It would not surprise me if the present Pope, who is a man of strongly conservative instincts but also highly intelligent, energetic and forceful, abruptly decided to introduce women into the Catholic priesthood, and set about this fundamental reform with all deliberate speed. He would be right to do so, for it is urgent and overdue. The shortage of priests, especially in Europe, is now chronic and increasingly damaging. It is shocking to learn that in Catholic Ireland, which from the early Dark Ages until quite recently sent young, enthusiastic and well-educated priests, as pastors and missionaries, all over the world, only nine men were ordained as priests last year. This is only a fraction of the replacement rate. The Irish figures are typical for Europe.
The gaps have to be filled by immigrant priests from Africa, Asia and Latin America, who do their job, on the whole, with endearing distinction. But it is altogether wrong that these distant communities, who have severe problems of their own, often much more serious than Europe’s, should have to send their able and eager young pastors over here merely because young male Catholics in Europe are too selfish and spoiled and materialistic to serve the Church. It is a scandal, made worse by the fact that there are thousands of devoted and industrious Catholic women, serving as nuns or in secular life, who are ready to devote their life to the priesthood if only they were given the chance.
I have never seen the slightest justification for the Catholic Church’s rejection of women priests. Sacerdotal celibacy I can understand, and I think the arguments for maintaining it are powerful and conclusive. But the rule that half the human race are ineligible for the priesthood merely because of their gender is wrong in theory and practice, obstinately obscurantist and blind, cruel and self-destructive, and certain to be overthrown in time. So why not now — as soon as possible — so that pious and hard-working women can come to the Church’s rescue and halt the damage?
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’.
Magdalen’s role as leading apostle and creator of the Church is reinforced by such apocryphal texts as the Gospel of Nicodemus, where she proclaims at Christ’s burial: ‘Who shall make this known unto all the world? I shall go alone to Rome unto Caesar’, and such Gnostic texts as the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary and especially the Gospel of Philip, which was found at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1945. Although such texts are uncanonical, they are significant, especially when they confirm the Gospels in according an apostolic role of leadership to Magdalen. In some she appears as a brave and resolute figure, rallying and encouraging the male disciples to remain faithful to Christ in times of danger.
There was clearly an intense debate in the early Church about the role of women, and victory went to an exclusively male leadership, as was perhaps inevitable at the time. But a tradition of Mary Magdalen as a leader, preacher and authority figure remained, as is well reflected in the mediaeval iconography. Thus in an early 12th-century psalter at Hildesheim, for instance, she appears as the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’, announcing the Resurrection to the men, her right index finger pointing upwards in the traditional preaching gesture. In frescoes and embroidered vestments, in illuminated manuscripts and sculptures, she frequently appears in the pulpit giving a sermon, sometimes wearing the triple crown of Virgin, Martyr and Preacher.
She was a powerful and popular saint, especially in the later Middle Ages, and hospitals and colleges were named after her. On 12 June 1458 Bishop Waynflete of Winchester obtained from Henry VI the Charter of Foundation of Magdalen College, Oxford. I was privileged to read for my degree at this splendid and beautiful institution in the years 1946–49, and have always had a devotion to the lady. The college celebrates the 550th anniversary of its foundation this summer. How welcome it would be for those of us who regard the Catholic Church to be a pillar of civilisation if we could see women restored to the leadership role once exercised by this extraordinary saint during Christ’s lifetime and after his resurrection.
Comments