 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
“Tradition and the ordination of
women”
submitted for consideration to the CTSA convention in
Minneapolis, 1997.
from Bulletin ET 8 (1997) 2, pp.
208-222.
Introduction
On
November 18, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published its
reply (or Responsum) to the question whether the teaching presented in
Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 1994)
is to be understood “belonging to the deposit of faith” (RD, p 401,
ut pentinens ad fidei depositum [AAS, 1114]; see list of sources for
abbreviations of the texts cited here and hereafter) Its reply was affrmative.
Thus, according to the Congregation, the teaching that the Church has no
authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women requires the
definitive assent of the faithful, since it is “founded on the written
Word of God, and from the beginning [it has been] constantly presened and
applied in the Tradition of the Church, [and] it has been set forth infallibly
by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (RD, p 401). Later, the
Congregation issued a collection of previously published material devoted to
these issues (DII).
Because the Responsum maintains that the Church’s lack of authority
to ordain women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught,
many have concluded that the question whether women can be ordained has now
been so definitively settled that no future pope or council could decide
otherwise. However, comments published since the Responsum was issued
indicate that not a few Catholic theologians have questioned both the level of
its authority and the warrants for its assertions.
It is
important to distinguish between the Pope’s teaching in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis and the teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith in its Responsum. John Paul II has taught that the Church has no
authority to ordain women to the priesthood and that this teaching, grounded in
the unbroken Tradition of the Church must be definitively held. The
Congregation has declared that this doctrine pertains to the deposit of faith
and it has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
With
what authority have these statements been made? Cardinal Ratzinger has
confirmed that it was not the Pope’s intention to issue an ex cathedra
definition in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Hence, it is not an infallible papal
definition, but an exercise of the ordinary papal Magisterium. According to
Vatican II, this calls for a response of religiosum obsequium (LG, 25).
Theologians have taken this to mean a sincere effort to conform one’s
judgment to the judgment of the Pope Experience shows that such an effort may
not suffce to overcome a person’s doubts and bring one to sincere internal
assent.
The
CDF’s Responsum does not change the doctrinal weight of Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis. It does not raise its teaching to the level of an ex
cathedra definition even when it declares that its doctrine has been taught
infallibly. Canon law makes it clear that no doctrine is to be understood as
infallibly defined unless this is manifestly established (Canon ‘.749.3).
Hence, whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is a question of fact and
the law of the Church requires that this fact be clearly established.
The
law of the Church, it would seem, justifies Catholic theologians in raising the
question whether the reasons offered by the Congregation “clearly
establish” the fact that this doctrine has been infallibly taught. The
reasons offered are that this teaching is founded on the written word of God",
has been “from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the
tradition of the Church,” and “it has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium”.
Legitimate questions can be raised about each of these reasons, and their
probative force. How can it be shown that this doctrine “belongs to the
deposit of the faith”? How is it “founded on the written word of
God”? Has it “from the beginning [been]constantly preserved and
applied in the tradition of the Church?” Is it a doctrine that has been
set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium?"
This
paper is offered as a contribution to the discussion of these questions. Thus,
the scope and aims of this paper are quite limited. It does not intend to
present arguments for or against the ordination of women. The question it
raises is whether the reasons given by the Congregation justify the assertion
that the definitive assent faithful must be given to the teaching that the
Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.
1.
“founded on the written Word of God”
The
claim that the tradition restricting priestly ordination to men is
“founded on the Word of God” is twofold; first, that Christ did not
call women to the apostolic ministry since he selected only men as members of
the twelve; and second, that the apostles themselves, faithful to the practice
of Christ, chose only men for priestly offices, those of bishop, presbyter, and
their equivalents.
Biblical evidence that Jesus chose only men among the Twelve and that it was
only to them that he said at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of
me” (I Cor 11;24) has been taken to reveal his will that only men should
ever be ordained to the priesthood.
Here
we can do no more than mention some of the reasons why many reputable biblical
scholars have not found this argument convincing. They question the
suppositions that Jesus’ words to the Twelve constituted ordination as it
is understood today that the Twelve are the only precursors of ordained
ministers today, in light of the fluidity of ministries in the early Church;
that “the apostles” were coextensive with the Twelve;" and that by
choosing only men for the Twelve Jesus intended to express his will concerning
the sex of those who would preside at the Eucharist in the future. Since Jesus
left the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make many decisions on
its own regarding the organization of its ministry, scholars judge it very
doubtful that he intended to lay down such a particular prescription regarding
the sex of future candidates for ordination. The majority of exegetes hold,
instead, that Jesus’ choice of only men for the Twelve was determined by
the nature of their symbolic role as “patriarchs” of restored Israel.
It is
also argued, however, that the fact that the apostles chose only men for the
roles of leadership in the churches which they founded shows that they did
understand Jesus’ choice of only men for the Twelve to have given them an
example which they were to follow in choosing their own co-workers and
successors. Here again scholars find the argument inconclusive. In the earlier
period of the New Testament, St Paul had a number of women as his co-workers in
ministry. In the later period, to which 1 Timothy 2, 12-14 belongs, it is clear
that women were being excluded from roles that involved teaching and authority
over men. The reason which the author of the Pastorals gave for this exclusion,
however, had nothing to do with an example given by Jesus. Instead, the author
based the unsuitability of women for these roles on an interpretation of the
story of the creation of Eve and her role in the Fall: “For Adam was
formed first, then Eve Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was
deceived and transgressed” (1 Timothy 2,13-14). This passage so
interpreted was used as the scriptural basis for the common conviction that
women were inferior to men and were more easily led astray, a conviction that
certainly contributed to the belief that women were unsuited for ordination to
the priesthood. Indeed, there is very little evidence to show that the
subsequent practice of choosing only men as bishops and presbyters was
determined by an intention to remain faithful to an example set by Jesus,
rather than by the kind of reasons proposed by the author of 1Timothy, who was
thought to be St Paul himself.
As
the majority of the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded in
1976, “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit
us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible
accession of women to the presbyterate” (PBC, 96).
2.
“from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition
of the Church”
While
the Eastern Churches, during many centuries, numbered deaconesses among their
clergy, and there is plausible evidence that such women were ordained for their
ministry, it has been the unbroken tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and
the Eastern Churches to ordain only men to the priesthood. Furthermore, when
the question has been raised about the suitability of women for such
ordination, a negative answer has been given consistently by early Christian
writers, by medieval theologians, and by recent popes.
There
is no doubt about the traditional practice of excluding women from the
priesthood and episcopate, or about the traditional conviction that women were
unsuited for such offces in the Church. Obviously, such long-standing
traditions must not be lightly changed or dismissed. Yet, as Joseph Ratzinger
noted in his commentary on Dei Verbum, “Not everything that exists
in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition, in other
words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and
keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a
legitimate, tradition. Consequently, tradition must not be considered only
affirmatively, but also critically" (Ratzinger, 185). A traditional practice
that seemed appropriate in the past may no longer be appropriate in a new
cultural context. A traditional conviction, when subjected to critical
examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather than on
divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of
authentic Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the. sole
criterion of an authoritative Tradition.
The
recent documents Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum on the
question of the ordination of women show that the Roman Magisterium itself has
recognized the need to reexamine the grounds on which the Church’s
traditional belief in this have been based. Some arguments which have been used
in the past do not appear in recent offcial statements. Other reasons are now
being proposed as the basis in revelation for the Church’s belief that
women cannot be ordained as priests
Studies of the history of this tradition have shown that, while there are some
references to the fact that Jesus chose only men among the Twelve, it is
undeniable that a consistent argument for the exclusion of women from the
priesthood was rooted in the conviction that women were not apt subjects for
such ministry because of the inferiority of their sex and/or their state of
subjection in the social order.
In
1976, the CDF’s Declaration Inter Insigniores gave some references
to the Fathers in the section entitled ‘The Tradition Constantly Preserved
by the Church’. This text is the only place where the CDF has offered
patristic evidence The references provided, however, are all problematic
Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 1, 13, objects to the superstitious hoax of
a Gnostic religious service, but not to the fact that it is women who are
involved Tertullian (De Praescriptione Haereticorum 41, 5) Didascalia
Apostolorum, Chapter 15, object to women teaching and baptizing, but these
activities are possible for women in the Church today and these sources say
nothing about their ordination. The Apostolic Constitutions (Bk III, c
6), drawing on the Didascalia Apostolorum, confirms the same position
without adding anything significant. It does cite Jesus’ way of acting,
but explains it by the natural inferiority of women.. Firmilian, in a letter to
Cyprian (among Cyprian’s letters, n.75 in the Oxford edition) objects to
an heretical baptism and eucharist performed by a woman under demonic
influence; he is directly concerned about the demonic influence, not that the
minister is a woman. Origen (Fragmenta in 1 Cor. 74) argues from 1
Corinthians 14,34 against women preaching in the Church, something permitted
today in some circumstances. St Epiphanius clearly and strongly opposes the
ordination of women (Panarion 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4, t. 2 GCS 37, pp
473, 477-479) but does because he shares the widespread prejudice of his
society that ‘women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited" (79,
1 6). Finally, St John Chrysostom argues not from the example of Christ or the
Church’s duty to follow him (as the CDF says) but from the greatness of
the tasks a bishop must perform. Clearly, these passages reflect a conviction
that women are inferior to men and hence unable to perform priestly activities,
not that they must be excluded from ordination to the priesthood out of
fidelity to the will of Christ.
Inferiority and/or subjection in the social order were the primary reasons
proposed by most of the medieval theologians and canonists, including St Thomas
Aquinas (Commentary on the Sentences, IV, dist. 25, quest. 2, art. 1)
and St Bonaventure (in his Commentary on the Sentences, IV, dist. 25,
quest. 2, art. 1). Commenting on the same section of the Sentences in
his Opus oxoniense, Duns Scotus held that the decision to exclude women
from the priesthood must have been made by Christ. But his argument was that it
would have been an injustice to women if the Church had excluded them on its
own authority. Today many will agree with his premise but not with his
conclusion, since it is based on the idea that Christ could have done justly
what it would have been unjust for the Church to do.
In
sum, the conviction that women are by nature inferior to men and were divinely
intended to be subordinate to men in the social order has played a major role
throughout most of the Church’s history in supporting the belief that
women should not be ordained to the priesthood. To the extent that past
teaching that women could not be ordained was based on these convictions which
are not warranted by divine revelation, that teaching is open to serious
theological reinvestigation.
Furthermore, sacramental development is a matter of development in practice as
well as in teaching. It is an area in which faith and practice are clearly
intertwined, and one in which practical implications have often imposed a fresh
consideration of doctrinal positions. The development of the practice and
teaching of marriage and penance in particular give ample evidence of how the
two fields of practice and doctrine interact. In an era where new practical
issues emerged, there also emerged a new approach to the understanding of the
Church’s teaching on these sacraments.
The
same principle is applicable in the case of ordination. As was remarked by
Saint Jerome, while the terminology of presbyter and bishop was constant in the
early tradition on order, the custom and practice of these orders had evolved
due to changing circumstances (Epistula CXLVI: PL 22, 1192-4, In
Titum 1,5: PL 26, 562-3). In the Middle Ages and in the time of
the Reformation, the episcopacy and priesthood were subjected to new
structuring and given fresh doctrinal explanation in face of historical
circumstances. The Second Vatican Council ushered in a new era of the practice
and theology of ministry on account of changing ecumenical and historical
circumstances. It is within this new practical and doctrinal context that the
issue of women’s ordination has arisen, so that new questions have to be
considered.
In
addition, adequate evaluation of the reasoning prohibiting the ordination of
women requires moral as well as theological assessment since, as both Inter
Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis acknowledge, “the
nonadmission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of
lesser dignity nor can it be construed as discrimination against them” (11
35-39; OS 3). The “Vatican Reflections on the Teaching of
‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ focus the issue sharply, identifying
as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal
personal dignity of men and women" (VR, 404), thereby disavowing gender
discrimination and any contemporary appeal to the inferiority of women as
grounds for excluding them from ordination.. The implication is that were any
practice to entail unjustifiable discrimination, it would be judged immoral and
foreign to the deposit of faith.
The
argument from divine law, that “Christ established things this way”
(OS 2), is not in itself suff’cient to satisfy questions of unjust
discrimination. The insuffciencyhere lies not so much in the fragility of
scriptural and historical warrants for the argument, but in its failure to meet
the demands of traditional Catholic moral theology.That is, the Catholic moral
tradition has consistently premised itself on the belief that the divine will
is not arbitrary, and that moral norms must thus overall make sense". Hence, it
is never suffcient to say simply, “This is the law ” God asks not
only for obedience but also for some degree of understanding.
Indeed, the papal documents and the CDF statements recognize this specific
difficulty by proposing additional arguments from the
“appropriateness” or fittingness" of this practice in the divine plan
for the Church (II 25; OS 2; VR, p 405) Certain Roman texts justify the
restriction of ordained ministry to men by appealsto iconic appropriateness
and/or to beliefs in a natural gender complementarity. The use of these appeals
in support of gender role differentiation has been contested in Catholic moral
as well as systematic theology by those who argue that the “effective
history” of the practices supported by these appeals can be shown to
involve consistent patterns of superiority and inferiority, domination and
subordination, rather than of equality.
While
the magisterium presents arguments for fittingness as an explanation and
corrobation of what is taught, rather than as the foundation of the teaching,
it is always necessary to study tradition to see how much these arguments have
affected teaching about matters of substance. All discussion of theological
anthropology, therefore in its influence on the question of ordination, needs
careful examination.
The
purpose here, however, is not to resolve problems such as these either in
opposition or in agreement with the Vatican documents. It is, rather, to
underline their seriousness; and in so doing to recognize that an adequate
inquiry into the question of whether the nonordination of women is a matter of
divine revelation includes an examination of the morality of the practice.
3.“it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium”
The
final strand of the converging arguments supporting the restriction of ordained
ministry to males is the claim that “it has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal magisterium”.
This
statement of the Vatican Congregation makes it clear that the claim that the
doctrine excluding women from ordination to the priesthood has been infallibly
taught is not based on the dogma of papal infallibility, but rather on the
teaching enunciated by Vatican II about the infallible teaching of the whole
body of Catholic bishops, including, of course, the Bishop of Rome. The
following is the statement of Vatican II to which the Response of the
Congregation refers:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility,
they do nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly even when
dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of
communion among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and teaching
authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a
particular judgment is to be held definitively.
The
reference of the Responsum to Lumen Gentium 25, 2, means that
according to the Congregation, all the conditions laid down in that paragraph
for infallible teaching, are actually fulfilled in this case. There is no doubt
about the fact that Pope John Paul himself has taught that the doctrine
excluding women from the priesthood is to be held definitively. But papal
teaching alone, unless it is a solemn definition, is not enough to make the
doctrine infallible. For a doctrine to be taught infallibly by the ordinary and
universal magisterium it has to be evident that the whole body of Catholic
bishops is teaching the same doctrine and obliging the faithful to give it
their definitive assent.
How
evident does this have to be? Canon 749.3 of the Code of Canon Law replies
“No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this fact is
clearly established”. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one
who claims that a doctrine has been infallibly taught. A statement of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, even approved by the Pope, does not
settle the issue. As noted earlier, whether a doctrine has been infallibly
taught is a question of fact, and canon law requires that this fact be clearly
established.
In
the present case, this means that it has to be a clearly established fact that
the whole body of Catholic bishops is agreed in teaching that the doctrine
excluding women from ordination to the priesthood is a truth to which the
Catholic faithful are obliged to give an irrevocable assent. How could this be
demonstrated? In his encyclical on the value and inviolability of human life,
Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul indicates one way in which this could
be done namely, by consulting all the bishops. In that document the Pope
specifically referred to an “aforementioned consultation” when he
declared that he was teaching “in communion with the bishops” who
“albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement
” (EV, no. 62). Another way it could be demonstrated is suggested by Canon
750 of the Code of Canon Law, where it says that when a doctrine is proposed as
divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is
“manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful”. In
support of its assertion that the doctrine excluding women from the priesthood
has been taught infallibly by the ordinary, universal magisterium, the
Congregation did not, and indeed could not, either to a consultation of all the
bishops or to the common adherence of the Catholic faithful.
Conclusion.
Vatican II declared, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of
its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with
power” (DH, 1). Consequently, in accord with the responsibility proper to
Roman Catholic theologians this paper offers considerations on some of the
fundamental issues raised by the Responsum of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith. It draws upon well-known and widely accepted principles
of Roman Catholic theology. The paper supports the conviction that the whole
Church, and especially its pastors and theologians must continue to inquire
into the exercise of the Church’s authority and responsibbility in this
matter.
There
are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and
its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this
question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of
the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study,
discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church
in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church
is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition
of the Gospel in our day.
Sources
DH... Vatican II. Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious
Freedom).
DII ... Dall’ “Inter Insigniores” all’
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" Documenti e commenti). CDF Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 1997.
EV
... Pope John Paul II. Evangelium vitae. Origins 24 (6 April 1995),
690-730
GS
... Vatican II. Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern. World).
II
... Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Inter Insigniores;
On the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood Origins 6 (February
3, 1977), 519-524.
LG
... Vatican II. Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).
OS
... Pope John Paul II. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Origins 24 (June 9,
1994), 50-52.
PBC ... Pontifical Biblical Commission report. Origins 6 (July 1,
1976), 92-96.
Ratzinger ... Ratzinger, Joseph “The Transmission of Divine
Revelation”, in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Commentary on the Documents
of Vatican II, vol. 3. New York: Herder and Herder, 181- 198.
RD
... Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Reply to the
dubium concerning the teaching contained in the apostolic letter
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.” (October 28.1995). Origins 25
(November 30, 1995), 401, 403. Official text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis
87 (1995), 1114 (AAS).
VR
... “Vatican Reflections On the Teaching of ‘Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis”’, Origins 25 (November 30, 1995), 403-405.
History of the Task Force document on “Tradition
and the Ordination of Women”
At
its June 5, 1997 meeting the Board of the Catholic Theological Society of
America unanimously decided:
- The Board of the Society receives this paper and thanks the panel of
distinguished theologians who have composed it at the request of the Board.
- Further, the Board judges this paper to be an example of the work of
Catholic theologians, who in a spirit of cooperation and ecclesial communion
have presented serious difficulties and questions to the Responsum of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Board intends its work in
this area as a “positive contribution to the maturing of reflection on the
deposit of faith”, as described by Pope John Paul II:
It is certainly
necessary to distinguish the attitude of theologians who, in a spirit of
cooperation and ecclesial communion, present their diffculties and questions,
and thus positively contribute to the maturing of reflection on the deposit of
faith, from the public stance of opposition to the magisterium, which is
described as ‘dissent’; the latter tends to set up a kind of
countermagisterium, presenting believers with alternative positions and forms
of behavior (“How Authority Is Conceived”, Origins 25
[February IS, 1996], p. 573).
- Further, because of the seriousness of the issues raised and the
place of the Society within the communion of the Church, the Board is sending a
copy of this paper to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of Canada and
the United States. In this the Board is attempting to meet the responsibilities
of Catholic Theologians as taught by Article 30 in the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith’s “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the
Theologians”:
If despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part,
the difficulties persist, the theogian has the duty to make known to the
Magisterial authorities the problem raised by the teaching in itself, in the
arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is
presented.
- The Board endorses the conclusion of the paper, that:
There are
serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and
grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this
question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of
the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study,
discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church
in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church
is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition
of the Gospel in our day (Lines 295-301, Tradition and the Ordination of
Women).
Resolution proposed to the convention
Be it resolved: That the Society, assembled at its annual Business Meeting,
after a long process of study and revision, endorses the conclusion of the
paper, “Tradition and the Ordination of Women,” that “There are
serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching (namely,
the teaching that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women to the
priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught and requires the
definitive assent of the faithful) and its grounds in Tradition. There is
serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians
but also within the larger community of the Church.... (I)t seems clear ...
that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the
members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are
necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to
the authentic Tradition of theGospel in our day."
The
Board recommended to the Chair that a vote of the members present at the
Business meeting would be taken by secret ballot and recorded.
Of
248 members present, 216 voted “yes”, 22 voted “no”, and 10
abstained.
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!