“For in fire gold is tested,
    and the chosen, in the crucible of humiliation” (Sir 2:5).

This metaphor is simple: the real and true can withstand the furnace. It also brings to mind another saying made popular by US president Harry S. Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I’ve been thinking about this image since we published Deacon Douglas McManaman’s “Thoughts on the Influence of Old Prejudice” at Where Peter Is. The article explores whether historical prejudice may have shaped some of the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on the reservation of ordination to men. The backlash on social media was fierce. Critics accused me of promoting dissent from infallible doctrine. Some called it a “mask off” moment.

Let me be candid. I was nervous about publishing the article. I think Deacon Doug brought up some very compelling challenges to the arguments and justifications for the Church’s male-only priesthood. The editorial team went back and forth with the author to ensure the piece was unambiguous in its deference to the Magisterium. In retrospect, the article may not have been deferential enough. The responsibility for its publication ultimately falls to me because I greenlit its publication.

I want to be clear about another point. Our “About” page states in bold letters: “The contributors to this website hold and express a diversity of views. Each contributor’s views are his or her own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the other contributors or our editorial position.” Each contributor speaks for himself or herself. Still, as managing editor, I own the decision to publish Deacon McManaman’s article. The main issue I weighed was whether an article that raises uncomfortable questions (while ultimately deferring to the Church’s authority) deserved a hearing.

I decided it did — although in retrospect, I think I should have been more insistent on including quotes from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Saint John Paul II’s 1994 Apostolic Letter On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone, in which he states, “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.” It probably should have also cited the 1976 CDF Declaration Inter Insigniores, which was approved by another sainted pope, Paul VI. It states, “the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”

It should go without saying that Where Peter Is upholds these teachings, but with critics who constantly monitor us for even the slightest slip-up, we should have been more diligent in heading off this controversy.

Rather than verifying that the article checked all the right boxes, I focused on what Deacon McManaman did write. He asked whether his personal prejudices might shape how he understands the Church’s teaching on Holy Orders, and weighed his questions against the teaching. Certainly this kind of self-examination and soul searching is common for Catholics. How many Catholics in the past decade struggled to set aside old assumptions and grant assent to many of the magisterial teachings of Pope Francis?

That is a healthy posture: submitting to the Church while examining one’s own assumptions. The Church should be able to engage with Catholics who struggle with its doctrines, not demonize them for voicing their difficulties. This is something that Popes Leo and Francis have modeled, welcoming and meeting with openly LGBT Catholics and advocates for the ordination of women to the diaconate.

I am convinced that such fraternity and dialogue is good for the Church — not because I want certain teachings to change, but because I believe the Church is indefectible.

That conviction is the heart of everything I want to say here. The Catholic Church cannot teach false doctrine. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. If this promise is true, then honest inquiry from sincere Catholics who respect the Church’s authority cannot destroy the faith. If the reservation of ordination to men is a true and definitive teaching (as the Church teaches and as I accept), then it can survive a deacon wondering whether cultural prejudice shaped some of the arguments offered in its defense.

There is an important distinction lost in this controversy: the difference between a doctrine and the theological reasoning offered in its support. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis declares that the reservation of ordination to men has been definitively taught. I accept that (and that is the position of WPI). But it does not declare that every argument ever offered in support of that teaching is beyond examination.

I am not looking to weaken the teaching. Quite the opposite. In the eyes of many Catholics, the defenses of this teaching are weak.

This is not an unsubstantiated claim. Inter Insigniores acknowledges that many of the statements about women from Church Fathers are problematic: “It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to woman.” It also recognizes that in writing about women the Scholastics “often present arguments on this point that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting, or would even rightly reject.”

Inter Insigniores concedes that the primary argument for restricting priestly ordination to men is from history and authority: “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.”

Unfortunately, this argument does not truly engage the substance. It does not answer why the priesthood is limited to men today, it only clarifies that it has always been this way.

As for the theological argument, substantial questions have been raised. Deacon McManaman raises some of them: What does maleness have to do with acting in the person of Christ? All people are made in God’s image. When we speak of the Church as the “Body of Christ” (a male image) or the “Bride of Christ” (a female image) both men and women are included. All the baptized, male and female, are anointed priest, prophet, and king.

Speaking for myself, I submit to the teaching because I accept Church authority. But I would love to see a more robust theological explanation that I could wholeheartedly embrace and defend. A doctrine can be true even if the reasoning historically offered in its support needs strengthening. Pursuing better theology is not an attack — it is an honest search for truth.

What strikes me most about the backlash to the article is the fear. If the Church is truly protected by the Holy Spirit, then a conversation about a difficult teaching — conducted within ecclesial bounds, subject to the authority of the pope and bishops in communion with him — cannot hurt us. Do the article’s critics believe the teaching is so fragile that merely publishing a reflection questioning the reasoning behind it is an existential threat? That suggests a faith that trusts its own arguments more than the promises of Christ.

I am also struck by who is accusing WPI of dissent. Many of the loudest voices openly reject the current Magisterium’s teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible. In Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis wrote that “there can be no stepping back from this position,” and committed the Church to working for abolition worldwide (FT 263). His critics resisted Amoris Laetitia and condemned Fiducia Supplicans — and yet they claim the mantle of fidelity?

This is the asymmetry we have written about for years: when Catholics on the left disagree with Church teaching, they say so openly. They own the word “dissent” and argue for its legitimacy. Meanwhile, Catholics who reject the living Magisterium insist they aren’t dissenting at all. Something is upside down.

If a critic of the death penalty revision were to say, “I accept that the Church teaches the death penalty is inadmissible. I recognize we are required to give this teaching religious submission of intellect and will. But I have difficulty understanding how it is in continuity with the Church’s past teaching, and I cannot yet grant full assent” — that would open the door to honest dialogue. I would welcome that conversation. But that is not what happens. Instead, the most vocal critics insist they do grant assent to the Magisterium while publicly promoting the legitimacy of the death penalty — and in some cases, declaring dialogue itself off the table. They won’t name their dissent because naming it would place them in the same category as the people they denounce.

Pope Francis called on the Church to be synodal — to listen, to dialogue, and to accompany others in the Church, even if they struggle with Church teachings. Leo has continued this emphasis. Synodality means nothing if it only applies to questions where everyone already agrees. The whole point is that the Church is strong enough to engage with difficult questions without being destroyed by them.

I published Deacon McManaman’s article because I believed it deserved a hearing. I still believe that, even knowing the backlash it caused. The Church I believe in is strong enough to engage with a deacon’s honest questions. If I’m wrong about that, we have much bigger problems than one article on a small Catholic website.

---

Image: Adobe Stock. by Sampao.