|
Objection 1: It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to
receiving Orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the
office of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and
priests, just as the priest does between God and people. Now the
office of prophet was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered
from 4 Kgs. 22:14. Therefore the office of priest also may be
competent to them.
Objection 2: Further, just as Order pertains to a kind of
pre-eminence, so does a position of authority as well as martyrdom and
the religious state. Now authority is entrusted to women in the New
Testament, as in the case of abbesses, and in the Old Testament,
as in the case of Debbora, who judged Israel (Judges 2).
Moreover martyrdom and the religious life are also befitting to them.
Therefore the Orders of the Church are also competent to them.
Objection 3: Further, the power of orders is founded in the soul.
But sex is not in the soul. Therefore difference in sex makes no
difference to the reception of Orders.
On the contrary, It is said (1 Tim. 2:12): "I suffer not
a woman to teach (in the Church), nor to use authority over the
man."
Further, the crown is required previous to receiving Orders, albeit
not for the validity of the sacrament. But the crown or tonsure is not
befitting to women according to 1 Cor. 11. Neither therefore is
the receiving of Orders.
I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a
sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if
such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the
reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not
for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being
congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the
sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must
say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the
second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were
made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would
not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the
thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all
sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question 32,
Article 2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick
man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it
is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a
woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive
the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male
sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the
sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist.
32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of
deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who
shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the
Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word
"presbyter" means elder.
Reply to Objection 1: Prophecy is not a sacrament but a gift of
God. Wherefore there it is not the signification, but only the thing
which is necessary. And since in matters pertaining to the soul woman
does not differ from man as to the thing (for sometimes a woman is
found to be better than many men as regards the soul), it follows that
she can receive the gift of prophecy and the like, but not the
sacrament of Orders.
And thereby appears the Reply to the Second and Third Objections.
However, as to abbesses, it is said that they have not ordinary
authority, but delegated as it were, on account of the danger of men
and women living together. But Debbora exercised authority in
temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal
power.
|
|