A reader writes:
A friend is questioning why the ordination of women is not allowed in the Catholic Church, and I referred him to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 and Cardinal Ratzinger’s response from 1995. In the Cardinal’s response, there is a reference to a “dubium,” which begins “Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority . . .”
My Latin isn’t very good. What is a “dubium”? Is it a “doubt” or something “doubtful”? And what does it mean in this particular context?
A lot of folks have this question, because a kind of shorthand ecclesiastical jargon is being used here. Normally these documents don’t make big headlines, and so most folks aren’t familiar with them or the terminology associated with them, but here’s the scoop:
The full name for this kind of document is a Responsum ad Dubium, which in Latin means "A Response to a Doubt" or, somewhat more freely, "An Answer to a Question." They’re a kind of Vatican Q & A that the Holy See uses to clarify certain issues.
Since Responsum ad Dubium is kind of a mouthful, though, one of them may colloquially be called a Responsum or a Dubium, even though the latter doesn’t make much sense when translated literally as "Doubt."
Incidentally, the plural forms of these would be Responsa and Dubia.
Hope this helps!
It all makes sense. The Bud Ice penguin was really just a tormented progresisve Catholic, voicing his doubts, doubts, doubts about male-only ordination!
“Dubia, dubia, dubia!”
Sorry, I’ll go back inside now.
My comment isn’t directly related to the term “dubium” but to the specific question of women priests.
I find it odd that no one ever seems to get too uptight whenever a new Superman movie comes out and it always seems to be played by (omigosh) a man. I don’t think even liberal Hollywood has ever had a female Superman, who isn’t even a real person.
Yet so many get uptight when the priest, who is “in persona Christi”, is always a male. And Christ is not even a fictitious man as is Superman.
The priest is “in persona Christi” not “in persona Christina”.
That’s true, John E.
If you look at each priest as playing a role, being a living portrayal of Christ, it is silly to think that role could be appropraitely played by a woman.
It has nothing to do with skill or aptitude, it has everything to do with symbolism. It does not entail any sort of belief that women are inferior to men. It does involve acknowledging that women are NOT men, which these days may seem controversial to some.
As you say, I can’t conceive of anyone demanding that a woman be given the stage role of Napoleon or Julius Ceasar or Don Juan.
A female playing the role of, say, Abraham Lincoln or Elvis would serve to obscure, rather than expound, the legend. It would be a novelty, almost a farce.
Yet you occasionaly see a Stations of the Cross or something acted out, with a woman playing Jesus. It has always struck me as a political thing, saying, “see, women can represent Christ just fine!”
Can anyone tell me what responses these “Dubia” have? I assume they are not Magisterial but do they have any real authority at all besides being an expert opinion? Not that I disagree with the one mentioned, or any that I have read, but it would be good to know.
Oops, I meant to write “Can anyone tell me what authority these “dubia” have?
oops again
grr what’s wong with this thing or me?
I think you mean “wrong” J.R. 🙂
Dubia?
does this mean that George “Dubia” Bush is trying to rule the Vatican, as well, as the rest of the world? I guess he does think he has great big ones.
he is no match for B16, though and he probably couldn’t have carried JP the Great’s stole or miter, either.
I’m pretty sure that if DC has What If stories like Marvel does, there’s been “what if Superman was a woman?” stories. I guess you could take Supergirl’s character as almost an extended riff on that theme. And indeed, almost every successful male character has some sort of female counterpart, be it daughter, love interest, or what have you.
And the great Sarah Bernhardt did play Hamlet, very successfully. She played all sorts of roles in her career, including what opera fans call “pants roles” (male parts traditionally played by women). And indeed, serious theater throughout the world has included both female parts traditionally played by men or boys, and male parts traditionally played by girls or women.
So though I don’t disagree with you about “in persona Christi”, it’s not a good argument to use.
True, Maureen, the analogy does not go deep enough since “in persona Christi” is much more than just playing a part like an acting role.
Still, I know Superman, Superman was a friend of mine, Supergirl is no Superman. Seriously though, Supergirl is a seperate character. It would fit my analogy better if the Superman (not Supergirl) comic book drew a figure that was obviously a woman and called her Superman. It would be ridiculous.
Not sure if I should be embarrassed, but I’m not familiar with the great Sarah Bernhardt’s work. However, I would wager that she was probably very successful in her role as Hamlet because she fooled the audience enough by hiding her femininity, or else the audience had to suspend belief for the sake of the story. However, it would be an altogether different story if she dressed up like Juliet to play the part of Hamlet. Again, it would be ridiculous.
As far as the “pants roles”, could this be because the singing in the opera is more important than the acting and the audience suspends belief for the sake of that singing part?
I’m definitely open to better analogies though.
Seee… the President is a a Catholic…President George Dubia Bush.. See…It all makes sense now!
J.R. Stoodley,
I assume they are not Magisterial but do they have any real authority at all besides being an expert opinion?
CHRISTUS DOMINUS
9. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
The Dubium in question states it was published by the order of the pope.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Hope this is helpful.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J