 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
Here are some of the books Greshake has written:
*
Gottes Heil, Glück des Menschen: Theologische Perspektiven
(1983)
* Priestersein (1991)
* Resurrectio Mortuorum
(1991)
* Geschenkte Freiheit (1992)
* Erlöst in einer
unerlösten Welt (1995)
* Quellen geistlichen Lebens (with
others, 4 vols)
* Der dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie
(1997)
* An dem dreieinen Gott glauben. Ein Schlüssel zum
Verstehen (1998)
* Die Wüste bestehen. Erlebnis und geistliche
Erfahrung (1999).
‘Declaring My Position.’ Response to the
Declaration of the Congregation For Doctrine regarding the doctrine proposed in
the apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, by Gisbert Greshake,
Pastoralblatt 48 (1996) 56-57.
Translated into English and reprinted on the Internet with permission
from the author.
In
the Declaration of the Congregation for Doctrine dated 28/10/1995 it is stated
that the exclusion of women from the ordination to the priesthood is an
infallible doctrine of the ordinary and universal magisterium. In a
half-official commentary in “The Osservatore Romano” (German edition
of 24/11/1995) it is further explained that “the final and infallible
character of this doctrine of the Church does not originate with the letter
”Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ... in this case an act of the ordinary
magisterium, which is not infallible in itself, declares the infallible
character of a doctrine which the Church already possesses”.
In
response to this declaration I give the following considered assessment as
Resident Professor for Dogmatics at the Catholic Faculty of the University of
Freibourg:
Considering the fact that I myself -- in contradistinction to many of my
German-language theological colleagues -- am rather reserved in my opinion
regarding the ordination of women, no one will be able to contend that I would
approach Roman declarations about this issue with a fixed prejudice. With all
the greater candour I can therefore express my judgment that I consider the
last document of the Congregation for Doctrine in its argumentation to be
defective, since it shows a lack of discernment on an important matter.
In
canon 749 § 3 we read: “A doctrine is only then to be considered as
infallibly defined when this has been clearly established”. Now this
qualification of “being infallible” does not only refer to a truth of
doctrine which is explicitly proposed as infallible by a conciliar of papal
magisterium, but also for a truth of doctrine which - as the Roman congregation
states pointing to Lumen Gentium 25,2 - , is “grounded on
God’s written word and has been continuously preserved in the tradition of
the Church from the beginning and put in practice, and presented through the
ordinary and universal magisterium as infallible”. And this is precisely
supposed to be the case regarding the impossibility to ordain women as
priests.
However, the congregation has omitted a crucial word from Lumen Gentium
25, namely “as” and has not noticed that the quoted passage stands
not without reason within a limiting context. For the original says that the
bishops (therefore the ordinary and universal magisterium) only then
“proclaim the doctrine of Christ infallibly” “whenever they ...
in agreement about a particular doctrine, present it as definitively
binding”. That is exactly the hub of the question.
In
order to distinguish a doctrine as an infallible part of revealed faith, it is
not enough to say that that particular doctrine has from the beginning been
preserved and put into practice and been binding , but it must also be proved
that this doctrine was imposed as definitively binding.
Let
us look at an example: at the beginning of this century an evolutionary
interpretation of creation was condemned by the magisterium on a wide front
with the argument that the Church had continuously and authoritatively taught,
on the basis of sacred Scripture, that God has created the world directly and
immediately. Through a painful process the magisterium had to learn that its
doctrine stood in the continuity of the tradition of faith, but that this
doctrine had not been presented as definitively binding in the way people
understood it, since the ‘ancient’ doctrine now unfolded itself as
completely different in a new context.
We
may not simply assume that the ‘impossibility’ to ordain women
stands in a tradition of faith which was and is presented as definitively
binding. It must be proved on the basis of canon 749 § 3, in order
that it be “clearly established”. But that is finally and
conclusively also a historical question. I do not know any relevant documents
from the magisterium from which one could conclude that the possibility of
ordination for women was rejected as definitively binding, even less so
as definitively binding throughout the continuity of history. And
exactly it is this reality “as definitively binding” that matters.
As
long as the Congregation for Doctrine does not take note of this decisive
factor, its argumentation remains a house built on sand, that is without
decisive argumentative force.
Of
course, this does not decide the real question regarding the ordination of
women in either a positive or negative manner. One thing can however be
“clearly established” in my view: the problem can not be resolved or
dismissed as has now been done in the last document of the Congregation for
Doctrine.
Gisbert Greshake
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!