The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not normally tasked with adding provisions to canon law, but under the direction of the pope, it can do whatever he wants it to.
And it has.
A new CDF document provides a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication for those who attempt to ordain women and for those women who receive such attempted ordinations.
TEXT:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith General Decree
On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:
In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.
If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).
The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
First, HERE’S CANON 1378 IN THE CIC.
And HERE’S CANON 1443 OF THE CCEO.
Now, SOME COMMENTARY BY ED PETERS.
Finally, a few thoughts of my own:
It’s interesting, as Ed points out, that the Holy See has gone in the direction of creating a new latae sententiae penalty rather than continuing the trend of abolishing them.
On the part of bishops there may be something of a preference for latae sententiae penalties in that they do not require the bishop to himself take the action of imposing a canonical penalty on one of his subjects–an action that is bound to be portrayed in terms of the harsh disciplinarian stereotype in the popular press. It is much easier for a bishop to say "So-and-so has excommunicated himself/herself by these actions" than "I hereby excommunicate so-and-so for these actions."
I think that in this case, though, there may be an additional and perhaps more fundamental reason for the penalty (at least in the Latin rite) being a latae sententiae one: These ordinations frequently occur in secret.
That’s how they got started, after all: If the claims of the original group of female ordinands are to be believed, they found a Catholic bishop somewhere who was willing to perform the initial ordinations. That man’s identity has not been revealed.
And subsequent to that event, some of these women have simulated ordination in secret or at least without their identities initially being known to their bishops.
The use of a latae sententiae penalty in this case sends a signal that simply keeping the identities of the parties a secret will not keep them from suffering excommunication. You can’t tell yourself, if you are a bishop or a prospective ordinand, "I’m free of canonical penalties as long as nobody knows I did this so that no penalties can be imposed on me."
Instead, the latae sententiae penalty in this case says, "The Church takes this crime so seriously that it provides for excommunication even when the parties, or even the fact, of the crime are unknown."
The same can be said of all the other latae sententiae penalties, such as the excommunication provided for abortion.
One might still question whether we should have latae sententiae penalties in the Latin rite, but I think that the reason for this one is more than just a desire to get bishops "off the hook" for having to impose a penalty. It’s a sign of the Church’s particularly strong desire to alert those who attempt these ordinations to the gravity of their actions.
Since the current decree is not retroactive, it will not touch those who have previously attempted these ordinations (including the original bishop, assuming that there was one), but it does send the signal going forward to all who would participate in them.
The femmi nazis just don’t get it.
So the ones who attempted or were involved in fake ordinations get away scott free, as far as “bell, book and candle go?
Their souls are a different story.
Maybe as a just medicine they should be excommunicated as well.
Kudos to B-16 and Cardinal Levada!
I’m not sure what to make of this response. Surely the Church’s disciplinary step here is a positive and encouraging one. I don’t understand this negative, critical reaction, with its apparent sense of scandal (“scott free”).
Presumably it’s those who attempted fake ordinations in the past that you’re concerned about, Dan? The going-forward excommunication isn’t enough, you feel retroactive excommunication also are essential? Or did you mean something else?
Well, maybe that would be a just medicine that would help them repent. And maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe finding themselves excommunicated for something that they did in the past when it wasn’t an excommunicable offense would only increase their sense of injustice and alienation from the Church and diminish their impetus to repent.
I don’t know. It seems at least an open question. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want to give the Church the benefit of the doubt and certainly be encouraged by a positive disciplinary action, rather than finding fault with the Church over not punishing past malefactors.
Grace and peace, Dan.
as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders
How far does one have to go to constitute “may have attempted to receive Holy Orders”?
Dan Hunter,
I suggest reading Ed Peters commentary on the subject.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I have no competence in this area at all, but is there any reason to think it means anything other than receiving imposition of hands for the purpose of ordination (or, in sufficiently revisionist play-acting, going through with whatever action is deemed or claimed to confer Holy Orders)?
I mean, suppose a woman gets up in the morning, gets dressed, catches a taxi to some secret location, gets vested, participates in opening prayers, but then before the imposition of hands her doubts and misgivings get the better of her and she backs down and walks away. I don’t know what the lawyers would say, but my uninformed knee-jerk reaction would be that she hasn’t actually attempted to receive Holy Orders, and thus I would suppose she isn’t excommunicated.
If we assume that’s more or less correct (and it might not be), it would seem to follow that one also wouldn’t get excommunicated for other actions aimed at attempting to secure (attempted) ordination, such as harassing your bishop or making inquiries after dissenting groups or clergy with the intention of ultimately attempting ordination.
Finally! I hope this gets some publicity in the Church. While it will upset those in favor of women’s ordination, it will give many a wake-up call.
Several religious education teachers I know have taught youth (somewhat informally) that women’s ordination is possible in the case of a future papal pronouncement. How can so many people believe that papal pronouncement is easily reversible? What happened to “when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (John 16:13) I’m especially wondering where this scripture went wrong with people with the recent popes. Would these two last(JPII&B16) really holy, thoroughly educated, and Spirit-filled men pronounce with such firmness something that is 100% opposed to the will of God? Of course not!
I wish people knew this subject better so that they could teach the next generation better. Women, although equal in value to men, have not been chosen by God to be part of the sacrament that is the priesthood- just as two men or two women have not been chosen by God (nor created by God) to be part of the sacrament that is marriage. I pray a better understanding of the Catholic Church’s doctrine comes to many.
is there any reason to think it means anything other than receiving imposition of hands for the purpose of ordination (or, in sufficiently revisionist play-acting, going through with whatever action is deemed or claimed to confer Holy Orders)?
Yes, if, for example, “may have attempted” and “actually did attempt” are not the same.
If “may” indicates possibility rather than actuality, then my wife “may have attempted” to obtain Holy Orders.
If “may” indicates permission and she did not have permission to obtain Holy Orders, then even if my wife actually attempted to obtain Holy Orders, it’s not true that she “may” have attempted to do so. On the other hand, if my wife actually had permission to attempt to obtain Holy Orders, then she “may” have attempted it, but then why should she be excommunicated?
suppose a woman gets up in the morning… but then… she backs down and walks away… my uninformed knee-jerk reaction would be that she hasn’t actually attempted to receive Holy Orders, and thus I would suppose she isn’t excommunicated.
Suppose she hired a hit man to kill the Pope but then called it off. Is it not still “attempted” murder? Likewise, you ask what if she “backs down”, but how can she back down unless she’d already proceeded up and forward? And if that’s not an attempt, what is?
Checking a dictionary, it says that to “attempt” means to make an effort (to do, accomplish, solve, or effect). But unless choice itself is effortless, then by that standard, simply making a choice to do something would alone constitute an attempt, would it not? For example, I recently received a call from a woman who works at a Catholic church. She told me she wants to be a priest and asked for my support. Is it possible (i.e. “may have”) that she attempted (by such choice and/or by calling me to seek my support) to receive Holy Orders?
it would seem to follow that one also wouldn’t get excommunicated for other actions aimed at attempting to secure (attempted) ordination, such as harassing your bishop or making inquiries after dissenting groups or clergy with the intention of ultimately attempting ordination.
When a woman calls to flat out say she wants to be a priest, is her aim merely to “attempt to secure (attempted) ordination”? Or is her aim and her struggle as she understands it to secure (real) ordination. Does a person struggle with piano lessons for years with the mere aim to “attempt” to play the piano? Or is such a person’s aim and struggle to actually play the piano. Indeed, she may say, “I want to take lessons,” but the fuller expression is, “I want to takes lessons with the aim of actually playing the piano.”
is there any reason to think it means anything other than receiving imposition of hands for the purpose of ordination (or, in sufficiently revisionist play-acting, going through with whatever action is deemed or claimed to confer Holy Orders)?
Yes, if, for example, “may have attempted” and “actually did attempt” are not the same.
If “may” indicates possibility rather than actuality, then my wife “may have attempted” to obtain Holy Orders.
If “may” indicates permission and she did not have permission to obtain Holy Orders, then even if my wife actually attempted to obtain Holy Orders, it’s not true that she “may” have attempted to do so. On the other hand, if my wife actually had permission to attempt to obtain Holy Orders, then she “may” have attempted it, but then why should she be excommunicated?
suppose a woman gets up in the morning… but then… she backs down and walks away… my uninformed knee-jerk reaction would be that she hasn’t actually attempted to receive Holy Orders, and thus I would suppose she isn’t excommunicated.
Suppose she hired a hit man to kill the Pope but then called it off. Is it not still “attempted” murder? Likewise, you ask what if she “backs down”, but how can she back down unless she’d already proceeded up and forward? And if that’s not an attempt, what is?
Checking a dictionary, it says that to “attempt” means to make an effort (to do, accomplish, solve, or effect). But unless choice itself is effortless, then by that standard, simply making a choice to do something would alone constitute an attempt, would it not? For example, I recently received a call from a woman who works at a Catholic church. She told me she wants to be a priest and asked for my support. Is it possible (i.e. “may have”) that she attempted (by such choice and/or by calling me to seek my support) to receive Holy Orders?
it would seem to follow that one also wouldn’t get excommunicated for other actions aimed at attempting to secure (attempted) ordination, such as harassing your bishop or making inquiries after dissenting groups or clergy with the intention of ultimately attempting ordination.
When a woman calls to flat out say she wants to be a priest, is her aim merely to “attempt to secure (attempted) ordination”? Or is her aim and her struggle as she understands it to secure (real) ordination. Does a person struggle with piano lessons for years with the mere aim to “attempt” to play the piano? Or is such a person’s aim and struggle to actually play the piano. Indeed, she may say, “I want to take lessons,” but the fuller expression is, “I want to takes lessons with the aim of actually playing the piano.”
In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, … the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication
Also, perhaps Ed Peters can explain how it’s “in accordance with what is disposed by Canon 1378″, when there’s nothing in Canon 1378 about a woman attempting to receive Holy Orders? As Ed Peters calls it, it’s an addition. So why doesn’t it say instead, “in addition to what is disposed by Can 1378”?
Well yes it’s an addition that is in accordance with that Canon… What’s the issue here?
It seems to me that “may have attempted” could be intended to allow for scenarios in which an actual would-be ordaining agent (presumed to be a man) is understood to have actually attempted to ordain an actual woman, but it is not assumed that the woman in question has necessarily attempted to receive ordination.
In other words, suppose a man in episcopal regalia abruptly accosts a woman at random, lays hands on her, and says “Hixie pixie, you’re a priest!” Or suppose that she believes she is only going to be confirmed, or to receive a blessing. The provision clearly indicates that the would-be ordaining agent’s actions are sufficient to excommunicate him without assuming the woman’s complicity.
Presumably, the provision also intends that the woman in such cases is not excommunicated. That might be a slightly awkward reading of the English, but it has the great virtue of making sense, which neither of the readings you proposed do, for the reasons you ably set out yourself.
Anyway, after The Chicken schooling me in the marriage thread on how in Latin “extrinsically indissoluble” can amount to “absolutely indissoluble” while “intrinsically indissoluble” can amount to “potentially dissoluble,” which is pretty much the exact opposite of the natural reading in English, I’m not prepared to make any definite sweeping statements about Latin texts based on English translations. I’m going to go with what seems to make sense until I have reason to go with something else.
Incidentally, not explicitly envisioned in this provision, apparently, are scenarios involving a woman who attempts to receive ordination from another woman, as well as a woman who attempts to receive ordination from a male agent who does not intend to bestow it on her. (To give a very silly example, suppose a woman were to try to leap between a bishop and a candidate for ordination and receive the imposition of his hands. Somewhat less absurdly, suppose a woman were to dress as a man and pass herself off as a candidate for ordination. In this case, the woman attempts to receive Holy Orders, but the bishop does not “attempt to confer holy orders on a woman” in a reasonable construal of that phrase.)
I thus find my original supposition that “attempting to receive ordination” may very well mean nothing other than receiving imposition of hands for the purpose of ordination to be a reasonable one, though again I’m open to better informed opinion or instruction.
If the claims of the original group of female ordinands are to be believed, they found a Catholic bishop somewhere who was willing to perform the initial ordinations. That man’s identity has not been revealed.
This fact alone ought to ring alarm bells in the media and the mind of anyone (male or female) who sincerely wanted to become a catholic priest via this line of succession.
Anyone (male or female) can claim to have been secretly ordained priest or consecrated bishop. In the absence of any reliable corroborating evidence, even the “ordination” of a qualified male via this alleged apostolic succession raises the suspicion of simulating a sacrament – regardless of whether one thinks women are capable of being ordained.
it’s an addition that is in accordance with that Canon.i>
Actually, it’s an addition that’s presumably in accordance with every Canon.
What’s the issue here?
Is there an issue? “What is disposed by Canon 1368” is “a priest who acts against the prescript of Canon 977”, “a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice”, and “a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.” As these all incur a penalty of latae sententiae, there is accordance on that basis. In that the instance of a women who “may have attempted” to receive Holy Orders was “added,” was its accordance added as well?
The issue may be italics!
Having read Ed’s comments, it seems to me that “in accordance with” might reasonably be understood to mean neither “reiterating” (which would be untrue) nor “not contradicting” (which would be trivial), but perhaps something like “reinforcing,” “in furtherance of the principle behind,” “as a logical or organic extension of,” etc.
It seems to me that “may have attempted” could be intended to allow for scenarios in which an actual would-be ordaining agent (presumed to be a man) is understood to have actually attempted to ordain an actual woman, but it is not assumed that the woman in question has actually attempted to receive ordination… Presumably, the provision also intends that the woman in such cases is not excommunicated.
Yet the English translation clearly states that the woman is excommunicated if she “may have attempted to receive Holy Orders.”
Incidentally, not explicitly envisioned in this provision, apparently, are scenarios involving a woman who attempts to receive ordination from another woman, as well as a woman who attempts to receive ordination from a male agent who does not intend to bestow it on her.
Also not explicitly envisioned in the English translation is the obvious scenario of a woman who attempts to receive ordination from a man who intends to do so. Rather, the text speaks of “the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders” without any explicitly necessary connection as to whom was offering it. Such a connection may be inferred at one’s option.
Also not explicitly addressed is the issue of a woman who attempts to receive Holy Orders by herself. What if she stood on a mountain top and attempted a do-it-herself self-ordainment? Is she excommunicated?
I thus find my original supposition that “attempting to receive ordination” may very well mean nothing other than receiving imposition of hands for the purpose of ordination to be a reasonable one, though again I’m open to better informed opinion or instruction.
You’ve equated “attempting to receive ordination” with “receiving imposition of hands.” That’s one possibility. How well does it fit with your own examples?
You said, “suppose a woman were to try to leap between a bishop and a candidate for ordination.” Did she attempt to be ordained? Is she excommunicated, or not? By your standard, if she didn’t receive imposition of the hands, she didn’t attempt to be ordained and thus is not excommunicated despite her elaborate ploy.
Or, “suppose a woman were to dress as a man and pass herself off as a candidate for ordination. In this case, the woman attempts to receive Holy Orders.” You mentioned nothing about hands, yet you admit she attempts to receive Holy Orders. Is she excommunicated? If not, at what exact time would she be excommunicated? Again by your standard, until she received imposition of the hands, she didn’t attempt to be ordained and thus is not excommunicated despite her elaborate ploy.
What if she had no understanding of any issue of hands at all? What if the man (or whomever) had instructed her that it involved putting on a dress. Can she be excommunicated if she had a misunderstanding? If not, then what woman can be excommunicated for attempting to receive Holy Orders?
Having read Ed’s comments, it seems to me that “in accordance with” might reasonably be understood to mean…
In harmony with.
it seems to me that “in accordance with” might reasonably be understood to mean neither “reiterating” (which would be untrue) nor “not contradicting” (which would be trivial
When translated as “without prejudice to” or “notwithstanding”, it often connects to a not so trivial consideration.
A video which goes over the issue of why women are not ordained from what is probably a perspective many have not heard: http://www.gloria.tv/?video=gbolihx0rz09odbojdex
Hopefully it helps folks understand why this is not a sexist thing at all and what a terrible degradation of women it is to suggest they ought to be ordained.
Discussed and dealt with in my previous comments.
This seems unconvincing to me. While as I said earlier I am unwilling to build any definite arguments based on nuances of an English translation from a Latin text, in English the twice-repeated switch from indefinite article (in the clause referring to the man and “a woman”) to definite article (in the clause referring to “the woman”) would seem to give the latter the force of “the woman just referred to.” Thus both sentences seem to pick out a single state of affairs involving a particular man attempting to ordain a particular woman (with or without her consent).
You are correct, attempted self-ordination is not explicitly dealt with.
With respect to the examples that I mentioned as satisfying the provisions of the decree, I think it fits quite well. It does not necessarily fit those scenarios I mentioned as possibly not falling under the provision of the decree.
Yes, those would be the scenarios I said may not necessarily fall under the provision of the decree as worded, first of all because the decree seems to take for granted in any such incident the active intent of the would-be ordaining agent to confer Holy Orders.
In such a case, it seems to me that it would certainly be in accordance with the spirit of the decree that a woman who is prevented in her (impossible) attempt to receive Holy Orders only by discovery, or by the bishop’s reflexes, should be liable to excommunication, and if she were not it would only be by a technicality or two. But that’s only my construal. What the experts would say, I don’t know.
Happily, the decree and the normal situation involving attempted ordination of a woman are both sufficiently clear-cut that in actual practice there would seldom if ever be any real doubt as to whether the decree applies to a particular situation. This is as it should be; “hard cases make bad law,” and all that.
Here I think I may be on somewhat firmer ground.
With (again) all necessary disclaimers about being outside my expertise, I believe it is clear from the general principles governing latae sententiae excommunication that the person must understand at the time of the excommunicable action that it is in fact an excommunicable offense.
From this it would follow, firstly, that a woman who actually attempts to receive Holy Orders, even through the imposition of an actual bishop’s hands, if she does not know that the Church forbids her action under penalty of excommunication, would not be excommunicated. (In theory, even the bishop could be ignorant enough to escape the penalty, although this is hopefully very unlikely.)
In such an extreme scenario as you describe, where a woman has been persuaded that receiving Holy Orders involves some action other than the imposition of hands (e.g., putting on a dress), it seems very likely that the woman in question will not adequately understand the censure attached to the action.
That said, whatever misunderstandings about the nature of the sacrament a woman may have (and as you imply any woman seeking Holy Orders obviously has misunderstandings on some level), if she clearly understands that for a woman to attempt to receive Holy Orders carries a penalty of excommunication, and if she actually does attempt to receive Holy Orders in defiance of Church teaching and discipline (whether by the imposition of hands, the putting on a dress, or any other action), in principle it would seem to me that she would be liable to excommunication.
Obviously, there are further rabbit trails we might explore regarding what constitutes sufficient understanding of what it means to be excommunicated, etc. For example, having posited a poor deluded woman who believes that she can be “ordained” by putting on a dress, you might go on to posit that her puppet masters have further told her that when she does so she will be “excommunicated,” which is a Latin word meaning that the Church will take her out for ice cream. It is not much less far-fetched.
I’m far from competent to chase down all possible rabbits. However, as previously noted, the principles are clear enough that few people will be in any real doubt as to the applicability in the majority of cases; for the rare extreme case, we can defer to the experts.
the decree and the normal situation involving attempted ordination of a woman are both sufficiently clear-cut
I’ve not discussed ordination “of” a woman so much as only what is required to qualify as an attempt “by” a woman to receive Holy Orders for the purposes of excommunication, and that is not without question from the text alone. Whether it’s “sufficiently” clear, it’s what’s been presented.
In such an extreme scenario as you describe, where a woman has been persuaded that receiving Holy Orders involves some action other than the imposition of hands (e.g., putting on a dress), it seems very likely that the woman in question will not adequately understand the censure attached to the action.
The woman who called me did not seem to adequately understand many things about the ordination of women (and other Catholic matters), but I’d be hard pressed to say that it’s “very likely” she didn’t adequately understand the prohibition. She knew it was prohibited. If she didn’t, why would she have called me for my support? So a person can be quite ignorant of many things in regard to ordination, even to think that it involves putting on a dress, but that doesn’t make it “very likely” that she’s oblivious to the prohibition.
if she clearly understands that for a woman to attempt to receive Holy Orders carries a penalty of excommunication, and if she actually does attempt to receive Holy Orders in defiance of Church teaching and discipline (whether by the imposition of hands, the putting on a dress, or any other action), in principle it would seem to me that she would be liable to excommunication.
That seems reasonable, if yet still vague (“any other action”).
“excommunicated,” which is a Latin word meaning that the Church will take her out for ice cream. It is not much less far-fetched
It’s not far-fetched that many people seemingly flock to the far-fetched. If someone can see Jesus in a pancake, why not go for ice cream?
As previously noted, understanding the prohibition is not enough. By “the censure attached to the action,” I meant not simply the prohibition, but the penalty of excommunication.
Concrete language is limited; sweeping language is vague. We cannot talk with equal clarity about everything at once.
From what has been said it seems to me the question of liability to excommunication of a woman who thinks excommunication means ice cream seems sufficiently clear.
understanding the prohibition is not enough. By “the censure attached to the action,” I meant not simply the prohibition, but the penalty of excommunication.
Quite so, understanding the prohibition is not enough. But when asked if she understands the penalty, she says, “Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. What I understand is that God calls me and many women to be priests and a prohibition against that is invalid. Why should there be a penalty for doing what I in my conscience believe is right? Our parish priest came to our home for dinner and we talked about the role of women in the Church, and he’s supportive. I study, I go to classes on women in the priesthood. I don’t claim to know everything, and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but if my understanding is wrong on ordination of women, would you think my understanding of a penalty would be any better?”
We cannot talk with equal clarity about everything at once.
I didn’t ask that we try that.
From what has been said it seems to me the question of liability to excommunication of a woman who thinks excommunication means ice cream seems sufficiently clear.
She can be liable even if she thinks the word “liable” means ice cream, and she can be liable to excommunication even if she believes the word “excommunication” means ice cream — if vocabulary ignorance and ignorance of the punishment are not identical. But maybe you’ve switched from vocabulary ignorance as you spoke of in your pior post to ignorance of the punishment regardless of her vocabulary skills. Then yes, if she’s eating ice cream and blissfully ignorant of the punishment, there’s little question.
Non sequitur. There are plenty of dissenters with sufficient understanding of the Church’s teaching and discipline, including penal discipline, who nevertheless obstinately refuse to accept the teaching and are even willing to defy the discipline and the attached punishment.
I said earlier that any woman seeking Holy Orders has misunderstandings “on some level.” However, there are misunderstandings and misunderstandings; not all ignorance is invincible, nor is integral theological mastery a prerequisite for defiance and sin.
If my ten-year-old deliberately disobeys his parents’ rules without just cause, somewhere he is misunderstanding something. But Catholic thought is different from Platonism, which found ignorance at the root of all evil; the ten-year-old can still justly incur the punishment he understands for the offense he understands in spite of the element of confusion involved in the offense.
That’s cute, but since you track down your own rabbit I have no objection to the additional trail.
Quite so, understanding the prohibition is not enough. But when asked if she understands the penalty, she says, “Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. What I understand is that God calls me and many women to be priests and a prohibition against that is invalid.Why should there be a penalty for doing what I in my conscience believe is right? Our parish priest came to our home for dinner and we talked about the role of women in the Church, and he’s supportive. I study, I go to classes on women in the priesthood. I don’t claim to know everything, and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but if my understanding is wrong on ordination of women, would you think my understanding of a penalty would be any better?”
Or, in plain English — yes, she understands. She knows that the penalty’s there and she will incure it. Reminds me of an American lawyer talking of the clients who don’t understand that mens rea requires not that they intend to break the law but that they intend to do all the actions which constitute a given crime.
“What I understand is that God calls me and many women to be priests and a prohibition against that is invalid.Why should there be a penalty for doing what I in my conscience believe is right?”
In short, she knows better than the Church what God wants – it is she and not the Pope and the Bishops through whom God speaks to his people. Call that what you like, but don’t call it Catholic.
If my ten-year-old deliberately disobeys his parents’ rules without just cause, somewhere he is misunderstanding something… the ten-year-old can still justly incur the punishment he understands for the offense he understands in spite of the element of confusion involved in the offense.
If you thought this woman were your child, she’d look you in the face and tell you she doesn’t believe you. And even if you could convince her that you are her parent, she’d say you must be a fallible parent because your prohibition and punishment are as unjust as forbidding her to breathe. Like I said, she says she’s called by God to be a priest, and anything that stands between is wrong.
but since you track down your own rabbit I have no objection to the additional trail.
In Christian charity, that rabbit is no more mine than it’s yours. It was released with your reference to vocabulary and rounded up in my post.
Or, in plain English — yes, she understands. She knows that the penalty’s there and she will incure it.
She knows someone wearing a uniform claiming to have authority has delivered a message. She knows it says she’ll incur a penalty. She tells me her conscience tells her this one is a fake. If she’s misreading her conscience or her conscience is malformed, does that mean she knows she’ll incur a penalty?
In short, she knows better than the Church what God wants – it is she and not the Pope and the Bishops through whom God speaks to his people. Call that what you like, but don’t call it Catholic.
If she’s of some other religion, can she be excommunicated? Or is she already.
I hate myself for having read this ‘discussion’.
And why’s that, Elijah? Enlighten us.
Just out of curiousity, why is it that basically every protestant denomination does ordain women? And where is the biblical justification for the idea that women can’t be priests, or otheriwse hold authority in the hierarchies of the church?
Grew up Catholic, currently attending Episcopalian services… this is a strong sticking point for my returning to what I still consider my (and “the”) Church. Seems to me that like much of what is considered “infallible doctrine” is actually 1500-years-ago-ish rewriting of traditions that weren’t biblical then and aren’t biblical now.
“Grew up Catholic, currently attending Episcopalian services… this is a strong sticking point for my returning to what I still consider my (and “the”) Church.”
That’s interesting. I consider it “the” Church, as well, and for that reason, wild horses couldn’t drag me out of it.
Others can address better than I can the reasons why women have never – in 2000 years of Church history – received the sacrament of ordination, and why only men *can* be ordained. I do know that the pattern for each sacrament was set by Christ, and that we have no authority to monkey with that because it might make some of us feel better.
If you are truly waiting for the Church to ordain women before returning, plan for a long life as an Episcopalian.
Go easy on Elijah, Tim J. I have a feeling the smell of gnostic troll makes Elijah queasy, that’s all. Some of us have stronger stomachs than others. And even I have felt a bit queasy the last few go-rounds.
Not in the Catholic Church, she isn’t. The teaching and discipline of the Catholic Church are not in doubt. If she believes that God and the Catholic Church have views so deeply opposed, her only viable recourse is to go call herself a priest in some other tradition.
It’s unclear to me how “fake” is to be understood in this context. The Church’s authority does not rest in uniforms or private claims. Someone is recognized as the bishop of Rome. If he says, or authorizes the saying, that action X causes you to be excommunicated, and you know that he says or authorizes this saying, and you have a working understanding of what is meant by all this, then it seems clear to me that you have sufficient knowledge to excommunicate yourself by committing the offense in question.
Non sequitur. Your starting supposition is not warranted by Tim J’s observation.
Sorry for not being clear, Tim. SDG is correct about the feeling behind my post.
The Traditional teaching regarding the ordination of women is clear, as is the new document. Pretending otherwise is silly. Pretending otherwise for pages and pages? Pfff.
I know, I don’t have to read the combox. But, as a convert from a very anti-Catholic background, I credit Jimmy’s posts as well as the many fruitful discussions that have followed with easing my transition into the Church and helping to equip me to deal with my family. I always check back in hopes of learning something useful and I often do. Other times I just end up wasting time reading smart-alecky nonsense from folks who aren’t here for a real conversation.
If she believes that God and the Catholic Church have views so deeply opposed, her only viable recourse is to go call herself a priest in some other tradition.
Do you really believe such action to be a viable recourse? Instead, why not give up those beliefs?
It’s unclear to me how “fake” is to be understood in this context. The Church’s authority does not rest in uniforms or private claims. Someone is recognized as the bishop of Rome.
If it helps, I don’t recall saying she recognizes the bishop of Rome on this matter or that she recognizes a decree from the CDF as authoritative, final and binding. Like I described before, she seems to consider (her) conscience to be the ‘aboriginal Vicar of Christ’.
Non sequitur. Your starting supposition is not warranted by Tim J’s observation.
Actually, it precedes Tim J’s post. Tim J’s post on what is and what isn’t Catholic touches on it. As I noted much earlier, there are other Catholic matters on which she might be questioned. From what I can tell, her stance on the ordination of women is just one of many.
See?
Dear Kineticriticality,
Are you still reading this combox and do you really want to engage in constuctive discussion about why the Catholic Church cannot ordain women?
The Chicken
I hear you, Elijah.
Jimmy’s blog seems to me to draw a larger than average number of trolls.
It’s like there is always someone out there ready to derail a discussion by the vapid manipulation of language. It’s a kind of shell game, where the frame of reference constantly shifts and words have no fixed meanings.
Entertaining, I guess, for people who have no life.
No, I don’t think so. Mostly, it’s just one really persistent troll. Other trolls do come and go, burn out in a day or two, get banned, whatever. Our friend B’Art, like a chronic toothache, just sticks around. His name is Legion, for he is many, but they’re all that one guy.
Inevitably, someone throws out the “I’m called by God” card. It’s true that there is an interior call. But there is also an exterior call determined by the Church. There are plenty of men who had the interior call, but not the exterior.
First ask your friend to answer question 2, and then I will answer question 1.
I’m not sure what it would mean for someone to recognize (or not) the bishop of Rome “on this [or any other] matter.” What I said was: Someone is recognized as the bishop of Rome.
In that case, the answer to your question depends on the sense and context of your phrase “of some other religion.”
If she’s of some other religion, can she be excommunicated? Or is she already.
It means putting someone out of communion. If she belonged to a different religion, or even a different sect of Christianity not in communion with the Pope, she can’t be put out. She’s not in to be put out.
Like I said, she says she’s called by God to be a priest, and anything that stands between is wrong.
If she said she was called by God to be Pope, I have no doubt she would expect anything that stood in her way to be wrong, too. Like the inconvenience of a living Pope who won’t resign in her favor and the College of Cardinals.
Just out of curiousity, why is it that basically every protestant denomination does ordain women?
Spirit of the age.
After all, it’s not as if, during the Reformation, they all instantly saw the Church was wrong and decided to ordain women.
I note the Orthodox still agree with the Catholics on this point.
She knows someone wearing a uniform claiming to have authority has delivered a message. She knows it says she’ll incur a penalty. She tells me her conscience tells her this one is a fake.
Fake? It can’t tell her the penalty is fake. It could only tell her that the penalty is wrong.
It’s like the legend of St. Valentine that says he was executed for performing marriage ceremonies for legionnaries whom the Emperor had ordered to remain single. He defied the penalty because the law was wrong, not because the penalty was unreal.
If she believes that God and the Catholic Church have views so deeply opposed, her only viable recourse is to go call herself a priest in some other tradition.
Do you really believe such action to be a viable recourse? Instead, why not give up those beliefs?
It is not only viable, it is the only sane recourse.
“Giving up those beliefs” is entering some other tradition.
Just as if someone didn’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is God and man, his only viable and sane recourse is to leave Christianity. He can’t “give up those beliefs.”
If she said she was called by God to be Pope, I have no doubt she would expect anything that stood in her way to be wrong, too.
Oo! I want to play! Let’s see…
I am called by God to be President, so you Secret Service guys can just lower your weapons.
I am called by God to be Napoleon, you elderberry-smelly Brits are wrong in your attempts to prevent me from retaking my emperor’s crown.
I am called by God to be a cat. Meow.
Inevitably, someone throws out the “I’m called by God” card. It’s true that there is an interior call. But there is also an exterior call determined by the Church.
That may be followed by “The game isn’t over” card or the “Check the deck” card.
First ask your friend to answer question 2, and then I will answer question 1.
Q2: “Why not give up those beliefs?”
A2: “I should not ignore my conscience.”
I’m not sure what it would mean for someone to recognize (or not) the bishop of Rome “on this [or any other] matter.” What I said was: Someone is recognized as the bishop of Rome.
I take it to mean she believes the bishop of Rome has not spoken in absolute finality on the matter of woman’s ordination and until she understands otherwise reserves the final decision to her conscience on such matter.
In that case, the answer to your question depends on the sense and context of your phrase “of some other religion.”
The sense and context of “Call that what you like, but don’t call it Catholic.”
If she belonged to a different religion, or even a different sect of Christianity not in communion with the Pope, she can’t be put out. She’s not in to be put out.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “With the foregoing exceptions, all who have been baptized are liable to excommunication, even those who have never belonged to the true Church, since by their baptism they are really her subjects, though of course rebellious ones. Moreover, the Church excommunicates not only those who abandon the true faith to embrace schism or heresy, but likewise the members of heretical and schismatic communities who have been born therein.”
If she said she was called by God to be Pope
She didn’t.
Fake? It can’t tell her the penalty is fake. It could only tell her that the penalty is wrong.
No, “fake” as in something wrong but presented as if it were right. The words “this one” were not intended to refer to the penalty as you may have construed it but to the “claiming” / message.
“Giving up those beliefs” is entering some other tradition.
No, “those beliefs” refered to believing “that God and the Catholic Church have views so deeply opposed.” It is traditional to not believe that, while believing it would be entering some other tradition.
Just as if someone didn’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is God and man, his only viable and sane recourse is to leave Christianity.
Not so. A man who doesn’t want to believe the truth is a man who wants to believe a lie. He has a viable and sane recourse to not believe the lie.
He can’t “give up those beliefs.”
Then according to your own words, he can’t enter some other tradition, for you yourself said, “’Giving up those beliefs’ is entering some other tradition.” When you yourself have trampled your “only sane and viable recourse”, how sane and viable is it? Do you have any other recourse when it was your only?
Dear Art,
You wrote:
I take it to mean she believes the bishop of Rome has not spoken in absolute finality on the matter of woman’s ordination and until she understands otherwise reserves the final decision to her conscience on such matter.
How much more absolute finality does she want? In the apostolic letter,
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, May 22, 1994, Pope John Paul II wrote:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
When the Pope says, I declare, what stronger language can he use? When he says, whatsoever and definitively held, that means that that this is the established position of the Church, forever. No future Pope can change this.
The Chicken
“I take it to mean she believes the bishop of Rome has not spoken in absolute finality on the matter of woman’s ordination”
And she won’t believe he has spoken with finality as long as he continues to disagree with her. This is how dissenters do “dialogue”… the question remains open (in their view) until they get their way.
So, no issue is ever settled on mere authority, but only by the power of personal opinion.
How much more absolute finality does she want? … When the Pope says, I declare, what stronger language can he use? When he says, whatsoever and definitively held, that means that that this is the established position of the Church, forever. No future Pope can change this.quote from an obvious source, “Key theologians from all over the world have rejected this claim.”
Yet to
And she won’t believe he has spoken with finality as long as he continues to disagree with her.
“He continues to disagree with her” is one heck of a way to speak with finality.
“Obvious source” mentioned in previous post:
http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/mag_con2.asp
And
http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/mag_con1.asp
Q1: “Do you really believe such action to be a viable recourse?”
A1: Since she professes to be bound in conscience and cannot rectify her beliefs, then I would say her most viable course — I think I can use that word, not without caveats — is to call herself a priest in some other tradition. If she seeks ordination as a Catholic, knowing the Church’s stance, she will be excommunicate, cut off from the sacraments and in many ways from the life of the Church. And to attempt to carry out some mockery of ordained ministry within the Church in defiance of such a discipline of sanction would, I think, be a far graver hazard to her soul even than leaving the Church. So, yes, as far as I can see the latter is her most viable option.
(Aside: And if or when she is given to understand otherwise?)
In any case, that is irrelevant to the question of the disciplinary consequence of excommunication. It might transpire, God knoweth how, that one is bound in conscience to undertake a course of action that could even result in excommunication. In general this would be due to wrongly formed conscience, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that one could even be in the right. Even so, neither the authority of conscience or even the rectitude of one’s cause negates the disciplinary decision of the Church. One would have to be prepared in such an extremity to say, “If the Church excommunicates me, she excommunicates me. I do as I must. God will be the final judge.” But even in the event of wrongful judgment by the Church, the Church’s disciplinary action continues to have normative force.
An officer who deliberately defies direct orders to save his regiment may be a hero. Yet he does so knowing that the price of his heroism may be relief of duty, arrest and court-martial. While he rightly hopes ultimately to be vindicated by due process, the justice of his actions does not entitle him afterwards to defy all due process, resist arrest, try to continue to command the regiment, break out of custody and/or defy the court that, rightly or wrongly, is tasked with judging him. If his superior officers relieve him of duty, rightly or wrongly, he is relieved. In some cases he might have recourse instead to relieve them of duty, but if that is not a viable course he must submit to military discipline.
Even a real priest, an ordained man, who finds himself excommunicate, even unjustly, is nevertheless ordinarily gravely obliged to refrain from priestly ministry. A woman who believes herself ordained but who is excommunicate has no more right to defy Church discipline.
A man is recognized as the bishop of Rome. That has inexorable consequences, not only when he speaks ex cathedra.
Dissent-speak for “Dissenters all over the world refuse to accept Church teaching.” To quote from that same source, “In ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ Rome claims that the exclusion of women from priestly ordination has been infallibly decided by the ‘ordinary universal magisterium’.” Even the dissenters admit that Rome teaches (“claims”) precisely what they reject. The Holy See, not the “magisterium of theologians,” is the guardian of Church teaching.
In that sense and context, I would say she might still be a member of the Catholic Church, and thus subject to excommunication.
Dear Art,
You wrote:
Yet to quote from an obvious source, “Key theologians from all over the world have rejected this claim.”
So what. Who cares what “key” theologians think. Rome has spoken. The matter is settled. If they choose to continue to disagree, they deserve neither the title of key nor theologian. The value of pi is not a matter of opinion any more than the ordination of women is. At some point truth is truth. God speaks through the Pope in these matters. To reject the Pope when he speaks definitively (as he has, here) is to reject God. I can only conclude, then, they your “key” theologians either reject God or are ignorant of how he really speaks to the Church.
The Chicken
Yes, I am still reading this, and am really keen to get at the biblical basis for the lack of ordination for women and the absence of wives for priests. Aside those two points, which I admittedly have not researched deeply, I find myself at 30 wondering why I ever left “the” church — especially since the Episcopalian church is about as Catholic as a church can get without a Pope, as far as I can tell, in most of the ways that matter.
I could do my own homework. Or I could ask the clearly well-informed and interested community here. Having read this blog for nearly a year, I expect the answer I get here to be illuminating. Thanks Chicken, and any other respondent.
I would say her most viable course … is to call herself a priest in some other tradition… to attempt to carry out some mockery of ordained ministry within the Church in defiance of such a discipline of sanction would, I think, be a far graver hazard to her soul even than leaving the Church. So, yes, as far as I can see the latter is her most viable option.
Do you have a suggestion how she’d “call herself a priest in some other tradition” without becoming an apostate, a heretic or a schismatic, each of which has the potential to incur automatic excommunication?
In any case, that is irrelevant to the question of the disciplinary consequence of excommunication… One would have to be prepared in such an extremity to say, “If the Church excommunicates me, she excommunicates me. I do as I must. God will be the final judge.”
To whom is it a question? As you describe, the “question of the disciplinary consequence” would seem to be irrelevant in the view of such a person.
A woman who believes herself ordained but who is excommunicate has no more right to defy Church discipline.
What right will she have to follow her conscience?
Even the dissenters admit that Rome teaches (“claims”) precisely what they reject.
The dissenters say it falls short of the requirements to constitute such a teaching.
Rome has spoken. The matter is settled… I can only conclude…
That’s you speaking your conclusion on what you read. Others have read everything you have, some more, some less, some perhaps given it more consideration, some less, and have spoken their conclusions also. You have your reasons, and they have theirs.
Since that is precisely the penalty attached to calling herself a priest in the Catholic tradition, it would seem her conscience binds her to a choice of poisons. But some are worse than others, and I think she need not be excommunicate, though it seems to me the closest thing to an honest conscience we can hope for her (which, short of conversion, is the best I can see to hope for her) is defection.
She need not be an apostate — Protestants and even sub-Christian sect members like JWs and Mormons are not that. She is already a heretic, I think, since Rome considers the doctrine she rejects to be infallibly proposed.
If she were to decide that God wants her to be a priest in the Anglican communion, I’m not sure, but I don’t think that is schism, nor do I think the sanction of excommunication is attached to such defection. It’s still grave matter, but it may be the closest thing to an honest conscience one could hope for her.
Needless to say, those who love her ought still to pray for her conversion and return to Catholic orthodoxy. But Catholic heresy and excommunicate false ministry is not a preferrable state of affairs to defection and Protestant clergy work.
I’m not sure I see that. See the case of the officer defying orders.
Anyone can claim that anything is dictated by conscience. Some claims are less honestly come by than others.
They do not, as far as I know. All I said was “taught,” not “infallibly proposed.” I’m not aware that anyone denies that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis teaches that men only can be ordained — only that the teaching has been infallibly proposed. OS is unambiguously a teaching document, a document of the ordinary magisterium. It is not an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium and thus not infallible, but it is still a teaching document, and what it “claims” it teaches, certainly with respect to what is Church teaching.
Also, the teaching in this case is of a remarkable (one might even colloquially say extraordinary) sort: Without infallibly proposing, it proposes that the teaching has already been infallibly proposed. This is teaching of a particularly strong and solemn sort. Any ordinary teaching of the magisterium requires a certain docility of the intellect, but a teaching that is proposed as already infallibly defined, even if this teaching itself is not infallible, seems to demand assent in the face of all but the gravest and most intractable intellectual difficulties, difficulties so grave that they could hardly be circumvented even if the teaching were unambiguously to be infallibly proposed.
Can all who dissent from this teaching claim that their difficulties are really of this order? As I asked before, what becomes of your friend if she should come to understand that the teaching is infallibly defined?
Dear Kineticriticality,
I will try to answer your questions from a Biblical basis, but you must understand that the Bible may be somewhat unclear on certain issues (it does not contradict Church teaching, but some matters have been more easily understood from the oral Tradition and not the written Tradition). I will start from Scripture, but then use oral tradition, as needed to explain and amplify -if this is alright with you. If not, then I will stay strictly with Scripture. My purpose here is to teach and explore the matter with you and it would be best to use those tools that can do the best job. I will let you choose.
I will also say, from the start that I and the others here are a bit humbled to have this oportunity. You are important to us.
I am about to start class, so I can only start the ball rolling. The easier topic is priests having a wife. There are two passages of Scripture that deal with this most directly:
Mat 19:10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
Mat 19:11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
and
1Cr 7: 24 So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.
1Cr 7:25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
1Cr 7:26 I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
1Cr 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
1Cr 7:28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
1Cr 7:29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
1Cr 7:30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
1Cr 7:31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
1Cr 7:32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
1Cr 7:33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
1Cr 7:34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
1Cr 7:35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
1Cr 7:36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry–it is no sin.
1Cr 7:37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
1Cr 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
We can discuss these later, today. I must get to class.
The Chicken
I think she need not be excommunicate… Catholic heresy and excommunicate false ministry is not a preferrable state of affairs to defection and Protestant clergy work.
You already said she’s a heretic (you think), and if she withdraws or has withdrawn her submission to the Supreme Pontiff she’s also a schismatic. Canon lawyers please feel free to comment, but Canon 1364 says “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” How would defection and Protestant clergy work eliminate that?
I’m not sure I see that. See the case of the officer defying orders.
Your story of the officer does not indicate the officer had any “question of the disciplinary consequence.” Rather, he did what he must do, and left such a question, if there was a question, for the court.
Anyone can claim that anything is dictated by conscience. Some claims are less honestly come by than others.
As it’s been said… Catholicism is not a moral supermarket in which one can pick the stances that seem best to any individual. Rather, it is a religion that has the promise of divine guidance for its magisterium in moral matters, and that, after all, is a better guarantee than the rest of us can claim as individuals. But even when we are committed to be in total agreement with Church teaching, we still face the need to work out a solution to new problems that come along on which the Church has not yet definitively spoken… and at times, the question of fact as to what is Church teaching and whether the Church has definitively spoken.
They do not, as far as I know.
If “as far as you know” were extended to the links I already posted, you could find such dissenting gems as, “Of course, the doctrine might still be true – I don’t know. [But] I see no reason in orthodox Catholic theology that requires me to believe that it has been infallibly taught and thus commands the assent of faith.” And, “But what about the claim that the teaching is infallible according to the rules of the ordinary, universal magisterium? Have the four conditions for the legitimate exercise of this authority been met? The answer is no. Regarding the first requirement, it must be bishops who exercise this kind of infallibility. Except for the bishops that might be members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, no bishops that we know of were ever consulted on what they are teaching or believe about the ordination of women. Even if the opinions of some bishops were sought, it is clear that the second requirement is not met, namely that the bishops are teaching this way while in union with each other and the pope. The issue simply has not been raised when the bishops are together in solemn assembly where such matters are brought to the body. Third, there is room for serious doubt that the teaching on ordination should be considered to be a matter of faith or of morals. Many reputable theologians, including those assembled by the Vatican itself to study whether there was any basis in scripture for the ban against ordaining women, simply do not find in the gospels a basis for this teaching. Fourth and finally, we would be hard pressed to show that the bishops agree on one view that must be held by the faithful on this issue. Enough bishops in this country alone have made their opinions known so as to assure us at the very least of differences of opinion in this matter. Not even one of the four conditions necessary for an exercise of this kind of infallibility has been met.”
This reminds me of John Calvin dismantled the usual objections to perpetual virginity and then noted: “No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”
Responsum ad Dubium
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
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 Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
First, as regards heresy. A latae sententiae excommunication only applies if the individual does what they know the Church has pronounced to be an excommunicable offense. The difference between (what I believe is) her de facto heresy against infallibly proposed teaching and her seeking Holy Orders is that she does not knowingly commit the offense of heresy which she knows to be contrary to Canon 1364, whereas she does knowingly seek Holy Orders which she knows to be contrary to the recent decree. Thus, though in fact a heretic, she does not incur the automatic excommunication of Canon 1364, but by attempting to receive Holy Orders she would incur the automatic excommunication of the decree.
However, you are right on schism. At that point, as I say, it is a choice of poisons, and some are worse than others. Compared to faux ordained ministry in the Church as an excommunicate, schism seems to me the less bad option.
If your friend is aware of the recent decree, neither is there any question of the disciplinary consequence in her case. Since the verdict is already pronounced, if she considers seeking Holy Orders to be “what she must do,” she must accept her status as excommunicate and behave accordingly, as even a real priest would be obliged to do.
What does that have to do with carrying out faux ordained ministry as an excommunicate?
I’m not sure you’re reading me carefully enough. Please try again.
SDG,
I hope someone can delete the crude and vile message on the post “uk embryo horror.” Thanks.
Dear Kineticriticality,
The two scripture passages above indicate that it is easier to serve the Lord in the single state, which, in itself, is a gift reserved for some. If a priest is to be exclusively from the male sex (we will discuss this later), then the best advantage for the ministry may be obtained in the single state. The Church, recognizing that priesthood requires full and undivided attention to God, has mandated the celibate, unmarried state for those men who are to become priests in the Latin rite. This is a discipline imposed by the Church in the Latin rite for the good of the ministry. It is not a doctrine. St. Paul said:
So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
This leaves the door open for the possibility of some to marry, but they will have difficulties in the world and St. Paul (and the Church) would spare them of this. The Church has, for prudential reasons (usually, historical), allowed for a married clergy in certain of her rites (do you understand what a rite is? The Church although one, has different expressions of her ministry throughout the world. The Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, for instance, have a slightly different, but valid liturgy, form of chant, etc.). Different rites have different disciplines, all of which have been approved by the Vatican. In some of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, married men are allowed to become priests.
Priests who have never been married or are widowed, are not allowed to get married. One reason for this is that the ordination process leaves a mark on the soul that reserves the soul exclusively for priesthood if their are no other attachments. Before the mark is imposed, one could, conceivably be married. The mark of Holy Orders does not dissolve the marriage, but once the marriage ends (through death of the spouse), a new marriage cannot be attempted because now, there is an impediment. The theology is somewhat more complicated than this, but this is one way to think about it.
Thus, in answer to the question about married clergy, the Church has constantly taught, since the fourth century, that it is better for priests to never marry – it is a type of witness and a reference to Christ, who never married, but was, rather married to the Church. In early ascetical theology, virginity was called a “white martyrdom” because it was a bloodless giving of one’s life to Christ as a witness. Now, priests do not have to be virgins (St. Augustine, for example), but the voluntary giving up of one’s reproductive life for the sake of Christ and his Church was a powerful witness and priestly celibacy tends towards the same ends.
Any questions? Does anyone else have any questions, comments or corrections?
Now, given that priestly celibacy is desirable for the reasons mentioned, the next question is, why can only men be priests (your first question). Before we get to that? Let’s see if we can answer any questions, so far.
The Chicken
p.s., Other regular posters, feel free to get involved in this discussion. It underlies the topic of the post and might help Kineticriticality to better understand.
Lest I get yelled at, I did not mean to implied that priests cannot get married by virtue of the mark of ordination. There have been some priests who have left the priesthood (rather, have been deactivated, since the mark cannot be removed), who have gotten married. This is extremely painful to the Church, since the sacrament of Holy Orders then cannot be of service to the Church except in extremis (a priest who has left the priesthood and gotten married can, in an emergency when death is immanent, hear a confession and absolve). Nevertheless, going back to the time of St. Paul, bishops, in either the Western or Orthodox churches could not get married once ordained.
The Chicken
A latae sententiae excommunication only applies if the individual does what they know the Church has pronounced to be an excommunicable offense.
Yes, not those who’d think it comes in a cup or cone with sprinkles on top.
What does that have to do with carrying out faux ordained ministry as an excommunicate?
It relates to the question of whether and what the Church has definitively spoken on the ordination of women.
Compared to faux ordained ministry in the Church as an excommunicate, schism seems to me the less bad option.
From her perspective, that God is calling her to be a Catholic priest, she doesn’t see it as faux, or that she has a choice of poisons as she has no question of disciplinary consequences. In that sense, she sees no viable/other option, and indeed, given her situation, does she have another option?
If the clouds in her head cleared and she could read her conscience clearly, she’d return directly to Rome without visiting Schism, Heresy or other lands of Naught. That would be her most viable recourse. Does Catholic teaching not say such an option is always available? It’s also possible her cloud pattern would change, presenting a “less bad” option which she might then choose in her continued confusion.
I’m not sure you’re reading me carefully enough. Please try again.
If you’re speaking to how strongly worded and solemn OS is, even the so-called dissenters clearly note that. I haven’t seen anyone claim otherwise. But in reference to the CDF response posted above which says, “This teaching requires definitive assent,” I’ve seen it said that no Catholic is obliged to accept it as definitive, and with caution that there’s error in excessive affirmation as well as in denial. I don’t see any of that as opposed to your statement that it “seems to demand assent in the face of all but the gravest and most intractable intellectual difficulties.” But then, small holes might look bigger tomorrow and other holes might get patched up, if there are any holes.
But that is only one of a number of key questions, and whatever doubts your friend may contrive to have about it don’t affect the clear answers to the others.
Q1: Is Rome correct to assert that the teaching that men only are validly ordained is infallibly defined? (Actually, even that is a secondary question, the primary question being: Does it belong to the deposit of faith that men only are validly ordained? But let that pass.)
Q2: What is the current status of Church discipline regarding the ordination of women?
Q3: What is the canonical situation of a woman who attempts to receive Holy Orders with adequate knowledge of the current state of Church teaching and discipline?
Let us assume that your friend is honestly and in good conscience doubtful of the affirmative answer to Q1. That doesn’t change the obvious answers to Q2 and Q3.
The Roman Catholic Church does not permit women to be ordained to the priesthood. In this Church, from the perspective of an advocate of women’s ordination, with respect to the priesthood women are, practically speaking, in a situation not unlike married men: able (so they believe) validly to receive Holy Orders, but prevented from doing so by Church practice. If I am a married man who believes the Church should change her disciplinary stance on married men, even if I personally feel called to the priesthood, my dissident point of view doesn’t justify defying Church discipline and seeking to become a Roman Catholic priest anyway.
Also, whatever the sacramental status of a woman who attempts to receive Holy Orders, if she does so with adequate knowledge of the current state of Church teaching and discipline, her canonical status is clear: she is excommunicate. The rightness or wrongness of her cause and case is irrelevant. Just as a priest who is wrongfully excommunicated is still bound to accept the condition of his status, so is an “ordained” woman who attempts Holy Orders knowing the canonical penalty attached to her action. She is thus barred from attempting to celebrate the sacraments, even if she were sacramentally able to do so, which she isn’t.
What’s your point? I’ve repeatedly noted that conversion and acceptance of Catholic orthodoxy would be the best outcome. By “most viable recourse” I mean the best option among those she can currently countenance; it goes without saying (except that I did say it) that something else entirely would be better still, and we can and should hope and pray for that.
There are not two or three but a wide array of possible outcomes, a selection of which are arranged here in what seems to me descending order of preferability:
1. Unreservedly embracing Catholic orthodoxy with the assent of faith and docility of the intellect.
2. Accepting Catholic orthodoxy with intellectual submission but not assent of faith.
3. Accepting Catholic orthodoxy with reservations, hoping that the teaching turns out to be reformable after all.
4. Not accepting Catholic teaching while remaining open to the possibility that it could be true, and willing to accept it if solemnly defined.
5. Rejecting Catholic teaching unequivocally, even if it were to be solemnly defined, but doing so quietly, without public rebellion.
6. Rejecting Catholic teaching unequivocally while publicly questioning (though not outright denouncing) it.
7. Publicly denouncing and opposing Catholic teaching, but remaining otherwise within the bounds of Church discipline; not attempting or advocating circumvention of Church discipline through covert illegal ordinations.
8. Publicly denouncing Catholic teaching and deciding to seek ordination, but not within the bounds of the Catholic Church where it is not permitted.
9. Publicly denouncing Catholic teaching and seeking ordination within the bounds of the Catholic Church in defiance of Church teaching and discipline, but only as a matter of principle, without intending in any way to act as a priest.
10. Publicly denouncing Catholic teaching and seeking ordination within the bounds of the Catholic Church, and going on to play priest by celebrating faux liturgies and administering (mostly) faux sacraments.
I cited 8 as preferable to 9 or 10 because I understood that your friend’s conscience wouldn’t allow her to accept any of the less undesirable options. That doesn’t mean 6 or 7 wouldn’t be preferable to 8, or 5 or 6 wouldn’t be preferable to 6 or 7. Of course 1 or even 2 would be best of all, and we could always hope and pray for that.
Actually, I was speaking to the fact that it is a teaching, not something else. How solemn or infallible is another question. Of course, as noted above, there are also the disciplinary and canonical issues to reckon with.
Chicken, since we’re ranging a little far-afield from the topic meant to be addressed in the chatterbox, can you email me at my handle at yahoo.com? Lest we be trod upon. Or chastised. Or even vaguely dissatisfied.
Dear Kineticriticality,
Actually, explaining why priests cannot be women is the pre-cursor to this topic and might clear up some of the contention in the combox. I will try to e-mail you, but my e-mail account is from campus and it contains my real identity. I cannot change that without hacking into the system (a really bad idea).
Let me try something. If you do not receive an e-mail by Thursday, check this combox.
The Chicken
Chicken: I vote in favor of continuing here.
I second the motion to continue the discussion here…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Well, then, the motion is 3rd’d, the discussion continued here, with the fervent hope of an illuminating outcome. The more I’m gone, the more I miss what I grew up with; My kids are 6, 3, 2, and .5, so it’s not like a switch would be gut-wrenching for them at this point.
“there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it”
This doesn’t seem to be a prohibition against marriage for the priest caste, rather a preference – the strength of which might not be apparent in translation. These are the questions that drive my inquiry – the rule dates to the 4th/5th century, yet the church dates to the early 1st century – leaving a 300+ year period in which what might have been meant changed into “infallible doctrine,” implying that even my questioning somehow amounts to heresy.
A practical aside, pointing to something seemingly immaterial which I have found quite relevant in terms of why it might not be such a good idea to ordain women: Our local Episcopalian church employs an associate rector of outstanding, even stunning beauty. She is perhaps one of the best looking women I have ever seen — to the point where she distracts even the married parishioners, my husband included. Sadly, the same culture that admits Victoria’s Secret catalogs to everday view seems to imply that it’s okay he’s (and certainly, not just him!) ogling her instead of attending to her sermon.
That aside, how much of current church doctrine is based on reference to biblical texts, and how much the accumulation of 2000 years of tradition?
But that is only one of a number of key questions, and whatever doubts your friend may contrive to have about it don’t affect the clear answers to the others.
Answers to other questions they may be, but those other questions are not hers, and their answers are not a consideration in her present choice. God is not calling her to choose between poisons but to be fully obedient. Those other questions hinge on speculation one step removed from that, namely speculation on her disobedience.
I was speaking to the fact that it is a teaching, not something else. How solemn or infallible is another question.
It’s asserted to be fact that it’s the teaching. She questions that assertion.
Dear Kineticriticality,
You wrote:
“there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it”
This doesn’t seem to be a prohibition against marriage for the priest caste, rather a preference – the strength of which might not be apparent in translation. These are the questions that drive my inquiry – the rule dates to the 4th/5th century, yet the church dates to the early 1st century – leaving a 300+ year period in which what might have been meant changed into “infallible doctrine,” implying that even my questioning somehow amounts to heresy.
First questions, first. In the quote above, you left out the first part:
Mat 19:10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
Mat 19:11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
If something is given, it cannot be a choice – the choice is only whether or not to receive what is given and act upon it. Thus, if God gives the gift of virginity or celibacy, then it is God who gives the gift. The person must, then, decide to accept it.
God has given you the gift of marriage- he has prepared you with the talents and disposition to take care of little ones (not everyone can do this!). Thus, the married and the single state are both consecrations to God, by different means, of oneself -it is a returning to God the “interest” on his deposit.
As I said above, priests could, theoretically, be married before ordination. The Church has found it expedient (see the quote above) to have priests remain unmarried. It is simply easier and the accumulated wisdom of the Church has been proven. Yes, there have been depraved clergy throughout history (let’s not deny it), but if some of them had been married, the results would have been even more catastrophic.
So, you are right, there is a choice to be made by the person, but this is after God first makes his choice. Some people say no to the offer of priesthood. Some people become priests who should not have (the same applies to marriage). In the end, there is no evidence that having a married clergy is superior to not having one.
Also, Jesus explicitly used the word eunuch, not virgin. Only men could, properly speaking, be eunuchs in the common reference of the period (let’s not get into the perversion of the idea in some areas of the world, today). Jesus is explicitly referring to male celibacy, here.
Your second point:
the rule dates to the 4th/5th century, yet the church dates to the early 1st century – leaving a 300+ year period in which what might have been meant changed into “infallible doctrine,” implying that even my questioning somehow amounts to heresy.
“This doesn’t seem to be a prohibition against marriage for the priest caste, rather a preference – the strength of which might not be apparent in translation”
Also, keep in mind that the celibacy rule is a matter of discipline and not of doctrine. There is no hard and fast prohibition on married priests, as there are married Catholic priests even now. In other words, under different social conditions, or what have you, it is a policy that could (theoretically) be changed at some point.
It is a matter of policy – of discipline – that the Church ordinarily requires her priests to remain celibate. This discipline is supported – though not commanded – in the scriptures. There is also the living tradition and wisdom of the Church – millennia of lived experience – that is brought to bear, in addition to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The question then becomes whether one believes the Church has the authority to impose this discipline on her own priests, which she clearly does. Any private organization (even one not claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit) has the authority to place restrictions on it’s own members or officers.
It comes down to whether one believes that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded and the guardian of His teaching on earth, or not. I do believe this (though I didn’t always).
Male priesthood is different, as it *is* a matter of doctrine – touching on the essence of the sacrament – and cannot change.
This sophistry might allow her to pretend to dodge Q3, but not Q2.
No one in the world — woman or man, married, single or sworn celibate, however holy and pastoral and whatever else they may be, and with whatever sense of personal calling — has a right to the priesthood. If I feel that God has called me to the Roman Catholic priesthood but the Church of Rome says otherwise (since I am married), that discrepancy is between God and the Church of Rome; my part is to accept the Church’s judgment in this matter even if I disagree with it. I cannot steal the priesthood in defiance of the Church. Obedience or disobedience to the Church in matters of binding discipline and practice as well as dogma and teaching is obedience or disobedience to God.
You still aren’t reading carefully enough, unless your switch to the definite article is deliberate subterfuge (likely enough, you being a smart guy with a love of fog-breathing). It is the teaching of OS, the teaching of the Church of Rome. No one questions that, as far as I can see.
Instead they say the teaching is (or may be) wrong, that it has not been infallibly proposed, that it does not belong to the deposit of faith, etc. They do not deny that it is a teaching. They say things like “Rome still teaches that women may not be ordained,” with the implication that what Rome teaches today she might not teach tomorrow. But whatever Rome teaches today, even if we believe it may be changed tomorrow, is still a teaching today, if (we believe) a reformable one. No one seriously says “Rome does not teach that women may not be ordained,” or even “Rome does not teach that the teaching has been infallibly proposed,” for OS is incontrovertibly a teaching document and does teach this very thing — non-infallibly, let us agree, but still non-infallibly teaching. They may claim that Rome erroneously teaches this, but that Rome teaches it seems beyond controversy.
(Footnote: Actually, to say that OS teaches “non-infallibly” is a bit of an oversimplification. It would be more accurate to say that it asserts the truth of its teaching without solemnly defining it as an act of the extraordinary magisterium. However, the ordinary magisterium can also participate in the charism of infallibility, and in fact OS does teach infallible truth.)
Not to produce a tangent, but it’s very interesting to me to read Mr. Chicken’s comments regarding “discipline” vs. “doctrine”. While this isn’t exactly new to me, I still internally tend to assign a single category to Catholic “rules”, as I think many outsiders do. That probably explains why some people have difficulty in accepting changes in the Church (such as the Novus Ordo) or accepting that certain things won’t ever change (such as the male priesthood).
Having said all of that, is there a hierarchy of Catholic “rules”? Clearly, discipline < doctrine. Are there other levels and categories? Keep it simple, please... 🙂 Cheers, Matt
One more thing about eunuchs – there is a fundamental difference in terminology between men and women with regards to the question of dedication of one’s reproductive powers. If a woman choses not to get married and she has not had sex, she is considered a virgin. Men, although they might not have had sex, are not usually referred to in this manner because of the need of a distinction: female virginity involves a distinctive physical trait attached to the sexual organ, which men do not have.
In any case, all people are born virginal. Few are born as eunuch. Both involve not having sex, but while both virgins and eunuchs can be made by nature, virgins cannot be made by man, while eunuchs can, nor can one choose to be a virgin – one may choose to remain a virgin, but that is a slightly different thing – while a man can choose to become a eunuch. A woman cannot choose to become a virgin – she either is or is not. This points to a fundamental difference in what each gender can offer in this area. Women can offer something that already exists; men must make a different kind of choice.
Men need instrumentality to create; women do not. Women have an innate capacity to create; men do not. A celibate male priesthood puts all of the man’s capacities at the service of the Church. This is another reason why the Church has asked priests to not marry – so as to focus all of their abilities at one thing.
Christ gave himself totally to his bride, the Church. Men who stay unmarried still have a “mistress,” so to speak. The Church is, from God’s point of view, female.
The Chicken
Dear Smokey,
There most certainly is, at least with regards to doctrines and disciplines. At the higher end is what is known as doctrines which have the status of De Fides (of the Faith), which belongs to infallible doctrines; at the other end is something called Sensus Commune (sorry for the misspelling I don’t have my references handy). This refers to a common theological opinion which may be disagreed with. I don’t have time tonight, but if you want, I can look up the complete classification scheme. Ludwig Ott has a listing of the pre-Vatican II scheme and Fr. William Most has a listing of the post-Vatican scheme (not that the doctrines have changed, but the new Code and the documents of Vatican II have simplified them).
The Chicken
Mr. Chicken,
Please don’t spend time on my question — I was just looking for a simple, off-the-top-of-someone’s-head list.
Matt
For the record, I was putting my “discipline / doctrine” post together at the same time Chicken was, apparently. It looks like I just regurgitated everything he already said, or ignored it, but I didn’t have a chance to read it before I posted a couple of minutes later.
Had I read his post, I wouldn’t have bothered posting my pale contribution! 🙂
SDG,
This sophistry might allow her to pretend to dodge Q3, but not Q2.
She isn’t attempting or pretending to dodge Q2 or Q3. It’s simply not her issue. She’s focused on Q1.
If I feel that God has called me to the Roman Catholic priesthood but the Church of Rome says otherwise (since I am married), that discrepancy is between God and the Church of Rome
That discrepancy would be between “I feel” and the Church of Rome saying otherwise.
You still aren’t reading carefully enough, unless your switch to the definite article is deliberate subterfuge
No, I’m simply recognizing her struggle, not your agenda. She’s focused on Q1.
Instead they say the teaching is (or may be) wrong, that it has not been infallibly proposed, that it does not belong to the deposit of faith, etc. They do not deny that it is a teaching… No one questions that, as far as I can see.
She questions whether it’s wrong, AND if so, how a wrong teaching could truly be a teaching of the Church.
So, if a bishop secretly goes through the motions of ordaining a woman, he’s excommunicated? If he then keeps his excommunication secret, are his acts as bishop after that point invalid? Yikes! The part about the woman was easier to handle–we should know that a woman can’t be a priest. But the idea of bishops that may not be bishops is disconcerting.
Smokey Mountain,
The simple order is Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline. The definitions below are from the Pocket Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
DOGMA.
DOCTRINE.
DISCIPLINE.
A few more comments on the celibate priesthood.
There are many practical reasons why a celibate priesthood is preferred:
1. Imagine what might happen if a weak married priest discussed matters of the confessional with his wife.
2. Imagine what might happen to missionary priests who must make the decision to die for Christ while they have a wife and children waiting for them at home.
3. Imagine the ease with which a celibate priest can stay up long hours or fast for his parishioners.
4. Imagine the objectivity of a priest on counseling married couples. A married priest may bring experience, but if his marriage is not good, will also bring baggage.
5. Imagine trying to write a homily while little children are playing.
6. Imagine trying to concentrate on a sick parishioner when one has a sick child at home.
7. Imagine trying to do anything at all if a loved one is facing a terminal illness.
8. Imagine trying to have a contemplative life (saying the office, etc.) while trying to get the kids ready for school, etc.
9. Imagine trying to love 100 kids at a Catholic elementary school without preference if one’s own children are enrolled.
10. Imagine the confusion it causes in the modern, sex-crazed world, to see men who have the strength of character to stay committed to an ideal.
Dear Kineticriticality,
You get the idea. Do you have any questions to this point?
If you want a short overview of the history of priestly celibacy, the best online article I can recommend is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, here .
I will wait for you to digest all of this information.
The Chicken
I believe the Anglican response to the points in your last post reads something like, “How can it hurt the priest’s ability or desire to minister to families, having a family oneself? How can a priest offer counsel to married couples, when the modern model of marriage (back-and-forth, give-and-take, dually purposed, yet driven towards unified goals) contrasts so much to the idea of the “Bride of Christ,” and “infallibility”?
For each of your practical anecdotal examples, besides example #2, marriage or not-marriage are not the relevant drivers of behaviors.
1. Imagine what might happen if a weak priest were to discuss matters of the confessional with anyone?
3. Imagine the ease with which those raising or who have raised 4 children already stay up long hours? (I stay up several hours after the children are in bed, in order to have time to reflect, read, etc.)
4. Imagine the natural skepticism of receiving counsel from someone who does not have personal experience with the matter? (Well, marriage counseling, specifically – I don’t suppose I’d necessarily want my defense counsel to also have faced the same criminal charges hypothetically committed!)
5. Imagine how much insight into humanity, life’s lessons offered up by children playing? Even by their fighting? By their punishment and reward, their growth, which we attempt to direct and in no way truly govern? Imagine writing academic literature with 4 children — and posit that as no hypothetical!
6. Imagine empathizing deeply, as those who are not parents must only themselves imagine the depth felt, the pain and loss something which must be faced down and overcome
7. Imagine anyone at all doing anything at all in the face of a loved one’s terminal illness. This isn’t even an argument one way or the other, much less a practical reason for the prohibition of priestly marriage.
10. Imagine how much the Protestant community seems in this “modern, sex-crazed world, to see men who have the strength of character to stay committed to an ideal,” when that ideal is Christian marriage, which even the most committed Catholic must agree is by far the more common life pattern?
I am stuck, it seems, on where the boundaries are between the kinds of bible verses that obviously aren’t meant to be taken literally — strike out an eye, sever a hand — and “better to be a eunuch, if you can deal with it.”
Then too, Honorable Herr Doktor Mister Sir Chicken, what’s the basis against women being priests? And is there a resource anyone can point me to showing the differences between Anglicans and Catholics? There’s a pope, there’s a whole body of canon law, there’s divorce. Well, no divorce, preferably, unless you’re a King willing to sever 1500 years history Gordian-knot style, I suppose.
Sorry if I’m a little punchy, everyone in the house is throwing up and I’m on my 3rd shower and 4th coffee. Thanks for your help! So glad I found ya’ll.
Can’t comment long. The idea that:
when that ideal is Christian marriage, which even the most committed Catholic must agree is by far the more common life pattern?
is an argument ad populum – an appeal to numbers. Celibacy is significant because it isn’t the most common pattern. It is the least common that often communicates the most information. Sherlock homes once said (if he really said anything :)) :
The more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious it proves to be. It is your commonplace, featureless crimes which are really puzzling, just as a commplace face is the most difficult to identify. (REDH)
It is a mistake to confound strangeness with mystery. The most commonplace crime is often the most mysterious, because it presents no new or special features from which deductions may be drawn. (STUD)
Must run. Will answer, later. Hope the kids get well, soon (and mom gets a break).
The Chicken
ahem…Sherlock Holmes
The Chicken
No honest inquiry can be heresy. Heresy is the reaching of a definite conclusion.
“This matter is open to question” is a definite conclusion. The exact nature of the matter will determine whether it is a heretic one.
She isn’t attempting or pretending to dodge Q2 or Q3. It’s simply not her issue. She’s focused on Q1.
For what reason does her focus confer importance on issues and unimportance on those she does not focus on?
Especially since your third sentence does not support your first one. You can attempt or pretend to dode an issue precisely by focusing on separate one.
So, if a bishop secretly goes through the motions of ordaining a woman, he’s excommunicated? If he then keeps his excommunication secret, are his acts as bishop after that point invalid?
No. But some sacraments are invalid, such as matrimony, or confession. Others are valid but illicit, such as saying Mass, or Last Rites.
Dear Kineticriticality,
It occurs to me that you are KC and I am KFC (I hope you are American or the joke won’t work…)
Some comments to your comments:
First of all, since we are discussing a matter of prudence, you may have a different opinion on the matter of the unmarried priesthood and still be a Catholic as long as you also acknowledge the very mild idea that the Church has the right to set some boundaries on its members and how they act within the Church, as long as these disciplines are not immoral, per se, even if they are, possibly, debatable (much as a parent might set a debatable curfew for a member of the family).
The matter of the unmarried priesthood is at least as defensible from Biblical principles as a married priesthood, given St. Paul’s admonition and Jesus'(see post above from June 3, 6:33 am), Jesus would not say that celibacy may only be received by those to whom it had been given unless he, in fact, meant to say that it would be given to some.
If you must have the option of being a Catholic and having a married clergy, you could simply revert and ask to transfer to one of the Eastern Rites. You would still be a Catholic in every sense of the word and you would have a married clergy (in at least some of the rites). Some of those rites that exist in the Uniter States include (not all allow a married clergy):
Maronite Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
So, you can see that there are so many options that the matter of a married priesthood standing in the way of reverting is very minor. In fact, even some married former Anglican priests are now priests in good standing in the Church.
So. is it alright to agree that this matter is a minor obstacle, since, in fact, there are some married priests in the Catholic Church, but it is decided on a case-by-case basis for prudential reasons. There are valid points on both sides of the issue, but someone has to set the standards and a generally unmarried clergy has seemed best in the eyes of the Church.
If a hypothetical plague were to wipe out all unmarried men, the Church would not lose too much sleep in ordaining married men, for a time, in order to raise up a new generation. If only married men could escape the plague, the Church would adapt. The Church does what it deems most prudent for the sake of the Ministry. I hope you can respect that, even if you cannot agree with a celibate clergy. At least you cannot say that it never works (neither would an all married clergy).
Comments on the list (your comments, then mine):
1. Imagine what might happen if a weak priest were to discuss matters of the confessional with anyone?
I reply: this rarely happens as the penalties are so severe. Many priests have died rather than reveal someone’s sins. I suspect married priests would also respect the seal of the confessional, but living so closely to someone, indications might slip, by accident. That can happen to unmarried priests, as well. I would say that this matter is a draw between unmarried and married priests.
3. Imagine the ease with which those raising or who have raised 4 children already stay up long hours? (I stay up several hours after the children are in bed, in order to have time to reflect, read, etc.)
I reply: There are many married people who live heroic lives and spend long hours reading and praying after the family has gone to bed. It is simply easier to do so if there is no one around. Also, it is really hard not to eat popcorn on a day you have set aside to fast if the family unexpectedly goes to a movie. Self-denial is a really good witness, as every Catholic who follows the meatless Fridays will attest, but still, it is a harder life for those who must live with others.
4. Imagine the natural skepticism of receiving counsel from someone who does not have personal experience with the matter? (Well, marriage counseling, specifically – I don’t suppose I’d necessarily want my defense counsel to also have faced the same criminal charges hypothetically committed!)
I reply: so, there should be no male gynecologists? Just because one has never been married does not mean that one cannot be a keen observer of the married state. I have a friend who is a military historian who has never been in the military, himself, but teaches tactics at an important military college (I won’t say which one, but it is the most important for this sort of thing).
On the other hand, somethings do have to be experienced in order to form an informed opinion: imagine a chef who only ever ate oatmeal!
5. Imagine how much insight into humanity, life’s lessons offered up by children playing? Even by their fighting? By their punishment and reward, their growth, which we attempt to direct and in no way truly govern? Imagine writing academic literature with 4 children — and posit that as not hypothetical!
I reply: in my dim past I taught 7/8 grade math. I have a pretty good idea of how children fight and play and grow. I won’t say if I have any of my own, but teachers also develop a kind of instinct with regards to children – college professors, not so much because thy don’t have time, they see so many, usually in large classrooms, and by the time they get them, they are already grown.
What I do agree with is that one should not trust any married academics trying to counsel parents who have not raised strong families, themselves. Even with the case of unmarried priests, their lifves must reflect their ministry.
6. Imagine empathizing deeply, as those who are not parents must only themselves imagine the depth felt, the pain and loss something which must be faced down and overcome
I reply: the death of a child is a pain like no other, but Christ did not have to be married to appreciate the pain of Jairus or the widow of Nain. Although unmarried priests do not have Christ’s gift of omniscience, they can still understand at least something – this comes from being a part of a common humanity (and having mirror neurons , although other higher primates do, as well).
7. Imagine anyone at all doing anything at all in the face of a loved one’s terminal illness. This isn’t even an argument one way or the other, much less a practical reason for the prohibition of priestly marriage.
I reply: it depends on the situation. Married and unmarried would both be concerned for the friend, but the unmarried would not also have to be concerned about fixing dinner or other things for the family. On the other hand, the married would be able to derive support from having family.
10. Imagine how much the Protestant community seems in this “modern, sex-crazed world, to see men who have the strength of character to stay committed to an ideal,” when that ideal is Christian marriage, which even the most committed Catholic must agree is by far the more common life pattern?
I reply: both vocations are witnesses, but in different ways. A society with nothing but married people could not appreciate purity in the same way unless there were some unmarried people in their midst. If marriage is the total consecration of one’s flesh to another person but if marriage does not survive into the next life (as Jesus says), then does not society also need the witness of a group of people who have consecrated their flesh to the Church?
In any case, as I mentioned at the start, this is not such a large issue that it should put an obstacle to returning to the Church.
There are two that I suspect that are more important to you: women priests and Biblical authority. I will take those up in my next series of posts (if I am permitted to keep posting – I have been a bit long-winded)
The Chicken
Dear Mary,
You wrote:
No honest inquiry can be heresy. Heresy is the reaching of a definite conclusion.
“This matter is open to question” is a definite conclusion. The exact nature of the matter will determine whether it is a heretic one.
Actually, your statement, “This matter is open to question,” is a meta-statement about the matter, not a conclusion about the matter, itself, thus inquiry cannot be heretical, only conclusions about the topic of the inquiry, itself, as you say.
The Chicken
Mary,
For what reason does her focus confer importance on issues and unimportance on those she does not focus on?
Ask yourself. She’s focused on Q1. If you confer something from that, that’s you doing the conferring, not her.
Especially since your third sentence does not support your first one. You can attempt or pretend to dode an issue precisely by focusing on separate one.
You, because you’re not focused on Q1, may interpret it as such, but again, that’s you, not her. She’s focused on Q1. The target is her universe. In that, nothing else exists to be dodged or attempted, nor has there ever been or will there ever be.
No Catholic contemplating a course of action contrary to what the Church allows gets to pretend that the question of submission or defiance to the Church is “not something I’m focused on right now,” any more than a child contemplating breaking his parents’ rules gets to pretend that the question of submission or defiance is “not something I’m focused on right now.”
Besides, if she’s contemplating attempting to receive Holy Orders, it is manifestly untrue that “She’s focused on Q1” (i.e., “Is Rome correct to assert that the teaching that men only are validly ordained is infallibly defined?”). From no answer to that question does it follow that any particular person ought to seek Holy Orders — or even that it is possible for women to be ordained.
No Catholic contemplating a course of action contrary to what the Church allows gets to pretend that the question of submission or defiance to the Church is “not something I’m focused on right now,”
She’s focused on Q1, not on a question of whether Rome’s handing out ice cream or spankings. Focused on Q1, she has no need to pretend that what’s not in her focus is not in her focus, nor does she.
if she’s contemplating attempting to receive Holy Orders, it is manifestly untrue that “She’s focused on Q1” (i.e., “Is Rome correct to assert that the teaching that men only are validly ordained is infallibly defined?”).
“Contemplating attempting to receive Holy Orders” are your words. She’s focused on Q1.
You seem to be confusing the question of obedience or disobedience with the quite distinct question of reward or punishment (Q2 vs. Q3).
“For example, I recently received a call from a woman who works at a Catholic church. She told me she wants to be a priest and asked for my support,” you wrote, a desire apparently quite outside the scope of what you now say is her focus. Yet as noted above, from no answer to Q1 does it follow that it is even possible, let alone feasible or desirable, for her to be a priest.
You seem to be confusing the question of obedience or disobedience with the quite distinct question of reward or punishment (Q2 vs. Q3).
Why should she (or you) be questioning her obedience or disobedience on the ordination of women? She’s not contemplating an attempt to be ordained, much less actually attempting it. She’s focused on Q1.
“For example, I recently received a call from a woman who works at a Catholic church. She told me she wants to be a priest and asked for my support,” you wrote, a desire apparently quite outside the scope of what you now say is her focus.
Where did she say she’s contemplating an attempt to be ordained? She wasn’t seeking my support to do that. Much as she may feel called to be a priest, she called me because she’s questioning if Rome is correct (or transversely phrased, she’s questioning what she considers to be a real possibility that she’s wrong) and seeking my support in her pursuit of the truth. She’s not claiming to know better than Rome, and I do not presume in the least that she’s mulling over some unauthorized attempt to be ordained. She’s seeking to reconcile her understanding with what Rome has said. Again, she’s seeking to reconcile with Rome, not to oppose her.
from no answer to Q1 does it follow that it is even possible, let alone feasible or desirable, for her to be a priest.
I’m not aware of anyone instructing her that any answer to Q1 would make it possible, feasible or desirable for her to be a priest. She’s focused on Q1 because it’s the only question she has.
“When a woman calls to flat out say she wants to be a priest, is her aim merely to ‘attempt to secure (attempted) ordination’? Or is her aim and her struggle as she understands it to secure (real) ordination. Does a person struggle with piano lessons for years with the mere aim to ‘attempt’ to play the piano? Or is such a person’s aim and struggle to actually play the piano. Indeed, she may say, ‘I want to take lessons,’ but the fuller expression is, ‘I want to takes lessons with the aim of actually playing the piano.”
“‘What I understand is that God calls me and many women to be priests and a prohibition against that is invalid. Why should there be a penalty for doing what I in my conscience believe is right?'”
“she’d say you must be a fallible parent because your prohibition and punishment are as unjust as forbidding her to breathe. Like I said, she says she’s called by God to be a priest, and anything that stands between is wrong.”
“From her perspective, that God is calling her to be a Catholic priest”
“She’s focused on Q1. The target is her universe. In that, nothing else exists to be dodged or attempted, nor has there ever been or will there ever be.”
“Where did she say she’s contemplating an attempt to be ordained? She wasn’t seeking my support to do that. Much as she may feel called to be a priest, she called me because she’s questioning if Rome is correct (or transversely phrased, she’s questioning what she considers to be a real possibility that she’s wrong) and seeking my support in her pursuit of the truth. She’s not claiming to know better than Rome, and I do not presume in the least that she’s mulling over some unauthorized attempt to be ordained. She’s seeking to reconcile her understanding with what Rome has said. Again, she’s seeking to reconcile with Rome, not to oppose her.”
“She’s focused on Q1 because it’s the only question she has.”
For what reason does her focus confer importance on issues and unimportance on those she does not focus on?
Ask yourself. She’s focused on Q1. If you confer something from that, that’s you doing the conferring, not her.
Balderdash. It is you who are doing any conferring that is being done. You brought it up. You get to explain the reason why it is significiant.
Especially since your third sentence does not support your first one. You can attempt or pretend to dode an issue precisely by focusing on separate one.
You, because you’re not focused on Q1, may interpret it as such, but again, that’s you, not her.
Balderdash, again. That is a statement of fact. People can try to dodge an issue by focussing on a separate issue. Indeed, it has a name: ignoratio elenchi.
She’s focused on Q1. The target is her universe. In that, nothing else exists to be dodged or attempted, nor has there ever been or will there ever be.
Leaving aside your claim that she has her own private universe, prove that the woman in question is indeed so insane that she is focused on something so exclusively that she can not be aware that it is subject to the penalty of excommunication.
SDG,
In sum, it’s not convincing that she’s contemplating an attempt to be ordained. Yes, a person may approach the piano by saying, “I want to take lessons,” and the fuller expression may be, “I want to takes lessons with the aim of actually playing the piano.” But this woman comes saying, “I want to play the piano,” and has never said she wants to take lessons, i.e. attempt an ordination. Many people would like to play the piano, but don’t want to take lessons and practice. They may say, “But it shouldn’t be so hard! There must be an easy way.” But it is what it is. She admits she doesn’t know everything and that she’s not infallible. She called for support, for help, not to attempt ordination, but to understand, to reconcile.
Mary,
Balderdash. It is you who are doing any conferring that is being done. You brought it up. You get to explain the reason why it is significiant.
Explain what? It was you who asked, “For what reason does her focus confer importance on issues and unimportance on those she does not focus on?” Those are your words. I didn’t say her focus confers importance / unimportance on anything. Have you conferred that I have?
People can try to dodge an issue by focussing on a separate issue.
She’s focused on the question she has, not to dodge, but to understand.
prove that the woman in question is indeed so insane that she is focused on something so exclusively that she can not be aware that it is subject to the penalty of excommunication.
Prove what? I don’t claim she’s insane. She’s focused on a question of what is right, and that question is not subject to a penalty of excommunication. A person may be subject to the penalty of excommunication, not a question, and only if that person does something that warrants it. She has not done anything that warrants it nor can I say she is contemplating doing so.
What is not convincing is that the state of mind described in the earlier quotes (of one who “feels called to be a priest” and indeed regards opposition to this course as “immoral,” on a level with opposition to breathing) could possibly be the same as the state of mind described in the later quotes (of one for whom “nothing else exists” but the purely theoretical question whether the Church’s teaching against women’s ordination is, not even true or false, but only infallibly proposed or not).
You’re a good devil’s advocate for the dissenters, At. You’re as dishonest as many of them are.
David E. Kelly should read this blog, ’cause SDG is speaking truths.
SDG’s earlier version: It is patently obvious that the state of mind described in the earlier quotes… is not the same as the state of mind described in the later quotes
That is a reflection of your state of mind. Of course, “We cannot talk with equal clarity about everything at once.” Some things are presented earlier and some later. That does not mean there’s been any change on whole.
SDG’s edited version: What is not convincing is that the state of mind described in the earlier quotes… could possibly be the same as the state of mind described in the later quotes
Did your state of mind change between your edits of your post? Or did your previous words, which you erased in your edit, not accurately reflect what you were trying to say? The woman I spoke with did not have the opportunity to erase what she said, except to the extent that I might give her that opportunity by not holding her to some fixed idea of what she was trying to say. Her words are like strokes of a brush on canvas, but few if any would call her an artist. After looking at a few of her strokes, it might look like she’s trying to depict a dog. A few other strokes, it might look like a cat. But what is she trying to depict? Could be a dog, a cat or something else. We’d talk some more and she’d add more strokes. At times, she’d stop to wash her brushes in her tears, but that too may be part of the painting.
You’re as dishonest as many of them are.
Is a painter dishonest because she isn’t an artist on our terms, or because at first it may look like a dog and then a cat? Or because he erases/whitewashes the canvas in order to start again? I take care, insofar as possible to me, to interpret my neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way. If you cannot do likewise, I will.
Neither. I just liked the literary effect of using your words against you.
Anyone can see for themselves that there is no contradiction between the two versions of the sentence you quoted. Just as they can see that there is among the morphing claims you have made about your imaginary aspirant to the priesthood, er, disinterested theological inquirer.
Neither. I just liked the literary effect of using your words against you.
But that’s not what you did. For example, ‘”feels called to be a priest”‘ and ‘”immoral”‘ are actually your words that you stuffed between quotations marks. You speak of using my words against me but to what do your words point? My words point to a face I’ve seen, a voice I’ve heard, a hand I’ve held, a love I know.
Anyone can see for themselves that there is no contradiction between the two versions of the sentence you quoted
Who says there must be a “contradiction” between your versions for there to be a change in state of mind? You first claimed it’s patently obvious that the states are not the same, and then you erased your claim to say instead you’re not convinced they could be the same. In other words, you changed your claim from saying it’s “patently obvious” to saying you’re not sure.
Some would opine that your morphing claims reflect a change in your state of mind. Others would opine otherwise, to include questioning the reality of so-called “state of mind.” Or, as I pointed to before, does a painter’s state of mind change just because the picture he paints evolves in your view?
Whatever it is she may have meant by the various individual things she said cut and sliced, it remains in sum that it’s not convincing that she’s contemplating an attempt to be ordained. My followups with her have indicated she’s focused on understanding whether Rome is right in its assertion. Of course, how she’d ever get a better answer than the one Rome has already given her is her quest.
Since those phrases didn’t change in the two versions you quoted, you will have to look harder for the words in question.
As regards the phrases you now cite, I don’t think the slight variation between “feels called to be a priest” and “says she’s called by God to be a priest” is worth talking about (if anything I’m giving “her” more credit than you, since my version takes her at her word whereas yours merely describes her behavior). “Immoral” should have been “unjust,” as in “as unjust as forbidding her to breathe.” If you have any substantial points beyond copy-edits, feel free to submit them now.
I didn’t. I never said I was unsure or merely unconvinced. From the statement “This is not convincing” it does not follow that I am unsure or merely unconvinced.
If that is her quest, it is false to say that “She’s focused on Q1. The target is her universe. In that, nothing else exists to be dodged or attempted, nor has there ever been or will there ever be… She’s focused on Q1 because it’s the only question she has.”
Not convincing to whom? Some would opine that you’re a blob of Jell-O that says whatever is necessary at the moment to avoid being nailed to the wall. Others would opine that any statement that begins “It’s unconvincing that she…” is equally unconvincing, because the most unconvincing thing about your comments to date is that you ever had a real person in mind to begin with.
Whether Jell-O can be nailed to the wall is one question. Whether it can be separated into discrete blobs and sealed in individual containers that cannot credibly be seen as a single blob is another. The discrete blobs of Jell-O might never stop saying “We’re still one blob really!” At some point, one closes the refrigerator door and walks away.
you will have to look harder for the words in question
No, I leave that for the one who has a question. I do not.
if anything I’m giving “her” more credit than you, since my version takes her at her word whereas yours merely describes her behavior
Your “her” is not the she with whom I’ve talked.
“Immoral” should have been “unjust,” as in “as unjust as forbidding her to breathe.”
As in the context of her expressing her understanding that she’s to obey what God is calling her to do. That’s a context of obedience, not disobedience. She came seeking help with her understanding because she wants to be obedient and the Church is saying she’d be disobedient if she were to attempt to be ordained. Her state of mind from beginning to end has always been that she desires to be obedient to God, and that includes being obedient to His Church. With that state of mind she came seeking help. With that state of mind she perseveres.
I never said I was unsure or merely unconvinced. From the statement “This is not convincing” it does not follow that I am unsure or merely unconvinced.
This is not convincing.
If that is her quest, it is false to say that “She’s focused on Q1… it’s the only question she has.”
Your claim fails on multiple points. For one, a quest is not a question. Two, in expressing her quest, I was not expressing her focus but rather an outside view of her quest.
Not convincing to whom?
It’s not convincing to any of the multiple parties actually present in the series of conversations with her.
the most unconvincing thing about your comments to date is that you ever had a real person in mind to begin with.
The parties involved do not need convincing.
and the light goes out
I haven’t followed this thread from the beginning, so I don’t know if this was asked before: Art, if this women is real, why can she not speak for herself here, on this blog?
Chicken, both those issues are the issues where I feel most conflicted about the Episcopal vs the Catholic church: why can’t women be priests (rather, what is the biblical justification for this prohibition) and to what extent is biblical literalism promoted/followed vs biblical interpretation. That is, I really just don’t understand how some verses justify or define behavior principles after abstraction for content, and how some are taken as literally true governing principles of Christian thought.
K
K,
On the first point, I would begin to reply something like this:
I was raised in a church (Dutch Reformed) that was hopelessly divided on what the Bible taught on this subject. The issue had an absolute stranglehold on the denomination. Sometimes it seemed they never talked about anything else.
Everybody had a biblical justification for their views. First I listened to one side, and their case sounded good; then I listened to the other and their case sounded good too. I went back and forth and eventually realized that no matter how long and hard I studied the issue, there would always be Christians who are more knowledgeable and holier than I was who disagreed on the biblical justification.
It didn’t take me long to realize there were other topics with similar issues, e.g., pedobaptism (even though in my own church we didn’t dispute about that; other Christians did). Eventually I decided that whatever my Protestant forebears meant by the “perspicacity” or clarity of scripture was either not true or not sufficiently helpful in such matters for ordinary Christians like me (even if they happen to be reasonably bright, motivated, sincere, privileged with access to resources and leisure for study, etc.).
This raises a key question. You say you’re concerned about the biblical justification for the teaching. But what is the the biblical justification for the belief that there has to be a biblical justification. Where does the Bible teach that?
The issue of the canon of scripture adds another layer of difficulty. When I first looked into the canon, I was obviously eager to find Protestant arguments justifying our canon, and I was quite willing to go with the arguments I found for the most part. There were a few rough edges here and there: Granted that Jesus had given special teaching authority to the apostles, I wasn’t sure there was a biblical basis for extending that to books by non-apostles like Luke and Mark (even granting the traditional authorship of these books as well as the Gospels of Matthew and John, etc.). But then there were books like Hebrews where we didn’t even know the author at all.
I was rather chagrined when I first ran across the phrase “a fallible collection of infallible books,” but I wasn’t sure there was any better alternative. Calling the canon “a fallible collection” is another way of saying it could be wrong: Perhaps inspired books were left out, or uninspired books included.
But then a curious thing happened. When I tried to think through the possibility that a book like Hebrews might not really be inspired and perhaps the whole Church had been wrong for nearly 2000 years about this, I found that I simply could not pursue that line of thought without calling into question the whole fabric of the Christian faith.
What Martin Luther tried to do, dissecting the NT canon and calling into question the books that he personally found “unrevealing” or “strawy” is not something that any individual Christian has authority to do.
Anyway I stared down the book of Hebrews and found that I had no authority to question it — not because its inspiration or authority is “self-attesting” or self-evident or anything of the sort, but because it had been universally accepted by Christians for centuries, and if the entire Church — not just these Christians or those Christians, but all Christians everywhere — could be wrong about that, what might they not be wrong about?
I realized that I believed that the Holy Spirit is always present in the Church, attesting to the true faith — if not necessarily always leading bishops or councils into the truth (I wasn’t yet ready to accept that), at least necessarily always leading somebody. Whatever is universally attested for centuries as an article of faith, then, must represent the leading of the Holy Spirit, for if it were not it wouldn’t be universally attested for centuries as an article of faith: The Holy Spirit would lead someone, somewhere to attest the truth.
Without knowing it, I had formulated for myself the Vincentian canon: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (what has always, everywhere and by everyone been believed). Obviously this isn’t a sure mark of all truth — i.e., there can be truth that is not universally attested, but whatever is universally attested is certainly of the faith. The Holy Spirit doesn’t leave the Church without guidance on any true article of faith.
Readings in the early church, particularly regarding the heresies, confirmed this pattern. You don’t have the Arians or the Pelagians standing up and perverting the faith and then centuries and centuries passing before the Holy Spirit raises up someone to rebut them. Every heresy is answered in its own generation.
As a Protestant, I had been raised to think of the Christian faith as “what the Bible teaches.” Reading Bible verses like Jude 3 (which refers to “the faith once for all given to the saints”) with these thoughts in my head, it occurred to me that the Christian faith could also be described as “what Christians believe,” at least where Christians are agreed in faith, or even where they have been agreed.
From that point of view, I saw no room for disputing the canonicity of Hebrews — but also no room for questioning the validity of pedobaptism, which may not always have been practiced but was certainly never regarded in the Church as an incorrect or invalid form of baptism, or as grounds for rebaptism at a point of personal belief. More startlingly, I also saw that I would have to accept baptism as more important and decisive than I had previously understood.
And, returning to the ordination of women, I see no grounds for dispute on this point either. The dissenters can make a show of repairing to a few arguably ambiguous texts here and there in the early Fathers and the New Testament. I could make a better case for rejecting the book of Revelation. The witness of the early Church and subsequent generations on this point is clear and convincing. To believe the Christian faith on this point is to accept what Christians have historically believed.
That’s only a beginning, of course. It doesn’t get into the whole theology of priesthood and why Christ chose only men as apostles, etc. But I think it’s important to start here.
Dear Kineticritcality,
It is very late and I have finals next week, but I thought I would give myself an hour to try to answer those two questions. SDG is correct (I will touch on this in a few minutes), but your question was more pointed: how does one know which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which are figurative. The literal ones (presumably) are those which one must follow to the letter.
To begin with, the Church has considered this question (most recently, at Vatican II) and published a document, De Verbum, on divine revelation. It may be found, here .
Although how to understand Scripture varies, in classic Catholic Biblical hermeneutics, there are understood to be four “senses” of Scripture. The Catholic Catechism gives the following:
1143. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. – St. Augustine [my note]
In other words, every word of Scripture is useful in one of these fours senses. Jesus’s saying about tearing out one’s eye is part of the spiritual sense of Scripture. One must understand the literal sense before one can understand the other senses, otherwise, one runs the risk of injecting one’s own interpretations. The literal sense goes to what happened in plain sight. The other senses go beyond the literal sense to draw lessons.
The Church allows some latitude in the interpretation of many passages. There are only a few passages that She has explicitly pronounced an interpretation on, but the ones that She has pronounced on are important – things such as divorce.
There are a few good commentaries on Scripture from a Catholic point of view which will help the average reader understand both the literal and spiritual senses of the passages of Scripture. The best one (in my opinion and many others) – A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Bernard Orchard; 1951) – is out of print (it was written before Vatican II), but is available for reading, online, here It will help you to understand what the Church considers about each passage of Scripture. One can become extremely literal and dangerously scrupulous in reading Scripture. It is never a good idea to read Scripture without at least talking it over with others.
As to SDG’s point: it is a fact that the statement, “The bible is the sole rule of faith,” – so-called, Sola Scriptura, if it were true, would imply that God were not the author of the Bible! Let me explain. Protestants should have been able to see this since 1935, but they have walked past it. Here is the argument:
It is known, rigorously, that a statement of the form, “X is true, if and only if, p”, where X is a meta-statement of p, in a closed system, must lead to a contradiction. In other words, the statement:
The bible is the sole rule of faith if and only if the Bible really is the sole rule of faith
would have had to have been made in the Bible itself (otherwise, it could not be the sole rule of faith), and is, thus, self-referential. Regardless of whether or not it says so in Scripture, this formulation of Sola Scriptura – the most common one, matches the template above. Thus, if the Bible is self-referencing as to its authority, it must necessarily introduce a contradiction. Now, God cannot be the author of a contradiction, since a contradiction has no truth value and God is Truth. Thus, God could not be the author of Scripture if the Bible were the sole rule of faith.
What Luther failed to realize was that in order for the Bible to be the word of God, in order to avoid the contradiction, a self-referential system can still be correct if there is something outside of the system – a meta-system, that can pronounce on it. In order for Scripture to have moral force, Jesus must (must) have left something outside of Scripture that could authenticate it, otherwise, he could not be its author (because of the contradiction of making a self-referential object self-authenticating). Who has the right to issue statements about Scripture? There can only be one, otherwise, there is no unity to Truth.
Thus, by the very nature that one is able to see that the Bible is the Word of God, it must necessarily imply an interpreter. The only consistent voice is the Catholic Church. Individuals cannot interpret Scripture (at least not with authority). This leads to the opposite of a contradiction: it leads to a plurality of Truth, but God is singular and so is his Truth. Thus, neither sola Scriptura nor private interpretation can be supported, logically.
It is not a matter of what one wants to believe. It is a simple fact that if one is to believe in the Bible, one must believe in the Church. SDG was led to this conclusion by experience, but it is logically provable, as well. This line of reasoning has never been put forth to defend against sola Scriptura, before, to my knowledge, but it applies to any closed referential system, so it is rigorously provable and to my mind, closes the door on the whole subject. One cannot argue from feelings or from private revelation. If one wants the Bible, one must also have the Church. They come as a package.
Protestants, as much as they will deny it, implicitly believe in the Church every time they quote Scripture. I talked a month or so ago about the difference between implicit and explicit faith. Protestants will explicitly deny the Church’s right to pronounce on Scripture, but they must assume it everytime.
Thus, the short answer of how to know which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which figuratively: ask the Church. Where the Church has not pronounced, there is freedom (within the limits of reason).
The second question – why there cannot be women priests is a somewhat more subtle question. Let me start the ball rolling. Others can jump in. To begin with, it is absolutely essential to understanding the Catholic position to read the document, Inter Insigniores. It may be found, here . I cannot get into everything contained within the document (it is 1:33 am), but I did want to mention a few things.
In the beginning of Scripture, God is dividing things: light and darkness, water and land, plant and animal. Then this amazing passage occurs:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Notice that it says, “in the image of God he created him ,” but then, immediately, “male and female he created them“. This is the first indication that, although men and women were to be united in anthropology, they were to be divided in purpose.
Both were called to be fruitful and multiply, but in different ways. Each was given a different task: Eve was to bear children, but God specifically put Adam to tilling the soil. This differentiation is specifically shown after the fall when God spoke individually to the man and the woman:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Gen 3:20 The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Had there been a unanimity in how each were to be fruitful, they would have shared the same punishment. Both were frustrated in the act of creating as punishment, but the nature of the creation was different for the man and the woman.
Now, Jesus is the New Adam, the new man and Mary is the new Eve, the new woman. There is still a differentiation of creation, even in the new Dispensation, because it was that way, from the beginning.
What is the nature of the differentiation? Women and men create differently. They are fruitful in different ways. Women are fruitful from within – thus, they bear children from the substance of their own bodies and they safeguard the home. Men are fruitful from without – they require instrumentality to create and they safeguard the family.
What is the primary purpose of priesthood? It is to offer sacrifice – sacrificus in latin, from sacra and facere, literally, to make sacred or holy. The sense of holiness meaning separated is important, here. A sacrifice involves a separation from the person. Now, anthropologically speaking, in the act of creation, the woman is joined to the object she is creating, from the start. From the start, the man is separate from what he creates (or re-creates). It is no accident that Jesus had to be nailed to the cross. He was separated from it. In a sense, the author of life was re-united to the tree of life.
Thus, it is more fitting that a male offer the sacrifice for the whole human race, at least, in pattern.
Now, as far as the priesthood being a sacrament, if one looks at the pattern of the sacraments in Scripture, one finds a curious thing: every sacrament involves the transformation of one thing into another (one must have the correct, “thing” or substance to be transformed) and secondly, Jesus performed the sacramental sign for both men and women in every case, except one. Let us look:
1. Baptism – Jesus said to go out to all the world and baptize. This includes men and women
2. Eucharist – Jesus feed the five thousand – this was just the men. Women were in the crowd, as well.
3. Confirmation – those who were baptized were also confirmed, male and female. Classic example: Priscilla and Aquila
4. Confession – Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery and the paralyzed man who was let down on a mat.
5. Marriage – by its very nature
6. Anointing of the sick – St. James said – “Is anyone sick.” Anyone is male or female.
The sacrament of Holy Orders is never conferred, however, on anyone except males. Why?
Part of the reason is that each sacrament requires valid matter to bring it about, something that Christ uses as a sign to give grace. A Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, that gives grace, There are three parts to every sacrament:
1. the outward sign
2. the inward grace
3. Divine institution
The effects of the sacrament are produced, ex opere operato, which means, by virtue of the work done on the valid matter, not simply by believing (which is called, ex opere operantis – by virtue of the agent doing the work).
What is the valid matter of the sacraments? This shown by what Christ used (or the early Church used). For baptism: water; for Eucharist: bread and wine; for Confirmation: imposition of hands and holy oil; for Marriage: a man and a woman; for Confession: a sinful person (either gender); for Anointing of the Sick: a sick person and holy oils. What did Christ use to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders: men. Christ broke many social conventions of his time. Had he ordained that women would be valid matter for the sacrament, he would have ordained a woman. His own mother, who is the only person in history to have the fullness of grace, was never made a priest. If it were simply a matter of dignity, she would have the greatest claim and yet, at the foot of the Cross, when Jesus gave his last will and testament, he did not say to St. John, behold your priest, but behold your mother.
All believers are made priests by virtue of their baptism, so that all may offer sacrifices, but the difference between this preisthood and Holy Orders is that priests do not offer sacrifices – they offer a Sacrifice – one very specific Sacrifice. In a sense, only Christ may offer this sacrifice, Just as he used bread and wine to remind us that the Eucharist is not only his flesh but a meal, so he uses men to remind us that it is He who offers The Sacrifice.
Every sacrament relies on an object connected to the earth – be it bread and wine, grown from the earth or oils, or water, or even men and women (the dust of the earth), but in the sacrafice of the Mass, something is created outside – outside of time, outside of imperfection outside of the earth from the substance of the earth. It was given to man to till the earth, to create outside. Women create from the inside. A woman has already given birth to God, once, for all. She cannot do it, again. Man is now fulfilling his role in the economy of salvation by taking what the Woman gave and making it visible, again. If a woman were to do this, she would deny man an essential component of his being – he, also, must give birth to Christ, but he must do it instrumentally, by changing bread into the body of Christ, just as Mary changed her own bodily cells into that of Christ’s (an odd way of looking at it, but it is true). One can truthfully say that women have already had their chance.
Thus, not only are women the wrong sign, anthropologically, they are also the wrong matter and that is to be taken literally. Christ did not allow female priests, not because it would have denied the woman, but because it would have denied the man.
It is really late. Read, Inter Insigniores. It says things more completely than I can, here.
The Chicken
The first covenant between God and man was the marital covenant carried out by a male and female. Christ spiritually affirms this. He is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride. Christ (male), the Church referred to in Scripture as female. The priest acts in persona Christi. To have women ordained would result in a woman spiritually wedded to the Church (a female and female nuptial if you will) and, thus, contrary to how it was in the beginning
I struggle to understand the reasoning behind this.
I am not convinced of the validity of the arguments, I have so far encountered, as to WHY some men can be ordained priest/bishop but no women can. ie a woman can no more be ordained than a cat be baptized.
These are some of the difficulties I have with the reasons why arguments:
Underlying this is the need to find a universal and permanent difference between those men capable of being ordained and all women. If the relevant sacramental difference is not universal and permanent then there could be a time/place/situation when women could be ordained. All the psychological differences between males and females I have, so far, come across are general rather than universal cf men are generally taller than women but not all men are taller than all women. There are nurturing ‘feminine’ men and aggressive ‘masculine’ women. There are females who satisfy the ‘male’ psychological descriptions given above and vice-versa. For the argument to work one must find a universal and permanent difference, which is not changeable by circumstance/society/education. The only universal and permanent difference I can think of between those men eligible for ordination and everyone else is – testicles. Testicles do not seem to be the most important factor in (celibate) priesthood. This might seem flippant to some but I know of a man who was refused ordination because of an undescended testicle (BTW he went on to marry, father children and become a locally noted lawyer and politician).
Acting in persona Christi. The minister of every sacrament acts in persona Christi. This includes Baptism, which can be ad-ministered by a female. One of the ministers of the sacrament of marriage is necessarily female – unless one only allows male-male sacramental marriage. Women are enabled by God to act in persona Christi in at least two sacraments, and are therefore “female Christ”. In persona Christi, on its own, does not seem to be a valid reason.
The Bridegroom/Bride ‘metaphor’ is one of a number of Eucharistic ‘metaphors’, a ‘more normative’ one, in my view, is the Paschal Lamb (Agnus Dei qui tollis …). It seems to me to be taking one ‘metaphor’ as solely normative and straining it too far. If the one acting as Bridegroom must be male, then does it follow that the one(s) acting as Bride must be female? Therefore only males can be priests and only females can be members of the Church and only females can receive the Eucharist?
Please understand that I am not trying to be awkward. There are some here far more learned than I on these matters. I need to test the validity of arguments whose conclusions appear to many to be the most spectacular counter-witness to the gospel and natural justice.
NB Since I am trying to understand more than argue a position I might need to maintain a reflective silence for a while.
Leo,
One argument that could be made is the fact that while there were female priests in several religions at the time when Jesus walked among sinners, He chose twelve men to lead the Church. After claiming Divinity and commanding His disciples to eat “My Body,” refusing to make women priests at a time when there were female priests in other religions must have a point. Who are we to challenge Jesus?
Also, as SDG pointed out, for centuries certain things were accepted by all Christians, including that only men could be priests (or ministers). If this were, as you say a “most spectacular counter-witness to the gospel and natural justice,” it would seem that the Holy Spirit would have done something about it long ago, right?
Leo: I appreciate the inquiring spirit you bring to this question. I will try to comment further when I have some more time.
@Leo
Can you give us the name of the Seminary that requires the physical medical exam for entry? Also what was the actual Vocational Formation did he receive afterwards?
Leo’s difficulty with the “reasons why” arguments illustrates a general problem analyzed with great clarity by Sr. Sara Butler, MSBT, in her paper “Ordination: Reviewing the ‘Fundamental Reasons.'”
There are fundamental reasons for the reservation of priestly orders to men, and there are theological arguments showing why this reservation is “fitting”; the fact that the latter are vulnerable, at least at first glance, to various objections does not dispose of the fundamental reasons why ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood will always be impossible.
Review of Sr. Butler’s book, The Catholic Priesthood and Women found on First Things website:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=857
The reviewer generally agrees with Butler but suggests a greater emphasis on the theological arguments.
One quibble with Leo’s struggle with the Bridegroom/Bride metaphor. Scripture says that volumes could be filled with the words and acts of Christ. What was written was divinely inspired, and the fact that God penned it rather than recording something else, makes it, for me, normative (to use Leo’s word). Christ said it and that is the gospel truth.
Fr. Bourgeois was not excommunicated for his part in the ordination of a female to the priesthood. Why not, because the CDF decree only applies to Bishops who attempt such acts.
Jim
Fr. Bourgeois was not excommunicated for his part in the ordination of a female to the priesthood. Why not, because the CDF decree only applies to Bishops who attempt such acts.
Jim
Fr. Bourgeois was not excommunicated for his part in the ordination of a female to the priesthood. Why not, because the CDF decree only applies to Bishops who attempt such acts.
Jim
Fr. Bourgeois was not excommunicated for his part in the ordination of a female to the priesthood. Why not, because the CDF decree only applies to Bishops who attempt such acts.
Jim
Fr. Bourgeois was not excommunicated for his part in the ordination of a female to the priesthood. Why not, because the CDF decree only applies to Bishops who attempt such acts.
Jim