It is always revealing to observe the authors that certain Catholic media choose to promote. When an op-ed calls into question, even indirectly, a definitive teaching of the Magisterium, this is never a mere academic exercise; it represents a genuine process of ideological deconstruction.
Patrice Dunois-Canette is no stranger to texts of this kind. As early as 2020, in Le Monde, he urged the Church to break away from what he termed a "refusal of debate," denouncing a supposed "sacred order," the "cleavage between the sexes," or even a Church that exists essentially "by" and "for" worship. Today’s op-ed is part of this same trajectory. A question therefore arises: to what end does such a publication serve the Church’s mission? How does it aid in proclaiming Christ, fostering conversions, nurturing vocations, or faithfully transmitting the deposit of the faith? Or does it primarily contribute to importing the ideological demands of our age into the Church? For the true reversal lies here.
For twenty centuries, Catholic theology has proceeded from Revelation to illuminate human realities. Now, some propose the opposite: beginning with sociological, juridical, and political categories of the present day to reread Scripture, Tradition, and the sacraments. The question is no longer: ‘What does God reveal?’ but rather: ‘Does this doctrine still meet the modern requirements of equality?’
Yet Revelation is not a material that every generation is free to reshape according to the sensibilities of the moment. The author claims merely to pose ‘theological questions.’ And yet, the starting point of his reasoning is explicitly that of equality between men and women, presented as a horizon to which the Church must respond. We are already no longer engaged in a purely theological reflection, but in a reading of the faith through categories drawn from the contemporary social sciences.
The subsequent line of reasoning rests on a comparison that does not withstand scrutiny. Since Christ is also called the Lamb, the Shepherd, the Door, or the Light, why should the figure of the Bridegroom hold a particular significance for the priesthood? The answer is simple: because the Church has never considered all biblical images as equivalent. The spousal relationship between Christ and His Church runs through the entire history of salvation, from the prophets to the Apocalypse. It is not merely one metaphor among others; it expresses the very mystery of the Covenant. Hence, the priest acts in persona Christi Capitis: he sacramentally represents Christ the Head and Bridegroom of His Church, according to the sign willed by Christ Himself.
The author also compares the maleness of Christ to His belonging to the Jewish people, arguing that just as the priesthood is not reserved for Jews, it should not be reserved for men either. This comparison is once again misleading. The Church has never taught that Jesus’ ethnic origins formed part of the sacramental sign. On the contrary, it has consistently affirmed—from the Apostles down to Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacredotalis—that it has received from Christ no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. This question is therefore no longer open to debate on the doctrinal level.
At its heart, this argument reveals a new anthropology. Every distinction of function is spontaneously interpreted as an inequality of dignity. This is precisely the premise of contemporary egalitarian ideology: wherever a distinction exists, it must necessarily signify an injustice to be rectified. Catholic faith affirms exactly the opposite.
Within the Church, dignity never derives from a function. Were this the case, the Virgin Mary, who never received ministerial priesthood, would be inferior to the apostles. Yet she is the greatest of all creatures, Queen of the Apostles, and the model of all holiness. This single fact is sufficient to demonstrate that the absence of ordination in no way implies inferiority.
The true stakes thus extend far beyond the question of women’s priesthood. The central issue is whether the Church must continue to receive Revelation humbly as a gift, or whether it should gradually adapt its teaching to the dominant intellectual categories of the age. History nonetheless shows that every time Christianity has sought to embrace the ideologies of its time rather than evangelizing them, it has lost its prophetic force. Fidelity to Tradition does not consist in adapting Christ to the world, but in allowing Christ to judge the world.
The Church’s belief in the equal dignity of men and women is precisely why it rejects the confusion of equality with uniformity.
Vocations are diverse, missions differ, yet all are ordered to the one Body of Christ. This, and not the ideological categories that some now seek to elevate as a new theological norm, is the true novelty of the Gospel.
*At Tribune Chrétienne, we regularly solicit contributions from diocesan priests, religious, and theologians of various sensibilities to shed light on the major debates within the Church. Some choose to publish anonymously—not out of reluctance to stand by their convictions, but in order to preserve the freedom of their ministry, avoid undue pressure, and prevent personal controversy.