’t “alive and well”. John Paul II wrote an encyclical emphasizing the Holy Spirit’s role as “Lord and Giver of Life”. He also wrote Ordinatis Sacerdotalis, reemphasizing that only men are validly ordained. If the Holy Spirit gets what “She” wants, as Macy puts it, it’s too bad the Holy Spirit hasn’t gotten women to be ordained yet, after 900 years.
I just visited that blog, Cliff. I still have chills. The use of St Therese as a patroness is itself agonizing, never mind the retreat descriptions. Yeeeeuck.
It seems to me that the Church should have some right to protect the names of canonized saints so that no one can use them against the Church and in support of dissent.
Of course! The absence of documentation is proof that it was SUPPRESSED. And where there is no smoke, there must be fire.
I would encourage you to read the book or at least the first chapter on Google Books. In many ways it says much more, but in other ways much less than you presume. Macy’s major points are that the understanding of ordination changed between the eleventh and twelvth centuries and that by the earlier understanding of ordination, essentially placing a person in a job, women were indeed ordained in the early middle ages.
So for example, Macy would read Epiphanius as saying that yes there were women who were ordained as deaconesses and that their job was to help with baptizing women. Macy would then go on to point out that since the ordination rites for deacons and deaconesses were nearly identical Epiphanius and everyone else would have understood deaconesses to be just as validly ordained as deacons, just to a different job.
With respect to cannon 19 deals which deals with reconciling Paulianists to the Church again ordain would be viewed as placing in a job. So the first part, which you didn’t quote, deals with the process to reconcile Paulianist clergy – rebaptism, examination, and possibly ordination. If these men were not ordained by the Church they would be considered laity. The same process would be used for Paulianist deaconesses with the point being that if they were not ordained by the Church they were laity.
Macy does take pains to point out that there is not much evidence for women leading Eucharistic celebrations so he would not really say that there were female priests as we would understand it. Again the main point is that ordination was understood in a broader sense prior to the eleventh century and that it included women.