Our Priestly Calling
self-sacrifice as the "flavor" of gender and vocation
Today we share an excerpt from Chapter 5 “Only Priests Can Marry” from my book, The Ethics of Beauty.
In literature and in art, we call the inversion of two elements a “chiasm,” from the Greek letter Chi (X) that can be physically traced when each element is joined to its repetition, since in their second occurrence the elements have switched places. In other words, in poetry you have a rhyme scheme like a-b-b-a, in which the place of the a and b are inverted when they are repeated. Such chiastic connections also occur in painting, intertwining elements across a canvas, or across the length of a novel or other work of literature. (For further exploration of chiasm, see this previously posted excerpt.)
Chiasm always acts to focus our attention on what is at the inflection point. In the case of this chiasm of genders, what is squarely in the center is the priesthood of Christ, or rather the person of Christ, crucified and resurrected. He is the inflection point because it is his priesthood that draws men and women together—but then his priesthood does even more than that. It turns men and women inside-out so that they are more united: they actually come to symbolize each other. This is no mere “gender complementarity” at work here!
Thus, you have a marriage of priests. By priests I mean the man and the woman who each offer their gender self-sacrificially to God at the site of Christ’s cross because in this self-sacrifice they become firstly “priests.” Christian gender defeats and yet embraces both the worldly concept that men and women are complementary and the worldly concept that men and women are interchangeable. Men and women are meant to be different precisely so that they can experience that highest unity which can only come through symbolizing someone different than oneself. This is a unity at a far higher plane than mere interchangeability (which we wrongly call “equality,” for if men and women were not distinct, then neither could men and women be equal—since in that case the words “men” and “women” would themselves have no meaning). This unity is also at a far higher plane than complementarity, a concept which is also partly correct, but which, again, when pressed too far becomes destructive.
RTE: What does it mean to say that the priestly calling temporarily eclipses both of the two gender callings?
DR PATITSAS: An example would be what we said in another interview: that we honor our American soldiers not as warriors but as priests. That is to say, even in those cases when the soldiers have been sent to causes that originated in the sinful passions of the voters or of the leaders, we still believe that our fallen heroes obeyed and gave their lives with the intent that others might live. In civilized society, and especially in Christian society, we emphasize the priestly dimension of the soldier’s death. If this doesn’t capture the whole truth at times, then we should change the policies, not ridicule the symbolism.
I bring this up because it shows us how so much of all that we praise in life is the priestly flavor of what people are doing, rather than their actual vocation or contribution. I don’t praise a scientist because he is brilliant but because he is self-sacrificial in keeping long hours, or because he accepted ridicule on the way to a new breakthrough and thus saved countless lives, or was kicked out of his position but persevered. And there are examples of this in every career, that what we really admire is the priestly dimension of a person’s journey. It is this priesthood that inspires us to give praise and glory to a person because it combines the first two kinds of healthy shame into something amazing. Professions and vocations in themselves are nothing; without the “flavor” of Christian priesthood, the salt of vocation is all but worthless.
The Ethics of Beauty is available from St Nicholas Press.
Begin planning an American pilgrimage with our US Pilgrimage Passport, listing over 30 sites of spiritual significance, available in our Beauty First Films Etsy shop.
For inspiration along your Lenten journey, spend 30 minutes with our documentary, Amphilochios: Saint of Patmos, available for rent or purchase on Vimeo.
Register for our April 17-20, 2026 City as Liturgy tour in Boston. Be a pilgrim with us as we pray and explore sites of spiritual and civic significance in one of America’s oldest cities.
I continue to really love this idea that what we praise, almost inevitably, is some element of "priesthood" - it's the self-offering, or the self-sacrifice it takes to endure amidst trial, that really elicits admiration, not the talent or achievement itself.
Come to think of it - absent the priestly flavor, the things we would have "praised" instead too often just call forth envy or resentment.
Hello, How does His priesthood draw men and women together, and what are the two forms of healthy shame you speak of?
I'm asking because as I work with a small group of 7th & 8th grade boys we have been exploring the significance of gender and the priesthood. Also, trying to relate the significance of(although mystical) of Melchizedek being king & priest in relation to Christ. This calls to mind the post about Christ being male not because masculinity is more divine than femininity, but rather because the Incarnation required specificity. This post also mentioned Mary's femaleness as significant in that she said 'yes,' to The Incarnation of Christ. Also mentioned was the three vocations we all fill as persons, regardless of gender, as icons of Christ; priest, king, and prophet.
I know that these are all woven together to point to the beautiful tapestry of our humanity in its fullest light, and a way to understand our true identity in communion with The Trinity and one another. As their is so much confusing concepts out there for our youth on the cusp of adulting, I am trying to make a connection for them to help them have a taste for truth, the goodness we were created in, and the beauty that surrounds them in the midst of a world of deception and darkness. Trying to simplify this for a didactic audience is no little task. Will you shed a little more light?
Thank you for taking the time to consider.