An Examination of the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood in Terms of the Symbolism of the Eucharist
by Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, M.D.
from Women and Orders, pp 15-37, edited by Robert J.Heyer. Paulist Press, 1974.
When I began the research for this paper nearly a year ago, I expected that careful study of the psychological symbolism of the sacraments would reveal some hidden but powerful reason why women should not be ordained to the Anglican and Roman priesthoods. I thought this because I knew a number of dedicated feminist women, including myself, who, in spite of being unable to muster any rational argument against it, nevertheless found in themselves a profound disquiet when confronted with the prospect. This seemed quite inexplicable, since none of us had ever experienced any comparable reluctance to enter, or encourage one another to enter, any other profession however traditionally male it might be. To my great surprise, and transitory consternation, I found no hidden symbolic prohibitions against the priesthood of women. On the contrary, I believe I have found some compelling psychological reasons for it which in my opinion are equally compelling theologically, and which I will set forth presently.
But first, I should like to offer an explanation for my initial suspicion, since it bears on some of the larger psychological issues. It is perhaps unfashionable in this era of almost chaotically rapid change and intense questioning of received values, to call attention to the role of the Church as the agent of continuity and the defender of tradition. Nevertheless, a society which has no institutions serving this function is in serious danger of collapse. Religion, concerned as it is with the eternal category,(1) is an ideal vehicle for this important role. The consciousness of humankind is clearly involved in the evolutionary process which characterizes the entire universe. But there could be no evolution of consciousness as we know it now without historicity,(2) and no historicity without a background of tradition. It is against this background of relatively stable tradition that we are able to measure and evaluate the constant flux of events so that some intelligent choice can be made about what should be retained, and what discarded. The celebration of religious rituals, involving as it does the archetypal level of our psychological functioning, can perdure almost intact through centuries, even millennia, during which nearly every other outlook and attitude undergoes radical change. For the purpose which I am describing, the rational and intellectual level of meaning of the rites is unimportant. In fact, it can be argued that in all eras, this level of meaning is perhaps of interest mainly to theologians. Theologians themselves are usually aware that the deepest significance of ritual is fundamentally elusive and does not yield to intellectual endeavor. I quote from Father Joseph Kramp, who in 1926 wrote as follows:
To one who lives with the sacred liturgy, it tells a thousand things which the stranger does not learn. Like a bride, the liturgy reveals her deepest secret only to her beloved. But even to him she does not confide it at once in all its clarity and depth. The privilege of constantly discovering new excellences awakens the happy consciousness that the deepest depths have not been sounded and cannot be fathomed.(3)
In the light of this kind of profound significance, it is perhaps easier to see that the reluctance to change the tradition in any particular has some appropriateness. It is important to make sure that the proposed change does not alter the central mystery which lies behind any particular manner of celebrating it.
I think that it was concern for this mysterious aspect of the problem which was responsible for my initial dissatisfaction with the arguments I had heard for the ordination of women, since they hinged essentially on feminist ideology in general or on the socio-cultural and intellectual aspects of religion. I now realize that the appeal to tradition is powerful for the reasons I have just outlined, but the low level at which that appeal is usually made by those opposing the ordination of women can only be rejected.(4) It is not, after all, the outer forms which must be preserved, but the inner meaning of them. The statement It has always been done this way clearly refers only to the outward and visible signs, and not necessarily to inward and spiritual graces. And precisely here, I think, it is important to remember that which was stated at the outset: The consciousness of humankind is evolving, and this evolution must inevitably affect our religious observances. While it is certainly praiseworthy to defend the faith, it is surely sinful to fossilize it.
By now it should be clear that the burden of proof rests with those who wish to change a tradition, and they must not only have patience with, but must actually respect the Churchs attention to her important function of preserving the essence of the mysteries. Women whose interest in ordination is grounded in a mature concern for the significance and success of the total Christian enterprise will realize that their efforts must be exercised for the benefit of humankind, not just womankind. Petulant expressions of feminist outrage and impatience are inappropriate here. Even if we believe that St. Pauls cultural context has been outgrown and therefore reject his specific prescriptions for the conduct of women, we must surely still subscribe to his timeless principle that in the house of God Everything must be done with propriety and in order.(5)
Now I should like to explain why I have concluded that the time has come to modify the tradition. As will become apparent, I do not believe that the ordination of women to the priesthood will reverse or negate the tradition, but rather that it will amplify and enrich it. I am convinced that our appreciation of our essential religious mysteries will be greatly enhanced, and that beneficial effects will therefore eventually be felt in all aspects of our culture.
In the following discussion, it will not be entirely possible to separate psychological, theological, and cultural factors since the level of archetypal mystery with which we are concerned involves precisely the level at which such factors are not differentiated, but rather are expressed in the imagery and drama of unified ritual.
It is customary in theological studies to consider the liturgy of the Mass in three aspects. The first is memorial, in which the Mass is considered to be a sacramental re-enactment of an historical event. The second is that of the ceremonial banquet. This is the one which has been ably discussed by Hewitt and Hiatt, particularly when they describe the Eucharist as a sacrament of feeding.(6) It is the third aspect, that of sacrifice, to which I wish to devote my principal attention. It is true that many theologians either discount this aspect altogether, or else dismiss it as being of minor significance. Nevertheless, much of the objection to the ordination of women in the Episcopal community comes from the Anglo-Catholic wing, and for this group the Mass as a sacrifice is of paramount theological importance. Furthermore, I believe it is under this heading that we find the element of archetypal mystery. There is, after all, nothing particularly mysterious about a re-enactment of an historical event or a ceremonial meal. Our culture abounds with secular examples of both. To exclude women from participation in such ceremonies seems quite clearly anachronistic, not in any way consonant with the rest of their position in contemporary society. It is about on a par with not giving them equal pay for equal work. I think some sociological confirmation of this is to be found in the fact that in those denominations whose theological outlook lays the least stress on ritual mystery, there has been the least opposition to admitting women to full participation in ministry.
Let us therefore consider the mystery. Throughout the centuries there have been written thousands of meditations and theological treatises on the meaning of the specific symbolic use of bread and wine. As we all know, these symbols long antedate the Christian era, and occur in many religions outside the Jewish and Christian traditions. Their full significance is inexhaustibly rich, not only in the psychological but also in the theological mode (these two modes being at least overlapping if not actually congruent). Only a few of these meanings can even be hinted at in a paper of this scope. As nature, the bread and wine represent the typical food of humankind, the fruits of the earth. In addition, they represent the reciprocal relationship humankind enjoys with nature. As Jung expresses it: Bread . . . represents the physical means of subsistence, and wine the spiritual. The offering up of bread and wine is the offering of both the physical and the spiritual fruits of civilization.(7) But the gifts also represent humanity itself, which includes women as well as men. There are a number of variations of the rites of preparation, and of interest in this connection is the cutting of the priests wafer in the Russian Orthodox liturgy. Each piece represents a different person or group, and one is specifically assigned to the Virgin Mary. Father Kramp, examining the Roman liturgy, perceives the wine as masculine, and the bread as feminine, together forming the whole community of Christian believers.(8,9) Lastly, there is the familiar meaning of bread and wine as the body and blood of our Lord. In addition, the priest himself represents both God and humankind. God is both sacrificer and victim, and humankind, included in Gods human nature through the incarnation, is thus also present. We are assured that through our participation in these rites we become members of the mystical body of Christ. Here a difficulty is at once apparent. It is here that the issue of Gods masculinity arises, and conflicts with the obvious fact that humankind includes woman as well as man. How are we to resolve this?
I think we must begin by noting that when we are told that the true nature of God is an ineffable mystery which we cannot possibly comprehend and which entirely surpasses the limits of human imagination, we should take this literally, and not allow ourselves to forget it. There is an enormous difference between the true nature of God and the human capacity to comprehend it. Unfortunately, there is a very natural human tendency to confuse these two categories and to find ourselves emotionally and intellectually entangled by our own limitations in consequence. To say that God is personal is very far from saying that God is a person. What we really mean is that the ineffably mysterious unknown that is God has manifested himself to us under a personal analogy; for most practical purposes this means that in order to establish a living relationship with God, we behave as though God were a person. But we must remember that this is a departure from the fullness of his nature, a departure graciously engaged in by him for the purpose of making it possible for us to comprehend him at all. So already at this point we discover that any discussion of God is inevitably entwined with the nature and capacity of human consciousness. But from the beginning we are given an important clue: We are told in Genesis that God said, Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and then, in the image of God, male and female created he them.
It is noteworthy that God refers to himself in the plural form. We do not take this in any polytheistic sense any more than we do the fact that in the Old Testament there are many different names for God, but rather to imply the richness and diversity which are included in his unified perfection. But there is another point which has been largely overlooked up to now, no doubt because of human cultural limitations. The plural name of God which is used in this passage is Elohim, which in the original Hebrew is a feminine noun with a masculine plural ending. It seems clear that when God made humankind in his own image, he was exemplifying something very fundamental about his own nature. On his plane of being, of course, it is a unity; but in bringing it into manifestation on the physical plane, he thought it desirable to differentiate it into the form we know as male and female.
Nevertheless, the case does not need to rest on this one example. In the Old Testament, God is never defined abstractly, but is always described as he is in relation to his people. Although it would be foolish to deny the masculine patriarchal aspect of God as it appears throughout the Old Testament, the feminine aspects are also clearly present even if largely overlooked in traditional theology. For instance, in the beginning of Genesis the spirit of God in Hebrew is ruach, which is feminine. Gods outreach toward his people is nearly always described in feminine terms. An example of this is the use of the feminine Hebrew word yad (hand), which is used in the numerous passages where God is said to stretch out his hand to his people. It should be remembered that one of the great landmarks in the development of human consciousness was precisely that in which the ancient Hebrew people were enabled to perceive God in monotheistic terms, rather than as a motley collection of gods and goddesses. But in so doing they were not abolishing the feminine aspects of deity in favor of the masculine aspects, but rather they were learning to think of God in a way which could be inclusive of both. In these terms, then, we may say that God is androgynous.
It naturally follows that the Christ is androgynous as well. Of course, for the purpose of the incarnation, so that through the reality of a divine life on earth humankind might be enabled to develop a closer and spiritually more profound relation to God than had heretofore been possible, it was necessary to pick a particular sex in which to incarnate. It seems obvious that given the social and cultural conditions and the general level of human development at the time, there was no choice: For the divine message to be received by imperfect humanity, Jesus in the first century had to be and therefore was male, even though the living Christ is androgynous.
In order for us to come to an understanding of the Mass as a ritual which promotes the health and development of human consciousness, it is necessary to elaborate at some length the concept of the androgyny of God as expressed in the imago dei which includes both men and women.
I should like to make it clear at this point that I reserve the use of the term androgynous to denote a quality of consciousness, and that it does not refer in any way to the biological sex differentiation of male and female. If one wishes to refer to physical sexual expression which is directed toward either men or women, the term bisexual is to be preferred. This is not a trivial point, since all human beings are to some extent androgynous, while only a few are bisexual. It is only in our contemporary, materialist culture with its reductionist tendency to sexualize practically everything that the current unfortunate confusion between these two concepts has developed.
Now the fundamental androgyny of human beings is of paramount importance, since it would be impossible without it for men and women to enter into one anothers consciousness at all. Without it men and women would be hampered in communication with one another to a degree only slightly less than that which humankind encounters in its attempts to communicate, for instance, with dolphins. And it is, of course, for a similar reason that God chose to create humankind in his image.(10) If he had not done so, we would not have the slightest chance of being able to communicate with him at all. Instead, in his goodness, we find ourselves created in his androgynous image, sexually differentiated at the physical level into male and female, but with at least potential channels of communication built-in between humankind and God.
It is, of course, true that the indivisible relation between body, mind, and soul means that men and women will experience their consciousness differently, and will therefore express it differently in many ways. At this point it is important to remind ourselves that the consciousness of humankind is continuously evolving, and so we may naturally expect that fundamental, enduring principles will be expressed in varying forms at successive periods of human history. There is no question that in the present period we are suffering from the ill effects of unfortunately fossilized stereotypes about the nature of maleness and femaleness. But attempts to correct these, to move forward with the evolving consciousness of humankind, should not tempt us into throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Maleness and femaleness provide a classic example of the general principle of polarity which in itself is a necessary condition for the manifestation of anything in material form, as is evident throughout the known physical universe. We see it, for instance, in the positive electrical charge of the proton and the negative charge of the electron, without which there could be no stable matter at all. It appears as light and dark, acid and base, and in fact it is not possible even to be aware of anything without being aware of something from which it differs, to which at least in some sense it is opposed. Now when we consider this phenomenon in the physical universe, we do not make the mistake of confusing opposition with antagonism. Nor would we think of asserting that a proton is superior to or more spiritual than an electron. At this level we understand the process: a creative tension between a pair of opposites which unite in a new energy potential - in this case the formation of an atom.(11) Another example would be the elements hydrogen and oxygen, which when united give rise to water. But at the level of human consciousness, where we note the operation of a masculine principle and a feminine principle, both within our individual psyches, and between separate human beings and groups of human beings, our understanding has been woefully inadequate and ineffectual. We have allowed entirely inappropriate categories of superiority and inferiority to contaminate our perceptions and modify our behavior so that we now have before us the sorry spectacle of the opposites, their necessary tension deteriorated into antagonism, chauvinism (both male and female), oppression (again bilateral), and the result is predictable: misery and loneliness for all.
If we examine the history of human culture, it becomes evident that the creative possibilities of the uniting of the opposites of the feminine and masculine principles have never been generally understood or implemented up to now except at the biological level. Here men and women unite, and the third, or child, that arises out of their union shares the nature of both. But at the level of consciousness we have always been in a different situation. Men and women have not united as equal opposites. They have used one another in different ways, so that real union has seldom occurred. Man has imposed his will on woman and has used her for purposes of bolstering up his own insecurities. She has been defined as inferior, as the one who must adapt. Woman has gone along with this because it absolves her of a great deal of responsibility; at the same time, in her heart, she knows better. This is her guilt. By encouraging or condoning mans image of himself as superior, his inflation of himself, she has perpetuated his denials of his own finitude. I think this is one reason why men characteristically have much less realistic attitudes about death than women do, tending either to deny it or to be morbidly preoccupied with it. Woman has infantilized man in this sense. She has permitted man to project onto her the role of custodian of the mystery of death. But, of course, this will not work if the role is allowed to become conscious, if the mystery is ever articulated, and so she must keep her dangerous understanding to herself. This undoubtedly contributes to mans perception of woman as destroyer, the moon goddess in her Hecate aspect. In contemporary terms this mythological figure is referred to variously as the overprotective mother, or the castrating woman.
Perhaps at this point I should explain more fully what I mean by the masculine and feminine principles, particularly as these concepts apply to contemporary issues. Unfortunately, this is exceptionally difficult to do in a short presentation without appearing to fall in with the cultural stereotypes. But it may be helpful if I remind you of what I said earlier about androgyny, which is the co-existence of these two principles. First, it is a quality of consciousness; and secondly, all human beings are androgynous. This means that each man and each woman carries within his or her own psyche elements of the masculine and of the feminine principle. Readers familiar with Jungian terminology will know that it is customary to refer to the contrasexual component of a womans psyche as her animus, and that of a man as his anima. These may occur in varying proportions, and may to varying extents be unconscious, and. also may be projected out rather than experienced directly. But the potentials are there, within each person, and the task before us is to learn how to use this fact constructively. Let it then be clearly understood that in what follows I am not talking about specific roles or types of behavior, but about qualities of consciousness which have, to be sure, been expressed in ways which are familiar to all, but which we have the power to choose to express differently. Ann Ulanov puts this point exceptionally well when she says that the way we conceive of and value psychic polarities, which are symbolized most often in masculine-feminine terms, may vary according to historical time and cultural influence, but the fact of psychic polarities and the centrality of the masculine-feminine polarity is a basic structure of the human psyche.(12)
In brief, the masculine principle appears to be characterized by focused awareness, and a primarily task-oriented outlook. We usually equate this with rationality, and without it human culture could never have come into being. The feminine principle appears to be characterized by a diffuse feeling of awareness of the unity of all life and a primarily relationship-oriented outlook.(13) This outlook is not rational, but neither is it irrational, which implies opposition to the rational. A better word would be non-rational, a very rich category whose proper relation to the rational is complementarity. The concept of focused, rational awareness is not to be confused with intelligence, which is an independent variable which is not and never has been sex-linked at any level. Intelligence is a tool which individuals either will or will not be taught and encouraged to use efficiently, depending on the cultural conditions of their upbringing, including sexual stereotyping.
Because of the patriarchal, male-dominated culture which has generally prevailed throughout history, focused awareness has always been highly valued. But since the enlightenment, it has taken a great leap forward, and has been developed to a degree of sophisticated elaboration heretofore unparalleled in history. Women who have wished to take their place in the conduct of the worlds affairs have had to acquire their skills in an educational system designed by and for men, and which quite naturally therefore encourages and prizes the development of the masculine principle. The idea that the quality of diffuse, feeling awareness is worthy of equally sophisticated development and elaboration has not been recognized. To be sure, there is much contemporary discussion of the value of feeling and emotion, but most of it seems designed to encourage undifferentiated expression. People too frequently seem to imagine that they must choose between thinking and feeling and as a result one or the other faculty remains largely undeveloped, largely unconscious. In the culture at large, the ideal of rational awareness reigns supreme and unchecked. But we see that this development carries the seeds of its own destruction, as we contemplate its hideous technological fruits.
It is my contention that the last 100 years of struggle for the liberation of women is one important evolutionary attempt to correct this imbalance. It is the beginning of a struggle which I hope will lead to the bringing into function of the feminine principle to the same degree of full conscious development now enjoyed by the masculine principle. I think that for a stable, creative society, it is important that each of these principles be equally conscious, and therefore equally available to the ego functions of choice and volition, rather than having the suppressed principle expressed largely through unconscious, instinctual modes of behavior. This equal, harmonious development is much more important than the absolute level of consciousness achieved by either principle. The instability and the evil come from the unbalanced bringing into consciousness of one principle without the simultaneous development of the other.
Let us now return to the symbolism of the Mass and try to see how these reflections illuminate our understanding of it. In particular, let us consider the psychological implications of the idea of sacrifice. What is sacrificed under the forms of bread and wine is nature, humankind, and God, all combined in the unity of the symbolic gift. This only becomes a true sacrifice if the implied intention of receiving something in return is given up. If this is not done, it becomes a magical propitiation rite in the expectation of getting something from God. In order to avoid this, the givers must become sufficiently conscious of their identity with the gift to recognize that they are giving themselves up in giving it. Again I quote from Jung:
For if I know and admit that I am giving myself, foregoing myself, and do not want to be repaid for it, then I have sacrificed my claim and thus a part of myself. Consequently all absolute giving, a giving which is a total loss from the start, is a self-sacrifice.(14)
This idea is particularly important in that sacrificing oneself proves that one possesses oneself, since one can only give fully that which belongs to one. The conscious and deliberate character of the gift implies the fullest possible knowledge and control of ones ego. This is why self-examination and confession of sin are such an integral part of the ritual: it is most often the less conscious parts of ourselves which lead us into actions which the more conscious part deplores. So we see that this process is designed to bring into consciousness, and therefore under control, all parts of our psyche. This, of course, must include becoming aware of our androgyny. As Ulanov expresses it:
The feminine . . is a factor which must be recognized as essential for the full exercise of the religious function. Thus, if the feminine is neglected, undervalued, or misconstrued, the result psychologically is a diminishing of ones growth toward wholeness and the result theologically is that the imago dei does not achieve its full stature.(15)
The biological man must become aware of the feminine part of his psyche, his anima, and learn to accept and come into harmonious cooperation with her. If instead he refuses to recognize her, she will make trouble for him and lead him into actions which he may well have cause to regret. All too frequently he is likely to handle this problem by projecting his guilt onto biological woman and holding her responsible for his difficulties. Of course an exactly parallel process obtains in the case of biological woman. She must become aware of the masculine part of her psyche, her animus, and learn to accept and come into harmonious cooperation with him. Unfortunately, the undervaluation of the feminine in our culture too often causes women to capitulate to this masculine side of themselves, leading them into various behaviors which in the long run cannot help but be destructive both to the proper individuation of their own psyche and to the culture at large. Common forms which this takes include the denigration of men, for since the woman has handed over the reigns of her own being to the animus within, what need has she of real men? Or, she may try to go through life in slavish imitation of men and their ways, constantly proving to herself and others that she can make her way in a mans world. There are many others, all equally pathetic, since all reveal that she has not appreciated her own femininity or recognized that at this crucial juncture in history the whole world is likely to perish if she and her sisters do not learn to develop and nourish their own truest values. To me there is no sadder sight than that of women who betray by their behavior that they secretly believe in the outgrown myth of their inferiority to men. Of course these refusals by members of each sex to become truly whole persons are at the root of the age-old battle of the sexes. The imperative task of this generation must be to bring this battle to a close, once and for all.
It is here that the Church has the opportunity to play a decisive role, since the mystery which she celebrates in the Mass represents, as we have seen, the full drama of creative polarity between the masculine and feminine principles in all their forms. The entire ritual symbolizes all that is essential to the fullest development of human consciousness, or, to put it in theological terms, to the process of divinization.
This passage from potentiality to actuality, this transformation to a more highly evolved and creative state can be defined psychologically as the rite of the individuation process. Carl Jung expresses the theologically equivalent language as follows:
The Mass tries to effect a mystical participation of priest and congregation with Christ so that on the one hand the soul is assimilated to Christ, and on the other hand the Christ figure is recollected in the soul.(16)
To put it still another way, the imperfect human androgyny is reflected in the perfect divine androgyny of Christ. The Church has never been entirely unmindful of the importance of the feminine principle, although in common with the rest of the culture this has generally been expressed in the usual separate and not-even-equal forms. But a careful fresh reading of the Scriptures shows that many of the interpretations developed by the male theologians over the centuries, however illuminating they may have been in many ways, however much they may have contributed to the gradual evolution of our culture, however essential they may have been in laying the groundwork for the steps which now must be taken, have nevertheless distorted or ignored the significance of much that was written about women. Jesus, for instance, was a radical feminist in terms of the culture of his time.(17) The mystics, dedicated as they are to the cultivation of their own souls and their private relation to God, have always come closer to a direct understanding of the questions I have been discussing. The metaphorical language of much mystical writing makes it abundantly clear that the most intense forms of religious experience are actually felt as an ecstatic, liberating union of the masculine and feminine principles. It seems to me that the time has come to make all these intuitions explicit by admitting women to the full range of possible ways of participating in ministry. It is hard to see how our most sacred Christian ritual can effectively mediate the rich symbolism we have found it to contain if we continue to prevent women from celebrating it. To persist in this course I fear is not only socially anachronistic but psychologically and spiritually destructive.
To my mind the struggle for the ordination of women to the priesthood is not only, or even principally, another engagement in the continuing battle for womens rights. No doubt the temptation to pursue it at that level is very great, particularly for those women whose pursuit of their true vocation continues to be ignominiously frustrated. But to fall into that temptation is to secularize the issue, and it is a serious mistake to permit the vanguard of the development of human consciousness to be taken over by the secular arm of society. All secularization partakes to some extent of idolatry, because the secular perspective is never eternal. The Church, by including its women at last in full partnership, should be leading and shaping human development, because only in this way can she effect her role of mediating salvation, to and through all humankind.
1. Eternity is not to be confused with everlastingness, but is rather to be understood as a qualitatively different kind of time which is perhaps best expressed by the word timeless.
2. The theological developments during the patristic period were essential to the establishment of the western consciousness of historicity. For a thorough discussion of the full implications of this point, see Henri-Charles Puech, Gnosis and Time, Man and Time. (Bollingen Series, New York: Pantheon, 1957), xxx, pp. 38-84.
3. Joseph Kramp, S.J., The Liturgical Sacrifice of the New Law (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1926), p. 134.
4. For a good description of the low levels to which the appeal to tradition has frequently sunk, see Emily C. Hewitt and Suzanne R. Hiatt, Women Priests: Yes or No? (New York: The Seabury Press, 1973), passim.
5. Cor. 14:40.
6. Hewitt and Hiatt, op. cit., p. 41.
7. Jung, C.G., Transformation Symbolism in the Mass, The Collected Works of Carl G. Jung, (New York: Princeton University Press, 1969, xx, Vol. 11) paragraph 384.
8. Kramp, op. cit., p. 55. (quoted by Jung, op. cit. paragraph 384.)
9. This symbolism has roots deep in the history of human consciousness. In ancient times a male deity, Bacchus, presided over wine, while the goddess Ceres presided over grain.
10. Harold Bumpus, S.J., Theological Reflection and Religious Experience in St. Thomas Aquinas, unpublished manuscript. Read by courtesy of the author.
11. For a discussion of this principle as applied to human consciousness, clearly pointing out the dangers of its misapplication, see Jung, op. cit. paragraph 438.
12. Ann Belford Ulanov, The Feminine in Jungian Psychology and in Christian Theology (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971), p. 146.
13. Irene Claremont de Castillejo, Knowing Woman: A Feminine Psychology (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1973), p. 15.
14. Jung, op. cit., paragraph 390.
15. Ulanov, op. cit., p. 292.
16. Jung, op. cit., paragraph 413.
17. For a succinct exposition on this idea, together with good references to other authors who have developed it, see Alicia Craig Faxon, Women and Jesus (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1973), passim.
Bumpus, Harold, S.J., Theological Reflection and Religious Experience in St. Thomas Aquinas, unpublished manuscript.
De Castillejo, Irene Claremont, Knowing Woman: A Feminine Psychology. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1973.
Faxon, Alicia Craig, Women and Jesus. Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1973.
Hewitt, Emily C., and Hiatt, Suzanne R., Women Priests: Yes or No? New York: The Seabury Press, 1973.
Jung, Carl G., Transformation Symbolism in the Mass, Psychology and Religion, (Bollingen Series: The Collected Works of Carl G. Jung.) New York: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Kramp, Joseph, S.J., The Liturgical Sacrifice of the New Law. London: B. Herder Book Company, 1926.
Puech, Henri-Charles, Gnosis and Time, Man and Time. New York: Pantheon, 1957.
Ulanov, Ann Belford, The Feminine in Jungian Psychology and in Christian Theology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971.
The Jerusalem Bible. London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966.
|Contents of Women and Orders||Support our campaign||Sitemap||Contemporary theologians||Join Campaign activities||Go back to home page|