Women in Ministry: Luther and John Calvin

Kurt Dahlin September 18, 2005

LUTHER

For Martin Luther the Church was an essential element of the Christian message.
The Christian life is to be led within a community of believers (Gonzalez 33). In
the On Line Lecture The Theology of Luther, Section I it is stated, one of the
emphases of the Reformation in Luthers work was the priesthood of all believers.
However, it is also noted, Though all are priests and have their duties, Luther
believed in a called and consecrated ministry. The priesthood of believers is to be
expressed within the context of church, each member is a priest for the rest and
feed the rest (Gonzalez 33-34). We would add to his theology of priesthood the
concept of spiritual gifts which are distributed to each believer for our mutual
benefit. Nevertheless, for Luther the priesthood of the believer did not extend to
women. Here is Martin Luther's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11-12,

'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness'. I believe that

Paul is still speaking about public matters. I also want it to refer to
the public ministry, which occurs in the public assembly of the
church. There a woman must be completely quiet, because she
should remain a hearer and not become a teacher. She is not to be the
spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching,
from praying in public. She has the command to speak at home. This
passage makes a woman subject. It takes from her all public office
and authority (Luther 276).

Concerning the "exceptional" examples of Huldah, Deborah, Jael and the daughters
of Philip (Acts 21:9), Luther opens a small crack in the door to women only to lock
it securely again,

He (Paul) forbids teaching contrary to a man or to the authority of a

man. Where there is a man, there no woman should teach or have
authority. Where there is no man, Paul allowed that they can do this,
because it happens by a man's command....Where there are men, she
should neither teach nor rule....Then comes the teaching, and Paul
does not entrust the ministry of the word to her....There would be a
disturbance if some woman wished to argue against the doctrine
that is being taught by a man....If she wishes to be wise, let her
argue with her husband at home (Luther 277).

So Luther concluded that a woman should have no public ministry. She should be
completely quiet in the assembly. She is forbidden to teach or pray in public. She
is to have no public church office or authority. She is subject to man. Luther
wrote, There would be a disturbance if some woman wished to argue against the
doctrine that is being taught by a man. However, which man in particular does he
mean? In other words which system or doctrine should a woman submit to:
Zwingli, Grebel, Sattler, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Charles V, Erasmus, Pope Leo
X? The list of differing male teachers is endless. Should a woman simply submit to
any teaching that any male proposes?

Luthers model for the church is pre-Christ and pre-Pentecost Judaism. This OT
paradigm forms the basis of Luthers interpretation of scripture and thereby the

organization of the church. Luther ignores the life of Christ and the radical
inclusion of women at Pentecost. I would also imagine that his view of women is a
reflection of medieval culture. Regardless, his hermeneutical methodology
prohibiting, restricting and limiting godly women in ministry continues to
influence the protestant evangelical community today (Fee 44). We are free to
disagree with Luther on this important issue. As Pentecostals we believe that godly,
gifted women can be valuable tools of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, Austin Cline noted, Anabaptists were radical egalitarians
everyone in the group was completely equal, poor and rich, men and women. This
posed a fundamental challenge to the nature and harmony of medieval society
something completely unacceptable to the secular and religious authorities of
Europe (Baptist Churches and Baptist Beliefs).
http://atheism.about.com/od/baptistssouthernbaptists/a/baptisthistory_3.htm

I think as Pentecostals we would feel more at home with an egalitarian Sola

Scriptura rather than a restrictive and limiting medieval Sola Scriptura.

JOHN CALVIN: On Women

John Calvin wrote concerning 1 Timothy 2:12:

But I suffer not a woman to teach. Not that he takes from them the
charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the
office of teaching, which God has committed to men only
(Commentaries 67).

Calvin taught that the office of teaching was male only. Women can teach their
families yet are excluded by God from the office of teaching. How did he
determine that women could teach at home but not at church? I contend that a
medieval bias about women is the controlling paradigm for his exclusion of
women from any teaching in the church. A cultural interpretation of 1 Timothy
2:12 guided his understanding of the ecclesiology of the Reformed church and still
influences churches today. If we study the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 over
the next 450 years we discover very little change in the outcome regarding women.
Women are not to have any teaching office in the church. However, Calvin
understood that in NT times women held high positions of authority and ministry
in the church. How does he explain the inclusion of women in the New Testament?
Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary
rules of government, by which he intended that we should be
bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of
prophets and teachers, and that too when they were
supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, he who is
above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is
not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of
government (Commentaries 67).

Calvin admitted that in the biblical record during the apostolic era women at one
time held the office of prophets and teachers. He even understood that the
women were legitimately appointed by charismatic gifting of the Spirit of God,
they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God. Yet he considered
these official church positions of leadership and authority a one time event, a
peculiar case and extraordinary acts done by God. However, the New

Testament practice of allowing women to hold the offices of prophet and teacher
reflected a brand new last days ecclesiology impacted by Jesus and Pentecost.
Pentecost did indeed overturn the old order and inaugurated a new Charismatic
system of church structure. If we edited out the not in the above quote from
Calvins Commentaries we would have the correct interpretation of Gods new
plan to organize the church.
Extraordinary acts done by God do overturn the ordinary
rules of government. Accordingly, women held the office of
prophets and teachers, and that too when they were
supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, he who is
above all law might do this; this is opposed to the constant
and ordinary system of government (Commentaries 67).

The ordinary system which excluded women represents medieval culture and a
polytheistic, secular world view. Calvin accommodated his interpretation of
Scripture to world culture and human tradition not the new spiritual system of
Pentecost. Calvin believed that what the Spirit of God did in calling women to
serve violated the constant and ordinary system of government. The ordinary
system of government embodies the common pre-Pentecost, Judaistic practices
and polytheistic Lord Over attitudes concerning women. Calvin could see that
God did an unusual thing by the Spirit after Pentecost in the full incorporation of
women into all forms of authoritative ministry. However, Calvin chose sola culture
over sola scripture. His hermeneutical bias resulted in an erosion of the radical
inclusion of all people at Pentecost (Acts 2:17f; Gal. 2:11f). Calvin noted that Sola
Scriptura clearly shows women in prophetic and teaching ministries. Nevertheless,
in stark contrast to the sacred record he stated that God only intended such
positions for men. What God allows Calvin disallows. Calvin did not allow any

woman to teach or occupy any church office of authority based on a cultural bias
not on Sola Scriptura.

In this discussion we can think back and appreciate how difficult it must have been
for the Pharisees to accept the full inclusion of Gentiles proclaimed by Peter. The
Pharisees had every historical and theological argument on their side. What they
didnt have was God. God did a new thing at Pentecost that included full spiritual
access to all flesh; genders; ages and social ranks. Pentecost overturned the old
structures and instituted new directives for the church. The Reformation made
great strides in scriptural recovery. However, we must wait for William Seymour
and the Great Awakening of the Pentecostal Revival to champion the radical,
revolutionary principles of Jesus and Pentecost.

Supposedly, women were excluded from such ministries by their subordinate

gender. Calvin added: Why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted
by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or
authority (Commentaries 63). What is their condition that renders them
incapable of accessing the ranks of power or authority? Their condition is that they
are female. Women are subject to men. They are the subjects of men. As subjects
they rank lower than men and therefore cannot usurp the higher ranks. According
to Calvin only men can access the high and important positions of social and
religious rank. However, all his rhetoric about ranks of power and authority is the
opposite of the Jesus model of servant leadership. Calvins argument against the
inclusion of women is based on commonly held social ranking. His entire erudite

chest pounding about male position and rank is more reflective of the absolutism,
elitism and classism of the medieval age rather than scripture. In the NT scriptures
women could be prophets, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, apostles, pastors,
even martyrsdespite their female conditioncalled to these male-only positions
by the Spirit of God. Why would God violate his own supposedly male-only divine
principle? Wouldnt it be better to view the inclusion of Gentiles, women, youth
and slaves as a wonderful change of direction and not a violation? Apparently
Calvin forgot that as a Gentile under the ordinary government he would have been
excluded from ministry. If it were not for the vision of Peter and his tireless efforts
to include Gentiles, Christianity would not have become a global religion. Calvin
enjoyed the changes brought about at Pentecost but he wont extend them to others.
For Calvin and many others the old obsolete system still applies to women.

Apparently God had forgotten that women were unusable and prohibited as a
divine principle. Calvin will not allow any scriptural example to balance his low
opinion of women. Deborah (Judges 4:4) has been put forth as an objection to his
rule. Yet, Calvin will not permit Deborah to be viewed as a prototype for women in
charismatic ministry. Calvin uniformly overlaid this method of interpretation to
other examples of women in New Testament ministry. Notice his commentary
concerning Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9:
It is uncertain how these maids did execute the office of
prophesying, saving that the Spirit of God did not guide and
govern them, that He did not overthrow the order which He
Himself set down and for as much as he doth not suffer women
to bear any public office in the church, it is to be thought that
they did prophesy at home, or in some private place without
common assembly (Commentaries 271).

Calvin had already concluded that it was God's divine order to exclude women
from any public office. Therefore, these prophetic ladies, even though guided by
the Spirit of God, were limited in their gifting to some private place. To whom
they would prophesy apart from the church setting he does not state. Instead of
this scripture informing, correcting and instructing his view of women in the new
era of Pentecostit is interpreted away. Calvin admits that these maids did
execute the office of prophesying. So how is it impossible for them to hold such
an office? Calvin clings desperately to the old order even though God had
overthrown and rendered the old order obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Calvin applied his
cultural restriction of women to any scriptural display of women in NT ministry
which ultimately yields a result very similar to his medieval world view. For
example Calvin wrote:
Apollos suffered himself to be taught and instructed not only
by a handy-craftsman but also by a woman...we see that one
of the chief teachers of the church was instructed by a
woman. Not withstanding, we must remember that Priscilla
did execute this function of teaching at home in her own
house, that she might not overthrow the order prescribed by
God and nature (Acts 18:26) (Commentaries 202-203).
Calvin stated that Gods order and nature prohibited a woman of God from
teaching. Yet Pastor Priscilla taught one of the chief teachers of the church as
recorded in scripture for our instruction, correction and reproof. The way Calvin
circumvents scripture is to minimize Priscilla. She taught Apollos at home not in a
church. So Priscilla could teach the way of God to a man at home and not
overthrow the system prescribed by God and nature. Yet Calvin failed to remember
that all churches were in the home at this time. In fact Aquila and Priscilla had a

church in their home in Ephesusthe very home church where Apollos was
schooled by Priscilla.
1 Cor 16:19
The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily
in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. NKJV
There werent great Cathedrals and an ornately dressed all-male priesthood. In
other words the teaching by Priscilla was in a church to an educated man by the
Spirit of God. The new paradigm of Pentecost does indeed overthrow the old
system and initiates a spiritual system based on the gifts and callings of the Holy
Spirit. Apollos a chief teacher in the Christian movement was instructed in the way
of God more adequately by a greater teacher. Apparently the only place that
Priscilla would be forbidden to teach would be within the four walls of a building
called a church. Priscilla was commended for her pastoral ministry as a fellow
worker by Paulthe very one who supposedly prohibited such ministry. How can
Paul extol Priscilla and prohibit her at the same time?
Rom 16:3
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.
NIV
So during the formative years of reformed protestant thinking a cultural
presupposition about the inferiority of women based on the old pre-Pentecost order
informed the ecclesiology of the new Christian movement. Calvin stated that the
apostolic model concerning women was not a new order indicative of God's will
and reign but an aberration or peculiar case. Now, since we are done with that
abnormal and temporary whim of God we can return to the age old way of viewing
women as created subordinate, inferior, inadequate and unsuited for ministry. The

radical example of Jesus to include women and the charismatic promise of

Pentecost is then buried in the mire of human tradition and culture. However, the
apostolic church in its sweeping liberation of women to spiritual gifts, authority
and ministry is a new model and not an aberration. The NT is in fact our only
authoritative model. The NT inclusion of women in vital ministry is not a fleeting
deviation from the old order but an entirely new direction.

Calvin stated: God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man
an inferior aid....Woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind
of appendage to the man...joined to man...to render obedience to him (Gen. 2:21)
(Commentaries 69). Calvin considered women to be an inferior appendage,
adjunct or accessory created afterwards to aid and obey men. He added: the
woman is a distinguished ornament of the man... (Corinthians 357). Women were
considered to be a mere decoration for the enrichment of men. Calvin routinely
ignored Jesus and Pentecost as an archetype and used the Judaistic model of the
synagogue and pagan culture as the basis for his interpretation of Scripture which
continues to impact ecclesiology and to restrict a woman's place in ministry. We
must agree with scripture that God can work through anyone yielded to his will.
Acts 11:9
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has
cleansed you must not call common.' NKJV

Calvin's stated in his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians

concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34, Hence Paul forbids them to speak in public
either for the purpose of teaching or of prophesying (467). Yet the mere act of

teaching does not imply usurpation of authority or noncompliance with ordinary

Christian submission. One can be in authority and yet in proper submission to
authority. If this is the case, then, denying women authority simply because they
were born women is the creation of a religious caste system which regards women
as the new untouchables. Calvin stated:
And unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been
maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public
management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that
female government is improper and unseemly (Corinthians 468).

Calvin argues that women in all ages, in all governments by nature and common
sense have been excluded from any leadership. Who would disagree with him? It is
a universal fact that women were oppressed, inferior and subjected to men. Yet, his
basis for the complete exclusion of women from Christian leadership is not based
in scripture but in world culture. Here Calvin used culture and that is the way it
has always been as the divine model for women in post-Pentecost ministry. On
the other hand, Calvin contends that the human heart is desperately wicked and all
humanity is a fallen mass of totally corrupt depravity. So help me understand his
formidable support of the exclusion of women. Apparently, since corrupt, pagan,
polytheistic, idol worshipping, depraved governments of the world in all ages have
limited, restricted, oppressed and subordinated womenit is proper for the church
to do the same? Why should the Gentile Lord Over model condemned by Jesus
be used as an authority for the church? Wouldnt it be better to do the opposite of
the world, everywhere and in all ages? Wouldnt it be better to follow the pattern
established by God in the NT rather than oppressive regimes? According to Calvin
the pagan Lord Over model is the divine order approved and established by God.

Mark 10:42-43
42 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are
regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high
officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead,
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, NIV
Since it is historically verifiable that women were considered inferior to men, it
must be noted that any attempt to interpret Scripture and its response to women
would naturally reflect this historical and deeply rooted bias. It is not surprising
that Luther and Calvin use a cultural bias as the lens to read scripture. It is not an
accommodation of culture to allow gifted women to minister. It is an
accommodation of Jesus of Nazareth and Pentecost. To restrict women simply on
the basis of gender and the old rules is an accommodation of polytheistic culture.

Calvins argument that women have in all ages been excluded collapses in the
glorious proclamation of Acts 2:17,18. We are now in the last days, which means
things are no longer the way they always have been in all ages.
God included women in ministry even though worldly culture would not. The new
prophetic age begun at Pentecost is one of Holy Spirit organized ministry.
Pentecost is the new Mount Sinai for the church. Pentecost ushers in the New
Covenant. Pentecost signals the age of the Holy Spirit. The outpouring of the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) crumbled the walls and barriers that
existed between peoples for whatever reason previously held.

As the doctrines of salvation and spiritual gifts eroded over time so did the full
incorporation of women as seen in Calvin's statements. Simply because something
always was, does not mean it should always be so (Jer. 31:31). Longevity and
tradition do not establish or substantiate truth. If that was the case then let us
reinstitute slavery and remove Gentiles from the church's ministry because that is
the way it always was! Pentecost is an advancement not an aberration. It is God's
will to include Gentiles, women, youth and slaves in Spirit gifted ministry, not a
peculiar tampering. It is the new standard for the church not an extraordinary
act. Pentecost should form a new basis for hermeneutics and ecclesiology. Calvin,
however, regarded Pentecost as dispensational, abnormal and temporary. However,
Pentecost should form a new permanent basis for hermeneutics and ecclesiology
not the old order of things. Therefore, the age old cultural attitude which viewed
women as inferior, subordinate, deceived and incapable of ministry no longer
forms the basis for hermeneutics or ecclesiology.

It is interesting to note how Calvin interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:5. Instead of

allowing this scripture to contribute to his overall understanding of Pauline
theology, he exegeted away its authority. Why? Because his model for church
structure is a convoluted blend of Old Testament, pre-Christ, pre-Pentecost
Judaism and paganism. Calvin believed in the subjugation of women to
preserve moral order. He comments on 1 Corinthians 11:5,
It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid
the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while
elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the
Church. (1 Tim. ii 12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable
for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and
hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as

to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here

condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when
he reproves them for prophesying with their head
uncovered, he at the same time does not give them
permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays
his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in
chapter xiv. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the
same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle
requires women to show their modesty--not merely in a place
in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any
more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as
are sometimes convened in private houses (Corinthians 356).

Notice that Calvin was not able to effectively balance this Scripture with 1
Corinthians 14:34-35. He made 1 Corinthians 11:5 read as if it were 1 Corinthians
14:34-35, Paul wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.
However, scripture allowed women to pray and prophesy if their heads were
covered. Paul does not prohibit women from meaningful contribution in the
Christian assembly.
1 Cor 11:5
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were
shaved. NKJV

Calvin does not need to strike a balance, because his paradigm for church order is
drawn from selective aspects of medieval culture and the pre-Pentecost synagogue.
He called 1 Corinthians 11:5 superfluous...to no purpose. Can we imagine that a
sola scriptura advocate would decree scripture to be superfluous and to no
purpose? Calvin interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:5, which clearly stated that women

can pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly, to condemn not only female
prophecy but the mere act of women speaking even in private homes. Calvin
condemned as a vice what Paul condones and commends. Even though Calvin
may believe that all Scripture is authoritative and fully inspired, he rejected 1
Corinthians 11:5 as useless, unnecessary and void, thereby granting 1 Corinthians
14:34 greater and complete authority. Instead of viewing these verses of Sola
Scriptura as equal counter balances he removed 1 Corinthians 11:5 from the scale.
The results are lopsided and out of balance (cf. Fee 40). In so doing Calvin
restricted the authority of Scripture to those passages which seem to agree with his
point of view. Calvin understood that these Pauline verses in 1 Corinthians were in
conflict concerning women. He resolved this dilemma by rejecting 1 Corinthians
11:5 as superfluous. Furthermore, he extended his prohibition against women
speaking in the church to private houses with meetings of either gender. Calvins
bottom line, Paul wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.
He did not ever allow women to speak and therefore to teach other women would
be an impossibility. He interpreted 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
through the world view of his culture and Judaism to negate any positive
statements Paul made about women in ministry. The example of Christ, the
standard of Pentecost, and Paul's complete theology on women were ignored in
favor of pre-Pentecost Judaism and Gentile Lord Over social theory. Paul was
then selectively interpreted by Calvin to agree with his old medieval beliefs about
women.

There are those who would no longer forbid the gospel or church leadership to
Gentiles, though this was prohibited prior to Pentecost. There are those who would
no longer forbid the gospel or church leadership to slaves. And yet, somehow, we

continue with the long accepted and historical rejection of women. It seems that
the time has come to abolish the final frontier which rejects women simply on the
basis of their birth. The church must maintain the banner of Jesus and Pentecost
and reject the darkness of the former ages; the darkness that has from the dawn of
history, rejected women as inferior, inadequate and despised. Pentecost teaches us
that Gentiles, slaves, youth and women can be, and should be fully incorporated by
the Spirit into the present aspect of the eschatological reality of the kingdom of
God (Fee 138). Pentecost marks a significant change from the way things have
always been.

Male supremacy is non-biblical. Subjugation of anyone is a non-biblical leadership

model. Servanthood is the biblical model. It is impossible to imagine that good
Christian theologians would argue for the subjugation of the lowly substandard,
weak woman. However, subjection, subordination and subjugation have to do with
lord over and not servant of leadership models. Male superiority has to do with
the Lord Over Model of leadership rejected by Jesus as Gentile, pagan and
polytheistic.

Calvins Contradictions On Women

Calvin said that women are excluded by God from the office of teaching. God has
committed teaching to men only (Commentaries 67).

Yet Calvin notes in scripture that women in the NT held the office of prophets and
teachers by the extraordinary calling of the Spirit of God (Commentaries 67).

Calvin said that women are forbidden to teach and not permitted positions of
authority by their subordinate condition to men, the rules of nature, their secondary
order in creation, common sense, ordinary rules of government in all ages.

Yet Calvin notes in scripture that Priscilla taught Apollos the way of God
(Commentaries 202-203).

Calvin said that since women are subject to men, God would not allow women to
occupy the office of prophet and violate his divine order.

Yet Calvin notes in scripture that Philip had four daughters that occupied the office
of prophet by the calling of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin said that women should be silent even in Christian meetings in private
homes (Corinthians 356).

Yet Calvin notes in scripture that Priscilla taught scripture in the home.

Calvin said that women are inferior, not equal to men, created as an appendage to
aid, enrich and obey men.

Yet the scripture declares that we are all the sons and daughters of God with equal
access to the Spirit of God (Acts 2:17-20).

It seems that scripture contradicts Calvin at every point on this issue.

WORKS CITED

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

Trans. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Calvin, John. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, V. I. Trans.

Pringle, William. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948.

Fee, Gordon D. Gospel and Spirit Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Gonzlez, Justo. The Story of Christianity, Volume II. San Francisco, CA: Harper
and Row, Publishers, 1985.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, V. 28. Ed. Hilton Oswald. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia Publishing House, 1973.
Impact of the Reformation on Women
A.Protestant Women
1. Luther believed that a woman's occupation was in the home taking
care of the family
2. Calvin believed in the subjugation of women to preserve
moral order.
3. Anabaptists were egalitarian including women.
4. Protestant churches had greater official control over marriage than
did the Catholic church

a. Suppressed common law marriages (which had been very

common in Catholic countries)
b. Catholic governments followed the Protestant example

4. Marriage became more companionate emphasizing the love

relationship between man and wife. Martin Luther and his wife.
Katerina von Bora were good examples of this view .
Luther: sex was an act to be enjoyed by a husband and wife; not
just an act of procreation
5. Increased emphasis on teaching people to read the Bible resulted in
an increase in women's literacy.
a. Mothers were often expected to teach their children
b. Schools for girls were developed
c. Philip Melanchthon became an important figure in education for
girls in the Protestant German states.
6. Protestant women, however, lost opportunities in church service
that many Catholic women pursued (e.g. becoming nuns).
7. Women gradually lost rights to manage their own property or to
make legal transactions in their own name.
B. Catholic women:
1. Women continued to benefit from opportunities in the Church
through religious orders.