This is part two of the apologetic response to the article: “For Chrissake,(sic) let Catholics ordain women, priests marry’, published on the ‘Opinion’ section of the Sunday Nation dated December 15th, 2019 by Mr. Makau W. Mutua, a SUNY Distinguished Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and the Chairperson of Kenya Human Rights Commission.
As a reminder, part one was dedicated on the clarifications for erroneous arguments advanced by the author on the celibacy policy on the Roman Catholic Clergy. This final part aims at revealing the incongruities of the article’s arguments against the non-inclusion of women in the Holy Orders.
The article partly states: “The refusal to ordain women into the Catholic priesthood is similarly indefensible.” This flawed statement is not near the truth, at all! Its only one reason is that “there’s no biblical or scriptural authority barring the ordination of women.”
To substantiate his sole reason, Prof. Mutua ostensibly takes us through an official document by the Church’s Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church. He cites an “ecclesiastical letter” Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by Pope John Paul II used to deny Sacrament of the Holy Orders to women as having no quotes from the bible.
We shall, then, proceed in two ways.
In this apologetic article, first, we shall give some of the many biblical texts and their implications in excluding women from the ordination. Then, secondly, we shall refute Prof. Mutua’s way of authenticating his sole argument.
Primo, the bible is solely Jewish. In Hebrew, one of the languages spoken by the Jews, Kôhên, is a noun meaning an ‘Israelite Priest’. From this derives the Swahili-Arabic word, Kuhani meaning a Priest. Priests were men chosen by YHWH (this word is pronounced as Adonai) for the sanctification of His chosen people, cf., Ex 28, 1-5. 29, 1-46; Sirach 45, 6-7.
Some of the ways a Jewish Priest would sanctify the people in the Old Covenant were: by taking care of the Sanctuary, (cf., 1 Sam 7, 1); by being an oracle teller of the mind of God to the populace, (cf., Judge 18, 5-7; 1 Sam 22, 10-15); by receiving, slaughtering and burning the sacrificial animal or bird on the altar of YHWH, (cf., Lev 1, 5-10. 6, 1-6); and by teaching the Torah (Jer 18, 18) and in fact on this St Paul is very radical, as you can read 1 Tim 2, 11-13.
Good to know that the anthropological worldview of the Jews could not allow a woman to slaughter an animal or a bird for the sake of divine worship. I think even most of our African cultures prohibit women to butcher animals. Now, it was fitting for a man to do this job. Since sacrifices to God as a form of prayer entailed the process of ritual slaughtering the animal or the bird, it was a male affair, not women!
In the New Covenant, Jesus, the founder of Christianity, and Kuhani Mkuu (the High Priest), was Himself the sacrificial lamb ‘slaughtered’ at the altars of both the Last Supper Table (cf., Mt 26, 20-30) and the Cross (cf., Mt 27, 32-56). At the altar of the Last Supper Table, Jesus’ choice of close collaborators for this mission, was freely executed by naming (cf., Mk 3, 13-19) twelve men, independent of His socio-cultural milieu to reveal to them His body and blood given out for many (cf., Mk 14, 17-26). And further commissioned them to go and do the same sacrifice, in His memory, cf. 1 Cor 11, 23-26. Women were absent in this great event. But as for the altar of the Cross, women were present “looking at a distance” (Mt 27, 55-56) yet Jesus never involved them in the sacrifice.
In these two fundamental instances of our Christian faith, we see the divine plan to reserve to men alone the priestly functions (of offering sacrifice to God) for our salvation mystery. Then, why should we, mortal beings, change this plan of God if Jesus Himself, the Son of God, had the opportunity to incorporate women at the two altars but didn’t?
Secundo, the refutation of the methodology of Prof. Mutua’s authentification by saying that Pope John Paul II “failed to quote any biblical authority” lies on its form.
The Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis published by then Pope John Paul II (now St John Paul II) in the Vatican on 22nd May 1994 during the Solemnity of the Pentecost, has sixteen (16) biblical quotes in total; 13 of them are found in the main body of the text, while 3 appearing in the footnotes!
A quotation in a manuscript is part of what makes its form. And, our learned friend, Prof. Mutua knows that very well. So, for the esteemed Professor to deny this Apostolic Letter what’s empirically evident in its form and hastily claim that it lacks the scriptural authority is maliciously and fallaciously finding an easy way out to justify his sole argument. But above all, this noticeable error is not only a disgrace to the academia, but also doing injustice to the readers’ trust in the Magisterium.
There are some other theological reasons, of course. But we leave that for another day.
And as we said in the first part of this apologetic response, without doubt we repeat that ‘opinions are personal and call for respect. But they can be corrected if not well informed’.
No comments:
Post a Comment