“While I agree with you that the Vatican’s ban on ordaining women stems from different theological arguments than the threatened ban on ordaining gay men, there is, I think, a link rooted in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In this way of thinking, men and women are seen as equal but ‘complementary,’ in that each sex brings distinctive qualities to social interaction that are strongly tied to physical sex: here is how it’s expressed in then-cardinal Ratzinger’s May 31, 2004 ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World’:
‘Furthermore, the importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. ‘Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather ‘is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love’. This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed.’
For example, Ratzinger says women notably have a ‘capacity for the other,’ linked to the female role of giving birth. He argued that women make an important, even essential, contribution to human social institutions exactly because of these distinctively feminine qualities. He then goes on to say that denying women ordination does not violate this principle, because such a role does not belong to the ‘genius of women,’ because women are brides, not bridegrooms. In sum, in this way of thinking, sex determines social roles, and people ought to behave in ways that reflect their biological nature.
Early in this document, Ratzinger decries any attempt to question the strong duality, including the rise of the use of the term gender (which is culturally determined,) rather than sex, and says that such a stance ‘has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.’
A long build-up to a short connection: John Paul’s Theology of the Body is part of a trend on the part of the magisterium to underscore the importance of the sex of the human person in determining social roles. This teaching is seen as a bulwark against any blurring of sexual lines, such as in homosexuality, and also serves to justify the continued exclusion of women from priestly ministry. So why can’t gay men be priests? Because instead of giving up their natural role as husband and father for ecclesiastical fatherhood, they give up only a disordered drive to behave as though anatomical complementarity did not determine social roles. In short, it’s the old notion that male homosexuality is repugnant because gay men assume the sexual role of women, (or at least are unclear as to their own properly masculine role,) now dressed up in fancy phenomenological philosophy.
The question that is never raised in the magisterial teaching on these questions, however, is that raised by you and some of your correspondents: what about vocation? In examining a candidate for priestly ministry, why is sex or sexual orientation more important than the call of God to service in the Church? In this, I think gay priests and women called to priesthood – and all Catholics who believes that it is the Holy Spirit who makes priests, not sex or orientation – should stand together on this one.”
The Dish 