Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/25/q/bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On those who can receive orders.*

Next, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the possibility of receiving orders, about which four things are asked.

First it is asked whether, for an order to be received by someone, the male sex is required, or whether a woman can receive it. Second, whether for receiving an order the use of reason is necessary. Third, whether integrity of the flesh is necessary. Fourth, whether the condition of freedom is necessary.

### Question I. *Whether the male sex is required for receiving an order.*

As regards the first, then, that the male sex is required is shown:

1. *First*, thus: no order can be conferred on one who does not have the natural possibility or aptitude for it; but no one has the possibility for an order who does not have the aptitude for the tonsure and the crown; and no one has a natural aptitude for this whom it befits always to have the head veiled: if, therefore, by nature it befits only a man to pray with head unveiled, but a woman with head veiled, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven, which nature itself also teaches: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no one is capable of receiving orders except one who bears the image of God, because in this Sacrament a man is in a certain manner made God or divine, while he becomes a participant in divine power; but a man by reason of his sex is the *image of God*, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven: therefore in no way can a woman be ordained.

3. Likewise, in an order spiritual power is given to the one ordained; but a woman is not capable of such power, as is said in the first [Epistle] to Timothy, chapter two: *I do not permit a woman to teach in the Church, nor to have dominion over a man*: therefore neither [is she capable] of an order.

4. Likewise, the other orders prepare one for the episcopate, if one conducts himself well in them; but a bishop is the spouse of the Church: therefore, since a woman cannot be advanced to the episcopate, but only a man — otherwise there would not be a spouse of the Church — therefore to be promoted to the antecedent orders belongs only to men.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Judges, chapter four, it is read that Deborah judged Israel and presided over it: therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs to a woman, especially when she abounds in grace: therefore priestly power also.

2. Likewise, in the New Testament we see abbesses, to whom communities are committed to be governed: therefore it seems that the power of absolving and binding ought to be committed to them: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the priestly order could be conferred on them.

3. Likewise, the priestly order and the others regard the soul and not the flesh; but as regards the soul there is no distinction of sex, indeed a woman is the image of God just as a man is: therefore she is equally well capable of an order.

4. Likewise, there is no greater perfection than the state of religion, nor greater fortitude than that in the endurance of martyrdom; but women are admitted both to religion and to martyrdom: therefore they ought to and can be admitted to a sacred order.

> **Conclusion.** Women can receive orders neither by right nor in fact.

**I respond:** It must be said that the common opinion holds this, that women ought not to be admitted to sacred orders.
For it is expressly said in distinction twenty-three: «That women consecrated to God, or nuns, touch the sacred vessels or the consecrated palls in your presence, and carry incense around the altar, has been brought to the Apostolic See; and that all these things are full of censure and reproach, is doubtful to none of the rightly wise. Wherefore, by the authority of this holy See, lest this plague be spread more widely, we command that it be wiped away most swiftly throughout all the provinces».

And thus all agree that they *ought not* to be promoted; but whether they *can*, is doubtful. Indeed the opinion of certain persons was that they *can*, who were called Cataphrygians, who moreover rely not only on the aforesaid authorities, but adhere to the authorities of the canons and adduce for themselves [texts] in which it is shown that women anciently received orders. For it is said in Cause twenty-seven, question one: «We have decreed that a deaconess ought not to be ordained before forty years»; and in the same question: «If anyone should carry off or solicit a deaconess»; and likewise in distinction thirty-two mention is made of a woman-presbyter. — But certainly, if one attends to what is said in distinction thirty-two, *Presbyteram* etc., there it is shown that women-presbyters are called widows and elders and matrons; and from this it is gathered that those women were called deaconesses who communicated with the deacons in the reading of the homily, upon whom some blessing was conferred. Hence it is by no means to be believed that women were ever, according to the canons, promoted to sacred orders. And according to the sounder and more prudent opinion of the doctors they not only ought not or cannot by right, but also cannot in fact.

And if the reason for this be asked, it must be said that this comes not so much from the institution of the Church as from this, that the Sacrament of order does not befit them. For in this Sacrament the person who is ordained signifies Christ the mediator; and since the mediator was only in the male sex and can be signified only through the male sex: therefore the possibility of receiving orders belongs only to men, who alone can *naturally represent* and, according to the *reception of the character*, actually bear the sign of this. And this position is more probable and can be proved by many authorities of the Saints.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Deborah, it must be said that that was a *temporal* power, not spiritual. But it is indeed permitted to women to exercise dominion temporally, but not with spiritual dominion, which is a sign that he who exercises dominion bears the type of the head, Christ; since, therefore, a woman cannot be the head of a man, therefore she cannot be ordained.

2. To that which is objected concerning abbesses, it must be said that they do not hold the place of an *ordinary prelacy*, but are substituted as it were in the place of an abbot on account of the danger of cohabiting with men; hence they cannot in the ordinary way absolve or bind. But the *priestly office*, or also that of any order, to which this power and order are ordinarily given, has a signification which does not befit a woman, although *governance* may befit women.

3. To that which is objected, that an order regards the soul; it must be said that it does not regard the soul alone, but the soul as it is joined to the flesh, and this by reason of *signification*, which consists about a *visible* sign, and through this also about the body; and the *execution* and use of the order regard the conjoined [soul-and-body]. Since neither the *signification* of the order nor even its *dispensation* thus befits a woman, as was proved above; therefore that is evident.

4. To that which is objected concerning the perfection of religion and of martyrdom; it must be said that there is a perfection which regards the grace that *makes pleasing*, and of this a woman is equally well capable as a man; and there is
a perfection of state, which concerns something *freely given*, and this can befit one sex, although it may not befit the other; because this regards not only what is interior, but also what is *exterior*. Such is the perfection of the order, in which there is a conferral of power, which manifold reasoning shows to be by no means fitting for women.