 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
‘Disputed questions: authority, priesthood, women.’, by
Elizabeth A. Johnson, Commonweal, vol..123, January 26 1996, pp. 8-10.
Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., is professor of theology at Fordham
University and the author of many books, such as:
*
Consider Jesus: Waves of Renewal in Christology (1992);
* Women,
Earth and Creator Spirit (1993);
* She Who Is: The Mystery of God in
Feminist Theological Discourse (1993);
* How to Paint Miniatures
(1994);
* Pauline Theology: Looking Back, Pressing On (Editor,
1997);
* Friends of God and Prophets: A Feminist Theological Reading of
the Coounity of Saints (1998).
Part of a special section on women and the priesthood. Infallibility
is not a personal attribute of the pope but a charism divinely given to the
church, which the pope may use in deciding major questions of faith or morals.
Pastor aeternus, the document that presented the First Vatican Council's
teaching on papal infallibility, distinguished between "doctrine that must be
held" (doctrina tenenda) and "doctrine that must be believed" (doctrina
credenda). The significant difference between the two is that the former could
be changed whereas the latter could not, and there is disagreement among
theologians over whether tenenda comes within the scope of infallibility. The
application of the concept of tenenda to the ban on women priests by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is discussed.
Thanks to the careful, quick work of canon lawyers and theologians, it
has become clear that the Vatican's recent Responsum ad dubium is not itself
infallible teaching. It has the status of a statement of a Vatican
congregation, no more, no less. Yet the confusing use of infallibility makes
equally clear that Rome is determined to close the question of women's
ordination as it is maturing in the church.
Consulting the faithful on the matter of this doctrine would yield a
different outcome, for interesting combinations of women's giftedness in
ministry, pastoral need, and a deep sense of the injustice of exclusion lead
many in the church to entertain the possibility of this development. Instead of
working patiently and wisely with the question, however, institutional
leadership short-circuits what may well be a God-intended development of
doctrine and tries to impose its answer by authoritarian fiat.
I get the impression that the recourse to sheer power is happening
because those who oppose women's ordination are losing the argument on the
field of reasoning. These reasons are basically three: the example of Jesus,
unbroken tradition , and the need for iconic resemblance.
Regarding the first, let it be stated as plainly as possible that Jesus
never ordinaed twelve men, thus setting up an all-male priesthood. Such an
interpretation is an anachronism projected backward onto the Gospels in the
light of later development. In truth, biblical scholarship demonstrates that
Jesus never ordained anyone; that a distinction must be made between the Twelve
(who had no long-term successors), the apostles, and the disciples; and that
women were among the most active and faithful of apostles and disciples.
Furthermore, even if Jesus did ordain twelve men, this is no warrant for the
church not to ordain women. The Spirit guides the church to do many things that
Jesus did not, according to the needs of the gospel in the course of history.
Regarding the second, history is replete with examples of unbroken
tradition -breaking due to the moral sensibilities of believers, the insights
of critical thinkers, and careful searching on the part of the teaching office,
all converging in the context of cultural change. At one time it was official
church teaching that it was unlawful for married couples to take pleasure in
the marital act; that killing infidels was a way to salvation; that taking
interest on a loan was forbidden; that slavery was permissible; that
discrimination against Jewish people was legitimate; that biblical scholars
could not use historical critical methods on Scripture texts.
How do we discern whether the teaching on women's ordination can be
open to similar development? In The Survival of Dogma, Avery Dulles
adduces the following principle: "No doctrinal decision of the past directly
solves a question that was not asked at the time." For example, the fact that
Paul, quoted by Trent, asserts that Adam was a single individual cannot be used
to refute modern science's idea of polygenism; the question had not even arisen
yet. By extension, "whenever the state of the evidence on any question
materially changes, you have a new question that cannot be fully answered by
appealing to old authorities." The stated reason women were not ordained
throughout the centuries was that they were inferior, or "defective males"
(Aquinas). That reason has crumbled in our day.
Regarding the third, let it be plainly stated that women are icons of
Christ, imago Christi, in every essential way. There is a natural resemblance
between women and Jesus Christ in terms of a common humanity and participation
in divine grace. To teach otherwise is a pernicious error that vitiates the
power of baptism. The naive physicalism that reduces resembling Christ to being
male is so deviant from Scripture and so theologically distorted as to be
dangerous to the faith itself.
The reasons, thus, do not hold up, try as one might to entertain them.
According to traditional Catholic teaching, the human faculty of judgment is
not free, unlike our will. We can give genuine assent only to what presents
itself to our mind as true: "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" (Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom, 1). If a declared
teaching or practice continuously jars our mind as missing the mark, as in the
present case, it is our responsibility to explore and express the reasons why.
This resistance is not to be equated with disloyalty or rebellion, let alone
lack of faith, but with a form of loyalty and service. One is reminded of Saint
Catherine of Siena.
Responsible dissent begins as an act of conscience and continues as
part of a committed life in the church. It is not habitual but arises in
particular instances out of concern for the truth. It requires a certain
discipline in order to be done well. The value guiding it in all cases should
be the common good. Differing with institutional authorities in the church must
always be for the church, for the present and future growth of the whole
community in truth and love. With that controlling value in place, several
discrete norms shape individual and corporate dissent.
Responsible dissent takes place in the context of a deep and abiding
assent to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the church's tradition which
interprets it.
At the outset, the presumption is in favor of the particular teaching.
One should try through prayer and study with an open mind to appreciate the
reasons for the present position. If, through this effort, serious and
well-founded reasons for holding a contrary opinion persist so that it is
impossible in integrity of mind and heart to agree, then one must disagree.
There should be self-criticism about motivation, testing whether
dissent is driven by innate hostility or some other hidden agenda, rather than
by sincere conviction of the truth.
Since public dissent can detract from certain community values, it must
be weighed and decided that the good to be accomplished is in proportion to the
possible harm that might result.
The manner of dissent should be respectful of the leadership office in
the church, not impugning it although disagreeing in this instance.
Presentation of one's views should also respect the consciences of
others in the community who disagree, and the situation of those who have not
investigated or cannot investigate complex issues.
While clear in resistance, the voice of dissent should be inviting a
dialogue, rather than competitive in a win-lose way. The overall purpose is to
promote the truth in love by urging the teaching office of the church to deeper
listening and reflection.
Over the years, informed, responsible disagreement has been a gift to
the church whereby the criticism born of love has empowered growth. In my view,
the recent noninfallible statement about the alleged infallibility of the
tradition about women's ordination calls for just this sort of response.
Elizabeth A. Johnson
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!