Women in the Priesthood

[CarlaOLS]

NOT ENOUGH my fellow women?? OK. KEEP READING

Vatican Ban on Women Priest Is Infallible

by Paul Likoudis

Determined to put a stop to a three decades long campaign waged by
dissenting theologians and renegade religious to open the Catholic
priesthood to women, the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith released
a statement November 18 saying the Church’s traditional ban on women
priest “requires definitive assent…(and) has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

The teaching that the Church possesses no authority to ordain women,
declared the letter, "is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as
belonging to the deposit of faith."

The letter, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the
Congregation, was accompanied by a cover letter insisting that bishops
“will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favourable
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.”

Invoking the word “infallible” in the letter, explained Father Augustine
DeNoia, a theological advisor to the US Bishops, means that “to teach the
contrary is equivalent to leading consciences into error.”

For the ordinary Catholic, the so-called “person in the pew” who has to
read women’s ordination agitprop in his parish bulletin, the young
student who is required to believe in women’s ordination as a pre-
requisite for Confirmation, the seminarian who must agree women
should be ordained as a requirement for continuing his studies, this
Vatican letter will come as a great support.

…

The Pope is not only “aiming to shut the door on debate about women’s
ordination” as Catholic New Service reporter John Thavis wrote from
Rome, but he has made it clear that dissenters on the issue are out of the
Church.

One of North America’s most prominent dissenting theologians, Father
Richard McBrien of Notre Dame university realized this immediately, as
he told the New York Times: “If the pope wants us to believe that the
prohibition against the ordination of women is a matter of divine law
and divine faith such that the denial of this teaching is a heresy, then that
puts everyone who disagrees outside the Church. Is that what is being
said?”

Precisely, says Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver. The issue of
women’s ordination has been explored exhaustively, and now "it is time
to move on.

“The Church’s teaching is definitive, and has been set forth infallibly by
formal declaration. It will not and cannot change. Therefore, for those
who see with the eyes of faith, the matter is resolved.”

…

While many theologians such as McBrien, Father Francis Sullivan at
Boston College and Monsignor William Shannon in Rochester, NY,
berated the Vatican and accused it of forcing good people out of the
Church, Dr. Joyce Little, a theologian at St. Thomas university in
Houston, said that those who encouraged women to believe they could
be ordained if only enough pressure were put on the Vatican have a lot to
answer for.

In a spirited, week-long debate on CompuServe’s Catholic On Line, Little
maintained there is no reason for anyone to be disappointed in the
Vatican ruling, since the Vatican has never given the slightest reason for
anyone to expect a change on its men-only policy.

“Rome has always been up front about this,” she wrote. “Neither the Pope
nor Ratzinger nor anyone representing either of them ever gave anyone,
anywhere, any reason to expect anything other than what has happened.
In fact, anyone who read Ordination Sacerdotalis carefully already knew
that the Pope had declared this practice to be, at the very least,
irreformable. (What, after all, do people imagine ‘definitively’ means?)”

If expectations were cruelly raised, she added, they were raised, she
added, they were raised by dissenting bishops, priests, theologians and
professors who for a generation have taught successive waves of students
that the Church would ordain women-sometime in their lifetimes.

And when bishops and others speak of the grieving faithful, Little asked,
"Where were they when all of these American Catholics were being led
down the garden path on this one? It is all fine and dandy for bishop
(Anthony) Pilla, (the new president of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops), to ask American Catholics reverently to accept this
teaching as definitive, but what were the bishops doing, both before and
especially after Ordination Sacerdotalis, to enable American Catholics to
accept this?

“Where were the priests, the theologians, the catechist?..I think the
sowing of that confusion was in very many instances unconscionable and
the responsibility for that confusion and the ensuing grief is one for
which many will be held accountable, if not in this life, then in the next.”

Copyright (c) 1996 EWTN

 

[Ender]

As regards Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Vatican (including the man who is the current pope) has repeatedly stated that it is not ex cathedra.

I am not familiar with BXVI’s statement that OS is not ex cathedra but this is how I understand it as well. What he (and JPII) said was that the teaching on the ordination of women is infallible because it has always been taught by the ordinary magisterium. That is, the teaching is not proclaimed ex cathedra but it is nonetheless proclaimed infallible.

What Fr. Sullivan is writing on and on about is the ability of the CDF and/or the Pope to declare that a teaching is infallible by the ordinary magisterium, thereby raising the canon law penalty for dissent, without conducting an actual historical investigation into the matter.

This is an interesting argument but one without weight. If someone wants to show that JPII was in error in his proclamation it would be easy enough to do it by conducting the historical investigation Sullivan claims was not done and publishing the results. So far, however, all that has been done is to make tendentious comparisons between this teaching and other areas, like slavery, where the teaching has in fact developed. That comparison may seem impressive but in fact fails immediately as even a casual search of the Church’s historical position on slavery shows hesitancy and change while, so far, no one has shown either in regard to the ordination of women. The fact that JPII’s position could be easily demolished if a historical investigation showed a lack of uniformity in teaching by the ordinary magisterium - and that this investigation has either not been done or has revealed nothing - undermines not JPII but his critics.

Ender

 

[po18guy]

The initial preaching of the Good News is not related to ordination nor does it imply that the disciples who stayed at home and spread His teaching were all men. History records that Jesus treated women as equals and willed a woman to be the first witness of His Resurrection.

At the start of His public ministry, He selected twelve, correct? We are called to follow His perfect example, and not to allow the culture of the modern world to creep into the church. God has unique roles for each gender. It is when man attempts to “improve” upon God’s work that we encounter problems. The Church is called to change the world, even though the world always attempts to change the church. There are greater problems to work on than the perceived “gender inequity” that the media blathers on about. Their goal is ultimately destructive in nature.

 

[po18guy]

Are you referring to Father Sullivan as being a dissident priest? I thought that Father Sullivan was a highly respected Catholic theologian. What are your credentials to set yourself up as a judge and jury over the credentials of Father Sullivan? Have you taught at the Gregorian university in Rome? Here are some of the books written by Father Sullivan:

Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, 1982
Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, 1983
The Church We Believe In: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, 1988
Salvation Outside the Church? 1992
Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, 1996
From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, 2001
How many theological books have you published.
Father Sullivan was the dean of the Gregorian University in Rome from 1964 to 1970. Were you ever dean at a Pontifical univesity? Further, William Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, received his doctorate under Sullivan in 1971. how many doctoral students have you had and how many are currently serving at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
I don’t see where you have the authority or the competence to call Father Sullivan a dissident.

By coming to his defense, have you not also made your own judgment? I do not judge his heart. That is for the Lord. He is but a priest, correct? Thus, he has no dogmatic authority within the church. Regardless of his qualifications, if he teaches or speaks in public against Church doctrine or practice, he places himself within the category of dissident. The proper exercise of prudential judgment in this age requires that anyone with the initials “SJ” following their name must be examined as to their orthodoxy. This is extremely sad, but remains true. I will read further into his works and abjectly apologize if wrong.

As to “credentials”, keep in mind that Judas possessed the best credentials of the twelve, by many acounts. Nothing further is implied here.

 

[Just_Lurking]

While one could make a case for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not being a dogmatic statement, it would be difficult to justify it not being a definitive statement, especially given that the words “to be definitively held” is used in the very wording of the declaration.

The case for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not being a dogmatic statement can be stated in a single sentence – In 1998, Pope Benedict, before he became pope, said it wasn’t (see here):

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is an interesting argument but one without weight.

I believe that Fr. Sullivan is more interested in the meta-argument than the actual issue of women’s ordination. For each of the following statements, consider the question of whether the CDF could issue such a statement as binding on the Catholic faithful:

(1) Women cannot be ordained as priests by divine law.

(2) The doctrine that women cannot possibly be ordained as priests has been infallibly taught by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

(3) Mankind evolved from ape-like primates.

Prior to the 1990’s, the conventional theological wisdom was statement (1) was a matter of faith well within the competency of the CDF, whereas statements (2) and (3) were matters of historical fact outside the realm of faith and morals on which the CDF can authoritatively teach.

However, in the 1990’s, the CDF started cranking out statements such as (2) on a variety of issues, without ever addressing the rationale behind the CDF having the authority to issue binding statements on matters of historical fact. Fr. Sullivan is wondering where this new authority comes from, and exactly how far it extends, for example, to other issues of historical fact such as (3).

If someone wants to show that JPII was in error in his proclamation it would be easy enough to do it by conducting the historical investigation Sullivan claims was not done and publishing the results.

This would not solve anything at the meta-level of Sullivan’s argument, any more than investigating the evidence for and against evolution would inform on the question of whether and why the CDF has the authority to promulgate binding teaching on the subject.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Actually, it is not always true that 1+1=2 because this supposed inviolate truth has changed in modern times due to the culture of computers which has been recently introduced. For example, circuit boards are not based on the base 10 number system, but they work on the binary number system which is reflective of the on - off nature of an electrical circuit. That is why for a circuit board, 1+1 = 10.

Are you serious?

in binary code 10 = 2.

You are really trying to give me reason to ad hominem you aren’t ya.

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

The case for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not being a dogmatic statement can be stated in a single sentence – In 1998, Pope Benedict, before he became pope, said it wasn’t (see here):

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

A dogmatic definition is one thing. Infallibility is another and that one statement fulfills the conditions set forth in vatican 1 for infallibility. And besides it is obvious that the teaching that only men can be Priests is part of the magisterium of the Church having been taught for 2000 years and reaffirmed by Popes et al.

Paul

 

[budgie2]

As for CarlaOLS I still think that the priesthood should change it’s title to brother or something like that as it is blatantly in contradiction with the words of Christ, to call no man father. Whether St Paul said something different is immaterial as Christ is greater than St. Paul although I appreciate the Church is run on a family and Christ said whoever does his will is his mother, father, sister and brother. I disagree with the doctrine of infallibility so I’m not here to argue whether the non-ordination of women’s priests is infallible. What I’m really concerned about is the role of the priest as provider of daily bread used to be a very masculine role as the men in the household brought home the daily bread and earned the wage. Women’s role may have changed to provider financially and materially rather than nurturer due to changes in family life such as contraception and single parenthood. I don’t know whether the Church should follow this trend. It is interesting to note that earning the daily bread and ploughing the fields was the male punishment for Original Sin. A lot of women nowadays are coveting the male punishment (my theory).

 

[Just_Lurking]

A dogmatic definition is one thing. Infallibility is another and that one statement fulfills the conditions set forth in vatican 1 for infallibility.

See here:

In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

Or here:

It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.

And besides it is obvious that the teaching that only men can be Priests is part of the magisterium of the Church having been taught for 2000 years and reaffirmed by Popes et al.

It is also obvious that the Church taught that females cannot be altar servers for 1950 years, and was reaffirmed by Popes et al. See the first paragraph from here for details. The difference, if any, between the two cases is far from obvious, which is why approved Catholic theologians have no problem accepting the Church’s magisterium statements about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not being ex cathedra.

 

[bobzills]

Are you serious?

in binary code 10 = 2.

You are really trying to give me reason to ad hominem you aren’t ya.

Paul

The electric circuit does not recognise the number 2. It only recognises 1 or 0.

 

[bobzills]

A dogmatic definition is one thing. Infallibility is another and that one statement fulfills the conditions set forth in vatican 1 for infallibility.

The fact is that Vatican I has been superseded by Vatican II, and the old canon law is no longer in effect. For example, it is no longer required for women to wear headcovering in Church. And we have a condition for infallibility set down in the new Canon law which apparently has not been fulfilled because there are lots and lots of Catholic theologians who say that it has not been declared infallibly: Canon 749. 3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

 

[PJM]

Just Lurking;5269916]Just to clarify the theological landscape here:

As regards Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Vatican (including the man who is the current pope) has repeatedly stated that it is not ex cathedra. All, or perhaps just nearly all, of the Catholic theologians having an ecclesiastical degree with a canonical mission to teach theology are in complete agreement with the Vatican on this point. There is no “massive debate” on the subject. The only people who think that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra are random people from the Internet.

What Fr. Sullivan is writing on and on about is the ability of the CDF and/or the Pope to declare that a teaching is infallible by the ordinary magisterium, thereby raising the canon law penalty for dissent, without conducting an actual historical investigation into the matter. Interestingly enough, prior to the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis controversy, Fr. Sullivan authored a paper whereby he supports the infallibility by the ordinary magisterium of the teachings from Evangelium Vitae, even though he also has problems with the infallibility of moral teachings applied to particular situations, which is Cardinal Levada wrote his dissertation on yet flip-flopped once he joined the CDF.

The fact that it is Not infallible, in no way takes away from what it teaches and the binding authority of what it teaches.

**1984 Code of Canon Law

"Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.**

*One should not forget that Obstinate rejection of truth, is too from God, for how we have lived our lifes in accordance with His Truths. Amen!
*

 

[davidv]

The electric circuit does not recognise the number 2. It only recognises 1 or 0.

The electric circuits doesn’t recognize 1 and 0 either. Components on a circuit only robotically respond to differing levels of voltage or current.

 

[bobzills]

The electric circuits doesn’t recognize 1 and 0 either. Components on a circuit only robotically respond to differing levels of voltage or current.

If you don;t like that example, I can give you another scenario where 1+1 = 1.
Suppose that it is now 1:00. After 1 day, what time will it be? It will be 1:00. So if you add 1 day to the time of 1:00, you get the time of 1:00. QED.

 

[bobzills]

The fact that it is Not infallible, in no way takes away from what it teaches and the binding authority of what it teaches.!

Yes. I never said differently. If you will go back to what I have said here all along, I simply say that it is not inconceivable that this teaching may be changed sometime in the future because there is a question about whether or not the teaching is infallible.

 

[bobzills]

Let us pick a very easy truth to comprehend.

1+1=2

Now since this is a truth, it means that it cannot change.

There really are a whole lot of examples which prove you to be wrong. For example, from Scripture, we read that in marriage the two shall become one, so that again we have a case where 1+1 = 1. Matthew:19::5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

 

[PJM]

=bobzills;5271599]Yes. I never said differently. If you will go back to what I have said here all along, I simply say that it is not inconceivable that this teaching may be changed sometime in the future because there is a question about whether or not the teaching is infallible.

My dear friend,

Again and for the final time.

As JP II explained it is not an issue of willingness, it is an issue of lacking authority to do so. Why?

Physology. Jesus was Male gender, and the very words that institute the Sacramnet of Ordination are : “Do this in memory of ME!” Female gender cannot, a physical impossibility, fullfil this mandate. Not willnot, CANNOT!
**

Ordiantion is a Sacrament instituted by Christ.** Neither Church nor humanity can put asside waht God has made, what God Himself has done, Again not willnoy, but cannot!

Third is a distant third to the above: Is Sacred Tradition.

The Church as JP II has explained and proclaimed Cannot allow Ordination of women. It is not a matter of opinion, practice or even unwillingness, it is beyond human and escological control to do so. CANNOT, not WILLNOT!

God bless you, and have a great life.

 

[davidv]

If you don;t like that example, I can give you another scenario where 1+1 = 1.
Suppose that it is now 1:00. After 1 day, what time will it be? It will be 1:00. So if you add 1 day to the time of 1:00, you get the time of 1:00. QED.

Priest were Male more than a millennia ago, in a millennia they will still be male.

 

[RobNY]

Yes. I never said differently. If you will go back to what I have said here all along, I simply say that it is not inconceivable that this teaching may be changed sometime in the future because there is a question about whether or not the teaching is infallible.

bobzills,

It certainly is not infallible by means of an ex cathedra teaching by the Supreme Pontiff, but I do believe that the Pontiff is saying that it is infallible by means of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This was confirmed by the dubium submitted to the CDF, that it belongs to the deposit of faith.

I think the problem is that we’re in the middle of ‘development of doctrine’ concerning the infalliblity of the ordinary magisterium, and so the hermeneuts of discontinuity are still resistant to such an idea (which has been invoked, after all, on behalf of both doctrine on contraception and the male-only priesthood).

I would warn, of course, taking a matter of disagreement of fact as to whether something is manifest, as evidence that something isn’t manifest. Rather, we need to find out what would count as “manifest” evidence, and see whether that is there. (The very problem of our development of doctrine on the issue of the ordinary infallibility… I suppose… lies here.)

-Rob