In This Section

SFBay Catholic Special Section

Women's Ordination and Infallible Teaching, An Inquiry
Was The Teaching Infallible?
[The First Essay On the Women Ordination Ban]

In this, the first of three short essays, I want to raise some considerations regarding the question of whether the ban on women priests has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium -- a claim fallibly put forward in the Responsum ad dubium of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith following the publication of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis by Pope John Paul II in the latter part of 1995.

 The reason  it is important to consider this claim is that there are only 3 ways a doctrine can be infallibly taught in the Church:

by a solemn 'ex cathedra' teaching act of the pope's infallible extaordinary magisterium, as defined at Vatican I and further explained at Vatican II;

  by a solemn dogmatic definition by a valid ecumenical council; and

 by a teaching of the 'ordinary and universal magisterium'
  (see Lumen gentium 25 for an explanation of all three 'modes' of infallibility).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement accompanying its Responsum ad Dubium which explicitly denied that the pope had been exercizing his infallible extraordinary magisterium in Ordinatio  sacerdotalis (28 October, 1995). It described Ordinatio sacerdotalis as a teaching act of the pope that was "not itself infallible", and this position was reiterated in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano (19 November, 1995). And there has been no other 'ex cathedra' infallible pronouncement by a pope on the issue of women's ordination. Nor has there ever been a conciliar dogmatic definition ruling out the possibility of women's  ordination. So the only way this doctrine could have been infallibly taught was by an infallible exercize of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

 It is important to assess whether the CDF's opinion--itself fallible--that the doctrine has been infallibly taught in this third manner is correct, because Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law requires that infallibly taught doctrine should receive the assent of faith (it 'must be believed with divine and catholic faith' as belonging to the deposit of divine revelation), while non-infallible doctrine need only receive 'religiosum intellectus et voluntatis obsequium', which the US English translation renders as  'religious *respect* of intellect and will' (Canon 752, emphasis added). It is possible to accord a doctrine such respect while witholding the assent offaith (for otherwise the distinction would not be drawn in this way in the Code). So is the CDF's opinion correct?

 First what is meant by saying something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium? At Vatican II the question was explained thus:
 "Although individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, nevertheless, even though dispersed throughout the world, but maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, when in teaching authentically matters concerning faith and morals they agree about a judgment as one to be definitively held, they infallibly proclaim the teaching of Christ. This takes place even more clearly when they are gathered together in an ecumenical council and are the teachers and judges of faith and morals for the whole church. Their definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.
  

 "This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, extends just as far as the deposit of divine revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded....But when the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him define a decision, they do so in accordance with revelation itself, by which all are obliged to abide and to which all must conform....The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in virtue of their office and the seriousness of the matter, work sedulously through the appropriate means duly to investigate this revelation and give it suitable expression. However, they do not accept any new public revelation as belonging to the divine deposit of faith." (Lumen gentium 25). The translation is that from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (editor Norman Tanner SJ--I like using this translation because I was the translator for the documents of the Second Lateran Council which this work also includes--don't worry, the whole work received the nihil obstat and imprimatur.) The Abbot translation changes nothing of significance, the key part in that version reading as follows:

 "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a  single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively." So our question is, does the ban on women priests fall under the scope of the type of infallibility which these texts define? On the face of it, my answer is that it is dubious that it does. The requirement for infallibility here is quite strong. The College of Bishops as a whole in union with the pope must teach the matter as one which is to be "held definitively" or "conclusively". Moreover, the scope of such a teaching cannot extend beyond what is already contained in the deposit of divine revelation.

 The bishops collectively are supposed to have engaged in sedulous investigation of the deposit of divine revelation beforehand, and the teaching cannot be anything new, or added on to the original deposit of faith. The bishops cannot just invent a new doctrine which previous generations of bishops had no way of knowing was contained in the deposit of faith. Has the College of Bishops ever, then, as a moral whole, though dispersed around the  world, but in communion with one another and with the successor of Peter, agreed on the judgment that women cannot be ordained, that this judgment is a doctrine belonging to the deposit of faith, and that it is to be held  definitively or conclusively as such?

 On the face of it, this has never happened. Remember they have to teach this doctrine with moral unanimity. They have to teach it as belonging to divine revelation. They have to teach it as being a doctrine to be held definitively by all the faithful. Where and when has this happened? The CDF gives no answer to these questions--it asserts that it has happened. But this assertion is fallible. It certainly does  not itself command the assent of faith (indeed no statement by a Curial Congregation per secan command such assent, for only the College of Bishops in union with the pope, or the pope alone when he exercizes his special charism of infallibility can proclaim a doctrine in such a way that the proper Catholic response is that of "assensus fidei".)

 What is required for a doctrine to be infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium? Taking a practice for granted is not enough. Silence is not enough. Not even teaching something as such is enough.

 Let me give some examples of ordinary (non-infallible) episcopal and papal teachings which were later modified. At one time it was officially taught that it was unlawful for married couples to take pleasure in the marital act; that killing  infidels was a way to salvation; that taking interest on a loan was forbidden; that owning slaves was permissible; that discrimination against Jews was legitimate; that biblical scholars must not use historical critical methods on Scripture texts; that torturing suspected heretics was permissible; and that civil authorities in Catholic countries were required to take forcible measures to prevent the spread of non- Catholic religions. These teachings have  been changed or at least extensively qualified and modified. So the mere fact that something was taught by the hierarchy at some time and place is not even enough to confirm that the teaching in question has been infallibly taught.

 Fr Avery Dulles SJ (an opponent of the ordination of women) notes in his book, The Survival of Dogma, the following common sense assumption: "No doctrinal decision of the past directly solves a question that was not asked at the time." For example, for centuries the bishops presupposed that the figures of Adam and Eve in Genesis were literal, historical human individuals. They didn't question this because the modern scientific treatment of human origins had not arisen. Fr Dulles continues: "whenever the state of the evidence on any question materially changes, you have a new question that cannot be fully answered by appealing to old authorities." Aquinas taught that women were intrinsically inferior to men, or as he put it, "defective males". Is this a tenable view now? Is the state of the question and the evidence relevant to answering it correctly the same now as in Aquinas's time? No, of course not. As Elizabeth Johnson writes, "let it be plainly stated that women are icons of Christ, imago Christi, in every essential way. There is a natural resemblance of a common humanity and participation in divine grace. To teach otherwise is a pernicious error that vitiates the power of baptism. The naive physicalism that reduces resembling Christ to being male is so deviant from Scripture and so theologically distorted as to be dangerous to the faith itself." (Commonweal, 26 January 1996).

 In the next two essays of this series, I will take up the following issues:

• the behavior of Jesus
   
•  the teachings of Saint Paul
   
•  some patristic interventions
   
•  the distinction between discipline, law and custom on the one hand, and faith on the other.
   
•  the officially documented criteria for establishing that a doctrine has been infallibly taught.

Peter Burns, SJ 

Electronic version posted with the permission of the Author.    07/28/96

© 2002 San Francisco Bay Catholic, All Rights Reserved