 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Herman Josef Pottmeyer
"The Pope is fully justified in saying that he has no authority to
change the tradition on his own initiative. The proper forum for a decision in
a matter of this kind is a council………If Jesus acted in accord
with the culture of his day, then we can ask whether faithfulness to him does
not require us to do the same."
Professor Hermann J. Pottmeyer is one of Europe's
leading Catholic theologians. He studied with Lonergan at the Gregorian
University in Rome and taught with Carl Rahner at the University of Munster.
Dr. Pottmeyer is Professor of fundamental theology at the University of Bochum,
Germany. He is the author of fifteen books. Among his articles in English are:
"The Traditionalist Temptation of the Contemporary Church," America,
Aug. 29, 1992); "A New Phase in the Reception of Vatican II: Twenty Years of
Interpretation of the Council;" and "Why Does the Church need a Pope?" This
article first appeared in America, October 26, 1996, pp. 16 -
18.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on Nov. 18, 1995, a
"Response" to questions concerning the apostolic letter Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis of May 1994, in which the Pope had stated that he had no
authority to change the church's tradition of ordaining only men to the
priesthood. Immediately thereafter Cardinal Joachim Meisner, , the archbishop
of Cologne, published an article in the German Catholic weekly Rheinischer
Merkur asserting that O.S. was an infallible ex cathedra papal statement
(an instance of the Pope's extraordinary magisterium) confirming the unanimous
teaching of the episcopal college (the ordinary magisterium), which is also
infallible.
Corning hard on the heels of the Roman "Response," Meisner's article
suggested that he had himself instigated this response. It is well known that
Meisner was dissatisfied with the very moderate response of the German Bishops'
Conference to O.S. If Meisner was among those who demanded that Rome
speak to the question again, and more forcefully (as is widely assumed), then
he did not get the infallible ex cathedra papal dogma he was looking
for.
In the next issue of the paper I responded with an article contending
that the Cardinal's interpretation of the C.D.F. "Response" was mistaken. I
cited the quasi-official interpretation published in Osservatore Romano, signed
with three stars. Most likely the author was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. It said
much the same as an article about O.S. that Ratzinger had published in the
international journal Communio in 1994.
Both of these commentaries emphasize that O.S. is an instance of
the ordinary (i.e. non-infallible) magisterium, declaring that the church's
unbroken tradition with regard to ordination is irreformable. This justifies
the presumption that Cardinal Ratzinger had warned against an ex cathedra
statement and that the C.D.R "Response" represented a compromise with those
who were pressing for a papal dogma. Possible reasons for such a warning are
not far to seek. Ratziner may have wished to avoid jeopardizing agreement with
the Orthodox. Though they agree with Rome about women's ordination, they would
not look kindly on a resolution of the question by papal flat. Moreover,
Ratziner is all too familiar with the controversy over papal infallibility
provoked by Hans Kung. The Cardinal may have wished to avoid providing fresh
fuel for that fire by an ex cathedra definition regarding, the
ordination of women.
Be that as it may, Rome's fundamental intention is clear: the desire to
terminate debate about the ordination of women that is driven by appeals to
equal rights, which is taking place in the United States and Germany
especially, but elsewhere as well. Rome fears that this debate, as well as the
actions already taken by Anglicans and Protestants, will create pressure to
act-although the theological debate hitherto has failed to produce reasons to
justify abandonment of a 2,000-year-old tradition. Rome's intention, in other
words, was primarily pastoral. 'Mere was no desire to forbid responsible
theological discussion. As in the case of the C.D.F.'s earlier ban of women's
ordination, Inter Insigniores (1976), Rome pursued this pastoral goal by
making use of magisterial statements that, though authoritative, were not at
the highest level. These proved inadequate. Discussion continued, and with it
an escalation of magisterial statements.
The Question: Fidelity to Jesus
This has produced the situation we face today. Bishops and theologians
are uncertain about the bindin- force of the Roman statements. Some bishops and
some theologians feel they must keep silent. Others continue the previous
discussion.
The question at issue is this: Is it possible, through an act of the
Pope's ordinary magisterium, to declare definitively that a tradition is
irreformable while the intention behind the tradition and its binding force are
still the subject of serious theological discussion? The C.D.F. "Response"
contends that the tradition is irreformable because it is based on the
unbroken, universal teaching of the episcopal college. This contention is
doubtful. The continuing theological discussion shows that the Pope has not
achieved universal consensus among the bishops. Nor is it certain that the
bishops today teach the exclusion of women from priestly ordination as "a
teaching to be held definitively and absolutely" -- the prerequisite, according
to "The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (No. 25), for the infallible
exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the universal episcopate.
Before the publication of O.S. the Pope merely invited the
presidents of the episcopal conferences to a brief meeting, at which they were
presented with a text in which they could make few changes. A number of them
are said to have warned against issuing a final prohibition of discussion about
women's ordination. In these circumstances, many people are asking, can the
church demand definitive assent? My article in response to Cardinal Meisner was
an attempt to pay attention to Rome's just concerns while keeping the door
open, if only a crack, for a responsible dialogue on this question. The article
made four points.
1. Rome is quite right in affirming that women's ordination is not
merely a question of church discipline. The question is rather this: In calling
only men as his Twelve Apostles, did Jesus reveal the will of God for his
church? That is a dogmatic question, involving the content of revelation.
I have no difficulty accepting that an essential motive of the church's
2,000-year tradition was the desire to be faithful to Jesus' action and
example. Admittedly, many of the past arguments against women's ordination
reflected the social and cultural conditions of their day. But these were
merely arguments of convenience -- attempts to explain the practice of Jesus
and of the church. The arguments advanced may be dated, what is crucial is the
church's desire to be faithful to the practice of its Lord.
This desire was, in fact, so basic that there was hardly any discussion
of the question until very recently. Given this fact, the Pope is fully
justified in saying that he has no authority to change the tradition on his own
initiative. Claiming such authority would be papalism of the most extreme kind.
The proper forum for a decision in a matter of this kind is a council.
2. Why, nonetheless, has the Pope used only his ordinary, not his
extraordinary teaching authority? I respond: with good reason. The Pope has
said that he wishes to let the tradition speak for itself. That is noteworthy.
For decades theologians have criticized the Pope for not giving sufficient
weight in his doctrinal statements to Scripture and nation and for making too
much use of his formal teaching authority. Here the Pope, in a question of
grave importance, invokes not his supreme formal authority but the content of
Scripture and tradition despite the fact (which we can safely assume) that he
personally believes an ex cathedra declaration would be quite
legitimate.
He embarks on this s welcome course, however, halfheartedly, thus
involving, himself in a contradiction. For if he really wishes to let the
weight of tradition speak for itself, he cannot invoke the authority of his
office to demand definitive assent. Evidently he does not really trust the
weight of tradition, or he does not trust us to recognize tradition's weight.
It is possible that the C.D.F. noticed this contradiction and for this reason
appealed as O.S. did not, to the ordinary teaching of the universal
college of bishops.
Personally, I do not believe that the Pope intended to contradict
himself. I believe he spoke quite deliberately. If he wished to give tradition
its full weight and for this reason used only his ordinary and not his
extraordinary teaching authority, then he wished the theological discussion to
continue. provided the proper conditions were observed.
3. If the Pope permits, indeed wants us to reflect on the authority of
tradition, we must inquire: Did the church in past centuries really ask whether
faithfulness to Jesus required that only men be ordained? Indeed, could this
question have been asked, given the social and cultural situations in which the
church has lived hitherto? If the church did not ask this question, how can we
claim that the impossibility of women's ordination was "a teaching to be held
definitively and absolutely" ("The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," No.
25)?
4. The defenders of tradition argue thus: Even if we grant that the
church has been influenced by cultural factors, nonetheless Jesus himself chose
freely and independently to call only men as apostles. In following Jesus'
example, therefore. the church was not influenced simply by cultural
considerations. I respond: Jesus' limitation of the Twelve to men was certainly
free and independent. Had he included women, the Twelve would not have been
understood as symbolizing Israel -- which for Jesus was crucial.
Hence the decisive step: If Jesus, in complete freedom, acted in accord
with the culture of his day, then we can ask whether faithfulness to him does
not require us to do the same. If we are to be true to his example, must we not
take account of the changed role of women today? Is it not possible that
tradition actually compels us not to limit ordination to men but rather
to follow Jesus' example in taking seriously the culture of his time. This,
it seems to me, is the decisive question before the church today.
Submit the Question to Prayer and Council
A few years ago, before the publication of O.S., I published a
short article in my diocesan paper suggesting how the Pope might deal with the
question of women's ordination. Shortly thereafter my bishop received a letter
from Cardinal Ratzinger saying that I had disregarded the previous declaration
Inter Insigniores, and asking the bishop to speak to me about this.
Since, as a member of the International Theological Commission, I would soon
see the Cardinal himself in Rome, the bishop asked him to speak to me. He did
so a few weeks later.
This is what I had proposed. Since women's ordination was being so
widely discussed, since changing tradition in such a matter would be so grave
and since the theological discussion hitherto had failed to show whether a
change was even possible, the Pope should invite the whole church to pray for
guidance. We should pray, moreover, for signs of God's will. I compared our
present situation to that of the apostles confronted with the question of
whether Gentiles could be baptized. The apostles came to regard the conversion
of Gentiles as a sip of the Spirit and of God's will.
When Cardinal Ratzinger confronted me with the argument that the
question of women's ordination had already been settled in Inter
Insigniores, I responded: If the Holy Spirit considers himself bound by
that document, then I agree with you. I should like to ask, however: Even after
Inter Insigniores. may we not continue to pray for enlightenment and for
signs of God's will? The Cardinal smiled in a friendly manner and said no more,
for he is a good theologian.
I remain convinced that most Catholics in the world today would
understand and support the Pope if he were to say that he could not himself
change tradition in this matter, but that since what was at stake was God's
will, he was inviting everyone to prayer and dialogue and that he was summoning
a council to make a final decision. Catholics would support such a declaration
because it would show that their questions were being taken seriously and
because the Pope would be acting as the spiritual leader of a church in
dialogue.
In June of last year Leo Scheffczyk, emeritus professor of dogmatic
theology in Munich, published an article criticizing me for "subverting" O.S.
and the C.D.F. "Response" with "subtle theological arguments." Scheffczvk's
argument was this: Once the Pope has declared authentically that the
traditional teaching is infallible and has demanded definitive assent, further
discussion of the authority of tradition in this question is forbidden. Hence
my attempt to keep the door open for responsible discussion was
illegitimate.
In point of fact, I do not question the church's tradition. I point
rather to the intention this tradition embodies: the desire to remain faithful
to Jesus' action. And I ask how we can best manifest this faithfulness today?
The question remains: Can the Pope, by means of a non-infallible exercise of
his authentic teaching office, declare a tradition permanently irreformable and
demand definitive assent to such a declaration? And should he do this when the
effect of such a declaration is to exclude not merely erroneous but even
responsible discussion especially when the goal of this discussion is to
discover, for today's church and in the light of new questions, the true
significance of Jesus' action? It is significant that at the end of his article
Scheffczvk regretted that the Pope had not chosen to make an ex cathedra
declaration.
Choosing the Twelve
Let me conclude. The question of women's ordination cannot be discussed
or decided in the context of the debate over equal rights for women. Equality
for women is God's will. Whether that means that God wants women to be
ordained, however, still needs to be clarified. This means that we must
properly understand Jesus' action in this regard, through which God has
revealed his will to us, and we must decide this question in faithfulness to
Jesus. Conceivably such faithfulness could lead us, in light of the "signs of
the time," to change the previous tradition.
Moreover, the new role of women in today's society is one of the most
important "signs of the time." We cannot reach a decision, however, through
political correctness, but only by seeking God's will. I do not believe that
the Pope wishes to forbid theological discussion that respects these
postulates.
The decisive question for the church is this: What is the significance
of Jesus' action in choosing and commissioning only men as members of the
Twelve, and then after Easter sending women as the first witnesses and
messengers of his resurrection? The Pontifical Biblical Commission declared
rightly that the question of women's ordination cannot be decided on the basis
of the historical method. Historical exegesis can uncover some important
evidence for the intention of Jesus and his apostles, as well as
information about the position of women in New Testament society, but it cannot
do more than that.
Nor can the question be decided solely on the basis of subsequent church
tradition. The changing role of women in today's society compels us to face
this question afresh. Study of church tradition can disclose the motives and
reasons that led the church to follow Jesus' example. The permanent core of
this tradition, in my view, is the desire to be faithful to Jesus and to his
action. As we see, however, in the case of Gentile baptism, the church has
never understood this faithfulness in a fundamentalist way. We have every
reason today, therefore, to consider Jesus' true intention afresh. We should do
this in dialogue with one another, certainly -- but, more importantly, in
dialogue with the Holy Spirit.
See a comment on this article by Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, S.J., America, Dec. 1996, vol. 175, pp. 9-12
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!