HTML Editor's Note: This is the second version of the document issued and endorsed by the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA). The first version is ordinary text without the line numbering of the original. In this version I have marked each line as though it were a paragraph in order to maintain the exact line numbers of the original. This causes the appearance of double spacing and interrupts the flow of the text but permits line-by-line consideration of the material. Please, send me a note if you find typographical errors.
As the authors write:
This paper is offered as a contribution to the discussion of these questions. Thus, the scope and aims of this paper are quite limited. It does not intend to present arguments for or against the ordination of women. The question it raises is whether the reasons given by the Congregation justify the assertion that the definitive assent of the faithful must be given to the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.
1 For consideration at the CTSA convention in Minneapolis:
2 TRADITION AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN
(with the original line numbering))
3 Introduction
4 On November 18, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published
5 its reply (or Responsum) to the question whether the teaching presented in Pope John Paul
6 II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 1994) is to be understood as
7 "belonging to the deposit of faith (RD, p. 401; ut pertinens ad fidei depositum [AAS,
8 1114]; see list of sources for abbreviations of the texts cited here and hereafter). Its reply
9 was affirmative. Thus, according to the Congregation, the teaching that the Church has no
10 authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent
11 of the faithful, since it is "founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning [it
12 has been] constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, [and] it has
13 been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (RD, p. 401). Later,
14 the Congregation issued a collection of previously published material devoted to these
15 issues (DII).
16 Because the Responsum maintains that the Church's lack of authority to ordain
17 women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught, many have concluded
18 that the question whether women can be ordained has now been so definitively settled that
19 no future pope or council could decide otherwise. However, comments published since the
20 Responsum was issued indicate that not a few Catholic theologians have questioned both
21 the level of its authority and the warrants for its assertions.
22 It is important to distinguish between the Pope's teaching in Ordinatio
23 Sacerdotalis and the teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its
24 Responsum. John Paul II has taught that the Church has no authority to ordain women to
25 the priesthood and that this teaching, grounded in the unbroken Tradition of the Church
26 must be definitively held. The Congregation has declared that this doctrine pertains to the
27 deposit of faith and it has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
28 With what authority have these statements been made? Cardinal Ratzinger has
29 confirmed that it was not the Pope's intention to issue an ex cathedra definition in
30 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Hence, it is not an infallible papal definition, but an exercise of the
31 ordinary papal Magisterium. According to Vatican II, this calls for a response of
32 religiosum obsequium (LG, 25). Theologians have taken this to mean a sincere effort to
33 conform one's judgment to the judgment of the Pope. Experience shows that such an
34 effort may not suffice to overcome a person's doubts and bring one to sincere internal
35 assent.
36 The CDF's Responsum does not change the doctrinal weight of Ordinatio
37 Sacerdotalis. It does not raise its teaching to the level of an ex cathedra definition even
38 when it declares that its doctrine has been taught infallibly. Canon law makes it clear that
39 no doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless this is manifestly established
40 (Canon 749.3). Hence, whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is a question of fact
41 and the law of the Church requires that this fact be clearly established.
42 The law of the Church, it would seem, justifies Catholic theologians in raising the
43 question whether the reasons offered by the Congregation "clearly establish" the fact that
44 this doctrine has been infallibly taught. The reasons offered are that this teaching is
45 "founded on the written word of God," has been "from the beginning constantly
46 preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church," and "it has been set forth infallibly
47 by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
48 Legitimate questions can be raised about each of these reasons, and their probative
49 force. How can it be shown that this doctrine "belongs to the deposit of the faith"? How is
50 it "founded on the written word of God"? Has it "from the beginning [been] constantly.
51 preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church?" Is it a doctrine that "has been set
52 forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium?"
53 This paper is offered as a contribution to the discussion of these questions. Thus,
54 the scope and aims of this paper are quite limited. It does not intend to present arguments
55 for or against the ordination of women. The question it raises is whether the reasons given
56 by the Congregation justify the assertion that the definitive assent of the faithful must be
57 given to the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly
58 ordination on women.
59
60 I. "founded on the written Word of God"
61 The claim that the tradition restricting priestly ordination to men is "founded on
62 the written Word of God" is twofold: first, that Christ did not call women to the apostolic
63 ministry since he selected only men as members of the twelve; and second, that the
64 apostles themselves, faithful to the practice of Christ, chose only men for priestly offices,
65 those of bishop, presbyter, and their equivalents.
66 Biblical evidence that Jesus chose only men among the Twelve and that it was only
67 to them that he said at the Last Supper, "Do this in remembrance of me" (I Cor 11.24),
68 has been taken to reveal his will that only men should ever be ordained to the priesthood.
69 Here we can do no more than mention some of the reasons why many reputable
70 Catholic biblical scholars have not found this argument convincing. They question the
71 suppositions that Jesus' words to the Twelve constituted ordination as it is understood
72 today; that the Twelve are the only precursors of ordained ministers today, in light of the
73 fluidity of ministries in the early Church; that "the apostles" were coextensive with "the
74 Twelve;" and that by choosing only men for the Twelve Jesus intended to express his will
75 concerning the sex of those who would preside at the Eucharist in the future. Since Jesus
76 left the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make many decisions on its own
77 regarding the organization of its ministry, scholars judge it very doubtful that he intended
78 to lay down such a particular prescription regarding the sex of future candidates for
79 ordination. The majority of exegetes hold, instead, that Jesus' choice of only men for the
80 Twelve was determined by the nature of their symbolic role as "patriarchs" of restored
81 Israel.
82 It is also argued, however, that the fact that the apostles chose only men for the
83 roles of leadership in the churches which they founded shows that they did understand
84 Jesus' choice of only men for the Twelve to have given them an example which they were
85 to follow in choosing their own co-workers and successors. Here again scholars find the
86 argument inconclusive. In the earlier period of the New Testament, St. Paul had a number
87 of women as his co-workers in ministry. In the later period, to which 1 Timothy 2.12-14
88 belongs, it is clear that women were being excluded from roles that involved teaching and
89 authority over men. The reason which the author of the Pastorals gave for this exclusion,
90 however, had nothing to do with an example given by Jesus. Instead, the author based the
91 unsuitability of women for these roles on an interpretation of the story of the creation of
92 Eve and her role in the Fall: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was
93 not deceived,, but the woman was deceived and transgressed" (1 Timothy 2.13-14). This
94 passage so interpreted was used as the scriptural basis for the common conviction that
95 women were inferior to men and were more easily led astray, a conviction that certainly
96 contributed to the belief that women were unsuited for ordination to the priesthood.
97 Indeed, there is very little evidence to show that the subsequent practice of choosing only
98 men as bishops and presbyters was determined by an intention to remain faithful to an
99 example set by Jesus, rather than by the kind of reasons proposed by the author of 1
100 Timothy, who was thought to be St. Paul himself.
101 As the majority of the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded in
102 1976, "It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a
103 clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the
104 presbyterate." (PBC, 96).
105
106 II. "from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the
107 Church"
108 While the Eastern Churches, during many centuries, numbered deaconesses among
109 their clergy, and there is plausible evidence that such women were ordained for their
110 ministry, it has been the unbroken tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern
111 Churches to ordain only men to the priesthood. Furthermore, when the question has been
112 raised about the suitability of women for such ordination, a negative answer has been
113 given consistently by early Christian writers, by medieval theologians, and by recent
114 popes.
115 There is no doubt about the traditional practice of excluding women from the
116 priesthood and episcopate, or about the traditional conviction that women were unsuited
117 for such offices in the Church. Obviously, such long-standing traditions must not be lightly
118 changed or dismissed. Yet, as Joseph Ratzinger noted in his commentary on Dei Verbum,
119 "Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate
120 tradition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration
121 and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate,
122 tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also
123 critically" (Ratzinger, 185). A traditional practice that seemed appropriate in the past may
124 no longer be appropriate in a new cultural context. A traditional conviction, when
125 subjected to critical examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather
126 than on divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of authentic
127 Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the sole criterion of an
128 authoritative Tradition.
129 The recent documents Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum on the question
130 of the ordination of women show that the Roman Magisterium itself has recognized the
131 need to reexamine the grounds on which the Church's traditional belief in this matter have
132 been based. Some arguments which have been used in the past do not appear in recent
133 official statements. Other reasons are now being proposed as the basis in revelation for
134 the Church's belief that women cannot be ordained as priests.
135 Studies of the history of this tradition have shown that, while there are some
136 references to the fact that Jesus chose only men among the Twelve, it is undeniable that a
137 consistent argument for the exclusion of women from the priesthood was rooted in the
138 conviction that women were not apt subjects for such ministry because of the inferiority of
139 their sex and/or their state of subjection in the social order.
140 In 1976, the CDF's Declaration Inter Insigniores gave some references to the
141 Fathers in the section entitled "The Tradition Constantly Preserved by the Church." This
142 text is the only place where the CDF has offered patristic evidence. The references
143 provided, however, are all problematic, Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 1, 13, 2) objects to
144 the superstitious hoax of a Gnostic religious service, but not to the fact that it is women
145 who are involved. Tertullian (De Praescriptione Haereticorum 41, 5) and the Didascalia
146 Apostolorum, Chapter 15, object to women teaching and baptizing, but these activities are
147 possible for women in the Church today and these sources say nothing about their
148 ordination. The Apostolic Constitutions (Bk. III, c. 6), drawing on the Didascalia
149 Apostolorum, confirms the same position without adding anything significant. It does cite
150 Jesus' way of acting, but explains it by the natural inferiority of women. Firmilian, in a
151 letter to Cyprian (among Cyprian's letters, n. 75 in the Oxford edition) objects to an
152 heretical baptism and eucharist performed by a woman under demonic influence; he is
153 directly concerned about the demonic influence, not that the minister is a woman. Origen
154 (Fragmenta in I Cor. 74) argues from I Corinthians 14:34 against women preaching in
155 the Church, something permitted today in some circumstances. St. Epiphanius clearly and
156 strongly opposes the ordination of women (Panarion 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; t. 2 GCS
157 37, pp. 473, 477-479) but does so because he shares the widespread prejudice of his
158 society that "Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited" (79, 1.6). Finally, St.
159 John Chrysostom argues not from the example of Christ or the Church's duty to follow
160 him (as the CDF says) but from the greatness of the tasks a bishop must perform. Clearly,
161 these passages reflect a conviction that women are inferior to men and hence unable to
162 perform priestly activities, not that they must be excluded from ordination to the
163 priesthood out of fidelity to the will of Christ.
164 Inferiority and/or subjection in the social order were the primary reasons proposed
165 by most of the medieval theologians and canonists, including St. Thomas Aquinas
166 (Commentary on the Sentences, IV, dist. 25, quest. 2, art. 1) and St. Bonaventure (in his
167 Commentary on the Sentences, IV, dist. 25, quest. 2, art. 1). Commenting on the same
168 section of the Sentences in his Opus oxoniense, Duns Scotus held that the decision to
169 exclude women from *,he priesthood must have been made by Christ. But his argument
170 was that it would have been an injustice to women if the Church had excluded them on its
171 own authority. Today many will agree with his premise but not with his conclusion, since
172 it is based on the idea that Christ could have done justly what it would have been unjust
173 for the Church to do.
174 In sum, the conviction that women are by nature inferior to men and were divinely
175 intended to be subordinate to men in the social order has played a major role throughout
176 most of the Church's history in supporting the belief that women should not be ordained
177 to the priesthood. To the extent that past teaching that women could not be ordained was
178 based on these convictions which are not warranted by divine revelation, that teaching is
179 open to serious theological reinvestigation.
180 Furthermore, sacramental development is a matter of development in practice as
181 well as in teaching. It is an area in which faith and practice are clearly intertwined, and one
182 in which practical implications have often imposed a fresh consideration of doctrinal
183 positions. The development of the practice and teaching of marriage and penance in
184 particular give ample evidence of how the two fields of practice and doctrine interact. In
185 an era where new practical issues emerged, there also emerged a new approach to the
186 understanding of the Church's teaching on these sacraments.
187 The same principle is applicable in the case of ordination. As was remarked by
188 Saint Jerome, while the terminology of presbyter and bishop was constant in the early
189 tradition on order, the custom and practice of these orders had evolved due to changing
190 circumstances (Epistula CXLVI: PL 22, 1192-4; In Titum 1,5: PL 26, 562-3). In the
191 Middle Ages and in the time of the Reformation, the episcopacy and priesthood were
192 subjected to new structuring and given fresh doctrinal explanation in face of historical
193 circumstances. The Second Vatican Council ushered in a new era of the practice and
194 theology of ministry on account of changing ecumenical and historical circumstances. It is
195 within this new practical and doctrinal context that the issue of women's ordination has
196 arisen, so that new questions have to be considered.
197 In addition, adequate evaluation of the reasoning prohibiting the ordination of
198 women requires moral as well as theological assessment since, as both Inter Insigniores
199 and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis acknowledge, "The nonadmission of women to priestly
200 ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity nor can it be construed as
201 discrimination against them" (II 35-39; OS 3). The "Vatican Reflections on the Teaching
202 of 'Ordinatio -Sacerdotalis'" focus the issue sharply, identifying as "an absolutely
203 fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and
204 women" (VR, 404), thereby disavowing gender discrimination and any contemporary
205 appeal to the inferiority of women as grounds for excluding them from ordination. The
206 implication is that were any practice to entail unjustifiable discrimination, it would be
207 judged immoral and foreign to the deposit of faith.
208 The argument from divine law, that "Christ established things this way" (OS 2), is
209 not in itself sufficient to satisfy questions of unjust discrimination. The insufficiency here
210 lies not so much in the fragility of scriptural and historical warrants for the argument, but
211 in its failure to meet the demands of traditional Catholic moral theology. That is, the
212 Catholic moral tradition has consistently premised itself on the belief that the divine will is
213 not arbitrary, and that moral norms must thus overall "make, sense." Hence, it is never
214 sufficient to say simply, "This is the law." God asks not only for obedience but also for
215 some degree of understanding.
216 Indeed, the papal documents and the CDF statements recognize this specific
217 difficulty by proposing additional arguments from the "appropriateness" or "fittingness" of
218 this practice in the divine plan for the Church (II 25; OS 2; VR, p. 405). Certain Roman
219 texts justify the restriction of ordained ministry to men by appeals to iconic
220 appropriateness and/or to beliefs in a natural gender complementarity. The use of these
221 appeals in support of gender role differentiation has been contested in Catholic moral as
222 well as systematic theology by those who argue that the "effective history" of the practices
223 supported by these appeals can be shown to involve consistent patterns of superiority
224 and inferiority, domination and subordination, rather than of equality.
225 While the magisterium presents arguments for fittingness as an explanation and
226 corroboration of what is taught, rather than as the foundation of the teaching, it is always
227 necessary to study tradition to see how much these arguments have affected teaching
228 about matters of substance. All discussion of theological anthropology, therefore, in its
229 influence on the question of ordination, needs careful examination.
230 The purpose here, however, is not to resolve problems such as these either in
231 opposition to or in agreement with the Vatican documents. It is, rather, to underline their
232 seriousness; and in so doing to recognize that an adequate inquiry into the question of
233 whether the nonordination of women is a matter of divine revelation includes an
234 examination of the morality of the practice.
235
236 III. "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium"
237 The final strand of the converging arguments supporting the restriction of ordained
238 ministry to males is the claim that "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and
239 universal magisterium."
240 This statement of the Vatican Congregation makes it clear that the claim that the
241 doctrine excluding women from ordination to the priesthood has been infallibly taught is
242 not based on the dogma of papal infallibility, but rather on the teaching enunciated by
243 Vatican II about the infallible teaching of the whole body of Catholic bishops, including, of
244 course, the Bishop of Rome. The following is the statement of Vatican II to which the
245 Response of the Congregation refers:
246 Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the
247 prerogative of infallibility, they do nevertheless proclaim
248 Christ's doctrine infallibly even when dispersed around the
249 world, provided that while maintaining the bond of
250 communion among themselves and with Peter's successor,
251 and teaching authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals,
252 they are in agreement that a particular judgment is to be
253 held definitively.
254 The reference of the Responsum to Lumen Gentium 25, 2, means that according to
255 the Congregation, all the conditions laid down in that paragraph for infallible teaching, are
256 actually fulfilled in this case. There is no doubt about the fact that Pope John Paul himself
257 has taught that the doctrine excluding women from the priesthood is to be held
258 definitively. But papal teaching alone, unless it is a solemn definition, is not enough to
259 make the doctrine infallible. For a doctrine to be taught infallibly by the ordinary and
260 universal magisterium it has to be evident that the whole body of Catholic bishops is
261 teaching the same doctrine and obliging the faithful to give it their definitive assent.
262 How evident does this have to be? Canon 749.3 of the Code of Canon Law replies:
263 "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this fact is clearly established."
264 In other words, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that a doctrine has been
265 infallibly taught. A statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, even
266 approved by the Pope, does not settle the issue. As noted earlier, whether a doctrine has
267 been infallibly taught is a question of fact, and canon law requires that this fact be clearly
268 established.
269 In the present case, this means that it has to be a clearly established fact that the
270 whole body of Catholic bishops is agreed in teaching that the doctrine excluding women
271 from ordination to the priesthood is a truth to which the Catholic faithful are obliged to
272 give an irrevocable assent. How could this be demonstrated? In his encyclical on the value
273 and inviolability of human life, Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul indicates one way in
274 which this could be done: namely, by consulting all the bishops. In that document the Pope
275 specifically referred to an "aforementioned consultation" when he declared that he was
276 teaching "in communion with the bishops" who "albeit dispersed throughout the world,
277 have shown unanimous agreement. . . " (EV, no. 62). Another way it could be
278 demonstrated is suggested by Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, where it says that
279 when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal
280 magisterium, this is "manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful." In support
281 of its assertion that the doctrine excluding women from the priesthood has been taught
282 infallibly by the ordinary, universal magisterium, the Congregation did not and indeed
283 could not, appeal either to a consultation of all the bishops or to the common adherence of
284 the Catholic faithful.
285
286 Conclusion
287 Vatican II declared, "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own
288 truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power" (DH, 1).
289 Consequently, in accord with the responsibility proper to Roman Catholic theologians, this
290 paper offers considerations on some of the fundamental issues raised by the Responsum of
291 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It draws upon well-known and widely
292 accepted principles of Roman Catholic theology. The paper supports the conviction that
293 the whole Church, and especially its pastors and theologians, must continue to inquire into
294 the exercise of the Church's authority and responsibility in this matter.
295 There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and
296 its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not
297 only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church. Once again,
298 it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question
299 by all the members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are
300 necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic
301 Tradition of the Gospel in our day.
302
303 SOURCES
304
305 DH Vatican II. Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom).
306 DII Dall' "Inter Insigniores" all' Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." Documenti e
307 commenti. CDF: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.
308 EV Pope John Paul II. Evangelium vitae. Origins 24 (6 April 1995), 690-
309 730.
310 GS Vatican II. Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
311 the Modem World).
312 II Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Inter Insigniores; On the
313 Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood. Origins
314 6 (February 3, 1977), 519-524.
315 LG Vatican II. Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).
316 OS Pope John Paul II. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Origins 24 (June 9, 1994),
317 50-52.
318 PBC Pontifical Biblical Commission report. Origins 6 (July 1, 1976), 92-
319 96.
320 Ratzinger Ratzinger, Joseph. "The Transmission of Divine Revelation,"
321 in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Commentary on the Documents of
322 Vatican II, vol. 3. New York: Herder and Herder, 181-198.
323 RD Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Reply to the dubium
324 concerning the teaching contained in the apostolic letter
325 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." (October 28, 1995). Origins 25
326 (November 30, 1995), 401, 403. Official text in Acta
327 Apostolicae Sedis 87 (1995), 1114. (AAS)
328 VR "Vatican Reflections On the Teaching of 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,'"
329 Origins 25 (November 30, 1995), 403-405.
330
331
Last revised ihs 12 June 1997 2:45 pm
Hypertext version copyright © 1997 Ingrid H. Shafer
Reactions and comments: Ingrid Shafer.
RETURN TO: ARCC/VATICAN2 Homepage