"I wonder at the adroitness of theologians who manage to represent the
exact opposite of what is written in clear documents of the
Magisterium in order afterward to set forth this inversion with
skilled dialectical devices as the 'true' meaning of the documents in
question."{1}
Cardinal Ratzinger's words, spoken in 1984, are all the more
appropriate today in the light of S.A. Sullivan's article in the
Jesuit weekly magazine AMERICA for Dec. 9, 1995. The Prefect of the
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) had sought to
clarify that the Pope in his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis infallibly
taught that women could not be ordained. His Responsum ad Dubium was
short. The bulk of the response was in a single, 2-sentence paragraph.
Sullivan, by contrast, appears to determined to undermine this simple
message with a lengthy article. He confuses the issue by taking an
irrelevant detour concerning the "ordinary and universal magisterium."
Perhaps the Prefect should have answered the Dubium with a one-word
Responsum of "YES," with a footnote: "Which part don't you
understand?"
Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
-------------------------------------------------------
Once past the preliminaries, Sullivan zeroed in on the words "it has
been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
For some reason, he seems to think that the CDF was obliged to prove
that this was the case. For the rest of the article, his thesis was
that the it is not clear that the doctrine was indeed taught
infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. What is the
"infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium"?
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine
infallibly. This is so, even 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." (From Lumen Gentium 25)
Bishops in union with the magisterium can teach infallibly if they
authentically (i.e. authoritatively{2}) teach the same doctrine:
namely Christ's doctrine. In union with Rome, the universal Church,
they achieve a moral unanimity.
Sullivan ignores LG 25 completely in his article, choosing not to
argue that the doctrine was not infallibly taught. Rather, his plan is
that of fear, uncertainty and doubt: he tries to convince the reader
that there was no way to KNOW if the doctrine was infallibly
taught. He does so by proposing three ways to determine that the
doctrine was infallibly taught, and proceeds to shoot down his
strawmen. Note the reasoning: he proposes three POSSIBLE ways, but
does not - and cannot - show that they are the ONLY ways. By attacking
three "proofs" that were not used by the CDF in the first place,
Sullivan has failed to prove anything.
Sullivan's final paragraph questions whether "they [the bishops] have
been unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination
to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth to which all Catholics
are obliged to give a definitive assent of faith."{3} He wants a
literal counting of heads. He expects the CDF's short Responsum to
prove conclusively that ALL bishops have taught authoritatively on
this issue. Does he mean every living bishop? Every bishop throughout
eternity? In the past? Sullivan does not say; he is merely content in
giving the CDF an impossible condition to satisfy. This same Sullivan
had acknowledged that:
"There have been times in the past and may be again in the future when
a considerable portion of the faithful has been led into error,
usually by erring bishops, and then it has been the role of the
supreme teaching authority to pronounce a decisive judgement in order
to resolve the dispute and led the faithful to a consensus in the
truth."{4}
Dissent is inevitable; our long history of heresies is testimony to
that. Is he saying, then, that a single dissenting bishop could
undermine Christ's truth?
Keep in mind that the absence of proof of a consensus does not
disprove its presence in the past. This aside, there is a much simpler
assurance that the magisterium has been teaching an irreformable
doctrine: namely, if the Pope infallibly teaches that same doctrine.
The real proof
--------------
In his fixation on the ordinary and universal magisterium, Sullivan
ignores the second sentence of the CDF Responsum's main paragraph. It
reads "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."
This is the key sentence. It is the Pope who exercised infallibility
in his Apostolic Letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." It is this
confirming exercise in infallibility that gives us the confidence that
the ordinary and universal magisterium has taught infallibly. The CDF
Responsum only serves to emphasize the Pope's intention. Sullivan
perhaps hopes to undermine the papal letter indirectly, by attacking
the CDF's statement. Do not be misled.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: an exercise of infallibility{5}
----------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Church's teaching on infallibility is very clear:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of this office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith -
he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or
morals."{6}
The four tests we can discern from the above are that the Pope:
1. intends to teach ("teacher of all the faithful")
2. by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority ("supreme pastor")
3. a matter of faith or morals ("pertaining to faith or morals")
4. to be held by the universal church. ("of all the faithful")
A word on the phrase "definitive." The root word for "define" here is
"finis," meaning "end" or "limit." Defining a doctrine "puts an end to
freedom of opinion on the matter, and sets limits to the communion of
faith."{7}
Is the Pope's Apostolic Letter an exercise in infallibility? Let us
apply the four criterion. From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
"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 (c.f. 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."
1. Is it at all doubtful that the Pope intends to teach? In fact, he
seeks to do so that "all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of
great importance."
2. He is clearly operating as supreme pastor. Note the correspondence
between his words ("in virtue of my ministry of confirming the
brethren") and LG 25 ("supreme pastor . . . who confirms his brethren
in the faith"). His intention to issue an infallible teaching is
undeniable.
3. This is clearly a matter pertaining to faith. Rather than "merely
disciplinary force," the doctrine is a "matter which pertains to the
Church's divine constitution itself."
4. That this is binding on the universal church can be seen by his
insistence that the doctrine "is to be definitively held by all the
Church's faithful."
Keep in mind that it is the Pope - not the documents - that practices
infallibility. His intention to do so is clear, and amplified all the
more by the CDF Responsum. Insistence on particular wordings and
phrases and other linguistic games looks silly in view of this. This
should give pause to those "adroit theologians" who insist on creative
private interpretation of Church documents.
Conclusion
----------
Pope's recent Apostolic Letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," is an
exercise in infallibility. The response from the CDF merely emphasizes
this to those who heroically attempt to misunderstand the Pope's
intention. Sullivan's article, by ignoring the obvious object of
infallibility in favor of the less definable, only serves to distract
the reader from the undeniable.
Appendix: assorted straw people
-------------------------------
Buried in his article, Sullivan presents a number of examples that
purportedly shows that official teachings of the Holy See can change
over time. He writes:
"To give an example: The bishops gathered at the Council of Florence
in 1442 no doubt expressed the common teaching of the whole episcopate
at that time when they said that all pagans and Jews would certainly
go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. This is
certainly not the doctrine of the modern Catholic Church. Other
examples of doctrines that had a long tradition but were subsequently
reversed concerned the morality of owning slaves and exploiting their
labor, and the obligation requiring rulers of Catholic nations to
prevent the propagation of Protestantism in their territories."{8}
Sullivan is presumably referring to the Decree for the Jacobites from
the Council of Florence in 1442:
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside
the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into
eternal fire . . . unless before the end of life they will have been
joined to it . . ."{9}
Even if this passage is to be interpreted so as to conflict with what
the Church believes today (as apparently Sullivan does), it fails
miserably to illustrate Sullivan's point. The Feeneyite doctrine was
not a teaching that was held from the Church's genesis until recent
times, as various patristic and magisterium writings show. As an
example, in AD 148-155 St. Justin the Martyr wrote "Those who lived
according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered
atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus."{10}
A careful reading will reveal that the 1442 decree does not demand a
formal membership in the Catholic Church. One needs to be "joined" to
the Church, but a formal juridical membership was neither required nor
implied. In other words, the decree does not conflict with the view
that a meritorious pagan could be in union with the Church by an
unconscious desire.
On the issue of slavery, it should be noted that there was never a
doctrinal teaching making slavery acceptable. The Church - struggling
to survive - needed to grow before it was ready to challenge slavery
and may not have fought it as vigorously as it could have. But these
are pragmatic, not theological reasons. Still, as early as 873 AD Pope
John VIII taught:
"There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal
admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, . . . many in
your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by
your people and held under the yoke of slavery. . . . Hence we exhort
you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives
from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free."{11}
So the justification of slavery was not a long standing tradition
either. The issue of religious freedom (concerning Protestantism) is
also a non-issue, being a disciplinary rather than a moral or
doctrinal question.
The Church's stand on women's ordination is unchanged from the time of
Christ. By contrast, all of Sullivan's examples fail to show that
official teachings of the Holy See can prove wrong over time.
Notes
-----
{1} Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report p. 26, Ignatius Press.
{2} c.f. Sullivan, Magisterium p. 26.
{3} Sullivan, Guideposts from Catholic Tradition, AMERICA Dec 9, 1995.
{4} Sullivan, Magisterium p. 105.
{5} This section is shamelessly derived from Jeff Mirus' electronic article of the same
name. That file can be found as ordin.txt at crnet.org.
{6} The Catechism of the Catholic Church 891, citing LG 25 c.f. DS 3074.
{7} c.f. Sullivan, Magisterium p. 60.
{8} Sullivan, Guideposts from Catholic Tradition, AMERICA Dec 9, 1995.
