Power,ideology,and women’s ordination: Discursive strategies in three Roman Catholic documents

Abstract

This article analyzes through a linguistic lens three official documents of the Roman Catholic Church on women’s ordination; it also identifies various discursive tactics utilized by text creators to reinforce gender hierarchy within the Church. Drawing from Fairclough’s three dimensional discourse framework, we examine the ideological message embedded in the linguistic features and the role each text plays within a matrix of power relations. Through close readings of Inter Insigniores: On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II, and Women and the Priesthood, we demonstrate how discourse analysis can serve as a useful tool for identifying logical fallacies, inconsistencies, dilemmas, and manipulative tactics in religious discourses.

Keywords

Women's ordination critical discourse analysis Catholic church women priests

Women’s ordination continues to be among the most highly contested issues within some Christian denominations. Whereas the majority of Christian denominations now ordain women, the Roman Catholic Church maintains the tradition of allowing only men to be ordained.

Since the 1970s, ongoing tensions between “church hierarchs” and those who promote progressive policies have led to the Reform Movement organized by a wide range of liberal groups within the Catholic Church. These groups seek to sustain the more inclusive attitude of Vatican II while calling for full equality for women and other marginalized groups (Kautzer 2012). However, the Vatican continues to demand obedience and conformity and “increasingly respond[s] to reformers with harsh rhetoric and punitive measures” (4). Opposition to the church’s official stance on women’s ordination, in particular, has had serious consequences for both individuals and communities. A decree was issued on December 19, 2007, stating, “both the one who attempts to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive a sacred order, incur an excommunication …” (Levada 2008). Washburn (2017, 70–71) catalogues instances of fourteen women and one man being excommunicated from 2003 to 2015 for “attempted ordination,” “simulating ordination,” “attempted simulation of a priestly act, the celebration of Mass,” and being “secretly ordained as a priest.” One individual’s offense was described simply as “arguing in favor of the ordination of women.”

Women in the Roman Catholic Church

According to Daigler (2012), in Incompatible with God’s Design: A History of the Women’s Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church, early Christianity was remarkably free of the current contention surrounding the role of women. She asserts that “beginning with Paul’s letter to the Galatians, written in about AD 54, the foundational attitude of the early Christian community was egalitarian” (x). Macy, Ditewig and Zagano (2011, 5–6) echo this observation, noting that “the historical diaconate was both male and female.” As the church grew, however, so did “a simultaneous impulse toward uniformity, found in admonitions and exhortations from theologians and pious men wanting to reform what they perceived as errors” (Daigler, xi). Daigler further notes that “each passing century led the church farther away from the charisms and practices of the early church, until the ordination of women had become a fantasy or the dream of one or another eccentric woman.”

In tracing the development of the church in the first millennium, Nichols (1990, 53) offers a glimpse of the proliferation of ecclesiastical offices in what he characterizes as an “explosion of minor orders.” His list includes women:

The church of the Holy Wisdom at Constantinople, in the time of Justinian in the sixth century, had on its staff, apart from sixty priests and one hundred deacons, forty deaconesses, ninety sub-deacons, one hundred and ten lectors, twenty-five cantors and one hundred doorkeepers.

Nichols (1990, 18) reminds readers that women in the early church were charged with a number of tasks: “‘widows,’ who could perhaps, as women, help with certain tasks of the local ministry for which men were less well suited, were duly ‘enrolled.’” Later, he elaborates upon the traditional tasks of deaconesses, noting that they included “the preparation of women for the catechumenate and baptism; the instruction of children and adolescents; certain liturgical functions, and the care of women who are sick.” He observes that “such deaconesses seem to have disappeared in both East and West at roughly the same time, the eleventh century” (154).

Daigler (2012) identifies a significant modern-day marker which demonstrates a call to officially recognize Catholic women in ministry. She notes that “in 1911 the first recorded Catholic organization advocating women’s ordination came into being in London as the St. Joan’s Alliance” (xi). She adds that the first goal of the organization was winning for women the right to vote, noting that “for them the ordination issue was one of justice” (xii). This focus on “justice” was echoed in the twentieth anniversary celebration in 1995 of another Catholic organization, The Women’s Ordination Conference, which adopted as its theme “Discipleship of Equals: Breaking Bread, Doing Justice.” This organization’s website describes itself as “A Voice for Women’s Equality in the Catholic Church” and “the oldest and largest organization that works to ordain women as priests, deacons and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic Church.” Currently, the organization’s activities include holding prayer services in homes and even in Catholic parishes. It also publishes newsletters highlighting women ordained as priests or deacons by Roman Catholic Womenpriests and other independent groups (Kautzer 2012, 118).

In the last few decades, various Catholic feminist theologians have voiced criticism against the male-dominant clerical structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Latin American feminist theologians such as Maria Pilar Aquino and Maria Clara Bingemer, for example, argued that liberation theology has been dominated by males. In response, feminist theologians and their supporters called for gender-inclusive theology and the elimination of gender oppression in the Church and society (Connolly 1997). In the US, scholars such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Rosemary Ruether, among others, have challenged the Church’s hierarchal structure, which is entrenched in patriarchy. These feminist theologians’ efforts materialized in two distinct forms in North America. According to Reuther (2011), one group promotes abolishing the hierarchical structure itself within the church, and the other focuses on achieving gender equality through the granting of female priesthood while maintaining the organization of structure with its administrative roles. The first group established “women-churches,” spearheaded by Mary Hunt beginning from early 1980s (Reuther 2011, 68). As grassroots worshipping communities, women-churches are “a global, ecumenical movement made up of local feminist base communities of justice-seeking friends who engage in sacrament and solidarity” (Hunt 1990, 1) and have no designated priest (Reuther 2011, 67). These women-churches later gave rise to an organization called Women Church Convergence, a coalition of thirty-six Catholic-rooted feminist organizations and groups that promote “dismantling institutional power” through networking and conferences (Kautzer 2012, 121).

With the turn of the century, those who supported an organized church structure while promoting women’s ordination coalesced as another body, the Roman Catholic Women Priesthood. While creating organized churches that retain the structure of ministry and ordain women priests, they define the Church structure in terms of function, not hierarchy or any other power roles. The ordained female priests are typically unpaid, hold other jobs, and are not prohibited from marriage. Mary Magdalene Apostolic Catholic Community (MMACC) in San Diego, California, created by Jane Via, is one such example (Reuther 2011, 71). According to Via (2012), currently there are more than one hundred such female priests in the US and Canada.

In an attempt to recover what has been lost and to rectify what many see as ongoing sexism, suppression, and injustice, individuals and organizations continue to strive for the equality of women in the church. Ordination is at the heart of this debate, as it is required for full exercise of pastoral duties, privileges, and leadership. This topic has an important bearing not only on those who identify with this particular faith community, but also on members of other faith communities, and even on those who hold no religious affiliation. Policies, practices, and pronouncements centering on women impact all.

Critical discourse analysis and religious texts

This article does not seek to revisit the many arguments surrounding this issue. Rather, it aims to bring to light how language is being used to frame the issue by the Roman Catholic Church. The role of language in maintaining an unequal power structure is a topic that concerns critical discourse analysts. In this article, we use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to identify discursive tactics that promote and reinforce a patriarchal view in three Catholic documents created in response to ongoing calls for the ordination of women to the priesthood. CDA is a subfield of linguistics, which explores the relationship between the ideology of language and the enactment of power.¹ Framed around the tenets of Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, critical discourse studies are transdisciplinary and draw their methodology and insights from various disciplines including anthropology, psychology, communication, and linguistics. Whereas a large percentage of critical discourse studies have focused on the discourse of media and politics (Chilton 2004; Chilton and Schaffner 1997), linguistic studies of religious discourse have continued in the periphery, typically centering on the analysis of the discursive means used in sermons (e.g., Cipriani 2002; Garner 2007; Muchnik 2005; Neuman, Lurie, and Rosenthal 2001; Singh and Thuraisingam 2011). Increasingly more religious scholars are calling for the application of transdisciplinary approaches, especially linguistic ones, to the study of religion (e.g., Wijsen 2013). Responding to this call, Kim’s recent studies (2016; 2017) have demonstrated how discourse analysis can serve as a useful tool for identifying inconsistencies, dilemmas, and manipulative tactics in selected religious discourses on women’s ordination written by theologians representing the Southern Baptist Convention and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To our knowledge, no existing study has examined the Roman Catholic Church’s discourse on women’s ordination through the linguistic lens. To help fill this gap, we present the following study.

Data

The current study analyzes the following texts:

Inter Insigniores: On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (the Vatican, 1976)

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II, 1994 (John Paul II, 1994)

Women and the Priesthood (Catholic Answers 2004)

We chose the three texts for their representativeness and intertextuality. We initially considered several other texts for inclusion in the analysis, including articles published in the Catholic News Service and “The Pastoral Office: A Joint Statement” posted on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.² However, we narrowed the selection to the most representative documents that defend the Church’s current position on women’s ordination. To identify the most representative texts, we first conducted an independent search, followed by consultation with a senior administrator at the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism to confirm our selection. The two sources that we identified as the most authoritative and widely considered as representative texts are Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

John Paul II’s 1994 text, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paull II,” is widely considered as the most authoritative text that represents the Roman Catholic Church’s position on women’s ordination (Ulbrich, personal communication). The text refers to an earlier document entitled, “Inter Insigniores: On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood,” issued by the Vatican in 1976 and reiterates the points made there. The 1976 document is much longer and offers a much more detailed account of why women should be excluded from priesthood. The two form a dialogic relationship.

The third document, Women and the Priesthood (Catholic Answers 2004), was also included in our data set because it was created most recently and is currently presented as the “Catholic Answer” to the question of women’s ordination on www.catholic.com, a website that purportedly “answers questions about what the Church really teaches” for Catholics as well as non-Catholics (Catholic Answers n.d.). The authors of this study belong to the latter audience. The website claims its goal is “to be the most trusted and accessible source for sharing, explaining, and defending the Catholic faith through as many media as possible” (Catholic Answers n.d.). The specific text being analyzed from this website bears the imprimatur of a bishop and refers in its opening to John Paul II’s 1994 statement as its anchor text. Women and the Priesthood is among the first documents offered in response to the search phrase, “women’s ordination in Catholic church.” The interdiscursive and intertextual nature and different time periods that these three texts represent allow readers to cross-examine commonalities as well as differences.

Conceptual framework

Fairclough’s (1989) three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Studies serves as the conceptual framework for this study. In the first dimension, an analyst considers linguistic aspects of the text, such as vocabulary, modality, register⁴, metaphor, and organizational structure. The second dimension involves interpretation, where the analyst assigns values and attitudes to those features identified in the previous stage based on his or her background assumptions and knowledge to draw out any ideologies which may not be obvious initially but are revealed though various linguistic forms selected by the creators of the texts. This analysis focuses on what the text is “doing,” in addition to what it is “saying,” through linguistic and structural choices. The third dimension discusses what role a discourse plays within a matrix of relations of power, taking into consideration sociocultural and political conditions surrounding the text’s production. This analysis interweaves these three dimensions to probe underlying assumptions framing the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on women’s ordination.

Research questions

This study focuses on the following questions:

What ideological messages are embedded in the linguistic features of the texts?

What are the text producers doing by virtue of producing it?

What role does religious discourse play within a matrix of power relations?

In what follows are major findings from each text:

Text 1: Inter Insigniores

Inter Insigniores is the longest of the three texts and contains approximately 6500 words. Considered the first major statement issued by the Roman Catholic Church on women’s ordination, it was created after churches began admitting women to the priesthood in the second part of the twentieth century. For instance, in 1958, the Swedish Lutheran Church admitted women to the pastoral office, and some reformed churches followed suit (Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research n.d.). In the early 1970s, three women were ordained by an Anglican bishop of Hong Kong, and eleven female Episcopal priests were ordained. With the first Women's Ordination gathering in Detroit, Women’s Ordination Conference was founded in 1975. Then in 1976, the Pontifical Biblical Commission determined that there were no scriptural reasons preventing women's ordination. It was in this milieu and in response to the aforementioned commission that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued Inter Insigniores (National Catholic Reporter n.d.).

Inter Insigniores is organized under six major arguments against women’s ordination: (1) the constant tradition of the Roman Catholic Church; (2) Christ’s calling of only male disciples; (3) the apostles’ exclusion of women as ministers and elders; (4) the permanent nature of Christ’s and His apostles’ practices; (5) the necessity of male representation in conducting the Eucharist; and (6) the inappropriateness of considering priesthood as an individual’s choice or right.

While the text may appear to carry a sympathetic tone toward women through the occasional reiteration of their value, its verdict is absolute and final: the door has been, and always will remain, closed. It solidifies the Church’s position on women’s ordination by incorporating various tactics identified below.

Exclusion through exe-/eisegesis

As the document focuses on validating men’s exclusive, privileged status as priests, the primary evidence it presents is that Christ called only males to be his disciples. Furthermore, it asserts, in administering sacraments, a priest represents Christ, and women cannot properly represent him due to their lack of “natural resemblance.” The text elevates gender as a principal element, stating, “in human beings the difference of sex exercises an important influence, much deeper than, for example ethnic differences.” It also suggests that women are unable to proclaim the gospel as effectively as men, who “proclaim better the mystery of Christ” and “safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content” (italics added). Furthermore, only male priests have been “entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of Heaven” by Christ. Although Mary Magdalene was, it acknowledges, the first person to see the risen Christ and was charged by him to announce his resurrection to his disciples, it was his male disciples that were to become “the official witnesses.” It further questions the sense of calling that some women experience as not “genuine,” but “purely subjective” and a “mere personal attraction” (Vatican 1976). It adds that women should not conflate their subjective feelings of attraction with a divine calling.

Although the document asserts that the Church does not assume the “natural superiority of man over woman,” words such as “better,” “safeguard,” “whole,” and “official” used above are value-laden and undoubtedly carry the notion of female inadequacy and male superiority, connoting that women’s work is comparatively inferior, unsafe, incomplete, and invalid. Furthermore, dismissing women’s sense of calling to ministry as a whim is not only harsh, but also manipulative. Constantly making someone second-guess her instincts, feelings, and convictions is manipulative and emotionally abusive. Behavioral psychologists call such activity “gaslighting.”³ The term “gaslighting” is typically used to describe manipulative behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Such systemic denial of women’s call to ministry could be interpreted as an institutional form of gaslighting.

The use of biblical texts in the document raises further concerns. For example, the document quotes John 15:16 (“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit”) and Heb 5:4 (“And no one takes this honor on himself but he receives it when called by God”) to emphasize the importance of receiving God’s calling. The problem is that neither of these verses specifically addresses males only. In particular, Jesus’s metaphor of the vine and the branches used here clearly applies to all believers.

Throughout the document, a number of biblical references are presented to further support the gender-specific nature of priesthood, but a close look at their usage reveals a subjective, manipulative approach. For instance, in the third section focusing on the apostles’ practices of not including women in ministry, the document presents four references from Pauline letters as evidence: Romans 16:3, Phil 4:2–3, 1 Cor 3–9, and 1 Thess 3:2. They are given in an attempt to distinguish between the two phrases, “my fellow workers” and “God’s fellow workers.” The document states that “exegetes of authority” observed different usages of these terms by Paul, with “my fellow workers” referring to males and females together, but “God’s fellow workers” referring only to males. While trying to exude a sense of credibility by invoking “exegetes of authority,” no specific references, nor original Greek phrases are cited to justify this formula. The document does not specify which version of the Bible it is using, and it ignores the fact that the phrase, “God’s fellow workers” in 1 Thess 3:2, which is indeed used in the New American Standard Version, is translated differently in other versions. For example, consider translations from the New International Version and the King James Version (italics added):

NIV: We sent Timothy, who is our brother and co-worker in God’s service in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith.

KJV: And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellow labourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith.

Although the document presents this binary as “two formulas used by the Apostle,” and is endorsed by “exegetes of authority” for making gender distinctions, the fact that Inter Insigniores selectively focuses on one specific translation without considering others renders the assertion subject to criticism. Such selective, subjective interpretation, while problematic to many readers of faith, is in keeping with the Roman Catholic Church’s designation of itself as supreme authority in all matters spiritual and clerical, including exegesis.

More importantly, categorizing men and women based on this questionable binary and promoting men to a much higher position as “God’s fellow workers,” while regarding women as merely human’s fellow workers, is an unfair move which denigrates women. Such denigration often takes for its justification the Genesis account of creation. Terms for Eve in Genesis 2 such as “an help meet for him” (KJV), “a suitable helper” (NIV), or “a helper suitable for him” (NASB) have traditionally been read as authorizing predestined gender hierarchy to Adam and, by extension, to all men.

Another problematic example is found in how biblical texts are used to support the premise that priests represent Christ (physically and spiritually) and, therefore, must be male. A close look at how Inter Insigniores justifies this premise also reveals flaws in the usage of the biblical texts. Two references are given as evidence:

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:20)

And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (Gal 4:14)

While Paul addresses both male and female church members at Corinth when using the pronoun “we” in the first verse, the document mispresents Paul’s intent by using “Christ’s ambassadors” to refer to male priests only. The second reference from Galatians is even more problematic. Before discussing why the Galatians seem to conceive of him as an enemy, Paul expresses his concerns about their turning away from the gospel. He tries to remind them of how kindly they used to treat him. When he says, “And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus,” Paul highlights their past kindness. Using this statement as a justification for male priests as sole representatives of Christ is an example of eisegesis, taking scripture out of context to justify one’s own belief.

Additional evidence is taken from the Declaration of 24 June 1973 and Saint Cyprian’s writing in the third century, which state that “the bishop or the priest … represents Christ” and “the priest truly acts in the place of Christ.” This, however, begs the question as the premise is used to support the conclusion. This evidence comes from a priest in the third century who opposed women priests. This is a circular argument, a logical fallacy where a reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end with.

Resetting the perimeter of power

Inter Insigniores asserts that the Church possesses the power to institute changes, and yet, she⁵ is powerless to allow women’s ordination. In the fourth section which elaborates on the permanent nature of this regulation, the document reminds readers that the Church has the ultimate authority and power to modify its practices (italics added):

In the Church there has always existed this power … she can lay down or modify what she considers more fitting either to the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or places. (Vatican 1976)

However, it says, “this power, which is a real one, has definite limits.” It argues that the Church is powerless to make any changes when the change involves altering “the substance of the sacraments.” Here the substance is defined as the preservation of gender hierarchy in the Church. The document repeats the word power several times in the same paragraph (italics added):

It has been noted … to what extent the Church is conscious of possessing a certain power over the sacraments.

She has used this power down the centuries.

The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments.

The priestly ministry ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions.

In the next section, the document continues to invoke “power” as one of the core elements of priesthood: The priest, who alone has the power to perform [sacraments], then acts not only through the effective power conferred on him by Christ.

In an effort to counter the criticism that the Church is being sexist, the document emphasizes that “the priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement” and “priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual.” However, statements like the ones above lead readers to suspect that the issue of women’s ordination centers on power relations and control, as it sets the perimeter of its power on subjective, selective terms.

Semantic fog

Despite the rather obvious sexism inherent in the arguments cited above, some readers may still have difficulty parsing the document’s biases and manipulative elements. This could be partly because evidence is often stated in weasel words—words that are vague and ambiguous—and glittering generalities, which are common logical fallacies. For instance, the document repeats the word “mystery” twelve times, shrouding the evidence in the abstract general language of religion (italics added):

Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son … was not invested with the apostolic ministry.

It is through this Scriptural language … that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.

It is indeed in harmony with the entirety of God's plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery of the Covenant is the nucleus.

The controversies raised in our days over the ordination of women are for all Christians a pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of the Church.

The priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church.

In these examples, the word “mystery” collocates with several different words, including “Christ,” “Church,” “God,” and “Covenant.” By presenting its key evidence as impossible to understand and explain, and yet as absolute as Christ, Church, God, and covenant, the document seems to suggest that any efforts to dispute the arguments are futile.

Further examples demonstrate how abstract ambiguous phrases are used to distract readers from focusing on the real issue of gender equality. In the following sentences, the issue of women’s ordination is presented with an overlay of highly valued religious concepts, such as faith, salvation, and revelation (italics added):

It is not a question here of bringing forward a demonstrative argument, but of clarifying this teaching by the analogy of faith.

This is indeed a question of fact, and this fact, while not implying an alleged superiority of man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation.

We can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man…. unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation …

The meanings of these phrases are obscure, and it is even harder to comprehend how clarifying “the analogy of faith” and acknowledging “the importance of the symbolism for the economy of Revelation” would prove that women cannot be ordained. Such esoteric phrases camouflage the Church’s attempt to maintain control and power in the cloak of fidelity and faithfulness to Christ while suppressing reason and logic. As the document responds to a gender-erasing statement by Paul in Gal 3:28 (“In Christ there is neither male nor female and all are one”), it stipulates that “this passage does not concern ministries” but “only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation.” This claim showcases another instance of eisegesis—selective, subjective interpretation downplaying the importance of gender equality in the Church. The document tries to divert the reader’s attention from focusing on the immediate issue of gender equality to contemplating the more abstract notions of faith, salvation, and revelation. At the same time, it tries to create a pretense of equality by telling women to be “fully aware of the greatness of their mission” and the increased importance of their role “for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery of believers of the true face of the Church.” By resorting to glittering generality, the text tries to convince women to be satisfied with the status quo.

Control through syntax

The sense of ambiguity can be further demonstrated through other linguistic examples. The document includes a number of sentences where the subjects/actors are inanimate. Particularly noteworthy are sentences justifying its theology by using inanimate subjects as actors (italics added):

Since that period and up till our own time, it can be said that the question [of women’s ordination] has not been raised again for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.

Having recalled the Church's norm and the basis thereof, it seems useful and opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the profound fittingness that theological reflection discovers between the proper nature of the sacrament of Order … and the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly ordination.

The priestly ministry … ensures the continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the powers related to those functions.

In these three sentences, the actors that perform the actions are non-human. The first example, “the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance,” suggests that it was the practice that has enjoyed the current males-only policy, rather than the male priests themselves. This statement, however, is not only guileful but also untrue because the sanctioning of woman priests has been the subject of an ongoing debate in the Roman Catholic Church. The second example insinuates that a theological reflection would naturally lead to the conclusion that only men can be priests, while ignoring the reality of differing perspectives and interpretations. The third example tries to create an unequivocal and uncontestable sense of the purpose of ministry, that it is a continuation of powers given to men by Christ.

At times, passive constructions are used to de-emphasize the subjects of action in high-stakes statements (italics added):

Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus and the Apostles, which has been considered as normative by the whole tradition up to our own day?

This norm, based on Christ’s example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to God’s plan for his Church.

Theological reflection discovers … the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly ordination.

In the first example, the agent who considers the exclusion of women in ministry is “the whole tradition,” rather than male priests. In the second example, the agent who considers the Church’s practice as conforming to God’s plan is removed; instead, the Church’s current norm is presented as indisputable fact. In the third example, the agents that call only men to receive priestly ordination have been omitted. Given that the term “ordination” is not used anywhere in the Bible, the omission of agents seems to help the document creators evade assuming full responsibility for making such problematic claims.

Text 2: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

The second text being analyzed, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, was written by John Paul II in 1994 and contains 1338 words. It draws heavily from two core arguments made in Inter Insigniores and begins by explaining why Inter Insigniores was created. We are told that it was ordered by Pope Paul VI for the purpose of “safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity.” As the efforts to admit women to priesthood continued in the Church even after the publication of Inter Insigniores, the document further reinforced the sense of infallibility of the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination.

Whereas Inter Insigniores includes six arguments, the current text focuses only on two of them, namely that Jesus called only men, and that not even Mary was called into pastoral ministry, refuting the claim that choosing only men signifies women’s inferiority. The document also cites Pope Paul VI and the author’s own apostolic letter published in 1988 to support its position. Additionally, it presents several New Testament passages and includes “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and Catechism of the Catholic Church” (1577) in the references to emphasize that Jesus called only men.

Examples of ambiguity and generality, one of the strategies identified in the analysis of Inter Insigniores, are also found in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. To illustrate, the document states that not admitting women to priesthood conforms to “Christ’s way of acting,” and quotes Pope Paul VI to state “the real reason” for selecting only men includes “the fundamental constitution” of the Church and “her theological anthropology.” Here John Paul II echoes Paul VI in equating Christ’s calling of twelve male disciples with the act of establishing the “fundamental constitution” of the Church which is assumed to consist of an exclusively male priesthood. Theological anthropology is a complex field of study, which may not be familiar to lay readers of the document. According to Cameron (2005), it “views humanity’s relationship to God in its various dimensions” and explores “both sin and salvation, revolt against God and fellowship with God … with a view to catching glimpses of God’s glory, the glory of his purpose for humanity” (55–56). Elevating the Church’s subjective assumption to “theological anthropology,” which encompasses a vast array of topics concerning humanity in relation to God, not only obscures the issue of women’s ordination, but also suggests that gender hierarchy is core to God’s perspective of what it means to be human. Human beings and their relationship with God are defined in a narrow sense, mainly focusing on gender relations. In addition, cementing Jesus’s calling of disciples as an act of establishing the constitution of the church is the crux of the argument, but the logic is problematic, as this premise denounces practices of a host of Protestant churches currently ordaining women. Those churches are seen as not only differing in policies and practices regarding pastoral administration, but are also viewed as violating the fundamental constitution of Christianity.

On the one hand, John Paul II emphasizes the fact that only men were called by Jesus as his apostles. On the other hand, he emphasizes that Jesus’s manner of acting does not mean he was sexist, because he clearly recognized the “dignity and vocation of women.” While inserting several parenthetical biblical references in the document’s justification for the fact that only males were called, John Paul II does not include any biblical texts to justify the value and work of women in the Bible. Rather, he cites his own 1988 apostolic letter in order to emphasize that Jesus did not act according to the traditions and culture of the time but still chose only men, thereby establishing the Church’s “fundamental constitution.” Although the term is never defined within the document, its usage evokes the notion of a sacrosanct blueprint for Church organization and structure.

The document continues to use obscure phrases in explaining the reasons for prohibiting the ordination of women, despite their value. It states that “it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.” In addition, it asserts, “it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered.” Here, strong modality is used to solidify authority. However, the juxtaposition of a strong modality—“totally ordered”—with a much softer concept of love produces an incongruous statement as the document continues,

For this reason, the Declaration <Inter Insigniores> recalls: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love” (cf. 1 Co. 12, 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.

It tries to divert readers’ attention from focusing on gender equality to musing on “a better gift,” as it repeats a statement from Inter Insigniores: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love.” A similar strategy was observed earlier in Inter Insigniores: after acknowledging women’s value and dignity, the document reverts back to the previous claim that only men are qualified by using a glittering generality through abstract, broad theological concepts, such as faith, holiness, and love. Notably, a questionable assumption—if Jesus had intended to call women to ministry, his mother should have been invited first—serves as a guiding principle.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis further quotes a passage from Inter Insigniores to affirm the value of women: Today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.

The continued use of a glittering generality describing women’s roles, accentuated by the word “today” at the beginning of the sentence, creates a notion that women’s value has increased. However, the parameters of their value are defined in vague terms. The following phrases from Inter Insigniores are repeated here to define women’s roles in the Church in abstract terms:

“The renewal and humanization of society”

“The rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church”

“Witness to their faith”

“Passed on the Church’s faith and tradition”

“Bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel”

These phrases indicate that women’s roles are confined mainly to intangible, unbounded tasks. The final statement shown below assumes that this confirmation of the Church’s existing tradition will erase any uncertainties or disagreement:

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. Lk. 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.

The above statement is absolute and final. But at the same time, it is contradictory. While stressing the church’s utter lack of authority and powerlessness in matters concerning the conferral of women’s ordination, it emphasizes the absolute power that the Church possesses to enforce its doctrines.

Text 3: Women and the Priesthood

As mentioned earlier, the third text being analyzed, Women and the Priesthood, is currently posted on Catholic.com and was created in order to publicize the Roman Catholic Church’s view on women’s ordination for those inside and outside the Catholic Church. One of the most notable features of this text is that, unlike the two previous documents, the main body of the current text is a compilation of excerpts from several ancient documents. It presents John Paul II’s, 1994 statement as the most recent position of the Church, but approximately 80 percent of this newer text is comprised of eight excerpts from early Church Fathers’ writings and three from the written records of Councils, all of which date between AD 189 and AD 428. The excerpts are listed in chronological order, without background information or commentary. The predominant focus on ancient documents, rather than biblical exegesis, reveals the text creators’ conviction that the beliefs and teachings of the early Church Fathers should hold supreme authority on the issue of women’s ordination. Several excerpts refer to women who were already performing functions traditionally assumed by male priests, which indicates that the debate surrounding women’s ordination predates the feminist movement by over a thousand years.

The following analysis illustrates how lexical and syntactic features contribute to forming the global meaning of the text in promoting male-dominant ideology. First, we examine how certain early Church Fathers perceived the roles of women and how they described those women who participated in priestly ministry. The analysis then focuses on drawing out any ideologies which may not be obvious but are shown through various linguistic forms such as sentence structure, modality, and the use of pronouns.

Perceptions of women’s roles

One of the most salient features is how women are portrayed. As the following statements show, women’s roles are relegated to auxiliary ones:

For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. (The Apostolic Constitutions 3, AD 400)

A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them. (The Apostolic Constitutions 3, AD 400)

A deaconess … guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women. (The Apostolic Constitutions 8, AD 400)

She [Mary] was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God…. But he did not find this [conferring of priesthood on her] good. (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies 79, AD 377)

The first and the last statements focus on women’s reproductive role, whereas the other two focus on the ancillary roles, namely, assisting male priests and presbyters to perform functions involving other women. The phrase, “of use,” in the second statement once again highlights the view that women were to serve auxiliary roles in support of men.

The next set of phrases, which appear in three texts written by early Church Fathers, express abhorrence toward women who were participating in priestly ministry. Descriptors for those women include:

Deluded woman, wretched woman (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, AD 189)

Shameless, heretical women (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 41, AD 200)

Most monstrous creature (Tertullian, Baptism 1, AD 203).⁶

These phrases demonize women who performed the Eucharist and other liturgical acts. Considering the likelihood that a modern-day audience would feel uncomfortable with these harsh descriptors, it is perplexing that the author(s) of this text deliberately chose excerpts that convey such a high degree of abhorrence. The compilers/authors provide no commentary for modern readers concerning such severely judgmental and degrading language. They offer nothing to dissuade readers from spurning the text. Readers are led to believe, therefore, that this lack of vindication and background information is intended to show both the text creators’ as well as the Church’s tacit agreement with such harsh views.

The same scathing tone extends to the descriptions used for the practices of women priests:

conspire to erase the one truth; puffed up (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 41, AD 200)

venomous doctrine; destroy baptism; kill little fishes, by taking them away from the water (Tertullian, Baptism 1, AD 203)

in a state of ecstasy; deluded many; daring to pretend; deceptions and illusions of the demon; deluding believers (Firmilian, Cyprian’s Letters 74:10, AD 253)

an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony; godless and sacrilegious; a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; diabolic; a teaching of impure spirit (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies 78, AD 377)

contrary to nature; ignorant practices of Gentile atheism (Apostolic Constitutions 3, AD 400)

Words used above, such as “venomous,” “diabolic,” and “demon,” to name a few, convey an intense aversion to practices and beliefs that deviate from the Church’s tradition. Such language could be quite baffling to modern-day readers, particularly to those who hold an egalitarian view, including many of those who belong to Protestant churches that allow women’s ordination, as they, too, would find themselves on the receiving end of this revulsion. The hate-filled rhetoric, reproduced and relayed to a twenty-first century audience unfiltered and unexplained, seems to align with the strict policy that the Roman Catholic Church currently upholds concerning those who do not conform to the Church’s mandate. As noted earlier, the Church currently excommunicates those women who perform priestly functions as well as those who condone such practices, and this official severing seems to resonate with the extreme views held by early Church Fathers. It is quite puzzling, though, that this text is the most recent document, and yet, its tone is the harshest, crudest, and the least nuanced of the three. This third text paints a grim picture, as it shows that the Church has no intention of engaging in dialogue or reasoning with its members on this issue. In short, it is willing to resort to fundamentalist rhetoric to quiet its critics.

Ideology embedded in language

The male-dominant ideology is further bolstered through linguistic choices. One of the most notable features is the use of passive voice. At least two dozen sentences use passive voice, de-emphasizing the agent. The following sentences, in particular, assign absolute limits to women’s place and roles in the church (italics added):

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church but neither [is it permitted her] … to offer. (Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 9, AD 206)

When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her. A widow is appointed for prayer. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 11, AD 215)

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. (Council of Nicaea I, Canon 19, AD 325)

[T]he so-called “presbyteresses” or “presidentesses” are not to be ordained in the Church (Council of Laodicea, Canon 11, AD 360)

A virgin is not ordained. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. A widow is not ordained. (The Apostolic Constitutions 3, 8, AD 400)

Sentences such as these present the current Church policy as a mandate that has constant, permanent authority. In particular, the use of the be verb and the to-infinitive in items 2, 3, and 4, prescribes the boundaries for women’s roles at the existential and ontological level. Namely, widows may be “designated” but are not ordained. In the same way, women in leadership roles should be “numbered among the laity” and are not to be ordained. However, the consecrating act of placing hands on the head of another to set apart for a special purpose, as mentioned in item 2 above, is not reported in accounts of Jesus’s calling of his disciples, although the practice has become standard in ordaining clergy, deacons, and elders in Christian churches.

Priestly prohibitions for women are also described in the present tense, demarcating the unchanging boundaries for women’s roles:

She does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 11, AD 215)

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. (The Apostolic Constitutions 8, AD 400)

The sense of marginalization portrayed here becomes even more evident when we look at how the pronouns in following excerpts position male priests (“us”) against women (“them”) (italics added):

[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost…. Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. (Firmilian, Cyprian’s Letters 74:10, AD 253)

[A female heretic], lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism…. But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icthus [Greek, “Fish”], Jesus Christ, are born in water … so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water (Tertullian, Baptism 1, AD 203).

A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. (The Apostolic Constitutions, AD 400)

But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? (The Apostolic Constitutions 3, AD 400)

While these statements show in-group solidarity among male clergy (“us”) in their views of women, they create a sense of barriers against women (“them”). It is interesting that despite the strong authoritative tone that the text creators try to imbue by including the writings of early Church Fathers, the metaphor used in the second excerpt paints a picture of helpless little fish. Male priests are portrayed as being victimized by a destructive, monstrous creature, a so-called female heretic who poses a strong threat to the male priests. As the readers are not told of specific contexts or intended audiences of these excerpts, the strategic move to choose these specific excerpts and let them “do the talking” to the modern audience seems to portray the mixed sentiments that the Church may harbor concerning its assumed and exercised authority.

Conclusion

In this paper, we analyzed three official documents of the Roman Catholic Church on women’s ordination through a linguistic lens and identified various discursive tactics utilized by text creators to reinforce gender hierarchy within the Church. We illustrated how the texts prohibit further discussion by demanding compliance on issues framed around questionable biblical interpretations. We also demonstrated how discourse analysis can serve as a useful tool for identifying logical fallacies, inconsistencies, dilemmas, and manipulative tactics in religious discourses. Gender discrimination remains a popular topic for critical discourse analysts. However, so far, the field of CDA has largely avoided probing arguments in religious discourse on topics as sensitive and controversial as women’s ordination. This study sought to contribute to CDA by moving into this largely untapped area. In so doing, we have demonstrated the value of adding a linguistic framework to the study of religion in uncovering unfair assumptions and manipulative tactics that are justified or tacitly condoned by many in the guise of being “biblical.”

Hauke (1988, 19) succinctly poses what he regards as the central question currently at the heart of the debate over women’s ordination in the Catholic Church: “Is this fact [forbidding women’s ordination] an outdated discrimination or is it an essential matter of faith?” Though the matter has been declared decided and closed by the highest authority of the Catholic Church, on many levels the discussion continues. As one bishop observes, John Paul II’s statement “was much more about authority than it is about ordination” (cited in Dillon 1999, 63). The study presented here underscores the validity of this assessment.

Though the debate has been declared closed for Catholics, some writers from that faith tradition have turned to earlier authoritative pronouncements to find justification for their continued inquiry. Even the most cursory glance at these earlier pronouncements shows that they are remarkably free of the preponderance of power markers and other problematic language cited above in the three documents under scrutiny here. Sullivan S. J. (2014, 13) takes consolation in an earlier statement by Joseph Ratzinger who in 2005 would become Pope Benedict XVI:

Criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary to the degree that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church. When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor is clear evidence from the sources available, a definitive decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, while conditions for such an act were lacking, the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy.

Daigler (2012) likewise chooses a particularly sympathetic and egalitarian pronouncement to sanction her continued study in this area. The irony cannot be missed in her selection. She chooses words from another of John Paul II’s documents and uses them as an epigraph to her study: “Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design” (Documents of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 1997).

Each of these writers who continues the discussion on women’s ordination shares Häring’s (1999, 117–118) assessment that what we find often in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and related documents, as this study demonstrates, is “the Roman tone of demand and repudiation [which] has changed little; at most, it has become shaper.” Häring detects a “stream of general hardening” resulting in a “repressive document.”

Clearly, the value-laden language of power, authority, and closure used in the three texts remains difficult, disconcerting, and even impossible for many to accept, let alone embrace. The assertion of absolute certainty regarding Church doctrine on women’s ordination and her indisputable authority that the texts depict through various linguistic ploys seem only to magnify and perpetuate institutional denigration and dismissal of women’s ordination and those questioning or supporting it.

Footnotes

Notes

Author biographies

Eun-Young Julia Kim is a Professor of English at Andrews University, USA. She currently directs the graduate English program at Andrews. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, critical discourse analysis, and second language writing.

Beverly J. Matiko is an Associate Professor of English and Communication at Andrews University, USA. She is a member of the honor’s faculty. Her research interests include literary nonfiction, biblical literature, and the performance of literature.

References

Cameron

Charles.

2005. “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology.’” Evangel 23, no. 2 (Summer): 53–61. Accessed March 21, 2019. https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anthropology_cameron.pdf

Catholic Answers. 2004. “Women and the Priesthood.” Last modified, April 03, 2018. Accessed April 3, 2018. https://www.catholic.com/tract/women-and-the-priesthood

Catholic Answers. n.d. “Why the World Needs Catholic Answers.” Accessed March 21, 2019. https://www.catholic.com/about

Chilton

Paul.

2004. Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Chilton

Paul

and Cristina Schaffner. 1997. “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, edited by Teun A. Van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage Publications.

Cipriani, Andrea Cristiana. 2002. “Power in Religious Discourse: A Discourse Analysis of Two Sermons from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God.” PhD diss., Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Accessed March 21, 2019. https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/83170/193384.pdf?sequence=1

Connolly

John R.

1997. Approaches to a Theology of Women’s Liberation in Latin America. Verf: Latin American Studies Association. Accessed March 21, 2019. http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/LASA97/connolly.pdf

Daigler

Mary Jeremy.

2012. Incompatible with God’s Design: A History of the Women’s Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church. Toronto: Scarecrow Press.

Dillon

Michele.

1999. Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Fairclough

Norman.

1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.

11.

Garner

Mark.

2007. “Preaching as a Communicative Event: A Discourse Analysis of Sermons by Robert Rollock (1555–1599).” Reformation and Renaissance Review 9, no. 1 (April): 45–70.

12.

Häring

Hermann.

1999. “The Authority of Women and the Future of the Church.” In The Non-ordination of Women and the Politics of Power, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Hermann Häring, 117–125. London: SCM Press.

13.

Hauke

Manfred.

1988. Women in the Priesthood? A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption. Translated by David Kipp. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

14.

Hunt

Mary E.

1990. “Defining ‘women-church.’” Waterwheel: A Quarterly Newsletter of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual 3, no. 2 (Summer): 1–3.

15.

Kautzer

Kathleen.

2012. The Underground Church: Nonviolence Resistance to the Vatican Empire.Studies in Critical Social Sciences/Studies in Critical Research on Religion 2. Leiden: Brill.

16.

Kim

Eun-Young Julia.

2016. “Persuasive Strategies in a Chauvinistic Religious Discourse: The Case of Women’s Ordination.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 8, no. 1: 58–83.

17.

Kim

Eun-Young Julia.

2017. “ A Comparative Discourse Analysis of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary’s Statement ‘On the Unique Headship of Christ’ and The Response Statement ‘An Open Appeal.’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 55, no. 1: 45–82.

18.

Levada

William Cardinal.

2008. “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith General Decree Regarding the Delict of Attempted Sacred Ordination of a Woman.” L’Osservatore Romano. May 30, 2008.

19.

Macy

Gary

, William T. Ditewig and Phyllis Zagano. 2011. Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future. New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press.

20.

Muchnik

Malka.

2005. “Discourse Strategies of Maxzirim Bitshuva: The Case of a Repentance Preacher in Israel.” Text 25, no. 3: 373–398.

21.

National Catholic Reporter. n.d. “Key Dates in Women’s Ordination History.” Accessed March 21, 2019. https://www.ncronline.org/key-dates-womens-ordination-history

22.

Neuman

Yair

, Yotam Lurie and Michele Rosenthal. 2001. “A Watermelon Without Seeds: A Case Study in Rhetorical Rationality.” Text 21, no. 4: 543–565.

23.

Nichols

Aidan.

1990. Holy Order: The Apolstolic Ministry from the New Testament to the Second Vatican Council. Dublin: Veritas.

24.

Paul II

John.

1994. “Ordinatio sacerdotalis of John Paul II to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone.” Accessed March 21, 2019. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

25.

Reuther

Rosemary Radford.

2011. “Should Women Want Women Priests or Women-Church?” Feminist Theology 20, no. 1: 63–72.

26.

Singh

Parvinder

Kaur Hukam and Thavamalar Thuraisingam. 2011. “Language for Reconciliation in Religious Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Contradictions in Sermons Explored through the Activity Theory Framework.” Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 30, no. 3–4: 391–404.

27.

Sullivan

S. J.

, Frances A. 2014. “The Definitive Exercise of Teaching Authority.” Theological Studies 75, no. 3: 502–514.

28.

Ulbrich

Shane.

2018. Personal communication. Assistant Director of Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism. University of Notre Dame.

29.

Vatican. 1976. “Declaration Inter Insigniores: On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood.” Accessed March 21, 2019. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

30.

Via

Jane.

2012. “Women’s ordination and Catholic Church.” (Panel discussion at Claremont Graduate University: Rosemary Radford Ruether, Jane Via, and Gina Messina-Dysert.) Accessed March 21, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQvaGN4d5-A

31.

Washburn

Christian D.

2017. “ Doctrine, Ecumenical Progress, and Problems with Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist.” Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 26, no. 1: 59–80.

32.

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research. n.d. “Inter Insigniores: Official Commentary.” Accessed March 21, 2019. http://www.womenpriests.org/church/inter-insigniores-commentary-by-the-sacred-congregation-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-on-the-declaration/

33.

Wijsen

Frank.

2013. “Editorial: Discourse Analysis in Religious Studies.” Religion 43, no. 1: 1–3.