 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
- the Cardinal
responds
by CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER
published in
Céide May/June 1999, vol 2 no 5, pp. 28-29. Moy Valley Resources,
Ballina, Co. Mayo, Ireland; here republished with permission of the
editor.
In
the Jan-Feb edition of Céide, Ladislas Orsy S.J.. Professor of Law at
Georgetown University, Washington, responded to the comments of the Prefect of
the Congregation of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the status of the
Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem and its Roman commentary. An American
theologian commenting on the debate between Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and
Professor Ladislas 0rsy wrote:
“You may not realise that the whole event is a
historical breakthrough. To my best knowledge it is the first time that a
dialogue - between the highest representative of the Roman ecclesiastical
administration and a concerned intellectually well-equipped theologian speaking
for the people at large - has taken place in a public exchange of views. This
is a beautiful example of faith seeking understanding in common.”
The
following is Cardina1 Ratzinger’s reponse to Professor Orsy. Professor
Orsy’s reply follows on page 30.
It is
a matter for rejoicing that the article written by L. Orsy commenting on the
Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam fidem has an objective tone and is without
polemics. Regrettably it contains certain misinfonnation that must be
corrected.
1.
Father Orsy assures us that the new canons were not needed because the category
of definitively proposed teaching “as it appears now in official documents
had not developed yet”. He supports the affirmation concerning the
complete novelty of this category with the thesis that “definitive
teaching” in a new sense must not be confused with the so called
‘secondary object’ of infallibility; the latter being “a
category that was developed at the first Vatican Council and became fully
integrated into the understanding of the Tradition”. How the author could
have come to this thesis is inexplicable. Clearly, with the second level of
knowledge precisely this category is intended. The truths of this level must be
definitively held even though they are not to be received with theological
faith in the proper sense. The conclusions rest on a groundless division
between the two types of knowledge and, therefore, it cannot stand.
There
is a small lack of precision which is hardly worth mentioning. The author
speaks of new canons; in reality only a second paragraph has been added to
canon 750, and in canon 1371 a reference to this second paragraph has been
inserted. Since the issue is doctrinal, it transcends ritual differences,
corresponding additions, therefore, have been inserted into the Code of the
oriental Churches.
2. I
do not find it objective that Fr.Orsy constructs an opposition
{contradiction}between Ad tuendam fidem and 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 contains threats and penalties. Now, it is obvious that the
Council Fathers in their deliberations had in mind the validity of the legal
order as it was formulated by the then applicable Code of Canon Law which
naturally contained a section on penal law. Moreover, they too wanted the
reform of canon law that was decreed by Pope John XXIII and they knew that it
will have to include penal law. Even if mitigated and modernized, they
realized, it would still be penal law. In fact, a large number of the bishops
of the world wish today for the “sharpening” of the penal law; this
is a consequence of the cases of priests guilty of paedophilia. The protection
of the rights of the accused priests has become so strong that the bishops feel
powerless in cases when for the sake of the faithful they should have the power
to intervene. For the rest, Fr. Orsy is surely aware that Paul used the praxis
of excommunication and thus he applied ecclesiastical penal law; also, for
example, as Mt 18:15-17 shows, the synoptic tradition knew of penalties to
enfore eccleciastical discipline It would be beautiful if such groundless
assertion of oppositions - which creates annoyance - could be avoided in the
future.
3.
Let it be noted further that Fr.Orsy is not quite right when he represents the
possibility of the reforms of the Codes of Canon Law as a novelty. Since the
church is a living organism, this was foreseen from the beginning. Already, in
the case of the Code of 1917, a commission was nominated to provide for the
authentic interpretation of the laws; it had also the task of inserting into
the Code the necessary changes and expansions enacted later. Similarly, we have
today the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts; it is not
authorized to introduce changes in the Code since it does not have any
legislative authority, but - as it is obvious - one of its tasks is to suggest
new legislation as needed and to be of counsel in the process of its
preparation. It is evident, therefore, that from the very beginning further
development of the law was anticipated.
Momentous is the following affirmation of the author: “In truth, to add
clauses to the ancient Creed, to add clauses referring to what is not a matter
of faith, and then call the whole structure a ‘Profession of Faith’
is a novelty. There is no precedent for it in Christian history”.
Unfortunately, when he calls this a novelty, Fr. Orsy is proceeding somewhat
carelessly - as it seems. Had he searched his historical memory, he would have
surely discovered that ever since the Reformation Protestant pastors were
ordained on the basis of the profession of faith of the early church and of the
Reformation. Similarly, on the Catholic side, to the profession of faith of the
early church the profession of faith of the Council of Trent was added, which
under Pius X was further augmented by the oath against modernism. To argue on
the basis of a canon of Chalcedon that such texts {of disparate authority }must
not be united {under the heading of “Profession of Faith” }is to
reason as some Fathers of the fifth century did: they claimed that the Councils
of Constantinople and Chalcedon were incompatible with the conclusive character
of the Council of Nicea.
Back
to the present: In the year of 1987, in the spirit of Vatican II, the
Tridentine Profession of Faith and the oath against modernism were replaced by
a brief and summary profession. It articulated the significance of the doctrine
of the sacraments, of the sacrifice of the Mass, and of the primacy of the pope
and proclaimed in general terms adhesion to the church’s teachings, in the
manner demanded by {the authority of}a given doctrine. No-one then criticized
the replacement of the two long and, from certain points of view, problematic
texts by a concise new formula of a few lines. On the contrary, this was seen
as a happy decision; it was perceived as a positive fruit of the Council. Yet,
the objection could have been raised against the formula of 1987 that it did
not distinguish sufficiently clearly among the degrees of assent and it did not
follow a clear criterion in the selection of the teachings which were not
explicitly articulated {developed }in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan profession
of faith. On the basis of such considerations a new version was composed which
now clearly distinguishes {first}theological faith in its proper sense,
{second}ecclesiastical faith corresponding to the “secondary objects of
the revelation” and {third }"religious reverence", obsequium
religiosum, toward the non-infallible teaching office. This new three-fold
extension {completion}went into force on January 9,1989, that is about ten
years ago. Already, there has been a ten years’ period to discuss the
distinctions among the levels {of teaching and assent}; why it did not happen
in Germany, I cannot say. In any case, the purpose of the formula was not to
present as faith what is not faith; it was precisely to distinguish the
specific levels of assent.
5. I
rejoice that there is at least one point in Fr. Orsy’s expositions that I
can confirm extensively namely what concerns the “explanatory
Commentary”. As a matter of fact, its whole text was composed by the
Congregation, also, at the successive stages of its preparation, it was
submitted to the assembly of the Cardinals, and at the end it was approved by
them. It obtained also the approval of the Holy Father. Such approvals not
withstanding, all agreed that the text should not be given a binding force;
rather, it should be offered as a help for understanding. It was not,
therefore, published as a proper document of the Congregation itself. To show,
however, that {the Commentary }is not the private work of the Prefect and the
Secretary of the Congregation but an authorized aid for the understanding of
the texts, a specific {extraordinary}manner for its publication was chosen.
This {initiative}could be criticized and in this case Fr. Orsy could have said
rightly that this manner {of publication}was entirely new. But why not, indeed?
At any rate, Fr. Orsy’s conclusion is correct, namely, the listing of some
doctrinal propositions as examples does not grant them any more weight than
what they had before. The intention was only to list examples {propositions)
whose rank {degree of binding authority}has been determined either by the
documents of the magisterium or by the consensus of the auctores
probati. So far, no-one need feel an authoritarian imposition or
restriction by these texts.
I
regret that a contribution that actually should have promoted the objective
character of the debate contains some rather grave errors. I hope that these
clarifications can lead to a better understanding of the rather rashly
criticized document published in the summer of 1998.
Read Prof. Orsy’s
reply.
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!