 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
- the
Professor replies
by Professor Ladislas Orsy SJ
published in
CéideMay/june 1999, vol 2 no 5, pp. 30-34. Moy Valley Resources,
Ballina, Co. Mayo; here republished with permission of the editor.
Read first Cardinal
Ratzinger’s statement.
I
thank Cardinal Ratinger for his communication and for giving me the opportunity
to reflect at a greater depth on the issue under discussion. He graciously
recognizes that my original contribution was written “happily in an
objective manner and without polemics”. I intend to continue in the same
manner.
Right
from the beginning to the very end of this article, the reader should be aware
that this exchange is not about the acceptance of the articles of faith but
about faith seeking understanding - to use an expression of St. Anselm of
Canterbury. The deposit of faith is fully accepted, the authentic magisterium
is respected. The debate is about the interpretation of historical and
theological data. It is a communication of insights and judgements on a level
where human minds are struggling with the intelligence of divine mysteries.
The
reader should be aware also that the concern about the nature of
“definitive doctrine” is spread far and wide in the theological
community. The importance of the issue has been forcefully stated by the French
Jesuit theologian Bernard Sesboué in an article in ‘Etudes’ in
reference to Ad tuendam fidem:
No
bishop, no priest, no cleric should remain unconcerned about a document that
potentially carries such heavy consequences for ecclesiology; it is an effort
to “put in place” (establish, construct}an ecclesiology.
The
reason for this call to be concerned is that -
We
are in the presence of a new domain of the exercise of the infallibility of the
church.(1)
In
other terms, the publication of Ad tuendam fidem is virtually as
momentuous as the definition of the papal infallibility was at Vatican Council
I.
If
that is true, we are indeed witnessing a development that has heavy
consequences for the internal life of the church, for the ecumenical movement,
and for the correct presentation of the church to the human family.
In
responding to Cardinal Ratzinger, I shall follow his numbering of the topics.
1.
The category of “definitive teaching”
The
central and principal issue in this debate, as it is perceived by many
theologians (including Bernard Sesboué) is the following :Has there been
an extension of the doctrine of the papal infallibiity by the introduction of
the category of “definitive teaching’ ? If Yes, we are indeed dealing
with a development of doctrine as momentuous as the first definition of the
infallibility by Vatican Council I; if not, we still have the task of
determining the precise standing (authority, weight, theological note) of the
category of “definitive teaching” which has been made part of the
official teaching of the holy See
The
resolution of this issue requires an examination of the pertinent historical
and doctrinal data. A detailed and exhaustive study, however, within the
framework of this article is not possible: yet, a substantial demonstration is
necessary, otherwise the conclusion will not be convincing. I intend to give
precisely such a brief but substantial answer. It will be an attempt to
disentangle the elements of a complicated problem and to offer a reasonable
solution; a solution that is no more than a theological opinion and a
contribution to a much larger debate. Also, I feel that I can do justice better
to the concerns of the Cardinal - and to the topic itself - by a concise
systematic exposition than by reflecting on a few particular points.
The
debate is, of course, necessary. Many of our beliefs and convictions reached
maturity and enabled the magisterium to reach a final decision because the
issues were thoroughly discussed “in the schools”. This is now the
dogma of the immaculate conception, or of the papal infallibility, or more
recently the doctrine of the episcopal collegiality has become part of our
Catholic beliefs. There is no reason why the category of “definitive
teaching” should not go through this traditional and venerable process.
Throughout my presentation, for charity’s sake, I shall progress by
raising questions. The first one, the point of departure, is historical: What
is the doctrine of Vatican Council I and II on papal infallibility?
There
is an enormous amount of literature on this question; for our purposes it
should be enough to answer it in a summary way:
Due
to the assistance of the Spirit, the pope has the capacity to be an infallible
witness of the revelation entrusted to the whole church; he can infallibly
testify through a solemn ex cathedra definition; the proper object of
his witnessing is the revelation; the faithful, to keep their communion with
the church intact have the obligation to receive his testimony with an act of
faith. The peaceful and universal reception of a definition by the faithful is
the authentic sign that the pope has spoken in the Spirit.
Since
our inquiry centres on the question of whether or not the scope of the
pope’s infallibility has been extended, we should pay special attention to
the object of infallibility as it was determined by the two Vatican Councils.
For this, we have the statement of Gerard Philips who has thoroughly
investigated the mind of Vatican Council I and played a major role in the
debating of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, at
Vatican Council II. He writes:
. .
Vatican Council I has occupied itself with the [object of infallibility only
tangentially... The Constitution Pastor aeternus, Chapter 4, affirms
simply that the assistance of the Holy Spirit is assured to the successor of
Peter to conserve religiously and to proclaim faithfully {sancte custodire et
fifeliter exponere) the revealed doctrine. The Fathers of Vatican Council II
specify today that the privilege of infallibility extends as far as the
conservation and proclamation of the deposit of the faith entrusted to the
church requires it. That far and no farther. Once this limit is set, it
includes a certain number of fundamental truths determined by philosophy as far
as they are expressions of universal human experience. If someone, for example,
held that the human reason is for ever unable to grasp truth with certainty,
logically, he could not accept an article of faith either. Total relativism or
agnosticism are not condemned by the revelation for the simple reason that
neither the Scriptures nor the early church has come across a similar error.
The theologians include under the same title of “indirect object” of
infallibility a whole series of other elements, among them those which they
call dogmatic facts. All this belongs to the domain of professional
theology; the Council itself is content to affirm the basic principle; all the
rest it leaves tothe cure of technical treatises. (Emphasis is
mine.)(2)
That
is, for Vatican Council I, the object of an infallible definition extended as
far as the revelation, neither more, nor less. The Council did not wish to
pronounce any further. Whatever teaching and knowledge existed beyond that
field was left to professional theologians to explain and to qualify. On the
basis of Gasser’s well known report, the Council fathers understood but
did not define that - if the need ever arose the pope could exercise his
infallibility with a solemn ex cathedra act to affirm a truth that is
not explicitly in the revelation but is absolutely necessary to safeguard it.
Vatican Council II confirmed that the privilege of infallibility extended as
far as the preservation and proclamation of the revelation demanded it. Both
Councils were clear that a solemn ex cathedra act was a sign of an
infallible definition.
Thus,
the two Vatican Councils left us with two distinct levels of knowledge, one
infallibly defined, another not defined. The second level was a complex
continuum. The theologians had the task of handling it. They did and they
assigned differing authorities (“theological notes”) to various parts
of it. They qualified some propositions as being of “catholic faith”,
they called others “theological opinions”. (To speak of “levels
of knowledge” is, of course, figurative speech; some theologians prefer to
use the term “parcels” for the same classification; the French
introduced the word “baskets”, corbeilles de connaissance.)
From
the Councils we turn to the recent documents of the Holy See, especially to
Ad tuendam fidem: they speak with authority of the theological reality
of “definitive teaching”. What is this category? We can find the
answer in the Commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone; I
shall follow them closely, often word by word. They introduce their explanation
by comparing the nature of “definitive teaching” with that of
infallible definition.
What
is the capacity of the magisterium? How far does the privilege of infallibility
extend? The magisterium has the capacity to teach infallibly both doctrine
divinely revealed and doctrine to be held definitively. In each case, the
magisterium can teach either with an act that is defining or with an act that
is not defining. If the act is defining, the magisterium is teaching ex
cathedra with a solemn definition; if the act is not defining (that is, a
proposition is stated definitively), the magisterium is still teaching
infallibly. It follows that the infallibilty of the magesterium can become
operational either with a solemn definition or with a definitive statement.
Comment: papal infallibility is operational in definitive statements; no solemn
ex cathedra act is required.
What
are the objects of “definitive statements”? They are points of
doctrine that determine dogmas or norms of morality and are necessary for
keeping and expounding the deposit of faith but are not proposed by the
magisterium as formally revealed. Such teachings are linked to the revelation
either by historical relationship or by logical connection.
What
is the theological standing (weight, authority) of propositions definitively
taught? They are irreformable. They can, therefore, be solemnly defined by the
pope when he speaks ex cathedra or by the college of bishops gathered in
council; they can be stated infallibly by the ordinary and universal
magisterium; the same magisterium can propose them as dogmas.
What
is the obligation of the faithful? The faithful should respond to the solemn
definitions and to the “definitive declarations” with firm and
definitive assent based on faith in the Holy Spirit who confers the charism of
infallibility on the magisterium. There is no difference in the nature of the
assent owed to revealed doctrine and to the doctrine to be held definitively:
in each case the assent must be full and irrevocable.
The
assent, however, in the case of revelation is based on faith in the authority
of the word of God; in the case of “definitive teaching” is based on
faith in the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium, of the Spirit
who endows the magisterium with the charism of infallibility.
What
would be the consequence of the rejection of a point of doctrine definitively
stated? It would be the loss of full communion with the Catholic church.
Comment: Traditionally, the loss of full communion cannot mean anything else
than schism or heresy.
Is
there a ditference between the doctrine of the Councils and that of the
Commentary? Yes, the evidence is compelling and the conclusion is inevitable: a
development has taken place. With the introduction of the category of
“definitive teaching”, we have three levels (parcels, corbeilles) of
knowledge: the first one contains propositions defined, the second one
teachings definitively proclaimed, the third one other official pronouncements
of the church.
The
category of the “definitive teaching” as it is presented in the
Commentary is new.
The
scope of papal infallibility. however, has been extended only if this new
category has virtually the same characteristics as the first one. Hence the
question: Is there a real difference between infallible definitions and
definitive statements?
To
answer this question, we must compare them. To compare them, we must know the
nature (or the essence in scholastic language) of each type of teaching.
No
need to delay with the doctrine of infallible teaching as it emerges from the
two Vatican Councils - many reliable explanations exist.(3) For the theory of
“definitive teaching” we have ample information in the Commentary.
Its principal characteristics are: it is guaranteed by the assistance of the
Holy Spirit; it is irreformable; its rejection is equivalent to a loss of full
communion with the church.
That
is, according to the Commentary, a “definitive statement” has all the
essential characteristics of an infallible definition. In each case the truth
of a proposition is assured by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the teaching
is irreformable, and the acceptance of it is a condition of full communion.
Again, the evidence is compelling and the conclusion is inescapable: the
Commentary presents the nature of “definitive teaching” (no matter
what the vocabulary) as equivalent to that of an infallible ex cathedra
definition. Both are equally irreformable (there are no degrees in
irreformability); both are irreformable because of the assistance of the Holy
Spirit (there is no purely human way of reaching irreformability); both demand
assent to keep the communion intact (there are no degrees in full communion).
Bernard Sesboué writes:
The
key word that conveys the intention of the text (of the document Ad tuendam
fidem is the word definitive. Now, the terms definitive, irreformable, and
infallible are interchangeable (they have a common meaning). We are therefore,
in the presence of a new domain of the exercise in the infallibility of the
church.(4)
This
text is so important that for the sake of accuracy it should be quoted in the
original.
Le
mot clé qui l’intention du texte, est ici celui de
définitif. Or les notions définitif, d’irréformable
et d’infallible communiquent entre elles. Nous sommes donc en presence de
la revendication d’un nouveau domaine de l’exercise de
I’infallibilité de l’Eglise.)
If
there are differences between the two types of teaching, they are found in
modalities. In the case of an infallible definition the pope must speak
solemnly ex cathedra and leave no doubt about his intention. In the case
of a definitive teaching it is enough for him to indicate that his statement is
intended to be definitive; no more is required. In the case of an infallible
definition, faith focuses on the word of God, in the case of a definitive
statement faith focuses on the magisterium assisted by the Spirit. Be that all
as it may, the end result is the same: an irreformable decision with the
assistance of the Spirit and essential for full communion.
All
considered, it would follow that the doctrine of “definitive
teaching” (as explained in the Commentary ) opens a new and vast field for
infallible teaching. If that is correct, there is a practical need to adjust
our textbooks of ecclesiology; there is also a need to revise our apologetics.
We cannot say any more that the pope is infallible in those rare and solemn
instances when speaking ex cathedra he intends to define an article of faith.
We must say in all honesty that the field is broader. The pope is infallible
whenever he intends to make a definitive statement.
To
know all this conceptually is not enough. We need to realize what the
implementation of this new doctrine would mean in practice. This can be shown
by construing a hypothetical case on the basis of the Commentary. There is the
issue of the validity of the Anglican orders. As it is now, not many
theologians would be of the opinion that Apostolicae curae of Leo Xlll
was an infallible definition. The Commentary, however, lists it as an example
of “definitive teaching”. It would follow that if a bishop, or a
priest, or a theology professor ever said that the decision of Leo Xlll could
be revised, he could be found guilty of breach of full communion with the
church, he could be deprived of his office and even excommunicated. Of course,
any lay person who would voice a differing opinion could be excommunicated as
well.
I
said cautiously, it would follow and I remarked conditionally if that is
correct because there remains one substantial and thorny question: What is the
theological standing of the category of “definitive teaching”? Not of
any particular doctrine contained in it but of the new category itself.
That
is the crux of this whole complicated problem. On the one hand, the official
documents of the Holy See uphold this new category with all its
characteristics, on the other hand, as yet, no pope, no council has infallibly
approved of it.
Now
there is the traditional rule of interpretation of doctrine incorporated into
canon law but certainly a norm more theological than legal: “No doctrine
is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly
demonstrated” (Canon 749 3).
This
canon has a double effect on our considerations: it leads us to a conclusive
statement and invites us to do further research.
The
conclusive statement is that the second category of knowledge with all its
characteristics as it is described in the Commentary does not and cannot have
the standing of an infallible definition. We need not believe that the scope of
papal infallibility has been extended. We are on sound theological ground if we
continue to profess the doctrine of the two councils and abide in theory and in
practice by their definitions.
At
the same time, we are invited (we have the obligation) to do further research
into the nature and theological authority of the category of “definitive
teaching”. It has been presented to the church universal by the Holy See,
it must be received with due obsequium, “respect”. Yet, as of now, we
do not have a full comprehension of its place in our Tradition. It represents a
new development that demands a considered response from the part of the
episcopate and the community of the theologians.
We
must look also carefully into the ecumenical consequences of the doctrine of
“definitive teaching”. Are we really explaining a Tradition commonly
held with the Orthodox churches? Or, are we unilaterally setting up of a new
impediment to the reunion of the sister churches who all intend to be faithful
to the one common Tradition?
2.
The “Signs of the times”.
The
Cardinal states: “I do not find it objective that Fr. Orsy constructs an
opposition {contradiction) to Vatican II. He writes that the Council intended
no threats and penalties because the Fathers of the Council ‘trusted that
truth will attract by its own beauty and strength’ whereas the first
reforms of the present Code of Canon Law does precisely that. It invokes
threats and punishments”. Then the Cardinal concludes that I am against
penal law in the church, and to make his point he brings up the case of priests
who are guilty of pedophilia.
My
statement was different. I never raised the question whether or not the Church
should have penal law. still less have I even remotely suggested that priests
guilty of pedophilia should not be punished. That is what I have written:
At
some later age, church historians will probably point out how much the
“signs of the times” have changed from the years of Vatican Council
II to the end of this century. The Fathers of the Council wanted no threats or
punishments in their documents; they trusted that truth will attract by its own
beauty and strength. As it happens now, the first reform of the present Code of
Canon Law includes precisely that, threats and punishment.
I
spoke of a change in the “signs of the times”. To show that such
change has occurred, here are two texts animated by different dynamics.
First, a quote from the address of Pope John XXIII to the Council Fathers at
the solemn opening of Vatican Council II, on October 11,1962.
“The church has always opposed errors. Frequently she has condemned them
with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the spouse of Christ prefers to
make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers
that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of
her teaching rather than by condemnations.....
That being so, the Catholic church, raising the torch of religious truth by
means of this ecumenical council, desires to show herself to be the loving
mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the children
separated from her.....
She
opens the fountain of her lifegiving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by
the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty
dignity and their purpose are. and, finally, through her children, she spreads
everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more
effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in
promoting concord, just peace and the brotherly unity of all.”(5)
Second, here is the opening paragraph of the apostolic letter Ad tuendam
fidem:
“To protect the Catholic faith against errors arising from the part of
some of the Christian faithful, in particular from those who studiously
dedicate themselves to the discipline of sacred theology, it appeared highly
necessary to us, whose principal task is to confirm his brethren in faith (cf.
Lk 22:32), to add ( new ) norms to the text of the presently valid Code of
Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, in order to impose
expressly the duty to preserve the truths proposed definitively by the
magisterium of the church, and, concerning the same matter, to institute
canonical sanctions {against the violators ).”
Concerning the need for penal law in the church: Not once, in all my writings
and lectures over forty years, have I stated that the church should have no
penal law or that the penalty of excommunication should be altogether
abolished. Interestingly, the Cardinal refers approvingly to St. Paul; so do I
in my book Theology and Canon Law, in a chapter critical of Sohm’s
theory: “Paul did not hesitate to give directions to the Corinthians, and
he did so quite forcefully”.(6)
In reference to excommunication, however, I have consistently held (and
do hold) as follows:
- Automatic
excommunication (latae sententiae) should have no place in modern canon law
because it is an anachronism; it compels a person to be the accused and the
judge in his own case and it allows persons and communities to be condemned
without the benefit of a hearing. Such a procedure is hardly in harmony with
the Scriptures and it offends contemporary sensitivities concerning human
rights.
- In our age in
doctrinal matters excommunication is not an effective policy to lead an errant
soul back to the “obedience of faith”. St. Peter Canisius, a person
vastly experienced in dealing with rebellion against faith. pleaded repeatedly
with his Superiors to do what they can to convince the Roman authorities not to
use the weapon of excommunication against the Reformers; it only consummated a
breach that perhaps could have been healed. His respected biographer, James
Brodrick writes:
The
Bull, In Coena Domini, {by Pius IV) which was so named because issued
afresh each Holy Thursday, made him {Peter Canisius) very sad when it reached
him in April, 1564, as it contained nothing but threats and prohibitions.
“Would to God”,he wrote, “that we could find some means of
helping both pastors and people in the present great corruption, especially as
every mortal thing seems full of excommunications. Nobody cares to give a
little aid and consolation to the unhappy pastors who still sweat and labor for
the religion that is dear to them”. This was, Brodrick continues, “an
old complaint” of the Saint who desired “to secure a more kindly
treatment for Germans in the matter of ecclesiastical censures, and to obtain
greater consideration in Rome for parish priests who desire and are able to
help the Catholic cause”.(7)
3.
The reform of the Code of Canon Law
The
Cardinal states: Fr. Orsy presents as a novelty that the reform of the Code of
Canon Law is possible.
In
truth, I have not discussed the possibility of the reform of the Codex at all.
All theologians and canon lawyers know that such possibility exists. I was
simply reporting a fact: the first step in a reform process had been taken.
Legal
historians know well that every legislator is reluctant to undertake the first
step that breaks the original unity of a code; it can convey a message of
instability. There is the ancient adage: mutatio legis odiosa est. For
this reason the first change has a symbolic value. It signals that the
legislator is willing and ready to undertake necessary reforms. In this sense I
wrote “the introduction of new norms into the Code has a positive
dimension - even if it is a threat of punishment”.
This
gives hope. Vatican Council II has identified immense sources of vital energies
in the church, such as the graces and charismata of baptised lay persons, the
collegial power of the episcopate, the unique value of the local churches or of
the churches in a common cultural region, the particular gifts of the Spirit to
non-Catholic Christian churches and communities. Such energies cry out for
appropriate legal structure. To channel and to insert them into the Code should
be easier now. It is a cause for joy that the process of adjusting our laws to
new theological insights has started.
4.
The Profession of Faith
Cardinal Ratzinger does not share my concern about keeping the ancient and
sacred name of “Profession of Faith”, symbolum fidei, precisely and
exclusively for that: articles of faith.
I
have raised the issue of the new Profession of Faith in an ecumenical context,
especially in relation to our obligation to promote the union of Christian
churches. I asked whether or not the imposition of the new Profession of Faith
in the Roman Catholic church serves the cause of unity. I reported the concern
of the ecumenists of other Christian churches: they are wondering if the Roman
Catholic church intends to make the new Profession a condition of reunion.
The
fundamental problem with the new Profession is that it comprises articles of
faith and matters which are not of faith; it does not have an organically
unified context. For this reason it is not traditional. Yet, the whole complex
is officially called Profession of Faith. The traditional purpose of a
symbolum fidei has always been to set apart the articles of faith from
all other knowledge, never to contain and distinguish different levels of
knowledge.
The
Protestant professions that the Cardinal invoked to show that there is a
precedent for such an unusual structure in a Profession of Faith are not
suitable examples. Protestant professions were not formulated in communion with
the universal episcopate (including the see of Peter) and they were never
intended to bind the faithful in the same way as the ancient symbola. They were
considered by the Reformers themselves not as norma normans, rule that binds,
but as norma normata, rule that is under another rule; in this case under the
rules of the private judgement and of the solo scripture.
Of
course, new Professions ot Faith were formulated in the West, but as far as I
am able to ascertain they all were intended to focus on articles of faith as
they were known at that stage of doctrinal development. Besides, all of them
had a somewhat limited life. Now we are speaking of an addition to the
Nicean-Constantinipolitan Creed, the Creed that has been, and is, a living bond
among separated Christian churches and ecclesial communities
Can
we ever forget the bitter resentment that the insertion of Filioque into the
Creed has generated throughout the Orthodox churches, a resentment that
lingered for more than a millennium and which by the grace of God is being
healed in our days? Is this the time to add new paragraphs to a sacred text and
call the whole new formula symbolum fidei? How could anything that is
not of faith be a symbol of faith? If one day God in his mercy brings us to the
threshold of union, shall we insist that their patriarchs, metropolitans, and
bishops of the Orthodox church must recite our new Profession of Faith? How
does all this correspond to the spirit of the encyclical Ut unum sint?
The
ecumenical concern remains
5.
The Commentary
Theologians and canon lawyers the world over will be grateful to the Cardinal
for the clarification of the theological authority of the Commentary. Although
the Congregation and the pope had it “gebilligt”; that is approved it
but not in a formal sense, they decided not to publish it as an official
document of the Holy See
Be
that as it may, it is a document of importance. I do not know of any other
where the whole theology of the category of the “definitive teaching”
is explained so thoroughly.
No
theologian should take this explanation lightly, but no theologian should grant
it final authority. An analogy comes into my mind: the weight of this
Commentary may be similar to that of the draft documents of Vatican Council II
which have been approved by the central preparatory commission and the pope
himself and declared worthy to be sumbitted to the judgment of the Council. As
we know the Council radically changed them
We
may be in a similar situation. \\e have a document that originated in the
offices of the Holy See, a document that contains matters of grave concern for
the universal church. It needs now the scrutiny of the universal episcopate,
the scholarly dialectics of the theological community, the probing of its depth
by the senus fidelium. God’s Spirit is no, less with his church today than
he was during the Council.
Conclusion
I
want to thank Cardinal Ratzinger again for the opportunity of this exchange.
Differences undoubtedly will remain but they are well within the parameters of
faith. Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
may help us to understand, handle, and even respect such differences. He
insists throughout his Essay that the “Christian idea” is so rich and
has so many facets that no human person, no matter how holy or learned can
receive, perceive, and express all its aspects; in Newman’s mind not even
one of the apostles could have done it. We all share in these riches.
“Christianity is dogmatical, devotional. practical, all at once; it is
esoteric and exoteric; it is indulgent and strict; it is light and dark; it is
love, and it is fear” . As our understanding struggles with such an
immense gift, “new lights will be brought to bear upon the original
statements of the doctrine put forward: judgments and aspects will accumulate
until there emerges the complete image as seen in combination of diversified
aspects, with the suggestions and corrections of many minds, and the
illustration of many experiences” Chapter 1, Section 1).
This
is the only way that faith can seek and find understanding.
Notes
1.
See Etudes. October 1988 pp,357,359.
2.
Gérard Philips. L’Eglise et son mystere. Paris Desclée
1967,vol.1.pp327-328.
3.
See e.g. Gérard Philips, L’Eglise et son Mystere pp. 317 ff.
4.
Etudes, loc.cit. p.359
5.
Council Daybook. Washington DC National Catholic Welfare Conference
1965.pp.27-28
6.
Ladislas Orsy, Theology And Canon Law New Horizons for Legislation &
Interpretation Collegeville.Liturgical Press, 1992, p183.
7.
James Broderick, St. Peter Canisius.London. Sheed & Ward 1938.pp
611-612 .
This Reponse will also be published in the May issue of Stimmen der
Zeit.
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!