Hamilton and Fruitful Tensions: Why JPII’s Big Theological Innovations in 1979 Keep Us Going

First, let’s get this out of the way. This is not a post about power or roles in the Church. This is about theology and how the Church comes to know us.

To understand what the Church believes, we usually start by figuring out what we do not believe. In the long, messy and winding story of the Church and it’s theology we historically answer questions first by excluding the things we reject, and then a century later figure out the “why.” We draw a line in the sand, and then decades later start discerning together what the sand was there in first place.

In 2016, while I was teaching an OCIA class, I found myself standing at one of those lines. Four women in the class asked me a question that has become a definitive “tension” of our age: “Why can’t women be priests?”

I gave the standard theological answer that the Church developed in 1979: “the Nuptial mystery.” I explained that the priesthood is an iconic representation of Christ the Bridegroom. “Think of it like a theater,” I suggested. “You wouldn’t cast a woman to play George Washington would you? How much more important is that on the altar where the priest actually stands in the place of Christ.”

One of the students immediately raised her hand, a n said, “But Hamilton has changed that!” In case you’re not familiar, that play was a craze that swept the nation in 2015. People were getting more and more into American history because of how well the musical portrayed it. Hamilton opened up our minds and it did so by casting unusual figures. (“I am from Newark…” “Did I ever expect to see myself playing two old white dudes” (said the young Okieriete “Oak” Onaodowan who played U.S. President James Madison). It made me think, it is actually super important theologically that the priest is an icon of Christ, but did I accidentally reduce the entire conversation to biology?

Perhaps I haven’t yet figured out the whole picture like I thought.

The Massive Upgrade to Catholic Theology in 1979 Courtesy of Saint John Paul II

Before we can sort things out, we have to realize how far we have come. For the vast majority of Church history, the exclusion of women in powerful roles was not based on the newly expressed nuptial mystery. It was based on the biological truth (understood at the time) that women were somewhat of a happy accident that God allowed. The Church relying on ancient understandings believed that women were persons who failed to fully form all the parts, and to an extent that they were intellectually inferior.

Saint Thomas Aquinas famously described the female person as “mas occasionatus” (a misbegotten male). Now Aquinas too was someone who helped the Church overcome many lines in the sand. We would be theologically stunted without him. He got the conversations going forward again. So I’d have to think that he would want us to continue here too. Again, I’m not talking about roles in the Church but our theological understanding of man and woman and why differences are still important.

And as a reminder, I am not a fan of liberation theology or neo-scholastic theology but the “critical realist” school of thought that looks at the reality created by God and then understands how we fit.

The Limits of the Body

As we look at the contemporary crisis regarding “gender ideology” as Pope Francis liked to call it, the line in the sand he was drawing was a movement to cancel out differences. To some, this sounds a bit reactionary. But through a theological lens especially according to one of my favorite theologians Aristide Fumagalli, it was an attempt to defend the limits of the human body.

Our bodies have limits. We are born into a specific flesh, some of us are born disabled or even pre-disposed to certain conditions later in life. Recognizing those limits is really important theologically. The limit is a gift that draws us to know more about the world through others. The one who says, “I am not a great athlete” might lead us to appreciate more the one who is. The person who is experiencing a tough illness leads us to appreciate those who are healthy in a new way — and leads us to rely on one another.

The important thing is to avoid a theology that allows one to say parts of my identity or my body are optional. No, I’m not saying you need to fit into boxes. I’m saying you need to discover and become who you are rather than seek to change. This answer should dissatisfy most who either want to preserve power and hierarchy & also those who want to tear it all down. God’s creativity cannot be boxed in and it is our job to discover it.

Danger of Being Literal

However, we have to be really careful. Sacramental theologian Andrea Grillo warns what he sees as the idol of the “nuptial mystery” by turning it into a biological-only box. When we use the Groom/Bride metaphor he says we exit theology by trying to apply that literally to the sciences (biology and sociology). Grillo reminds us that life is generated in the “between” and “otherness.”

The way forward according to another moral theologian I love to read is Alain Thomasset’s “narrative” method. He says we have to stop looking at the human person as a static biology textbook and start understanding the wholeness of the person through their journey. We don’t have to exclude biology but we shouldn’t be trapped by it.

Catholicism is a both/and faith. But to get there we historically start with some form of exclusion, and then much much later find a way to overcome it. We must defend “fruitful tension” of difference and diversity in the world, lest we become sterilized by it.

Sources:

Aristide Fumagalli. My favorite book by him is L’Amore Possibile (Italian). It takes a cautious but faithful approach to understanding virtuous love when it is in tension with Church rules.

Andrea Grillo: Provocative and interesting read (Italian). “Does male reservation preserve "the divine order"? The unfortunate work of the Second Pontifical Commission on the Admission of Women to the Diaconate” in Cittadella Editrice.

Alain Thomasset. Many accessible articles online reference his thoughts found in this book (French).