 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
‘A pastoral response. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's
announcement concerning the ordination of women’, by David Knight, U.S.
Catholic, vol. 61, April 1996, pp. 11-13.
Reprinted on the Internet with permission from
US Catholic. Address: 205 West Monroe
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606; subscription line: --1-800-328-6515.
Fr. David Knight is a pastoral theologian and pastor at Sacred Heart
Church in Memphis, Tennessee. He is well known for his popular and practical
books, among them:
* His Way (1981, 1997)
*
Cloud by Day/ Fire by Night (1985)
* Confession Can Change Your
Life (1985)
* His Word, Letting it Take Root and Bear Fruit in our
Lives(1986, 1998)
* Best True Ghost Stories of the 20th Century
(1986)
* Lift Up Your Eyes to the Mountains. A Guide to the Spiritual
Life (1988)
* Make Me a Sabbath of Your Heart (1988)
*
Mary in an Adult Church: from Devotion to Response(1988)
*
Blessed are They: Call to Conversion (1988)
* Chastity Who Lives
It? The Baptized Christian’s Call to Conversion (1990)
* Good
News About Sex (1991)
* Armchair Retreat (1994)
*
Reaching Jesus: Five Steps to a Fuller Life (1997)
* I Can Read
about Alligators and Crocodiles (1999)
* Living God’s Word
(1999)
The writer examines the meaning to Catholics of a Vatican teaching
denying women ordination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)
appears to have stated that it has been infallibly taught that women cannot be
ordained priests. The use of the word infallibly is misleading, however.
Although Catholics associate the word with a solemn declaration by the pope on
such matters as faith or morals, the CDF has only announced that it is their
official opinion, which is not infallible, that women can never be ordained and
that Catholics must accept this decision on faith that God has decreed it so.
If Pope John Paul had wished to make his precise interpretations on the issue
definitive, he would have had to use his extraordinary teaching authority to
make an infallible clarifying definition. Everyone agrees that he did not do
this, however.
Headlines around the country have said that it has been "infallibly
taught" by the Catholic Church that women cannot be ordained priests.
At first glance, it would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith is saying just that. However, the use of the word infallibly is
misleading here. Most Catholics immediately associate the word infallible with
a special promise given by God to preserve the Bishop of Rome from error when,
on extraordinary occasions, he chooses to speak ex cathedra--using his full
authority as pope--to make a solemn declaration about faith or morals. This has
only happened once, in 1950, and no one is claiming that it has happened again.
What has happened is that the CDF has notified all the bishops that it
is their official opinion (which is not infallible) that women can never be
ordained. They have also given it as their opinion (again, not infallible) that
this teaching has been believed in the church so universally, and for so long,
that it must be accepted as belonging to the "deposit of faith." This means
that, in the opinion of the CDF, anyone who wants to be a full, orthodox
Catholic has to accept it on faith that God has decreed women may never be
ordained.
There is no question here of the Catholic Church's authority to teach
infallibly. That is very clear, and it is important to keep it clear. The CDF's
statement, however, is an official opinion that this particular issue is a
matter of faith.
In an effort to give the statement more credibility in the eyes of the
church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger showed it to John Paul II in a private
audience and reported in his cover letter to the bishops that the pope
"approved this Reply ... and ordered it to be published."
Ratzinger knows perfectly well that the pope's non-infallible approval
of an opinion does not make it any more infallible than it was before. But
there is a tendency among Catholics to forget that papal infallibility is a
power confined within very strict boundaries.
And when those boundaries are not clearly acknowledged by those whose
job it is to speak for the pope, the aura of infallibility tends to seep out
and spread a false light of certitude over everything that issues from a
Vatican office. This is ultimately very harmful to the teaching authority of
the church. When people are given the impression that everything is infallible,
there comes a point when they conclude that nothing is infallible.
AS A MATTER OF FAITH
For pastoral reasons, it is important to make sure everyone understands
this. The issue I am addressing here is not the question of women's ordination;
it is the question of faith in the teaching of the church. This is a pastoral
question, and it has nothing to do with whether women can be ordained. The
question is only whether Catholics are required to accept as a matter of faith
that women cannot be ordained.
Suppose that on historical grounds some particular Catholic does not
agree that the church has always accepted as a revelation of God that women
could not be ordained? Suppose someone interprets the church's practice of not
ordaining women as being simply a matter of culture, not of theology? What if a
loyal Catholic thinks it more likely that throughout the world the church did
not ordain women for the same reason that for generations bishops in the South
did not ordain black men to serve as diocesan priests--because it was simply
unthinkable in the cultural climate of the times? Would such a Catholic have to
leave the church?
Therefore, what must I as a priest and pastor say to a Catholic who
comes to me in the sacrament of Reconciliation and says, "Father, I just cannot
believe that Jesus Christ taught that women should never be ordained. Am I
allowed to receive the Eucharist as a Catholic in full communion with the
church?"
Do I answer by saying that this is indeed a matter of faith, and that
all those who cannot accept it must accept as a consequence that they are no
longer Catholics and should not receive the Body of Christ in Communion?
Or do I say that, regardless of whether or not this always was or is now
the universal belief of the Catholic Church, the fact is that the church has
done nothing to require anyone as a Catholic to accept this teaching as a
matter of faith. So any Catholic who does not agree with the opinion of the
Vatican Congregation is free to disagree--respectfully, and with humble
self-questioning, but in good conscience.
There are, however, a few confusing details of language in the
statement issued by the CDF.
First, their declaration is put in the form of a response to a doubt
(dubium). Normally this would mean that someone had a doubt about something and
sent a question in to the CDF. But the cover letter simply says that there have
been so many "problematic and negative statements by certain theologians,
organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of
laypeople" calling into question the "definitive character" of John Paul's
teaching about the ordination of women that "this Congregation has judged it
necessary to dispel the doubts ... that have arisen."
The CDF is apparently giving an answer to a question no one has asked
them. That is legitimate, of course, but in the light of Vatican II's explicit
recognition that the general consensus of church members about matters of faith
is important in determining what must be believed, it makes a difference who
has a problem with what.
It would seem that the widespread nonacceptance of the Vatican's
position is not a problem for the church, but it is a problem for the CDF.
Unfortunately, by putting their declaration in the form of a response to a
question, the CDF has given the impression that their own concern about
disagreement is a concern being voiced by the church.
A second, and more serious, confusion arises from the use of the word
infallibly. As we said above, most people associate infallibility with
something that belongs to the pope. When they think about it, of course, they
know that the church as a whole teaches infallibly whenever bishops from all
over the world get together in council with the bishop of Rome and declare
something to be a doctrine of faith. But "teaching infallibly" normally
suggests an extraordinary declaration made with a clear and explicit use of the
hierarchy's God-given authority to decide between truth and error in matters of
revealed doctrine.
For example, if I as a priest and pastor stand up in the pulpit and say
that Jesus Christ is God made flesh to save the world, I am speaking
infallibly, because I am proclaiming truth revealed by God. However, no one
would ever describe the ordinary preaching of an ordinary deacon or priest as
"infallible teaching," even if every word of it comes straight out of scripture
.
When the CDF states, then, that the teaching about women's ordination
"requires definitive assent, since it has been set forth infallibly by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium," it gets people confused. Usually
theologians make a distinction between what is the ordinary teaching of the
church and what has been taught infallibly. The committee's declaration
obscures this distinction.
The problem with the church's ordinary teaching is that it is
frequently imprecise. For example, it used to be part of the ordinary and
universal teaching in the church that no one could ever lend money at interest.
Everyone assumed that this was an "infallible" teaching (to use the CDF's word)
because it had always been taught that money was nothing but a nonproductive
medium of exchange that could not morally be rented out like a farm or a mule
could, because money did no work. So it was a common and universal belief that
Christians must not be selfish in this way.
When, however, the teachers in the church finally caught on to what the
bankers had already come to see but could not explain to them--namely, that
money had become capital, and that it could be put to work very
productively--then the teaching was not canceled out, but it was clarified. The
principle about selfishly getting something for nothing still held, but its
application to modern-day financing was modified. Now Catholics may
legitimately lend money at interest because, as capital, the money they loan
will be working for the borrower instead of for them.
CHRIST, FOR EXAMPLE
It is conceivable that further reflection and research could bring the
church to modify the age-old practice of not ordaining women. The principle
will not be changed, of course. The basic argument or principle used to forbid
the ordination of women was summed up by the United States bishops' Secretariat
for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices as "the example of Christ, and the constant
witness of Church tradition to that example. The fundamental point upon which
the Holy Father [John Paul II] insisted was that the Church has no authority to
do in this area what Christ himself did not do, i.e. ordain women."
The church will certainly never deny that the example of Christ should
be normative in all Christian decisions. John Paul himself has taught this with
a radicalness so inspiring that it could actually revolutionize Catholic moral
teaching if it were taken seriously. For instance, he specifically points to
Christ's example of living in poverty as an example that should be normative
for all Christian lifestyles. But there is certainly room for greater clarity
about just how the church is to follow the example of Christ in particular
instances.
In what areas does the church have the authority to do what Christ did
not do? From the gospel account it would seem that Jesus did not call anyone
who was wealthy, or who had not left all his possessions to follow him. In
fact, Jesus specifically forbade his apostles, who are our models for bishops,
to live in affluence or to be addressed by pretentious titles. But the church
does not teach that she has "no authority whatsoever" to ordain as bishops
anyone who is enamored of wealth and prestige.
And if the racial prejudice that kept African Americans from being
ordained in the southern United States had been worldwide, and if this practice
of the southern bishops had been universal throughout church history, would we
be saying today that the church "has no authority whatsoever" to ordain black
men because Jesus never did?
In light of the church's refusal to be rigid in following these
examples of Jesus, further study of what John Paul calls the "constant witness
of Church tradition " might lead to clarifications about the church's belief
(and therefore about the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium)
concerning the ordination of women.
Whatever has been taught by the ordinary magisterium from the beginning
of the church's existence as a doctrine of faith certainly is one. But the
difference between the ordinary teaching of the church and the extraordinary or
infallible teaching is that the church uses her infallible teaching authority
to be precise.
The fact that John Paul and the CDF felt it necessary to be more
precise about what the ordinary teaching of the church has been concerning
women's ordination indicates that the ordinary teaching is not precise in this
area--about why women cannot be ordained, and about what the church's
historical practice was actually based on (whether it was based on theology,
for example, or cultural prejudice).
If the pope wanted to make his precise interpretations on this point
truly definitive, he would have had to use his extraordinary teaching authority
to make an infallible clarifying definition. Everyone agrees he did not do
this.
Catholics also must agree that whatever the universal belief of the
church has been, it is certainly infallible. But no one has to believe in John
Paul's interpretation of that belief that it definitively excludes the
ordination of women. The pope's interpretation has not been taught as an
infallible clarification and, therefore, does not have to be accepted by
Catholics as a doctrine of faith.
The CDF hopes, of course, that everyone in the church will agree with
their opinion. In their cover letter to the bishops they expressed confidence
that the bishops "will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and
favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of
theologians, pastors of souls, and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions
will not again be proposed."
In compliance with this request, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla, president of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States, has published
his response: "The Congregation's answer is unequivocal. This teaching belongs
to the deposit of faith and is 'to be held always, everywhere, and by all.' I
ask all in the Church in the United States, especially theologians and pastors
who instruct and form our Catholic people in the faith, reverently to receive
this teaching as definitive."
Pilla is apparently convinced that the Vatican position is true. But he
knows that it isn't in fact definitive, so he "asks" everyone to "reverently
receive this teaching as definitive." When something really is definitive, the
church doesn't ask priests and theologians to receive it; she proclaims it as
true and leaves them no choice.
ADVICE TO PREACHERS
So what choice does a priest have today? Now that the CDF has taken
such a strong position, what, if anything, should a priest say about this
teaching from the pulpit?
The clergy have by ordination a special association with their bishops
that makes them public spokesmen for the church. For this reason it is
inappropriate for priests or deacons, when speaking from the pulpit at Mass, to
contradict official church teaching or pronouncements.
So I would like to make it very clear that neither in this article nor
from the pulpit would I say that the pope's teaching about women's ordination
is not definitive. It may well be that the pope and the CDF have, in fact, hit
upon a true doctrine of the deposit of faith. Who am I to say whether women can
or cannot be ordained?
On the other hand, I cannot go as far as Pilla asks and positively say
that this teaching is definitive. It has not been declared definitive
infallibly, and no convincing reasons have been offered to prove that this ever
has been, in fact, a doctrine taught in the church as a revealed truth of
faith. So I cannot personally accept the teaching as definitive, but I would
not discourage anyone who can.
What I do insist on--and believe every pastor, teacher, and preacher
has a serious obligation to insist on publicly--is that no Catholic is obliged
to accept this teaching as definitive, and no Catholic may be denied the
sacraments or accused of not being in full communion with the church because he
or she does not accept the opinion of the pope and of his doctrinal committee
about this issue.
Suppose we leave Catholics with the impression--which they are being
given now, intentionally or not--that this doctrine has been declared true by
an exercise of the church's infallible teaching authority. And suppose that the
next pope decides to ordain women after all--which could very easily happen if
in fact the opinion of the present pope and of his committee on doctrine is
wrong.
If people then began to leave the church in droves, saying that the
church had contradicted her own infallible teaching, we would be in a very weak
position trying to explain, after the fact, that the teaching of John Paul and
his doctrinal committee never was really infallible, and that we really knew it
all the time but just never said anything.
There is error in excessive affirmation as well as in denial. It is as
much an error to say there are four divine Persons in the Blessed Trinity as to
say there are only two. And it is as wrong to make the pope more infallible as
it is to make him less. On the practical plane, to give the impression,
intentionally or not, that something is being taught infallibly when it is not
is pastorally irresponsible and dangerous.
Children who cry "Wolf!" just to get attention make the ears of the
village deaf to their cries. And teachers who cry "Infallible!" just to get
acceptance for their opinions destroy the credibility of the church's teaching
authority. That is precisely what we need to be concerned about.
David M. Knight
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!