Inter Insigniores
Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on
the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood, 1976.
1. The Church's Constant Tradition
The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination
can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first
centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the
priestly ministry to women: This innovation was immediately noted and
condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unnacceptable in the
Church. It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one will find the
undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to woman, but
nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any
influences on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual
direction. But over and above these considerations inspired by the spirit
of the times, one finds expressed -- especially in the canonical
documents of the Antiochan and Egyptian traditions -- this essential
reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and
ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the
type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully
maintained by the Apostles.
The same conviction animates medieval theology, even if the Scholastic
doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often
present argumentson this point that modern thought would have difficulty
in admitting, or would even rightly reject. Since that period and up till
our own time, it can be said that the question has not been raised again
for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.
The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course
of the centuries that the Magiterium has not felt the need to intervene
in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a
law which was not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the
occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to
conform to the model left her by the Lord.
The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the
East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in
many other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity. At
present time these same Churches refuse to associate themselves with
requests directed towards securing the accession of women to priestly
2. The Attitude of Christ.
Jesus Christ did not call any women to become part of the Twelve. If he
acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his
time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his
millieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.
For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples Jesus
converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:27); he takes no notice
of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from
haemorrhages (Mt 9:20); he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the
house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37); and by pardoning the woman taken
in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards
the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (Jn 8:11). He does not
hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of
the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond
(Mk 10:2; Mt 19:3).
In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve
but also by a group of women (Lk 8:2). Contrary to the Jewish mentality,
which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law
attests, it was nevertheless women who were the fist to have the
privilege of seeing the risen Lord, and it was they who were charged by
Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (Mt
28:7 ; Lk 24:9 ; Jn 20:11), in order to prepare the latter to becaome the
official witnesses to the Resurrection.
It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious.
This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before
us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the the ultimate meaning of
the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely
historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be
recognised that we have here a number of convergent indications that make
all the more remarkable that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge
to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery
of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of
Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact
was to lead the Fathers to present her as an example of Christ's will in
this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the
thirteenth century, 'Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in
dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to
her but to them that the Lord entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of
3. The Practice of the Apostles.
The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus
towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little
circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension
(Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the College of the
Twelve at the time of the election that resulted in the choice of
Mathias: those who were put forward were two disciples whom the Gospels
do not even mention.
On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women
(Acts 2:1, 1:14), yet the proclamation of the fulfilment of the
prophecies in Jesu was made only by 'Peter and the Eleven' (Acts 2:14).
When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the
preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman
civilisation impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes
regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on
women, if they had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity to the
Lord on this point. In fact the Greeks did not share the ideas of the
Jews: although thier philosophers taught the inferiority of women,
historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain movement for
the advancement of women during the Imperial period. In fact we know from
the book of Acts and from the letter of St.Paul, that certain women
worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (Rm16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul
lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the Letters.
Some of them often exercised an important influence on conversions:
Priscilla,Lydia and others; especially Priscilla, who took it on herself
to complete the instruction of Apollos (Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the
service of the Church of Cenchreae (Rm 16:1). All these facts manifest
within the Apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the
customs of Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of
conferring ordination on these women.
In the Pauline letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference
between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately 'My
fellow workers' (Rom.16:3;Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women
helping him in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the
title of 'God's fellow workers' (1Cor. 3-9; 1Thess 3:2) to Apollos,
Timothy and himself, thus designated because they are directly set apart
for the apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite
of the so important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection,
their collaboration was not extended by St.Paul to the official and
public proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs
exclusively to the apostolic mission.
4. Permanent Value of the Attitude of Jesus and the Apostles.
Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus and the
Apostles, which has been considered as normative by the whole of
tradition up to our own day ? Various arguments have been put forward in
favour of a positive reply to this question, and these must now be
It has been claimed in particular that the attitude of Jesus and the
Apostles is explained by the influence of their milieu and their times.
It is said that, if Jesus did not entrust to women and not even to hi
Mother a ministry assimilating them to the Twelve, this was because
historical circumstances did not permit him to do so. No one however has
ever proved- and it is clearly impossible to prove- that this attitude is
inspired only by social and cultural reasons. As we have seen, and
examination of the Gospels shows on the contrary that Jesus broke with
the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations
practiced with regard to women. One therefore cannot maintain that, by
not calling women to enter the group of the Apostles, Jesus was simply
letting himself be guided by reasons of expediency. For all the more
reason, social and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles
working in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did
not exist.
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims
to see today in some of the presriptions of Saint Paul concerning women,
and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this
regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by
the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary
practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women
to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor11:2-16); such requirements no longer
have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to
speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1Ti, 2:12) is of a different
nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way
opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women,
to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor11:15); the prohibition solely concerns
the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint
Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1
Cor11:7; Gen2 18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression
of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul
one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental
equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28).
Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against
women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the
collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.
But over and above these objections taken from the history of apostolic
times, those who support the legitimacy of change in the matter turn to
the Church's pratice in her sacramental discipline. It has been noted,
inour day especially, to what extent the Church is conscious of
possessing a certain power over the sacraments, even though they were
instituted by Christ. She has used this power down the centuries in order
to determine their signs and the conditions of their administration:
recent decisions of Popes Pius XII and Paul IV are proof of this.
However, it must be emphasized that this power, which is a real one, has
definite limits. As Pope Pius XII recalled: 'The Church has no power over
the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the
Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be
maintained in the sacramental sign.' This was already the teaching of the
council of Trent , which declared: 'In the Church there has always
existed this power, that in the administration of the sacraments,
provided that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or
modify what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those
who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according
to varying circumstances, times or places.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the scramental signs are not
conventional ones. Not only is it true that, in many respects, they are
natural signs because they respond to the deep symbolism of actions and
things, but they are more than this: they are principally meant to link
the person of every period to the supreme Event of the history of
salvation, in order to enable that person to understand, through all the
Bible's wealth of pedagogy and symbolism, what grace they signify and
produce. For example, the sacrament of the Eucharist is not only a
fraternal meal, but at the same time a memorial which makes present and
actual Christ's sacrifice and his offering by the Church. Again the
priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the
continuity of the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the
continuity of the powers related to those functions. Adaptations to
civilizations and times therefore cannot abolish on essential points, the
sacramental reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to
Christ himself.
In the final analysis it is the Church through the voice of the
Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and
what must remain immutable. When she judges she cannot accept certain
changes, it is because she knows she is bound by Christ's manner of
acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of
archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light.
The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord's promise and the
presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery of
Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content.
The practice of the Church therefore has a normative character: in the
fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of
unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the
East and in the West, and alert to repress abuses immediately. 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.
5. The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of The Mystery of Christ.
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, with its specific reference to the mystery of Christ,
and the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly
ordination. It is not a question here of bringing forward a demonstrative
argument, but of clarifying this teaching by the analogy of faith.
The Church's constant teaching, repeated and clarified by the Second
Vatican Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and by
the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Declaration
of 24th. June 1973, declares that the bishop or the priest in the
exercise of his ministry, does not act in his own name, in persona
propria: he represents Christ, who acts through him: "the priest truly
acts in the place of Christ', as St.Cyprian already wrote in the third
century. It is this ability to represent Christ that St.Paul considered
as characteristic of his apostolic function (2 Cor.5:20; Gal. 4:14). The
supreme expression of this representation is found in the altogether
special form it assumes in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the
source and centre of the Church's unity, the sacrificial meal in which
the People of God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ: the priest,
who alone has the power to perform it, then acts not only through the
effective power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi,
taking the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he
pronounces the words of consecration.
The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest
is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the
ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible and which the
faithful must be able to recognise with ease. The whole sacramental
economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the
human psychology: 'Sacramental signs,' says St.Thomas,'represents what
they signify by natural resemblance.' The same natural resemblance is
required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist
is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural
resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role
of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult
to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and
remains a man.
Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women as well as
men: the unity which he re-established after sin is such that there are
no more disticntions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and
female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28). Nevetheless, the
incarnation of the Word took place according to the male sex: this is
indeef a question of fact, and this fact, while not implying and alleged
natural superiority of man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the
economy of salvation: 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.
For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union with him to
which they are called - in short, the Covenant- took on, from the Old
Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form of a nuptual mystery: for
God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish
and Christian tradition has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love
by reading and rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will
remain faithful even when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is
unfaithful to God (Hos.1-3; Jer.2). When the 'fulness of time'(Gal.4:4)
comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and
seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for
many so that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again
the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born the
Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side. At that time there is fully and
eternally accomplished the nuptual mystery proclaimed and hymned in the
Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church his Bride, whom he
loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her glorious, holy
and without blemish, and henceforth he is inseparable from her. This
nuptual theme, which is developed from the Letters of St.Paul onwards (2
Cor.11:2; Eph.5:22-23) to the writings of St.John (especially in Jn.3:29;
Rev.19:7,9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom's
friends must not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom
of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his son's weeding
(Mt.22:1-14). It is through this Sciptural language, all interwoven with
symbols, and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound
identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a
mystery which of itself is unfathomable.
That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And
therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism
for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which
demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself, the
author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom, the Head of the Church, is
represented, exercising his ministry of salvation- which is in the
highest degree the case of the Eucharist- his role (this is the original
sense of the word 'persona')must be taken by a man. This does not stem
from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but
only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service.
Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly condition, from
now on it is a matter of indifference whether he be represented by a man
or by a woman, since 'at the resurrection men and women do not marry'
(Mat.22:30) ? But this text does not mean that the distiction between man
and women, insofar as it determines the identity proper to the person, is
supressed in the glorified state; what holds for us also holds for
Christ. It is indeed evident that in human beings the difference of sex
exercises an important influence, much deeper than, for example, ethnic
differences: the latter do not affect the human person as inimately as
the difference of sex, which is directly ordained both for the communion
of persons and for the generation of human beings. In Biblical Revelation
this difference is the effect of God's will from the beginning: 'male and
female he created them' (Gen 1:27).
However, it will perhaps be further objected that the priest, especially
when he presides at the liturgical and sacramental functions, equally
represents the Church: he acts in her name with 'the intention of doing
what she does'. In this sense, the theologians of the Middle Ages said
that the minister also acts in persona Ecclesiae, that is to say, in the
name of the whole Church and in order to represent her. And in fact,
leaving aside the question of the participation of the faithful in a
liturgical action, it is indeed in the name of the whole Church that the
action is celebrated by the priest: he prays in the name of all, and in
the Mass he offers the sacrifice of the whole Church. In the new
Passover, the Church, under visible signs, immolates Christ through the
ministry of the priest. And so, it is asserted, since the priest also
represents the Church, would it not be possible to think that this
representation could be carried out by a woman, according to the
symbolism already explained ? It is true that the priest represents the
Church, which is the Body of Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely
because he first represents Christ himself, who is the Head and the
Shepherd of the Church. The Second Vatican Council used this phrase to
make more precise and complete the expression 'in persona Christi'. It is
in this quality that the priest presides over the Christian assembly and
celebrates the Eucharistic sacrifice 'in which the whole Church offers
and is herself wholly offered'.
If one does justice to these reflections, one will better understand how
well-founded is the basis of the Church's practice; and will conclude
that the controveries raised in our days over the ordination of women are
for all Christians a pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of
the Church, to study in greater detail the meaning of the episcopate and
the priesthood, and to rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the
priest in the community of the baptized, of which he indeed forms part
but from which he is distinguished because, in the actions that call for
the character of ordination, for the community he is - with all the
effectiveness proper to the sacraments- the image and symbol of Christ
himself who calls, forgives, and accomplishes the sacrifice of the
6. The Ministerial Priesthood Illustrated by The Mystery of the Church.
It is opportune to recall that problems of sacramental theology,
especially when they concern the ministerial priesthood, as is the case
here, cannot be solved except in the light of Revelation. The human
sciences, however valuable their contribution in their own domain, cannot
suffice here, for they cannot grasp the realities of faith: the properly
supernatural content of these realities is beyond their competence.
Thus one must note the extent to which the Church is a society different
from other societies, original in her nature and in her structures. The
pastoral charge in the Church is normally linked to the sacrament of
Order; it is not a simple government, comparable to the modes of
authority found in the States. It is not granted by people's spontaneous
choice: even when it involves designation through election, it is the
laying on of hands and the prayer of the successors of the Apostles which
guarantee God's choice; and it is the Holy Spirit, given by ordination,
who grants participation in the ruling power of the Supreme Pastor,
Christ (Acts 20:28). It is a charge of service and love: 'If you love me,
feed my sheep' ( Jn.21:15-17).
For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose the
admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality of rights
of the human person, an equality which holds good also for Christians. To
this end, use is sometimes made of the text quoted above, from the Letter
to the Galations (3:28), which says that in Christ there is no longer any
distinction between men and women. But this passage does not concern
ministries: it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation,
which is the same for all. Moreover, and above all, to consider the
ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge it's nature
completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry
within the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or
advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it
is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: 'You did not
choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you...' (Jn.15:16;
It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals that some women
feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood. Such an attraction
however noble and understandable, still does not suffice for a genuine
vocation. In fact a vocation cannot be reduced to a mere personal
attraction, which can remain purely subjective. Since the priesthood is a
particular ministry of which the Church has recieved the charge and the
control, authentication by the Church is indispensible here and is a
constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted'
(Mk.3:13). On the other hand, there is a universal vocation of all the
baptized to the exercise of the royal priesthood by offering their lives
to God and by giving witness for his praise.
Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are doubtless
motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church. And it is not
surprising that, at a time when they are becoming more aware of the
discriminations to which they have been subjected, they should desire the
ministerial priesthood itself. But it must not be forgotten that 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. The priestly
office cannot become the goal of social advancement: no merely human
progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it:
it is of another order.
It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the nature of the
real equality of the baptized which is one of the great affirmations of
Christianity; equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a
differentiated body, in which each individual has his or her role. The
roles are distinct, and must not be confused; they do not favour the
superiority of some vis-a-vis the others, nor do they provide an excuse
for jealousy; the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is
love (1 Cor. 12-13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the
ministers but the saints.
The Church desires that Christian women should become more fully aware of
the greatness of their mission; today their role is of capital
importance, both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the
rediscovery of believers of the true face of the Church.
His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to the undersigned
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on 15 October 1976, approved this
Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
on 15 October 1976, the feast of Saint Theresa of Avila.
Franjo Cardinal Seper