Home > The Magazine > Columnists

Monday 7 July 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Liz Anderson

Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

And Another Thing

Paul Johnson

Wednesday, 26th March 2008

Why the example of Mary Magdalen is relevant today

The reason consistently advanced for blocking the ordination of women is that Christ chose to appoint only male apostles. That in itself would be an inadequate argument, for while conditions and customs in the 1st century ad might go some way to justify such an invidious distinction, that is no reason to prolong it into modern times, where women now enter every profession and perform there at least as adequately as men. But in any case, there is no reason to suppose Christ imposed any ban on women. On the contrary. What strikes any impartial reader of the Gospels is the large role that women played in Christ’s ministry, the trouble he took to instruct, argue with and administer to them, their devotion to him and the evident value he placed on it. Women figure in the Old Testament too, and sometimes play key roles. It is one of its characteristics, and marks it off from most of the other literature of the ancient Near East. But there is nothing in the story of the Hebrews which parallels the way in which Jesus used women in his work, the respect he showed them, the delight and profit he took in their collegiality with him, and their daily prominence in his company. This increased as he neared his tragic end as man and his triumphant resurrection as God’s son. In my reading, the Gospels hint strongly that the women in Christ’s entourage behaved with much greater courage than the men during Christ’s passion. They did not deny him once, let alone thrice, like Peter, leader of the men, they clustered round his cross to the bitter end, and they were the first to visit his tomb.

Of all the women, Mary Magdalen seems to have been the closest to him, the most devoted and the most apostolic. The word apostle means messenger, of spiritual tidings, and in this sense Magdalen was a true apostle, indeed the first of the apostles. Some members of the early Church, such as the Roman martyr Bishop Hippolytus (died 235/6 ad), gave her the honorific title of apostola apostolorum (‘apostle to the apostles’), originally bestowed on her, it was claimed, by the risen Christ. Although the Gospel of St Luke, which seems to present the viewpoint of Peter, tends to play down Magdalen’s role, Matthew and Mark give her unique importance, especially in the Resurrection story, and chapter 20 of St John’s Gospel is largely devoted to her activities at the tomb and after. Mary Magdalen (symbolically and to some extent actually) washed Christ’s feet with her tears of repentance, and dried them with her abundant hair, anointing them with precious ointment — to the objection of some male apostles but with Christ’s approval. She stood beneath the cross throughout his Agony. She was present at his burial, she brought ointments to his tomb after his death, she was the first person (in three of the four accounts) to witness the risen Christ, and was the person on whom he bestowed the distinction, according to Matthew, Mark and John, of announcing the good news to the other disciples. The blessing Christ gave her was thus doubled: not only was she the first to witness the central tenet of the Christian religion, the Resurrection, but she also received the unique privilege to be the first to announce it. It is impossible to think of anyone more entitled to bear the honorific title of ‘Apostle’.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Paul Johnson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

David Lindsay

March 28th, 2008 5:43pm

There is not the space here to set out in full the theological arguments against the ordination of women, which is certainly never going to happen in the Catholic Church.

But there is the space here to set out that independent research has found very large proportions of the women among the Church of England’s clergy to be doubters of, or disbelievers in, absolutely key points of doctrine, with two thirds denying “that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin”, and, astonishingly, fully one quarter denying the existence “of God the Father Who created the world”.

No, thanks!

Jim Roche

March 31st, 2008 11:58am

The article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the underlying sexual symbolism. In ancient Judaism, God was always 'He' - there were no female deities or priestesses (unlike other ancient religions. God is masculine, the Church is feminine.
Today, the Catholic Church is 'Holy Mother Church' and is 'She'. Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is the bride. This was shown graphically at the Easter vigil, when the Paschal Candle (representing Christ) was thrust three times into the holy water in the baptismal font (representing the womb from which new Christians emerge).

The Priest represents Christ in the Sacraments - as in 'This is my body' or 'I absolve you' so must represent him in his maleness. Catholic priestesses would be acting as spiritual lesbians. Peter Kreeft is good on this topic.

Christ could have chosen men as priests, as the article pointed out He gave great respect to women but he chose not to.

Ann

April 1st, 2008 4:00pm

Excellent article, very thought provoking. I'm an Anglican and proud of it. I beleive the Catholic Church should take a good long hard look at itself. It's way behind the times and if it wants to survive as a credible religion it needs to look seriously at the ordination of women. People do not have so much 'blind' faith anymore, we are better educated and less superstitious. Faith should be a comfort and women naturally fulfil this role. Leave the theology to the men, much safer in my opinion. And don't get me started on celibacy - how un-natural is that?!!

Recusant

April 2nd, 2008 11:48am

Oh dear Paul. I fear you have blundered in without consideration of the evidence available to you.

There is a denomination - the Anglicans - who have done as you suggested - and it has not helped the overall level of ordinations one jot: they are still falling. It has, however, and especially in North America, see its congregation and influence tumble.

Meanwhile the global Catholic church - not just the bit here in the West - has seen its total level of ordination remain steady.

Jim Roche

April 2nd, 2008 8:56pm

Dear Ann

Glad to hear that you are proud of being Anglican.

May I suggest that you read CS Lewis, another Anglican, on Priestesses - you can find it free on Google.
"Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask 'Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?'

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul."

Meanwhile, why not leave the 1.1billion and 300million Orthodox to follow the Example of our Lord and Saviour?

Ruth Fitch

April 25th, 2008 8:07pm

How can you understand 'sacerdotal celibacy'? St Peter was married!

Pat Brown

May 10th, 2008 6:40am

There are many groups all over the world campaigning for women's ordination in the Catholic Church and supporting women called to priesthood. The UK group is called Catholic Women's Ordination (CWO) and details can be found at www.catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk

Pippa Bonner

May 12th, 2008 9:03am

Thanks Paul Johnson for this article, which I read belatedly.Taking issue with Jim Roche: Christ appointed Apostles but not the structure of priesthood that we have now. He instituted the Eucharist at a Passover Meal where women were present (and where the woman has a liturgical role.)Men and women worked with Christ. The institution of male priesthood came later. Also, as is generally accepted, secular priests were not necessarily celibate for the first thousand years. So changes have happened and will again. Please have a look at the Catholic Women's Ordination website that Pat Brown mentions.It is very informed/informative and links to informed theological and Church documents and research which support the points I have made.