 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Hugh O'Regan.
Editor of the on-line magazine the
San Fransisco Bay Catholic
published on the Internet at
http://www.sfbayc.org/magazine/
On November 18, 1995, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
sent a letter to the bishops of the world stating that the ban on
women priests, as promulgated by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter:
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was to be considered by all Catholics as an infallible
teaching.
In this paper I will demonstrate why Cardinal Ratzinger
overstepped his authority in Responsum ad Dubium... and why Roman Catholics in
good conscience may respectfully reject his position. To put it bluntly, the
Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was simply
wrong. His Responsum ad Dubium ... is
theologically flawed.
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the
written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in
the Tradition of theChurch, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary
and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman
Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren(cf. Lk 22:32),
has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating
what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit
of the faith."(Responsum ad Dubium regarding OrdinatioSacerdotalis)
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
At this point it is important to note what the Cardinal
is not saying. He does not claim that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an exercise
of an ex cathedra statement. Nor does he claim that the specific ban in the
document is an exercise of ex cathedra infallibility. The Cardinal knows full
well that any such claim would be problematic and would fail to pass the test
of Catholic theology - not to mention the requirements as enumerated by the
Ecumenical Councils Vatican I and Vatican II.
Philip S. Kaufman, O.S.B. commenting on Lumen Gentium summarized the
following five modes of formal Church teaching:
Non Infallible Church
Teaching:
1) Pope teaching authoritatively but not
ex-cathedra.
2) Bishop teaching in his own diocese.
Infallible Church
Teaching:
3) Pope Teaching ex cathedra.
4) Bishops
solemnly defining in council.
5)Bishops exercising the ordinary and
universal magisterium.
Source: "Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic"
by:
Father Philip S. Kaufman, O.S.B.
Let us now review the Ratzinger statement. We see that
the Cardinal is proposing that Pope John Paul II's ban against ordaining women
was infallible and irreformable because of the fifth mode of teaching as
outlined in Lumen Gentium. The Cardinal refers to the document of Vatican 2
directly. Yet the fifth mode of teaching as stipulated by article 25 of Lumen
Gentium speaks of a mode of infallible teaching of the worldwide Bishops of the
Catholic Church.
This is not a mode of teaching that the Holy Father may
usurp as his own. Vatican II does stipulate that such declarations by the
bishops are to be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome before they may be considered
Infallible. However, this is not the case in the current situation. Vatican
II does not give the Holy Father the right nor the power to bypass his bishops
and confirm a position of which the bishops themselves have not reached any
demonstrated consent. It is simply not within the power of any pope to
teach in such a manner unless he is speaking ex-cathedra.
A careful study of Vatican I and II will demonstrate
that while Ordinatio Sacradotalis is to be treated with respect and must
considered as authoritative by all Catholics, it certainly does not fulfill
the requirements of a teaching that confirms the union of Catholic bishops.
We nowhere see such a unanimous position of our bishops
and such unanimous agreement is absolutely essential for any supposed
confirmation to have taken place. Simply stated, if there was indeed no
consensus by the bishops on this topic of the possibility (not appropriateness)
- it is unreasonable to think that the Holy Father could confirm a consensus
when there is no evidence of the existence of such a consensus. It is certainly
unreasonable, and this is the weak link and fatal flaw of the Ratzinger
document.
More than Faith and Morals
We should now take a look at the content of this
"supposedly" infallible statement by Pope John Paul II. In the realm of Faith
and Morals does the Bishop of Rome enjoy a free hand in declaring statements as
infallibly defined? If the Holy Father has a dream that this or that position
is true; is this a basis for an infallible decision? When a Pope becomes
convinced that a faith position is absolutely true or that a moral position is
absolutely correct, does his conviction give him free reign to speak ex
cathedra? I maintain that the theological answer is ...NO!
In point of fact Church teaching does not give the Holy
Father free reign in this matter. Cardinal Ratzinger refers to Lumen gentium in
his declaration that John Paul II speaks with the infallible voice on this
matter. Lets look at what Lumen gentium itself has to say:
"This infallibility with which the divine
Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and
morals extends in as far extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must
be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded."(Lumen Gentium, no. 25,
)
This councilor document was not presenting
some new or novel understanding of infallibility. Instead, it confirms the
traditional theological position that defined declarations and infallible ex
cathedra statements must be limited to positions that may be clearly
demonstrated in Sacred Scripture or Holy Tradition. Our Tradition is mainly
silent and indeed might only reflect the cultural bias of past civilizations
rather than the divine will. The fact there have been credible reports of
women's ordinations in at least one formerly communist country of Eastern
Europe should not be overlooked and deserves investigation. God's truth is
often presented by byways and crooked paths. No, It is no accident that
Ordinatio Sacradotalis attempts to use scripture to prove the incapability of
the Church to ordain women. According to the mind of the Church the connection
is absolutely essential if a claim to Infallibility is to be sustained.
Searching the words of Jesus we see no prohibition
against women as priests. On the matter of the
possibility of such ordinations the New Testament is silent. On the matter of
the successors of Saint Peter to bind and to loose; the Scripture is quite
clear. How then may the Cardinal make the claim of infallibility for this ban
when there is no direct scriptural evidence? This declaration of infallibility
has no scriptural warrant.
What Does This Mean?
The Ratzinger declaration appears to be defective. In
the matter of form, the letter incorrectly attempts to make use of the bishops
power to teach infallibly. It is the union of bishops who may resort to
exercising the ordinary and universal magisterial authority to speak with
infallibility. Yes, the Holy Father must confirm such teaching but the Holy
Father may not bypass the Bishops and exercise that authority
himself.
In the matter of the object of the infallible teaching,
the Ratzinger document is defective. Such teachings are not based upon dreams
or even visions or absolute conviction of the Bishop of Rome. The Church
teaches that the object of the teaching must be clearly grounded in Sacred
Tradition. No such Tradition exists. The apparent absence of such ordinations
is not conclusive. On the contrary, there have been credible reports that
within our own lifetime, women in Catholic Churches have already been ordained.
The local Church while suffering under the anti-religion policies of communist
dominated Eastern Europe may have ordained several women to the sacred
priesthood. These ordinations were reportedly performed by validly consecrated
Roman Catholic Bishops. If true the very weight of Tradition might well have
shifted against theRatzinger interpretation.
The Cardinal would do well to devote some time in
providing Catholics with proof that meets the theological standards of moral
certainty before he expects Catholics to give assent. Until he provides such
proofs, most Catholics are obligated only to give the letter respect. Bishops,
having the power to ordain - and women willing to be ordained are obliged to
obey Pope John Paul II - at least until some more serious emergency (lack of
Eucharist perhaps?) compels some bishop to act and some woman to accept.
Educated Catholics will remain open to the arguments
of the Pope and of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but they are
by no means obligated to bend their minds and wills in agreement with the Holy
Father's or the Cardinal's position.
This issue remains very much open!
Hugh O'Regan
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!