Catholic Exchange

Why Does the Catholic Church Ordain Only Men to the Priesthood? Part Two

Written by

Fr. Kyle Schnippel

in

In our discussion of Inter Insigniores, we have so far examined why the teaching needed to be emphasized, as well as some of the Biblical roots for the teaching.

As we continue, two questions arise: is the attitude of Jesus and the Apostles important, and does this attitude have a permanent value?  Some traditions, like requiring women to wear veils, have been changed, while others, especially those related to sacraments, have permanent value and cannot be changed.  For example, the Church cannot change from using bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.  Pope Paul lifts up that the all-male hierarchical priesthood is not merely functionary, but also has a sacramental sign-value, which is much deeper than merely a conventional sign: "This norm, based on Christ's example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to God's plan."  An all-male priesthood is accepted as God's design; therefore the Church lacks the power or right to change it.  For the priesthood is a connection not only for the community of believers themselves, but also a connection to the history of our salvation in Christ.  The priesthood is, in fact, the way the community of believers is connected to The Event of our salvation, Christ's Crucifixion.  Pope Paul surmises:

In the final analysis it is the Church, through the voice of her Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and what must remain immutable.  When she judges that she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows that she is bound by Christ's manner of acting.  Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light.  The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord's promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery of Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content.

The changing of the question back to one of fidelity to the promise that Christ has given allows for a freedom for the Church to continue to grow in our awareness of how Christ continues to lead and guide His Church through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul VI's hope that this document would quiet the movement for women's ordination in the Catholic Church went unfounded.  As the movement progressed in the various Christian sects, there were renewed calls for this question to be reexamined in the Catholic Church.  Pope John Paul II addressed the question in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On the Reserving of Priestly Ordination to Men Alone (1994)).  In this document, the Holy Father quotes extensively from his predecessor, but adds the following:

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. (4)

In matters of such a strong statement, recourse must be made to see what implications this wording has for the faithful.  Then-Cardinal Ratzinger issued a clarifier that this definitively settled the question of women's ordination for the Catholic Church.  The dogma of Papal Infallibility, decreed at the First Vatican Council, and reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.  This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

… And therefore [The Pope's] definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

…To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting.  (LG 25)

Over the last thirty years, the teaching of the Church on this subject has been necessarily clarified due to the confusion among the faithful.  To this teaching, we are to gladly give our assent.

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This infallible statement by John Paul II seems to make dissent over this issue so much more serious than dissent over other issues. In fact, I think if you explicitly deny an infallible statement you are technically in heresy. As Fr Kyle shows, to deny this is to deny Vatican I. When you start denying eccumenical councils the whole faith comes becomes unravelled.

    We need to teach what is required of us when the pope says, "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." It means we have to reorganize our private thoughts to be consistent with this teaching. Logically, that might mean rethinking a lot of what you beleive on what is means to be a man or a woman. That is a big deal. It goes to the heart of our understanding of who we are. That makes the process hard but it also makes it important.

    Eventually we need to see church discipline recognize the new level of priority John Paul has given this teaching. I can understand waiting 10 years or so but we need to get to the point where the hierarchy responds quicker and more severely to those who call for women priests. Of all the liberal ideas out there this is the issue that John Paul chose to make an infallible statement on. It seems like he chose it well. For most it does not have personal implications. Still it is an idea highly offensive to our culture. Will you repent, that is hange your thinking, on this issue? If so, you have opened up a door to God's grace and it will be easier to do it again. If not, you are not even surrendering to God the right to run His church and His sacraments. How are you ever going to let Him run your personal life?

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God loves you .

    You know, I was sitting here thinking that some potent author ought to write some book that pulls such definitive and eloquent Magisterial declarations together.

    These would be out of context of the often laboriously reasoned original documents. But, too, they would speak of the summary importance of the documents. Clear bibliography and means of access to the reference, as direct page footnote, would give readers means to go on to ‘all the details’.

    Papal, Fathers, Doctors and Counciliar Greatest Hits, or the like . . .

    Remember, I love you, too

    Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Quick question not about the subject itself but about JPII’s proclamation: When is a statement not made ex cathedra considered an infallible statement? Randy declared the statement infallible, but I’m a bit cloudy about which papal statements can be considered infallible if not made ex cathedra.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Questions:

     Asking questions is always a good thing, it can sometimes matter where you look for the answers that can lead to problems!

    The point you raise is one of the reasons that this topic continues to be re-hashed in many different ways.  If you look at the section bolded above, it seems that JPII invoked infallibility without actually mentioning 'ex cathedra.'  When certain factions in the Church continued to press for the change in doctrine, (then) Cardinal Ratzinger basically said: "Stop, it has been declared ex cathedra!"

     In short, to answer your question, (and I am no expert here) it is important to look at the actual language invoked.  Both JPII and B XVI are trained in philosophy and theology, so they know the words that they are using.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Fr Schnippel:

    Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate your assistance.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I find it quite interesting that JPII would make such a seemingly huge dogmatic statement in a pointedly non-dogmatic way. One would think that JPII who appears, on the surface anyway, to be shutting the door forever in the face of one half of the worlds population would in fact tag the statement “ex cathedra”—but he did not. As well, Ratzinger cannot apply an ex cathedra pronouncement as a passing whim or as an oral support for the declaration of  JPII. As Fr. Schnippel already pointed out these obviously learned men “both JPII and B XVI are trained in philosophy and theology, so they know the words that they are using.”  

    Most “anti-women” Catholic folk choose to focus on the term “women” in the declaration as it seems to deal the harshest of blows to these less-than-men partners in our Church. However, I like to focus on the part in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that says “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination…” If B16 and JPII wanted to shut the door forever they should have locked it tight!

Leave a Reply

More posts