The Ordained Priesthood
by Eamonn Keane
Foreward by Matthew Habiger
Author's Preface
CHAPTER I: THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST
1.The identity of the Ordained Priest
2.The Two Priesthoods: A Difference in Essence
3.Confusion of Roles
4.Teach Transubstantiation and the Church's Moral Doctrine
CHAPTER II: JESUS CONFERRED THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS ON THE
APOSTLES
1.At the Last Supper Jesus Instituted the Ministerial Priesthood
2.The Early Church was Hierarchically Organised
CHAPTER III: WOMEN ARE NOT CALLED TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
1.The Choice of the Twelve
2.The Apostolic Community Remained Faithful to the Intention of
the Lord
3.The Equality of 'Male and Female' Does Not Mean the Suppression
of Differences
4.Sacramental Truth and Women Priests?
5.Revealed Anthropology
6.Christ: Bridegroom of the Church
7.Marital Symbolism and the Eucharistic Sacrifice
8.Adam: A Man or a Woman?
9.'In Persona Christi' or 'In Persona Ecclesia'? - A Question of
Priority
10.Women Priests? - An Ancient Heresy
CHAPTER IV: PETER HAS SPOKEN
1.Development of Doctrine
2.The Meaning and Nature of Authority
3.Infallible Teaching and Authentic Teaching
4.Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: The Church Has No Authority Whatsoever
to Confer Priestly Ordination on Women
5.Dissent from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
6.The CDF Reply
7.Who Determines what is the Teaching of the Ordinary Universal
Magisterium: The Theologians or the Magisterium?
8.The Ordination of Women: A Corruption of Doctrine
CHAPTER V: THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN MUST BE BASED ON REVELATION
1.Women's Particular Genius
2.Radical Feminist Attack on Sources of Christian Revelation
3.Radical Feminist Attack on the Ordained Priesthood
4.The Unisex Utopia
CHAPTER VI: CELIBACY - A PRICELESS TREASURE
1.Objections to Celibacy
2.Celibacy is Most Appropriate for the Ministerial Priesthood and
it is Rooted in the Example of Christ and the Apostles
3.The Church Resolutely Defends Celibacy
4.Celibacy: A Sign of Contradiction
CHAPTER VII: NEED FOR CATECHETICAL RENEWAL
1.Are Catholic Schools Transmitting a Sound Knowledge of the
Catholic Faith?
2.The Indispensable Place of Doctrine in a Catholic Religious
Education Program
3.Parramatta Catholic Education Office: Corrupt Religious
Education Materials
4.Catholic Institute of Sydney: Attacking the Catechism of the
Catholic Church
5.Parramatta CEO Again
6.Parramatta CEO: Transmitting Marxist Based Liberation Theology
7.The Morality Section of the 1995 Parramatta CEO Support Units
8.HSC Studies of Religion
CHAPTER VIII: THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY - WHAT IS TRUTH?
1.The Catholic University at the Service of Truth
2.The Catholic University and Academic Freedom
3.Has The ACU Repudiated the Church's Moral Doctrine?
4.Intrinsically Evil Acts
5.Fundamental Option and Deliberate Choices
6.Can the Magisterium Teach Infallibly on Specific Moral Issues?
7.Should Catholics Dissent from the Moral Doctrine of the Church?
8.St Thomas Aquinas Did Nor Permit Abortion
9.Jesus Knew Himself to be Divine
10.The Corpse of Jesus Did Not Remain in the Tomb After His
Resurrection
11.Confusion and Error in First Year Undergraduate Course
FOREWORD
Every age has its confusions and rages. In these times radical
feminism is the rage and spreads its confusion everywhere,
including marriage, the family, parenting, human sexuality,
religious life and the priesthood.
Australia's Eamonn Keane provides the entire English-speaking
world a service by examining the real issues surrounding the
Ordained Priesthood. He brings all the pertinent literature into
the discussion (Papal documents and addresses, the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, Vatican II documents, Jean Galot S.J., Bishop
Dunn's (Auckland, N.Z.) Priesthood, Dr John Haas, Hans Urs von
Balthasar, etc. He lists the main arguments of feminists who want
to change the priesthood and re-interpret Scripture and Tradition.
He explains the nature of the ministerial priesthood and why Jesus
called only men to this ministry: "I declare that the Church has
no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and
that this judgement is to be definitively held by all Christ's
faithful" (Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4).
Confusions, left unanswered, distract people from their true
purposes. Instead of building up the People of God, they demolish
it and render some structures of the Church helplessly
ineffective. An authentic theology of women, based upon an
anthropology revealed in the Mystery of Creation and Redemption,
is always needed. The Church stands firmly against every form of
discrimination which compromises the equal dignity of women and
men. The complete equality of persons is accompanied by a
marvellous complementarity. Radical feminism ignores this and
pursues a dull amorphous unisex.
When reading this manuscript I was at the Pontifical College
Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, for the ordination of a former
student to the transient deaconate. The ceremony and sacrament
were profound, but the numbers too few. Radical feminism's
confusions are claiming their toll. In the USA, despite its
immense material wealth there are fewer seminarians than ever
before (48,000 major seminarians after WWII; 6,000 today).
When confusion abounds about the nature of the priesthood, when
radical feminists use the priesthood as a political tool to
advance their purposes, when radical "feminist theology" is
brought into seminaries, college classrooms and RCIA classes, and
when Women Ordination Conferences are allowed to happen with
religious, priests and even some bishops in attendance, then we
should not be surprised at the results: fewer young men aspirants
to the priesthood.
The Lord of the Harvest is always generous: there are as many
vocations offered to young men today as in any previous age. But
are we exercising good stewardship over them? Are we shaping an
environment where vocations can flourish? Is God's plan for His
priesthood respected or denigrated? Will the latest rage replace
good theology of the priesthood? Will seminarians be subjected to
militant feminists who will propagandise them mercilessly?
The Ordained Priesthood is a very useful tool to help clear away
the confusions created by radical feminists. Keane's book deepens
our appreciation of the priesthood, and why God devised it as He
did. The challenge now is for many Catholics to understand the
issues, put our house back into order and begin a real spring
house-cleaning! We know that God's truth ultimately prevails. What
happens in the immediate future, however, or even during the
intervening centuries, depends upon the practical wisdom of the
Catholic people under the prudent leadership of their bishops.
Like Keane's earlier book, Population and Development, this book
addresses a widespread confusion. We are indebted to him.
Fr. Matthew Habiger, OSB PhD
President, Human Life International
PREFACE
Those Catholics who publicly criticise the Magisterium [1] for its
teaching on a male-only ministerial priesthood, and for its
refusal to lift the celibacy rule in the Latin Church, only serve
to deflect attention away from the real problems facing the
Catholic Church in Australia. In the ongoing debate over the
growing shortage of ordained priests, dissenting theologians and
others often suggest the problem could be solved if the Church
would only ordain women. When it is pointed out that this cannot
be a solution since the Magisterium has ruled it out, those same
dissenting theologians often respond in one-line cliches such as
"the final word has yet to be said on the question".
There is a need in the Church for a comprehensive catechesis
(education) on the origin, nature and dignity of the ministerial
(ordained) priesthood. This catechesis needs to draw on the
sources of Divine Revelation and it needs to be detailed and
logical in its presentation. In general, Catholics in Australia
have been heavily exposed to the views of dissenting theologians
on the questions surrounding the ordained priesthood. In their
public utterances, these dissenters often sound more like party
political propagandists than theologians. To listen to the charges
they level against the Magisterium, e.g. "the Vatican is bullying
the theologians", one could be forgiven for forgetting that the
ministerial priesthood belongs ultimately to the mystery of the
Church itself and that it has its origin in the creative and
redeeming wisdom of the Blessed Trinity.
In this book I will endeavour to express my understanding of those
doctrines pertaining to the ordained priesthood which are most
under attack today. In particular, I will endeavour to show that
in virtue of the consecration he receives by the gift of the Holy
Spirit at Ordination, the priest is empowered to perform those
sacramental acts through which Christ makes present and effective
his own life-giving mission in the Church. The consecration
effected by the Sacrament of Holy Orders affects the priest both
in what he is and in what he does. It configures him to Christ the
Head, Shepherd and Bridegroom of the Church in such a way that the
ordained priest is able to continue Christ's prayer, preaching,
sacrifice and saving action in the Church. It is in relation to
the doctrine which expresses these realities that I will try to
show why the ordination of women is impossible. Coupled with this,
I will spend one full chapter outlining the reasons why celibacy
is most appropriate to the ordained priesthood.
In presenting the doctrine of the Church on the ministerial
priesthood, I will be doing so against the backdrop of some common
expressions of dissent from the Church's teaching with which many
Catholics are now familiar. While much of what I have to say in
the pages that follow is drawn from Magisterial documents of the
Church, I make no claim however to speak with any particular
authority on Church doctrine. It is the Pope alone, and the
Bishops in communion with him, who can claim such authority.
A good indicator of the overall state of the Catholic Church in
Australia is the quality of Religious Education and Theology
courses in its schools and tertiary institutions. If in such
courses the doctrine of the Church is being undermined, then it
should not surprise anyone to find that the decline in vocations
to the priesthood is paralleled by falling Mass attendances and by
an increase in the alienation of youth from the practice of the
faith. Consequently, chapters 7 and 8 of this book are given over
to the education question.
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
1.The word 'Magisterium' refers to the office of teaching
inscribed in the Church by Christ. This office is exercised by the
Pope and the Bishops in communion with him when they act as
teachers and preachers of the truths of faith and morals.
CHAPTER I
1.THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST
2.THE TWO PRIESTHOODS: A DIFFERENCE IN ESSENCE
3.CONFUSION OF ROLES
4.TEACH TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE CHURCH'S MORAL
THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST
The Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is "the source and summit of
the Christian life". {1} At the Last Supper Christ changed bread
and wine into his Body and Blood and gave it to his Apostles to
eat and drink. Then he said to them: "Do this as a memorial of me"
(Lk 22:19). The whole work that Jesus had come to do was summed up
in this gift of himself to his disciples. This is why he wanted
them to continue to do what he had just done as a memorial of him.
By saying that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is a
'memorial' of Jesus we mean that through it Our Lord becomes
present in the fullness of his being and life in such a way as to
make his sacrifice on the Cross present to us. It does not repeat
what happened on Calvary but simply prolongs it down through the
years. This indeed is "the great mystery of faith".
The Catholic Church in Australia is now characterised by an ageing
priesthood and falling seminary enrolments. If this trend
continues it will lead to a considerable decline in the number of
clergy available for parish and other work. This should be a
matter of concern to all Catholics for it is only validly ordained
priests who can preside over the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the
Mass. Speaking of this, the Second Vatican Council said: "Though
everyone can baptise the faithful, the priest alone can complete
the building up of the Body in the Eucharistic Sacrifice". {2} The
Australian trend of falling vocations is not however a universal
phenomenon. The publication of the Church's annual statistics for
1994 shows that after a sharp decrease in the period between 1970
and 1974, vocations since then have been steadily increasing. In
1994, the number of major seminarians worldwide was 105,075, up
74.7% as compared with 1975, and 44.1% compared with 1970. In
Africa during this period, the number of major seminarians grew by
393.5%. In Central America the increase since 1975 has been
165.1%. In South America vocations are up 253.3% since 1970. In
South East Asia the increase since 1974 has been 152.5% and
vocations have also increased in the Middle East. While in Europe
vocations have not yet regained their 1970 levels, they have
nevertheless increased by 23.4% in the period from 1978-1994. The
only parts of the world where the trend of the early 70's has not
been reversed is North America and Oceania. {3}
In 1991, Pope John Paul II set up a commission charged with
establishing a system that would ensure a better global
distribution of priests. Archbishop Cresenzio Sepe, Secretary for
the Congregation for Clergy, has recently reported that the
commission has completed a survey of the world's bishops and that
it is now ready to start "matchmaking". {4} Hopefully any
missionary priests that arrive in Australia will receive a warm
welcome from all sectors of the Church here. The causes of the
vocations drought are no doubt many and complex. Some of these are
I believe:
�a lack of awareness of the true identity of the ordained priest;
�a blurring of the distinction between the hierarchical priesthood
and the common priesthood of all the baptised;
�loss of both the sense of God and of sin;
�the scandal of public dissent from the teaching of the
Magisterium;
�general decline in Church attendance;
�a fall in the birth-rate amongst Catholics partly accounted for
by a high rate of contraceptive use;
�increased rates of family breakdown;
�liturgical abuses and a decline in faith in the Real Presence of
Jesus in the Eucharist;
�the adoption of a secularist view of life by a large number of
Catholics;
�several decades of defective catechesis/religious education;
�diminished status of clergy in society;
�an advanced materialism and exaggerated individualism in Western
society.
At a Vatican Conference on the ministerial priesthood held during
October 1995, participants were unanimous in their agreement that
lost awareness of the particular identity of the ordained priest
was the major factor contributing to the problems facing the
priesthood today. Stressing the need to reaffirm the true identity
of the ordained priest, Cardinal Ratzinger in addressing the
Conference said: "The Catholic Church must rediscover the sacred
character of the priesthood and avoid tendencies to see it just as
a functional office within the Church". He added that "one symptom
of the problem" of priestly identity was the "growing tendency to
avoid using the expressions 'priest' or 'priesthood' which carry a
sacred connotation, and substitute them with the neutral,
functional 'minister' which in Catholic theology was never given
much importance". {5}
As presented by the New Testament and Church Tradition, the
ordained priesthood in the Catholic Church "is essentially the
extension and realisation of the priesthood of Christ himself".
{6} Consequently, it is "impossible to understand the essence and
nature" of the ordained priesthood "except in relation to Christ".
{7} The central mystery of Christianity, from which all the other
mysteries and articles of faith flow, is the Blessed Trinity.
Man's absolute dependence on God imposes on him the obligation to
glorify God. In the Divine plan, however, the glory God desires
can only be rendered to him by the God-Man who renders it in as
much as he is the Mediator between God and Man. Now to be a
mediator between God and man is to discharge the role of priest.
Describing the priestly nature in this perspective, Fr Rom Josko
said:
In a supernatural religion the priest is chosen by God to offer
sacrifice and oblation to him in the name of the people and to
communicate God's gifts of grace and pardon to mankind. This is
the teaching of Sacred Scripture: "The purpose for which every
high priest is chosen from among men and made a representative of
men in their dealings with God is to offer gifts and sacrifices in
expiation of their sins" (Heb. 5:1). The special dignity of the
priesthood resides in this mediation. The dignity bestowed by this
office of mediation is such that not even Christ, in his humanity,
assumed it for himself: "His vocation comes from God, as Aoron's
did: nobody can take to himself such a privilege as this. So it is
with Christ. He did not raise himself to the dignity of the high
priesthood: it was God that raised him to it, Thou art my Son, I
have begotten you this day" (Heb 5:4-5). As such, the priesthood
is, therefore, a gift bestowed upon Christ's humanity by the
Father, and the prerogative of Christ's priesthood is to offer to
the Blessed Trinity, in the name of mankind and of all creation, a
homage acceptable to God. Because of the Hypostatic Union, Christ,
unlike all other priests, received no external anointing as a
priest. At the moment of the Incarnation, the Word assumed a human
nature and in assuming it consecrated it, rendered it an apt
instrument for Itself and was designated, by the Father, the sole
and eternal Mediator between God and man: "You are a priest
forever according to the order of Melchizidech" (Heb 5: 6). Christ
is therefore the eternal High Priest.{8}
Speaking of Christ's unique priesthood, and of how the ordained
priesthood in the Church is related to it, Pope John Paul II in
his Holy Thursday Letter to Priests for 1996 said:
"Let us consider our call, brethren" (cf. 1 Cor 1:26). The
priesthood is a call, a particular vocation: "one does not take
this honour upon himself, but he is called by God" (Heb 5:4). The
Letter to the Hebrews harks back to the priesthood of the Old
Testament in order to lead us to an understanding of the mystery
of Christ the Priest: "Christ did not exalt himself to be made a
high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him: ...You are
a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek" (5:5-6).
Christ, the Son of one being with the Father, has been made priest
of the New Covenant according to the order of Melchizedek:
therefore he too was called to the priesthood. It is the Father
who "calls his own Son, whom he has begotten by an act of eternal
love, "to come into the world" (cf. Heb 10:5) and to become man.
He wills that his only-begotten Son, by taking flesh, should
become "a priest for ever": the one priest of the new eternal
Covenant...Thus the mystery of the priesthood has its beginning in
the Trinity and is, at the same time, a consequence of the
Incarnation...The priesthood of the New Covenant, to which we are
called in the Church, is thus a share in the unique priesthood of
Christ".{9}
Since the ordained priesthood "depends entirely on Christ and His
unique priesthood", then the exercise of the authority it bestows
must "be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made
himself the servant of all". {10} The ordained priesthood in the
Catholic Church is conferred through the Sacrament of Holy Orders
which communicates a "sacred power" which "is none other than that
of Christ himself." {11} It is a gift to the Church which was
instituted by Christ who conferred it on the Apostles in order to
continue his own salvific mission and it remains in the Church
through the Bishops and their successors. {12} Through the
Sacrament of Holy Orders which is conferred by the imposition of
hands and the consecratory prayer of the Bishop, a specific
"ontological bond which unites the priest to Christ, High Priest
and Good Shepherd" is established. {13} Josef Pieper says that a
priest "is a consecrated person, specifically ordained for the
celebration of the sacramental mysteries". {14} This consecration,
which is accomplished "by God through the ministry of the bishop",
is irrevocable and final since "it confers an indelible spiritual
character". {15} Thus consecrated, the ordained priest "receives a
new and essential inner quality - the consecration transforms him
into a persona sacra". {16} Through the anointing of the Holy
Spirit which they receive at ordination, priests "are signed with
a special character" and so are configured to Christ the priest in
such a way that they "are able to act in the person of Christ the
Head". {17} By this "sacred power that he has", the ordained
priest, "forms and rules the priestly people; in the person of
Christ he effects the eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God
in the name of all the people". {18} Speaking of how the ordained
priest is able to act in the person of Christ, Dr John M. Haas
said:
By virtue of God's grace and the indelible character the priest
now acts, as St Paul puts it, in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10).
Christ's life and ministry are now his life and ministry. As he
surrenders his life to Christ's the Lord's promise is fulfilled in
him: "It will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). The priest does not stand
between God and man, but rather mediates Christ immediately to the
faithful. The sacramental powers that he has are Christ's, not
his. That is why Saint Thomas refers to them as instrumental
rather than personal powers. When the priest administers the
sacraments, Christ works in and through him.{19}
Being a sacramental representation of Christ, the ordained priest
"participates ontologically in the priesthood of Christ; he is
truly consecrated, a 'man of the sacred,' designated like Christ
to the worship that ascends to the Father and to the evangelising
mission by which he spreads and distributes sacred realities - the
truth, the grace of God - to his brothers and sisters. This is the
priest's true identity; this is the essential requirement of the
priestly ministry in today's world too". {20} This means that
through the ministry of the ordained priest, "it is Christ himself
who is present to his Church as Head of His Body, Shepherd of his
flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth".
{21} The priest "finds the full truth of his identity in being a
derivation, a specific participation in and continuation of Christ
himself, the one high priest of the new and eternal covenant. The
priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the priest".
{22} Consequently, through the ordained ministry of the bishops
and the priests, "the presence of Christ as head of the Church is
made visible in the midst of the community of believers" {23}
As "ministers of sacred things", priests are "first and foremost
ministers of the sacrifice of the Mass". {24} This role is
"utterly irreplaceable, because without the priest there can be no
eucharistic offering". {25} In referring to this central aspect of
the priest's identity, the Second Vatican Council said: "It is in
the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic Assembly of the
faithful that they [priests] exercise in a supreme degree their
sacred functions; there, acting in the person of Christ and
proclaiming his mystery they unite the votive offerings of the
faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the
sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the
coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament,
that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless
victim to the Father". {26} Commenting further on this point, Pope
John Paul II said: "In the Eucharist the presbyter [priest]
reaches the high point of his ministry when he pronounces Jesus'
words: 'This is my body...This is the cup of my blood...' These
words concretize the greatest exercise of that power which enables
a priest to make present the sacrifice of Christ. Then the
community is truly built up and developed...Today, it is necessary
to rediscover the central importance of this celebration in the
Christian life and, thus, in the apostolate". {27}
A crisis of priestly identity will arise whenever confusion is
spread about the priesthood of Christ himself. For example, Fr
Brian Byron's publicly expressed view that the priesthood of
Christ is metaphorical rather than literal may lend itself to the
spreading of such confusion. Fr Byron says:
At first sight it may seem obvious that Jesus was literally a
priest, for it is clearly stated in the Letter to the Hebrews that
Jesus is a priest, indeed, a high priest (2:17; 3:1; 4:14). He is
given the title of high priest by God...Furthermore, the assertion
of Jesus' priesthood is repeated many times by the fathers of the
church, by St Thomas Aquinas...by popes and councils, in the
liturgy...Nonetheless, the description of Jesus as a priest by the
author of Hebrews is metaphorical, not literal, and as all other
assertions are based on Hebrews, they too must be understood
metaphorically.{28}
In noting that it is the author of Hebrews alone who in the New
Testament explicitly designates Jesus as priest, Fr Byron says:
"In doing this the author was brilliantly original. He had a
poetic mind. He was using allegory, or extended typology, which
fits the category of metaphor. This is not to deny divine
inspiration". {29} Then, in what appears to me as a very confusing
statement, Fr Byron says:
The literal acceptance of Jesus' priesthood has forced theologians
to an explanation of ordained ministers as being priests by
participation in the unique priesthood of Christ whereas the
correct understanding, in my opinion, is that they, literal
priests, are thereby sacraments of Christ interpreted precisely as
'priest'. The literal interpretation has also made the 'essential'
distinction between ordained priesthood and the general priesthood
of Christians (asserted in the Second Vatican Council's
Constitution on the Church, no. 10) difficult to define.{30}
The main theme of the Letter to the Hebrews is the priesthood of
Christ (cf. Heb 10: 5-10). It teaches that his priesthood is
linked to the mystery of the Incarnation, that it is a unique
priesthood and consequently that the truth regarding the
priesthood is to be found only in Christ. {31} The Gospel and the
other New Testament writings present Christ as Teacher, Prophet,
King and Priest. The purpose of his teaching is to proclaim God's
kingdom (Lk 9: 11). In the words and actions of Christ, the words
and mission of the Old Testament prophets are fulfilled (cf. Lk
4:15; 13:32-33). Before Pilate, Jesus reveals the kingly aspect of
his power (cf. Mt 27:11; 28:18-20). Finally, of his own free will,
Christ, the Good Shepherd, "lays down his life for his sheep" (Jn
10: 11). The Gospel sees in this spontaneous sacrifice of Christ
the sacrifice of the Priest who sheds his own blood for the
expiation of sins (cf. Mk 14:24; Rom 5:6; Eph 1:7; 2:3; 1 Jn 2:2;
Gal 1:4; Eph 5:20-25). {32} As was noted earlier, the New
Testament and Church Tradition presents the ordained priesthood as
an extension and realisation of this unique priesthood of Christ
himself. In view of this, I fear that in asserting that Jesus'
priesthood was metaphorical rather than literal, Fr Byron is
running the risk of removing the foundations of the Catholic
Church's doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, I
detect something of a contradiction in his proposition. If, as Fr
Byron asserts, the priesthood of Jesus is merely metaphorical
rather than literal, and if Pope John Paul II is correct (as
indeed he is) in teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders
bestows on the ordained priest an "ontological" participation in
the unique priesthood of Christ, then how can Fr Byron consider
the ordained priesthood to be a literal priesthood when it
participates "ontologically" in a priesthood of Christ which is
only "metaphorical"?
The identity of the ordained priest is also undermined when doubt
is cast on the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on the Cross
which is sacramentally made present in every Mass. Consistent with
his belief that Christ is not "literally" a priest, Fr Byron also
argues that Christ's death on Calvary is not literally a
sacrifice. He says: "Calvary is literally not a sacrifice:
historically in human terms it was an execution; transcendentally
it surpassed all previously existing human categories, including
sacrifice. When we use human terms to describe it we use them
metaphorically which acknowledges that they essentially fall short
of the truth. So when we describe Calvary as a 'sacrifice' we are
speaking metaphorically". {33}
Taking Fr Byron's ideas to their logical conclusion, it could be
said that "transcendentally" all aspects of the Paschal Mystery
surpass "all previously existing categories". But does this mean
however that we cannot make factual or "literal" statements about
the historical and concrete events which lie at the basis of the
saving mysteries? For example, while the Resurrection of Jesus is
both a transcendent {34} and historical reality which "surpasses
all previously existing categories", does this mean that when we
speak of the Lord's remains being lifted up in his Resurrection we
are thereby referring to something that is merely "metaphorical"
rather than "literal" and consequently must thereby "fall short of
the truth"? Obviously not! Reality becomes intelligible through
words. Man speaks so that through naming things what is real may
become intelligible. {35} Consequently, if Fr Byron's proposition
were true, we would have no alternative but to conclude that
doctrinal statements do not accurately convey realities expressed
in the divinely revealed mysteries.
Fr Byron says he has difficulty accepting "the particular theology
of eucharist sacrifice proposed by the Vatican" which is that in
the Eucharist the Church "makes present the sacrifice of Calvary".
{36} Explaining how he thinks the word "sacrifice" should apply to
the Mass, Fr Byron says: "When it comes to explaining how the name
'sacrifice' is applied to the Mass, my argument is that the Mass
is called a sacrifice because of its own essence and not because
of its relationship with Calvary. In fact interpretative
descriptive meaning flows from the symbol to the reality, from the
type to the anti-type, from the Mass to Calvary, not the other way
around. The only positive way that Calvary can be said to be
present in the Mass, as far as I can see, is by real-
symbolisation". {37}
In what he has said above, I believe that Fr Byron has got things
back to front. Jesus' whole life was oriented toward the
redemption of the human race through his sacrificial death on
Calvary. In recounting the redemptive action of Christ, the New
Testament does so in terms of its sacrificial nature. This is
brought out in the words of Jesus himself when at the Last Supper
he speaks of his blood "to be poured out on behalf of many for the
forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28). Speaking of how Christ, of his
own free will, offered himself in sacrifice on Calvary and of how
this is sacramentally made present in the Mass, Pope Pius XII
said: "The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty
commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true
and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an
unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable Victim to the
Eternal Father, as He did upon the Cross". {38}
In the Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul VI said: "We believe
that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of
Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of
Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members
of His Mystical Body, is the Sacrifice of Calvary rendered
sacramentally present on our altars". Pope John Paul II said: "The
Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of
the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant, as we
believe and as the Eastern Churches clearly profess: 'Today's
sacrifice...is like that offered once by the Only-begotten
Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is
one and the same sacrifice'. Accordingly, precisely by making this
single sacrifice of our salvation present, man and the world are
restored to God through the paschal newness of Redemption". {39}
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Mass is called
a Holy Sacrifice "because it makes present the one sacrifice of
Christ". {40} It adds that in the Eucharist, Christ "gives us the
very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood
which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". {41}
Consequently, the Eucharist is a sacrifice "because it re-presents
(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross". {42}
THE TWO PRIESTHOODS: A DIFFERENCE IN ESSENCE
Christ the Lord, the High priest of the new and everlasting
covenant, "wished to associate with His perfect priesthood and to
form in its likeness the people He had bought with His own blood
(cf. Heb 7:20-22, 26-28; 10:14, 21). He therefore granted His
Church a share in His priesthood, which consists of the common
priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical
priesthood". {43} Through Baptism all the faithful share in the
priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common
priesthood of the faithful". Based on this common priesthood and
ordered to its service, "there exists another participation in the
mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy
Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person
of Christ the Head in the midst of the community". {44}
The Second Vatican Council stressed that the common priesthood of
all the faithful and the ministerial priesthood "differ in essence
and not only in degree". {45} In reference to the distinction
between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial
priesthood, Jean Galot S.J. says: "There is a difference as to the
mission assigned to the two priesthoods in the Church. The Twelve
who receive the ministerial priesthood are entrusted with a
pastoral mission. They are given an authority which empowers them
to proclaim the gospel, celebrate the Eucharist, forgive sins, and
lead the community" {.46} Just as the Sacrament of Baptism sets
all the faithful apart from those who are not baptised, so does
the Sacrament of Holy Orders set the ordained priest apart from
the rest of the faithful. Speaking of this, Pope Pius XII said:
In the same way, actually, that Baptism is the distinctive mark of
all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently
are not members of Christ, the Sacrament of Holy Orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received
this consecration. For they alone, in answer to an inward
supernatural call have entered the august ministry, where they are
assigned to service in the sanctuary and become as it were, the
instruments God uses to communicate supernatural life from on high
to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Add to this...the fact that
they alone have been marked with the indelible sign 'conforming'
them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been
consecrated 'in order that whatever they bless may be blessed,
whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name
of Our Lord Jesus Christ'. Let all then who would live in Christ,
flock to their priests. By them they will be supplied with the
comforts and food of the spiritual life. From them they will
procure the medicine of salvation assuring their cure and happy
recovery from the fatal sickness of their sins. The priest,
finally, will bless their homes, consecrate their families and
help them, as they breathe their last, across the threshold to
eternal happiness.{47}
The ordained priesthood is planted in the Church by God to
guarantee "that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments"
and to serve the common priesthood of all the faithful by way of
teaching and governance. {48} Regarding this last mentioned aspect
of the priest's identity, Pope John Paul II said:
The priest is first of all a minister of the word of God. He is
consecrated and sent forth to proclaim the good news of the
kingdom to all, calling every person to the obedience of faith and
leading believers to an ever increasing knowledge of the communion
in the mystery of God, as revealed and communicated to us in
Christ...In order that he himself may possess and give to the
faithful the guarantee that he is transmitting the Gospel in its
fullness, the priest is called to develop a special sensitivity,
love and docility to the living tradition of the Church and to her
Magisterium.{49}
CONFUSION OF ROLES
Two of the many great achievements of the Second Vatican Council
were its reform of the liturgy and the new focus it brought to
bear on the mission of the laity in the Church and in the world.
The Council said that the laity have the special vocation "to seek
the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing
them according to God's will". {50} Therefore, the laity's role in
the Church is not to be mere recipients of doctrine and the grace
of the sacraments, but also to serve as "active and responsible
agents of the Church's mission to evangelise and sanctify the
world". {51} Thus it falls especially to the laity to permeate
family life, the world of work, politics, education, science,
economics - indeed the whole of culture itself - with the light of
the Gospel. Referring to this task of the laity, Pope John Paul II
in speaking to a group of Bishops from the United States said:
Perhaps, as the Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici points
out, more attention should be given in catechesis and preaching to
the 'deep involvement and the full participation of the lay
faithful in the affairs of the earth, the world and the human
community' (n. 15), so that the laity may better understand that
this is their primary apostolate in the Church. They need your
constant encouragement. They expect their Bishops to strengthen
them in holiness and guide them with authentic teaching, while at
the same time leaving them room for initiative and freedom of
action in the world.{52}
While stressing that the primary focus of the mission of the laity
is to imbue the social order with Gospel values, Vatican II
however also encouraged the laity to take up new ministries in the
Church itself. It stated that "the laity have an active part to
play in the activity of the Church". {53} In regard to the
liturgy, it stressed that texts and rites should be drawn up "so
as to express more clearly the holy things they signify," and in
such a way that "the Christian people, as far as possible, should
be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully,
actively, and as a community". {54} Speaking of the Council's
wisdom in undertaking the reform of the liturgy, Pope John Paul II
said:
The Council's directives to make the liturgy ever more meaningful
and effective were truly wise. It made the rites correspond to
their doctrinal meaning, imbuing the proclamation of God's word
with renewed vigour, encouraging a more attractive participation
by the faithful and promoting these different forms of ministry
which, while expressing the richness and charisms and ecclesial
services, eloquently show how the liturgy is at the same time an
action of Christ and of the Church. Moreover, the impetus given to
adapting the rites to the various languages and cultures, so that
in the liturgy too the Church could give complete expression to
her universal character, was decisive. With these innovations the
Church did not cut herself off from her tradition, but on the
contrary, fully interpreted its riches and its demands.{55}
Christian vocation, whatever shape it takes, is "a gift whose
purpose is to build up the Church and to increase the kingdom of
God in the world". {56} This being the case, it is necessary for
the good of the whole Church, and indeed the whole world, to keep
the laity focused on their own vocation because "the more the
laity's own sense of vocation is deepened, the more what is proper
to the priest stands out". {57} If instead, the laity attempt to
take over from the priest roles that are best left to him, then it
can easily happen that we end up "clericalising" the lay vocation.
{58} Consequently, when introducing new ministries, it is
important that they be accompanied by a proper catechesis lest
they further erode awareness of the true role of the ordained
priest. This is particularly true of ministries centred on the
liturgy. In a book he had published before receiving his episcopal
appointment, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said:
Liturgical renewal, with its greater lay participation, has
further obscured the traditional understanding of the priest's
uniqueness...The present proliferation of ministers within the
Church can make priestly ordination seem somewhat anomalous
because so many ministers who are not ordained are now also
involved in the liturgy. And increasingly today pastoral ministers
are being installed in public ceremonies very analogous to
ordination. In the midst of all this, the position of the
traditional priest is being queried more and more.{59}
Of particular concern is the enthusiasm with which the notion of
"lay pastors" servicing "priestless parishes" is being promoted by
various Church agencies. This enthusiasm however is not shared by
Pope John Paul II who in speaking to a group of Canadian Bishops
about the priest shortage said:
In meeting this challenge, certain fundamental principles should
always guide your pastoral response. The parish is a community of
the baptised who express and confirm their identity through the
celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice...This requires the
presence of an ordained priest whose first privilege and
irreplaceable responsibility is to offer the Eucharist in persona
Christi...Great care must be taken to ensure that no
misunderstanding arises about the nature of the Eucharist and its
essential link with the ordained priesthood. When a community is
deprived of the priest who acts publicly in the name of
Christ...this regrettable situation calls for an emergency
response. Sunday celebrations should continue, and lay persons who
lead their brothers and sisters in prayer are exercising in a
commendable way the common priesthood of all the faithful, based
on the grace of Baptism. It would be a serious mistake, however,
to accept this as a normal way of involving religious and lay men
and women in the liturgy. Such provisions should be regarded as
only temporary, while the community is 'in expectation of a
priest'....Your assiduous oversight is required so that all will
see 'the substantial character of these celebrations, which should
not be regarded as the optimal solution to new difficulties'...On
the contrary, the sacramental incompleteness of these celebrations
should lead the whole community to pray more fervently that the
Lord will send labourers into his harvest...{60}
This warning by Pope John Paul II not to allow the faithful to
become conditioned to accepting as normal Sunday liturgies other
than the Mass is particularly relevant to Australia. In a letter
dated 21st March, 1996, Archbishop Little of Melbourne wrote to
priests of the Archdiocese in order to correct directions sent out
without his prior approval from the diocesan Office of Worship.
Headed Some Principles of Alternative Sunday Worship, the document
from the Office of Worship emphasised the "local community" as the
main focal point for the Church's activity. It stated that "where
viable the local community should continue, both liturgically and
pastorally without a priest" and added that "the worship leader
should come from within the local community". The document
strongly suggested that the faithful should prefer a liturgy of
the Word in their own parishes on a Sunday if there was no priest
available to travelling to a neighbouring parish for Mass. It
said: "It is preferable to gather on a Sunday in your own
community rather than travel to another parish, i.e., the priority
is to gather as a local assembly on a Sunday".
In his observations on the document from the Office of Worship,
Archbishop Little first faulted it for not making clear in its
discussion of the "Means of Christ's presence in the Church" that
Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist "is a presence par
excellence". Archbishop Little also drew attention to the
misleading nature of the statement in the document which spoke of
"forms of worship alternative to Eucharist". The Archbishop
pointed out to his priests that "there can be no alternative to
the Eucharist" and he stated that "the Church only strongly
recommends (rather than obliges) the faithful to other forms of
worship if the Eucharist is unavailable". In highlighting the
erroneous views contained in the Office of Worship document,
Archbishop Little referred several times to the to the Code of
Cannon Law. He said:
The fundamental flaw in the document is that the parish, rather
than the diocese, is presented as the basic unit. Because of this,
there is no mention of the Bishop. While the parish priest is
obliged to see that the Word of God is preached and that the
Blessed Eucharist is the centre of the parish (Canon 528) and that
the solemn celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays is especially
entrusted to him (Canon 530), the parish priest is not obliged to
preach the Word of God and celebrate the Eucharist personally on
all occasions. Other priests can assist or replace him on
occasions (Canons 539-541, 545-550). The parishioners are obliged
to assist at Mass on Sundays, but they are not obliged to do so in
their parish church or with the parish community. They have the
freedom to fulfil their obligation wherever Mass is celebrated in
any Catholic rite (i.e. even outside the Latin Rite), on Sunday or
the previous evening (Canons 1247-1248). If it is impossible to
assist at Mass because no priest is available or for any other
grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended (but not
obliged) to take part in a liturgy of the word or to pray
privately or with others (Canon 1248).
Archbishop Little concluded his letter to his priests by drawing
their attention to two accompanying documents: Directory for
Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (Vatican
Congregation for Divine Worship) and a Pastoral Letter of the
Kansas Bishops in 1995. The Directory for Sunday Celebrations in
the Absence of a Priest includes the following direction:
"Whenever and wherever Mass cannot be celebrated on Sunday, the
first thing to be ascertained is whether the faithful can go to a
church in a place nearby to paricipate there in the eucharistic
mystery..." (n. 18). In their statement the Bishops of Kansas
said: "We, the Bishops of Kansas, have come to judge that holy
communion regularly received outside of Mass is a short-term
solution that has all the makings of becoming a long-term problem.
It has implications that are disturbing:
�A blurring of the difference between the celebration of the
eucharist and the reception of communion.
�A blurring of the distinction between a priest and a deacon or a
non-ordained minister presiding over a communion service.
�A blurring of the relationship between pastoral and sacramental
ministry.
�A blurring of the connection between the eucharist and the works
of charity and justice.
�A bluring of the need for priests and therefore a blurring of the
continual need for vocations.
�A blurring of the linkage between the local church and the
diocesan and universal church that is embodied in the person of
the parish priest".
Having thus outlined the implications of conditioning the faithful
to accepting communion services as a long-term alternative to the
Mass, the Kansas Bishops went on to add: "These implications give
us pause in approving the distribution of holy communion outside
of Mass on Sundays. Such practice could well contribute to the
erosion of our many-sided belief in the eucharist. It is for this
reason that we restrict such services to emergencies only. And by
that we mean unforseen circumstances when a priest is not
available". {61}
Diocesan officials in Rockhampton appear to have gone even further
in their attempts to undermine the centrality of the Sunday Mass
in the lives of Catholics than has Melbourne's Office of Worship.
In the October 1993 edition of the Continuing Education Newsletter
of the Rockhampton Diocese, Dr Peter Young who is the Director of
Continuing Religious Education in the Diocese said:
What we all have to learn - and very quickly - is that the Mass
'the apex of communal celebration', is not the only way to ensure
the presence of Christ in our community. Every time 'two or three
gather in His Name' there is Christ really present amongst us; we
have 'eucharist'. When we gather to 'break bread' we have THE
EUCHARIST...Not being able to go to Mass does Not absolve us from
the obligation of 'keeping holy the Sabbath'. Whatever the form of
the weekly community celebration might be, we are obliged in
conscience to participate. But here again we have to remember that
while the celebration of the Eucharist (Mass) is the 'source and
summit of all preaching of the Gospel' there are other ways to
celebrate, there are other ways of praying together, other ways to
'make eucharist'. As is clear from the letter of Archbishop Little
cited earlier, Dr Young is out of order in stating that Catholics
are "obliged in conscience" to participate in Sunday liturgies
other than the Mass. Writing in the July 1993 edition of the
Rockhampton diocesan monthly The Review, Dr Young said:
Until recently, a Catholic understanding of the Sacraments was
that there were SEVEN, and that they were 'signs instituted by
Christ to give grace' - despite the fact that there is no evidence
in Sacred Scripture that Jesus actually instructed his followers
to perform some of these rituals...The Sacraments - like the
liturgical life of the People of God (Church) - must meet today's
needs in today's (Australian) society. What the Apostles did, or
the Medieval Church did is 'interesting' but not sacrosanct. If
further changes to the Sacraments are needed - and there have
already been many - then it is essential that we explore in
greater depth WHAT the Sacraments ARE, what is their PURPOSE, and
are the NEEDS of the People of God being met by the current
Sacramental formulas.
Since writing the article from which the above quotation is taken,
Dr Young has been appointed editor of the The Review. In its March
1996 edition it carried a full-page reprint from the US National
Catholic Reporter of 21 April 1995. In this article we read:
According to the old Baltimore Catechism 'a sacrament is an
outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace'. The Church has
had to perform logical gymnastics to accommodate its chosen seven
sacraments to this tidy definition. One might conclude that the
shortage of priests is God's way of telling the Vatican it is on
the wrong track. In the early Church the master of the house
blessed the bread, broke it and distributed it, though it is not
certain that the meal thus celebrated was the sacramental
Eucharist. The practice of the early Church with respect to what
we call the Mass varied widely until officially made uniform a
considerable time after Christ...It's not clear that anyone in
particular was commissioned to preside over the Eucharist in the
very beginning...The words of transubstantiation are ultimately
effective, however, only if they create a true sense of
community...The day will come, and is probably already here in so-
called base communities, when a priest is rarely seen - when the
laity may celebrate eucharistic ceremonies at home in a true
family setting. The failure of centrally organised religious
ceremonies is that they have lost their relevance to the real
world...".
If the theology espoused by Dr Young and his fellow travellers in
the Melbourne Office of Worship is allowed to infect the general
body of the Catholic faithful in Australia, then the Church in
this country will be in danger of being reduced to the status of a
sect.
Alongside the tendency to clericalise the laity is the
corresponding danger of "laicising" the ordained priesthood. {62}
Bishop David Konstant alluded to this when in speaking of the need
to promote a greater awareness of the role of the ordained priest
he said: "Priests are often expected to do a great many things
outside their real function". {63} When the ordained priest takes
on roles unrelated to his true identity, a blurring of the
distinction between the two priesthoods occurs. The likelihood of
a confusion of roles is increased when priests publicly adopt and
promote partisan political positions on questions in which there
exists a legitimate plurality of opinion amongst the faithful.
Consequently, "the priest, as a servant of the universal Church,
cannot tie himself to any historical contingency, and therefore
must be above any political party". {64} Also, in imitation of
Christ (cf. Jn 6:15), the priest "ought to refrain from actively
engaging himself in politics, as it often happens, in order to be
a central point of spiritual fraternity". {65} Instead, the priest
must act to form the laity in the social doctrine of the Church in
order that they be able to act with correctly formed consciences
in temporal affairs. {66} Speaking of the consequences of the
secularisation of the priestly life, Pope John Paul II said:
It is easy to allow oneself to be guided by appearances and to
succumb to a fundamental illusion concerning what is essential.
Those who call for the secularisation of the priestly life and
applaud its various manifestations will undoubtedly abandon us if
we succumb to temptation. We shall then cease to be needed and
wanted...In practice, the only priest whom people will always feel
they need is the priest who is conscious of the full meaning of
his priesthood, the priest of deep faith, who professes his faith
courageously, prays fervently, teaches with deep conviction,
serves, lives the beatitudes, knows how to love disinterestedly
and is close to all, especially to those who are in most need.{67}
In proclaiming the Gospel, the ordained priest must "avoid
falsifying, reducing, distorting or diluting the content of the
divine message". {68} His role in this regard "is not to teach his
own wisdom but the Word of God and to issue an urgent invitation
to all men to conversion and to holiness" {69} When the ordained
priest starts propagating theological opinions that are opposed to
the teaching of the Magisterium, or when he remains silent about
those parts of the Gospel which are most counter-cultural, then by
degrees his preaching loses its persuasive power and his flock
begins to scatter. Hans Urs von Balthasar touched on this problem
when he said:
Today the people of God thirst for spiritual drink in a world that
is ever more secularised and emptied of God. They want to find
teachers of silence, of recollection, of prayer; and instead they
find busy clerics and often religious who have gotten stuck in
postconciliar confusions and anti-authoritarian disputes,
endlessly struggling for their own identity. For this reason, many
depart and seek what they have a right to in places where they
cannot find it: from teachers of Eastern meditation, who may be
able to give them psychological comfort but never the encounter
with the loving God of Jesus Christ. Those searching people of God
must not allow their sense of what is Catholic to be dulled;
instead, they must realise their responsibility, and, in the hour
when many pastors fall silent or even fail, the laymen must raise
their cry of protest in the name of the complete Creed in which
they were baptised.{70}
TEACH TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE CHURCH'S MORAL DOCTRINE
The ministerial priesthood is inextricably linked to the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If faith in the Real Presence
of Christ in the Eucharist diminishes, then esteem for the sacred
meaning of the ordained priesthood will also diminish. When this
happens says Josef Pieper: "There no longer...will be any reason
whatsoever to see the priest as someone 'consecrated' and 'set
apart' for the sacred. And it would be difficult to shake my
conviction that the ultimate and perhaps the only cause of that
much discussed 'identity crisis' of the priesthood nowadays is
anything else but the unwillingness or even inability - for
several reasons - to acknowledge and accept the connection between
the sacramental, consecrating action of the priest and the divine
presence in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice". {71}
There is evidence of a decline in Eucharistic Faith amongst
Catholics in both the United States and in Australia. This should
be a matter of grave concern, especially when we consider the
words of St Paul to those who approach the Sacrament without the
proper disposition: "For all who eat and drink without discerning
the body eat and drink judgement against themselves" (1 Cor.
11:29). Referring to the situation in the United States, Bishop
Weigand of Sacramento said:
According to results of a Gallop survey taken in December 1991 and
January 1992 on U.S. Catholic understanding of Holy Communion,
only 30% believe 'they are really and truly receiving the Body and
Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the
appearance of bread and wine'. Some 29% think they 'are receiving
bread and wine, which symbolise the spirit and teachings of Jesus
and in so doing are expressing their attachment to his person and
words'. Another 10% understand that they are 'receiving bread and
wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present'. Twenty-three
per-cent say they 'are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ,
which has become that because of their personal belief.
These results, said Bishop Weigand, "are terribly alarming because
only the first formulation is orthodox Catholic doctrine. The
others are all variations of the 16th century Protestant teachings
from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. We have every reason to
ponder how this most central teaching of our Catholic faith got so
watered down and distorted over the past 25 years". {72} This loss
of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by U.S.
Catholics was further borne out by a Spring 1994 New York
Times/CBS poll which showed that 70% of Catholics in the 18-44 age
group think that at Mass the bread and wine serve only as mere
"symbolic reminders" of Jesus rather than being changed into his
Body and Blood. Commenting on these findings, Fr Kenneth Baker
S.J. said:
I can think of nothing that so indicts the quality of religious
instruction in our Catholic Schools and colleges during the past
thirty years as the sad results of these polls. They also indict
the preaching of us priests who have failed in our duty to
instruct the faithful on the basics of the faith, especially on
such things as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Grace, the Sacraments
and the Mass. We must ask ourselves: How is it possible that so
many Catholics do not know what the Mass is all about? What are
they thinking and doing when they go to Mass on Sunday? If they
are truly Catholics, how is it possible that they do not know that
Jesus Christ our Lord and God is really present body, blood, soul
and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament? Have they never heard about
that? Has not one teacher or bishop or priest told them what the
faith of the Church is with regard to the Eucharist...Taking a
broad view of the Catholic Church in the 1990s, what we see is a
Church that is infiltrated with secularism and secular ideas.
Therefore, many of our bishops and priests are pushing human and
this-worldly values, rather than the adoration of God and the
eternal salvation of our immortal souls. The supernatural is out
and the natural is in. Therefore, our liturgy tends to glorify man
rather than God. No wonder millions of Catholics do not know what
the Mass is all about. Now is the time to do something about this.
{73}
In also expressing concern about these findings on the loss of
Eucharistic faith, Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw said: "In the
general crisis of the Church in the United States, no individual
crisis is more serious and urgent than this one. This is not least
because, as we shall see, this collapse of eucharistic faith is
related, as both cause and effect, to the broader crisis". {74}
Grisez and Shaw gave the major reasons for this loss of
Eucharistic faith as:
� the pervasive secularisation of Western culture;
� erroneous theological theories such as transignification and
transfinalisation, both of which were rejected by Pope Paul VI in
Mysterium Fidei (1965);
� unauthorised changes in the words and gestures of the Mass;
� no first confession before first Communion;
� indiscriminately inviting everyone (sometimes even non-
believers) to receive;
� an overly casual approach to the consecrated elements;
� virtual elimination of Benediction and other Eucharistic
devotions outside the Mass;
� removal of the tabernacle to an obscure place in some churches;
� little or no pause for thanksgiving after Communion;
� weak and ambiguous homilies on Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi;
� general forgetfulness of heaven and hell which has to do with
the propagation of an optimistic view that all will be saved - a
belief which is at odds with the New Testament and tradition;
� subversion of the sense of the sacred through sexual immorality.
The last point made above by Grisez and Shaw is very significant.
In some respects it indicates the presence of Gnostic tendencies
amongst some Catholics which is something I will have occasion to
deal with in greater depth in Chapter 3. Explaining how the
decline in faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the Eucharist is
related to the decline in sexual morality, Grisez and Shaw say:
Underlying what has happened in this area is an implicit body-soul
dualism: the essential reality of the human person is regarded,
not as the body that is abused, but as something non-material -
spirit or mind or soul - and 'mere bodily behaviour' is thought
not to impinge significantly upon the moral goodness and holiness
of this non-material self. Beyond the devastating impact this way
of thinking has on morality, it also subverts the incarnationalism
and sacramentalism at the heart of Catholic faith. Specifically,
it subverts faith in the Real Presence. The problem is reinforced
and made worse by pastoral practice that condones sexual sins and
makes little of the sacrament of penance. To encourage people who
live in bad marriages and other sinful relationships or who
otherwise engage in unrepented sexual sins to receive Communion
strongly suggests that nothing particularly sacred is involved in
Communion - that people who find themselves in these situations do
not really "eat and drink judgement against themselves".{75}
Turning now to the other points made above regarding the decline
in Eucharistic faith. There is an urgent need for a renewed
Eucharistic catechesis which would re-emphasise the sacred in the
liturgy. Fr Max Thurian, who is a member of the International
Theological Commission, says that the great problem of
contemporary liturgical life (boredom and apathy etc) stems from
the fact that the celebration of the Holy Mass "has sometimes lost
its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of adoration".
{76} We often encounter says Fr Thurian, "an inflation of words,
explanations and comments, homilies too long and poorly prepared,
which leave little room for the mystery being celebrated". {77} In
saying that there is a great need to rediscover the liturgical
enthusiasm of Vatican II, Fr Thurian adds: "Bishops and those
responsible for the liturgy should give new life to what before
Vatican II was called the 'liturgical movement', not for purposes
of innovation but to revive true, beautiful liturgy, the prayer of
the whole Church and the source of spiritual enrichment for every
Christian". {78} Coupled with this need to rediscover the sense of
the sacred in the liturgy, it must always be borne in mind that
any changes to the Mass can take place only with the approval of
the Magisterium and the appropriate Ecclesiastical authority. One
of the worst liturgical abuses we have witnessed in recent times
is the way in which some priests and liturgists have treated the
Holy Mass as though it was their personal possession. Speaking of
this, Fr Thurian said:
The celebrant must remember that he is there to serve the liturgy
of God's People. The text of the liturgical prayers is not at his
disposal to be modified according to his whim or for personal
theological reasons...There is a sort of neoclericalism bent on
modifying the liturgy, which the faithful however have the right
to receive in its integrity as a gift of Christ and the Church,
without priests taking the liberty of changing it. The faithful
expect this fidelity to Tradition, since the liturgy is a good
belonging to all the People of God. The liturgy has a formative
character. Through the liturgy, the Church hands on the Gospel of
Christ in all its wealth and diversity. The liturgy is one of the
forms of the living Tradition, by which the word of God is
communicated to men in order to transform them. Thus it cannot be
modified without undermining in its fullness the Church's
intention in her transmission of the truth through the
liturgy.{79}
Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass should be encouraged.
Speaking of the place of Eucharistic adoration in the life of St
John Vianney, Pope John XXIII said:
"We can hardly conceive of the depth of his burning devotion to
Christ hidden beneath the Eucharistic veils...He worshipped the
adorable Sacrament of the Altar with an incandescent love, and his
soul was drawn to the sacred tabernacle irresistibly, as by some
supernatural magnetic power". {80} In speaking of Eucharistic
adoration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church said: "As faith in
the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church
became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord
present under the Eucharistic species...In his Eucharistic
presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved
us and gave himself up for us, and he remains under signs that
express and communicate this love. The Church and the world have a
great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in the
sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in
adoration". {81} Speaking of how we can foster Eucharistic
adoration, Fr Max Thurian says: "It is fitting that the tabernacle
be placed in such a way that it can be seen on entering the
church. It should be beautiful and illuminated, like an act of
praise to the glory of Christ really present. The whole church
should be arranged so as to invite adoration and contemplation
even when there are no celebrations. One must long to frequent it
in order to meet the Lord there...The church, by its beautiful
liturgical layout, its well-designed and solemnly adorned altar,
its tabernacle radiating Christ's real presence should be the
beautiful house of the Lord and of his Church, where the faithful
love to recollect themselves in the silence of adoration and
prayer". {82}
To create an environment conducive to prayer and adoration, it is
important that the church interior be adorned with religious
images and icons. As opposed to this, it is not uncommon today to
walk into a church only to have difficulty finding there a sacred
image. Even if some are there, they are often tucked away in some
obscure corner and of such a bland nature as to be barely
distinguishable from poorly painted murals in a city subway. When
not due to the growing secularisation of a society that is
becoming ever more estranged from spiritual values, this neglect
of the place of religious images in the spiritual life can be
expressive of a resurgent iconoclasm. The iconoclast movement
considered the veneration of images a return to idolatry. While
the iconoclasts would not allow their churches to be adorned with
religious art and icons, they had no objection however to
importing profane images into their places of prayer and worship.
The iconoclast heresy was condemned by the Second Council of Nicea
(787). In sanctioning the veneration of sacred images, this
Council permitted that the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the
martyrs and the saints be represented in pictorial form and
sculptor in order to sustain the prayer life of the faithful. To
commemorate the 1200th anniversary of this Council, Pope John Paul
II issued an Apostolic Letter entitled Duodecimum Saeculum in
which he pointed out that the iconoclast movement ultimately
"called into question the whole Christian vision of the reality of
the Incarnation and therefore the relationships of God and the
world, grace and nature, in short, the specific character of the
'new covenant' that God made with humanity in Jesus Christ". {83}
The Holy Father added that in working with the elements of matter,
Christian art should seek to speak "the language of the
Incarnation". In saying this, Pope John Paul II quoted the
beautiful expression of St John Damascene who in speaking of the
Incarnation referred to Christ as the One who "deigned to dwell in
matter and bring about our salvation through matter". {84}
In Duedecimum Saeculum, Pope John Paul II placed the veneration of
sacred images within an overall Christian context when he said:
"The iconography of Christ involves the whole faith in the reality
of the Incarnation and its inexhaustible meaning for the Church
and the world. If the Church practises it, it is because she is
convinced that the God revealed in Jesus Christ has truly redeemed
and sanctified the flesh and the whole sensible world, that is man
with his five senses, to allow him to be ever renewed in the image
of his Creator (cf. Col 3:10)". {85} After recalling the teaching
of Pope Hadrian I that by praying before a sacred image "our
spirit will be carried by a spiritual attraction towards the
invisible majesty of the divinity", the Holy Father concluded
Duedecimum Saeculum by saying that "the rediscovery of the
Christian icon will also help in raising awareness of the urgency
of reacting against the depersonalising and at times degrading
effects of the many images that condition our lives in
advertisements and the media, for it is an image that turns
towards us the look of Another invisible one and gives us access
to the reality of the spiritual and eschatological world". {86}
The iconoclast mentality has continued to assert itself in various
forms throughout history. During the Reformation in England for
example, the impassioned leaders of the new "Protestant
iconoclasm" set about "the stripping of the altars" whereby they
substituted the commonplace for the sacred.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 1 ENDNOTES
� 1 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium , n.11; cf. Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC) n. 1411.
� 2 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 17.
� 3 The report on the vocations statistics appeared in
L'Osservatore Romano on 31/6/96.
� 4 Cf. Catholic Weekly, November 5, 1995, p. 6.
� 5 Catholic Weekly, November 12, 1995, p. 22.
� 6 Archbishop Henryk Muszynski, L'Osservatore Romano, 26/8/92.
� 7 Ibid.
� 8 Fr Rom Josko, in an unpublished paper entitled The Sacrament
of Holy Orders.
� 9 Pope John Paul II, Holy Thursday Letter To Priests,
L'Osservatore Romano, 27/3/96.
� 10 CCC. n. 1551.
� 11 CCC, n. 1551.
� 12 Cf. Directory On The Ministry and Life of Priests,
Congregation for the Clergy, n. 1.
� 13 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 11.
� 14 Josef Pieper. In Search of the Sacred, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1991, p. 46.
� 15 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 5; cf. Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC) n. 1582
� 16 Josef Pieper, In Search of the Sacred, op. cit. p. 62.
� 17 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2.
� 18 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 10.
� 19 Dr John M. Hass, in The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and
Guide (A Symposium), Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1990, pp. 134-
35.
� 20 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93.
� 21 CCC. n. 1548.
� 22 Pope John Paul II. Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 12.
� 23 CCC. n. 1549.
� 24 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 48.
� 25 Ibid.
� 26 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 28.
� 27 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 12/5/93.
� 28 Fr Brian Byron, in Priesthood: The Hard Questions, edited by
Fr Gerald Gleeson, E. J. Dwyer, Sydney, 1993, pp. 43-44. Fr Byron
chairs the Commission for Ecumenism in the Archdiocese of Sydney.
� 29 Ibid. pp. 47-48.
� 30 Ibid. pp. 53-54.
� 31 Cf. Jean Galot, S.J. Theology of the Priesthood, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco, 1985, p. 65.
� 32 For these points on Christ as Teacher, Prophet, King and
Priest, I have drawn on an article by Archbishop Henryk Muszynski
referred to earlier and which was published in L'Osservatore
Romano on 26/8/92.
� 33 Fr Brian Byron, Compass Theological Review, Summer 1992, p.
43.
� 34 For a statement of the Church's doctrine on the Resurrection
as a transcendent event, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
nn. 647, 656.
� 35 I have taken this description of the relationship between
speech, intelligibility and reality from the back cover of Josef
Pieper's book Abuse of Language-Abuse of Power, Ignatius Press,
San Francisco, 1992.
� 36 Fr Brian Byron, Compass Theological Review, Summer 1992, p.
41.
� 37 Ibid. p. 42.
� 38 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 68.
� 39 Pope John Paul II, DominicaeCenae, n. 9.
� 40 CCC. n. 1330.
� 41 CCC. n. 1365.
� 42 CCC. n. 1366.
� 43 Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), In Defense
of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church, June 24, 1973, n.6.
� 44 CCC. n. 1591.
� 45 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 10.
� 46 Jean Galot S.J. Theology of the Priesthood, op. cit. p. 118.
� 47 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 43.
� 48 Cf. CCC. nn. 1120, 1547, 1592.
� 49 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 26.
� 50 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 22.
� 51 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93.
� 52 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93.
� 53 Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem, n. 10.
� 54 Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 21.
� 55 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 15/11/95.
� 56 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 34.
� 57 Ibid. n. 3.
� 58 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93.
� 59 Bishop Patrick Dunn, Priesthood, Alba House, New York, 1990,
p. 20.
� 60 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 17/11/93.
� 61 The statement of the Kansas Bishops was first published in
Origins on 13/7/95.
� 62 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93.
� 63 Bishop David Konstant, Australian, 2/11/95.
� 64 Directory On the Ministry and Life of Priests, Congregation
for the Clergy, n. 33.
� 65 Ibid.
� 66 Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 43; Directory On Ministry
and Life of Priests, n. 33.
� 67 Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II, Letter to Priests, Novo
Incipiente Nostro, 6 April, 1979, n. 7.
� 68 Directory On Ministry of Priests, n. 45.
� 69 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 26.
� 70 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen,
Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1987, pp. 113-114.
� 71 Joseph Pieper, In Search of the Sacred, op. cit. p. 30.
� 72 Bishop W.K. Weigand, AD2000, June 1994.
� 73 Fr Kenneth Baker, S.J. Editorial, Homiletic and Pastoral
Review, February, 1995.
� 74 Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw, The Crisis of Eucharistic
Faith, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, February 1995, pp. 16-21.
� 75 Ibid.
� 76 Fr Max Thurian, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/7/96.
� 77 Ibid.
� 78 Ibid.
� 79 Ibid.
� 80 Pope John XXIII, Encyclical Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia, n.
28
� 81 CCC. nn. 1379-1380.
� 82 Fr Max Thurian, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/6/96.
� 83 Pope John Paul II, Duodecimum Saeculum n. 8.
� 84 Ibid. n. 11.
� 85 Ibid. n. 10.
� 86 Ibid. nn. 9, 11.
CHAPTER II
JESUS CONFERRED THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS ON THE APOSTLES
1.AT THE LAST SUPPER CHRIST INSTITUTED THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
2.THE EARLY CHURCH WAS HIERARCHICALLY ORGANISED
Catholic educational institutions have an important role to play
in defending the true identity of the ordained priest. In order to
do this however, it is essential that theology courses and related
disciplines taught at Catholic tertiary institutions be faithful
to the doctrine of the Church on the origin and nature of the
ministerial priesthood. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be
the case at the Australian Catholic University (ACU) in Sydney
where the doctrine of the Church has been contradicted in various
units of the Graduate Diploma in Religious Education Course which
is currently being run there. [1] This is a two-year part-time
course which is conducted at the Strathfield campus. In the course
which began in 1995, the Scripture Unit was entitled An
Introduction To The Word of God and it contained two prescribed
texts entitled The Christian Story by Dr Laurie Woods and Book of
Readings edited by Sandra Carroll. Both Woods and Carroll lecture
in the Religious Education Department at the ACU in Sydney.
Speaking of ministry in the early Church, Woods says:
Ministering to members of the community was an activity that grew
naturally in Christian circles. . . Over a period of time, and as
communities grew in size and complexity, different ministries
became distinct and organised until a definite hierarchy of
ministries was established in church order. . . In any discussion
of ministry it has to be kept in mind that the New Testament
communities did not have the kind of organisation that we are
familiar with in today's church. Initially there were no ordained
priests. . . There is not enough information for us to know how
certain individuals came to preside over the Eucharist in the
first decades of Christianity. We can only say that they performed
this function with the approval of the community. There is
certainly no evidence to suggest that there was a class of
professional presiders equivalent to today's priesthood. As
churches grew larger and developed more complex organisational
structures it became necessary to regulate the selection of those
who presided over the Eucharist. Eventually, this became a
function reserved for presbyters and bishops (around the turn of
the first century C. E.). [2]
Carroll's Book of Readings contains an article written by Kerrie
Hide entitled Women In Luke Acts. Hide, who lectures in the School
of Religion and Philosophy at the Signadu Campus of the Australian
Catholic University, begins her article by saying:
Recent scholarship has highlighted the patriarchal nature of
scripture and how it represents a male's point of view of women's
experience. Luke's view of women from the time of the prophets,
the time of Jesus' ministry and the time of the Church reflects
this patriarchal interpretation of the significance of women.
Feminist authors such as Schussler Fiorenza are pointing to the
layers of Lucan redaction which suggest that while Luke reports
more stories about women than any of the other gospel writers,
they are stories that generally dis-empower women and encourage
them to remain in subordinate positions. [3]
Then, in reference to what she believes were the ministries
performed by women in the early Church, Hide says:
Lydia, named in Acts 16:11-15 is another woman of authority who
had her own business in purple cloth trading. As a gentile
worshipper of God she becomes a model of perfect discipleship
because she hears the word of God and takes this to her heart so
that her conversion takes place at a personal and communal level.
She then shares her insight with her entire household and becomes
a model of hospitality, an indication of her true discipleship.
There is no evidence that she did not celebrate eucharist and
since her home became the mission base for the Philippian church
it is highly likely that she did so. . . through Jesus women were
encouraged to realise the reign of God in their midst and to be
involved in all ministries in the Church [4]
The Unit on the Sacraments for the Graduate Diploma in Religious
Education is entitled Religious Education And Living The Tradition
(Code RE 601). The Unit began in February 1996 and the recommended
text is a book called Sacraments Alive written by Sister Sandra
DeGidio, OSM. In fact the book is compulsory reading for the
students since part of their written assessment for the unit
requires them to answer questions at the end of certain chapters
in DeGidio's book. In her introduction to the Sacrament of Holy
Orders, DeGidio says:
This is, without doubt, the most difficult sacrament for me to
address. This difficulty exists because holy orders is incredibly
complicated in its origin and development. The greater difficulty
for me, though, has to do with the changing role of ministry in
today's church and the current unchanging climate and attitude in
the institutional church. In a word, I have a real problem,
scripturally, theologically, and in justice, with the exclusion of
women and married people from ordained ministry. I also have a
problem with the attitude of clericalism that is present in the
church and some of its leaders, and with a hierarchical structure
in which some people are caught, some people wield power for
power's sake, and some are squeezed out.
I bring to this chapter some anger. And I bring to this chapter
some pain. Pain for my sisters who feel gifted for and called to a
priesthood that is not open to them. Pain for my brothers who must
make a choice between celibacy and service. Pain for the Christian
communities whose church doors are closed because some minds seem
closed about ministry and priesthood. . . It strikes me that if
Peter or any of the twelve apostles - or any of the seventy-two
disciples or any of the first Christians, for that matter - were
to come back today, they would be truly puzzled by a priesthood
imbued with personal powers and thought of as being personally
instituted by Jesus himself. It is my guess that they would look
to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), and find that nowhere
in the story of the origin of Christianity is the word priest.
What they would know is that Jesus called twelve ordinary lay
people as his apostles, to preach and teach. When Judas defected,
the Twelve chose Matthias as a replacement, but after that there
was no immediate attempt by the early church to replace the
twelve. They were in a sense, founding fathers, living witnesses
to the Christ event. "Apostolic succession" had little to do with
bishops and priests in the early church. It had everything to do
with discipleship and with being faithful to the Jesus tradition.
. At best, we can say that Jesus commissioned those who were
closest to him to use their gifts. He wanted them to be part of
and to influence the political, social, and cultural character of
their communities". [5]
I assume that in referring to "New Testament Communities", Woods
is in fact referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ which
"subsists in the Catholic Church" and which "is governed by the
Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". [6]
The New Testament does not contain a shred of evidence for Woods'
assertions about the origin of the ministerial priesthood in the
Church. Also, from what Hide has written, I understand her to be
saying that since "all ministries" in the early Church were open
to women, then Lydia possibly presided over a Eucharistic
celebration. The approach to the Bible taken by Hide and DeGidio
is typical of those feminist theologians who politicise the
interpretation of Sacred Scripture to such an extent as to
relativise the objective truth which it contains. Speaking of
this, Fr Albert Vanhoye, S. J. who is Secretary of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission says:
As for the attempt made several years ago to base an
egalitarianism upon a 'feminist theological reconstruction of
Christian origins', it is unfortunately necessary to say that it
is without theological validity because, instead of accepting the
testimony of the New Testament, it adopts a 'hermeneutics of
suspicion' in regard to it. That is, in studying the writings of
the New Testament, it takes as a point of departure the
'suspicion' that their authors more or less consciously hid their
egalitarian leaning, which was supposedly the tendency of Jesus
and his first disciples. Consequently, they claim to reconstruct
this 'authentic' orientation through the unilateral use of some
clues found in the texts, completing them with many conjectures,
often directly contrary to other New Testament texts. Such a
method is obviously not capable of providing the Church with a
sure foundation for changing one of her traditions in such an
important area (non-admission of women to the ranks of the
ministerial priesthood) . A reconstruction based on historical
conjecture is completely out of place in this matter. The only
valid foundation is perfect obedience to the word of God. [7]
AT THE LAST SUPPER CHRIST INSTITUTED THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
While the words "ordained" and "ministerial" priest do not appear
in the New Testament, equivalent terms such as presbyteroi
(presbyters) do. The word "presbyteroi" initially meant "elder
ones" or "elders" which in French is translated as "pretres" and
hence the English word "priests". Those who received the power of
the apostolic ministry from the Apostles were called "episcopoi"
which primarily used to mean "overseers". The English word
"Bishop" comes from this Greek term "episkopos". In the New
Testament however, it is not always easy to distinguish between
"presbyters" (elders) and "bishops" (overseers). [8] In
establishing the Church, Christ inscribed within it the
ministerial priesthood as one of its constituent elements. The
Eucharist, and the ministerial priesthood which is inextricably
linked to it, are grounded in the words and deeds of Jesus at the
Last Supper. In teaching that the ministerial priesthood was
instituted by Christ Himself, the Council of Trent said: "If
anyone says that by the words 'Do this in remembrance of me' (Lk
22:19; 1 Cor 11: 24) Christ did not establish the apostles as
priests or that He did not order (ordinasse) that they and other
priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema". [9]
Elaborating on this doctrine in a later session of the Council,
Trent added: "Sacrifice and priesthood are so joined together by
God's foundation that each exists in every law. And so, since in
the new covenant the Catholic Church has received the visible
sacrifice of the Eucharist from the Lord's institution, it is also
bound to profess that there is in it a new, visible and external
priesthood into which the old one has been changed. The sacred
scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has
always taught, that this was instituted by the same Lord Our
Saviour, and that power was given to the Apostles and their
successors in the priesthood to consecrate, offer and administer
his body and blood, as also to remit or retain sins". [10] In
harmony with this teaching, Trent went on to declare: "If anyone
should say that in the New Testament there is no visible and
external priesthood, or that power is not given to consecrate and
offer up the true body and blood of the Lord and to forgive sins,
but only the duty and mere function of preaching the Gospel. . .
let him be anathema". [11] The teaching of Trent on the origin and
nature of the ministerial priesthood was reaffirmed by the Second
Vatican Council when it said: "The same Lord has established
certain ministers among the faithful in order to join them
together in one body where 'all the members have not the same
function' (Rom. 12:4). These men were to hold in the community of
the faithful the sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice
and forgiving sins, and were to exercise the priestly office
publicly on behalf of men in the name of Christ". [12] In speaking
of the mission and power to celebrate the Eucharist which Christ
conferred on the Apostles when he addressed to them the
sacramental charge "Do this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor
11:24-25), Pope John Paul II said: "The charge to do again what
Jesus did at the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine
implies a power of the highest degree; to say in Christ's name,
'This is my Body', 'This is my Blood', is to be identified with
Christ, as it were, in the sacramental act". [13] On another
occasion when speaking of the ministerial priesthood and its
institution by Christ, Pope John Paul II said: "The participation
in Christ's one priesthood, which is exercised in several degrees,
was instituted by Christ, who wanted differentiated functions in
his Church as in a well-organised social body, and for the
function of leadership he established ministers of his priesthood.
He conferred on them the sacrament of Orders to constitute them
officially as priests who would work in his name and with his
power by offering sacrifices and forgiving sins". [14] As we noted
in the last chapter, the ordained priesthood finds its definitive
expression in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and
this partly explains why its institution by Christ took place at
the Last Supper. Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said: "The
Eucharist is the principal and central raison d'etre for the
sacrament of the priesthood, which effectively came into being at
the moment of the institution of the Eucharist, and together with
it". [15] Repeating this teaching in his Letter to Priests for
Holy Thursday in 1996, the Holy Father said:
"Precisely during that Paschal event Christ revealed to the
Apostles that their vocation was to become priests like him and in
him. This took place when, in the Upper Room, on the eve of his
death on the Cross, he took bread and then the cup of wine, and
spoke over them the words of consecration. The bread and the wine
became his Body and Blood, given up in sacrifice for all mankind.
Jesus concluded by commanding the Apostles: "Do this in memory of
me" (1 Cor 11:25). With these words he entrusted to them his own
sacrifice and, through their hands communicated it to the Church
for all time. By entrusting to the Apostles the memorial of his
sacrifice, Christ made them sharers in his priesthood. For there
is a close and inseparable bond between the offering and the
priest: the one who offers the sacrifice of Christ must have a
share in the priesthood of Christ. Consequently, the vocation to
the priesthood is a vocation to offer in persona Christi his own
sacrifice, by virtue of sharing in his priesthood. From the
Apostles, then, we have inherited the priestly ministry". [16]
While the Apostles were the first to be invested with the
ministerial priesthood, Jesus did not intend it to be reserved to
them alone. The Gospels tell us that during his earthly life,
Jesus indicated his intention to establish the presbyterate by
appointing certain "disciples" who, though subordinate and
distinct from the Apostles, were nevertheless to be endowed with
their priestly task (cf. Lk 10: 1-24). In reference to this, Jean
Galot, S. J. says:
Luke reports a mission of the disciples distinct from the mission
of the Twelve. After recounting how Jesus called the twelve
together and invited them to proclaim God's kingdom (Lk 9:1-2), he
writes: "And the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them
ahead of him in pairs, to all the towns and places he himself was
to visit" (Lk 10:1). As in the case of the twelve, Jesus addressed
to them words of instruction. When we compare the two missions, we
notice no significant difference between the one and the other.
The purpose is the same: to proclaim the good news. Like the
Twelve, the seventy-two disciples are endowed with Christ's
authority to teach. According to Luke, they are told: "Anyone who
listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me,
and those who reject me reject the one who has sent me' (Lk 10:
16). There is a similarity also between the powers conferred on
the two groups. . . "(Lk 10:17-19). [17]
This account of the commissioning of the Seventy-two leads Galot
to the following conclusion:
Jesus willed to share with the seventy-two disciples, as well as
with the Twelve, his own mission to proclaim the Gospel and his
power over the forces of evil. This proves that Jesus intended to
appoint, together with the Twelve, a large number of disciples
entrusted with the same mission. The Twelve were given a higher
authority, but with respect to the essential characteristics and
the power attached, the two missions are obviously similar. Jesus
wills, then, that the Twelve should be surrounded by many co-
workers entrusted with a priestly task similar to their own.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that only the Twelve received
directly from Jesus the pastoral and priestly power intended to
provide for the future of the Church. It was to them that the
fullness of this power was entrusted, yet they in their turn would
have to exercise that power together with co-workers to whom they
would impart their own mission and power. [18]
Pope John Paul II places the commissioning of the Seventy-two
disciples in much the same context as Galot. He says:
What the evangelist Luke attests is significant, namely, that
Jesus sent the Twelve on mission (Lk 9:1-6), he sent a still
larger number of disciples, to indicate as it were that the
mission of the Twelve was not enough for the work of
evangelisation. "After this the Lord appointed 72 others whom he
sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to
visit" (Lk 10:1). Doubtless this step only prefigures the ministry
that Christ will formally institute later on. However, it already
shows the divine Master's intention to introduce a sizeable number
of coworkers into the 'vineyard'. . . Like the Twelve (cf. Mk 6-7;
Lk 9:1), the disciples receive the power to expel evil spirits, so
much so that after their first experiences they say to Jesus:
"Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name. "
This power is confirmed by Jesus himself: "I have observed Satan
fall like lightening from the sky. Behold I have given you the
power 'to tread upon serpents' and upon the full force of the
enemy. . . "(Lk 10;17-19). This also means that they participate
with the Twelve in the redemptive work of the one priest of the
new covenant, Christ, who wanted to confer on them too a mission
and powers like those of the Twelve. The establishment of the
presbyterate, therefore, does not only answer one of the practical
necessities of the bishops, who feel the need for coworkers, but
derives from an explicit intention of Christ. In fact, we already
find that in the early Christian era presbyters (presbyteroi) are
present and functioning in the Church of the Apostles and of the
first bishops, their successors (Cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4,
6, 22, 23, 41; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5;
Jas 5:14; 1 Pt 5:1, 5, 15; 2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1). [19]
Since the ministerial priesthood was instituted by Christ and
exists in the Church as a constituent element of it, then it is
not possible as Laurie Woods asserts to conceive of the Church in
its infancy without the presence in it of ordained priests. In
regard to this point, Pope John Paul II said:
The priest's fundamental relationship is to Jesus Christ, head and
shepherd. Indeed, the priest participates in a specific and
authoritative way in the "consecration/anointing" and in the
"mission" of Christ (cf. Lk. 4:18-19). But intimately linked to
this relationship is the priest's relationship with the Church. It
is not a question of "relations" which are merely juxtaposed, but
rather of ones which are interiorly united in a kind of mutual
immanence. The priest's relation to the Church is inscribed in the
very relation which the priest has to Christ, such that the
"sacramental representation" to Christ serves as the basis and
inspiration for the relation of the priest to the Church. In this
sense the Synod Fathers wrote: "Inasmuch as he represents Christ
the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church, the priest is placed
not only in the Church, but also towards the Church. The
priesthood along with the word of God and the sacramental signs
which it serves, belongs to the constituent elements of the
Church. . . " (1990 Synod, Proposition 7) . Therefore, the
ordained ministry arises with the Church and has in bishops, and
in priests who are related to and are in communion with them, a
particular relation to the original ministry of the apostles - to
which it truly "succeeds" - even though with regard to the later
it assumes different forms. Consequently, the ordained priesthood
ought not to be thought of as existing prior to the Church,
because it is totally at the service of the Church. Nor should it
be considered as posterior to the ecclesial community, as if the
Church could be imagined as already established without this
priesthood. [20]
THE EARLY CHURCH WAS HIERARCHICALLY ORGANISED
Before examining the question of how the early Church was
organised, it will be useful to first outline what the Catholic
Church understands by the term Divine Revelation. According to
Vatican II, Divine Revelation comprises both Sacred Scripture and
Tradition. Sacred Scripture "is the speech of God as it is put
down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit". [21] Sacred
or Holy Tradition "transmits in its entirety the Word of God which
has been entrusted to the Apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy
Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that,
enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,
expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching". [22] As a
result, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition "are bound closely
together and communicate one with the other" because both of them
flow out "of the same divine well-spring". [23] Consequently, the
Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation
is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed
truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and
Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence". [24] Sacred Tradition however needs to be
distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary,
liturgical and devotional traditions which arise in local churches
over time. These traditions can be "retained, modified or even
abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium". [25]
Instead, Tradition as part of Divine Revelation refers to what
"comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from
Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy
Spirit". [26] The Apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of faith
contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition to the whole Church.
[27] Returning now to the question of the Church's structure. The
Church is composed of "a human and a Divine element, " and insofar
as it is a human reality, it is "a society structured with
hierarchical organs". [28] This structure, which is "hierarchical
and ministerial", was established by Christ and "has an essential
role in the whole development of the Christian community, from the
day of Pentecost until the end of time". [29] Its purpose in the
Divine plan is to provide pastoral governance for the continual
formation and growth of the community. The Twelve Apostles were
the first to have this ministerial authority conferred upon them.
According to Pope John Paul II, the following are the specific
duties which are inherent in the mission entrusted by Christ to
the Twelve: i) the mission to evangelise all nations, as the three
Synoptic Gospels clearly attest (cf. Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:16-18; Lk
24:45-48); ii) the mission and power to baptise (Mt 28:29), as a
fulfilment of Christ's command, with a baptism in the name of the
Holy Trinity. Since this baptism is tied to Christ's paschal
mystery, it is also considered in the Acts of the of the Apostles
as baptism in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16); iii) the
mission and power to celebrate the Eucharist: "Do this in memory
of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11: 24-25); iv) the mission and power to
forgive sins (Jn 20: 22-23). [30] The mission of the Twelve
"included a foundational role reserved to them which would not be
inherited by others: being eyewitnesses of Christ's life, death
and resurrection (cf. Lk 24:28), handing on his message to the
early community as the link between divine Revelation and the
Church, and for that very reason, initiating the Church in the
name and power of Christ under the action of the Holy Spirit.
Because of their function the Twelve Apostles represent a uniquely
important group in the Church defined by the Nicene-
Constantinopolitan creed as apostolic. . . due to this unbreakable
link with the Twelve". [31] In forming the group of the Twelve,
"Jesus established the Church as a visible society organised to
serve the Gospel and the coming of God's Kingdom". [32] In the
group of the Apostles, a special authority was bestowed by Christ
on Peter. Speaking of this authority bestowed by Christ on Peter,
Pope John Paul II says: "This authority is pastoral, as we can see
from the text on the mission specifically entrusted to Peter:
'Feed my lambs. . . Feed my sheep' (Jn 21: 15-17). Peter
personally receives supreme authority in the pastoral mission.
This mission is exercised as a participation in the authority of
the one Shepherd and Teacher, Christ". [33] In conferring on the
Twelve their pastoral and ministerial authority which was related
to their mission to evangelise all nations, Jesus knew it would
take a long time, indeed a time that would last "until the end of
the age" (Mt 28:20). Consequently, the Apostles understood that it
was "Christ's will that they provide for successors, who as their
heirs and representatives, would continue their mission". [34]
Speaking of this, Pope St. Clement of Rome, who was the third
successor of St Peter, wrote: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord
Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of Bishop.
For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge,
they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and
afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die,
other approved men should succeed to their ministry". [35]
Referring to the Church's hierarchical and ministerial structure
and its institution by Christ, the Second Vatican Council said:
This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican
Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the
eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles
with their mission, as He Himself had been sent by the Father (cf.
Jn 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely,
should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world.
In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and
undivided he put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in
him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the
unity both of faith and of communion. . . That divine mission,
which was committed by Christ to the Apostles, is destined to last
until the end of the world (cf. Mt 28:20), since the Gospel, which
they were charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of
all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were
careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted
society. [36]
It is impossible to conceive of the Church at any stage of its
existence without its hierarchical and ministerial structure.
Speaking of this as early as A. D. 115, St. Ignatius of Antioch
said: "When you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ,
it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but
as Jesus Christ. . . Let everyone respect the deacons as they
would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as
a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and
college of Apostles. Without these it cannot be called a Church".
[37] The testimony of St Ignatius of Antioch is very important
because not only was he the third bishop of Antioch (St. Peter was
the first), but he was also a hearer of St. John the Evangelist.
Around the year 115, St. Ignatius died a martyr's death when he
was sentenced to the beasts in the arena during the reign of the
Emperor Trajan. From earliest times also, it was acknowledged that
supreme power over the whole Church belonged to the Bishop of Rome
as the successor of St. Peter. For example, St Irenaeus, the
martyred Bishop of Lyons, insisted that in doctrinal disputes,
agreement with the Church of Rome was the test of orthodoxy.
Further to this, he explained that the root of all heresy is found
in deviation from the Church's teaching authority as centred in
the Pope who is the successor of St Peter. In his youth, St.
Irenaeus who was a native of Asia Minor, had been a pupil of St.
Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. St
Irenaeus therefore saw himself in continuity of teaching with the
Apostles. [38] Commenting on the relationship of the Apostolic
authority to the structure of the Church, Hans Urs von Balthasar
says:
The Catholic Church will never be able to abandon the idea that
Jesus entrusted his powers of consecration and of absolution from
grievous guilt to an office in the Church that was first carried
out by the "Apostles" and then explicitly passed on to others who
in turn pass it on: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you
set in order anything that is still lacking and appoint presbyters
in each city, as I directed you to do" (Titus 1:5). This order
appears completed even in the earliest postapostolic writings
(Letter of Clement, circa 96; Letters of Ignatius, circa 115), and
the Church cannot go back beyond this order to possible but more
or less hypothetical community structures that formed under the
eyes of the Apostles and with their approbation. Full communion of
Churches - and the Eucharist is the expression of the full, not of
a partial, communion - presupposes communion, both visibly
embodied and spiritually acknowledged, in the office of the
Church, of which one cannot say. . . that it can be changed in its
essential structure by the Church herself. For it is essentially
and permanently a gift of Christ to the Church, which is permitted
to be what she is by virtue of this gift. [39]
Bishop Dunn draws attention to the key role of the Apostles and of
the "official Church" in the appointment of leaders during the New
Testament era. He says:
The most detailed information we have on how early Church leaders
were appointed comes from the account of the institution of "the
Seven" (Act 6:1-6). The initiative is taken by "the official
Church", in this case "the Twelve", who call a full meeting of
"the disciples", and suggest to them what should be done to settle
the differences between the "Hellenists" and the "Hebrews". "The
whole assembly approved this proposal", held an election, and
"presented these to the apostles", it is these "official leaders"
who then, through prayer and the laying on of hands, confirm "the
Seven" in office. Other New Testament texts which refer to the
instituting of ministers make no mention of any community role in
the process - so, whatever form it may have taken, it certainly
does not seem to have been the most decisive element. It is said
of Paul and Barnabas, concerning the communities they had founded:
"In each of these churches they appointed elders" (Acts 14:23). .
Titus was left behind in Crete "to get everything organised
there and appoint elders in every town, in the way that I told
you" (Tit 1:5). [40]
Regarding the hierarchical structure of the Church communities
established by St Paul, Bishop Dunn says: "Paul's letters reveal
that none of his communities was permitted to go its own way. He
insists that they remain faithful to what was done 'everywhere in
all the churches' (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17). Although so conscious of his
own apostolic authority. . . Paul was still prepared to submit his
version of the Gospel to 'the leading men' in Jerusalem to be sure
of their approval (Gal 2:2). Paul feared that without this
recognition from 'the official church' his own work would lose its
validity". [41] There is no possibility then that any of the
earliest Church communities existed in a form other than with a
hierarchical and ministerial structure that rested on the Apostles
and their successors. According to Hans Urs von Balthasar, the
faith which expresses itself in the New Testament "is not the
faith of isolated individuals but that of a community. This
community is linked to its founder; Jesus had himself chosen,
trained and commissioned its nucleus, the Twelve". [42] From
Peter's first appearance in the Acts of the Apostles, "through the
strict Church regime exercised by Paul in his communities, to the
teaching of the First Letter of Peter about the task and attitude
of the 'shepherds', it is clear that the Church is structured by
office". [43] The office "must thus itself be a sacrament received
from Christ or those commissioned by him". [44] Since "the opinion
of the New Testament about Christ cannot be contradictory in
itself, " we can say that "however the first communities may have
been organised structurally, some this way and others that way, it
cannot have been the will of the Apostles, who determined the
structure, to plan or even to tolerate contradictory structures:
for example, next to a 'hierarchic' structure in which chosen
heads, approved by the Apostles, led the community, a purely
'democratic' structure in which the community consecrated its
leaders by its own authority and enabled them to perform
sacramental acts". [45] We know for certain that leaders of some
sort existed in Corinth. In the Letter to the Philippians "they
are expressly mentioned together with deacons, and Paul certainly
did not establish two fundamentally different community structures
in such close vicinity. These leaders may have been with Paul when
the letter was written. Besides Paul sends his official
collaborators to Corinth 'for an apostolic visitation'". [46] Von
Balthasar concludes his discussion of the early Church by saying
that its structures were consolidated slowly under the eyes of the
Apostles. [47] In relation to this question of Apostolic
succession, Vatican II said: "In order that the mission entrusted
to them might be continued after their death, they (Apostles)
consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate
collaborators, the duty of completing and consolidating the work
they had begun". [48] As well as transmitting their apostolic
authority to their successors, the Apostles also appointed
presbyters as coworkers in the episcopal order. Regarding this,
Vatican II said: "Christ sent the Apostles as he himself had been
sent by the Father, and then through the Apostles made successors,
the bishops, sharers in his consecration and mission. The function
of the bishops' ministry was handed over in a subordinate degree
to presbyters so that they might be appointed in the order of the
presbyterate and be coworkers of the episcopal order for the
proper fulfilment of the apostolic mission that had been entrusted
to it by Christ". [49] Speaking of how the Apostles called other
men to be Bishops and priests, Pope John Paul II said:
In their turn, the apostles. . . progressively carried out their
mission by calling. . . other men as bishops, as priests and as
deacons in order to fulfil the command of the risen Jesus who sent
them forth to all people in every age. The writings of the New
Testament are unanimous in stressing that it is the same Spirit of
Christ who introduces these men chosen from among their brethren
into the ministry. Through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 6:6; 1
Tm. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tm. 1:6) which transmits the gift of the Spirit,
they are called and empowered to continue the same ministry of
reconciliation, of shepherding the flock of God and of teaching
(cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pt. 5:2). Therefore, priests are called to
prolong the presence of Christ, the one high priest, embodying his
way of life and making him visible in the midst of the flock
entrusted to their care. We find this clearly and precisely stated
in the first letter of Peter: "I exhort the elders among you, as a
fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as
a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of
God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for
shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in our
charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief
Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of
glory" (1 Pet. 5:1-4). [50]
The transmission of the Apostolic authority and the ministerial
priesthood was effected through the imposition of hands by either
the Apostles themselves or by those whom they appointed to succeed
them in the Apostolic ministry. Some references to this in the New
Testament are:
"You have in you a spiritual gift which was given to you when the
prophets spoke and the body of elders laid their hands on you, do
not let it lie unused" ( 1 Tim $:14);
"Do not be too quick to lay hands on any man" (1 Tim 5:22);
"That is why I am reminding you now to fan into flame the gift
that God gave you when I laid my hands on you" (2 Tim 1: 6).
The Catholic Church today, ruled by the Pope and the Bishops, and
assisted by their presbyters (priests), has substantially the same
hierarchical structure as the Church of the New Testament era. In
reference to this, Jean Galot says that "Jesus does not limit
himself to 'making the Twelve' in order to confer upon them his
own priesthood. He also establishes a basic structure that
pertains to the nature of this priesthood". [51] This structure,
continues Galot, "is rightly called 'hierarchical', since it
consists of a gradation of 'sacred powers', which is what the
notion of the hierarchy entails". [52] Galot also points out that
in judging by "the intentions disclosed by Jesus", there are three
degrees in the mission and power of the shepherd. [53] He says
that while "these degrees do not correspond exactly to the
traditional trilogy of episcopacy, presbyterate, and diaconate",
they have however "always being acknowledged by the Catholic
Church in the doctrine and in the exercise of the priesthood".
[54] Finally, says Galot, "In addition to the Twelve, there is the
supreme pastoral power conferred on Peter, which marks the summit
of the structure. We also have evidence suggesting that Jesus
intended to give the apostles a large number of co-workers subject
to their authority". [55] Holy Orders is the sacrament "through
which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to
be exercised in the Church until the end of time. Thus it is the
sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees:
episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate". [56] The Magisterium of
the Church recognises "that there are two degrees of ministerial
participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy
(bishops) and the presbyterate (priests) . The diaconate is
intended to help and serve them". [57] There is continuity between
the way candidates for the sacrament of Holy Orders were chosen in
the early Church and what happens today. The essential rite of the
Sacrament of Holy Orders "consists in the bishop's imposition of
hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop's specific
consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate
is being ordained". [58] This to me does not seem very far removed
from the practice of the early Church. In view of all that has
been said above about the hierarchical and ministerial nature of
the Church, it should now be clear to see why Pope Pius VI taught
that it is "heretical" to assert that "the power of the ministry
and of ecclesial rule comes to the pastors from the community of
the faithful". [59] If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not of
Divine origin, but rather is something that merely evolved in the
first few decades of the Church's life and whose form was
dependent on the consent of the "local community", then the Church
herself can change and manipulate this sacrament at will. Fr Galot
warns of this danger of suggesting that the "community" had a
decisive role in the appointment of leaders in the early Church
when he says: "If the local community is entitled to institute
ministries to meet its own needs, it is difficult to see what
could possibly prevent the community from choosing women and
entrusting to them the task of pastoral leadership". [60]
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 2 ENDNOTES
� 1 In this chapter, I will be referring only to the Scripture and
Sacraments Units of this Graduate Diploma in Religious Education
course. Overall, the course is seriously defective, in chapter 8
of this book I will highlight other serious flaws in it.
� 2 Laurie Woods, An Introduction To The Word of God, Australian
Catholic University (NSW), 1995, p. 78.
� 3 Kerrie Hide, in Book of Readings, by Sandra Carroll,
Australian Catholic University, 1995, p. 183. This article by Hide
was first published in the Spring 1994 edition of Compass: A
Review of Topical Theology.
� 4 Ibid. p. 189.
� 5 Sandra DeGidio, OSM, Sacraments Alive: Their History,
Celebration and Significance, Twenty-Third Publications, Mystic,
Connecticut, 1994, pp. 122-24. It is incredible that while the
Catechism of the Catholic Church is not included in the
recommended reading for this course this book by DeGidio is
compulsory. The book is so inadequate that it would need a very
lengthy review to highlight its more serious defects. For example,
she says that there is little if any scriptural evidence for the
"notion of original sin (p. 40) and she advocates that the number
of sacraments be increased to include "a sacrament for divorce"
(p. 145) and "a sacrament for abortion" (p. 146).
� 6 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 8.
� 7 Fr Albert Vanhoye S.J., L'Osservatore Romano, 10/3/93.
� 8 Cf. Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93.
� 9 Council of Trent, DS 1752, Session XXII, 1562, Canon 2.
� 10 Council of Trent, Session XXIII.
� 11 Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon 1.
� 12 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2. Footnote number 5
appended to this statement of Vatican II was inserted by the
Council Fathers to indicate that it had to be interpreted in the
light of the teaching of the Council of Trent.
� 13 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92.
� 14 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93. Unless
otherwise stated, wherever bold print appears in this book it has
been inserted by this author.
� 15 Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, n. 2.
� 16 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 27/3/96.
� 17 Galot. op. cit. p. 85.
� 18 Ibid.
� 19 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93.
� 20 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 16.
� 21 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 9.
� 22 Ibid.
� 23 Ibid.
� 24 Ibid.
� 25 CCC. n. 83.
� 26 Ibid.
� 27 CCC. n. 84.
� 28 CCC. n.771; cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n.8.
� 29 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92.
� 30 I have here summarised these specific duties of the Apostles
as Pope John Paul II has listed them. For the full outline see
L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92.
� 31 Ibid.
� 32 Ibid.
� 33 Ibid.
� 34 Ibid.
� 35 Pope St. Clement of Rome, Letter to The Corinthians, cited in
William A. Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical
Press, Minnesota, 1970, Vol. 1, p. 10.
� 36 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, nn. 18, 20.
� 37 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, cited in
William A. Jurgens' Faith of the Early Church Fathers, Vol. 1, p.
20, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1970.
� 38 References to the supreme authority over the whole Church of
the Pope as the successor of St Peter are found in various
writings of the Early Church Fathers; e.g. Letter to the
Corinthians (St. Clement, circa. A.D. 96), Letter to the Romans
(St. Ignatius of Antioch, circa A.D. 115), Against Heresies (St.
Irenaeus, circa A.D. 190).
� 39 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen,
op. cit. p. 100.
� 40 Bishop Patrick Dunn, op. cit. p. 40.
� 41 Ibid. p. 38.
� 42 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen,
op. cit. p. 29.
� 43 Ibid. p. 31.
� 44 Ibid.
� 45 Ibid. p. 44.
� 46 Ibid. p. 45.
� 47 Cf. Ibid.
� 48 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 20.
� 49 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2; cf. CCC. n. 1562.
� 50 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n.15.
� 51 Galot, op. cit. p. 77.
� 52 Ibid.
� 53 Ibid.
� 54 Ibid.
� 55 Ibid.
� 56 CCC. n. 1536.
� 57 CCC. n. 1554.
� 58 CCC. n. 1573.
� 59 Pope Pius VI, Const. Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794: Dz.
1502.
� 60 Jean Galot, S.J. op. cit. p. 252.
CHAPTER III
WOMEN ARE NOT CALLED TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD
1.THE CHOICE OF THE 'TWELVE'
2.THE APOSTOLIC COMMUNITY REMAINED FAITHFUL TO THE INTENTION OF
THE LORD
3.THE EQUALITY OF 'MALE AND FEMALE' DOES NOT MEAN THE SUPPRESSION
OF DIFFERENCES
4.SACRAMENTAL TRUTH AND WOMEN PRIESTS?
5.REVEALED ANTHROPOLOGY
6.CHRIST: BRIDEGROOM OF THE CHURCH
7.MARITAL SYMBOLISM AND THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
8.ADAM: A MAN OR A WOMAN?
9.'IN PERSONA CHRIST' OR 'IN PERSONA ECCLESIAE' - A QUESTION OF
PRIORITY?
10.WOMEN PRIESTS? - AN ANCIENT HERESY
At the Last Supper Our Lord instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice
of his Body and Blood. Speaking of this, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church says: "This he did in order to perpetuate the
sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come
again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a
memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a
sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet in which
Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of
future glory is given to us". [1] Speaking of how the essence of
the Eucharistic celebration as we experience it today has its
origin in the words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper, Pope
John Paul II said: "Beginning with the Upper Room and Holy
Thursday, the celebration of the Eucharist has a long history, a
history as long as that of the Church. In the course of this
history the secondary elements have undergone certain changes, but
there has been no change in the essence of the 'Mysterium'
instituted by the Redeemer of the world at the Last Supper". [2]
Consequently, the "sacred character of the Mass is a sacredness
instituted by Christ" in which "the words and actions of every
priest, answered by the conscious participation of the whole
Eucharistic assembly, echo the words and action of Holy Thursday".
[3]
The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he
comes", does not "only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did.
It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and
their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his
death, of his resurrection, and of his intercession in the
presence of the Father". [4] From the beginning the Church has
been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it
is written: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers...Day by day,
attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes,
they partook of food with glad and generous hearts". [5] It was
above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of
Jesus' Resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread"
(Acts 20:7). Regarding the manner in which the Apostles determined
the form of the Eucharistic celebration in the early Church, Fr
Paul Stenhouse, MSC PhD said:
Every Sabbath, and every day in some places, when the Bread was
broken, this was done according to ritual laid down by the
authority of the apostles. The liturgy of the Mass, in the rich
variety of its ancient rites, was an action that ante-dated, and
was quite independent of, any subsequent narrative that recorded
it. When St Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians around
56 AD he referred to "the tradition which I already had handed on
to you" that "came from the Lord," concerning the Lord's Supper -
the Mass (1 Cor 11, 23)...The Mass was the Church's principal,
explicit and most solemn demonstration of her faith in action. The
Mass was an action that made Jesus Christ visible to his followers
in the midst of the Church...As they passed from city to city the
apostles selected those whom they thought to be suitable and
shared their power with them. They did this through the imposition
of hands, accompanied by a ritual that like that of the Mass, was
not written down, but communicated to the faithful by word of
mouth. The Church's very life depended on this transmission of
power. The conveying of this power was an act of authority similar
to that which instituted the ritual of the Mass. Part of the power
transmitted concerned the right and power to celebrate the Lord's
Supper, forgive sins and preach the message of Jesus. The Pastoral
Epistles speak of the grace and power communicated by the
imposition of hands on Timothy and Titus. But the letters of St
Paul do not contain the rite itself, even though it was crucial
for the continuation of the Church's very existence. [6]
From the very beginning of the Church "on down to our own day the
celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we
encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental
structure. It remains the center of the Church's life". [7]
Speaking of the place of the Liturgy in the ongoing life of the
Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "From the first
community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal
mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith,
celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is
one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse". [8] The
diverse forms in which the liturgy is celebrated in the Universal
Church spring from the diverse cultures in which the Church has
taken root. The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in
the Church are: the Latin and Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic,
Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean. These diverse liturgical
traditions or rites "manifest the catholicity of the Church
because they signify and communicate the same mystery of Christ".
[9] Consequently, all of these liturgical rites are "of equal
dignity" and the Church "wishes to preserve them in the future and
to foster them in every way". [10]
The Sacred Liturgy includes divine as well as human elements. The
former, "instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in
any way by men". [11] The human components on the other hand do
admit of various modifications, as "the needs of the age,
circumstance and the good of souls require, and as the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may
have authorised". [12] Consequently, in regard to the divinely
constituted parts of the Mass, the Church is merely the guardian
and has no authority to change them. [13] The divinely constituted
part of each of the Sacraments is often referred to as their
substantial core or essential signs. For example, the Sacrament of
Matrimony can only be conferred on a man and a woman who are
baptised and it is based on the mutual consent of the contracting
couple who agree to give themselves to each other definitively in
order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. [14] The
Sacrament could not for example be conferred on two pagans or on
two members of the same sex.
The essential sign of the Sacrament of the Eucharist "are wheat
bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is
invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken
by Jesus during the Last Supper: 'This is my body which will be
given up for you ...This is the cup of my blood". [15]
Inextricably bound to the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the fact
that "only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist
and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body
and Blood of the Lord". [16] In instituting the Eucharist, as we
have already seen in chapter 2, Jesus "commanded his apostles to
celebrate it until his return; thereby he constituted them priests
of the New Testament". [17] The teaching authority of the Church,
basing itself on the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of
Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men, has consistently
held that the practice of excluding women from the priesthood is
in accordance with God's plan for his Church. [18] Consequently,
since it is only men that can be validly ordained, then it is only
men also who can validly preside over the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Therefore, Kerrie Hide's assertion that Lydia could have presided
over a Eucharistic celebration cannot possibly be right.
THE CHOICE OF THE 'TWELVE'
The teaching of the Church on a male only ministerial priesthood
tends in our increasingly unisex culture to be regarded as
somewhat archaic and inimical to the cause of the advancement of
women. Advocates of women's ordination often assert that the
Church's teaching is expressive of a misogynist prejudice which
implicitly rejects the equal dignity women possess with men. These
advocates argue that in choosing only men to be his apostles and
in addressing to them only the sacramental charge - "Do this in
memory of me" (Lk 22:19) - Jesus was acting in conformity with the
social mores of his patriarchal society. They claim that the
social and legal structure of first-century Palestine was such
that Jesus had no choice but to pick twelve men since women would
have been precluded from preaching the Gospel due to the fact that
they were excluded from public teaching in the synagogues.
Consequently, these advocates argue, it is not proper to deduce
from Jesus' choice of twelve male apostles or from his action at
the Last Supper a normative value which vindicates the practice of
the Church in conferring priestly ordination on men only.
The charge that Jesus could not break through or overcome the
sociological and legal structures of his time ignores the internal
evidence of the Gospel which clearly shows that Our Lord freely
dispensed with social custom and religious traditions when they no
longer served the cause of justice. One of the Pharisees bears
testimony to this fact when he says: "Teacher, we know that you
are true and that you teach the way of God truthfully and care for
no man; for you do not regard the position of men" (Mt 22:16). On
the basis of his Messianic claim, Jesus set himself sovereignly
above even the Mosaic law in its interpretation of the Sabbath
commandment (cf. Mk 2: 23-28; 3: 1-6). Coupled with this, a
striking characteristic of the Gospel is the great concern Jesus
shows to all who suffer, be they men or women. "Do not weep!", he
says to the widow of Nain (Lk 7:13) before giving back to her the
son he raised from the dead. To the deceased daughter of Jairus he
showed similar compassion. The Gospel shows Jesus' kindness to
several women sinners, whose repentance he asks for without
treating them harshly (cf. Jn 8:3-11). Indeed, at times Jesus'
attitude to female sinners aroused the anger of the Pharisees as
for example when he allowed himself to be touched by one (cf. Lk
7:33-43). Jesus publicly expresses admiration for the faith of
some women. For example, in the case of a woman with a
haemorrhage, he tells her: "Your faith has made you well" (Mt
5:34). This praise is all the more significant as the woman
concerned was subject to the segregation imposed by the old law.
In reconciling us with God and with each other, Jesus was
concerned to uphold the dignity of those most burdened by
injustice not least amongst whom were women. In first-century
Palestine, women were treated as chattels whose place in the home
was not beside their husbands but alongside the children and the
slaves. Contrary to such oppressive conventions, Jesus numbered
women amongst his friends and he shook the foundations of
patriarchal privilege when he forbade men to divorce their wives
(cf. Mk 10:1-12). In his ministry, Jesus was accompanied by many
women who followed him and assisted him and the community of
disciples (cf. Lk 8:1-3). This was something new in respect of
Jewish tradition. In drawing those women to follow him, Jesus thus
shows that he was not bound by whatever prejudices existed against
women in his male-dominated world.
In a society that barred women from the study of the Torah, the
Gospel pays a profound tribute to the dignity of women and to
their place in the redemptive work of Christ when it presents them
as the faithful disciples who accompany the Lord to Calvary (cf.
Mk 15:40-41). The radical nature of the Gospel's understanding of
the role of women in salvation history is highlighted by the fact
that it records that it was to women that Jesus first appeared
after the Resurrection (cf. Mt 28:1-10; Jn 20:11-19). In
appointing these women as the first witnesses to His resurrection,
Jesus was making a radical break with social and legal convention
since women were precluded from giving official public witness
which meant that their evidence was not accepted in a Jewish court
of law. All this clearly indicates that Jesus' relationship to
women was not conditioned by the prejudice against them which was
characteristic of his time.
In a commentary she wrote on Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter
Mulieris Dignitatem, the German theologian Jutta Burggraf, who
took part as one of the experts at the Synod of Bishops on the
role of the Laity, said:
When reconciling the human race with God, and human beings among
themselves, Christ promotes law and justice, and concerns himself
particularly with the humbled and the despised. Woman was then
among them. She was not even accorded full recognition as a
person...Christ takes a stand that is radically opposed to this
discrimination against the feminine sex. Towards women he shows a
total absence of the prejudices of a male-dominated society.
Christ cures several women of their diseases, feels compassion for
them and comforts them, defends them vis-a-vis the established
social system. Women, in turn, trust him and love him; some of
them accompany him in his travels and help him with their own
means. At his side, women find themselves accepted and loved, with
their virtues as well as with their sins and their defects. Christ
takes them seriously and reveals to them God's mysteries. They, in
turn, let the new teaching enter into their heads and reach their
hearts, and respond with a faith which finds confirmation in their
union with Christ on the Cross. At the hour of truth, "the women
proved stronger than the Apostles", as John Paul II soberly
remarks. [19]
Despite his liberating attitude towards women, the fact remains
that in choosing his Twelve Apostles, Jesus did not include any
women amongst them (cf. Mk 3:13-19; Mt 10:1-4; Lk 6:12-16).
Coupled with this, it was only the Twelve that were present with
Jesus at the Last Supper: "with the Twelve" (Mk 14:17); "with the
twelve disciples" (Mt 26:20); "and the apostles with him" (Lk
22:14). Jesus personally made very careful arrangements for the
Last Supper which took place against the backdrop of the Passover
meal (cf. Mk 14:12-16). Commenting on the significance of this
decision by Jesus to invite only his Apostles to the Last Supper,
Fr Manfred Hauke said:
The Eucharist was made present in a Passover meal, or at least has
a clear connection with such. Now, women and children were also
admitted to the Paschal feast, and they dined at the table along
with everyone else. But even though the most esteemed women among
Jesus' company, and the most intimate group of his followers, were
in Jerusalem at the relevant time (Mk 15:40f. par; Jn 19:25-27),
no one except the Twelve participated in the Last Supper. This
fact is even more remarkable given that, with reference to all the
other dining scenes during Jesus' lifetime that are described in
the Gospels, we hear nothing about any similar drawing of
boundaries. [20]
Why, then, we might ask, did Jesus only invite the Twelve Apostles
to the Last Supper? The answer I believe is clear - Jesus only
invited the Twelve to the Last Supper because it was only on them
he wanted to confer the sacramental charge: "Do this in memory of
me". Several New Testament texts make it clear that Jesus did not
act casually in his choice of the Twelve. According to St Luke,
the Twelve were chosen after Jesus had spent a whole night in
prayer: "In these days he (Jesus) went out into the hills to pray;
and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when it was day,
he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named
apostles..." (Lk 6:12-13). According to St Mark, Jesus "called to
him those whom he desired" (Mk 3:13). Thus in St John we read:
"You did not choose me, no, I chose you, and I commissioned you"
(Jn 15: 16). The Seventy-two disciples who were sent on a mission
similar to that of the Apostles (cf. Lk 10: 1-12) were all men.
[21] After the Resurrection it is only on the Apostles that Jesus
bestows the power to forgive sins and it is to them also that he
entrusts the mission to evangelise the whole world - an act in
which Jesus reaffirms the Apostles and their successors as rulers
over his Church (cf. Jn 20:21-23; Mt 28:16-20). St Paul teaches
that it is in accordance with "a command of the Lord" that women
are not called to be "teachers" in the Church (cf. 1 Cor 14: 34-
38; 1 Tim 2:12). In his book Women In The Priesthood?, which
according to Hans Urs von Balthasar is "undoubtedly the definitive
work available on this important topic", Fr Manfred Hauke argues
that the ban on women "teaching" in the Church refers in fact to a
prohibition against their fulfilling the role of the priest. Hauke
devotes over sixty pages to an exegesis (interpretation) of the
relevant passages from St Paul in which he draws attention to the
four reasons given by the Apostle for the prohibition. The first
three are the practice of the Church, the general moral code, and
the argument from Scripture. The fourth and clinching reason
however is that it is "a command of the Lord" (1 Cor 14: 38). [22]
Everything in the Church is not restructurable according to modern
psychological and sociological categories. The Church's
hierarchical structure, together with its sacramental system, was
laid by God's "Only-begotten Son" as an act of Divine Love and
Wisdom. Those who claim that Jesus' choice of twelve male apostles
was historically and culturally conditioned fail to give due
weight to the fact that in the Incarnation the pre-existent Son of
God did not cease to exist. Those who seek to imprison Our Lord
within the cultural limitations of his time are only giving voice
to a form of "Christological humanism" which reduces Christ "to
the condition of a mere man". [23] One might object that the
details given above regarding Jesus' choice of the Twelve are only
mere deeds which without accompanying words have no binding or
normative significance. This objection fails to take account of
the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that divine revelation
consists not only of explicit words but also of deeds [24] which
"become words in the living memory of the Church". [25]
Consequently, Jesus' example of conferring on men only the
sacramental charge - "Do this in memory of me" - is of critical
importance as it constitutes an aspect of Divine Revelation.
Speaking of this non-verbal aspect of Divine Revelation, Fr Avery
Dulles S.J. said: "The Constitution on Divine Revelation...insists
on the nonverbal elements in tradition: Christ communicates the
gospel not by his words alone but also by his dealings with others
and his behaviour (DV 7). The apostles transmit the gospel not
only by preaching but also by examples and ordinances
(institutiones, ibid.)". [26]
In forming the group of the Twelve, Jesus thereby "established the
Church as a visible society organised to serve the Gospel and the
coming of God's Kingdom". [27] The number 12 referred to the 12
tribes of Israel, and Jesus' use of it "reveals his intention to
create a new Israel, the new People of God established as a
Church". [28] According to Pope John Paul II, Jesus' intention to
create appears in the very word used by St Mark to describe the
foundation of the Twelve: "He appointed Twelve...he appointed the
Twelve" (Mk 3:13-19). The word "Appointed" or "made" says the Holy
Father, "recalls the verb used in the Genesis account about the
creation of the world and in Deutero-Isaiah (43:1; 44:2) about the
creation of the people of God, the ancient Israel". [29] Jesus'
creative will in this instance is also expressed in the new names
given to Simon (Peter) and to James and John (Sons of Thunder).
Indeed, St Luke tells that Jesus specifically "chose Twelve, whom
he also named Apostles" (Lk 6:13). [30] Speaking of this
"creative" action whereby Jesus links the choice of the Twelve to
the establishment of the Church and to the creation of the
ministerial priesthood which is a constituent element of it, Jean
Galot says:
Jesus establishes the group of the Twelve in order to establish
the Church. This is his way of declaring that the role he assigns
to the Twelve in the establishment of the Church is an essential
one. Mark takes pains to emphasise that there is something of a
creation in the initiative of Jesus...The event that happens here
is not then, only the choice of twelve men one by one; it is the
constitution of the group, a group that bespeaks a new creation.
The verb 'to make' suggests by association the verb that appears
in the Genesis account of the first creation, and again in Isaiah
(43:1; 44:2) with reference to the establishment of God's people.
This association is even more significant in view of the fact that
the verb occurs twice in Mark and that the idiom is unusual. We
discern in the use of it the evangelist's intention to acknowledge
that, in the establishment of the new people, Jesus exercises a
creativity similar to God's own. Note more specifically that the
semitic usage of the verb "to make" with persons as objects occurs
three times in the Old Testament. In I Kings 13:33 and 2
Chronicles 13: 9 we have the phrase "to make priests", and in I
Samuel 12:6 the statement: "(the Lord) made Moses and Aaron". The
expression "to make a priest" or "to make priests" reappears in
the New Testament (Heb 3:2; Rev 5:10). The verb used by Mark is
particularly apt to point to the creation of the new priesthood,
even if the word 'priest' does not appear in the account. The will
to create is expressed in a special way in the case of Simon,
James and John...the names assigned to them suggest that they
acquire a new personality (Mk 3:16-17). And a new personality for
the Twelve is indicated in Luke's account: "...he named them
'apostles'" (6:13). It is generally known that the Hebrew mind
sees a great significance in names: to give a man a new name is to
bestow a new reality upon him, to fashion or refashion his
personality anew. [31]
Advocates for the ordination of women sometimes point out, that in
choosing his Apostles, Jesus not only called no women but also no
Gentiles. Consequently, these advocates argue, since the Church
has not subsequently restricted the Sacrament of Holy Orders to
Jewish Christians, then it should feel free to confer the
sacrament on women as well as on men. This argument ignores the
fact that the extension of the apostolic office to the Gentiles is
implicit in Jesus' final instructions to the Apostles to "make
disciples of all nations" (Mt 28: 19; cf. Lk 24: 47; Acts 1:8).
Indeed, in the early Church we see that there was never any
controversy about the legality of admitting Gentile Christians to
apostolic office but only about the question of observance of
certain Jewish customs by new members (cf. Gal 2:3, 7-9; Acts 15).
[32]
THE APOSTOLIC COMMUNITY REMAINED FAITHFUL TO THE INTENTION OF THE
LORD
From what has been said above regarding Jesus' choice of Twelve
and his having conferred on them a sacramental participation in
his own unique priesthood, it is clear that the Catholic Church's
doctrine on a male-only ministerial priesthood pertains to the
divine constitution of the Church itself. In his Apostolic Letter
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II teaches that the Gospel
witness is that Jesus acted deliberately in calling only men to
the ordained ministry and that the Apostles "did the same when
they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their
ministry". [33] In Inter insigniores, we read that after the
Resurrection: "The apostolic community remained faithful to the
attitude of Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a
privileged place in the little circle of those gathered in the
Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not
she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time
of the election that resulted in Matthias: those who were put
forward were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention".
[34] Then, in pointing out that the New Testament witness is that
not even women of the highest calibre were considered for the
ministerial priesthood, Inter insigniores added:
On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and
women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1:14)), yet the proclamation of the
fulfilment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by 'Peter and
the Eleven' (Acts 2:14). When they and Paul went beyond the
confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the
Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilisation impelled them to
break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could
therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they
had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity to the Lord on
this point. In the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of
pagan divinities was entrusted to priestesses. In fact the Greeks
did not share the ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers
taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless emphasise
the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women
during the Imperial period. In fact we know from the book of the
Acts and from the Letters of St Paul that certain women worked
with the Apostle for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). St
Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of
the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence
on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla,
who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf.
Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae
(cf. Rom 16:1). All these facts manifest within the Apostolic
Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism.
Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring
ordination on these women. [35]
The point made above in Inter Insigniores that in several
religions in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century it was
acceptable for women to be priests was also made Fr Louis Bouyer.
In reference to those who argue that the Apostles could not have
ordained women when they took the Gospel outside of Palestine
because women priests would have been unacceptable in the
prevailing culture, Fr Bouyer said: "One thinks one is dreaming
when one hears people who consider themselves enlightened and
unprejudiced, calmly come up with such a gross blunder. In fact,
the ancient world...in particular the Mediterranean world, had
always known, from the most ancient civilisations of the fertile
crescent of Greece and Rome at the time of the origins of
Christianity, female priests alongside male priests, and not at
all in a condition of inferiority in relation to the latter. And
if there was a particular tendency in this connection, at the time
of Christ and the apostles, it was rather towards the crediting
than the discrediting of female priests". [36] Having said this,
Fr Bouyer went on to add: "It is necessary, therefore, to
recognise without beating about the bush what is an obvious fact:
when we study, in their historical and cultural context, the
developments of the Hebrew, then Jewish, and finally Christian
religion, it is plain that it was not out of unthinking adherence
to the practices or prejudices of their contemporaries that the
Christians, following the Jews...were constant in their refusal to
accept women priests. It was on the contrary, in constant
opposition to what, in practice, the whole of antiquity considered
normal". [37]
Taking up the point made in Inter insigniores regarding the
practice in the apostolic community of restricting the ministerial
priesthood to men, Fr Albert Vanhoye, S.J. says:
When Judas had to be replaced after the Ascension, Luke states
that Peter expressly limited the choice to "men" (andres in Greek:
Acts 1:21) who had accompanied Jesus during his public life,
although some women at the time had stronger claims since they had
been more faithful to Jesus than his male disciples, even on
Calvary and at the tomb (Mt 27;55; 61; par.)...In spite of this,
the possibility of choosing one of them was not considered. The
names of two men who were never mentioned in the Gospel accounts
were proposed ( Acts 1:23). Later when the increased number of
disciples caused problems in the community and required a more
diversified organisation of the ministry, the Twelve likewise
invited "the community of the disciples" to select for the new
task "seven men (andres)" (Acts 6:3), even though the problems
concerned female groups, those of the widows (Acts 6:1). In this
account the laying on of hands is mentioned (Acts 6:6) as the
ordination gesture for a ministry. It meant - and still means -
the bestowal of a spiritual power conferred by God. In the New
Testament women never receive this laying on of hands. The cases
mentioned concern only men: Barnabas and Saul in Acts 13:3, when
at the Holy Spirit's command they were sent on an apostolic
mission, and Timothy, in 1 Tm 4:14 and 2 Tm 1:6, texts which speak
of a "gift of grace (charisma)" conferred by this rite. Similarly
the texts that give directions for choosing presbyters (Ti 1:5-6)
and the episkopos (1 Tm 3:2), state clearly that it is a question
of men (andres). [38]
THE EQUALITY OF 'MALE AND FEMALE' DOES NOT MEAN THE SUPPRESSION OF
DIFFERENCES
In contrast to the clear New Testament evidence regarding the non-
admissibility of women to the ranks of the ordained priesthood,
those advocating a change in the Church's Tradition "cannot cite
any explicit New Testament text" to support their position says Fr
Vanhoye. [39] He adds that they can only refer to "some details of
uncertain and disputed interpretation (for example, the titles
diakonas and prostatis given by St Paul to a Christian woman in
Rom 16:1-2). Others try to show that Jesus founded a community of
'equals' in which absolutely no attention was paid to the
difference between women and men. The assertion is then made that
the Church soon began to depart from this ideal and the New
Testament, although preserving some traces of the original
orientation, now reflects the return to a 'patriarchal' system
that oppresses women". [40] As support for their cause, supporters
of women's ordination often cite the Letter of St Paul to the
Galatians where it says: "All baptised in Christ, you have all
clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions
between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of
you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).
Equality does not mean identity and different roles do not make
one person superior to another. There are many ways in which the
text of Galatians 3:28 can be interpreted so as to harmonise with
the deposit of faith to which belongs the Church's doctrine on a
male-only ministerial priesthood. Referring to Galatians 3:28,
Inter insigniores says: "This passage does not concern ministries:
it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which
is the same for all". [41] Pope John Paul II in one instance
interprets the passage as referring to Jesus' intention to unify
humanity. He says that Jesus wished: "To reconcile all men through
his sacrifice 'in one body' and make everyone 'one new man' (Eph
2: 15, 16), so that now 'there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you
are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)...If Jesus Christ reunited
man and woman in their equal status as children of God, he engages
both of them in his mission, not indeed by suppressing their
differences, but by eliminating all unjust inequality and by
reconciling all in the unity of the Church". [42] The passage can
also be taken to refer to how believers who respond to God's word
become members of Christ's Body. The "body's unity does not do
away with the diversity of its members" but rather "the unity of
the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions". [43] In
commenting on Galatians 3:27-28, Fr Manfred Hauke says:
The new unity in Christ is effected by the Holy Spirit, who sends
his gifts to all the baptised. However, this Holy Spirit does not
level out all differences in favour of a common equality. Exactly
the reverse is the case...The different gifts of grace are not
distributed according to the principle of equality, but rather:
"All these are inspired by the one and the same Spirit, who
apportions to each one individually as he wills" (1 Cor 12:11).
"But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and
one of another" (1 Cor 7:7). Thus, the Spirit of God does not do
away with differences but makes possible their fruitful
development. Galatians 3:28 does not therefore, speak simply of
"being equal" but rather of "being one"...on the basis of a common
Christian piety within the Holy Spirit. [44]
Speaking of how the Letter to the Galatians and the First Letter
to the Corinthians complement each other, Fr Vanhoye says:
The Letter to the Galatians discusses the foundation of Christian
existence. On this basic level only one thing counts: faithful
adherence to Christ. The "works of the law" do not matter, nor do
individual differences, whether religious, social or sexual in
origin. United to Christ through faith, all are "one". On the
other hand, the First Letter to the Corinthians considers another
level, that of the various functions carried out in the Church,
the Body of Christ. At this secondary level, St Paul affirms the
necessity of the differences. Not everyone can be an apostle, not
everyone prophets or teachers (cf. 1 Cor 12:29-30). These
differences, established by God himself (12:28), are to be
accepted by each person for the good of the whole Body. They are
the conditions for a life of effective charity. Egalitarian
claims, however, cannot be reconciled with authentic charity
because they are in accord neither with the divine disposition
contained in creation (cf. 1 Cor 12:18) nor with the example of
Christ in redemption (cf. Phil 2:6). Of course, every Christian
man and woman are equal in their fundamental dignity. "For through
faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26).
However, it does not follow that all have a claim to the same
functions within the Church. [45]
SACRAMENTAL TRUTH AND WOMEN PRIESTS?
While the main argumentation the Church uses to justify a male-
only ministerial priesthood is based on the normative practice of
Christ, then of the Apostles, and then of the Tradition of the
Church, there are however other lines of argument that can be used
to show how the practice of the Church harmonises with the rest of
the deposit of faith. In particular, the relationship between
sacramental truth and revealed anthropology has a very important
bearing on the reason why the Church knows herself to have no
authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. To
see how this is so, we will first look at what is meant by a
sacrament.
A sacramental celebration "is woven from signs and symbols". [46]
The Council of Trent taught that sacraments are outward signs
instituted by Christ through which He acts to confer grace. [47]
The words, actions and elements used in the sacraments constitute
what is called the 'sign' of the Sacrament. As a social being, man
"needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through
language, gestures, and actions". The same holds true for his
relationship with God. As a being at once body and spirit, man
"expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical
signs and symbols". [48] The visible sign of each sacrament
"symbolises the gift of grace conferred by Christ in that
sacrament". [49] Hence, sacramental signs are said to symbolise
what they effect and to effect what they symbolise. The "Sign" of
the Sacrament of Baptism for example is the pouring of water and
the pronouncement of the sacramental formula which invokes the
Holy Trinity. [50] Through the symbolic action of washing with
water and the use of the sacramental formula, Jesus Himself acts
in such a way that the baptised person is cleansed of all his sins
(original and personal), is incorporated into Christ so as to
become a member of His Mystical Body, and he receives all the
graces of the supernatural life. In the Sacrament of the
Eucharist, the elements of the bread and wine represent a means of
life-sustaining sustenance. However, the ultimate source of man's
life is God Himself: "If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you..." (Jn
6:53-58). Consequently, the symbols of bread and wine used in the
Eucharist are representative of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
This means that through the words and actions of the ordained
priest at the consecration of the Mass, Jesus becomes present
under the appearances of bread and wine in a "true, real, and
substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his
divinity". [51]
The Second Vatican Council taught that in the Mass, while Christ
is especially present in the Eucharistic species, he is also
present in the person of the priest. [52] To stress this point of
Catholic doctrine, Archbishop Desmond Connell says: "The Eucharist
is not just a celebration by the Christian community of a meal
made sacred by the sacramental representation of Christ's unique
act of sacrifice on Calvary. The sacramental representation is
effected in the elements of the meal, the bread and the wine as
representative of his body and blood; and it is effected by the
one who has been made sacramentally one with him so as to be able
to say in all sacramental truth; 'this is my body, this is my
blood'." [53] In discussing the identity of the ordained priest in
Chapter 1, we noted that through the sacrament of Holy Orders the
ordained priest participates "ontologically in the priesthood of
Christ" so as to make him "visible in the community of believers".
[54] The priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in personna
Christi, which according to Pope John Paul II, means more than
offering "in the name of" or "in the place of" Christ. [55] In
persona Christi means, says the Holy Father, "in specific
sacramental identification with 'the eternal High Priest' who is
the Author and principal Subject of this Sacrifice of his, a
Sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can take his place". [56]
Consequently, in the Mass, it is Christ, represented by the
celebrant, "who makes his entrance into the sanctuary and
proclaims the gospel" and it is Christ also who is "the offerer
and the offered, the consecrator and the consecrated". [57] The
efficacy of a sacrament depends on the integrity of the symbol.
For example, we could not use rice and lemonade in the Eucharist
instead of bread and wine since it was the latter that Christ
singled out as the symbols of his Body and Blood. In selecting the
Apostles to sacramentally represent him in the Eucharistic
sacrifice, Christ thereby guaranteed that those who were destined
to represent him as the mediator of salvation would be able to do
so fully in terms of his masculine identity. [58] Barbara Albrecht
touched on this point when in commenting on St Paul's teaching
that the Incarnate Son of God has become like us in all things but
sin (cf. Heb 4:15) she said:
"In all things" - that includes that the Son of God has also
submitted as man to the order of creation, hence also to the order
of sex. The Son of God was purely and simply a man, and that
surely not by accident. There are no accidents in the Incarnation
of God. The Incarnation of the Word "has been effected in the male
sex. This, of course, is an issue of fact; this fact, however, is
indissolubly linked with the economy of salvation, without in the
least denoting a presumed natural superiority of man over woman"
(Inter insigniores, n. 5). Since the priest represents the Lord
not in his Godhead, but as the One who is incarnate, crucified,
resurrected, and ascended to the Father in Heaven, the logical
conclusion is that the priest, too, must be a man. [59]
In the Mass the ordained priest "takes the part of Christ, lending
him his voice and gestures". [60] As such, he is a sacramental
sign acting in the person of Christ "to the point of being his
very image" when he pronounces the words of consecration. [61]
This means that in the Mass the ordained priest serves as a
sacramental sign of Christ who now offers in an unbloody manner
the same sacrifice as he once offered on Calvary. [62] According
to St Thomas Aquinas, sacramental signs "represent what they
signify by natural resemblance" - something which "is required for
persons as for things". Consequently, in the Mass there is a need
for a "natural resemblance" between Christ and the person who is
his sign. [63] In relation to this very point, St Thomas Aquinas
recalled: "Since a sacrament is a sign, what is done in the
sacrament requires not only the reality but also the sign of the
reality". [64] If Christ's role in the Eucharist were taken by a
woman, there would not be a "natural resemblance" between Christ
and his sacramental sign since "Christ himself was and remains a
man". [65]
REVEALED ANTHROPOLOGY
The will of God is revealed in the nature of things. Being a unity
of body and soul, and endowed with reason and freedom, man is
thereby capable of understanding the order of things established
by the Creator. By the exercise of free will, man is capable of
directing himself toward his true good and perfection which is
found "in seeking and loving what is true and good". [66] The
"order of things" which is inscribed in creation and which plots
out the course which man's actions must follow if he is to fulfil
his vocation is known as the Divine Law. Speaking of this Divine
Law, Vatican II said: "The highest norm of human life is the
divine law - eternal, objective and universal - whereby God
orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways
of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man
was made by God to participate in this law, with the result that,
under the gentle disposition of Divine Providence, he can come to
perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth". [67]
Consequently, human nature is not a product of random evolutionary
forces but rather bears the imprint of the creative Love and
Wisdom of God.
Man and woman have been created, which is to say, "willed by God:
on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the
other, in their respective beings as man and woman...In their
'being-man' and 'being-woman', they reflect the Creator's wisdom
and goodness". [68] Man and woman are "made for each other - not
that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be
a communion of persons, in which each can be a 'helpmate' to the
other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones...") and
complementary as masculine and feminine". [69] In creating man as
"male and female", God created them in his own image and likeness
(cf. Gen 1:26-27). However, in no way "is God in man's image. He
is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no
place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective
'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite
perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and
husband". [70]
While teaching that "the equality of the baptised" is one "of the
great affirmations of Christianity," Pope John Paul II points out
however that this equality "exists in a differentiated body, in
which men and women have roles which are not merely functional but
are deeply rooted in Christian anthropology and sacramentology".
He adds that this distinction of roles "in no way favours the
superiority of some over others; the only better gift, which can
and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12-13). In the kingdom of
heaven the greatest are not the ministers but the saints". [71]
During his January 1995 visit to Australia for the beatification
of Mary McKillop, Pope John Paul II met with the Sisters of St
Joseph at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney. In his address to the
Sisters, the Pope again drew attention to the relationship between
Christian anthropology and the role and mission of women in the
Church and in the world. He said:
Among the pressing issues facing the People of God in Australia
there is the need for an understanding of the dignity and mission
of women, in the family, in society and in the Church, which is
faithful to "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:14). An authentic
theology of woman, based upon an anthropology revealed in the
mystery of Creation and Redemption, brings to light women's
feminine "originality" and particular "genius"...Women who seek a
true Christian concept of femininity can look to the free and
active role assumed by Mary of Nazareth, the Virgin Mother of the
Lord. In her all women can discover "the secret of living their
femininity with dignity and of achieving their own true
advancement"...It must be clear that the Church stands firmly
against every form of discrimination which in any way compromises
the equal dignity of women and men. The complete equality of
persons is however accompanied by a marvellous complementarity.
This complementarity concerns not only the roles of men and women
but also, and more deeply, their make-up and meaning as
persons...For that reason I am convinced that a mistaken
anthropology is at the root of the failure of society to
understand Church teaching on the true role of women. That role is
in no way diminished but is in fact enhanced by being related in a
special way to motherhood - the source of new life - both physical
and spiritual. [72]
In Sacred Scripture, marital symbolism is often used to express
God's relationship to his people. By examing the Divine plan for
marriage, we obtain a proper insight into God's purpose in
creating man as "male and female" and hence into the meaning of
the Redemption. In revealing the whole of the liberating truth
about the human person, Jesus also revealed the truth concerning
the place of marriage in the Divine plan. His teaching emerges
during the course of a discussion with the Pharisees who asked him
a question about the indissolubility of marriage. They said to
him: "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?". The Lord
answered: "Have you not read that he who made them from the
beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two,
therefore, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together,
man must not divide". The Pharisees came back at him and said:
"Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be
given in cases of divorce?". To this the Lord replied: "For your
hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but
from the beginning it was not so" (Mt 19:3-9).
When Christ proclaims the indissolubility of marriage, he does so
with reference to how it was "in the beginning". By locating the
integral truth of the creation of man as "male and female" in the
first few chapters of Genesis, Jesus gives a normative value to
what is revealed there. His moral commandments are a continuation
of the order of creation, the order from the beginning, even
though at first his disciples considered it an unreasonable
demand. [73] As noted earlier, Genesis affirms that man and woman
were created for each other: "It is not good that the man should
be alone" (Gen 2:18). The woman, "flesh of his flesh," i.e. his
counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is
complementary to him and given to him by God as a "helpmate" (cf.
Gen 2:18-25). They give themselves to each other in an unbreakable
union so that they are no longer two but rather "one flesh"(Gen
2;24; cf. Mt 19:6). God, who is Love, in creating man in his own
image, created him to love. The love between the husband and wife
is intended to be a reflection of the creative and redemptive love
God has for man. God blesses the couple and he inscribes within
the complementarity and dynamism of their sexual union the gift of
their combined fertility whereby they are able to cooperate with
God in the creation of new human beings (cf. Gen 1:28, 31).
Commenting on Pope John Paul II's teaching on the profound
complementarity God has inscribed in the nature of man as "male
and female", Jutta Burggraf says:
Going back to the beginning of things, John Paul II points out the
permanent validity of the two well-known texts of Genesis
concerning the creation of humanity - man and woman - in his own
image and likeness. This means that both sexes have the same
essential foundation: to both - and to the human race - the
Creator entrusts the dominion over the earth; both are ultimately
directed toward God. As beings endowed with reason and freedom,
they are persons whom God loves for their own sake; and herein
lies their dignity. The second text (Gen 2: 18-23) says that the
woman was created by God from the rib of Adam, as a helper for
man. Adam recognises the woman as flesh of his flesh, i.e., he
understands that Eve is essentially identical to him. The unity of
the two helps Adam overcome his original solitude. Man and woman,
created as a unity of the two in their common humanity, are called
- according to John Paul II's explanation - to live a community of
love, and in this way to mirror in the world the love that is God,
through which the Three Persons love each other in the intimate
mystery of their own divine life. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
one God through the unity of divinity, exist as persons through
the inscrutable divine relationships...Since human beings are
created as men and women, they are called from the beginning not
only to exist side by side or together, but they are also called
to exist mutually one for the other. That is why Eve is called in
Genesis Adam's helper. The Pope makes it clear that it is a mutual
help, since nature itself made them complementary. On the other
hand the concept of help, indicates that both man and woman can
only achieve their full development through the sincere gift of
self. [74]
While salvation history is the story of God's love for the people
he has created, it is also an account of their infidelity.
Consequently, we find in Genesis that alongside the account of the
profound dignity in which God created man in the beginning, there
is also an account of Original Sin through which our first parents
abused their freedom. Through their refusal to obey the
prohibition laid upon them by God, they lifted themselves up
against him - "you will be like gods" (Gen 3:5) - and one of the
consequences of their sin was that they disturbed the primeval
unity of the relation between the sexes. However, God's mercy is
stronger than man's sin. The Old Testament reveals how God set
about preparing the human race to receive its Redeemer. Here,
God's Covenant with Israel is expressed through the wedding
symbolism: that is, it is presented as a marriage relationship
between God and humanity. In Isaiah we read: "As a young man
marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you. And as a
Bridegroom rejoices in his bride, so shall your God rejoice in
you" (Isa. 62:5). Both Jews and Catholics have seen in the Song of
Songs two valid interpretations: one a praise of ideal human
marriage, the other being the wedding between God and His people.
In the Old Covenant, Yahweh appears as the Bridegroom of Israel,
the chosen people. As Bridegroom, he is both affectionate and
demanding, as well as jealous and faithful. [75] Even in their
moments of betrayal, desertion and idolatry, the Prophets were
sent to the chosen people to call them to conversion and to remind
them of Yahweh's faithful love. With dramatic images, the prophet
Hosea develops the theme of the spousal Covenant between God and
his people where the prophet's personal experience serves as an
eloquent symbol of Yahweh's relationship to his unfaithful people.
Hosea's marriage, and the subsequent infidelities of his wife,
gives symbolic expression to the infidelity of the Chosen People
to Yahweh. In the overflow of Divine Mercy however, Yahweh will
not forsake his sinful people: "Therefore, behold, I will allure
her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her"
(Hos 2:7). Through the prophet Jeremiah, God again speaks to his
people as a husband to his spouse: "With age-old love I have loved
you: so I have kept my mercy towards you. Again I will restore you
and you shall be rebuilt, O virgin of Israel"(Jer 31:3-4).
Commenting on this passage, Pope John Paul II says:
Historically this text is to be seen in relationship with Israel's
defeat and deportation to Assyria; that humiliated the chosen
people who were reduced to thinking that they had been abandoned
by their God. But God reassures them by not hesitating to speak to
them as a father or as a spouse to a beloved maiden. The marital
analogy becomes clearer and explicit in the words of Second
Isaiah, directed to Jerusalem during the time of the Babylonian
exile as to a spouse even though she did not keep fidelity to the
God of the Covenant: "He who has become your husband is your
maker...like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, the Lord calls
you back, a wife married in youth and then cast off, says your
God. For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great tenderness
I will take you back. In an outburst of wrath, for a moment I hid
my face from you; but with enduring love I take pity on you, says
the Lord, your redeemer" (Is 54:5-8). In the texts cited, it is
stressed that the marital love of the God of the Covenant is
"eternal". Even though God, faced with the spouse's sin, the
infidelity of the chosen people, permits sad experiences to befall
them, he still reassures them through the prophets that his love
does not cease. He overcomes the evil of sin, in order to give
himself once again. With still more explicit wording, the Prophet
Hosea declares: "I will espouse you to me forever, I will espouse
you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse
you in fidelity, and you shall know the Lord" (Hosea 2:21-22).
[76]
CHRIST: BRIDEGROOM OF THE CHURCH
The Old Testament texts cited above which tell of God's marital
love for man receive their definitive fulfilment in the
Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery of Christ. The entire
Christian life "bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and
the Church". [77] Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II says:
The marital love of God towards Israel but also towards every
person, is carried out in the Incarnation in a way which goes
beyond the measure of people's expectations. We discover this in
the annunciation passage where the New Covenant becomes known as
the Covenant of God's marriage with mankind, of divinity with
humanity. In the light of the marital covenant, Mary, the Virgin
of Nazareth, is the preeminent "virgin-Israel" of the prophet
Jeremiah. In her the marital love of God announced by the prophets
is perfectly and definitively focused. She is also the virgin-
spouse to whom it is granted to conceive and bear the Son of God:
the special fruit of God's marital love towards humanity which is
represented by and almost summarised in Mary.
The Holy Spirit, which comes down upon Mary during the
Annunciation, is the one who, in the Trinity's relationship,
expresses in his person the marital love of God, the 'eternal
love'. In that instant he is in a special way God-the-Spouse. In
the mystery of the Incarnation, in the human conception of God's
Son, the Holy Spirit maintains the divine transcendence. Luke's
text expresses that in a precise way. The nuptial quality of God's
love has a completely spiritual and supernatural character. What
John will say regarding the believers in Christ is valid all the
more for the Son of God, who was conceived in the womb of the
Virgin "not by natural generation, not by human choice, nor by
man's decision, but of God" (Jn 1:13). But it especially expresses
the supreme union in love, brought about between God and the human
being by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In this divine marriage with humanity Mary answers the angel's
announcement with the love of a spouse who is able to respond and
to adjust to the divine choice in a perfect way...In Mary's act
and gesture which contrast as a mirror image with Eve's behaviour,
she stands out in humanity's spiritual history as the new Spouse,
the new Eve, the mother of the living, as the Doctors and Fathers
of the Church will often say. She will be the type and model of
the New Covenant as a nuptial union of the Holy Spirit with
individuals and with the human community, far beyond the sphere of
ancient Israel: the totality of individuals and peoples will be
called to receive the gift and become its beneficiary in the new
community of believers who have received "the power to become sons
and daughters of God" (Jn 1:12) and in Baptism are born again "of
the Spirit" (Jn 3:6) by entering into and belonging to God's
family. [78]
God's fundamental and original intention with regard to man was
not withdrawn or cancelled out even when our first parents sinned
and broke the original covenant with their Creator. [79] Since the
relationship between man and woman in marriage and all that it
symbolises was established by God, then it is not subject to
manipulation or change by man. Consequently, in ushering in the
order of Redemption, Christ lifted up the relationship of man and
woman in marriage and assumed it into his redeeming life and into
the action of the Church. When St Paul speaks of marriage as a
"great mystery", he adds that this has many implications which
apply to the relationship between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph
5:32). The Church professes that Marriage, as the sacrament of the
covenant between husband and wife, is a "great mystery" because
"it expresses the spousal love of Christ for his Church". [80] The
Lord "referred to himself as the 'bridegroom' (Mk 2:19). In the
Book of Revelation we read: "Let us rejoice and be glad, and give
him glory! For this is the wedding day of the Lamb. His bride has
prepared herself for the wedding" (Rev. 19:7). Through his
Incarnation and Paschal victory, Christ who is God-the Bridegroom
has demonstrated that he "loves to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1). He is
with all of us, he is with the Church which has become a Bride,
the Bride of Christ. [81] The Church is the spotless bride of the
spotless Lamb (cf. Rev 22:17; Eph 1:4; 5:27). The Corinthian
Church is for St Paul a virgin bride wedded to one husband, Christ
(2 Cor 11:2; cf. Eph 5:25). St Paul further speaks of the whole
Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a
bride 'betrothed' to Christ the Lord so as to become but one
spirit with him (Cf. Mt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17). At the
same time, the unity of Christ and the Church, Head and members of
the one Body, implies "a distinction of the two within a personal
relationship". [82] The image of "Bride and Bridegroom" expresses
this aspect of Christ's relationship to the Church. Consequently,
when acting in persona Christi in relation to the Church, the
ordained priest does so not only as Head and Shepherd, but also as
Bridegroom.
MARITAL SYMBOLISM AND THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
The model for the relationship of the ordained priest to the
Church is the sacrificial and spousal relationship that Christ
Himself has to it. In speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said:
Christ's gift of himself to his Church, the fruit of his love, is
described in terms of that unique gift of self made by the
bridegroom to the bride, as the sacred texts often suggest. Jesus
is the true bridegroom who offers to the Church the wine of
salvation (cf. Jn. 2:11). He who is "the head of the Church, his
body, and is himself its saviour" (Eph. 5:23) "loved the Church
and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having
cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might
present the Church to himself in splendour, without spot or
wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without
blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church is indeed the body in which
Christ the Head is present and active, but she is also the bride
who proceeds like a new Eve from the open side of the redeemer on
the cross. Hence Christ stands "before" the Church and "nourishes
and cherishes her" (Eph. 5:29), giving his life for her. The
priest is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the
spouse of the Church. Of course, he will always remain a member of
the community as a believer alongside his other brothers and
sisters who have been called by the Spirit, but in virtue of his
configuration to Christ, the head and shepherd, the priest stands
in this spousal relationship with regard to the community.
"Inasmuch as he represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse
of the Church, the priest is placed not only in the Church but
also towards the Church" (Synod, Proposition 7). In his spiritual
life therefore, he is called to live out Christ's spousal love
toward the Church, his bride. [83]
The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption and it embodies
the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. In the
Eucharist, Christ continues to sacrifice Himself for His spouse.
Speaking of this dimension of the Eucharistic mystery, Pope John
Paul II said:
Christ is the Bridegroom because "he has given himself": his body
has been "given", his blood has been "poured out" (cf. Lk 22: 19-
20). In this way "he loved them to the end" (Jn 13:1). The
"sincere gift" contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives
definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God's love. As the
Redeemer of the world, Christ is the bridegroom of the Church. The
Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament
of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present
and realises anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of
Christ, who "creates" the Church, his body. Christ is united with
this "body" as a bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained
in the letter to the Ephesians. The perennial "unity of the two"
that exists between man and woman from the very "beginning" is
introduced into this "great mystery" of Christ and the Church.
Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an
explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is
legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the
relationship between man and woman, between what is "feminine" and
what is "masculine". It is a relationship willed by God both in
the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is
the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of
Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear
and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in
which the priest acts "in persona Christi", is performed by a
man". [84]
On another occasion Pope John Paul II again returned to this theme
of the relationship between marital symbolism and the requirement
of a male-only ministerial priesthood when he said:
If a reason is sought as to why Jesus reserved admission to the
ministerial priesthood to men, it can be discovered in the fact
that the priest represents Christ himself in his relationship to
the Church. Now this relationship is spousal in nature: Christ is
the Bridegroom (cf. Mt 9:15; Jn 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25), the
Church is the bride (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27, 31-32; Rev 19:7;
21:9). Because the relationship between Christ and the Church is
validly expressed in sacramental Orders, it is necessary that
Christ be represented by a man. The distinction between the sexes
is very significant in this case and cannot be disregarded without
undermining the sacrament. Indeed, the specific nature of the sign
used is essential to the sacraments. Baptism has to be performed
with water which washes; it cannot be done with oil, which
anoints, even though oil is more expensive than water.
Analogously, the sacrament of Orders is celebrated with men,
without questioning the value of persons. [85]
ADAM: A MAN OR A WOMAN?
Integral to the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is the symbolism
of the New Adam and the New Eve. Speaking of this, Archbishop
Desmond Connell says: "The symbolism of the New Adam and the New
Eve is profoundly involved in the Eucharistic Celebration. Now the
distinction between Adam and Eve is the sexual difference between
man and woman, the primordial distinction universally present
wherever human beings are found". [86] Coupled with this, the
whole sacramental economy is "based upon natural signs, on symbols
imprinted upon the human psychology". [87] The ordained priesthood
is sacramental not only because it is conferred by a sacrament and
because its ministry is sacramental, but also because "the priest
himself is 'sacramental', a sign of Christ". [88] Since a woman
does not have that "natural resemblance" to Christ who "was and
remains a man", [89] then a woman cannot serve as a sacramental
sign of Christ the New Adam and Bridegroom of the Church in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass. To argue to the contrary is
equivalent to holding that the signs used in the sacraments do not
effect what they symbolise and that they do not necessarily have
to comply with certain objective requirements. This becomes clear
when we look at the symbolism of the Eucharistic sacrifice of the
Mass in conjunction with the symbolism of the Sacrament of
Matrimony. The Sacrament of Matrimony is a "real symbol" of the
nuptial union of Christ the Bridegroom with the Church his Bride.
[90] To say that in the Mass a woman can be a sacramental sign of
Christ the "Bridegroom" of the Church, is equivalent to asserting
that a man can be a sacramental representation of Christ's Bride
the Church within the symbolism of the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Such a thing is not possible since it would contradict the meaning
of the Sacrament of Matrimony which is intended to be an
efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church.
[91] If on the other hand this assertion was true, then it would
be difficult to justify objections to homosexual marriages since
one could argue on the same basis that the union of "male and
female" are not necessarily required for a valid celebration of
the Sacrament of Matrimony.
All that we have said up to now about Jesus as Head, Shepherd,
Bridegroom and New Adam are consistent with the fact that in the
Incarnation the pre-existent Son of God took on a male human
nature. In other words, all of Christ's tasks are inseparably
bound up with his male human nature. To assert that the Church can
confer priestly ordination on women is equivalent to asserting
that the Church can dispense with the historical, objective and
normative aspects of Divine Revelation. Speaking of the doctrinal
content of Inter insigniores and of the "profound fittingness"
that only men are called to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders,
Fr Inos Biffi from the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Northern
Italy said:
As is known, it is intrinsic to "sacred doctrine" to try to find
the rationes for the content of the faith. According to Inter
insigniores, against the background of the relationship between
Christ, the Head and Bridegroom of the Church, his Body and bride,
one can "understand" how it is man who, through ordination, is
constituted to represent Christ, that is a man and not a woman who
is to act in his name - in persona Christi; to be his image; and
even more so, one can see the "plausibility" that the incarnation
of the Word took place according to the male sex, with a choice
that is "in harmony with the entirety of God's plan as God himself
has revealed it, and of which the mystery of the covenant (or the
nuptial mystery) is the nucleus" (Inter insigniores, n.5). In this
view a priesthood of women would obscure at the symbolic level its
immediate and perceivable Christological reference and
signification. [92]
'IN PERSONA CHRISTI' OR 'IN PERSONA ECCLESIAE' - A QUESTION OF
PRIORITY?
A common objection to the teaching that a woman cannot be an
authentic sacramental representation of Christ the Head and
Bridegroom of the Church is that since the ordained priest also
represents the community of the Church - which is composed of men
and women - then logically there cannot be any impediment to women
taking on the priestly role. Rev Dr Gerald Gleeson raised such an
objection when he said: "By ordination the priest is constituted
the representative of the Church's faith and apostolic mission,
and because he represents the members of the Church, he represents
Christ its Head. Given that the Church is made up of men and
women, it is difficult to see why an ordained woman could not
likewise represent Christ". [93] Fr David Coffey echoes Fr
Gleeson's viewpoint when he says that it is possible to see the
ordained priest's role of acting "in persona Christi as a function
of in persona Ecclesiae". [94]
Hans Urs von Balthasar points out that "the body of the Church is
guided by a 'head' who is above her and is 'supernatural' in
relation to her. The function of the Church's leadership...is
unceasingly to focus attention on this transcendence and even to
represent it". [95] He also points out that the Church is "first
of all a mysterium" whereby she is "Christ's Body and his Bride"
and it is only in the light of this mysterium that she becomes the
"socio-psychological reality" of the People of God. [96] Pope Pius
XII said that "...the priest acts for the people only because he
represents Jesus Christ, Who is Head of all His members and offers
Himself in their stead". [97] When stating that "the Priest is
placed not only in the Church, but also towards the Church", Pope
John Paul II was referring to the manner in which the priest
acting in persona Christi relates to the Church. [98] As "Christ
is the Head, the Bridegroom and the Shepherd so too must the
priest be". [99] Fr Manfred Hauke has said that "representation of
Christ" and "representation of the Church" cannot be "played off
against each other in regard to the priest". He adds that the
priest "represents the Church insofar as he first represents
Christ as the Head of the Church" who in the Eucharistic Sacrifice
of the Mass nourishes the divine life in the members of his body.
[100] This is described especially in the Letter to the Ephesians
where we are told that "Christ loved the Church and gave himself
up for her, that he might sanctify her, by the washing of water
and the word" (Eph 5:25-26). According to Hauke, the symbols of
"Head" and "Bridegroom" are "virtually merged into one another" in
the Letter to the Ephesians. [101] In the Eucharist, Christ
assures us that the Bridegroom is still with us (cf. Mt 9:15).
Indeed, the "most profound meaning of Baptism and the Eucharist",
is that they allow us to partake of "the fruits of the love with
which the Bridegroom has loved us to the end, a love which
continually expands and lavishes on people an ever greater sharing
in the supernatural life". [102]
While the ordained priest does represent the Church in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass, this representation is
subordinate to his representation of Christ as Head, Bridegroom
and Shepherd of the Church. In other words, in the Mass, there as
a question of "priority" associated with the ordained priest's
representation of Christ and his representation of the Church.
Speaking of this, the Declaration Inter insigniores said: "It is
true that the priest represents the Church, which is the Body of
Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely because he first
represents Christ himself, who is the Head and Shepherd of the
Church". [103] Elaborating further on this response of Inter
insigniores, Archbishop Desmond Connell said: "The Declaration
here affirms that although the Church as Corpus Christi (Body of
Christ) is one with Christ, he as caput et pastor Ecclesiae (Head
and Shepherd of the Church) nevertheless transcends the Church:
that within the unity between Christ and the Church there is a
distinction involving an order of priority and posteriority; and
that in celebrating the Eucharist the ordained priest must in the
first place, in primis, represent Christ in his very
priority...The reason why a woman cannot be ordained has
essentially to do with that priority; which enters into the
symbolism, the sacramental mode of signification of the
Eucharist". [104] Highlighting this order of priority in the
ordained priest's representation of Christ in the Mass, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "It is because the
ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the
Church". [105] Perhaps the reason why Fr Gleeson sees no problems
with an "ordained woman" acting in persona Christi in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice is that he has not given sufficient
consideration to this question of priority.
WOMEN PRIESTS? - AN ANCIENT HERESY
In view of all that has been said above about the ordained
priesthood and sacramental truth, I believe that Fr David Coffey
is very much mistaken when in relation to the ordained priest's
representation of Christ in the Mass he says: "The priest
represents Christ because he first represents the church; and a
woman can represent the church better than a man; but a man can
represent Christ better than a woman. In regard to their total
representative ability, there appears to be little to chose
between a man and a woman. Either can represent Christ and the
Church". [106] As we have already seen, man and woman reflect a
mysterious but profound complementarity - not only physical, but
also spiritual. This complementarity is 'Real' in that it exists
not as an abstract concept but as something embodied in human
nature by every man and woman. It is 'Symbolic' in that it points
beyond itself to God's creative and redemptive plan for the human
race. Sometimes referred to as "metaphysical symbolism", this
symbolism cannot be tampered with without doing great damage to
man's spiritual and moral well-being. C.S. Lewis displayed a keen
awareness of this when he said: "We have no authority to take the
living and sensitive figures that God has painted on the canvas of
our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical
figures". [107] It is not possible for the Catholic Church to
efface the nuptial symbolism which God has inscribed within the
Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass without thereby altering the
content of the sacramental realism that is contained there. Any
"Eucharistic" celebration that would allow a woman to act as a
sacramental representation of Christ the New Adam and Bridegroom
of the Church could never claim to be the Mass of the Catholic
Church.
Western societies are now experiencing a deep crisis of religious
and moral consciousness. The moral failings of the West stem from
a runaway pluralism which sees practically all beliefs and
lifestyles as possessing equal moral value. As signs of this
crisis one could list the following examples: drug abuse,
violence, the dearth of ideals and values, the lack of meaning and
respect for life, indifference to the elderly, corruption in
public life, the insecurity of youth and rising rate of teenage
suicide. However, the key indicator I believe to this breakdown in
moral and religious consciousness is the wholesale rupturing of
the natural linkages which bind marriage, love, sexuality and
procreation together. The widespread acceptance of divorce,
contraception, abortion and homosexuality: is in effect expressive
of a rejection of "marital symbolism" as this has been stamped on
our human nature in God's good creation of man as 'male and
female'.
The failure in moral and religious consciousness referred to above
has given rise amongst 'progressive' Catholics to a litany of
objections to certain aspects of the Church's teaching. In
particular, the Church's moral teaching on sexuality and marriage
is under attack, as is its doctrine on a male-only ministerial
priesthood and its prohibition against the reception of the
Eucharist by the divorced and remarried. It is striking, is it
not, that in general we will be able to predict what a Catholic
will hold on any of these matters once we know what he holds on
one of them. Why should this be so? Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed
out that the above litany of objections to the Church's doctrine
is rooted in a faulty vision of man. He says that this faulty
vision is based on an erroneous understanding of both conscience
and freedom, and that it is "closely associated with the inability
to discern a spiritual message in the material world". [108] The
scholarly Cardinal adds that men and women of today cannot
understand that "their bodiliness reaches the metaphysical depths
and is the basis of a symbolic metaphysics whose denial or neglect
does not ennoble man but destroys him". [109] In this setting, the
human body is not given its due honour, it is not seen as the
"temple of authentic human dignity because it is God's handiwork
in the world". [110] Instead, it is viewed as a possession to be
used and abused or even as something which at times the human
person needs to be liberated from. For those whose vision of man
is based on such a faulty anthropology which fails to recognise in
the "being" of the human person the handiwork of the Creator,
there is "no difference whether the body be of the masculine or
the feminine sex: the body no longer expresses being at all".
[111] Consequently, the difference "between homosexuality and
heterosexuality as well as that between sexual relations within or
outside marriage have become unimportant". [112] Likewise divested
of "every metaphysical symbolism is the distinction between man
and woman, which is to be regarded as the product of reinforced
role expectations". [113]
The assault upon the Church's moral and sacramental doctrine which
we have been discussing above, are in many respects expressive of
a resurgent Gnosticism which was a heresy that plagued the early
Church. Gnosticisn took many forms all of which were based on a
religious syncretism (fusing together) of various and often
opposing sources such as Eastern religions, Christianity, Greek
philosophy, the Jewish Cabala and Babylonian religion. Devotees of
Gnosticism were promised salvation through the possession of
secret knowledge and understanding. Most Gnostics believed in a
remote and Supreme Being and that there was a necessary antagonism
between the body and the soul - the soul was spiritual and
regarded as good, while the body (matter) was evil. Salvation
depended on the soul freeing itself from the body and returning
again to the spiritual world from which it had fallen.
Gnosticism's contempt for all things material is possibly of
Eastern origin. Five centuries before the Christian era, in Persia
and Iran, Zoroaster had spoken of an irreconcilable conflict
between Spirit and Matter. In India, the Buddha Guatama had
proclaimed his antagonism against the material universe and taught
that peace could result only with its annihilation. [114]
The most perilous aspect of Gnosticism was its adaptability. It
appropriated doctrines and rites from other religions and
refashioned them to fit its own particular cult. Gnosticism
attempted to express itself in Christian forms from the very
beginning of the Church. When Gnosticism attacked the early
Church, it denied Jesus' physical body, his real suffering on the
Cross and his Resurrection from the dead. It also forbade
marriage. Archbishop Francis Stafford says that Gnosticism, in all
its varied presentations, consists "in a reversion to paganism
under pseudo-Christian auspices". [115] In the Acts of the
Apostles for example, we see an attempt at such a rapprochement in
the case of Simon Magus who offered to pay the Apostles in order
to gain access to the power which was conferred through the laying
on of hands (cf. Acts 8:9-13). This case of Simon Magus
illustrates however that Gnosticism only made contact with
Christianity for the purpose of reshaping and assimilating
Christian doctrines to its own syncretistic system. The most
influential form of Gnosticism was Valentinianism which denied the
Resurrection and that Mary was the Mother of God. Coupled with
this, the Valentinians also denied free-will, they taught
justification by faith alone, and they invented an absurd
genealogy of Eons and gods.
The basic dualism that characterised Gnosticism, between faith and
experience, between spirit and matter, and between the soul and
the flesh led it to adopt divergent moral positions - sometimes to
a rigid asceticism and in other instances to a libertine approach
where everything was permitted. When pursuing an exaggerated
asceticism, it endeavoured "to mortify the flesh, to kill the
flesh, in order to set the soul free of its imprisoning
influence". [116] In its more libertine form, however, it
"manifested itself in an unbridled licentiousness, a conscious
effort to free oneself of the law of the flesh by flouting it".
[117] So long as "the soul feasted on the true knowledge or
gnosis, it could not be defiled by so worthless a thing as the
body or so inconsequential a thing as carnal sin. Like the more
ascetical-minded of their confreres, they too would repudiate
marriage lest they perpetuate the kingdom of darkness by
imprisoning souls in the flesh, but there were other means of
gratifying their lusts and there is sufficient evidence in the
history of every Gnostic group that they speedily found them".
[118] Since Gnosticism alienated the human person from his or her
bodiliness, then the body came to be viewed as an object or tool
to be used and manipulated in whatever way possible to provide
satisfaction for its owner - even if this involved perverse sexual
behaviour.
Unlike Christian knowledge which is based on faith and leads to
charity, the knowledge the Gnostics pursued was of a speculative
kind which tended to "puff up" with pride those who embraced it.
Speaking of this aspect of Gnosticism, Cardinal John Wright said:
"This element of pride is seen in the idea of one religion
designed for the intellectuals, and another for the ignorant
masses. For the Christian wisdom founded on faith was God's free
gift to the simple and to the wise alike, to the weak even more
than to the strong. For the Gnostic, wisdom was the fruit of man's
own reasoning and could be possessed only by the elite, by men of
intellect and refinement. Salvation by way of faith, informed by
charity, was the goal set for the Christian; salvation by way of
knowledge, gnosis, was the goal set for the Gnostic. The Gnostic's
'vocation was not to believe but to know'". [119]
As a religious and moral system, Gnosticism never really
disappeared. It had a significant influence on Manichaeism which
incorporated into its religious system a contempt for the flesh
which was based on an irreconcilable conflict between spirit and
matter. Even though the Manichaeans believed that matter was evil,
this did not prevent them indulging their self-centred
permissiveness in all things sexual. In doing so however, they
avoided human conception through whatever means possible. In his
1994 Letter To Families, Pope John Paul II branded as "neo-
Manichaean" the present day practice of regarding the human body
as material to be used and manipulated in the same way as the
bodies of animals are. [120] As examples of this the Holy Father
cited the trend towards the manipulation and exploitation of human
sexuality as well as destructive experimentation on human embryos
and fetuses. [121] Apart from Manichaeism, Gnosticism also
influenced many other heresies such as Albigensianism and
Catharism. The Cathars celebrated non-procreative sexual union -
regarding the conception of a child as the bringing of another
"son of the Devil" into the world. While people today may not use
such terms to express their contempt for childbearing, they have
however embraced the "contraceptive mentality" which views the
procreative meaning of marital intercourse as a subhuman activity
that needs to be overcome in whatever way possible.
Gnosticism rejected the "metaphysical symbolism" the Creator has
stamped upon the nature of man as 'male and female'. Consequently,
it tended to be marked by an androgynous anthropology whereby the
differences between the sexes was seen in some instances as a
limitation from which it was necessary to be liberated. Many
Gnostic cults worshipped an androgynous Deity who was addressed as
"Mother and Father God". In the "eucharistic" celebrations of
several Gnostic groups, the Holy Spirit was regarded as the
"mother of all", and praise of "God as mother" constituted the
theme of many of their chants and invocations. [122] In his
outstanding work entitled The Early Liturgy To The Time of Gregory
the Great, Josef Jungmann, S.J. devotes an entire chapter to the
way in which the early Church had to struggle to protect its
doctrine and liturgy from contamination by Gnostic concepts and
practices. [123] In reference to contemporary expressions of
Gnosticism, Cardinal John Wright has said: "All the Gnostics are
not yet dead. They publish articles regularly and have 'renewed'
their theology for our generation and our age in the life of the
Church". [124] Dr Germain Grisez has warned that Gnosticism has
risen like the phoenix from the ashes and taken up residence in
the Church. He has stated that "in many places...(Gnosticism) has
become institutionalised so that it constitutes the establishment,
while genuine Catholicism exists only as a dissident remnant".
[125]
It is an undeniable fact that the constant Tradition of the Church
has excluded women from the ministerial priesthood. This Tradition
has been common to both East and West. The Church has always
taught that she cannot confer priestly ordination on women as this
would be contrary to the intention of the Lord and to the practice
of the Apostles. According to Bishop Patrick Dunn and Fr Manfred
Hauke, the Church in the era of the Fathers saw the ban on women
priests as a "secure truth of the faith". [126] In their turn, the
Popes and great scholars of the Middle Ages also saw the ban on
women priests as belonging to Divine Law. In a letter of 11
December 1210 to the Bishops of Palencia and Burgos, Pope Innocent
III said: "Although the blessed Virgin Mary was of higher dignity
and excellence than all the Apostles, it was to them, not her,
that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven". [127]
Speaking of the ban on women priests, St Bonaventure said: "Our
position is this: it is due not so much to a decision by the
Church as to the fact that the sacrament of Order is not for them.
In this sacrament the person ordained is a sign of Christ the
mediator". [128] Blessed John Duns Scotus made a somewhat similar
point when he said: "It must not be considered to have been
determined by the Church. It comes from Christ. The Church would
not have presumed to deprive the female sex, for no fault of its
own, of an act that might licitly have pertained to it". [129]
It was only within some heretical sects of the early centuries,
principally Gnostic ones, that attempts were made to confer the
priesthood on women by allowing them to "preside" over
"eucharistic" celebrations. St Irenaeus identified the practice
with Valentinian Gnosticism. [130] Whenever the subject of
ordaining women was raised it was rejected not simply as a breach
of Church discipline, but rather as heresy. There are explicit
references to this in the writings of Tertullian (d. 220), St
Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), St Augustine (d. 430) and St John
Damascene (d. 749). Fr Louis Ligier, S.J., in speaking of the
practice amongst heretical sects of conferring the "priesthood" on
women said: "It is united with the corrupted eschatology and
pneumatology of Montanism. It is met with furthermore in the
corrupted Marian cult of the Coliridians, who admitted the
offering or prosfora in Mary's name. Such a heretical milieu was
in itself and still remains for us today, a sign of a considerable
alienation from the genuine Christian tradition". [131]
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 3 ENDNOTES
� 1 CCC. n. 1323.
� 2 Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, n. 8.
� 3 Ibid.
� 4 CCC. n. 1341.
� 5 Acts 2:42, 46; cf. CCC. n. 1342.
� 6 Fr Paul Stenhouse, Annals Australia, October 1995, pp. 20-21.
� 7 CCC. n. 1343.
� 8 CCC. n. 1200.
� 9 CCC. n. 1208.
� 10 CCC. n. 1203.
� 11 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei,n. 50.
� 12 Ibid.
� 13 Cf. CCC. n. 1205
� 14 Cf. CCC. n. 1662.
� 15 CCC. n. 1412.
� 16 CCC. n. 1411.
� 17 CCC. n. 1337. Cf. references to the Council of Trent in
chapter 2.
� 18 Cf. Pope Paul VI, Response to the Letter of His Grace the
Most Reverend Dr. F. D. Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury,
concerning the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood, 30 November
1975.
� 19 Jutta Burggraf. The Dignity And The Vocation of Woman, a
commentary on Pope John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem, published
as a Catholic Position Paper by Perspective Magazine, Australia.
� 20 Fr Manfred Hauke. Women In The Priesthood: A Systematic
Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption,
Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, p. 333.
� 21 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/8/94. See also
Fr Jean Galot, S.J. Theology of the Priesthood, op. cit. p. 255.
Some commentators attempt to lend legitimacy to the call for women
priests on the basis that there exists a precedent for it in that
women were leaders in communities founded by St. Paul. In
particular, they assert that on the basis of the list of greetings
in the Letter to the Romans, St. Paul's reference to "Junias" is
in fact a reference to a female apostle named 'Junia' (cf. Rom.
16: 7). This is the line taken for example by Hans Kung in his
dissent from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (cf. National Catholic
Reporter, 15/12/95). However, the name 'Junias' as it appears in
the Letter to the Romans is to be understood as referring to a
man. The RSV Bible specifically inserts the word "men" in this
passage. An indepth exegesis of the name 'Junias' and its various
Greek derivatives can be found in Fr Manfred Hauke's Women In The
Priesthood?, op. cit. p. 358-59. Fr. Hauke concludes that the so-
called female apostle 'Junia' falls into the category of a modern
myth.
� 22 Fr Manfred Hauke, Women In The Priesthood, op. cit. For the
section on St Paul's teaching see pages 340-403. The statement by
von Balthasar appears on the back cover of the book.
� 23 Cf. Statement by the Sacred Congregation For The Doctrine Of
The Faith, July 24, 1966.
� 24 Cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 2.
� 25 Cf. Presentation of Letter, L'Osservatore Romano, 22/6/94.
� 26 Fr Avery Dulles, S.J., The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to
System, Crossroad, New York, 1992, p. 95.
� 27 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92.
� 28 Ibid.
� 29 Ibid.
� 30 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92.
� 31 Jean Galot, Theology of the Priesthood, op. cit. pp. 72-73
� 32 Cf. Fr Manfred Hauke, Women In The Priesthood, op. cit. p.
334.
� 33 Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 2; Cf. 1 Tim
3:1; 2 Tim 1:6; Tit 1:5-9.
� 34 Sacred Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith, Inter
insigniores, n. 3.
� 35 Inter insigniores, op. cit. n. 3.
� 36 Father Louis Bouyer, L'Osservatore Romano, 20/1/77.
� 37 Ibid.
� 38 Fr Albert Vanhoye, S. J. op. cit.
� 39 Fr Albert Vanhoye, op. cit.
� 40 Ibid.
� 41 Inter insigniores, n. 6.
� 42 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 13/7/94.
� 43 CCC. n. 791.
� 44 Fr Manfred Hauke, op. cit. p. 346.
� 45 Fr Albert Vanhoye, S.J. op. cit.
� 46 CCC. n.1145.
� 47 Cf. Council of Trent, Session 7, March 3, 1547.
� 48 CCC. n. 1146.
� 49 The Teaching of Christ, A Catholic Catechism For Adults,
edited by Ronald Lawler, Donald W. Wuerl and Thomas Lawler, Sunday
Visitor Inc., Indiana, 1976, p.413.
� 50 CCC. n. 1278.
� 51 CCC. n. 1413.
� 52 Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 4.
� 53 Archbishop Desmond Connell, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/3/88.
� 54 Cf. Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93; CCC. n.
1549.
� 55 Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, n. 8.
� 56 Ibid.
� 57 Ibid.
� 58 Cf. Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood, op. cit. pp. 338-
339.
� 59 Barbara Albrecht, in The Church And Women: A Compendium, by
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Walter Kasper, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
et al., Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, p. 200.
� 60 Cf. Official Commentary on Inter Insigniores, published in
L'Osservatore Romano on 3/2/77.
� 61 Inter insigniores, n. 5. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent.,
dist. 25, q. 2, quaestiuncula 1a ad 4um.
� 62 Cf. CCC. n. 1367. See also: Vatican II, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 7; Council of Trent, Session 22: Doctrine on the
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 2.
� 63 Cf. Offical Commentary on Inter Insigniores, published in
L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 64 St Thomas Aquinas, cited in Official Commentary on Inter
Insigniores, published in L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 65 Cf. Inter insigniores, n. 5.
� 66 Cf. CCC. nn. 1704, 1705.
� 67 Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, n. 3.
� 68 CCC. n. 369.
� 69 CCC. n. 372.
� 70 CCC. n. 370.
� 71 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93; Cf. Inter
insigniores, n. 6.
� 72 Pope John Paul II, Catholic Weekly, 25/1/95, p. 22.
� 73 Cf. Dr Robert Spaeman, L'Osservatore Romano, 15/12/93.
� 74 Jutta Burggraf, op. cit.
� 75 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Letter To Families, n. 19.
� 76 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/5/90, p. 11.
� 77 CCC. n. 1617.
� 78 Ibid.
� 79 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, n. 9.
� 80 Pope John Paul II, Letter To Families, n. 19.
� 81 Ibid.
� 82 CCC. n. 796.
� 83 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 22.
� 84 Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 26.
� 85 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/8/94.
� 86 Archbishop Desmond Connell, op. cit.
� 87 Cf. Inter insigniores, n. 5.
� 88 Cf. Cardinal Pio Laghi, L'Osservatore Romano, 18/8/93. See
also Official Commentary on InterInsigniores, published in
L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 89 Inter insigniores, n. 5.
� 90 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n. 13.
� 91 Cf. CCC. n. 1617.
� 92 Fr Inos Biffi, L'Osservatore Romano, 17/3/93.
� 93 Rev Dr Gerald Gleeson. Catholic Weekly, 16/10/91.
� 94 Fr David Coffey, Priestly Representation and Women's
Ordination, in Priesthood: The Hard Questions, edited by Gerald
Gleeson, op. cit. p. 80.
� 95 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure
of the Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1986, p. 15.
� 96 Ibid. p. 24.
� 97 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 84.
� 98 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 16.
� 99 Cardinal Pio Laghi, op. cit.
� 100 Fr Manfred Hauke, Women In The Priesthood, op. cit. p. 336-
338.
� 101 Fr Manfred Hauke, Women In The Priesthood, op. cit. p. 338.
� 102 Pope John Paul II, Letter To Families, n. 19.
� 103 Inter insigniores, n. 5.
� 104 Archbishop Desmond Connell. op. cit.
� 105 CCC. n. 1553.
� 106 Fr David Coffey, Priesthood: The Hard Questions, op. cit. p.
97.
� 107 C.S. Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?", in Undeceptions:
Essays on Theology and Ethics, London, 1971, p. 195, cited by
Manfred Hauke in Women in the Priesthood, op. cit. p. 193.
� 108 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/7/89.
� 109 Ibid.
� 110 Ibid.
� 111 Ibid.
� 112 Ibid
� 113 Ibid.
� 114 Cf. The Cult of Mary in the Age of the Cult of the Flesh, by
Cardinal John Wright, L'Osservatore Romano, 20/5/76.
� 115 Cf. Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, The 'New Age' Movement:
Analysis Of A New Attempt To Find Salvation Apart From Christian
Faith, published in L'Osservatore Romano, 27/1/93. In this
excellent article, Archbishop Stafford examines the relationship
between contemporary attacks on Catholic doctrine and New Age
religious syncretism which he sees as a contemporary expression of
ancient Gnostic heresies.
� 116 Cardinal John Wright, op. cit.
� 117 Ibid.
� 118 Ibid.
� 119 Ibid.
� 120 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Letter To Families, n. 19.
� 121 Ibid.
� 122 Cf. Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood, op. cit. pp.
161-164.
� 123 Cf. Josef A. Jungmann, S.J. The Early Liturgy To the Time of
Gregory the Great, chapter 10 entitled The Defense Against
Gnosticism, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 1959.
� 124 Cardinal John Wright, op. cit.
� 125 Germain Grisez, cited by Fr Tom O'Mahony in Gnosticism: A
Perennial Heresy, Challenge Magazine, Canada, February, 1992, p.
20.
� 126 Cf. Bishop Patrick Dunn, Priesthood, op. cit. p. 193; Fr
Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood, op. cit. p. 478.
� 127 Pope Innocent III, cited in Commentary on Inter Insigniores,
published in L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 128 St Bonaventure, cited in Commentary on Inter Insigniores,
published in L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 129 Blessed Duns Scotus, cited in Commentary on Inter
Insigniores, published in L'Osservatore Romano, 3/2/77.
� 130 Cf. St Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1,13,2.
� 131 Fr Louis Ligier, S.J., L'Osservatore Romano, 2/3/78.
CHAPTER IV
PETER HAS SPOKEN
1.DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
2.THE MEANING AND NATURE OF AUTHORITY
3.INFALLIBLE TEACHING AND AUTHENTIC TEACHING
4.ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS: THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER
TO CONFER PRIESTLY ORDINATION ON WOMEN
5.DISSENT FROM 'ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS'
6.THE CDF REPLY
7.WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS THE TEACHING OF THE ORDINARY UNIVERSAL
MAGISTERIUM: THE THEOLOGIANS OR THE MAGISTERIUM?
8.THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A CORRUPTION OF DOCTRINE!
In recent times the Magisterium of the Church has intervened
decisively in the debate about the male-only ministerial
priesthood. Before turning directly to these interventions and the
controversy they have given rise to, I will first treat of three
important areas of theology and doctrine that bear upon the
questions involved: i) the development of doctrine, ii) the
meaning and nature of authority in the Church, iii) the meaning
and scope of infallibility.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
There is a very important distinction between Church Doctrine and
Church Discipline. A "Doctrine" is any truth taught by the Church
as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. In reference to this,
the First Vatican Council defined as follows the matter of
Catholic faith: "All those things are to be believed by divine and
Catholic faith which are contained in the written or transmitted
word of God and which are proposed by the Church, either by a
solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, to
be believed as having been divinely revealed". [1] The specific
objects of Catholic faith are called dogmas. The phrase doctrine
of "faith and morals" means that the teaching can involve either a
truth to be believed (e.g. the Real Presence of Our Lord in the
Eucharist) or a judgement about the rightness or wrongness of an
action (e.g. that adultery is seriously wrong). To put it another
way, doctrine refers to divine teaching and divine law. That Our
Lord is truly present in the Eucharist is divine teaching while
the truth that acts of adultery are wrong is divine law. Church
"Discipline" on the other hand is generally taken to refer to
those regulations and rules which the Church puts in place in
order to enable her to carry out her mission more effectively.
With respect to divine teaching and divine law, the Church has the
responsibility to proclaim them faithfully but no authority
whatsoever to change them. For example, because the doctrine of
the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist is derived from
Jesus Himself (i.e. it is part of the deposit of faith), then the
Church has no authority whatsoever to reverse and contradict the
content of this doctrine (i.e. it has no authority to say that
Jesus is not really present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in
the Eucharist). Similarly with Divine Law, the Church cannot issue
a statement saying that adultery is no longer wrong since the
prohibition - "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" - is a law of God
and not a regulation or discipline of the Church.
In contrast to the unchangeable nature of Church doctrine, Church
discipline can and does change. For example, for a long period
during its history, it was the discipline or law of the Church
that Mass in the Latin Rite had to be said in the Latin language.
However, since this discipline was of human rather than divine
origin, the Church was able to change it so as to allow Mass in
the Latin Rite to be said in vernacular languages such as English.
Similarly in the 1960's did the Church change her discipline with
respect to Friday abstinence from meat. When she judged it prudent
and necessary to do so, the Church was able to make these changes
in her discipline because they did not involve a change in the
teachings of Christ.
While the meaning of a particular Church doctrine can never
change, we can however come to penetrate it more deeply with
accurate insights and learn to apply it more thoroughly to life.
[2] This process whereby the Church deepens her understanding of
the deposit of faith is known as the "Development of Doctrine"
(sometimes the misleading term refinement of doctrine is used
instead). One of the great authorities on the Development of
Doctrine was St Vincent of Lerins who lived in the 5th century. In
order to distinguish the true concept of doctrinal development
from erroneous expressions of it, the Church has in recent times
emphasised St Vincent's teaching by inserting an extensive
quotation from him in the Divine Office which is the official
prayer of the Church that all priests are expected to pray. In
considering how development of doctrine occurs, St Vincent gives
us the example of a child growing into an adult. There is great
physical progress but it is always the same person that stands
before us. What we see in the adult was always present but in an
undeveloped way in the child. In short, then, development must
never be confused with alteration. If the child grows up and
becomes a man, that is development, but if he becomes a cow that
is alteration. [3]
Referring to ways in which dogmas must retain their original
meaning in the course of their development, the First Vatican
Council said: "That meaning of sacred dogmas...must always be
maintained which holy mother Church declared once and for all, nor
should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in
the name of a more advanced understanding". [4] Moreover, Vatican
I pointed out that the doctrine of the Church is not a
philosophical system that needs to be perfected by man: "For the
doctrine of the faith which God revealed has not been handed down
as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but
has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to
be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted". [5] To
reinforce this point, the Council quoted and made its own the
following statement of St. Vincent of Lerins: "Therefore...let the
understanding, the knowledge, the wisdom, of individuals as of
all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly
with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be
solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same
sense and the same understanding". [6] In harmony with this
teaching, Vatican I condemned the opinion that "dogmas once
proposed by the Church must with the progress of science be given
a meaning other than that which was understood by the Church, or
which she understands". [7] The Second Vatican Council, in
speaking of doctrinal development said:
The tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the
Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in
insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.
This comes about in various ways. It comes through the
contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in
their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19 and 51). It comes from the intimate
sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes
from the preaching of those who have received, along with their
right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.
Thus as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing
towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words
of God are fulfilled in her. [8]
As the understanding of doctrine develops in the Church, "it
sometimes happens that some dogmatic truth is first expressed
incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date, when
considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge, it
receives a fuller and more perfect expression". [9] As indicated
earlier however, the meaning of such dogmatic formulations
"remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is
expressed with greater clarity or more developed". [10]
THE MEANING AND NATURE OF AUTHORITY
In order to distinguish between authentic doctrinal development
and its counterfeit, it is necessary to have a clear idea of the
nature of the authority that resides in the Magisterium of the
Church. Pope John Paul II alluded to this when he said that it is
"urgently necessary to recover the authentic concept of authority,
not only from the formal juridical standpoint, but more
profoundly, as a means of guaranteeing, safeguarding and guiding
the Christian community in fidelity to and continuity with
Tradition, to make it possible for believers to be in contact with
the preaching of the Apostles and with the sources of Christian
reality itself." [11]
K. D. Whitehead says that authority "is the power to decide or
direct on the part of the one who possesses it; and it constitutes
what must be followed on the word of another by the one who is
subject to it". [12] Whitehead distinguishes between knowledge and
authority. He says that when one pauses before crossing a street
he is acting on the basis of knowledge. In contrast to this, when
one stops his car at an intersection in response to a signal from
a policeman, he is then acting on the basis of authority. There is
rarely a day that passes that we do not act in this fashion, i.e.
on the authority of another. Coupled with this, we do not always
have, and indeed are not always capable of acquiring, all the
knowledge we need to act at every moment of our lives in the way
that is best both for ourselves and for the common good. At times
we have to act simply on the basis of the authority of another.
Thus we take medicine on the basis of the doctor's authority.
Consequently, there is nothing immature about acting on the
authority of others - we do it all the time.
Whitehead also distinguishes two types of authority: one which he
calls the authority of knowledge and the other which he calls the
authority of function or office. [13] Authority of knowledge is
the acquired authority of a person who has special qualifications,
skills, experience etc. For example, a doctor can tell us all
about medicine because of his particular study. We say that the
doctor "knows what he is talking about" because of his first hand
experience - i.e. we say he speaks "with authority". We ignore at
our peril the advice a doctor gives on subjects within the ambit
of his competence - unless of course our own knowledge is superior
to his. Since there are so many things we cannot learn firsthand,
it is our common experience therefore that we are obliged on an
ongoing basis to act in our own best interests on the word of
those who have "authority of knowledge".
In contrast to "authority of knowledge", "authority of function or
office" pertains primarily to the practical order and does not
necessarily depend on superior knowledge. In most affairs of our
life, especially our life in society, there are times when it is
necessary for a decision to be reached in order that life may go
on. It is the principal function of authority of office to make
decisions - which implies that someone must be vested with the
power to do so. Taking up this point, Whitehead says:
No human society or community is possible without some procedure
or machinery to decide in the myriad conflicts or potential
conflicts which inevitably arise from the simplest human
relationships, as from the complex ones. In most human affairs the
buck must stop somewhere. For this obvious reason we have
governments and courts, for example. Indeed, no two, or three or
more people ever get together to accomplish anything without in
some way, formally or informally, agreeing on who is "in charge,"
who decides - who, in other words has authority. Examples of this
authority of office or function are the coach over his team (as
well as the referee!), the father in the family, the teacher in
the classroom, the policeman on the beat, the commander over his
troops, the judge in his court, the president in the White House.
In all of these situations there would be chaos and irresolvable
conflict if there were not someone "in authority - in authority of
office or function. [14]
Unlike those who have authority of knowledge, those who have
authority of function or office are able to demand compliance. For
example, the doctor, who has authority of knowledge, cannot demand
that we take the medicine he prescribes. The highway policeman
however, who has authority of function or office, can demand that
we pull over to the kerb. Regarding the question of authority in
the Church, Whitehead points out that the content of the deposit
of faith which comes down to us from the apostles is a form of
knowledge that is grounded in authority of function or office. In
committing His word to the Church, Christ gave Peter and the other
Apostles the authority of office to teach the truths of faith in
such a way as to command assent: "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"
(Mt 28: 19-20). Referring to this authority of office which
reposes in the Magisterium of the Church, Whitehead says:
It is true that the Church's magisterium, when it teaches,
includes appropriate arguments and evidence based on theological
research and reflection on the data of divine revelation committed
into the Church's keeping; but the latter is not required for the
Church to teach truly. She already has the authority of knowledge,
from the fact that revelation has been entrusted to her, and she
has the authority of office to teach it in turn. Thus the Church
"knows what she is talking about" when she teaches because of this
latter kind of authority to teach, conferred on her by Christ when
he committed his word to her. She is also assisted in a special
way by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent (cf. Jn 15:26). If she
goes on to explain in human language why something is true, that
is her privilege. But the motive behind her teaching, by which the
faithful are moved to accept her doctrine, is not these reasons
but the simple fact that she teaches with the authority vested in
her by Christ. [15]
INFALLIBLE TEACHING AND AUTHENTIC TEACHING
In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed
on by the Apostles, Christ who is the Truth, willed to confer on
the Church "a share in his own infallibility". [16] The word
infallibility refers to an inability to err in believing or
teaching revealed truth. The infallibility of the Church takes
several forms. First, the whole Church is infallible in her belief
when, "from the bishops to the last members of the laity it shows
universal agreement in matters of faith and morals". [17]
Secondly, in establishing the Church, Christ endowed its shepherds
with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
[18] The infallibility of the Church's shepherds is present in
both the solemn definitions of Popes and Ecumenical Councils, and
in the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. [19]
In almost all situations, when the Pope teaches officially on
matters of faith and morals, he employs what is referred to as the
"ordinary magisterium". In contrast to this, it is only on very
rare occasions the Pope exercises his "extraordinary magisterium".
"Ordinary" refers to the fact that this is the usual way of
teaching, while "extraordinary" means that this is the method
employed in exceptional circumstances. Apart from "ordinary" and
"extraordinary", there are two other words that are used
frequently in connection with the Pope's teaching office - ex
cathedra and authentic. The terms ex cathedra and authentic are
used in reference to the various ways in which the Holy Father
exercises his divinely established teaching office. The term ex
cathedra means "from the Chair" which in turn means "official".
"Authentic" also means "official". Speaking of the relationship
between the terms ex cathedra and authentic, Gerard Morrissey
says:
Despite the similarity in their literal meaning, however, the
phrase ex cathedra is often used to refer to the extraordinary
magisterium, while the word 'authentic' is employed with a broader
meaning to include both the extraordinary magisterium and the
ordinary magisterium. Thus, the "ordinary" teaching authority of
the Holy Father is sometimes described as "authentic teaching that
is not ex cathedra. [20 ]
The exercise of the authentic teaching magisterium of the Pope
takes place only under certain conditions. First, the Pope has to
be teaching on faith and morals in his official capacity as Vicar
of Christ and successor of Saint Peter. In other words, he is
intending to exercise his divinely established teaching authority.
Therefore, excluded from this exercise of his authentic teaching
magisterium are all occasions when the Pope speaks as a private
theologian expressing personal opinions, as was the case for
example when John Paul II published Crossing The Threshold Of
Hope. Second, the Pope is not addressing questions of Church
discipline - rather he is "purposely passing judgement" [21] on a
matter of faith and morals. Third, the Pope is dealing with a
question upon which he intends to make a binding decision.
Consequently, excluded from this are situations where the Pope,
though exercising his Magisterial power, is not nevertheless
intending to make a binding decision no matter how much he leans
towards a particular position in a theological controversy.
The Pope may make ex cathedra statements to settle a controversy
or to give added emphasis and honour to a truth already believed
by the entire Church as was the case in 1950 when Pope Pius XII
defined the doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption into Heaven. Since
the exercise of the ex cathedra magisterium of the Pope tends to
be so dramatic, many people have wrongly concluded that if a
matter is really important then the Pope will intervene with an
exercise of his extraordinary magisterium, i.e. with an infallible
teaching act. People who hold this view sometimes go a step
further to erroneously conclude that they are free to dissent from
any or all authentic teachings of the Pope which are not framed in
ex cathedra statements. Those who fall into this error seem to
forget that it was Jesus who entrusted to the Pope a teaching
office that enables him to teach the truths of faith and morality
with God's own authority: "He who hears you, hears me" (Lk 10:16).
This implies that in exercising his authentic teaching
magisterium, the Pope is in fact exercising a divinely established
teaching office which of its very nature must be able to command
assent. Speaking of this, Pope Pius XII in his famous encyclical
Humani Generis said:
Nor must it be thought that what is contained in encyclical
letters does not of itself demand assent, on the pretext that the
Popes do not exercise in them the supreme power of their teaching
authority. Rather, such teachings belong to the ordinary
magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears
Me" (Lk 10: 16). For the most part, too, what is expounded and
inculcated in encyclical letters already appertains to Catholic
doctrine for other reasons. But if the supreme Pontiff in official
documents purposely pass judgement on a matter debated until then,
it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and
will of the same Pontiff, cannot be considered any longer a
question open for discussion among theologians.[22]
The teaching of Pius XII in Humani Generis was echoed by the
Second Vatican Council. In emphasising the responsibility of
Catholics to assent to the authentic teaching authority of the
Pope, the Council stated that a "loyal submission of the will and
intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic
Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex
cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority
be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to
decisions made by him, in conformity with his manifest mind and
intention, which is made known principally either by the character
of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a
certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the
doctrine is formulated". [23] According to Canon Law, this
"submission of will and intellect" means that "Christ's faithful
are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord
with that doctrine".[24]
According to Pope John Paul II, "the supreme authority of the
papal Magisterium...even in its ordinary exercise derives from the
institutional fact that the Roman Pontiff is the Successor of
Peter in the mission of teaching, of strengthening his brothers,
of guaranteeing that the Church's preaching conforms to the
'deposit of faith' of the Apostles and to Christ's teaching". [25]
In exercising this divinely established ministry of service to his
brethren, the Pope is accountable to no one other than to God
Himself. Speaking of this, the Second Vatican Council said: "The
Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely,
and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and
universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered". [26] Consequently, when the Holy Father
exercises his authentic teaching authority so as to require the
faithful to hold firmly the doctrine he is then proclaiming, even
though he is not speaking ex cathedra, then his teaching in this
particular instance is stamped with the authority of Christ
Himself who can neither deceive or be deceived: "He who hears you,
hears me" (Lk 10:16). To argue that Catholics have a right to
dissent from such teaching is equivalent to saying that they are
free to court error on the grounds that Christ may have deserted
Peter at the very moment when Peter was about to "strengthen his
brethren" (cf. Lk 22;32) in accordance with the mandate given to
him by Jesus Himself.
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS: THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO
CONFER PRIESTLY ORDINATION ON WOMEN
At issue in the debate over the Church's no to women's ordination
is the question of fidelity to the ministerial priesthood as it
was instituted by Christ. Pope Pius XII referred to this when he
said that the Church must accept as normative Christ's "practice
of conferring priestly ordination on men alone" on the grounds
that "the Church has no power over the substance of the
sacraments, i.e. over anything that Christ the Lord, as attested
by the sources of Revelation, wanted to be maintained in the
sacramental sign". [27] Despite many reaffirmations by the
Church's Magisterium of this doctrine over the last three decades,
dissent from the teaching was so widespread in some parts of the
Church that uncertainty began to spread amongst some of the
faithful. It was to address this problem that Pope John Paul II
issued his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in May 1994 in
which he said: "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 judgement is to be definitively held by all the
Church's faithful". [28]
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II taught that the
practice of not conferring priestly ordination on women was
founded on the written Word of God and on Sacred Tradition. In
particular, the Pope located the basis for the teaching in the
example of Christ who chose the Twelve Apostles from among men, in
the apostolic tradition and in the constant teaching of the
Magisterium. [29] In the aftermath of the release of Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, expressions of gratitude were directed to the Holy
Father from all over the world for having taken such a definitive
step in "confirming the brethren". As Cardinal Ratzinger has
pointed out, the fruits of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis have been
evident since its publication. Many consciences says the Cardinal,
"which in good faith had been disturbed, more by doubt than by
uncertainty, found serenity once again due to the teaching of the
Holy Father". [30] In a message to the people of his diocese,
Bishop William Brennan of Wagga said:
Pope John Paul II has given us a direction that should save the
Church much anguished debate. I use the word "direction" not in
the sense of "instruction" so much as in the sense of "pointing
out the way". One does not have to know much about the development
of Christian doctrine to know that in the course of its history
there have been many false starts. A plausible idea became
fashionable among some theologians and then even widely
acceptable, but it was wrong and the role of the successor of
Peter was to intervene and point out the correct path. Once again
the successor of Peter has intervened. Just as his predecessor
Pius XII intervened to determine that the Church had authority to
specify the form and matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, so
John Paul II has intervened to declare that the Church has no
authority to ordain women. It is an exercise of his teaching
authority as Supreme Pastor. We must accept it, for if we do not,
to whom shall we look for guidance? Who else in the Church, or
outside it, can make such a decision and bind the faithful in this
way? As the Bishops proclaimed at Chalcedon in 451, Peter has
spoken. Let us pray that all Catholic people throughout the world
will heed the words of the one to whom alone has been given the
commission of feeding the entire flock of Christ. [31]
DISSENT FROM 'ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS'
Not everyone however greeted Ordinatio Sacerdotalis with the
assent it warranted. In Australia, opposition to the teaching was
led by members of religious institutes and by members of the
theological establishment. The Australian Catholic Theological
Association, the Australian Catholic Biblical Association, and the
National Executive of the Australian Conference of Leaders of
Religious Institutes (ACLRI) either publicly distanced themselves
from the teaching or repudiated it entirely. Referring to this
scandalous expression of dissent from the teaching of the
Magisterium, B. A. Santamaria writing in the Weekend Australian
said: "Granted the authority of the bodies they claimed to
represent, these statements constituted a general rebellion of the
entire Catholic educational leadership in this country against
papal authority". [32]
In their press release, the theologians said: "The Australian
Catholic Theological Association (ACTA) at its recent conference
in Melbourne considered the challenges posed by the Pope's recent
letter on the ordination of women...The meeting decided to respond
positively to these challenges. It established two committees. The
first will study the precise authority of the document and its
implications for theology. The second committee will examine the
arguments which have been made for and against women's ordination.
It will ask whether they are persuasive and are consistent with
the dignity of women". [33] In their press release, the biblical
scholars said: "The Catholic Biblical Association of Australia met
for its Annual Meeting (July 1-4) at Corpus Christi College,
Clayton, Victoria. Amongst other matters, the recent Apostolic
Letter of Pope John Paul II, 'On Reserving Priestly Ordination to
Men Alone', was discussed. While acknowledging the authority of
the Letter, the members of the Association expressed disquiet, as
biblical scholars, at the way Scripture is used in this document.
It was recommended, therefore, that further studies be undertaken
to build on the significant biblical research already available in
relation to ministry in the New Testament, especially women's
ministry". [34]
In their dissenting statement, the National Executive of the
Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes said: "We
write to express our dismay and disappointment at the recent
Apostolic Letter of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, so far as
it prohibits further discussion of the ordination of women. We can
appreciate the Holy Father's reluctance presently to authorise the
ordination of women. We are dismayed, however, that, without
advancing any arguments other than those espoused in the previous
Instructions, Inter Insigniores (1976) and Mulieris Dignitatem
(1988), he has seen fit to embargo any further discussion within
the Roman Catholic Church of this very important and evolving
issue". After suggesting that there was "no conclusive scriptural
evidence" debarring women from entering the ranks of the
ministerial priesthood, the religious leaders went on with what
can rightly be judged an arrogance born of ignorance to justify
their revolt on the grounds that their opposition to the Pope had
a parallel in the early Church in the stance taken by St. Paul at
the Council of Jerusalem. They said:
In the absence of any further arguments, therefore, we stand like
St Paul at the first Ecumenical Council of the Church at the
Council of Jerusalem in the middle of the first century. You will
recall that in the face of the opposition of the first Pope, St
Peter, and the more reactionary elements in the early Church, St
Paul requested that Gentile and pagan, and not just Jewish,
converts should be admitted to the ranks of Christians. Nineteen
centuries later we join with many other Christians in requesting
that the question whether women, as well as men, should be
admitted to the ranks of the ordained ministry should continue to
be considered as a suitable topic for further theological and
scriptural research and discussion within the Roman Catholic
community. [35]
What the Leaders of the Religious Institutes say about the entry
of pagans into the early Church, and what they purport to have
happened at the Council of Jerusalem, turns out to be absolute
nonsense when we compare it with what St Luke says about these
events in the Acts of the Apostles. Gentiles were admitted to the
ranks of the Christians even before St. Paul's conversion.
Samaratans had already been admitted (cf. Acts 8: 4-8); and the
eunuch (cf. Acts 8: 26-40) was quite possibly a Gentile. Further
to this, we know that St Peter, acting on a direct revelation he
received in a vision, admitted a non-Jewish convert in the person
of Cornelius into the Church together with some of his relatives
and friends. (cf. Acts 10:1-48). In St Peter's discourse on Jesus
"who is the Lord of all," the Holy Spirit came upon all his
audience and he "ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus
Christ" (cf. Acts 10:36, 44,48). Meanwhile, Paul was preaching the
Word in Asia Minor and performing miracles in the name of Jesus of
Nazareth. When the Judaizing Christians insisted that converts
from paganism to Christianity should be subjected to the Law of
Moses, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to
consult the apostles and presbyters there about the question (cf.
Acts 15: 2).
In addressing the Council of Jerusalem, St Peter said: "Brethren,
you know that in early days God made his choice among you, the
pagans were to learn the Good News from me and so become
believers. In fact God, who can read everyone's heart, showed his
approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just he had to
us. God made no distinction between them and us, since he purified
their hearts by faith. It would only provoke God's anger now,
surely, if you imposed on the disciples the very burden that
neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to support?
Remember, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they
are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15: 8-11). Here we
are presented with a practical description of St Peter
strengthening the faith of the community with the truth. St Luke
tells us that Peter's speech to the Council "silenced the entire
assembly" so that they now "listened to Barnabas and Paul
describing all the signs and wonders God had worked through them
among the pagans" (Acts 15: 12). In modern terminology, the
response of the Council of Jerusalem to Peter's intervention could
be classed as a "religious submission of intellect and will".
Peter's teaching became determinative for all that followed. It
was Peter's decision not to burden new Christians with Jewish laws
that was adopted. St James who had the final say only repeated
what St Peter had already said. It is clear then that the biblical
record shows that St Paul did not in fact oppose St Peter at the
Council of Jerusalem.
THE CDF REPLY
As a result of the dissent which greeted Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,
the Magisterium deemed it necessary to make a further decisive
intervention on the question of the non-admission of women to the
ministerial priesthood. This it did by way of a Reply from the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to the 'Dubium'
published in L'Osservatore Romano on October 28, 1995. "Dubium" is
the Latin term for a question posed to a Vatican agency about a
matter of Church teaching or policy. This Reply was signed by
Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect of the CDF and it
was approved by Pope John Paul II who ordered its publication. In
a covering letter to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences which
accompanied the Reply, Cardinal Ratzinger said:
The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative
statements by certain theologians, organisations of priests and
religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These
reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of
the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the
ministerial priesthood, and also questioned whether this teaching
belonged to the deposit of faith.
This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the
doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a Responsum ad
dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be
published.
In asking you to bring this Responsum to the attention of your
episcopal conference before its official publication, this
dicastry is confident that the conference itself, as well as the
individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its
distribution and favourable reception, taking particular care
that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls, and
religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be
proposed". [36]
Here now is the actual Dubium and the Reply:
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 the be understood as belonging to the
deposit of faith.
Reply: 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 the same teaching by a formal
declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always,
everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of faith...
[37]
In Australia, this clarification by the Magisterium again met with
dissent from members of the theological community. In describing
himself as "a loyal Catholic", Fr Tony Kelly, President of both
the Yarra Theological Union and the Australian Theological
Association, publicly accused the Vatican of attempting to
"theologically bully" both clergy and laity. In expressing concern
about what he perceived as the Pope's "autocratic" style, Fr Kelly
referred to the CDF Reply as a "ham-fisted" attempt to mould
public opinion and "a very depressing development". [38] Writing
in the December 1995 issue of Eureka Street, Fr Bill Uren, head of
the Jesuits in Australia, argued that despite the CDF statement it
was "important to keep remembering that it is still our Church -
both men and women". Fr Richard Lennan, who is head of theology at
the Catholic Institute of Sydney, was reported in the Sydney
Morning Herald in May 1996 as having difficulties with the
Church's teaching on a male-only ministerial priesthood. The
report quoted Fr Lennan as having said: "What I'm most concerned
about is society's view of the Church. The Pope's directive that
all the faithful are to hold 'definitively' that women cannot be
ordained to the priesthood will not be the final word on the
matter...Other people, including Catholics, will make judgements.
In a society where gender is no longer accepted as sufficient
explanation for discrimination, the Church (both Catholic and
Anglican) appears not just reactionary, but even bizarre when it
insists that gender has a role in determining who has access to
both influence in the Church, and, even more importantly, the
things of God". While informing the Herald that he did not wish to
be disloyal to Church authority, Fr Lennan stated that the Pope
was not however "the whole Church". [39]
After the publication of the CDF Reply, a lengthy two-page
commentary on it was published in the Sydney Catholic Weekly on
January 7, 1996. Entitled Cardinal Ratzinger's Statement - A
Theological Commentary, the commentary was written by Fr Gerald
Gleeson who teaches at the Catholic Institute of Sydney. Fr
Gleeson began his commentary by first making a distinction between
infallible teaching acts and infallible content. He notes
correctly that Pope John Paul II did not in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
invoke his extraordinary magisterium to define ex cathedra a
doctrine of faith and morals. To remove any doubt regarding this
point, Fr Gleeson quoted Cardinal Ratzinger who said that
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was "an act of the ordinary authentic
magisterium". Fr Gleeson also quoted from the official commentary
which accompanied the CDF Reply which said: "It should be
emphasised that the definitive and infallible nature of this
teaching did not arise with the publication of the Letter
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis...an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium,
in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the
teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church". [40] Fr
Gleeson then raised an interesting question in relation to all of
this. He said: "Many readers may be puzzled as to how a teaching
can be held to be infallible if a papal letter in which it is
declared is not an act of teaching infallibly". Having posed this
question, Fr Gleeson then went on to argue that the CDF Reply is
simply a "theological judgement" on the grounds that the CDF does
not of itself establish the fact of infallible teaching by the
ordinary magisterium. Then, after some observations on conscience
and related matters, Fr Gleeson in drawing his conclusion said:
"...It must be said that neither the Pope's letter nor this CDF
statement is an infallible teaching act which thereby requires an
irrevocable assent of Catholics. As such, these teaching acts are
not guaranteed to be free of error". [41]
The doctrine on the male-only ministerial priesthood was
reaffirmed by the Magisterium of the Church in the Declaration
Inter insigniores, in the Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (n.
26), in the Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici (n. 51) and
in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1577). Cardinal
Ratzinger has noted that "a one-sided understanding of
infallibility as the only binding form of decision in the Church
has become a lever for relativizing the documents mentioned above
and for thus asserting that the question is still open". [42] A
problem with Fr Gleeson's conclusion that - "neither the Pope's
letter or the CDF statement is an infallible teaching act which
thereby requires the irrevocable assent of Catholics" - is that it
could easily leave one with the erroneous impression that
irrevocable assent is owed only to those Magisterial affirmations
of doctrine that are expressed by way of a solemn judgement or a
definitive act (infallible teaching acts). The Magisterium, whose
authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ, [43] is
nothing less than the living voice of Christ in history. To use
the words of Pope John Paul II, the Magisterium is "an organ of
service to the truth and is responsible for seeing that the truth
does not cease to be faithfully handed on throughout human
history". [44] Being this organ of truth, the Magisterium is a
living and ever-present reality in the life of the Church, not
something that only comes to life with the occasional ex cathedra
pronouncement of a Pope or the solemn definition of an Ecumenical
Council. Through the exercise of his authentic teaching authority,
the Pope guarantees that the Church remains faithful to the
content of the deposit of faith. In exercising his authentic
teaching authority, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, the
Pope is at that moment carrying out the mandate given to him by
Christ to nourish the flock placed in his care with the heavenly
food of sound doctrine: "Feed my lambs...feed my sheep" (cf. Jn
21: 15-17).
The fact that there exists various degrees in the exercise of the
teaching authority of the Magisterium does not imply that firm
assent is owed only to the supreme expressions of this authority.
According to Pope John Paul II, this hierarchy of degrees of
teaching authority "does not entitle one to hold that the
pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for
irrevocable assent only when it states them in solemn judgement or
definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one
need only consider the arguments or reasons employed". [45] After
saying this, Pope John Paul II then added: "In the Encyclicals
Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae, as well as in the
Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, I wished once again to
set forth the constant doctrine of the Church's faith with an act
confirming truths which are clearly witnessed to by Scripture, the
Apostolic Tradition and the unanimous teaching of the Pastors.
These declarations, by virtue of the authority handed down to the
Successor of Peter to 'confirm the brethren' (Lk 22:32), thus
express the common certitude present in the life and teaching of
the Church". [46] In effect, what Pope John Paul II is saying here
is that the doctrinal affirmations of Veritatis Splendor,
Evangelium Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis have all been taught
by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and hence the faithful
owe to them their irrevocable assent. That this is so is indicated
by the words of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis where Pope John Paul II,
after stating that the Church has no authority whatsoever to
confer priestly ordination on women, then added that "this
judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's
faithful". Note that the Holy Father here calls for "definitive"
assent. In reference to this aspect of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Fr
Avery Dulles has pointed out that "in the documents of Vatican II,
'definitive' assent is the assent to be given to the unanimous
teaching of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals - a
form of teaching characterised as infallible (see Vatican II,
Lumen Gentium 25)". [47]
That the central affirmation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding
the non-admissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood
requires the irrevocable assent of all the faithful is made clear
in the statement that accompanied the presentation of the
Apostolic Letter where it says: "No one, therefore, not even the
Supreme Authority in the Church, can fail to accept this teaching
without contradicting the will and example of Christ himself and
the economy of revelation". [48] It added that Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, by "formally declaring the nature and the definitive
force of this teaching" to be derived "from the will of Christ and
the practice of the Apostolic Church", was thereby confirming "a
certainty which has been constantly held and lived by the Church".
[49] Therefore, continued the statement, the teaching of Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis is not "a question of a new dogmatic formulation, but
of a doctrine taught by the ordinary Papal magisterium in a
definitive way: that is proposed not as a prudential teaching, nor
as a more probable opinion, nor a mere matter of discipline, but
as certainly true. Therefore since it does not belong to matters
freely open to dispute, it always requires a full and
unconditional assent of the faithful, and to teach the contrary is
equivalent to leading consciences into error". [50]
WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS THE TEACHING OF THE ORDINARY UNIVERSAL
MAGISTERIUM: THE THEOLOGIANS OR THE MAGISTERIUM?
Returning now to the CDF's Reply. Fr Gleeson's assertion that the
Reply is simply just another "theological judgement" is rather
misleading. The task of the CDF is to "preserve the doctrine of
faith and morals in the whole Catholic world". [51] Speaking of
the authority belonging to Magisterial documents such as the CDF
Reply, the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
said: "The Roman Pontiff fulfils his universal mission with the
help of various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with
that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters
of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this
Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the
ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter". [52] In the
Reply, the CDF has clarified the doctrinal nature and binding
force of the central affirmation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Since
the CDF has done this with the approval of Pope John Paul II who
himself ordered the Reply to be published, then, in terms of Lumen
Gentium 25, the Reply has officially clarified "the manifest mind
and will" of the Roman Pontiff in relation to the question posed
(dubium). Consequently, Catholics owe firm assent to all that is
affirmed in the Reply.
Earlier we saw that the CDF Reply stated that the central
doctrinal affirmation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis had been set forth
infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. In his
commentary on the CDF Reply, Fr Gleeson wonders how such
infallible teaching is to be identified. He adds that since "what
is involved is the agreed teaching of the world's bishops, both
past and present", then "it will be for them to evaluate and
respond to the Congregation's judgement". [53] This immediately
gives rise to a question. Since all "past bishops" are now dead, I
wonder how exactly Fr Gleeson expects them to respond to the
"Congregation's judgement"? Coming back to reality, the question
regarding the recognition of the teaching of the ordinary and
universal magisterium is a very important one since it is this
particular exercise of the Magisterium which Pope John Paul II
says "can truly be considered as the usual expression of the
Church's infallibility". [54] Before addressing the question
raised here by Fr Gleeson, it will be useful to first outline the
conditions governing the infallibility of the ordinary and
universal magisterium as set down by Vatican II. They are, that
the Bishops: i) dispersed throughout the world but maintaining a
bond between themselves and the Roman Pontiff, ii) authoritatively
teach on matters of faith and morals, iii) agree that such a
teaching be held definitively and absolutely. [55] For a teaching
to have been taught infallibly therefore, all that is necessary is
for it to have been promulgated as binding by the Episcopate and
for it to have been presented as immutable and unchangeable.
Some who have dissented from The Church's teaching on the non-
admissibility of women to the ranks of the ministerial priesthood
have faulted Pope John Paul II and CDF for not adequately
consulting the world episcopate before issuing Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis and the Reply. Those making this allegation however
seem to have overlooked the consultation that went on during the
process of producing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The
Catechism which took six years to complete owes its origin to a
resolution of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985. Fr Kevin
Nichols says that "the process by which the Catechism was composed
- drafting, discussion, the assimilation of criticism both far-
reaching and detailed, consultation, questioning, revision,
redrafting - was certainly arduous". [56] He adds that "those
responsible for the Catechism travelled far and wide in order that
it might express Catholic tradition in its breadth and variety and
also extensively represent its present pastors and teachers". [57]
Most importantly however, the project was the object of extensive
collaboration and consultation among all Catholic Bishops as well
as their Episcopal Conferences or Synods. Referring to this, Fr.
Nichols says: "Among the authors of the Catechism we should also
number...the bishops of the universal Church. They were consulted,
both individually and as episcopal conferences, along with
academic institutions and the Dicasteries of the Holy See, between
November 1989 and June 1990". [58] Archbishop Jan Schotte says:
"the Episcopate of the whole Church was called to collaborate
through a formal consultation process that was to ensure the final
product's seriousness and credibility. In fact, the draft text was
submitted to the Bishops for their study, suggestions and
observations". [59]
The Catechism was carried through ten separate drafts by the
drafting Committee which availed itself of expert theological
advice and assistance at every stage. As a result of the
consultation with the world's Bishops and their advisers, nearly
25,000 separate proposed amendments (modi) were sent back to the
drafting committee. In reference to this collaboration amongst the
bishops of the world, Cardinal Ratzinger says that the production
of the Catechism truly represented "a signal event of episcopal
'collegiality' and that in it the voice of the universal Church
speaks to us in all its fullness". [60] The final draft was
personally reviewed by Pope John Paul II who, after calling for
certain modifications, ordered its promulgation. In his Apostolic
Constitution Fidei Depositum, through which the Catechism was
promulgated to the world, the Holy Father said: "It can be said
that the Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole
Episcopate of the Catholic Church...The achievement of this
Catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate: it
testifies to the Church's catholicity" (n.2).
In Depositum Fidei, the Holy Father highlights the doctrinal
authority of the Catechism by stating that it "is a statement of
the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or
illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the
Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching
the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial
communion". [61] Cardinal Jose Sanchez says that with the
Catechism's promulgation, "the authentic, authoritative catechism
has finally arrived, the regula fidei, the sure and no longer
disputable measure of orthodoxy". [62] In describing the response
of one bishop to the Catechism, Cardinal Ratzinger said: "Before
the Catechism was published, one of its final drafts was shown to
an elderly bishop, highly respected on account of his erudition,
in order to obtain his judgement. He returned the manuscript with
an expression of joy. Yes, he said, this is the faith of my
mother. He rejoiced to find the faith which he had learned as a
child and which had sustained him his whole life long expressed in
its wealth and beauty, but also in its simplicity and
indestructible unity. This is the faith of my mother: the faith of
our Mother, the Church. It is to this faith that the Catechism
invites us". [63]
Referring to the cohesive nature of the Catechism, Bishop David
Konstant said that "you can't ignore one part of the Catechism
without making a nonsense of the whole thing". [64] Cardinal
Ratzinger says that "the weight of the Catechism itself lies in
the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever
rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the
faith and teaching of the Church". [65] In relation to the
Church's teaching on the impossibility of conferring priestly
ordination on women, the Catechism says: "Only a baptised man
(vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men
(viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the
apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed
them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the
priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the
twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's
return. The Church recognises herself to be bound by this choice
made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women
is not possible". [66] In light of what has already been said
about the collaboration of the world Episcopate in the production
of the Catechism, we can conclude that the doctrine reaffirmed by
the Catechism regarding the non-admissibility of women to the
ranks of the ordained priesthood is a reputable witness to the
ordinary, day-to-day teaching of the bishops throughout the world
in union with the Pope. As such, it represents a form of teaching
that requires the irrevocable assent of all Catholics. As I
indicated earlier, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not
have to proclaim itself and it does not rely on extraordinary or
solemn definitions. Agreement among the Bishops in union with the
Pope may be either vertical as reflected in continuity of
teaching, or horizontal, as seen in their concurrence at any given
period of the Church's life and worship. [67] If at any time a
teaching meets the requirements for it to be infallible, then it
remains so for all time, even if at some later date a large number
of bishops dissent from it. The unity of the whole body of bishops
with each other and with the Pope does not entail a mathematical
unanimity of the bishops which would be broken by the dissenting
voice of any one individual. A good example of what is involved
here was given by John Ford S.J. and Germain Grisez. Basing
themselves on a speech of Bishop Martin to Vatican I, Ford and
Grisez pointed out that not all Catholic Bishops believed in the
divinity of Christ either before the Council of Nicea or after it.
[68]
That agreement among the bishops does not entail mathematical
unanimity for the ordinary and universal magisterium to express
itself is also borne out by the events leading up to Pope Pius
XII's definition of the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption into
Heaven. The Pope stated that he had written to all the bishops in
the Catholic Church to ask whether they believed that the
Assumption could be defined as a dogma of faith. In Pope Pius
XII's own words, he received "an almost unanimous affirmative
response". Then, quoting the teaching of Vatican I about the
infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, Pius XII
concluded that: "...from the universal agreement of the Church's
ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof,
demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption
into heaven...is a truth that has been revealed by God". [69] In
effect what Pope Pius XII was saying here is that he is defining
the dogma of the Assumption by way of an ex cathedra
(extraordinary) act of his Magisterium because he knows already
from the ordinary and universal magisterium that the teaching is
certainly true despite the fact that there does not exist
mathematical unanimity amongst the bishops in their endorsement of
the dogma.
In his commentary on the CDF Reply, Fr Gleeson mentions some ways
that may be used to determine "what is to be believed and
professed in accordance with the Gospel as necessary for
salvation". He says that the "ordinary way in which this
determination is made is in and through the prayer and practice,
the preaching and teaching, and the ordinary living out of the
Catholic faith". This "ordinary way" says Fr Gleeson, is "largely
implicit in what is said and done, only partly articulated, and
certainly more a matter of prayer and practice than formal
definition". Having said this he then adds: "This is why, as
Newman showed, one must 'consult the faithful' in matters of
doctrine - not to ask their 'advice' or 'opinion', but to
establish a matter of fact, what is believed". [70]
While I do not necessarily disagree with what Fr Gleeson says
above, I do however think he has taken Cardinal Newman somewhat
out of context. In regard to the question Fr Gleeson has raised,
i.e. how is one to discern the content of the Deposit of Faith,
Cardinal Newman, in the very work that Fr Gleeson has just
referred us to, gives a very definite answer when in relation to
the Tradition that has come down from the Apostles he says: "The
gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and
enforcing any portion of that tradition resides solely in the
Ecclesia docens". [71] By the term Ecclesia docens, Newman means
the teaching authority of the Church. This statement by Newman is
based on the fact that while the faithful as a whole bear witness
to the Gospel, this does not however render superfluous the role
of the Magisterium. Newman's keen awareness of the need at times
for direct intervention by the Magisterium in order to specify the
content of the Deposit of Faith was based on his common sense
understanding that at times the sensus fidelium (the sense of the
faithful) is not always clearly discernible due to inroads into
the consciousness of many Catholics by the spirit of the age.
Newman cites as an example of this the period during the Arian
crisis when the faith of some sectors of the laity had become
contaminated through the influence of corrupt Arian Bishops "who
got possession of the sees and ordained an heretical clergy". [72]
Regarding the authority of the Magisterium to specify what belongs
to the Deposit of Faith, the Second Vatican Council said: "The
task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been
entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its
authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus
Christ". [73] In relation to the question of who can validly
receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, this "living teaching office
of the Church", whose authority we saw is "exercised in the name
of Jesus Christ", has in recent times proclaimed that the doctrine
regarding the non-admissibility of women to the ranks of the
ordained priesthood has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and
universal magisterium. As such, this doctrine requires the
irrevocable assent of all Catholics. Consequently, in regards to
the question raised by Fr Gleeson as to who is to decide what is
Catholic truth, this is not a matter for mere theologians to
decide, especially when they appear to be simply defending their
own cause. This question has long since been answered by Christ
himself when he conferred on Peter a unique participation in his
own Divine authority as Shepherd and Teacher: "Feed my lambs...
feed my sheep" (cf. Jn 21: 15-17). In the Gospel of John, the
Beloved Disciple is tied to the Office of Peter (cf. Jn 1:37-39;
13:22-30; 20;1-10; 21:1-23). Like the Beloved Disciple - who on
being first to arrive at the Empty Tomb did not enter until Peter
had first done so (cf. Jn 20:1-8) - so too must Catholics adhere
firmly to the teaching of the Pope out of deference to the Petrine
Office. When the Pope exercises his authentic Magisterium, the
flock must follow simply because Peter has commanded or gone
ahead: "Simon Peter said to them, 'I am going fishing'. They said
to him, 'We will go with you'" (Jn 21:3). [74]
THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN: A CORRUPTION OF DOCTRINE!
In concluding this chapter, there is one last point I want to make
in regard to the development of doctrine. In the time since
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was released, there have been some who have
suggested that some future development or refinement of doctrine
may make possible the entry of women into the ranks of the
ministerial priesthood. The truth is however that such a thing
could never happen. Recall the teaching of the First Vatican
Council quoted earlier which said: "That meaning of sacred
dogmas...must always be maintained which holy mother Church
declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that
meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced
understanding". [75] Since the Magisterium has formally declared
the nature and definitive force of the teaching that the Church
has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on
women, then it would not be possible for the Magisterium to say at
a future date that the Church has such an authority without in the
process changing the meaning of the received doctrine and thereby
contradicting what has gone before. Any ecclesial community that
would do such a thing could no longer claim to be in communion
with the Catholic Church.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 4 ENDNOTES
� 1 Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, ch. 3;
Conc. Oec. Decr. (3), p. 807 (DS 3011).
� 2 Cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 12.
� 3 For this section on the Development of Doctrine, I am drawing
heavily on an excellent treatment of the question contained in
Gerard Morrissey's book Defending The Papacy, published by
Christendom Press, Virginia, 1984.
� 4 Vatican Council 1: Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 4;
Conc. Oec. Decr. (3), p. 809 (DS 3020)
� 5 Ibid.
� 6 Ibid.
� 7 Ibid. can. 3; Con. Oec. Decr.(3), p. 811 (DS 3043).
� 8 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 8
� 9 Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church
Against Certain Errors of the Present Day, CDF, June 24, 1973, n.
5
� 10 Ibid.
� 11 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 29/11/95
� 12 K. D. Whitehead. The Need For The Magisterium Of The Church,
Synthesis Series, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1979, p. 11.
This excellent apologetical work was published in L'Osservatore
Romano shortly after it was written and I will be drawing heavily
on it for this section on authority.
� 13 Ibid. p. 12
� 14 Ibid. pp. 13-14
� 15 Ibid. p 19
� 16 CCC. n. 889
� 17 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n.12
� 18 Cf. CCC. n. 89
� 19 Cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n.25
� 20 Gerard Morrissey, op. cit. p. 42
� 21 See reference below to Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis.
� 22 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 20.
� 23 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25
� 24 Canon 752
� 25 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/3/93
� 26 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 22
� 27 Pope Pius XII, cf. AAS 40 [1948] , p. 5. Cited by Pope John
Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/8/94
� 28 Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4
� 29 Cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 2
� 30 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, 22/11/95
� 31 Bishop William Brennan, Together, June 1994, p. 3
� 32 B. A. Santamaria, Weekend Australian, January 21-22, 1995, p.
26
� 33 Cf. Catholic Weekly, 13/7/94, p. 3
� 34 Ibid.
� 35 Cf. Sydney Morning Herald, 16/6/94.
� 36 Cardinal Ratzinger, Cover Letter to Bishops' Conference
Presidents prior to publication of Reply, published in Origins,
November 30, 1995.
� 37 Reply of CDF to the 'dubium', L'Osservatore Romano, 22/11/95
� 38 Fr Tony Kelly, Sydney Morning Herald, 15/12/95. In the July
2-3, 1994 edition of the Australian, Fr Kelly wrote a glowing
review of the 3rd Edition of Fr Richard McBrien's Catholicism in
which he said: "All in all, a big book on a huge, ever-expanding
subject; a boon for teacher and student, and a valuable resource
for clergy. True believers will find steady illumination, and
those not of the fold will find the information they are looking
for". In contrast to this, the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops' Committee on Doctrine in the United States censured
McBrien's book for "certain shortcomings" as "an introductory
textbook of Catholic theology". In particular, the U.S Bishops'
Committee on Doctrine was concerned about McBrien's treatment of
the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the
ordination of women. The committee also expressed concern about
McBrien's tendency to place the teaching of the Church on the same
level as the opinion of dissenting theologians and for his
treatment of moral issues such as homosexuality and contraception.
The review of McBrien's book by the Bishops' committee on doctrine
was published in the April 18, 1996 edition of Origins.
� 39 Fr Richard Lennan, Sydney Morning Herald, May 18, 1996, p. 11
� 40 Cf. Catholic Weekly, 7/1/96; L'Osservatore Romano, 22/11/95;
Cardinal Ratzinger's statement appeared in the Tablet on June 11,
1994
� 41 Fr. G. Gleeson, Catholic Weekly,7/1/96.
� 42 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, 29/6/94
� 43 Cf. Dei Verbum, n. 10
� 44 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 29/11/95
� 45 Ibid.
� 46 Ibid.
� 47 Fr Avery Dulles S.J., The Tablet, December 1995, p. 1572
� 48 Presentation of Letter, L'Osservatore Romano, 1/6/94
� 49 Ibid.
� 50 Ibid.
� 51 Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution, Regiminis Ecclesiae
Universae, AAS 59 (1967), p. 897
� 52 CDF The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 18. Cf. Code
of Canon Law, cc. 360-361; Pope Paul VI, Apost. Const. Regimini
Ecclesiae Universae, August 15, 1967, nn. 29-40, AAS 59 (1967),
879-899; Pope John Paul II, Apost. Const. Pastor Bonus, June 28,
1988, AAS 80 (1988), 873-874.
� 53 Fr. G. Gleeson, Catholic Weekly, 7/1/96.
� 54 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/10/88
� 55 Cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25
� 56 Fr Kevin Nichols, Living Light, Summer 1993, p. 7. Fr Nichols
is a former National Adviser on Religious Education to the English
Bishops and he assisted in the drafting of the Catechism.
� 57 Ibid. p. 12
� 58 Ibid. p. 11
� 59 Archbishop Jan P. Schotte, Secretary General Synod of
Bishops, L'Osservatore Romano, March 10, 1993.
� 60 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn,
Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco, 1994, p. 25
� 61 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, n.
3.
� 62 Cardinal Jose T. Sanchez, L'Osservatore Romano, April 14,
1993.
� 63 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn, op. cit.
p. 36.
� 64 Bishop David Konstant, Australian, 2/11/95.
� 65 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn, op.cit.
pp. 26-27
� 66 CCC. n. 1577
� 67 Cf. John Hardon, S.J. The Catholic Catechism, Macmillan, New
York, 1977, p. 233
� 68 Cf. John Ford S.J. and Germain Grisez, in Humanae Vitae: A
Defense, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, pp. 147-49
� 69 Cf. Morrissey, op. cit p. 52
� 70 Fr. G. Gleeson, Catholic Weekly, 7/1/96.
� 71 Cardinal Newman. On Consulting The Faithful In Matters of
Doctrine, Edited by John Coulson, Collins, 1986, p. 63
� 72 Cf. Cardinal Newman, On Consulting The Faithful In Matters of
Doctrine, op.cit. p. 75.
� 73 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 10
� 74 Cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peterand the
Structure of the Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1986, p.
62.
� 75 Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 4.
CHAPTER V : THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN MUST BE BASED ON REVELATION
1.WOMEN'S PARTICULAR GENIUS
2.RADICAL FEMINIST ATTACK ON SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION
3.RADICAL FEMINIST ATTACK ON THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD
4.THE UNISEX UTOPIA
The Church is very concerned to uphold the dignity of women and to
promote their advancement in society. In an address to the World
Union of Catholic Women's Organisations on 29 September 1957, Pope
Pius XII said: "You can and must make your own, without
restriction, the programme of the advancement of women - a
programme which upholds with an immense hope the unnumbered throng
of your sisters who are still subjected to degrading customs or
who are the victims of poverty, of the ignorance of their milieu
and of the total lack of means of culture and formation". The
Second Vatican Council stated that it was regrettable that
"fundamental personal rights are not yet universally honoured.
Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right and freedom to
choose a husband, to embrace a state of life, or to acquire an
education or cultural benefits equal to those recognised for men".
[1] During International Women's Year in 1975, Pope Paul VI drew
attention to "the immense task of creating awareness and of
bringing about the advancement of women at the grassroots level,
in civil society and also in the Church". [2] In Familiaris
Consortio, Pope John Paul II condemned offences against women's
dignity such as discrimination in the fields of education,
employment and wages as well as practices which reduce women to
the status of instruments of pleasure such as pornography and
prostitution. [3] Here Pope John Paul II also drew attention to
the many forms "of degrading discrimination" still persisting
today "in a great part of our society" which seriously harm
particular categories of women such as "childless wives, widows,
separated or divorced women, and unmarried mothers". [4]
WOMEN'S PARTICULAR GENIUS
In the opening section of his Apostolic Letter On the Dignity and
Vocation of Women (Mulieris Dignitatem), Pope John Paul II
recalled what the Second Vatican Council declared in its Closing
Message: "The hour is coming, in fact has come, when the vocation
of women is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which
women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power
never hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment when the
human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women imbued
with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not
falling". [5] The Holy Father also says that the "complementarity
and reciprocity" which characterises the relationship between men
and women "emerges in every context of coexistence". [6] He adds
that the contribution of women's particular "genius" is
indispensable in the building of a culture "which is ever more
truly human and in conformity with God's plan". [7] In
acknowledgment of their role in the creation of such a culture,
Pope John Paul II issued a special word of gratitude to women by
saying:
Thank you, women who are mothers! You have sheltered human beings
within yourselves in a unique experience of joy and travail. This
experience makes you become God's own smile upon the new born
child, the one who guides your child's first steps, who helps it
to grow, and who is the anchor as the child makes its way along
the journey of life. Thank you, women who are wives! You
irrevocably join your future to that of your husbands, in a
relationship of mutual giving, at the service of love and life.
Thank you, women who are daughters and women who are sisters! Into
the heart of the family, and then of all society, you bring the
richness of your sensitivity, your intuitiveness, your generosity
and fidelity. Thank you, women who work! You are present and
active in every area of life - social, economic, cultural,
artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable
contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and
feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery",
to the establishment of economic and political structures ever
more worthy of humanity.
Thank you, consecrated women! Following the example of the
greatest of women, the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word,
you open yourselves with obedience and fidelity to the gift of
God's love. You help the Church and all mankind to experience a
"spousal" relationship to God, one which magnificently expresses
the fellowship which God wishes to establish with his creatures.
Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman!.
Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you
enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations
more honest and authentic. [8]
In Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope John Paul II said that "virginity and
motherhood" are "two particular dimensions of the fulfilment of
the female personality" which find their "full meaning and value
in Mary, who as a Virgin became the Mother of the Son of God". [9]
Speaking of the Gospel meaning of virginity, the Holy Father said:
"Virginity according to the Gospel means renouncing marriage and
thus physical motherhood. Nevertheless, the renunciation of this
kind of motherhood, a renunciation that can involve great
sacrifice for a woman, makes possible a different kind of
motherhood: motherhood 'according to the Spirit' (cf. Rm
8:4)...Spiritual motherhood takes on many different forms. In the
life of consecrated women, for example...it can express itself as
a concern for people, especially the most needy: the sick, the
handicapped, the abandoned. orphans, the elderly, children, young
people, the imprisoned and, in general, people on the edges of
society". [10] In this way said Pope John Paul II, "a consecrated
woman finds her Spouse, different and the same in each and every
person, according to his very words: 'As you did it to one of the
least of these my brethren, you did it to me' (Mt 25: 40)". [11]
Spousal love, says the Holy Father, always involves "a special
readiness to be poured out for the sake of those who come within
ones range of activity". [12] Applying what he said above about
spiritual motherhood to physical motherhood, Pope John Paul II
says: "One can say that the profile of marriage is found
spiritually in virginity...Does not physical motherhood also have
to be a spiritual motherhood, in order to respond to the whole
truth about the human being who is a unity of body and spirit.
Thus there exist many reasons for discerning in these two
different paths - the two different vocations of women - a
profound complementarity, and even a profound union within a
person's being". [13] In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II
pointed out that women had a pivotal role to play in the creation
of a new "culture of life". He said:
In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a
place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It
depends on them to promote a 'new feminism' which rejects the
temptation of imitating models of 'male domination', in order to
acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of
the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and
exploitation. Making my own the words of the concluding message of
the Second Vatican Council, I address to women this urgent appeal:
'Reconcile people with life'. You are called to bear witness to
the meaning of genuine love, of that gift of self and of the
acceptance of others which are present in a special way in the
relationship of husband and wife, but which ought also to be at
the heart of every other interpersonal relationship. [14]
In a reflection on the way the question of the identity and
vocation of woman is treated in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, Mother Anna Maria Canopi, O.S.B. wrote:
The Catechism first presents the face of the "eternal woman",
conceived and desired by God as an image of his loving devotion,
together with man, her partner: 'Man and woman are created, that
is desired by God: perfectly equal in one way, inasmuch as they
are human beings and in the other way, in their respective
identities as male and female. 'To be man' or 'to be woman' is a
reality that is good and desired by God' (n. 369). From this comes
"the insuppressible and identical dignity" that man and woman
possess in the eyes of their Creator and which they must recognise
in one another. Both "reflect the wisdom and goodness of the
Creator", both are loved by God, and are "desired by God for one
another" (n. 371), i.e., placed in a relationship of love. In this
enrapturing reciprocity woman is particularly characterised by her
oblatory nature, as being a gift and source of consolation and joy
for the other. She, in fact, "draws from man a cry of admiration,
an exclamation of love and communion" because man "discovers woman
as another 'I' of the same humanity" (cf. n. 371). Since each is
complete in him or herself and open to communion, they help and
enrich one another precisely because of their differences (cf. n
372) and in the measure in which each one authentically lives his
or her own specific nature. With this clear statement, we see the
failure of all the vague reasons for seeking equality of the sexes
based on the presumed rights of the woman to "act like a man",
that is, to assume typically male roles while renouncing their
own; while, on the contrary, "the harmony of the human couple and
of society depends in part on the way in which complementarity,
mutual need and reciprocal help are lived between the sexes" (nn.
2333; 2433)...
It may not be excessive to state that woman has a certain
connaturalness with the Holy Spirit because of her capacity to
love, to welcome life and to give it. For this reason, in Mary she
is placed at the source of regenerating grace. The Church is
"feminine", as is the community of the redeemed incorporated into
Christ its Head, mother and nurse of all those whom she generates
in the Spirit. The feminine element has its own irreplaceable
position in the economy of redemption because it expresses the
tenderness of the merciful and patient God who suffers...The
exclusion of women from the ordained priesthood, to which the
Catechism soberly refers in n.1577, should not be misunderstood as
a limitation or, worse, as a discrimination, but rather as
acknowledgment of a different way of participating in the work of
redemption with respect to the creative and redemptive design of
God and the explicit will of Jesus Christ. Beyond every question
of a social and cultural nature, it is evident that the role of
woman in the Church has always been essentially maternal and
charismatic. For this reason, because of the original grace of
which she is the bearer, woman can exercise a profound and
beneficial spiritual influence on the ministry of the sacred
hierarchy. [15]
After saying this, Mother Maria went on to say a few words on the
vocation of the consecrated woman and of how in the order of grace
she becomes a universal mother:
There are women who, through a special vocation beyond the natural
level, offer themselves to God with an undivided heart and
anticipate in time the eternal reality of the mystical marriage of
Christ and his Church. The Catechism notes...that they are "the
transcendent sign of the love of the Church for Christ, the
eschatological image of the heavenly Bride and of the life to
come" (n. 923). Precisely because of their total dedication to God
these women become universal mothers in the order of grace and by
their presence they offer the Church and mankind, especially the
most materially and spiritually poor and needy, an inexhaustible
source of charity, tender compassion and consolation. Like a
spring of water, hidden but full of boundless spiritual life, is
the presence of consecrated women in the monastic and
contemplative life (cf. nn. 2687; 2691). Their radical separation
from the world in order to live in God's presence in pure offering
and unceasing prayer, makes them closer to all people and renders
them, in a certain way, the soul of every other vocation or
mission in the Church; this is so because prayer is the 'living
source" which nourishes faith and charity and makes their works
bear fruit.
In locating the identity and vocation of the Christian woman in
the creative wisdom and goodness of God, Phyllis Schlafly rightly
contends that the true dignity of women is advanced not by the
strident demand of militant feminism for a gender-free society but
by the Christian vision of womanhood which rests on a woman's
innate capacity for nurturing life and for leading others to love,
beauty and happiness. She says:
The Christian woman knows who she is and where she is going. She
also knows "where she is coming from" - her roots and her
beginnings. Therein lies the foundation of her stability, her
strength, and her power. She does not need to "search for her
identity" - as do so many women today - because she knows that God
gave her an eternal identity, different from everyone else's in
the world. A woman is a created, spiritual being. She did not
happen by the chance arrangement of molecules. She did not
suddenly ooze out of a crack in the ground, or result from an
explosive accident. Like man, she was created by an all-powerful
and all-knowing God. God expended particular effort to create man
and woman in His image and likeness, and to breathe into them the
breath of life. They are not equal to God, of course, but they are
the climax of His creation. Both man and woman are living
spiritual beings, with the capacity to think, to speak, to laugh,
to cry, and to respond to God. Just as woman is like man in many
essential qualities, she is different from man in other essential,
innate, and eternal qualities. Woman was not made identical to
man, nor was she designed to be his competitor. Woman and man were
made to complement each other. To "complement" means to complete
and make perfect. That is what man and woman do for each other -
spiritually, psychologically, physically and sexually...All this
was not just a pleasant accident. God planned for this type of
interdependence to be cemented with a mutual commitment of
marriage. The marriage relationship is to supersede the parent-
child relationship. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh" (Gen 2:34). The dependent relationship of parent and child
is to be replaced by a new, separate, interdependent relationship
between husband and wife, so that another family can begin.
The marriage relationship is to be a complete commitment of both
mates. To cleave means to be cemented or glued together so tightly
that the parts cannot be separated. Marriage is a commitment made
with "super glue". It is not a decision to be made on an impulse;
nor is it to be a temporary roommate arrangement to be dissolved
when things don't go "my way". In marriage, two people become "one
flesh," an expression which refers to the intimacy of sex as well
as of two people acting as a unit. This does not mean that each of
the spouses becomes less a person, or that the wife sacrifices her
individuality to take on the husband's identity. Instead, it is a
voluntary partnership: the husband does his part and the wife does
hers. They are not competing but completing, not clashing but
cooperating. They are not crying about what they lost, but
rejoicing about what they gained. When the wife takes her
husband's name, she does not lose her own identity; she merely
proclaims the social and moral integrity of the new family unit.
The husband, wife and children are bonded together under the
single name that is the outward sign of their common hearth and
home. If, along the way, one turns aside to pursue selfish desires
that strain the relationship, the primary goal will probably not
be reached. Women should rejoice that they have a partner with
whom to share life, and to make life worth living. The women's
liberation ideology teaches woman to seek their own self-
fulfilment over every other goal...But that goal is simply
incompatible with a happy marriage and motherhood. A happy
marriage requires many social compromises; motherhood requires
years of personal sacrifices. Yet, most women find that marriage
and motherhood are worth the compromises and sacrifices because
the rewards are love and a happy home". [16]
RADICAL FEMINIST ATTACK ON SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION
Pope John Paul II has said that "the authentic advancement of
women" will be achieved "only if it is anchored in the truth of
creation and of divine Revelation". [17] On another occasion the
Holy Father said: "Woman's true advancement consists in promoting
what is proper and fitting to her as woman, i.e. as a creature
different from man and called herself, no less than man, to be a
model of human personhood. This 'emancipation' corresponds to the
indications and instructions of Jesus, who wished to give woman a
mission of her own in conformity with her natural difference from
man. Carrying out this mission opens the way to the developing of
woman's personality, which can offer humanity, and the Church in
particular, a service conforming to her own qualities". [18] The
equality and fundamental human rights of all human beings was
expressly confirmed by the Second Vatican Council when it said:
"Forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal
rights on the grounds of sex, race, colour, social conditions,
language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as
incompatible with God's design". [19] However, access to the
ordained priesthood cannot be numbered among the fundamental
rights in which a differentiation of the sexes is "incompatible
with God's design". In addressing a group of U.S Bishops on their
duty to promote the participation of all members of the Church in
its life and mission, Pope John Paul II said: "This zeal will be
manifested in supporting the dignity of women and every legitimate
freedom that is consonant with their human nature and their
womanhood. The bishop is called upon to oppose any and all
discrimination of women by reason of sex. In this regard he must
likewise endeavour to explain as cogently as he can that the
Church's teaching on the exclusion of women from priestly
ordination is extraneous to the issue of discrimination and that
it is linked rather to Christ's own design for His priesthood".
[20] Having thus reaffirmed this point of doctrine regarding
Christ's design for the ordained priesthood, the Pope went on to
exhort the Bishops to courageously and unequivocally defend the
teaching. He said:
The bishop must give proof of his pastoral ability and leadership
by withdrawing all support from individuals or groups who in the
name of progress, justice, or compassion, or for any other alleged
reason, promote the ordination of women to the priesthood. In so
doing, such individuals and groups are in effect damaging the very
dignity of women that they profess to promote and advance. All
efforts made against the truth are destined to produce not only
failure, but also acute personal frustration. Whatever the Bishop
can do to prevent this failure and frustration by explaining the
truth is an act not only of pastoral charity, but of prophetic
leadership. [21]
Those who campaign for the ordination of women often confuse the
equality of men and women with that of pure identity. Due to this,
they lose sight of that true and fruitful complementarity that
exists between man and woman. In 1977, Fr Louis Bouyer pointed out
that a failure to safeguard this necessary complementarity leads
not to the advancement of woman but rather to the annihilation of
her originality and true identity. He said: "The present demand
for the ordination of women, in fact, with a view to ensuring the
equality of woman and man, supposes that this equality can be
obtained only by as radical an elimination as possible of the
differences between man and woman...In this case we find
ourselves, actually, in the presence of a form of feminism which,
however well meant, cannot but be ruinous for a real liberation of
woman. For an equality that is confused with sheer identity with
another, when he is certainly your equal but without being
completely identical for that reason, can only be a delusion. It
cannot but lead in the end, for the one who claims it, to loss of
identity". [22] Fr Bouyer added that such an "over-simplified
feminism" only succeeds in making a woman "mannish" which in
effect means "the definitive consecration of the most
uncomprehending masculinity, of the most absurd masculinism". [23]
Fr Bouyer concluded that it was not by mere chance "that the very
age in which it is claimed to make woman the equal of man by
giving her the priesthood, is an age in which we see her, more
than ever before, perhaps, reduced to a mere object of pleasure
for man, for the idle male. In both cases, in fact, it is agreed
to deny woman all that is specifically hers; recognising her as
having only a borrowed value, either in complete dependency on the
male, or in complete confusion with him". [24] After stressing the
need to ensure that "Collaborative Ministry" remains "faithful to
sacramental doctrine", Pope John Paul II in an address to a group
of Bishops from the United States went on to challenge them to
combat radical and perverse feminist religion. He said:
In some circles there continues to exist a climate of
dissatisfaction with the Church's position, especially where the
distinction between a person's human and civil rights and the
rights, duties, ministries and functions which individuals have or
enjoy within the Church is not clearly understood. A faulty
ecclesiology can easily lead to presenting false demands and
raising false hopes. What is certain is that the question cannot
be resolved through a compromise with a feminism which polarises
along bitter, ideological lines. It is not simply that some people
claim a right for women to be admitted to the ordained priesthood.
In its extreme form, it is the Christian faith itself which is in
danger of being undermined. Sometimes forms of nature worship and
the celebration of myths and symbols take the place of the worship
of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately this kind of
feminism is being encouraged by some people in the Church,
including some religious, whose beliefs, attitudes and behaviour
no longer correspond to what the Gospel and the Church teach. [25]
Feminism and feminist theology are far from unified movements.
Regarding the various expressions of feminism, Bishop George Pell,
in a monograph entitled Why Can't Catholic Women be Priests? which
he co-authored with Anna Krohn and Mary Helen Woods, said:
Feminists are behind the call for women priests. But there are
several different kinds of feminists. Some Catholic feminists
simply wish to uphold the equal dignity and importance of women,
and believe that a more positive understanding of women's
ministries should be made. They do not disagree with the Catholic
teaching on the priesthood. Other Christian feminists are
reformers, who believe they are campaigning for a 'fair go for
women' in the Church by altering the language of the liturgy and
the nature of the priesthood. They do not realise that these
proposed changes go far beyond the social changes of equal
opportunity and call into question the foundational beliefs of
Christianity. Yet another group of feminists within the Church
uses the assumptions of revolutionary secular humanism to measure
the claims of Christianity, believing that males have conspired
over hundreds of years to use institutions, such as family and
Church, as a means of silencing and oppressing women. Their
intention is not just to install women at the altar, but to
replace beliefs about the Trinity, the Word of God becoming man,
Church teaching on human life and sexual morality with a new
'Woman-Church'. Finally, there are feminists who are either ex-
Christians or non-Christians who are very vocal in their support
of women's ordination. Many of these feminists are opposed to
Christianity, and they want to bring it down and replace it with a
woman-centred paganism.
In this monograph, Bishop Pell stated that "the Church does not
have power to ordain women as priests because Jesus and the
Apostles did not authorise this". In stating this, Bishop Pell was
simply asserting the doctrine of the Church as is his duty.
However, the Parramatta Catholic Education Office did not see it
like this. In the August 1993 edition of its official publication
Catholic Schools Update, which is circulated to all schools and
parishes in the Parramatta Diocese, there appeared an unsigned
article headed Women and the Priesthood? which said: "In recent
times there has been much public discussion concerning the
document Why Can't Catholic Women be Priests? published by the
Thomas More Centre in Melbourne. The document was written by
Bishop George Pell, Anna Krohn and Mary Helen Woods and presents a
series of questions and answers on the issue of Catholic women and
ordination. It is important to appreciate that the views expressed
in the publication are personal ones of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of all Catholic Bishops and
theologians in Australia". This matter aside, it was revealing to
note the expressions of hope that the recent appointment of Bishop
Pell as Archbishop of Melbourne elicited from Catholics across
Australia. Apart from the campaign for the ordination of women,
the attack by religious feminism on Catholicism also involves
radical proposals for the reformulation of the lectionary and
liturgical prayers in gender-inclusive language. If this campaign
were successful, it would deprive the Church of necessary
linguistic resources and conflict with its duty to hand on what it
has received. [26] The religious feminists argue that the Sacred
Scriptures should be rewritten in order to lend support to their
ideology. In this rewriting, masculine words would no longer be
used in reference to God; instead of the use of pronouns, the word
God is repeated over and over again, e.g. "God sent God's Son to
Redeem God's people". Rather than address the First Person of the
Holy Trinity as "Our Father" as Jesus taught us, we should instead
according to the feminists address Him as "Our Father and Mother".
Sexual images applied to God can relate to his imminence or his
transcendence. For pantheists, God does not transcend his creation
but rather is fully contained in it. A study of comparative
religion reveals that religions with female or doubly-sexed
divinities are generally pantheistic. The revelation of God as
"Father" is integral to the Judeao-Christian understanding of God
as transcendent primarily and imminent only secondarily. While God
is sometimes compared to a mother in the Bible, he is never
addressed as such. He is revealed as a transcendent God who is
addressed as "Father" except when he is referred to as Lord, King,
Bridegroom etc. Speaking of the revelation of God as "Father", the
Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "By calling God 'Father',
the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the
first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he
is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his
children...He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood,
although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God
is Father". [27] The most authoritative source for addressing God
as "Father" is of course Jesus Himself who is "the only Son of the
Father" ( Jn 1:14). In revealing the Holy Trinity, Jesus revealed
that God "is Father not only in being Creator", but also that "he
is eternally Father by his relationship to his only Son who,
reciprocally, is Son only in relation to his Father". [28] When
Jesus prays aloud he begins with the word "Father" (cf. Jn 11: 41;
17:1). While making this distinction between the Father and
himself, he reveals however that they also share the same nature:
"I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). Jesus also reveals that God
is Father to him in a different way than he is Father to the rest
of us: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and
your God" (Jn 20:17). Religious feminists would have us reject the
revelation of the Holy Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit on
the grounds that this is expressive of patriarchal perceptions.
Instead, the feminists want to name the persons of the Holy
Trinity as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Religious feminists
have proposed a change to that part of the Creed where in relation
to the Incarnation it says "He Became Man" to the ambiguous "and
became truly human". Perhaps the radical and corrupt nature of the
religious feminist agenda was best described by C.S. Lewis when he
said:
Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like
God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he
says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in
Heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the
Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form,
and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the
Daughter as the Son...Now it is surely the case that if all these
supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a
different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped:
many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite
different in character from Christianity. [29]
Dr William Oddie, in describing the motivating principle of
radical feminism says: "The radical feminist fights the battle of
the sexes in deadly earnest. She profoundly believes that she
lives in a culture which for millennia has been expressly
fashioned by her degradation. The aim, no matter how ill-defined,
is a revolution and nothing less, a revolution involving more than
a mere assertion of women's rights". [30] Fr Manfred Hauke says
that feminist theology must basically be understood "as calling
into question the male cast of both the image of God and the
office of priest". [31] Cornelia R. Ferreira sees secular feminism
and spiritual feminism as closely related. She writes:
Spiritual feminism first sprouted in academic circles, amongst
Catholic and non-Catholic women studying theology, mostly in non-
Catholic colleges and seminaries. These women influenced nuns,
turning them into feminist nuns or ex-nuns. Then, through teaching
in Catholic seminaries and schools of theology, they converted
priests. Once they obtained bishops as supporters, they were able
to infiltrate nearly every area of Church administration and
teaching. Converting the grassroots, however, proved to be
trickier, and in order to speed up the process, methods of
consciousness-raising had to be devised. Basically, just as
secular feminism rejected Judeo-Christian values, so too did
religious feminism, by rejecting the revealed God and his Church.
Using their humanist concept of justice "to give birth to a new
vision of Church and community," Christian feminists have been
trying to create a new God, Church and society in their image and
likeness. Here lies the root of Christian feminist illogic: the
problem is a lack of faith. Without faith, the Church is perceived
only as a human construction which needs continual reformation to
accommodate changing ideas. Faith, on the other hand, knows the
Church is more than a human institution - she also exists on a
supernatural plane as the Mystical Body of Christ and is more than
the sum of her members...This false theology (feminist theology)
underlies feminist spirituality, which is a "spirituality" of
liberation from the authority of the Church. This spirituality is
concerned only with the human spirit and this world and not with
the soul or the world beyond death. Women of Power magazine, whose
staff includes spiritual feminists Ruether and Carol Christ and
witches Starhawk and Budapest, in its Statement of Philosophy,
defines a woman's spirituality as "a world-wide awakening of
woman-power whose vision is the transformation of ourselves and
our societies". This transformation includes "the activation of
spiritual and psychic powers; of honouring women's divinity;
reverence for the earth, and the celebration of her seasons and
cycles". [32]
In her book Ungodly Rage: The Hiden Face of Catholic Feminism,
Donna Steichen did a marvellous job in unmasking the radical
nature of religious feminism. In her review of Ungodly Rage, Ronda
Chervin, who served as a consultant to the U.S Bishops for the
production of their Pastoral on Women's Concerns said: "Steichen's
zealous research has produced this incisive critique indispensable
for all Catholics confronted or puzzled by this destructive
movement". [33] Steichen reveals that the theoretical and
psychological roots of religious feminism lie in a loss of faith
which expresses itself in new religious rituals based on goddess
religion together with the espousal of a subjectivist morality and
vengeful revolt against all spiritual authority. She says:
Viewing existence through the distorting lens of self-pity, they
are enraged with the limitations of incarnational reality.
Probably because few of them are tied to the concrete necessities
of family life, they exceed secular feminists in ideological zeal
and perseverance and exceed Prometheus in presumption. Their
ultimate rebellion, against God the Father and his Son, the male
Saviour Jesus Christ, has been disguised for public consumption as
a campaign for "inclusive" liturgical language...But in private,
and in their own publications, feminist theologians reveal, behind
that mask, naked denial of the objectively existent, transcendent
Father God. They hope to replace him with a gnostic deity,
androgynous, immanent and worshipped in themselves. Chesterton's
prediction "that Jones shall worship the god within him turns out
ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones", is as true of
Catholic feminists as of other gnostics. "Feminist theology" is
not the study of what can be known about the true God but
justification for the invention of a symbolic deity better suited
to their ideological purposes. Its formula is drawn from
comparative religion: first the god, then the dance and finally
the story; that is, first the subjective emotional experience -
interpreted in collective encounters - then the ritual and finally
the new religion. Feminist ritual is not intended as worship but
as psychological manipulation and political theatre. The drive for
feminist "liberty" very slightly conceals an intent to impose
universal submission to its own rigid orthodoxy. As Brigitte
Berger has observed, feminism has become a new imperialism". [34]
Dr Joyce Little, who teaches at St Thomas' University in Houston,
has pointed out that for all practical intents and purposes, it is
impossible to speak in a Catholic way about the advancement of
women within the context of the feminist debate inasmuch as the
feminist notion of advancement is based on inadequate notions of
faith, freedom and authority. She says:
From the feminist point of view, faith arises out of and is
defined by the experience of women, freedom is linked to
liberation from the realities and responsibilities of marriage and
childbearing (as in 'reproductive freedom'), and authority is
viewed solely as power. Hence feminists seek 'empowerment', and
see women's ordination as the means for getting a place in the
power structure of the Catholic Church...The true advancement of
women rests upon a true understanding of the faith of the Church.
The cause of women is not well served either by the feminist
repudiation of traditional Catholic faith or by inadequate
theologies of the Catholic faith which fail to take into account
the enormous significance of the Marian/ecclesial character of the
new covenant. To repudiate or to misunderstand the faith of the
Church is to repudiate or to misunderstand the female role of Mary
and the Church in relationship to the male role of Jesus Christ
within that covenant. [35]
RADICAL FEMINIST ATTACK ON THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD
The ministerial priesthood and the authority associated with it,
should be seen as an invitation to a deeper reflection on the
meaning of service and authority in the Church and not as a
denigration of women. Referring to this, Dr Joyce Little writes:
Women in particular are called to bear Christ, first, into their
families, bringing up children who are the sons and daughters of
God, and second, into the larger world, by living out and bearing
witness to the order of love, in which the sacred values of human
life and personhood from the moment of conception to the moment of
natural death are placed ahead of secular values of power, fame
and fortune. As regards these secular values, it should be noted,
finally, that nothing is more misinformed than the feminist notion
that the priesthood will give women access to power in the Church.
The Magisterium exercises not power but authority, and there is a
world of difference between the two. Power is the exercise of the
human will over reality, to change or affect it in some way.
Authority is the ability to discern a reality and to define the
doctrines of the faith. The Magisterium has no power to change the
reality of revelation. The Magisterium has only the authority to
discern the mind of Christ and the truth as Christ embodies and
reveals it. The notion that the Pope and/or the Bishops could
allow divorce and remarriage, contraception, the ordination of
women and a host of other things desired today rests upon the
assumption that they exercise power, not authority. But they have
no power to change what Christ has revealed. They have only the
authority to discern that revelation. The Pope and the Bishops are
as bound to the faith of the Church as is every other member of
the Church. [36]
Speaking of how deep is the anger and vehemence with which some
feminists are opposed to the priesthood and to the moral doctrine
of the Church, Helen Hull Hitchcock says:
So long as the Church stands, the Church's moral law 'oppresses'
them - makes them feel powerless. It should be no surprise that
the priesthood is the focus of utter abhorrence for the
feminist/liberationist. First of all because it claims authority -
in fact, Divine authority, supernatural authority which transcends
human experience and comes, not 'from within', but from outside
the self. Second (and at least equally), because the priesthood is
utterly and unchangeably male. For feminists of both sexes,
resentment against, if not hatred of, the male sex is the filter
through which all existing institutions - especially religion, and
certainly including the language of worship - must be strained.
For many feminists the determination to exact justice for their
oppression by 'patriarchal religion' dominates virtually every
other concern. Deep and ineradicable resentment underlies the
feminist attack on the authority of the priesthood as well as the
demand that the exclusively male priesthood be
abolished...Meanwhile, the feminists' thirst for power, combined
with deep resentment of the Church (which, for them, looms as the
most insuperable obstacle to their achievement of 'freedom' and
exercise of power), gives rise to their overwhelming desire - and
apparently equally overwhelming energy - to destroy her at her
very foundation: the Word of God - the Scripture, and rites and
prayers based on acknowledging that Divine authority. [37]
THE UNISEX UTOPIA
Philosophically, feminism has borrowed from Marxism and
Liberalism. From Marxism it takes the notion of the need to
overthrow all alienating power structures in order to create the
"new man". The struggle in this regard must be extended to the
family and the relations between men and women. According to
Engels, private households based on marriage must, as far as
possible, be broken up and children raised by the state. [38] In
this perspective, feminism views the family based on marriage as a
vehicle for the domestic enslavement of women, who in order to be
liberated, must extricate themselves from the nurturing of
children and become employed instead in what is deemed to be more
socially productive forms of labour. Marxist inspired feminism
posits that differences in behaviour between the sexes are
determined by social conditions and role expectations rather than
by nature. From liberalism, feminism borrows the notion that in
planning their lives and in striving for personal autonomy, women
must have the widest possible range of choices, e.g. the so-called
"right to choose" in relation to abortion. In stating that "woman
is called to motherhood", Jutta Burggraf adds:
Some radical feminists see motherhood as a 'shackle of nature',
from which the emancipated woman should free herself. Many women
are unaware of how greatly they are influenced by this
perspective, how much their own scale of values depends on it in
regard to 'self-fulfilment', the number of children, and salaried
employment. Nevertheless, an ever increasing number of Christians
are managing to escape this cultural terrorism. To the extent that
they enjoy an ever deepening experience of faith, they understand
that rebellion against their own nature means rebelling against
the Creator - and that one can have a balanced personality only by
living at peace with oneself and one's body. The 'self-liberation'
of woman cannot be reduced to a banal leveling according to the
male model". [39]
After stating that "feminism is one of the worst threats to the
Church today", Dr Alice von Hildebrand went on to say: "The roots
of feminism are pride, resentment, rebellion, arrogance, impurity
and atheism - a rejection of God because he has, so to speak,
placed women in what feminists consider to be a place of
inferiority. It is a revolt against a woman's situation that she
is receptive, that a woman becomes pregnant, that she gives birth
in pain and anguish and therefore that she seems definitely
inferior to man from the human point of view". After saying this,
Dr von Hildebrand added: "Feminists totally betray femininity and
totally misunderstand the mission of a woman. They reject the Holy
Virgin as model of all women. Feminists have a desire to be like
men and compete with men...Meditate on the fact that the Holy
Virgin was not chosen to be an Apostle, was not chosen to be a
priest, and nevertheless was infinitely holier than any of the
Apostles". [40] In dismissing all distinctions between man and
woman as simply the product of reinforced role expectations,
radical feminism thereby divests the difference between men and
women of all metaphysical symbolism. This depraved vision of the
human person inevitably leads to the assertion of a moral
equivalence for all forms of sexual behaviour, to the rejection of
marriage, and to problems with the sacramental system of the
Catholic Church. [41] Touching on some of these points, Jutta
Burggraf said:
Contemporary feminism does not concern itself with the legal and
social equality of women but rather with the total equalization of
the sexes, or even the elevation of women above men. Sexuality,
motherhood, marriage, and family are definitively rejected. Free
abortion is advocated, and after the education of children is
transferred to men and society, the substitution of pregnancy by
test-tube breeding is envisaged. The long-term objective is the
radical change of human beings as they exist in traditionally
structured society, the achievement of a "new" (androgynous) man
in a "new world"...Feminism may even be considered the climax of
contemporary anti-Christian revolutions: the French Revolution of
1789, for instance, had abandoned the Three Estates, the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917, private production. Now, however, an immediate
work of God is abolished, namely, the polar sexuality of man, the
psychological and biological nature of man and woman. [42]
As is clear from what has been said above, radical feminism
postulates that attachment to an objective norm derived from
creation which anchors the vocation of woman in a complentary
relationship to that of man is inherently oppressive. Speaking of
this, Barbara Albrecht said:
It is part of feminism's "secret dogma" that anything objectively
given or pre-assigned, not determined by the individual, is a
priori an obstacle to self-fulfillment and must therefore be
rejected. I wish to determine all the conditions of my life
myself!...This "dogma" results in the belief that change alone
(down to an ontological revolution and the creation of a
counterculture) is a worthwhile goal. Stability, on the other
hand, measuring against an objective norm which is contained in
the creative order, submitting to the fundamental givens of life,
is in itself regarded as alienation. The rage against Rome and all
it entails is so violent because the radical feminists feel
instinctively that the Catholic Church is the strongest bastion,
the last institution which fervently defends marriage, family, and
a concept of man and woman which corresponds to the order of
creation. [43]
While the influence of secular feminism now appears to be waning
as it disintegrates into a multiplicity of warring factions, the
same cannot however be said about religious feminism. Speaking of
this, Donna Steichen said:
When feminism is defined as a movement to establish the equality
of women it sounds plausible. But its fruits betray its real
nature. Even at its least destructive, it is a tactical falsehood,
like the Emperor's new clothes. It attempts to establish equality
between the sexes, which already exists in fact, by forcing
everyone to pretend the sexes are identical. In the family, it
would substitute performance contracts and pre-nuptial divorce
agreements for the loving donation of all one's self and goods to
a permanent common life. In commerce, it is a divisive form of
reverse discrimination. In academia, as academics know, it is a
cut-throat politics, unconcerned with fact or scholarly
objectivity. In its ultimate manifestation, in religious feminism,
it is an anarchic madness. Most of secular society has moved past
it to different enthusiasms, not necessarily wholesome. Even
Gloria Steinem is talking more about the New Age "journey within"
than about feminism these days. But in the Church, feminism is
still at fever peak. Catholic feminists are like Gadarene swine,
plunging off a cliff into the sea. Eventually, like all religious
revolutionaries, they will dash themselves to destruction against
the rock of the Church. Even Elaine Pagels, fond though she had
grown of gnosticism, admitted in the Gnostic Gospels that ancient
gnosticism died and Catholicism lived because the Church's
sacraments and moral teachings, affirming the goodness of the
natural order, of marriage, procreation, childbirth and practical
charity, are exactly what men need to make ordinary life sacred.
In the end, in his own time, God will restore his Church, writing
straight with man's crooked lines. [44]
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 5 ENDNOTES
� 1 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 29.
� 2 Pope Paul VI, L'Osservatore Romano, 1/5/75.
� 3 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n. 24.
� 4 Ibid.
� 5 Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 1. Quoting Vatican
II's Message To Women (8 December 1965).
� 6 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 12/7/95
� 7 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 9/9/95
� 8 Pope John Paul II, Letter To Women, L'Osservatore Romano,
12/7/95
� 9 Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 17.
� 10 Ibid. n. 21.
� 11 Ibid.
� 12 Ibid.
� 13 Ibid.
� 14 Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 99.
� 15 Mother Anna Maria Canopi, O.S.B. L'Osservatore Romano,
21/7/93
� 16 Phyllis Schlafly. The Power of the Christian Woman, Standard
Publishing, Cincinnati, 1981, pp. 9-12
� 17 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 17/11/93
� 18 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/8/94
� 19 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 29.
� 20 Pope John Paul II, Address to 23 Bishops from the United
States at Castlegandolfo, September 5, 1983.
� 21 Ibid.
� 22 Fr Louis Bouyer, L'Osservatore Romano, 20/1/77.
� 23 Ibid.
� 24 Ibid.
� 25 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93
� 26 Cf. Mons. Robert Sokolowski. Some Remarks On Inclusive
Language, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/3/93.
� 27 CCC. n. 239.
� 28 CCC. n. 240.
� 29 C.S. Lewis. 'Priestesses in the Church?', from God in the
Dock (London 1979), p. 90. Cited by William Oddie in What Will
Happen To God? Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian
Belief, p.2, see reference below.
� 30 Dr William Oddie, What Will Happen To God? Feminism And The
Reconstruction Of Christian Belief. Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1988, p. 11
� 31 Fr Manfred Hauke. Op. cit. p.72
� 32 Cornelia R. Ferreira. The Emerging Feminist Religion, Life
Ethics Centre, Toronto, 1989, pp. 3-7.
� 33 Ronda Chervin, reviews on back cover of Ungodly Rage.
� 34 Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic
Feminism, Ignatius Press, 1991, pp. 23-24.
� 35 Dr Joyce Little, L'Osservatore Romano, 14/4/93
� 36 Ibid.
� 37 Helen Hull Hitchcock. The Politics Of Prayer: Feminist
Language And The Worship Of God, Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1992, pp. xxiv-xxv
� 38 Engels, Ursprung, p. 62, see Fr Manfred Hauke, op. cit. p.
31.
� 39 Jutta Burggraf, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/4/93.
� 40 Dr Alice von Hildebrand. These observations were made during
the Young Adult Symposium at Domus Pacis in Fatima, Portugal, on
August 25, 1990.
� 41 Cf. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/7/89
� 42 Jutta Burggraf, in The Church and Women, op. cit. pp. 238-39.
� 43 Barbara Albrecht, in The Church and Women, op. cit. p. 39.
� 44 Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage, op. cit. pp. 398-99
CHAPTER VI : CELIBACY: A PRICELESS TREASURE
1.OBJECTIONS TO CELIBACY
2.CELIBACY IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD AND
IT IS ROOTED IN THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES
3.THE CHURCH RESOLUTELY DEFENDS CELIBACY
4.CELIBACY : A SIGN OF CONTRADICTION
At present the Australian media seems to be engaged in a concerted
drive for the acceptability by the Catholic Church of a non-
celibate and married clergy. In a permissive society like our own,
which has come to increasingly assert that sexual gratification of
whatever kind is normal and necessary for the maturation of
personality, celibacy tends to be regarded as something of an
enigma. Consequently, the debate over the celibate priesthood, as
it is conducted in the public arena, rarely gets beyond
psychological and sociological categories to the way in which
celibacy is rooted in the mystery of Christ and his Church. In
1985, Ignatius Press published an excellent book by Cardinal
Alfons Maria Stickler entitled The Case For Clerical Celibacy. The
book deals with the historical development and theological
foundations of the Church's law on celibacy. Speaking of the
futility of trying to understand in secular terms the rationale
for the Church's law of celibacy, Cardinal Stickler said: "The
priesthood of the Catholic Church is a mystery which is, in its
turn, immersed in the mystery of the Church of Christ. Every
problem concerning this priesthood - and especially the great and
ever-present problem of celibacy - can and must not be resolved on
the basis of considerations and reasons which are purely
anthropological, psychological or sociological, or in terms which
are in general profane and of this world. The problem of celibacy
cannot be resolved within purely secular categories. Every aspect
of the life and activity of the priest, his nature and his
identity, is founded first of all on a theological justification".
[1]
OBJECTIONS TO CELIBACY
I am convinced that those who in the Latin Church are campaigning
for a lifting of the celibacy rule in the hope that it will
alleviate the priest shortage are in fact only serving to deflect
attention away from the real causes of the vocations drought in
this country. Advocates for the lifting of the celibacy rule
assert that if celibacy were made optional then more candidates
would present themselves for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They
also claim that if the celibacy rule were lifted, then many of
those who left the priesthood in order to marry would return to
the active ministry. In his great encyclical on priestly celibacy
entitled Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, Pope Paul VI before developing
the reasons why the celibacy rule is a good for the Universal
Church first enumerated some common objections to it such as:
� Jesus did not make it a prerequisite in his choice of the
Twelve, nor did the Apostles in choosing those who would preside
over the first Christian communities; [2]
� The traditional arguments in favour of celibacy are no longer in
harmony with the different social and cultural milieux in which
the Church today, through her priests, is called upon to work; [3]
� It is unjust to exclude from the priesthood those who, it is
claimed, have been called to the ministry without having been
called to lead a celibate life; [4]
� Maintaining priestly celibacy in the Church does great harm in
regions where there is a shortage of priests - even jeopardising
the initial proclamation of the Gospel; [5]
� A married priesthood would remove occasions of infidelity and
reduce the potential for scandals in the Church. Also, the Church
would benefit from the witness to Christian living of a married
clergy; [6]
� Some priests by reason of their celibacy find themselves in a
situation that is physically and psychologically detrimental to
the development of a mature and well-balanced human personality;
[7]
� Young men are not mature enough to make the type of decision
that a vow of celibacy involves. [8]
After stating that he was well aware that there were other
objections that can be made against priestly celibacy, Pope Paul
VI went on to say:
The sum of these objections would appear to drown out the solemn
and age old voice of the Pastors of the Church and of the masters
of the spiritual life and to nullify the living testimony of the
countless ranks of saints and faithful ministers of God, for whom
celibacy has been the object of the total and generous gift of
themselves to the mystery of Christ, as well as its outward sign .
.we cannot close our eyes to this magnificent, wonderful
reality: that there are still today in God's holy Church, in every
part of the world where she exercises her beneficent influence,
great numbers of her ministers - subdeacons, deacons, priests and
bishops - who are living their life of voluntary celibacy in the
most exemplary way . . .they live in chastity, not out of disdain
for the gift of life, but because of a greater love for that new
life which springs from the paschal mystery. They live this life
of courageous self-denial and spiritual joyfulness with exemplary
fidelity and also with relative facility. [9]
CELIBACY IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD AND IT
IS ROOTED IN THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES
Pope Paul VI began the encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus by
saying: "Priestly celibacy has been guarded by the Church for
centuries as a brilliant jewel, and retains its value undiminished
even in our time when mentality and structures have undergone such
profound change". [10] The ministerial priest is called to have
the same "mind which was in Christ Jesus" (Phil 2:5). In choosing
the celibate life, Jesus Christ - "who remains a priest for ever"
(Heb 7:3) - left us an example of the perfection of charity which
culminated in His complete self-emptying on the Cross. [11] Jean
Galot, in speaking of how priestly celibacy is rooted in the
example of Christ says: "The link between priesthood and celibacy
was established first in Christ himself. The indisputable fact of
Christ's celibacy shows that, in its most perfect realisation, the
priesthood entails the renunciation of marriage. This is the first
ray of light coming to us from the Gospel: the supreme model of
the priesthood is the celibate model". [12] Wholly in accord with
the mission he had received from His Father, Christ "remained
throughout his whole life in the state of celibacy, which
signified his total dedication to the service of God and men. This
deep connection between celibacy and the priesthood of Christ is
reflected in those whose fortune it is to share in the dignity and
in the mission of the Mediator and eternal Priest; this sharing
will be more perfect the freer the sacred minister is from the
bonds of flesh and blood". [13]
Referring to the Gospel accounts of the call of the first priests,
Pope Paul VI said: "Jesus, who selected the first ministers of
salvation, wished them to be introduced to the understanding of
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk
8:10), to be co-workers with God under a very special title, and
His ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20). He called them friends and brethren
(Jn 15:15; 20:17), for whom he consecrated himself so that they
might be consecrated in truth (Jn 17:19), he promised a more than
abundant recompense to anyone who should leave home, family, wife
and children for the sake of the kingdom of God (Lk 18:29-30).
More than this, in words filled with mystery and hope, he also
commended an even more perfect consecration to the kingdom of
heaven by means of celibacy, as a special gift ( Mt 19:11-12)".
[14] The Apostles, including St Peter who was married, lived
celibate lives from the time they became disciples of Jesus. The
way of life Jesus instituted for those he called to the priestly
ministry was not only an invitation to them to assimilate his
teaching and pass it on to others, it was also an invitation to
unite themselves to Him by making a total gift of themselves.
Jesus called on them to renounce everything to follow him. He
enumerated these renunciations as: "house, brothers, sisters,
father, children, land" (Mt 10:29). To this list St Luke adds
"wife" (Lk 18:29; 14:26), a text supported by Jesus' praise of
voluntary celibacy (Mt 19:12). Referring to these renunciations,
Jean Galot says:
Three basic renunciations are discernible: marriage and family,
possessions, and secular occupation. These renunciations impinge
upon the essential dimensions of man's life: man's relational
being which, through marriage and family, inserts itself into a
network of social relationships and contributes to the natural
growth of society; man's having which implies the possession of
goods by which man extends his control over the world and insures
his own material future; man's doing by which men make a living
and contribute a share of their own to the well-being of society.
By this call, then, Christ claims possession of the person, all
personal dimensions included. [15]
In an article entitled The Logic of Priestly Celibacy, Fr Anthony
Zimmerman, S.V.D. made some interesting observations on the
celibate lifestyle of the Apostles when he said:
"Come, follow me," Jesus said very simply to Peter and Andrew as
they were casting their nets. "I will make you fishers of men" (Mt
4:19). They did exactly that: leaving their nets they followed
him. That would be quite unusual if they intended to support a
family. Going on from there, Christ saw James and John, also
fishermen. Jesus called them too, and "immediately they left the
boat and their father and followed him" (Mt 4:22). We see a
pattern developing, of disciples who quit work which is necessary
to support a family . . .Christ eventually filled out the band to
twelve whom he then called apostles (Lk 6:12-16). This initial
band, according to Matthew, then travelled throughout Galilee
preaching the good news of the kingdom. Their home, henceforth,
was the road. Their income was alms . . .We see that the lifestyle
Jesus led with the apostles practically prevented them from
leading a normal family life. Family life was not compatible with
their itinerant apostolic lifestyle as described in the Gospel . .
A rich young man was told: "Sell everything you have and give to
the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow
me" (Lk 18;22). That is not the kind of advice one gives to a man
preparing for marriage, or to a husband and father who intends to
care for a family. At that point Peter spoke up, reminding Christ
that they had actually made the renunciations which the rich young
man had failed to make. Peter said to Jesus: "We have left all we
had to follow you". Christ then gave explicit approval to what
Peter and the apostles had apparently done: "I tell you the truth:
no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or
children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive
many times as much in this age and in the age to come eternal
life" (Lk 18:29-30). [16]
The Church's law on celibacy is not prompted by a concern for
'ritual purity' nor by the belief that only through celibacy is
holiness possible as some advocates of optional celibacy have
claimed. Celibacy is a positive reality in that it calls the
ordained priest to unconditionally lay down his life for the
salvation of others. Like the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself,
celibacy "is a consecration to God on behalf of the people whom
priests are sent to serve". [17] In the Gospel, Jesus says that
"unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains
alone; but if it dies; it bears much fruit" (Jn 12:24). Applying
these words of the Gospel to St Paul and to the vocation of the
celibate priest, Pope Paul VI said: "The Apostle Paul did not
hesitate to expose himself to a daily death, in order to obtain
amongst his faithful glory in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 15:31). In a
similar way, by a daily dying to himself, and by giving up the
legitimate love of a family of his own for the love of Christ and
his kingdom, the priest will find the glory of an exceedingly rich
and fruitful life in Christ, because like him and in him, he loves
and dedicates himself to all the children of God". [18] Speaking
of this sacrificial aspect of the commitment to celibacy, Cardinal
James Hickey said:
Celibacy is an apt, indeed, a beautiful expression of the Lord's
sacrificial love, which the priest bears in the depth of his
being. It helps the priest reveal the love he proclaims to his
people. Just as celibacy is undertaken in freedom, so too Jesus
laid down his life freely. Just as celibacy means a deep giving of
self, so too Jesus gives us everything for the sake of our
Redemption. If being a priest means being but an instrument of the
Great High Priest, then surely the celibate state of life
illuminates rather than obscures the meaning of that life, which,
like the Lord's, is "for others". [19]
In reference to the authentic meaning of clerical celibacy, John
McAreavey says: "Celibacy does not reflect a sterile misogynism, a
rejection of marriage or a denial of the goodness of human
sexuality; neither is it the price placed by an unfeeling Church
on entry to the priesthood. It is a charism by means of which
those who are called to consecrate themselves to Christ in the
service of his people can do so 'with an undivided heart'. It is a
radical, loving gift of themselves made in imitation of Christ
himself. It is a response made in love through the grace of the
Holy Spirit to the love that the Father has shown us in Christ.
Moreover it is a gift which needs to be sustained by a life of
prayer and fraternal encouragement". [20] Speaking of this
sacrificial love by which the celibate priest reflects the love of
Christ for the Church, Archbishop Desmond Connell said:
Celibacy then is a special perfection of priestly love by which
the priest surrenders himself entirely to Christ and becomes able
thereby to reflect in his own life the love of Christ for the
Church. The Church knows how her Head and Shepherd gave himself
for her sake and that is why she looks to the priest as his
representative to manifest before the world that total gift of
love. And so, in the priest's fidelity the Church possesses a
powerful sign of the love with which she is loved by Christ . .
Celibacy is not a cruel imposition but a life of love in the
likeness of the love by which the world was redeemed. It is a sign
that love overcomes the world, a pledge of the hope in the power
of Christ's resurrection to raise our weak and mortal bodies to
the new and everlasting life of heaven. The world does not want
our priests to be celibate because it does not have faith. And so
it does not understand the depth of the mystery of love in Christ,
a gift that gives new meaning to the total gift of self and makes
it a source of imperishable life for the world. [21]
Neither is the celibacy rule for priests a rejection of the
dignity and nobility of marriage as some commentators have
claimed. Matrimony and celibacy are two states of life which shed
light on each other insofar as both of them involve a living out
of the virtue of chastity. Referring to celibacy chosen for the
sake of the Kingdom of God, Pope John Paul II said: "In virginity
and celibacy, chastity retains its original meaning, that is, of
human sexuality lived as a genuine sign of and precious service to
the love of communion and gift of self to others. This meaning is
fully found in virginity which makes evident, even in the
renunciation of marriage, the 'nuptial meaning' of the body
through a communion and a personal gift to Jesus Christ and his
Church". [22] Going beyond a purely legalistic understanding of
the celibacy rule and seeing in the celibate priest one who is
configured to Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church, Pope John
Paul II said: "
Inasmuch as it is a law, it {celibacy} expresses the Church's
will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his
readiness. But the will of the Church finds its ultimate
motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination,
which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of
the Church. The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to
be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which
Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her. Priestly celibacy,
then, is the gift of self in and with Christ to his Church and
expresses the priest's service to the Church in and with the
Lord". [23]
In the community of the faithful, the consecrated celibacy of the
priest manifests the virginal love of Christ for His spouse which
is the Church and for which "he sacrificed Himself to make her
holy" (Eph 5:25-27). The Second Vatican Council said that by means
of celibacy "priests profess before men their willingness to be
dedicated with undivided loyalty to the task entrusted to them,
namely that of espousing the faithful to one husband and
presenting them as a chaste virgin to Christ. They recall that
mystical marriage, established by God and destined to be fully
revealed in the future, by which the Church holds Christ as her
only spouse. Moreover they are made a living sign of that world to
come, already present through faith and charity, a world in which
the children of the resurrection shall neither be married nor take
wives". [24] Consequently, celibacy freely chosen for the sake of
the Kingdom of God - not only does not contradict the dignity of
marriage - but presupposes it and confirms it". [25] Marriage and
celibacy are thus "two ways of expressing and living the one
mystery of the covenant of God with his people". [26] Through the
witness of his life, the celibate priest aids Christian spouses to
live fully the 'great sacrament' of the love of Christ the
bridegroom for his spouse the Church. Through the example of his
own faithfulness to celibacy as the gift of himself to Christ and
to the people he is called to serve, the celibate priest thus
challenges married couples to be faithful to each other as husband
and wife. [27] In a civilisation that has trivialised marriage and
sexuality, it is not surprising to find that it also regards
celibacy as an enigma. Speaking of this, Archbishop Desmond Connel
said:
The world has no understanding of the celibate life because it
does not see it as a gift from God, which he faithfully sustains
in the priest who relies on his help. The requirement of celibacy
is seen by some as an offence against the dignity of marriage. How
then can it be that the Church is the foremost defender of the
sanctity of marriage in a world that has ceased to protect it?
Experience has shown that it is where the gift of celibacy is
honoured that the gift of marriage is preserved. That is because
the Church sees these two different vocations not in purely
worldly terms but in relation to God and his grace. [28]
THE CHURCH RESOLUTELY DEFENDS CELIBACY
Those who call for a change in the celibacy rule in the Latin
Church often distort its meaning and its history. For example,
Sandra DeGidio, in her book Sacraments Alive, which as we saw in
Chapter 2 is compulsory reading for students at the Australian
Catholic University in Sydney, in speaking of the relationship
between priesthood and celibacy says:
Toward the end of the tenth century another dramatic change began
to take place in the development of the priesthood - the issue of
celibacy. Prior to this time, priests and bishops were married
with families. There was no such thing as celibacy for diocesan
clergy. For the sake of ritual purity however, priests were
required to refrain from sexual intercourse the night before
celebrating the eucharist. Once a week, this was not difficult. As
daily eucharist became fashionable, however, this obviously
presented some problems. Contributing to the celibacy issue was
the priests' and bishops' involvement in the feudal system, their
ownership of land and other property that they could pass on to
their children. Power brought with it greed. Human in the midst of
trying to be like the divine, bishops and priests fell into a
situation of nepotism. They began passing on their power, their
property, and sometimes church property as well to their
offspring. The Church's property began to disappear and there was
a call for reform. A rule of celibacy for priests and bishops
became the solution to the problem. Although the idea of celibacy
was advocated and locally imposed (with greater or lesser success)
as early as the fourth century, and restrictions were introduced
at the end of the tenth century, there was no law of celibacy as a
universal requirement for priests of the Latin rite until the
twelfth century. In a 2000-year history, the law of celibacy is
relatively new, and its rationale may no longer exist. [29]
Cardinal Stickler exposes as false the claims that clerical
celibacy began either with the Council of Elvira (AD 306) or that
it was a medieval invention dating from the Second Lateran Council
(AD 1139). He demonstrates that from Apostolic times and in the
early centuries of the Church there were universally two
categories of celibate priests. The first were the Viri Probati.
These were priests who were married before ordination, but once
ordained and with prior spousal consent, they abstained
permanently from conjugal relations. This category of priest
existed up until the Council of Trent. The second category of
celibate priest - the one preferred by the early Church - was the
Virgin Celibate. These were not married before ordination, and
were bound to celibacy from ordination onwards. Cardinal Stickler
shows that during the period of the persecutions in the first
three centuries of the Church, there were binding laws and rules
regarding obligatory celibacy which had been passed down orally
from one generation to the next. This process was similar to the
development of law in most countries - oral tradition first and
then with the passage of time their codification. As regards St.
Paul's words that "the elder . . .be married not more than once
(cf. 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6), Cardinal Stickler reveals that the
early Church understood this as signifying that a married
candidate for Holy Orders must have been married only once and
that thenceforth he was bound by absolute celibacy. [30] This was
how St Ambrose for example understood the Pauline recommendation.
[31]
In the year 390AD, a group of bishops was gathered in Carthage to
discuss celibacy. In canon 2 accepted by the Council of Carthage,
the Bishops succinctly summarised the longstanding tradition in
respect of married clergy when it declared: "That the chastity of
the Levites and the priests must be preserved . . .The rule of
continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council.
Let it {now} be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks
that, by virtue of their consecration, are under the same
obligation to chastity, i.e., the bishop, the priest and the
deacon, and let them be instructed to keep their purity . . .What
the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us
also endeavour to keep". [32]
Commenting on canon 2 of the Council of Carthage, John McAreavey
says:
"This canon assumes that the clergy it addresses are married. The
discipline it expresses is not a new one, having 'been discussed
in a previous council'. Moreover the Fathers of Carthage are only
expressing something that was 'taught by the apostles and observed
by antiquity itself'. This discipline can be regarded as settled
in as much as it was accepted 'unanimously' by the bishops". [33]
McAreavey brings a further perspective to bear on this ruling of
the Council of Carthage when he says: "It {canon 2} is directed at
those who have reached the three higher ranks of the clergy
through their consecration. This consecration of themselves is the
principal reason for their chastity. By their consecration they
have been raised to the status of sacred persons, set apart to
carry out functions of a divine nature. Those who receive this
consecration must manifest in their lives that they have been
introduced into an order of realities that is different from the
one in which they were previously involved. The most obvious sign
of this passage is that of putting an end to conjugal intercourse,
a bond that would hold the minister outside the sacred sphere
where he must now live . . .In other words, it is their service of
the eucharist that is the basis of the continence they are asked
to observe". [34] From the beginning of the fourth century, the
Popes and pastors of the Church promoted and defended
ecclesiastical celibacy "even when they met opposition from the
clergy itself and when the practices of a decadent society did not
favour the heroic demands of virtue. The obligation of celibacy
was then solemnly sanctioned by the Sacred Ecumenical Council of
Trent and finally included in the Code of Canon Law". [35]
Those who campaign for a lifting of the celibacy rule often appeal
to the practice of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome who
ordain married men and who in doing so are supposed to have
preserved the original general discipline of the primitive Church.
However, this question is not as simple as it is often presented
and it ignores the fact that celibacy has an important place in
these Churches too. In the Eastern Churches, only celibates are
ordained bishops who receive the fullness of the priesthood.
Moreover, although married men are ordained as priests, no priest
is permitted to marry after he has been ordained - even after the
death of his wife. This "indicates that these venerable Churches
also possess to a certain extent the principle of a celibate
priesthood. It shows too that there is a certain appropriateness
for the Christian priesthood, of which the bishops possess the
summit and the fullness, of the observance of celibacy". [36]
The practice in Oriental Churches of allowing married priests
conjugal relations after ordination cannot find any support in the
discipline of the early Church. Roman Cholij, a priest of the
Ukrainian rite, has studied the origins of this tradition in the
Oriental Churches and in his book Clerical Celibacy East and West
(1989) he shows that it dates only from the Oriental Council of
Trullo in 691. The book is based on a thesis Cholij presented to
the Faculty of Canon Law at the Pontifical Gregorian University in
Rome during 1986. [37] Cholij points out that while there were
instances of married men being ordained deacons, priests, and even
bishops prior to the Council of Elvira, the fact that they were
however called upon to renounce their conjugal rights was seen as
something which was in fidelity to the Apostolic tradition.
Consequently, the Council of Elvira introduced nothing new but was
simply codifying what had been the accepted practice up until that
time. The findings of Colij are corroborated by Cardinal Stickler
whose research also reveals that the Eastern Tradition of allowing
married priests conjugal relations after ordination only goes back
to a decree of the Council of Trullo. This decree however was
based on a falsification of the celibacy legislation from the
Council of Carthage whose Codex as we saw earlier upheld absolute
celibacy as derived from Apostolic tradition. Commenting on this
alteration of historical texts undertaken in order to facilitate a
change in the celibacy rules of the Oriental Churches, Cardinal
Stickler says: "This attitude and approach to the question of
celibacy by the Trullan Fathers constitute a further not
unimportant proof that the tradition of the Catholic Church of the
West remains the genuine one. The fact is that it can be traced
back to the apostles and is founded on the living consciousness of
the entire early Church". [38] Cardinal Stickler also points out
that several leading scholars and canonists in the Oriental
Churches have since the fourteenth century been sceptical about
the translations of the texts of the early African Councils which
were adopted by the Council Trullo and upon which the decree
allowing married priests conjugal relations was based. [39]
In his Apologia, Cardinal Newman said that one of the things that
impressed him about the Catholic Church before his conversion to
it was "her zealous maintenance of the doctrine and rule of
celibacy, which I recognised as Apostolic". [40] Newman undertook
to write his Apologia in order to respond to an attack on himself
and on the Catholic priesthood by Charles Kingsley who said: "I
found him {Newman} denying or explaining away the existence of
that priestcraft which is a notorious fact to every honest student
of history". [41] In continuity with great teachers of the Church
such as St Augustine, Newman knew from the time he was 15 years
old that God called some men to lead a celibate life in order to
place themselves unreservedly at the service of the Gospel.
Speaking of this in the Apologia, he says that it was in Autumn
1816 that he first became aware "that it would be the will of God
that I should lead a single life". [42] After he had become a
priest, Newman saw his work as virtually inimical to marriage.
This was partly because of the demands it placed upon him, and
partly because of the necessity he felt of regarding the priestly
calling as a semi-retirement from the world. [43] However, Newman
was careful to point out that those who like St Paul, decide not
to marry in order to serve God, should do so "not to labour less,
but to labour more directly for the Lord". [44] Also, while Newman
was especially conscious of the dignity and holiness of marriage,
he nevertheless saw the vocation to celibacy as a particular grace
which in exemplifying the virtue of purity entailed a special
interchange of love between God and the person called to it.
Speaking of this to his congregation in 1841, he said: "If there
is one grace in which Christianity stands in special contrast to
the old religion, it is that of purity. Christ was born of a
virgin; his beloved disciple was a virgin; he abolished polygamy
and divorce; and he said that there were those who for the kingdom
of heaven's sake would be even as he" [45]
Those who at present are calling for a lifting of the celibacy
rule do not seem to appreciate the fact that the question has been
dealt with at length over the last 40 years. On one occasion Pope
John XXIII said: "It deeply hurts us that . . .anyone can dream
that the Church will deliberately or even suitably renounce what
from time immemorial has been, and still remains, one of the
purest and noblest glories of her priesthood. The law of
ecclesiastical celibacy and the efforts necessary to preserve it
always recall to mind the struggles of heroic times when the
Church of Christ had to fight for and succeeded in obtaining her
threefold glory, always an emblem of victory, that is, the Church
of Christ, free, chaste, and catholic". [46] In his Encyclical
Letter Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia, Pope John XXIII in speaking of
the place of celibacy in the life of the priest said:
This type of spirituality {celibacy}, grounded in the observance
of priestly chastity, far from imprisoning the priest's soul
within the sterile confines of its own self-seeking, will set it
free from self, and leave it wide open to embrace the needs of
others. As St John Vianney so well observed: 'The soul that is
adorned with this virtue of chastity cannot help loving others,
for it has found God, the well-spring of love'. How innumerable,
how immense are the benefits such men confer upon society.
Emancipated from the cares of the world, they have found full
freedom in the service of God; freedom to spend their lives, their
thoughts and energies, upon the welfare of their fellows. How
great is the service which such priests render to the Church;
priests whose first care it is to preserve perfect chastity, which
we, no less than our illustrious Predecessor, Pius XI, regard as
'the most precious treasure of the Catholic priesthood'. Such
chastity, 'is something which seems to us to correspond better to
the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to his purpose in
regard to priestly souls. [47]
Referring to how the celibate life is most appropriate to the
priestly vocation since it better actualises the priest's
consecration to Christ with an undivided heart which affords him
greater freedom for the service of God's Kingdom, the Second
Vatican Council said:
Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven was recommended by Christ the Lord. It has been freely
accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the
centuries as well as in our own time, and has always been highly
esteemed in a special way by the Church as a feature of priestly
life . . .There are many ways in which celibacy is in harmony with
the priesthood. For the whole mission of the priest is dedicated
to the service of the new humanity which Christ, the victor over
death, raises up in the world through his Spirit and which is born
'not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God' (Jn 1:13). By preserving virginity or celibacy for the
sake of the kingdom of heaven priests are consecrated in a new and
excellent way to Christ. They more readily cling to him with
undivided heart and dedicate themselves more freely in him and
through him to the service of God and of men. They are less
encumbered in their service of his kingdom and of the task of
heavenly regeneration. In this way they become better fitted for a
broader acceptance of fatherhood in Christ. [48]
Linking celibacy to the holiness of the Church, Vatican II said:
"The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the
manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the
Gospel for them to observe. Towering among these counsels is that
precious gift of divine grace given to some by the Father (cf. Mt
19:11; 1 Cor. 7:7) to devote themselves to God alone more easily
with an undivided heart (cf. 1 Cor 7: 32-34) in virginity and
celibacy. This perfect continence for love of the kingdom of
heaven has always been held in high esteem by the Church as a sign
and stimulus of love, and as a singular source of spiritual
fertility in the world". [49] While the Council acknowledged that
celibacy "is not demanded of the priesthood by its nature," [50]
it did however reaffirm the practice in the Latin Church of
linking the ordained priesthood to celibacy. It said: "Celibacy,
which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the
Latin Church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to Holy
Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation
so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels
confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate
to the priesthood of the New Testament, is liberally granted by
the Father, provided those who share Christ's priesthood through
the sacrament of order, and indeed the whole Church, ask for that
gift humbly and earnestly". [51]
In a homily at Knock Shrine in June 1995, Cardinal Cathal Daly
stated that "the mind and will of the worldwide College of
Bishops, in communion with the Pope, on the question of priestly
celibacy, cannot be claimed to be in doubt". As evidence of this,
Cardinal Daly cited a Proposition adopted by the Bishops at the
1990 Synod. After stating that celibacy "is a charism", this
proposition went on to say:
Celibacy is a priceless gift of God for the Church and has a
prophetic value for the world today. This synod strongly reaffirms
what the Latin Church and some Oriental rites require - that is,
that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have
received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity
(without prejudice to the tradition of some Oriental churches and
particular cases of married clergy who convert to Catholicism,
which are admitted as exceptions in Pope Paul VI's encyclical on
priestly celibacy, no. 42). The synod does not wish to leave any
doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church's firm will to
maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy
for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the
Latin rite. The synod would like to see celibacy presented and
explained in the fullness of its biblical, theological and
spiritual richness, as a precious gift given by God to his Church
and as a sign of the kingdom which is not of this world - a sign
of God's love for this world and of the undivided love of the
priest for God and for God's people, with the result that celibacy
is seen as a positive enrichment of the priesthood. [52]
The Bishops explicitly asked Pope John Paul II to include this
proposition in his post-Synodal Exhortation, which he subsequently
did. According to Cardinal Daly, Pope John Paul II on receiving
the proposition is rumoured to have said: "Well, they can't say
any longer that it's only a Polish Pope who insists on maintaining
the tradition of priestly celibacy". [53] In a clear reference to
dissident views publicly aired by some bishops on the subject of
priestly celibacy and other issues, Cardinal Daly pointed out in
his Knock homily that such "personal opinions" which departed from
communion with the world-wide college of bishops, or which were at
variance with the teaching of the Holy Father - were just that,
"personal opinions" - and as such "they cannot be said to carry
the special weight of the episcopal office or to be an exercise of
episcopal authority in the proper sense". [54] Those Catholics -
both clergy and laity - who sometimes feature in the media calling
for a change in the Church's law on celibacy, often base their
case on pretentious arguments such as that of "an abstracted
spiritualism or claiming that continence leads to indifference for
sexuality, or they start from the consideration of difficult and
painful cases, or even generalise particular cases". [55] This
denies, however, "the testimony offered by the great majority of
priests, who live their celibacy with internal freedom, rich
evangelical motivation, spiritual depth, all in a panorama of
strong and joyful fidelity to their vocation and mission". [56]
CELIBACY : A SIGN OF CONTRADICTION
In response to calls for the lifting of the celibacy rule, Pope
Paul VI said: "It is simply not possible to believe that the
abolition of ecclesiastical celibacy would considerably increase
the number of priestly vocations: the contemporary experience of
those Churches and ecclesial communities which allow their
ministers to marry seems to prove the contrary. The cause of the
decrease in vocations is to be found elsewhere, especially, for
example, in the fact that individuals and families have lost their
sense of God and of all that is holy, their esteem for the Church
as the institution of salvation through faith and sacraments, the
institution which must study the true roots of the problem". [57]
Speaking of the difficulty the secular world has with the idea of
celibacy freely chosen for the sake of the Kingdom of God, Fr
Kenneth Baker, S.J. says:
Priestly celibacy, in the sense of a lifetime renunciation of
marriage and conjugal love, is difficult to live in imitation of
Jesus Christ and it is also difficult to understand. There are few
things in the Catholic Church that are more opposed to the
'wisdom' of this world than celibacy for the kingdom of God. The
secular world in which we live does not understand why a healthy
young man or woman would renounce for life the right to sexual
pleasure and the personal intimacy that should go with it. The
reason for this lack of understanding is not far to seek - it lies
in the fact that the secularist lacks faith. Without faith in
Jesus Christ one cannot understand what celibacy is all about and
one cannot live a celibate life. [58]
The fact that we live in a divorce/contraception/abortion and
pornography-ridden society makes the fostering of vocations for
the celibate priesthood all the more difficult. The high rate of
contraceptive practice amongst Catholic couples affects priestly
vocations in at least three ways. First, it reduces the birthrate
amongst Catholics. An analysis of the 1991 Australian Bureau of
Statistics census figures shows that women who described
themselves as Catholics now tend towards the two child norm. In
1966, married Catholic women aged between 35 and 39 had an average
3.18 children compared with 2.91 children across all religions. In
1991, the average family size for Catholic women between 30 and 34
was 1.73 children, compared with 1.7 children across all
religions. [59] As a result of this falling birthrate, the
Catholic population is ageing, with the result that there are
proportionately less young men available to consider whether or
not God is calling them to the priesthood. Secondly, in families
where the parents practice contraception, a secularist mentality
is more likely to prevail, since the contraceptive act itself has
an atheistic aspect to it insofar as it denies that God is the
final arbiter of the coming into existence of a new human being.
[60] Thirdly, children of contracepting parents are less likely to
be brought up in an atmosphere characterised by a spirit of love
and reverence for the teaching of the Magisterium.
As a teacher, I have noted over the last two decades how
secularism has invaded every aspect of education. I teach mostly
in the area of the humanities. The dominant view that is presented
in both textbooks and syllabi, even if only implicitly, is that
God is irrelevant to human affairs. Moral relativism reigns
supreme across the curriculum - it informs both the syllabus
documents and the textbooks. This defect in education, together
with the loss of true family values and the advanced materialism
of Western culture, are all contributing to the severe alienation
of youth. Many of today's youth have a deep seated consumer
consciousness and live in what Solzhenitsyn has called a "TV
Stupor". As such, they are says Pope John Paul II, "prisoners of
the fleeting moment" who seek "to 'consume' the strongest and most
gratifying individual experiences at the level of immediate
emotions and sensations, inevitably finding themselves indifferent
and 'paralysed' as it were when they come face to face with the
summons to embark upon a life project which includes a spiritual
and religious dimension and a commitment to solidarity . . .there
is spreading in every part of the world a sort of practical and
existential atheism which coincides with a secularist outlook on
life and human destiny". [61]
In view of the present situation in the Western world which is not
at all sympathetic to the notion of celibacy voluntarily embraced
out of love for Christ and his Church, there exists an urgent need
to explain the authentic meaning of clerical celibacy to the
faithful. Pope John Paul II stressed this when he spoke of the
need "to instruct and educate the lay faithful regarding the
evangelical, spiritual and pastoral reasons proper to priestly
celibacy, so that they will help priests with their friendship,
understanding and cooperation". [62] It is also essential that
"celibacy should be presented clearly, without any ambiguities and
in a positive fashion" in seminary formation programs. [63]
Coupled with this, "the seminarian should have a sufficient degree
of psychological and sexual maturity as well as an assiduous and
authentic life of prayer, and he should put himself under the
direction of a spiritual father". [64] The spiritual director
should help the seminarian in such a way "that he himself reaches
a mature and free decision, which is built on esteem for priestly
friendship and self-discipline". [65] However, in order that the
seminarian "may be able to embrace priestly celibacy for the
kingdom of heaven with a free decision, he needs to know the
Christian and truly human nature and purpose of sexuality in
marriage and in celibacy". [66] Should they proceed to ordination,
seminarians will have to carry out their priestly ministry in a
very permissive environment. Consequently, they should be taught
to "conduct themselves with due prudence in dealing with those
whose familiarity" might tempt them to forsake their vow of
celibacy and they should learn to follow those "ascetical norms"
which will enable them to "prudently avoid frequenting places,
attending shows or reading materials which constitute a danger to
the observance of celibacy". [67]
The cultural factors which work to diminish esteem for the
priesthood will only be overcome by way of a new evangelisation.
The laity have a very important part to play in this new
evangelisation but they first need to be properly formed and
educated. To talk of lifting the celibacy rule as a means of
dealing with the problems the Church is facing in Western society
is to misinterpret the signs of the times. Instead, we need to
take to heart the words of Pope John Paul II when he said:
Ecclesiastical celibacy is for the Church a treasure to be
carefully guarded and to be presented especially today as a sign
of contradiction for a society which needs to be called back to
the higher and definitive values of life. Present difficulties
cannot cause the rejection of such a precious gift, which the
Church has made her own uninterruptedly from apostolic times,
overcoming other difficult moments that threatened its
preservation. It is necessary today, too, to interpret concrete
situations with faith and humility, without introducing
anthropological, sociological or psychological factors that, while
seeming to resolve problems, actually add to them beyond measure.
Gospel logic, as the facts prove, demonstrates clearly that the
noblest aims are always hard to achieve. We must work hard, then,
and never turn back! So it is always most important to take the
road of a courageous and incisive vocation's apostolate, in the
sure knowledge that the Lord will not fail to provide labourers
for his harvest if young people are offered high ideals and
visible examples of austerity, consistency, generosity and
unconditional dedication". [68]
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 6 ENDNOTES
� 1 Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler, The Case for Clerical
Celibacy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1995, p. 105.
� 2 Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, n. 5
� 3 Ibid. Cf. n. 6
� 4 Ibid. Cf. n. 7
� 5 Ibid. Cf. n. 8
� 6 Ibid. Cf. n. 9
� 7 Ibid. Cf. n. 10
� 8 Ibid. Cf. n. 11
� 9 Ibid. n. 13
� 10 Ibid. n. 1
� 11 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n.30
� 12 Galot, op. cit. p.230
� 13 Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, n. 19
� 14 Ibid. n. 22
� 15 Galot, op. cit. p. 221
� 16 Fr Anthony Zimmerman, SVD. The Logic of Priestly Celibacy,
Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1995, pp. 19-25
� 17 Sacred Congregation For Catholic Education,: A Guide To
Formation In Priestly Celibacy n. 1; Cf. Vatican II, Decr. Optatam
Totius, n.1
� 18 Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, n.30
� 19 Cardinal james Hickey, Mary at the Foot of the Cross: Teacher
and Example of Holiness, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988, p.
157.
� 20 John McAreavey, Priestly Celibacy, Irish Theological
Quarterly, No. 1, 1993, p. 42.
� 21 Archbishop Desmond Connell, Speaking of Priests, op. cit.
� 22 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 29
� 23 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 29
� 24 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16
� 25 Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n. 16.
� 26 Ibid.
� 27 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 50
� 28 Archbishop Desmond Connell, Pastoral Letter, Speaking of
Priests, Veritas, Dublin, 1995.
� 29 Sandra DeGidio, op. cit. p. 134-35
� 30 Cf. Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler, op. cit. p. 31 and pp.
37-38
� 31 For an outline of St Ambrose's understanding of the Pauline
recommendation that "the elder . . .be married no more than once"
see Christian Cochini's The Apostolic Origins of Priestly
Celibacy, Ignatius Press, San Francosco, 1990, pp.234-236. This
book is a translation of a work that was first published in Paris
in 1981 and is based on a thesis presented for the degree of
doctor of theology to the Institut Catolique de Paris in 1969.
Henri de Lubac, S.J.said of it at the time: "This work is of the
first importance. It is the fruit of serious and extensive
research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work
in this whole twentieth century".
� 32 Council of Carthage (390), cited by Cardinal Stickler, The
Case for Clerical Celebacy, op. cit. p. 24.
� 33 John McAreavey, Priestly Celebacy, The Irish Theological
Quarterly, No. 1, 1993, p. 30.
� 34 Ibid.
� 35 Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, n. 35
� 36 Ibid. n. 40
� 37 Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West, Fowler
Wright Books 1989.
� 38 Alfons Cardinal Stickler, op. cit. p. 76-77.
� 39 Ibid. p. 77.
� 40 Cardinal John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Penguin
Classics, London, 1994, p. 65
� 41 "What then does Dr Newman Mean?" in Kingsley versus Newman.
The Full Text (Oxford 1913) 33. Cited by Joseph Tolhurst in The
Interchange of Love: John Henry Newman's Teaching on Celibacy, The
Irish Theological Quarterly, No. 3, 1993, p. 218.
� 42 John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, op. cit. p. 28.
� 43 Cf. Joseph Tolhurst, The Interchange of Love: John Henry
Newman's Teaching on Celibacy, Irish Theological Quarterly, No. 3,
1993, p. 219.
� 44 John Henry Newman, Cf. Ibid. p. 223.
� 45 Ibid. p. 222.
� 46 Pope John XXIII, Address To Roman Synod, 26/1/60
� 47 Pope John XXIII, Enc. Sacerdotti Nostri Primordia, nn. 18, 19
� 48 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16
� 49 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 42
� 50 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16
� 51 Ibid.
� 52 Synod of Bishops 1990, Proposition 11; Cf. Pope John Paul II,
Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 29
� 53 Cardinal Cathal Daly, The Irish Family, 30/6/95, p. 3
� 54 Cardinal Cathal Daly, op. cit.
� 55 Directory On The Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 60.
� 56 Ibid.
� 57 Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, n. 49
� 58 Fr Kenneth Baker, S.J.Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May
1995, p. 80
� 59 Cf. Catholic Families Getting Smaller, Sydney Morning Herald,
18/12/95, p. 3
� 60 Cf. Address by Pope John Paul II on 17 September 1984.
� 61 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 7
� 62 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 50.
� 63 Ibid.
� 64 Ibid.
� 65 Ibid.
� 66 Ibid.
� 67 Directory On The Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 60.
� 68 Pope John Paul II, 22/10/93
CHAPTER VII: NEED FOR CATECHETICAL RENEWAL
1.ARE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS TRANSMITTING A SOUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FAITH?
2.THE INDISPENSABLE PLACE OF DOCTRINE IN A CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION PROGRAM
3.PARRAMATTA CATHOLIC EDUCATION OFFICE - CORRUPT RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION MATERIALS
4.CATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF SYDNEY: ATTACKING THE CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
5.THE PARRAMATTA CEO AGAIN
6.PARRAMATTA CEO: TRANSMITTING MARXIST BASED LIBERATION THEOLOGY
7.MORALITY SECTION OF THE PARRAMATTA CEO 1995 SUPPORT UNITS
8.HSC STUDIES OF RELIGION
Vocations to the priesthood are adversely affected not only by
influences from the prevailing culture, but also by negative
forces operating in the Church itself. Speaking of this, Pope John
Paul II said:
There are also worrying and negative factors in the Church herself
which have a direct influence on the lives and ministry of
priests. For example: the lack of due knowledge of the faith among
many believers; a catechesis which has little practical effect,
stifled as it is by the mass media whose messages are more
widespread and persuasive; an incorrectly understood pluralism in
theology, culture and pastoral teaching which - though starting
out at times with good intentions - ends up by hindering
ecumenical dialogue and threatening the necessary unity of faith;
a persistent diffidence toward and almost unacceptance of the
magisterium of the hierarchy; the one-sided tendencies which
reduce the richness of the Gospel message and transform the
proclamation and witness to the faith into an element of
exclusively human and social liberation . . . An increasing number
of Christians seem to have a reduced sensitivity to the
universality and objectivity of the doctrine of the faith because
they are subjectively attached to what pleases them; to what
corresponds to their own experience; and to what does not impinge
on their own habits. In such a context, even the appeal to the
inviolability of the individual conscience - in itself a
legitimate appeal - may be dangerously marked by ambiguity. This
situation also gives rise to the phenomenon of belonging to the
Church in ways which are ever more partial and conditional, with a
negative influence on the birth of new vocations to the
priesthood. [1]
To prepare the way for a new springtime of vocations in Australia,
it will be necessary to renew the whole catechetical effort in the
Church. Catechesis refers to all efforts made within the Church
"to help people to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, so that
believing they may have life in his name, and to educate and
instruct them in this life and thus build up the Body of Christ".
[2] The definitive aim of catechesis "is to put people not only in
touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ: only he
can lead us to the love of the Father in the Holy Spirit and make
us share in the life of the Holy Trinity". [3] Further to this,
the person who engages in the catechetical activity of the Church
must endeavour to ensure that it is Christ's doctrine that is
transmitted and not the opinions of dissenting theologians. To
ensure that this occurs, the catechist needs to immerse himself or
herself in prayer, in the sacramental life of the Church, and in
the teaching of the Magisterium. [4] Catechesis is expressed
across the whole spectrum of the Church's life: in the Catholic
family and school, in the parish and in Catholic tertiary
institutions etc. In this chapter I wish to focus primarily on
Religious Education in Catholic high schools, but before doing so,
I will first make a few brief comments on what I see as some major
catechetical challenges facing the Church as a whole in Australia.
In Chapter 1 we stressed the need for a renewed Eucharistic
catechesis. Coupled with this, as many of the faithful as possible
should be encouraged to study the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. The whole of the Church's moral doctrine needs to be
proclaimed with renewed vigour. The importance of regular
confession, together with the reality of Heaven and Hell, needs to
be emphasised. The Sacrament of Penance is tailor-made to heighten
a person's sensitivity to the will of God in his or her life. In
stressing more regular confession, however, it is the First Rite
that must be promoted. The First Rite "makes possible a
highlighting of the more personal - and essential - aspects which
are included in the penitential process". [5] On the other hand,
the unauthorised use of the Third Rite of the Sacrament of Penance
should never be tolerated.
Seminary formation and training needs to be evaluated to see how
effective it is in turning out priests who are intent on striving
for personal holiness and who are imbued with a spirit of
obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. Luckily for Australia,
Bishop Brennan's Seminary in Wagga appears to hold great promise
in this regard. If on the other hand a seminary is allowed to
serve as a base for launching attacks against the Magisterium,
then it is only natural that few young men will want to enter it.
Perhaps seminary directors have something to learn from Fr Marcial
Maciel who is the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. When asked
to account for the astonishing success of his order in attracting
new members, Fr Maciel responded by first thanking "the Lord of
the harvest" for blessing his congregation with "abundant
vocations". Having said this, he then added:
I believe God uses simple means to bring young people to the
legion. Here they find a haven, peace and fraternal charity,
within a context of strong commitment to apostolic work. But above
all they realise that in our communities and formation centres we
impart sure doctrine and live a firm discipline, motivated by love
of Christ and sustained by a solid prayer life. This prayer life
is based on an inspiring but down-to-earth spirituality; personal
and passionate love for Jesus Christ; faithful love for the Church
and its pastors (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him);
profound devotion to the Virgin Mary and imitation of her virtues
- that is the secret of our expansion in a nutshell. [6]
ARE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS TRANSMITTING A SOUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FAITH?
If current trends in Mass attendance are anything to go by, and if
the findings in Br Marcellin Flynn's book The Culture of Catholic
Schools - A Study of Catholic Schools 1972-1993 are accurate, then
the Catholic Church in Australia is failing to effectively
transmit knowledge of the faith to a large portion of the younger
generation of Catholics. Br Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in the
Department of Religious Education at the Australian Catholic
University in Sydney. He is a respected educational researcher and
his study involved 6000 Catholic Year 12 students, their parents
and teachers in NSW and the ACT. While Br Flynn identified many
positive things about Catholic schools, the survey drew attention
however to what can only be considered a crisis in the religious
area. According to the survey, the number of students attending
Sunday Mass fell from 69% in 1972 to 38% in 1990. [7] Commenting
on this tragic fall off in Mass attendance, Br Flynn said: "Only a
little over one-third of students consider going to Mass is
important to them or that Catholics should receive the Sacraments
regularly. When students' attitudes towards the Mass over the
years 1972, 1982, 1990 are examined, a decline in their love for
the Eucharist is evident". [8]
Regarding morality, Br Flynn found that 58% of the Year 12
students believed abortion was all right if the pregnancy resulted
from rape. He also found that only 20% of the students thought
that premarital sex was wrong and that only 19% of them accepted
the Church's teaching on contraception. [9] Br Flynn said that
over the survey period there had been "a marked decline in the
moral values of students". [10] This moral decline said Br Flynn
was characterised by "greater acceptance of abortion, increased
permissiveness regarding sexual intercourse outside marriage,
greater willingness to accept that it is all right for people who
are not married to live together, increased tendency to consider
euthanasia as morally permissible". [11] Most revealing of all, Br
Flynn attempted to test the religious knowledge of the students
but he had to shelve the project. He said: "In an effort to assess
students' knowledge of the Catholic faith, they were presented
with 24 multiple choice questions related to various aspects of
religious knowledge as part of this research. It quickly became
apparent that year 12 students were not familiar at all with the
theological concepts and language used . . . It was decided on
grounds of validity, therefore, not to proceed further with
analysis of this section of the study". [12] Br Flynn's findings
in this area have been corroborated by the findings of survey work
done by Sr Carmel Leavy who is another highly respected
educational researcher.
THE INDISPENSABLE PLACE OF DOCTRINE IN A CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION PROGRAM
For the remainder of this chapter, I will use the term Religious
Education and Catechesis interchangeably. Religious educators
often distinguish between "education in faith" and "education in
religion". Education in faith carries a meaning similar to
catechesis in that it is taken to refer to the educational process
of handing on the faith of the Church to the younger generation.
Education in religion on the other hand is geared towards learning
about religion from a sociological/historical perspective and it
delves a lot into the study of comparative religion. Indeed, some
Catholic educators have argued that religious education should not
concern itself with catechetical objectives at all. For example,
Br Graham Rossiter of the Religious Education Department at the
Australian Catholic University, has called for "a creative divorce
between catechesis and religious education". He assigns catechesis
which he regards as the more "personal" to the parish and
religious education which he regards as the more "intellectual" to
the school. [13]
Attempts to treat catechesis and religious education in Catholic
schools as though they were mutually exclusive realities are I
believe very naive. Catholic schools should seek to provide their
students with a religious education that will enable them to grow
in their knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Indeed, the entire
curriculum of a Catholic high school should be integrated in such
a way that the doctrine of the Church informs all areas of
academic and cultural activity. Consequently, while the study of
religion as a sociological/historical phenomenon has a place in a
Religious Education curriculum of a Catholic high school,
nevertheless, the overriding objective of such a curriculum should
be to transmit a knowledge of Catholic doctrine in order to
nurture students in the Catholic faith.
A good educational process calls the learner to dialogue and to
question as well as to make judgements. In such a process the
learner's achievements and gifts are acknowledged while at the
same time the student is led to understand that working through
failure can be a positive part of the learning process. A good
religious education process should contain a variety of
pedagogical techniques that will engage both the analytical and
affective modes of consciousness. It should make use of personal
and social awareness exercises, role-plays, drama, music, art,
video and media resources etc. No matter how good the method or
process of religious education is however, it will serve little
purpose if it is not based on a systematic treatment of Catholic
doctrine which is sequentially programmed and is appropriate to
the stages of development of the students. Doctrinal formulas
provide young people with something their minds can grasp and they
provide teachers with coherent lessons which are free of deceptive
ambiguities and error. Consequently, a good religious education
program should seek to have the students commit to memory certain
words of Jesus as well as the Ten Commandments, doctrinal
formulas, Creed, essential prayers and liturgical texts. [14]
Coupled with this, good school liturgy which is faithful to the
liturgical law of the Church is important for cultivating in the
students a love for the Mass.
Pope John Paul II has said that "the mission of the Catholic
teacher is to train the mind to accept the truths of faith". [15]
On another occasion while addressing delegates to the 34th General
Congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1995, the Holy Father in
describing the type of teaching that should form the younger
generations said: "This teaching must seek to provide students
with a clear, solid and organic knowledge of Catholic doctrine,
focused on knowing how to distinguish those affirmations that must
be upheld from those open to free discussion and those that cannot
be accepted". [16] In an address to participants at an inservice
on Religious Education for the Catholic Secondary Schools
Association of NSW in 1989, Bishop William Brennan of the Wagga
Diocese made a similar point when he said: "To teach students to
distinguish between Church teaching and theological opinion is, I
believe, to teach them true wisdom, which is the greatest of the
intellectual virtues . . . But to be able to do this one must know
oneself how to differentiate between what is the doctrine of the
universal Church and what is merely the opinion of Fr Jim Bob or
Sr Mary Beth, admirable people though they be". In the course of
this address, Bishop Brennan quoted a certain author as having
said:
Important to a Catholic curriculum is a belief about truth. Truth
is achievable, so the curriculum should present more than mere
matters of opinion. Finding truth may at times be difficult, and
therefore the curriculum should teach its preciousness. Truth is
one, therefore the curriculum should not be fragmented . . . Truth
is important, so the curriculum should encourage and present the
cogent rather than the merely persuasive. Truth, when obtained, is
sure, and therefore words like 'absolute' and 'dogma' forbidden in
the curriculum of some philosophies, are acceptable to Catholics.
Truth is perceivable in stages, and therefore there is no conflict
between a child-centred and a subject-centred curriculum.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in
English, Bishop Brennan was quick to implement it in his own
Diocese. Under his leadership, the Wagga Diocese brought to
completion a religious education syllabus for primary schools that
had been in preparation for several years. Entitled We Belong To
The Lord, the syllabus was well received by the Diocese's primary
school teachers. The doctrinal statements in the syllabus are
divided into three stages of learning spread over the seven years
of primary school, i. e. Infants, Middle Primary and Senior
Primary. Each year the children cover all the main doctrines of
the faith but in progressively greater detail each year. There are
20 topics divided into four sections to parallel the structure of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, i. e. Creed, Sacraments,
Morality and Prayer. These in turn are developed into 129 units
covering all the years of primary schooling. Each unit contains a
variety of teaching resources, they are cross-referenced to the
Catechism of the Catholic Church and to other areas of the primary
school curriculum. There are 133 worksheets which may be
photocopied. This syllabus has been so well received that it is
now being marketed in England. [17]
According to Cardinal Newman, Gospel faith is "a definite deposit,
a treasure common to all, one and the same in every age, conceived
in set words, such as to admit of being received, preserved,
transmitted". [18] In Newman's understanding of how a vibrant
faith develops, doctrinal knowledge was not seen as something
which only the intellectual needed to be in possession of. He
said: "{Gospel} faith is what even the humblest member of the
Church may and must contend for; and in proportion to his
education will the circle of his knowledge enlarge . . . and
according as his power of grasping the sense of {the Creed's}
articles increases, so will it become his duty to contend for them
in their fuller and more accurate form". [19] While it is true
that greater knowledge of the doctrine of the faith does not
necessarily confer greater sanctity, it is also true however that
"the blossoms" of faith and piety "do not grow in the desert
places" of a memory empty of doctrinal content. [20] In this
regard, Catholic educators should bear in mind what Cardinal
Newman said of his own spiritual journey: "When I was fifteen (in
the autumn of 1816) a great change of thought took place in me. I
fell under the influences of a definite Creed, and received into
my intellect impressions of dogma, which, through God's mercy,
have never been effaced or obscured". [21] Later he added: "From
the age of 15, dogma has been the fundamental principle of my
religion: I know no other religion: I cannot enter into the idea
of any other sort of religion . . . What I held in 1816, I held in
1833, and I hold in 1864. Please God, I shall hold it to the end".
[22] In speaking of how doctrinal knowledge is a constituent
aspect of personal integration, Newman said: "{Doctrinal}
propositions may and must be used, and easily can be used, as the
expression of facts, and they are necessary to the mind in the
same way that language is ever necessary for denoting facts . . .
Again, they are useful in their dogmatic aspect as ascertaining
and making clear for us truths on which the religious imagination
has to rest. Knowledge must ever precede the exercise of the
affections". [23]
From what has been said about the relationship between faith and
doctrine, it is clear that Catholic youth have "a right to receive
'the word of faith' not in a mutilated, falsified or diminished
form but whole and entire, in all its rigour and vigour". [24]
Further to this, "Unfaithfulness on some point to the integrity of
the message means a dangerous weakening of catechesis and putting
at risk the results that Christ and the ecclesial community have a
right to expect from it". [25] Also, it is naive to claim that in
order to make religious education appealing to youth, it is
necessary to sacrifice doctrinal content in order to give
sufficient weight to the students' life experience. It must not be
forgotten that "no one can arrive at the whole truth on the basis
solely of some simple private experience". [26] In the twenty
years I have been teaching religious education in Catholic high
schools in Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, I have always found
that young people love solid doctrine when it is presented to them
in an interesting way. Besides, any teacher with common sense will
always try to relate doctrine to the experiences of the students.
Finally, in challenging young people to accept the Catholic way of
life, it is "useless to play off orthopraxis against orthodoxy:
Christianity is inseparably both. Firm and well-thought-out
convictions lead to courageous and upright action". [] [27]
The 1970s and 80s was a period characterised by great efforts to
bring about a renewal of religious education throughout the
Western world. Much attention was given to method but not enough
to content. Commenting on why this attempted renewal floundered,
Peter Ritzer, who is a director of religious education in the
United States said:
Instead of systematic study of religion, we students were invited
to engage in discussions, projects, or games presumably designed
to help us examine how Catholic teaching applied in everyday life
. . Sure, discussing and reasoning out the proper behaviour in a
limited number of situations could be useful, but we were already
capable of reasoning and arriving at conclusions before we entered
the classroom. What we were not capable of doing was applying
teaching that we did not know. And we did not necessarily know the
Church's teaching on given issues and the profundity of reasoning
behind it. That is why we attended religious education. The
educational approach described above was why we left disappointed.
Furthermore, there seemed to be a reluctance on the part of many
religious education representatives to talk much about the
Church's teaching and the reasoning behind it. It was as if they
were afraid that we might not like it. Or perhaps, in the
catechetical climate of the time, they were less sure of things
about which they had been very sure in the past. Whatever the
case, we usually skirted around the material instead of going
through it, which was a very frustrating experience to those of us
who wanted to learn. [28]
Ritzer's description of the experiential catechetical process
which has dominated religious education in the U. S for the last
three decades could just as easily be applied to Australia during
the same period. In 1988, Archbishop Eric D'Arcy called for
greater emphasis on the content of religious education when he
said:
We urgently need a renaissance in the doctrinal dimension of
education-in-faith . . . The Catechetic which has dominated
Australian Religious Education for nearly two decades has been
blessed with many beautiful successes. But it has failed badly in
the doctrinal dimension . . . Since 1970 many Australian pastors,
parents and teachers have been expressing strong and constant
dissatisfaction about the 'Experientialist Model Catechetic' which
became dominant in Catholic high schools. As the system became
entrenched great numbers of young Catholics were coming away from
twelve years of Catholic schooling, ignorant of the reasons that
support those doctrines: vulnerable to even the most elementary
and hackneyed secularist objections to Catholic beliefs. [29]
Catholic faith is first and foremost concerned with facts and not
with notions and concepts. For example, we believe in realities
such as the Incarnation of God's Eternal Word, the Virginal
Conception, Christ's Bodily Resurrection and his Real Presence in
the Eucharist. An overemphasis on experientialism in religious
education overlooks this fact that we believe there is an
objective basis to our faith which requires us to believe that
certain things are true and others false. Consequently -
memorising, understanding, knowing, interrelating and accepting on
trust - are all part of our growing in knowledge of the faith.
Archbishop Eric D'Arcy gave a good example of why it is necessary
to go beyond mere experiential considerations when teaching
religion when he said: "I do not experience the changing of the
bread and wine into our Lord's body and blood at Mass, any more
than I experience the neuronal changes constantly occurring in my
own brain. But a knowledge of the latter is an item of every
educated person's general knowledge; a knowledge of the former is
an item of every well instructed Catholic's faith-knowledge; and
in both cases one acquires the knowledge not through experiencing
it, but by being taught it by those who already possess it". [30]
Coupled with their responsibility to impart a systematic education
in Catholic doctrine, Catholic schools must also ensure that those
who teach religion actually believe what they are teaching. Young
people thirst for authenticity in those who teach them about
ultimate realities. In Evangeli Nuntiandi, Pope Paul VI
highlighted this need for authenticity in the one who teaches the
Catholic Faith when he said: "Modern man listens more willingly to
witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it
is because they are witnesses". [31] The question that needs to be
addressed to all religion teachers is this: "Do you really believe
what you are proclaiming? Do you live what you believe? Do you
really preach what you live?". [32]
PARRAMATTA CATHOLIC EDUCATION OFFICE - CORRUPT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
MATERIALS
Br Marcellin Flynn's findings on the lack of knowledge of Catholic
doctrine amongst our senior high school students indicates that
there is an urgent need for a renewal of religious education at
the high school level. A factor contributing to this ignorance of
doctrine is the rubbishy (in some cases subversive) materials
students sometimes have to work with in their religious education
classes. A good example of what I am talking about here is the
Years 11 and 12 Support Units for the Diocesan Religious Education
Curriculum Sharing Our Story produced by the Parramatta Catholic
Education Office (CEO) in 1993 and 1995. The Sharing Our Story
curriculum was launched and introduced into schools in the
Parramatta Diocese in 1991. The release of the first edition of
the Years 11 and 12 Support Units for Sharing Our Story in 1993
gave rise to much public controversy. In the Units dealing with
Christology, Ecclesiology (Church), Human Relationships and
Decision Making, correct doctrinal statements were muddled up with
ones that were erroneous and in many cases contradictory. Here is
just a sample of how the Support Units deviated from the teaching
of the Church in the areas of Christology and Ecclesiology:
� the definition of Christ's Divinity by the Council of Nicea was
described as the official mythologisation of Christianity;
� the material implicitly denied that the Church was founded by
Christ;
� asserted that the teaching of the Church whereby we are ransomed
and reconciled with God through Christ's death on the Cross is
merely a historical model for interpreting the Crucifixion which
no longer "holds sway, "
� claimed that the Second Vatican Council redefined the role of
the Pope as the "first among equals, "
� applied the Canticle in St Paul's Letter to the Philippians in
respect of Christ's Incarnation to the Marxist guerrilla Che
Guevarra;
� one suggested activity involved students considering possible
future trends in the Church including the abolition of its
hierarchical structure, women priests and a female Pope.
The morality section of the 1993 Sharing Our Story Support Units
was spread largely across the Human Relationships and Decision
Making topics. A comprehensive outline of the many serious defects
these units contained is not possible here. Instead I will confine
myself to highlighting some of their worst aspects. The Support
Units listed Anthony Kosnik's book Human Sexuality as a key
teacher reference and the Kit included pages from this book which
were recommended for distribution to students. The book was
written by a committee of the Catholic Theological Society of
America under the leadership of Kosnik. The Committee on Doctrine
of the U. S Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in
November 1977 officially condemning the Kosnik book. The Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also issued a statement
condemning Human Sexuality and it ordered Paulist Press to stop
publication and distribution.
There are few sexual perversions that Kosnik and his co-authors
cannot justify on the grounds that they may be conducive to
"creative growth towards integration". [33] They hold that
contraceptive sterilisation can be a morally licit expression of
responsible parenthood and that contraceptive modes of marital
intercourse can be morally acceptable even if they prevent
implantation of the fertilised ovum rather than preventing
fertilisation (cf. pp. 114-136). They say that artificial
insemination by a donor is justifiable when "there exists a strong
mutual desire on the part of husband and wife and sufficient
stability in the marital life to offset" any risks that it might
pose to marital harmony (cf. p. 139). Though they express concern
that practices such as adultery and mate swapping can destabilise
marriages, they are nevertheless open to such "variant patterns of
extramarital relations" on the grounds that such relationships may
"truly be 'creative' and 'integrative' for all involved, and
therefore morally acceptable" (cf. pp. 151-152). They assert that
premarital sexual intercourse may be morally good (cf. pp. 159-
165) and that homosexual acts are morally responsible as long as
they are an expression of a close and committed friendship (cf. p.
215). Finally, they assert that bestiality is only pathological
"when heterosexual outlets are available" (cf. p. 230).
One suggested activity in the Support Units involved giving the
students a handout taken from Kosnik entitled The Virtue of
Chastity which said: "Chastity calls one to a generous pursuit of
that creative growth toward integration that is the purpose of
human sexuality. This remains true for any way of life, that is
for the married, unmarried, celibate, or homosexual . . . Only in
the context of one's state of life can the expression of human
sexuality be evaluated properly. This approach bespeaks the
conviction that, morally speaking, attitudes, patterns, and habits
that reflect a continuing life-style are far more significant than
individual, isolated acts". [34] The Support Units also presented
a poor explanation of conscience. In the Human Relationships Unit,
one suggested activity entailed giving a handout to students
containing two pages on Church teaching about conscience
supplemented by four pages from Kosnik. In these pages, Kosnik
states that intrinsically evil acts such as masturbation, direct
sterilisation, contraception and premarital sex cannot be regarded
as prohibited by universal and absolute moral norms (cf. pp. 78-
83). On the basis of their reliance on Kosnik alone, these 1993
Support Units of the Parramatta CEO stand condemned. Recently, a
report of a review of Sharing Our Story appeared in the Parramatta
CEO's Newsletter Catholic Schools Update. This report said:
Sharing Our Story, the groundbreaking religious education
curriculum, developed by the Parramatta Catholic Education Office
(CEO) has just undergone an intensive review under the leadership
of Associate Professor Patricia Malone of the Australian Catholic
University. Sharing Our Story is used by all schools in the
Parramatta Diocese and many throughout Australia to educate
students in the rich tradition of the Catholic religion. It has
been instrumental in changing the focus of religious education
from dogma to enlightened belief. [35]
I wonder to what extent is the fall-off in Mass attendances in the
Parramatta Diocese related to its "groundbreaking religious
education curriculum" as Sharing Our Story is described above? The
April 1996 edition of the Parramatta Diocesan Journal One Heart
reported that in the three-and-a-half years previous, the Mass
attendance rate for the diocese had fallen by 9. 6% to an average
of 16. 75%. Commenting on the trend, the report said: "If the
current rate of loss is sustained then the Mass-going population
for Parramatta Diocese will be 41, 600 in 2000 and 31, 000 in
2010" (p. 9). Another article in this edition of One Heart offered
advice on What Makes a Parish Effective? The article listed 9
central characteristics of effective parishes including
"Corporate, dynamic worship" and "Streamlined structure and solid,
participatory decision making". Explaining what it meant by
"Corporate dynamic worship, " the article said: "The weekly
services are holistic in music and message, planned together, and
led by a compassionate, competent team of laity and pastor" (p.
8). The reasons why Mass attendances are falling in the Parramatta
Diocese are I am sure many and complex. However, the chaotic state
of catechesis in the diocese, as characterised by the Support
Units for Sharing Our Story, must in some way be contributing to
the alienation of youth from the practice of the faith. If instead
of sound doctrine our youth are being taught error, then we can
conclude with Aristotle that "a little error in the beginning will
lead to a larger error in the end". [36] A diocese can have the
best financial planners in the business, its "streamlined
structures and solid participatory decision making" processes may
well reflect the sociological and psychological flavour of the
month, but if Catholic doctrine has been displaced by the
corruption of Kosnik in the schools of the diocese, then falling
Mass attendances are the inevitable result.
CATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF SYDNEY: ATTACKING THE CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
The chaotic nature of the 1993 Support Units for Sharing Our Story
are testimony as to why the Catechism of the Catholic Church was
necessary. If the Catechism is accepted as a basis for
catechetical renewal, then it can be used to bring integrity back
into religious education where this has been lost. On its release
in Australia however, the Catechism came under attack from several
staff members of the Catholic Institute of Sydney who were chosen
to conduct seminars on the Catechism for priests and for teachers
in Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Sydney and in the
Diocese of Parramatta during 1994. [37] Extended versions of their
lectures were gathered into a book entitled The New Catechism:
Analysis and Commentary. [38] In what follows I will limit myself
to highlighting just a few of the criticisms it makes of the
Catechism. Before doing so I wish to point out that the
contributions to the Commentary by Fr Clem Hill, Fr Gerard Kelly,
Fr Edmund Campion and Fr David Walker were not critical of the
Catechism.
The general tone of the Catholic Institute of Sydney Commentary is
set early by its editor Fr Andrew Murray. In his introduction, Fr
Murray announces that all four papers dealing with the "Profession
of Faith" section of the Catechism "are generally critical,
although they do find some positive elements of the Catechism's
treatment" (p. 6). Fr Murray also alerts us in advance that Fr
Neil Brown's treatment of the Ten Commandments section of the
Catechism points out "the ways in which it has failed to take into
account modern learning and circumstances" (ibid. ). In his
contribution to the Commentary entitled Faith in the Creator God,
Fr David Coffey says that the Catechism "is not notably
successful, even in its own terms, in fulfilling its stated aim of
being 'an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental
contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards faith and morals, in the
light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's
tradition'. " To have achieved this says Fr Coffey, the "framers"
of the Catechism "would need to have assimilated the Council, an
object not achieved simply by larding the text with quotations
from Council documents". Having said this, Fr Coffey then added:
"For a person of my generation it is not difficult to identify the
mentality of the Catechism: it is that of the Latin Roman theology
manuals of the 1950's complete with their tendency to integralism,
their lack of historical awareness and their hermeneutical
naivety" (p. 20). Indeed, Fr Coffey even asserts that the
Catechism is already obsolete. He says: "the actual culture of the
Catechism is not hard to identify, and it is one that has serious
problems of its own, which is why it has been left behind by
modern theology" (p. 21).
Fr Coffey describes as "regrettable" (p. 17) some aspects of the
Catechism's treatment of the Blessed Trinity saying that "most
people would find it baffling" (p. 18). He expresses surprise that
the Catechism teaches as "a truth of faith" that angels actually
exist (p. 19). He is even more surprised that the Catechism
teaches the existence of guardian angels saying: "the sole
authority cited for this being St. Basil" (ibid. ). By way of
footnote (n. 202), the Catechism in fact gives several Scripture
references to the existence of guardian angels including the words
of the Lord Himself: "See you never despise any of these little
ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven are continually
in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Mt 18:10). In criticising
the Catechism for following Vatican II in taking the historical
existence of Adam and Eve for granted, Fr Coffey says: "Thus the
uncritical use of scripture in Vatican II, which has been the
object of scholarly comment, is continued in the Catechism. In
assuming the existence of Adam and Eve, the Catechism signals in
advance its approach to original sin" (p. 14). He complains that
in the Catechism "original sin is presented in an extremely
literal way, based . . . on the historical existence of the first
parents, their sin (to which they were tempted by the devil, whose
personal existence is affirmed) and a historical contraction from
Adam by all human beings through propagation". All of this, Fr
Coffey suggests, is hardly "credible by contemporary standards"
(p. 20). [39]
In his contribution to the Commentary, Fr Richard Lennan says: "A
more developmental understanding would have enabled the Catechism
to demonstrate how the Church can respond to the challenges raised
by contemporary exegesis, fundamental theology, and hermeneutics.
As it stands, the idea of Jesus bequeathing the Church a definite
and immutable structure, is vulnerable to the insights of these
disciplines . . . The Catechism's failure to adopt a historical
consciousness means that it cannot commend itself as a modern
document" (p. 36). [40] Commenting on the Catechism's approach to
the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sister Marie Farrell says: "It is to be
hoped that during the preparation of local catechisms issues
raised by feminist theologians concerning mariology will be given
due consideration. A serious critique concerns the title 'New
Eve', which is used so frequently in the Catechism, and the
patriarchal idealisation of Mary to such an extent that all
'other' women become (even subliminally) seductresses, temptresses
and the origin of evil in the world" (p. 45). Fr Joseph Sobb, S.
J. criticises the Catechism for what he believes is its improper
use of Scripture. He says:
On a number of occasions, various texts are cobbled together,
apparently in an attempt to make 'an organic presentation' of some
Christian Doctrine. 'God's Spirit and Word in the time of the
promises' quotes directly or refers to passages from 8 New
Testament books . . . Though the topic is treated in a systematic
and well-ordered way, the major themes and emphases of this quite
disparate collection of books is not addressed or even averted to.
Thus a 'new thing' is created which may be more or less valid, but
which is certainly not biblical, but which merely uses biblical
language . . . As a doctrinal exposition it is scarcely true to
the Scriptures. On other occasions, a phrase is taken from the
biblical text where it is of theological import and used in a
superficial way; the result is to trivialise the Scriptures (p.
90).
In his contribution to the Catholic Institute Commentary entitled
The Moral Life As Christian Vocation, Fr Gerald Gleeson says: "A
weakness of the Catechism is its reliance on existing and, at
times rather dated theology. Genuine theology must be
'contemporary', that is, must re-appropriate traditional beliefs
in the light of the best scholarship available" (p. 73). Fr
Gleeson goes on to say: "The Catechism's compendium on sin is
hamstrung by the tension that has beset the theology of sin for
many centuries . . . This tension is between whether to view the
gravity of sin primarily in terms of the objects of one's choice,
or in terms of the disorders of one's heart and motivation" (ibid.
) Fr Gleeson faults the Catechism's treatment of sin on the
grounds that "it does not take up recent and well attested
insights into the psychology of moral choice and the different
'levels' of freedom" (ibid. ). In harmony with this view, Fr
Gleeson adds that the Catechism's treatment "of mortal sin is
problematic" (p. 75). All of this leads Fr Gleeson to the
following conclusion: "Clearly, current theology and magisterial
teaching on sin is in much need of refinement and development.
Unfortunately the Catechism simply repeats an account which is
inadequate to the moral experience of practising Catholics who no
longer examine their consciences, nor approach the sacrament of
reconciliation, in the terms laid down by the Catechism" (p. 75).
When reading these negative comments about the Catechism, I
thought how symptomatic they are of what Hans Urs von Balthasar
has called "a deep-seated anti-Roman attitude within the Church".
[] [41] This attitude, says von Balthasar, has "to be overcome
again and again by the community of the Church". [42] He points
out that this anti-Roman propaganda is spread by people from both
inside and outside the Church who use the mass media and their
numerous publications to "demonstrate their Christian 'adulthood'
by an arrogant and even venomous superiority towards all that
comes from Rome, happens in Rome or goes to Rome". [43] Describing
in more precise terms the nature of this onslaught against the
Church, von Balthasar says: "Whatever comes from Rome is measured
by current criteria of theological or sociological research and is
declared a priori to be behind the times. This reaction finds two
expressions: the subject matter is treated ironically, and, having
been filtered through a critical sieve, it is presented in small
doses; or it is simply treated with complete silence". [44]
Moreover, adds von Balthasar, while Catholics are generally aware
of the disparaging onslaught against the Church by those who from
outside it spread anti-Roman propaganda, they are not however
"necessarily equally alert to the more harmful" and "insidious
methods employed" by those who are of "their own camp". [45]
It is revealing to compare what some distinguished scholars have
said about the Catechism with the criticisms levelled against it
by the staff of the Catholic Institute of Sydney. In reviewing the
Catechism, Fr Avery Dulles, S. J. said: "The Catechism of the
Catholic Church is the boldest challenge yet offered to the
cultural relativism that currently threatens to erode the contents
of Catholic faith . . . This sophisticated relativism, widespread
though it may be among intellectuals, has had only limited impact
on the mass of the Catholic faithful and is firmly rejected by the
hierarchical leadership of the Church". [46] Fr Dulles adds that
"the Catechism sets forth the whole body of Catholic teaching in
an organic manner. It is a serene, comprehensive presentation of
the authoritative teaching of Scripture and Catholic tradition".
He says that the Catechism as a whole "is a magnificent panorama,
breathtaking in its scope". Where else, asks Fr Dulles, "could one
find between two covers a digest of the full teaching of the
Church, down through the ages, about almost any conceivable point
from the dogma of the Trinity to the morality of gambling". []
[47] Fr Dulles quotes the prominent American religious educator
Francis D. Kelly, who in referring to the potential of the
Catechism to provide a basis for the renewal of education in
faith, spoke of it as "a clarion call to catechesis to refocus
clearly on the objective mystery of faith, on its doctrinal,
moral, and ascetical content, as the most solid and fruitful
foundation for building the faith community". [48] In concluding
his review of the Catechism, Fr Dulles said: "As a reliable
compendium of Catholic doctrine, the Catechism brings together the
wisdom of the centuries in an appealing synthesis. By virtue of
its consistency, beauty and spiritual power, it offers a veritable
feast of faith". [49]
The Catechism presents us with real Catholicism as opposed to the
convoluted theological gibberish which has become so commonplace
in some Catholic educational circles. It aims to foster internal
unity in the faith and its proclamation. Describing the benefits
the faithful should derive from the Catechism's clear articulation
of the contents of Catholic faith, Fr James V. Schall, S. J. said:
"What this Catechism does is to give to the faithful an authentic,
accurate statement of the essence of each teaching and practice of
the faith". Having said this, Fr Schall then added:
Thus, if a priest or anyone else confuses or misstates the
teaching of the Church . . . it can easily be shown what the
Church authoritatively teaches on the topic. The doctor can check
the pastor and the pastor need not rely on his own private views .
. If you will, this Catechism is a kind of long-awaited
proclamation of intellectual freedom for individual Catholics, the
freedom of the truth that makes Christians free, the freedom that
revelation gives to reason, the freedom to be aware of the limits
of intellect itself, the freedom from doubts about the faith
originating in the disorders or confusions of individual priests,
bishops or theologians. [50]
I think it rather presumptuous of Fr Coffey to assert that "most
people" will find "baffling" the Catechism's treatment of the
Blessed Trinity. Entitled The Profession of Faith, the first part
of the Catechism begins by explaining the entire economy of
Revelation which culminates in the mystery of Christ. The
Apostles' Creed is presented in its Trinitarian context which
determines the character and content of the economy of Divine
Revelation. Consequently, in presenting the very first article of
the Creed ("I believe in God the Father"), the Catechism intends
to first profess the truths concerning the very life of God in his
Trinitarian mystery. [51] After this the Catechism goes on to
unfold the revelation of the Blessed Trinity in the history of
salvation: the work of creation, the work of redemption through
Jesus Christ, and the work of sanctification in the Holy Spirit
through the Church. Describing the Revelation of the Blessed
Trinity as the "most fundamental and essential teaching" in the
"hierarchy of the truths of faith", the Catechism systematically
develops and explains that "the whole history of salvation is
identical with the history of the way and the means by which the
one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to
men" and reconciles and unites with himself "those who turn away
from sin". [52] As a teacher, I am very conscious of the need to
be coherent and systematic in the presentation of ideas. In this
regard, my impression is that the Catechism's treatment of the
doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is simply excellent.
Fr Lennan's comment that the Catechism's treatment of the origin
of the hierarchical structure of the Church does not reflect
modern "insights" and that it is "vulnerable" to the insights of
"contemporary exegesis" is puzzling. The statements in the
Catechism relating to the College of Bishops and to its head, the
Pope, as well as to their threefold office of teaching,
sanctifying and governing, are to a great extent drawn from Sacred
Scripture and from the Second Vatican Council's own expositions in
Lumen Gentium (cf. CCC. nn. 874- 896). In consequence of this, are
we not justified in interpreting Fr Lennan's criticism of the
Catechism's treatment of the origin of the Church's hierarchical
structure as perhaps a veiled assertion that Lumen Gentium's
teaching on this question is also "vulnerable to the insights" of
"contemporary exegesis, fundamental theology, and hermeneutics"?
If "the idea of Jesus bequeathing the Church a definite and
immutable structure" is vulnerable to the "insights" of
contemporary exegetical science as Fr Lennan claims, then surely
as a teacher of Catholic theology he would agree that the problem
would have to lie with the particular exegetical "insights" he is
alluding to and not with the Church's teaching? Hans Urs von
Balthasar, after stating that in the Church the "office of Peter
remains as does that of the apostles, the bishops", [53] goes on
to recall how St Thomas Aquinas in refuting the idea of a purely
personal transmission of authority in the Church pointed out that
Jesus' Church had to endure until the end of time and therefore
had to be endowed by him with a structure and not merely with a
foundation. [54] In all discussion about the place of the Petrine
Office and the office of bishop in the immutable structure
inscribed by Jesus in his Church, it should be borne in mind that
a common thesis of Protestantism, which presents itself with
manifold nuances, is that the authority bestowed on Peter and the
other apostles by Christ is historically unique whereas those whom
the apostles appointed to succeed them are far below them in rank
and authority. [55] For example, in commenting on the passage in
Matthew 16: 18-20 where Jesus bestows on Peter the power of the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Protestant theologian Oscar
Cullmann says: "He who proceeds without prejudice, on the basis of
exegesis . . . cannot seriously conclude that Jesus here had
successors of Peter in mind". [56]
In regard to the Catechism's treatment of the Christian moral
life, it is significant that this part of the Catechism is
entitled Life in Christ. The Catechism stresses that our vocation
is to become the persons God created us to be and that this can
only be achieved through our cooperation with God's grace. As the
title of this section indicates, becoming the persons God wants us
to be means we are to become more and more like Christ. In
detailing the scope of the Christian moral life, the Catechism
uses the Ten Commandments as an organising principle. The emphasis
throughout is on following God's Holy law as the means to human
fulfilment. Speaking of this positive treatment of the Ten
Commandments in the Catechism, Bishop Christoph Schonborn said:
It {Catechism} emphasises the liberating character of the
Decalogue (2057), together with its incorporation into the
preaching of Christ (2052-55) and its role in the catechesis of
the Church (2064-68). Here too there must be no doubt about the
primacy of grace (2074). The Ten Commandments, divided between the
"two tables", are presented as an unfolding of the double
commandment of love (2067, 2083, 2197). The expositions of the
individual Commandments all begin on a positive note, by drawing
attention to the virtues and attitudes which correspond to the
Commandment in question. Against this backdrop emerge clearly the
defective attitudes and wrong actions which can only be described
as vices and sins. [57]
Before looking at what various scholars have said about the
Catechism's use of Sacred Scripture, I will first outline a few
important points about the Bible's use in the Church. The Fathers
of the 1995 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops noted in their Final
Report that Vatican II's Constitution Dei Verbum on Divine
Revelation tended to be neglected in contemporary theology and
catechesis. They cautioned against a partial reading of Dei Verbum
and they insisted that the original meaning of Scripture cannot be
separated from the living Tradition of the Church, nor from the
authentic interpretation of the Church's magisterium. [58]
Sounding a note of alarm, William Cardinal Baum, Prefect of the
Congregation of Catholic Education, told the Synod of a split that
was occurring between the Bible and the Church, between Scripture
and Tradition. The confusion that has resulted from this split,
has in the minds of many, cast doubt upon the essential truths of
the Faith. Cardinal Baum stressed that this split between the
Bible and the tradition of the Church was largely facilitated by a
tendency for exegesis to take on a life of its own without
reference to the Church's teaching. Describing how this undermined
the faith, Cardinal Baum said: "Bowing before the exigencies of
'science, ' exegetes are no longer disposed to interpret Scripture
in the light of faith, and hence end up calling in question
essential truths of faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the
Virginal conception, the salvific and redeeming value of Christ's
death, the reality of the Resurrection, and the institution of the
Church by Christ".
On April 23, 1993, Pope John Paul II addressed the Cardinals, the
diplomats and the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on
the occasion of the centenary of Leo XIII's encyclical
Providentissimus Deus, the anniversary of Pius XII's Divino
Afflante Spiritu, and the publication of an important new document
by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on The Interpretation of the
Bible in the Church. [59] The Holy Father affirmed the legitimacy
and the necessity of scientific biblical scholarship. He pointed
out that exegesis must be attentive to the human aspects of the
biblical texts and that it must be open to all the disciplines
that shed light on the historical elements conditioning the sacred
texts. At the same time the Pope insisted that the Divine element
in Scripture must always be respected. Recalling that Holy
Scripture is the Word of God in human words, the Pope said that
"the exegete himself has to perceive the divine word in the
texts". [60] The Holy Father cautioned that another condition
necessary for the exegete to bear fruit is that he carry out his
work "in fidelity to the Church". [61]
A valuable analytical tool for the study of the Bible is what is
known as The Historical-Critical Method. The method involves
various stages of analysis: "from textual criticism one progresses
to literary criticism, with its work of dissection in the quest
for sources; then one moves to a critical study of forms and,
finally, to an analysis of the editorial process, which aims to be
particularly attentive to the text as it has been put together".
[62] All this has made it possible to understand far more
accurately the intention of the authors and editors of the Bible,
as well as the message which they addressed to their first
readers. [63] However, there will always be a certain tension
between scholarship and faith since scholarship changes while
faith does not. New scholarly theories of biblical exegesis are
being advanced all the time which may eventually turn out to be
devoid of all validity. For example, on the sources of the Bible,
the Documentary Hypothesis Theory sought to give an explanation to
the editing of the Pentateuch (first five Books of the Old
Testament). As regards the sources of the New Testament, the Two
Source Hypothesis postulated that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
were composed out of two principal sources: on the one hand, the
Gospel of Mark and, on the other, a collection of the sayings of
Jesus called the "Q Source". However, these two theories are now
under challenge and many well-known scholars have abandoned them.
[64]
Though far from being an exact science, the historical-critical
has contributed to our ability to penetrate the message of Sacred
Scripture. The method's achievements in this regard has lent it
"an importance of the highest order". [65] It remains "the
indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of
the ancient texts". [66] The method "approaches the Bible as it
would any other piece of literature" and seeks to "fix a text in
its historical context and to determine as accurately as possible
the meaning its author intended to convey". [67] The meaning thus
obtained is known as the Literal Sense of Scripture the
fundamental importance of which was affirmed by St. Thomas
Aquinas. [68] This literal sense should not be confused with the
"literalist" sense to which fundamentalists are attached. [69]
The Church also recognises two other senses of Scripture - the
Spiritual and the Fuller senses. The Spiritual Sense of Sacred
Scripture can be defined as "the meaning expressed by the biblical
texts when read, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the
context of the Paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which
flows from it". [70] In this context, "the paschal event, the
death and resurrection of Jesus, has established a radically new
historical context, which sheds fresh light upon the ancient texts
and causes them to undergo a change in meaning". [71] For example,
"certain texts which in ancient times had to be thought of as
hyperbole (e. g. the oracle where God, speaking of a son of David,
promised to establish his throne "forever": 2 Sam 7:12-13; 1 Chr
17:11-14), these texts must now be taken literally" if it is to be
read in the light of Christ's paschal mystery. [72] In a case such
as this, the literal sense is already a spiritual sense. [73] It
follows that "it is most often in dealing with the Old Testament
that Christian exegesis speaks of the spiritual sense". [74]
The Fuller Sense of Scripture is defined "as a deeper meaning of
the text, intended by God but not clearly expressed by the human
author". [75] Its existence in the biblical text "comes to be
known when one studies the text in the light of other biblical
texts which utilise it or in its relationship with the internal
development of revelation . . . For example, the context of
Matthew 1:23 gives a fuller sense to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14
in regard to the almah who will conceive, by using the translation
of the Septuagint (parthenos): 'The virgin will conceive'. " [76]
Another example is how the teaching of the early Church Fathers
and the Ecumenical Councils about the Blessed Trinity "expresses
the fuller sense of the teaching of the New Testament regarding
God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". [77] The definition
of original sin by the Council of Trent "provided the fuller sense
of Paul's teaching in Romans 5:12-21 about the consequences of the
sin of Adam for humanity". [78] However, attempts to read into
Scripture its fuller sense must be subject to control either "by
an explicit biblical text or by an authentic doctrinal tradition"
as otherwise its use could lead to subjective interpretations that
lacked all validity. [79]
Returning now to the use of Holy Scripture in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. The Catechism itself explains the Catholic
understanding of the various "senses of Scripture" and how they
influence the interpretation of the Bible in the Church. [80] In
an article entitled Beyond The Literal Sense: The Interpretation
of Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr Joseph
Jensen, OSB, who teaches Scripture at the Catholic University of
America and who is executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical
Association in the United States said: "The Catechism speaks
explicitly from the standpoint of Christian Faith, which it
intends to affirm; its use of the Old Testament accords well with
the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Many
developments in hermeneutics can be invoked to suggest that the
Catechism is more on target than might at first appear". [81]
Having said this, Fr Jensen added: "The Catechism reflects the
sense that God is working out a plan in history, speaking of 'the
unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments' which dictates
that 'the New Testament must be read in the light of the Old'
(128-129)". [82] After saying that the Catechism "insists upon the
need to establish the literal sense of the biblical texts (see nn.
190-110)", Fr Jensen added that it "also reflects contemporary
hermeneutical positions". [83]
While pointing out that "the Catechism neither neglects nor
canonises any particular school of exegesis", Monsignor William
Smith adds: "It is true that some critics have complained that the
Catechism does not analyse biblical texts in their own context
without reference to the Church's doctrinal tradition. But, it is
after all the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism
of any singular hermeneutical society. Following Vatican II, the
Catechism affirms that Scripture should be read as an inspired
document within the framework of the Church's Faith, not apart
from it". [84] Speaking of the Catechism's use of Sacred
Scripture, Fr Giuseppe Segalla who is a member of the Pontifical
Theological Commission said:
The references to Scripture are consistently accurate because the
text was carefully reviewed by experts in the Old and New
Testaments prior to its final draft. What use is made of
Scripture? By and large, I would say that a canonical usage is
practised, in the sense that Scripture is viewed as a unified
book, the book of God. Thus Old Testament texts are cited together
which are quite far apart from the historic literary point of
view, or texts of the Old and New Testaments that have to do with
the same subject are brought together. A unity is thus imposed by
the one plan of God and by the one Author of Scripture . . . The
result of the catechetical effort displayed in the use of
Scripture is to reduce the tension between the historical sense of
the text (what the text meant), which is, however, usually
respected, and the present meaning (what the text means today),
since Scripture is read within the context of the living tradition
(patristic, liturgical, hagiographical, magisterial) and in the
light of today's culture. The weight falls obviously on the
present meaning, but always in conjunction with the original sense
. . One could say that Scripture in the Catechism is read and
interpreted as the living word of the living God (Father, Son and
Holy Spirit) for man, the Church and the world of today. [85]
THE PARRAMATTA CEO AGAIN
If the criticisms levelled against the Catechism by the staff of
the Catholic Institute of Sydney were intended to dissuade
Catholic educators from using it as a basis for the renewal of
their religious education programs, then they seem to have been
successful as far as the Parramatta CEO is concerned. In response
to the public controversy surrounding the 1993 Years 11 and 12
Support Units for Sharing Our Story, the Parramatta CEO reviewed
the materials and reissued a new edition of them in February 1995.
Incredibly, despite the release in the meantime of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, there was not a single reference to it in
the approximately 600 pages of the 1995 edition of the Support
Units. In contrast to this, the reference sections within the
various Units listed many of those who have championed dissent
against the Church's teaching, e. g. Bernard Haring, Charles
Curran, Leonardo Boff, Richard McBrien, Hans Kung and Paul
Collins. While some of the most objectionable material in the 1993
Support Units did not appear in the 1995 edition (e. g. Kosnik),
there is still much in the new edition however that should cause
concern to parents of students who will use the materials. The
outline which follows will document only some of the defects in
the 1995 Support Units.
Hans Urs von Balthasar has said that "the figure of Jesus fell
apart" in the wake of the Enlightenment inspired rationalistic
"demythologising" of Scripture. [86] As examples of the operation
of this process, von Balthasar cites doubts about the attested
facts of the Resurrection, the assertion "that the sayings of
Jesus may have been stylised and elevated to a greater authority
than he himself claimed", the claim that "the infancy narratives
may have been added from legends", that the meaning of Jesus'
death on the Cross "and its assessment by Christ himself is
uncertain", and that "the miracles could have been invented or
strongly exaggerated". [87] The 1995 Who Is Jesus? Support Unit of
Sharing Our Story relies heavily on a biblical studies approach to
Christology (the study of Christ). In doing so it draws heavily
upon Jesus, Mystery and Surprise: An Introduction to the Study of
the Gospels by Gideon Goosen and Margaret Tomlinson. [88] In one
place the Support Unit describes this book as "excellent" (p. 37)
and in another place it says: "Teachers could direct students to
material that will build up a picture of the four Gospel
communities. Especially recommended are Jesus, Mystery and
Surprise, Goosen. G and Tomlinson, M. 1989". In several places,
this Goosen/Tomlinson book contradicts or casts doubt on the
doctrine of the Church. In view of the fact that
Goosen/Tomlinson's ideas strongly permeate the Who Is Jesus? Unit,
and since they both teach in the Religious Education Department at
the Australian Catholic University in Sydney, I will therefore
spend some time here outlining and responding to some of the
book's more contentious aspects.
In regard to Jesus' consciousness of the salvific meaning of his
Crucifixion, Goosen/ Tomlinson ask: "Did Jesus himself know the
saving (soteriological) power of his death?", to which they
answer: "We do not know" (p. 125). In attributing the possibility
of ignorance to Jesus, Goosen/Tomlinson are simply recycling the
old Agonite heresy which attributed ignorance to the humanity of
Christ. [89] The Support Units reproduce Goosen/Tomlinson's
erroneous views. On page 48 par. 5 of the Who Is Jesus Unit we
read: "Jesus, as he became more aware of his call, gravitated to
the poor and marginalised". By casting doubt on the truth that Our
Lord was always fully aware of the implications of his mission,
Goosen/Tomlinson are reducing Christ to the condition of a mere
man. This particular form of "Christological humanism" has been
condemned by the Magisterium of the Church. On July 24, 1966, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), citing erroneous
interpretations of Vatican II's Christological teaching declared:
"It is regrettable that bad news from various places has arrived
of abuses prevailing in interpreting the teaching of the Council,
and of strange and bold opinions arising here and there which
greatly disturb the souls of many of the faithful . . . There
creeps forth a certain Christological humanism in which Christ is
reduced to the condition of a mere man, who gradually acquired
consciousness of His divine Sonship".
Jesus was always fully aware (conscious) of His mission. In
Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed that Jesus' human soul
enjoyed the Beatific Vision, even from conception. He said: "But
the most loving knowledge of this kind, with which the divine
Redeemer pursued us from the first moment of the Incarnation,
surpasses the diligent grasp of any human mind; for by that
blessed vision which He enjoyed when just received in the womb of
the Mother of God, he has all the members of the Mystical Body
continuously and perpetually present to Himself, and embraces them
with salvific love . . . In the manger, on the Cross, in the
eternal glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the
Church before Him {conspecta} and joined to Him far more clearly
and far more lovingly than a mother has a son on her lap, or than
each one knows and loves himself". [90] Commenting on this
teaching of Pope Pius XII, Fr. William G. Most in his excellent
work entitled The Consciousness of Christ says: "The human soul,
and so the human consciousness of Jesus, did enjoy the beatific
vision from the first moment of human conception. That vision made
known to Him all the members of His mystical Body, of all
centuries. It made known also his divine Sonship. It also made
known to Him the day and hour of the parousia. In itself, the
beatific vision contains all knowledge". [91]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous in its
teaching on the nature of Christ's human knowledge. It says that
the "truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life
of his person". [92] Then, by way of a quotation from St Maximus
the Confessor, the Catechism adds: "The human nature of God's Son,
not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed
forth in itself everything that pertains to God". [93] Finally, in
relation to this question of Christ's knowledge, the Catechism
says: "By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word
incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of
understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal". [94]
Goosen/Tomlinson cast doubt on the historical and physical reality
of the Resurrection of Our Lord. Referring to this central event
of Divine Revelation they ask: "Was the Resurrection an historical
event?", to which they answer: "Not in the sense of our being able
to go out with a notebook and pen and make a full report as the
details unwind before our eyes. But the fact that it can hardly be
called an historical event in our ordinary sense of the word does
not mean, as McBrien points out, that the Resurrection was not a
real event for Jesus with historical implications for others.
McBrien suggests the word transhistorical, rather than historical
or unhistorical. The reality of the risen Lord transcends history
as we know it" (p. 123). After saying this they add: "The question
of whether the Resurrection appearances were physical or spiritual
has long puzzled people. The Gospels seem to be saying 'both
physical and spiritual' . . . The proclamation of the death,
burial, rising and appearances of Jesus originated in a culture
which did not have a dichotomised concept of body/soul. Whatever
the explanation, the emphasis in each Gospel is that the one who
appeared was the same Jesus who had been crucified, translated at
his Resurrection into an entirely new mode of existence" (p. 124).
[95]
Pope John Paul II points out that the Resurrection of Jesus is
both an historical and trans-historical event. Referring to the
historical reality of Christ's Bodily Resurrection, the Holy
Father says: "The Christian faith in Christ's Resurrection is,
therefore, linked to a fact which has a precise historical
dimension". [96] This historical dimension says Pope John Paul II,
is such that "the Resurrection is, in the first place, a
historical event. It took place in a precise context of time and
place: 'on the third day' after Jesus' crucifixion at Jerusalem
and his burial in the tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea". [97]
In his appearances to the disciples, Jesus "invites them to verify
that the risen body in which he came to them is the very same that
was tortured and crucified". [98] At the same time however, the
resurrected body of Jesus "possesses new properties", it has
"become spiritual" and "glorified" and "therefore no longer
subject to the usual limitations of material things, and therefore
of a human body". [99] At the same time, however, this glorified
body of the Risen Lord is "authentic and real" so that "in his
material identity here is the proof of Christ's resurrection".
[100] The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the
Resurrection of the Lord as "a real event, with manifestations
that were historically verified". [101] It adds that "Christ's
Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the
physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an
historical fact". [102]
Speaking of the "sense" in which the Resurrection of the Lord can
be viewed as a trans-historical event, Pope John Paul II says:
"Christ's resurrection is beyond the purely historical dimension;
it is an event pertaining to the transhistorical sphere, and
therefore eludes the criteria of simple human empirical
observation". [103] Reflecting on the relationship of this trans-
historical dimension of the Resurrection to the Empty Tomb, the
Holy Father states that "no one was an eye-witness of the
resurrection . . . no one could say how it had happened in its
physical reality. Still less could the senses perceive the most
interior essence of his passage to another life". [104] In
concluding his discussion of the relationship between the
historical and trans-historical dimensions of the Resurrection,
Pope John Paul II says: "It is true that Jesus, after the
resurrection, appeared to his disciples; he spoke to them, had
dealings with them, and even ate with them; he invited Thomas to
touch him in order to be sure of his identity. However, this real
dimension of his entire humanity concealed another life which was
now his, and which withdrew him from the 'normality' of ordinary
earthly life and plunged him in 'mystery'. " [105]
In several places Goosen/Tomlinson impugn the historical accuracy
of the Gospels. They say that the Infancy Narratives are examples
of how "Early tradition tended to take to itself folklore,
astrology and Old Testament interpretation. These are known
features in much ancient tracing of origins, where the
sophisticated modern use of genealogical and historical records
was unknown" (p. 70, quoting Fitzmeyer). They say that St. Matthew
"uses Old Testament texts as central and then weaves a story
around these" (p. 72). Would it not be more correct to say that,
in the light of the events of Easter, the Holy Spirit enlightened
the Evangelists in a way that enabled them to penetrate "the
prophetic value of the Old Testament. " [106] Regarding Jesus'
claim to Messiahship, Goosen/ Tomlinson say: "When we hear Jesus
claiming to be Messiah, it may well be the faith and understanding
of the early Church that we are hearing, rather than a specific
claim by the historical Jesus" (p. 50). In making this statement
however, the authors are entirely consistent with their earlier
assertions about the possibility of ignorance in Jesus. If as they
claim Jesus was possibly ignorant of the salvific meaning of his
Crucifixion, then, does it not logically follow that he would also
have to be ignorant of his Messiahship?
Goosen/Tomlinson's problems with the historicity and supernatural
content of the Gospels becomes particularly evident in their
treatment of the miracles of Jesus. They say that a weakness of
the scientific definition of a miracle is that "what is a miracle
today might not be one tomorrow as a result of increased
scientific knowledge" (p. 110). They say that "Jesus' miracles are
not proofs of his divinity as has been sometimes taught" (ibid. ).
They ask: "are the Gospel accounts of miracles accurate
descriptions of what happened" (p. 113), to which they answer:
The first point to be made is that the witnesses of these miracles
reported them according to their own mental horizons and
perceptions of events. The witnesses gave subjective
interpretations of incidents. Thus what one described as an
'unclean spirit' 2000 years ago might today be called an epileptic
or someone who is mentally unstable. In reading the miracle
stories, we must thus allow for this difference of perception
between then and now. Secondly, the way in which the miracles were
written allowed for elaboration and embellishment of the story . .
Thus the dramatic and exaggerated style of recording these
miracles must be allowed for by the reader . . . Thirdly the aim
of the Evangelist must be kept in mind . . . The evangelists were
not concerned so much with accurately recording a past event as
with putting believers in touch with the living Lord . . . Given
these considerations, it is not difficult to realise that, in
general, it is not possible to get to the original, actual,
unadorned event in the life of Jesus. However, this should not
worry us if we can remember that as regards miracles, it is not
what happened that is the important thing, but the meaning of
miracle (pp. 113-114).
In his book The Mystery of God's Word, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa,
O. F. M. Cap., who serves as the preacher to the papal household
at the Vatican, attacks what he calls "Biblical Ebionism". The
Ebionites viewed Jesus as a great prophet but would not affirm him
as Divine. By "Biblical Ebionism", Fr Cantalamessa means a
dedication to the historical critical-method that is based in
rationalism and does not go beyond "what is historically
verifiable". [107] Fr. Thomas McGovern agrees. He says:
In contemporary biblical exegesis, one finds assertions that
certain aspects of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels
are unhistorical. With striking confidence it is declared that
particular events and teachings are the outgrowth of the
evangelists' imagination, or a retrospective projection of events
and sayings, which amplify the personality of Christ in the light
of the resurrection . . . The historical authenticity of central
doctrines of the faith such as the virginal conception of Christ,
Jesus' self-knowledge as the pre-existing Son of God, the fact
that he instituted the priesthood and the episcopacy are
frequently impugned, doctrines the certainty of which the Church
has always seen affirmed in the Gospel accounts. What we are
confronted with here is essentially a denial of the fundamental
historical character of the Gospels . . . At one level there is an
implicit denial of the supernatural character of the Incarnation .
. The Gospel stories are thus a product of 'faith' and not of
history, because faith and scientific history are incompatible.
[108]
Regarding the nature of miracles, Catholic apologist Michael
Sheehan says: "A miracle is an occurrence outside the course of
nature perceptible to the senses and explicable only as the direct
act of God Himself". [109] I find it incredible that anyone who
believes in the Incarnation would fail to see in Jesus' miracles
proof of his Divinity. Speaking of Christ's miracles in relation
to the mystery of the union of his divine and human natures, St
Gregory of Nyssa said: "While we confess that the divine nature
differs in majesty from a nature that is mortal and perishable, we
are not capable of perceiving the manner of the conjunction of the
divine and the human. Yet the miracles recorded do not permit us
to doubt that God was born in the nature of a man". [110] Who
other than God could raise a dead person to life? In the New
Testament, the miracles are presented to us as acts that point to
the mighty power of God. In fact, the Gospels themselves often
describe them as "mighty acts" or "signs" (cf. Acts 2:22; Lk 7:18-
23). The important thing about them is that they demonstrate in
the concrete that "nothing is impossible to God" (Lk 1:38).
Speaking of Jesus' miracles, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
says: "These signs demonstrate in a special way that Jesus is
truly 'God Who saves'". [111] To this it adds: "Miracles
strengthen faith in the One who does his Father's works; they bear
witness that he is the Son of God". [112] Pope John Paul II
insists that the Gospel miracles really happened. He says:
As facts, the miracles of Christ belong to evangelic history, and
the accounts of them contained in the gospels are as reliable and
even more so than those contained in other historical works. It is
clear that the real obstacle to their acceptance as facts of
history and of faith is the anti-supernatural prejudice of those
who would limit God's power or restrict it to the natural order of
things, as though God was subject himself to his own laws. But
this concept clashes with the most elementary philosophical and
theological idea of God, infinite, subsisting and omnipotent
being. [113]
If we were to accept what Goosen/Tomlinson assert about the nature
of the miracle accounts in the Gospels, then we would be left with
no choice but to conclude that there is little at all in the New
Testament which is historically true and accurate. For Catholics,
the historical truth of the Gospels is "a principle to be taken as
a starting point for all work of interpretation of the sacred
books; it is not therefore, a conclusion or an end product of
critical research. " [114] In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical
Commission issued an Instruction On The Historical Truth Of The
Gospels. It insisted that the Gospels are trustworthy historical
records that tell us what Jesus really said and did. It said:
"After Jesus had risen from the dead, and when His divinity was
clearly perceived, the faith of the disciples, far from blotting
out the remembrance of the events that had happened, rather
consolidated it since their faith was based on what Jesus had done
and taught." At the same time, the Apostles, when handing on the
things "which in actual fact the Lord had said and done", did so
"in the light of that fuller understanding which they enjoyed as a
result of being schooled by the glorious things accomplished by
Christ, and of being illumined by the Spirit of Truth." When it
came to writing the Gospels, the sacred authors "took this
earliest body of instruction, which had been handed on orally at
first and then in writing . . . and set it down in the four
Gospels." In doing this, each of the Evangelists, "followed a
method suitable to the special purpose which he had in view. They
selected certain things out of the many which had been handed on;
some they synthesised, some they explained with an eye to the
situation of the churches, painstakingly using every means of
bringing home to their readers the solid truth of the things in
which they had been instructed."
In the Encyclical Letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII
insisted on the inerrancy of Scripture. In doing so he cited the
teaching of Vatican I that the books of Scripture were "written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit" and thus they "have God
as their author". Therefore, adds Pius XII, Holy Scripture "enjoys
immunity from any error whatsoever". He complained that "certain
Catholic writers dare to limit the truth of Sacred Scripture to
matters only of faith and morals (and to say) that other things,
of a physical or historical nature, or things said in passing
(obiter dicta)"are not protected by inspiration. Following Leo
XIII, Pope Pius XII insisted that "there is no error when the
sacred writer, speaking of physical things, follows what appears
to the senses. " Vatican II reaffirmed the teaching of the Church
on the inerrancy of Scripture. In Dei Verbum we read: "Since,
therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers,
affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must
acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and
without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our
salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures".
Since the Church does not change officially declared doctrine, a
footnote was added by Vatican II to this sentence on inerrancy to
indicate that it had to be interpreted in the light of that
teaching Leo XIII and Pius XII referred to above.
When Goosen/Tomlinson say that the Evangelists were not concerned
with "accurately recording a past event, " they are in effect
saying that the Gospels are not concerned with accurately
recording the words and deeds of Jesus. Worse still, it implies
that the Evangelists could have fabricated some of the stories
about the miracles. For example, Jesus is reported in the Gospels
to have cured a man born blind (cf. Mk: 8:22-26). There is here no
half-way stage that could be "embellished". If someone claims to
see Jesus give sight in an instant to a man born blind, there are
no gradual steps. The claim must be true or evidently false. Often
the reader's own prejudices and presuppositions can create
difficulties with a miracle text. On the other hand, acceptance of
the historicity and reality of such miracles is no problem to
anyone with an absence of such prejudices. More importantly,
incredulity is not possible for someone who believes in the
Incarnation and in the power of God to create and transform
matter. Consequently, the statement that Jesus healed a blind man
cannot in any way be detracted from, it can only be taken as a
statement of historical truth, i. e. an accurate account of an
event in the life of Our Lord. The Gospels tell us that three
times Jesus brought dead people back to life (cf. Mk 5:1-20; Lk
7:11-17; Jn 11: 1-44). Again, there is no middle way - Jesus
either did, or He did not - raise people from the dead. If He did
not, then the Evangelists are liars.
Goosen/Tomlinson suggest that the people from whom Jesus cast out
demons were in reality only suffering from epilepsy. Even if this
was the case, and I don't believe it was, is it still not
miraculous that a word from Jesus cured them? The coming of God's
Kingdom means the defeat of Satan: "If it is by the spirit of God
that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you"
(Mt 12:26, 28). The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that
"Jesus' exorcisms free some individuals from the domination of
demons. They anticipate Jesus' great victory over 'the ruler of
this world". [121] Many people today testify to the fact that they
once felt themselves in the grip of an evil power from which they
were freed only by the power of Jesus. The Catholic Church's Rite
of Exorcism is nothing more than the prolongation in time of this
particular aspect of Jesus' healing ministry.
In pointing out that Christianity shared the Hebrew concern for
facts, Fr. William Most says: "This is to be expected, for the
first Christians were all Hebrews. And the Christians, even more
clearly than the Hebrews, knew their eternal destiny depended on
the factuality of the reports about Jesus. Many of them died
wretchedly rather than deny that factuality. And there was a host
of witnesses to the events on which Christianity is based. Many of
these witnesses certainly survived to a date later than the latest
dates proposed for the Synoptic Gospels". [122] In saying this,
Fr. Most recalled the words of Quadratus who was the earliest of
the Greek apologists. Writing around 123 AD, Quadratus said: "The
things done by the Savior remained present always, for they were
true. Those cured, those who rose from the dead were not only seen
when they were being cured and raised, but were constantly
present, not only while the Savior was living, but also for some
time after He had gone, so that certain of them came down even to
our own time. " [123] D. R. de Lacey and M. Turner make an
interesting point regarding the historical truth of the miracle
stories when they say: "It is sometimes said that people living
then believed in miracles because they did not understand the
'laws of nature, ' while nowadays we know that they could not
happen. But this is only a half truth. A Jew living in the first
century was well aware that cripples and lepers do not suddenly
get better, that no-one can stop a storm just by speaking to it.
To that extent they did understand the laws of nature. But they
also believed that God was perfectly able to act in the world in
whatever way he wanted, so they were prepared to believe that at
times things might not happen as one would expect. " [124]
As well as contradictions of the Church's teaching, the
Goosen/Tomlinson book also contains many dangerous ambiguities. I
will cite just one example. Referring to the Prologue to St.
John's Gospel, Goosen/Tomlinson say: "The Prologue to the Gospel
uses the term 'Logos', translated as 'Word', to express something
of John's understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ . . . For
John the Logos is not a merely abstract philosophical or religious
concept - it is a living, historical person who is both
(paradoxically) identical with God and yet distinct from God" (p.
79). The Prologue to St. John's Gospel falls into two parts. The
first part deals with the eternity of the Word (Logos), the second
part deals with the Incarnate Word. In the first instance, he
(Logos) is not distinct from God if by God we mean the Divine
nature, but as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity he is
distinct from the Father. In the second part of the Prologue, if
we are referring to his humanity, then this is distinct from God
if by God we mean the Divine nature. However, he continues to be a
Divine Person, distinct from the Father but identical with Him in
nature.
The authors of the Who Is Jesus? Support Unit assert as a matter
of fact that the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are simply
retrojection by the Evangelists. In relation to the Gospel of
Matthew, we read: "Students may have trouble with the idea of
Jesus 'predicting' conflict in the community because of him. The
author, of course, is 'writing back' the very real conflicts that
were happening in his community, between the Pharisees and the
followers of Jesus, as if they were being predicted by Jesus" (p.
30). In reference to St. John's Gospel, the Support Unit states:
The Apostle John whose name the Gospel bears was not the author,
but the work comes from the traditions of his community. In
reading John's Gospel, the questions of what theologians call Low
and High Christology arises. A High Christology such as we find in
John, shows the earthly Jesus as he was later recognised to be:
the divine, all-knowing, glorious saviour and Messiah. For example
John puts the words into Jesus' mouth: Before Abraham was, I am
John 8:58. On the other hand, a Low Christology depicts Jesus as
he would have been during his life (p. 31).
Many of St. John's details are now known to be accurate. For
example, excavations at the Pool of Bethzatha provide confirmation
for the details given in John 5: the five porches have all been
discovered. [125] At a conference at Gazzada in Northern Italy
during August 1990, Biblical scholars from around the world
examined how the sayings and deeds of Jesus were handed down by
word of mouth in the period between the Resurrection and the
composition of the first Gospel. According to the Conference
report, the scholars present at Gazzada rejected earlier scholarly
scepticism based on Form Criticism that the sayings of Jesus had
been foisted on him to justify practices of early Christian
communities. The Conference, held under the patronage of Cardinal
Martini S. J. of Milan, concluded that "Jesus presented himself as
the Wisdom of God" whereas "a decade ago this would have been seen
as a mere Pauline or Johannine interpretation". [126] In speaking
of St John's Gospel and the place of historical narrative in it,
Fr. Pedro Saenz de Argandona, S. J. says:
Like any historian, John the Evangelist researches the facts and
deeds of Jesus and attempts to relate the events of the earthly
Jesus in Palestine. These events are strongly present in his
memory due to the fact that he was a contemporary of Jesus and
knew him personally. As an historian, he also wants to be exact
and precise concerning Jesus' life and personal data . . . John
the Evangelist is not a historian in the ordinary sense of the
word. Why? When John announces his gospel, he wants to relate to
his readers that Jesus was not an illustrious dead man who lived
in Palestine in the past, but is a 'living person' who is alive
today in his Gospel. This means that John's Gospel sense of
history deals with a component that historians do not possess:
faith. It is in the name of faith that John writes his gospel. Due
to faith we can now understand the 'supratemporal character' of
the happenings of Jesus in Palestine. Because of faith time is not
a barrier to understanding the facts, words, deeds and events of
the past in Palestine. One can still see all those things that
happened in the past alive 'today' in John's Gospel. In other
words, John as a witness, saw Jesus living in Palestine, walking
through towns, dealing with people, talking with them. He
remembers what Jesus did and the words Jesus spoke. We can call
them historical deeds and facts of Jesus and rightly so, but there
is another dimension in John's Gospel that gives a different sense
of history to his gospel. John witnessed the 'earthly' life of
Jesus, but in his gospel, he narrates this personal experience
'illumined by faith' in the Resurrection and the Glory of the Lord
. .
Apart from being a witness to the life of Jesus in Palestine and
being a historian who writes about him, John's Gospel is also the
work of the Holy Spirit . . . The Holy Spirit engages in action to
put together the 'past life' of Jesus in Palestine and 'today's
life' of Jesus in John's Gospel. The role of the Holy Spirit is
crucial. Through the Holy Spirit we understand the dynamics of the
past and present in John's Gospel . . . In other words, the action
of the Holy Spirit unites the 'past' Jesus of Nazareth with the
living present Glorified Jesus in John's Gospel. Under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, John announces to the faithful of
today the same historical deeds of the earthly Jesus . . . The
record of the 'facts and deeds' of Jesus in Palestine is critical,
since this proves the intervention of God in the history of man.
But without faith with regard to these happenings, the
intervention of God in mankind cannot be understood . . . John was
witness of the manhood and divinity of Jesus and these two
realities cannot be separated. In the same way, the historical
Jesus of the past and the Glorified Jesus of the present cannot be
separated". [127]
A striking characteristic of the biblical sections of the 1995
Support Units is that there is little if any mention of
inspiration, inerrancy or historicity. The Units imply that form
criticism and biblical criticism are exact sciences. At best, the
conclusions reached from applying the tools of scientific analysis
to the interpretation of the Bible are more or less acceptable
opinions, if they agree with the teaching of the Church. At worst,
they are a vehicle whereby preconceived ideas are given
legitimacy. The general impression given in the Support Units is
that the Bible is just another ancient text. Also, the emphasis in
the Unit on "experience" and "meaning" betrays a heavy dependence
upon the principles underlying Liberal Protestantism. The use of
the term "faith" underlines subjective content and not its
objective content. What can be expected is one of three things.
The students will either, i) come to view the whole Bible as a
secular text and not as the inspired Word of God, or ii) reject
the Bible as a myth, or, most probably, iii) will opt for a
private interpretation of the Bible - a Protestant principle.
The defective approach to Scripture leads the authors of the
Support Units to make many confusing and erroneous assertions. For
example, on page 26 of the Who Is Jesus? Unit we read: "At the
Resurrection the disciples experienced Jesus. He had died. He was
now alive. He was changing them, because his Spirit was with them
and in them. It took many years of reflection on this for them to
be able to say in words: Jesus is God". From its very beginning,
the Church has acknowledged the Divinity of Christ. [128] If what
the authors of the Support Units claim is correct, i. e. that it
took the disciples "many years" to say in words that "Jesus is
God", then what sense are we to make of John 20:28-29 where the
Apostle Thomas in his profession of faith says: "My Lord and my
God" (Jn 20:28-29)? Explaining the relevance of the term "Lord" as
applied to Jesus in the New Testament, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church says: "In the Greek translation of the Old
Testament, the ineffable Hebrew name YHWH, by which God revealed
himself to Moses, is rendered as Kyrios, 'Lord'. From then on,
'Lord' becomes the more usual name by which to indicate the
divinity of Israel's God. The New Testament uses this full sense
of the title 'Lord' both for the Father and - what is new for
Jesus, who is thereby recognised as God Himself. " [129] Having
said this, the Catechism then adds: "By attributing to Jesus the
divine title 'Lord', the first confessions of the Church's faith
affirm from the beginning that the power, honour, and glory due to
God the Father are due also to Jesus". [130] Fr Terry J. Tekippe,
who formerly taught at the Gregorian University in Rome and who
now holds the Lonergan Fellowship at Boston College, brings an
interesting perspective to bear on this question when he says:
The fact is that, from the very beginning, Christians worshipped
Jesus. It is true that formal liturgical prayer is directed to the
Father through Jesus. But, as Josef Jungmann points out in The
Mass of the Roman Rite, there is alongside this formal tradition,
from the very earliest days, a more popular tradition of directing
prayer and worship to Jesus. 'Kyrie eleison! Christe, eleison!'.
Jesus is called kurios, the title reserved to God, and he is
requested to have mercy, as God was in the Old Testament. The same
strain is repeated in the Agnus Dei: 'Lamb of God, you take away
the sins of the world: have mercy on us. ' The Gloria is an
ancient hymn, whose first verse is directed to the Father, as the
Almighty; the second to Jesus: 'Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the
Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take way the sin of the world:
have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father:
receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are
the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ . . . ' The
Creed which is proclaimed every Sunday concludes, speaking of the
Spirit: 'With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and
glorified' . . . The Church's lived experience from the very
beginning, then, is one of worship of Jesus as Lord. [131]
PARRAMATTA CEO: TRANSMITTING MARXIST BASED LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Apart from Goosen/Tomlinson, other major influences on the
Christology and Ecclesiology sections of the 1995 Support Units
are Leonardo Boff, Albert Nolan and Paul Collins. Boff is one of
the leading liberation theologians in South America. In 1984, the
Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an
Instruction on Liberation Theology which warned against the danger
of trying to reformulate the Gospel message in terms of Marxist
ideology. Entitled Instruction On Certain Aspects Of The Theology
Of Liberation, the CDF document said: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ
is a message of freedom and a force for liberation . . .
Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical
slavery of sin. Its end and its goal is the freedom of the
children of God, which is the gift of grace. As a logical
consequence, it calls for freedom from many different kinds of
slavery in the cultural, economic, social and political spheres,
all of which derive ultimately from sin, and so often prevent
people from living in a manner befitting their dignity". After
saying this, the Instruction then warned: "Faced with the urgency
of certain problems, some are tempted to emphasise, unilaterally,
the liberation from servitude of an earthly and temporal kind.
They do so in such a way that they seem to put liberation from sin
in second place, and so fail to give it the primary importance it
is due". [132]
The "precise purpose" of the CDF Instruction on liberation
theology was stated as: "To draw the attention of pastors,
theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of
deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are
brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use,
in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from
Marxist thought". [133] Rather than serving the cause of the poor,
these deviations tend instead "to betray the cause of the poor".
[134] Marxist inspired liberation theology emphasises the
transformation of political and social structures as a
prerequisite to the attainment of integral liberation. While
acknowledging that "there are structures which are evil and which
cause evil and which we must have the courage to change", the CDF
Instruction pointed out however that "structures whether they are
good or bad, are the result of man's actions and so are
consequences more than causes". The Instruction insisted that the
root of evil "lies in free and responsible persons who have to be
converted by the grace of Jesus Christ in order to live and act as
new creatures in the love of neighbour and in the effective search
for justice, self-control and the exercise of virtue". [135]
Pointing to the foundations of true freedom and justice, the CDF
Instruction recalled the words addressed by Pope John Paul II to
the Bishops of Latin America at Puebla where he said that any
authentic theology of liberation must rest on the "truth about
Jesus Christ, truth about the Church, and truth about mankind".
[136] In drawing attention to the dangers of Marxist inspired
liberation theology, the CDF Instruction was careful however to
add that:
This warning should in no way be interpreted as a disavowal of
all those who want to respond generously and with an authentic
evangelical spirit to the 'preferential option for the poor. ' It
should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain an
attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic
and pressing problems of human misery and injustice . . . More
than ever, it is important that numerous Christians, whose faith
is clear and who are committed to live the Christian life in its
fullness, become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom and
human dignity because of their love for their disinherited,
oppressed and persecuted brothers and sisters. [137]
Marxism postulates that the theory of "class struggle" is the key
to understanding and directing history. Consequently, liberation
theology that uses Marxist principles as a basis for social
analysis draws the conclusion that class struggle also "divides
the Church herself, and that in light of this struggle even
ecclesial realities must be judged". [138] Basing itself on the
so-called "Church of the People", whom it is necessary to
"conscientise", Marxist inspired liberation theology develops "a
critique of the very structures of the Church" itself. This
critique "is not simply a case of fraternal correction of pastors
of the Church whose behaviour does not reflect the evangelical
spirit of service", rather "it has to do with a challenge to the
sacramental and hierarchical structure of the Church". This
challenge to the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the
Church leads Marxist inspired liberation theologians to engage in
"a denunciation of the members of the hierarchy and the
magisterium as objective representatives of the ruling class which
has to be opposed". Theologically, this position leads liberation
theologians to posit that "ministers take their origin from the
people who therefore designate ministers of their own choice in
accord with the needs of their historic revolutionary mission".
[139]
As one of the leading exponents of Liberation Theology, Fr
Leonardo Boff makes no secret of his reliance on Marxist theory.
In an article he co-authored with his brother, Boff declared his
dependence on Marxist theory when he said:
When dealing with the poor and oppressed and seeking their
liberation, how do we avoid coming into contact with Marxist
groups? . . . Placing themselves firmly on the side of the poor,
liberation theologians ask Marx: 'What can you tell us about the
situation of poverty and the ways of overcoming it? . . .
Therefore, liberation theology uses Marxism as an instrument . . .
And liberation theology feels no obligation to account to social
scientists for any use it makes - correct or otherwise - of
Marxist terminology and ideas . . . Liberation theology freely
borrows from Marxism. [140]
Boff's theology is a mishmash of Marxist theory and a very
defective Christology some of which he imbibed from Karl Rahner
under whom he studied in Munich. His best known book is probably
Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Theology for Our Time. Boff is
very sceptical about the historical reliability of the Gospels and
he denies that Christ spoke of himself as the Son of Man.
According to the New Zealand scholar G. H. Duggan, S. M., Boff
"echoes Rahner" when he declares that "the Incarnation consists in
a response by Christ to a proposal by God". [141] In his book From
Death To Life: The Christian Journey, Bishop Christoph Schonborn,
O. P. places Boff in the company of scholars such as Reimarus,
Reuss, Schweitzer and Loisy - all of whom propagated the error
that Jesus' disciples and even Jesus himself lived in an
eschatological "high tension" expecting the imminent irruption of
the kingdom of God and the overthrowing of this world. This error
reached its high point in the writings of Rudolf Bultmann who
equated the Kingdom of God with the end of the world. Bishop
Schonborn points out that Boff simply assumed the correctness of
Bultmann's theory. [142] In describing Boff's Christology, Hans
Urs von Balthasar said:
Boff seems to develop a Christology strongly influenced by
Bultmann, with whom he suggests that we know very little about the
historical Jesus. However, he believes that we can interpret the
primary intention of Jesus as that of someone who understood
himself in his role as liberator of the poor and oppressed . . .
The liberation - the 'Kingdom of God' - which Jesus expected to
result from it - had failed to come about, as expressed by the
authentic cry on the Cross: 'Why hast thou forsaken me?' The
doctrine of substitution is rejected by Boff as well as by Rahner.
It is up to us present-day Christians to adopt and execute what
Jesus had wished and begun. [143]
In the late 1980s, after a 15-day visit to the Soviet Union,
Leonardo Boff wrote a Theological Reflection On Socialism in which
he said:
Socialism is what it is, but because it places the social at the
centre of its organisation it is more likely than any other system
to bring the revelation of God-community into history. In real
socialism, in spite of all its contradictions (the human price of
its implantation, the urgency of the revolution of political
freedom, etc. ) we encounter more or less the social integrating
itself in the social historical process . . . The Socialist
Revolution of 1917 marked something new in the history of
humanity. The revolution was not alien to the Holy Ghost, inspite
of all the contradictions the revolution encompassed . . . How is
it possible that socialism contained particular goods of the
Kingdom without passing through any religious mediation? Is it
possible for the Kingdom to exist where it is denied subjectively?
. . Today, since socialism has been established over vast
portions of humanity, it is important to recover the viability of
utopian socialism . . . Today this utopia is emerging within
liberation theology. The fascination with liberation theology
comes, in large part, from its utopian side, more communist than
socialist, for an ideal even more radical than that of the real
socialism as formulated at a certain time by Fidel Castro.
In this Reflection On Socialism, Boff also articulated a vision
for the Church of the future in which he said:
Socialism asks from the Church organisation a form that is more
participatory, with a better ecclesiastic division of religious
labour, in which sacred power is also socialised among members of
the community. This means that we will still have bishops and
elders but that they will assume different functions and will
incorporate a style of co-ordination and action that is distinct
from that exercised by the Church-society. A Church of basics is
fundamentally constituted by basic communities, with Bible
circles, and one that facilitates the participation by the
Christian people, that comments upon the Word of God, that builds,
along with the pastors, a Church community that is the functioning
model of the socialist system . . . From these reflections we can
see the prophetic character of the Church of the Poor of Latin
America. Here we are building already a model of Church-being that
will be adequate to a future society that, we are sure, will
emerge, a Church that is more social, less discriminatory, and
based on a democracy of popular foundation in which the organised
people will be the great historical subject in social
construction.
Boff's Reflection On Socialism was first published in the
November-December 1988 issue of the Brazillian Catholic Journal
Vozes. The Journal is operated by the Franciscan Order and at the
time Boff was himself an editor. In 1991, Boff's Franciscan
Superiors removed him as editor of Vozes and ordered him to stop
publicising his views for one year. This move to censure Fr. Boff
was supported by Cardinal Nicolas Lopez Rodriquez who was
President of the Latin American Bishops' Council. Sometime after
this happened, Boff left the priesthood. Amongst the
"contradictions" that characterised the Bolshevik Revolution and
its aftermath which Boff conveniently glosses over in his
Reflection On Socialism, was the 40 million people brutally
murdered for ideological reasons - something which is openly
admitted today in the former Soviet Union. Rather than ushering in
Boff's "goods of the Kingdom", it is now generally admitted in
Russia today that the Communist experiment was in fact a political
disaster and an economic catastrophe. In his encyclical Centesimus
Annus, Pope John Paul II charged Communism with everything from
fostering violent social conflict to utterly failing to bring
about social and economic progress. He said that "class struggle
in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely,
atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the
principle of force above that of reason and law". [144] The Holy
Father also criticised the Communist experiment in Eastern Europe
for "the spiritual void brought about by atheism, which deprived
the younger generation of a sense of direction". [145] He added
that "the denial of God deprives the person of his foundation, and
consequently leads to a reorganisation of the social order without
reference to the person's dignity and responsibility".[146]
In a paper entitled Exercising a Preferential Option: A Reflection
for Catholic Schools, published in the May 1996 edition Catholic
School Studies, Dr Michael Bezzina who is Director of Religious
Education and Educational Services at the Parramatta Catholic
Education Office, argues that Boff's liberation theology can
provide a useful tool for the renewal of Catholic Education in
Australia. After first giving a superficial summary of Boff's
theology, Dr Bezzina goes on to say: "The methodology of
liberation theology is essentially a methodology of faith-filled
reflection on experience. It begins with the life experience of
the oppressed and moves through critical reflection in the light
of faith to action itself, a new form of experience. This is
sometimes expressed in brief as 'see, judge, act' (Boff and
Boff)".[147] In stating the aim of his paper, Dr Bezzina said:
"This paper sets out to explore the possible contribution of
liberation theology to Catholic education in Australia. The way it
does so is to address the relationship between liberation theology
and education, its applicability to the Australian context, the
lessons of liberation theology for Catholic education and how
these lessons might be applied".[148] In this paper, Dr Bezzina
seeks to integrate the theological ideas of the Boff brothers with
the educational philosophy of Paulo Freire (author of The Pedagogy
of the Oppressed) in order to develop a process of
"conscientisation" that can be applied at all levels of Catholic
education in Australia - even at the infants level. Describing his
grand vision, Dr Bezzina says:
One of the real advantages of "doing" liberation theology is that
it can be done at different "levels", and is thus accessible to
all. For most teachers the popular (everyday) and pastoral
(ministry) levels will be the most commonly used. The cycle of
experience/reflection on experience and action is one that can be
utilised at all levels, from infants to high school in some form.
To gain the maximum benefit, liberation theology needs to be
applied both to the structures of Catholic education, and to its
curriculum.[149]
Dr Bezzina sees liberation theology as offering Catholic
educators in Australia a challenge to conversion. He says:
"Central to the message of liberation theology is a preferential
option for the poor. This challenges educators to come to terms
with what a preferential option really means, to struggle for
liberation from any source of oppression and to be conscious of
the operations of the Reign of God in the here and now. It
challenges Catholic educators to a personal conversion to action".
[150] While it is true that we are called to exercise a
preferential option for the poor, this should not however be
understood in fundamentalist terms, or worse still, in terms of
Marxist "class struggle" as is the case with Boff's theology upon
which Bezzina bases his vision for Catholic education. The call to
take up a preferential option for the poor was first stressed at
the Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin and it was
forcefully reaffirmed again at Puebla. However, the 1984 Vatican
Instruction on Liberation Theology reminded us that "the
preferential option described at Puebla was two-fold: for the poor
and for the young". In recalling this two-fold option, the Vatican
Instruction noted that "it is significant that the option for the
young has in general been passed over in total silence". [151]
Given his position as Director of Religious Education and
Educational Services at the Parramatta CEO, I believe the
"preferential option" that in the present circumstances should
most concern Dr Bezzina is the option "for the young". In
exercising this option, Dr Bezzina should first seek to protect
the thousands of children in the Parramatta Diocese from the
corrupt religious education materials his own office produces.
Turning now to the pages from one of Boff's books that the Who Is
Jesus? Support Unit for Sharing Our Story provides for Years 11
and 12 students. The first thing to note is that Boff refers to
Jesus' mission as a "utopic project". [152] Is Boff here equating
Jesus' inauguration of the Kingdom of God with the "utopian side"
of communism he referred to in his Reflection On Socialism?
Speaking of the oppressive structures that have historically kept
the poor in a state of servitude, Boff states: "Historically, the
churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, have been more
involved with the interests of the organisers of this order, which
marginalises the great majorities, than with the members of the
subordinate strata of the population". [153] In terms of Marxist
class struggle, Boff has here identified the Church with the
oppressors. At the same time, those in the Church, who espouse
Boff's own liberation theology are seen as the creators of the
future, their vision "is based on the Gospel rather than a pure
and simple propagation of Church doctrine". [154] In the student
handouts, Boff uses conventional theological terminology but
empties it of its theological content which he replaces with a
political-social content. Boff explicitly admits to this when in
speaking of his so-called "new evangelization" he says: "It is new
in that it communicates new content, derived from an
interrelationship between the discourse of faith and the discourse
of the world of the oppressed". [155] Then, equating the coming of
the Kingdom of God with the process of class struggle, Boff adds:
"In biblical revelation, there is an essential bond between the
God of life, the poor, and liberation, between the reign of God,
which first comes into being among the impoverished, and the
politico social dimension of life and the ultimate sense of
history". [156] It is illuminating to compare Boff's statement
here with that of the CDF Instruction where it speaks of a
"tendency" in liberation theology "to identify the Kingdom of God
and its growth with the human liberation movement, and to make
history itself the subject of its own development, as a process of
self-redemption of man by means of the class struggle". [157]
In the student handouts we are here discussing, Boff places his
model of Church based on a "Communitarian Christianity" in
opposition to the historical institutional Church founded by
Christ. In doing so, he casts doubt on the truth that the
hierarchical structure of the Church was established Christ. He
says: "Communitarian Christianity, fruit of the new
evangelisation, rests on 'witness persons' far more than on
institutions. Therefore it is more like a movement of Jesus and
the apostles than the ecclesiastical structurization that began in
the third century and has predominated in conventional
Christianity down to our own day, under the hegemony of the
clergy". [158]
Leaving Boff and turning now to the student materials in the
Support Units drawn from Fr Albert Nolan. In these pages Nolan
appears to reject the Divine origin of the hierarchical structure
of the Church when he says: "Jesus did not found an organisation
he inspired a movement". [159] The actual teaching of the Church
is: "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here
on earth his holy Church . . . as a visible organisation through
which he communicates truth and grace to all men". [160] The
attack on the hierarchical structure of the Church appears again
in student handouts taken from Fr. Paul Collins' Mixed Blessings.
Here Collins locates the origin of the hierarchical Church in the
11th century. [161] In Mixed Blessings, Collins asserts that "the
priesthood as we know it today did not emerge as a separate
ministry in the Church until the fourth century" (p. 79). He
asserts that "although it has never been admitted, the basis of
discrimination against women playing any part in the Church's
liturgical ministry lies largely in the concept of ritual purity"
(p. 80). He says that "it would be a mistake for women to enter
the clerical priesthood as it now stands. What women need to do is
to create a liturgical leadership style that is uniquely theirs,
not simply to ape a male model" (ibid. ). Collins extends a
gratuitous insult to the Mother of God, to Pope John Paul II and
to all devout Christians when he says:
While devotion to Mary is, of course, a characteristic of
Catholicism, in Poland it has been integrated into the national
myth and national consciousness. Perhaps for Wojtyla [Pope John
Paul II] it fulfils as much a personal as a national need. His
mother died when he was very young and there is a seeming lack of
any strong feminine figure in his background. Like many celibate
males he seems to have replaced the real earthly person with the
projected motherhood of the Church and that of Our Lady. Some
celibate men fail to pass through the process of separation from
the mother. The symbol of Mary becomes a surrogate, for she is
both mother and virgin. She replaces the lost human mother, and as
a virgin, she is inaccessible and pure. She is the woman who never
confronts the celibate man's sexuality. [162]
MORALITY SECTION OF THE PARRAMATTA CEO 1995 SUPPORT UNITS
The way in which the Support Units treat Church history is
deplorable but I will not deal with this here. Instead, I want to
say something about the treatment of the Church's moral doctrine
in the Units. In the Unit on Human Relationships we read: "The
official teaching of the Church always aims to set the ideal
before people, giving guidance and support to achieve this ideal .
. "(p. 79). The word "ideal" has evolved loosely in the English
language. For many people today, the word denotes something which
is capable of existing only as a mental, utopian or imaginary
concept. Consequently, people commonly understand the word "ideal"
as referring only to a goal worth aiming at but it doesn't really
matter if you don't reach it - "after all, it was only an ideal" -
is an expression we often hear. We find the word frequently used
by people who want to justify dissent from the Church's moral
teaching. In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II rejected the
notion that the moral doctrine of the Church can be reduced to
mere "ideals". He said:
It would be a very serious error to conclude . . . that the
Church's [moral] teaching is essentially only an 'ideal' which
must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called
concrete possibilities of man . . . But what are the 'concrete
possibilities of man'? And of which man are we speaking? Of man
dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at
stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us!
This means that he has given us the possibility of realising the
entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the
domination of concupiscence. [163]
The consequences of reducing the Church's moral doctrine to a
mere 'ideal' become all too apparent in the Unit on Human
Relationships where it deals with the question of the reception of
the Eucharist by the divorced and remarried. In regard to the case
of a person who, after a failed petition for annulment, contracts
a second marriage on the basis of a personal conviction that the
first marriage was invalid, the Support Unit material says: "Where
a case cannot be proved - for lack of witnesses, for instance -
but the person feels convinced that the marriage was not valid,
the Church fully respects a conscience decision to remarry,
although it will not publicly authorise the remarriage. It
recognises the right of such a remarried person to receive Holy
Communion in good conscience, scandal being avoided" (p. 80).
The advice proffered above by the Support Unit is an expression of
the so-called Internal Forum solution to the question of divorce,
remarriage and the reception of the Eucharist. It is a
contradiction of Catholic sacramental and moral doctrine. In
Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II explicitly mentioned the
most difficult case - those who are "subjectively certain" in
conscience that their previous marriage was not valid. [164] He
said that "the Church reaffirms her practice, based on Sacred
Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced
persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto
from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively
contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which
is signified and effected in the Eucharist". [165] Basing itself
on the words of Jesus in the Gospel, the Church teaches that
marriage according to the design of the Creator is of its nature
indissoluble so that no human power can dissolve it. Consequently,
the Church teaches that attempts to "remarry" after a divorce are
not efficacious and therefore sexual relations of divorced persons
who have attempted remarriage are not marital but rather are
adulterous. [166]
In 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued
with the approval of Pope John Paul II a Letter to the Bishops of
the world calling on them to defend and explain the teaching of
the Church on marriage. [167] In this Magisterial statement we
read: "In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church
affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the
preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried
civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively
contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy
Communion as long as this situation persists" (n. 4). Then, after
recalling the teaching quoted above of Pope John Paul II in
Familiaris Consortio, the CDF Letter went on to say: "Members of
the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons
other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy
Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and
confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good
of these persons, as well as the common good of the Church, have a
serious duty to admonish them that such a judgement of conscience
openly contradicts the Church's teaching. Pastors in their
teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of
this doctrine" (n. 6).
One error in the belief that the divorced and remarried can
themselves decide whether or not their first marriage was valid is
that it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the
sacraments in that it reduces them to a purely private reality.
Taking up this point, the CDF Letter said:
The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that
he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal
conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the
basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the
existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the
new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in
fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship
between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and
an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a
public reality . . . Thus the judgement of conscience of one's own
marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship
between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church's
mediation that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience.
Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny
that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a
sacrament (nn. 7, and 8).
The treatment of conscience in the Decision Making Unit is very
inadequate. In defining conscience it says: "Conscience can be
said to be 'a general sense of values, an awareness of personal
responsibility, which is utterly characteristic of the human
person" (p. 17). This definition of conscience is taken from the
1976 edition of Timothy O'Connell's book on moral principles. In
1990, O'Connel published a revised edition of this book in which
he repudiated the proportionalism of the earlier edition referred
to here in the Support Unit. [168] On page 3 of the Decision
Making Unit we read: "Conscience provides the main focus in any
discussion of morality. Conscience is the capacity to make
responsible decisions for oneself in relation to others and in
relation to one's environment". In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John
Paul II gives a proper definition of conscience where he says it
is not a "creative" decision but rather a "judgement" drawn from
moral truths, including the negative precepts of the Decalogue
which oblige in every case. [169] It is interesting to note that
while Veritatis Splendor is listed once in a resource section of
the 1995 Support Units, there is no mention of it however anywhere
else in the materials.
In view of the confused way in which the nature of conscience is
presented, and in light of the fact that the moral doctrine of the
Church has been reduced to mere "ideals", there is a strong case
to be made that the Ten Step Model For Decision Making (p. 1) is
Proportionalist and Consequentialist. [170] According to
Proportionalism, an act which would otherwise be immoral can be
justified morally if the overall good or evil involved in doing
the action is deemed to outweigh the overall good or evil which
available alternatives would bring about. The Ten-Step Model for
evaluating alternative moral options that is given in the Decision
Making Unit involves an "evaluation of risks and benefits involved
and a consideration of the chances of their occurrence". In the
same context the model speaks of "establishing the desired goal".
If by the desired goal the authors mean the ultimate end of the
human person which is true happiness which is only found in God,
then the statement is false because that is already given by
nature. If however the statement refers to the multiple
intermediary goals whereby the virtuous life leads to the
possession of God, then it can be accepted. When this section is
read in light of the other shortcomings of the Support Units, then
the most that can be said for it is that it is dangerously
ambiguous.
The authors of the Decision Making Unit do not indicate the
objective to be realised in applying the Ten-Step Model for moral
decision making to a value clarification exercise entitled Heinz'
Dilemma. The students have to decide whether or not Heinz acted
morally in stealing a drug for his dying wife from a pharmacist
who had just developed it at great cost. In presenting the
dilemma, the authors of the Support Units omit to give the
principles laid down in the Church's teaching for dealing with
such a situation. After the challenge of the Heinz Dilemma, eight
pages on Kohlberg's moral development theory are provided (cf. pp.
24-31). Kohlbergian moral development theory is now generally
rejected by both educators and moral philosophers alike. [171]
Kohlberg divided moral development into six stages. When one
finally arrived at the famous stage six, moral development was
said to have peaked. Kohlberg called this the stage of Universal
Principle Orientation wherein he defined right as a decision of
conscience which accorded with self-chosen ethical principles.
Kohlbergian theory is inherently relativistic and exposure to
educational techniques based upon it tend to leave people with the
false impression that morality is only a question of personal
opinion rather than right reason and Divine Law. Due to the
relativistic nature of his moral development theory, Kohlberg
could not offer any reproach to his feminist colleague Carol
Gilligan when she ranked the decision to abort as a Stage 6
choice. Kohlberg committed suicide by drowning himself in Boston
Harbour in 1987. Before his death he admitted that there were
serious defects in his moral development theory.
The Support Units invite the students to apply what they have
learned about the nature of conscience and decision making to the
solution of a moral dilemma involving an IVF-Donor case (cf. pp.
31-45). In presenting this IVF dilemma, the Support Units give
only a brief and secondary reference to the Church's teaching on
the subject, while at the same time they present a copious amount
of material from the opposite point of view. For example, the
Support Units make no reference in the student materials to Donum
Vitae but they provide plenty of material on the report of the
Warnock Committee and on an Anglican Response to the question (pp.
42-44). [172] Regarding the status of the embryo, the material in
the Support Unit is generally punctuated with deceptive
ambiguities. For example, it says that an argument against IVF is
that "there is no ascertainable point of time when the embryo
changes to human form". To this it adds that "it is possible that
as a result of the procedure human life is wantonly destroyed
because there is uncertainty about the human status of the
fertilised egg" (p. 38). Contrary to such equivocation, Donum
Vitae states: "From the time that the ovum is fertilised, a new
life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother;
it is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It
would never be made human if it were not human already. To this
perpetual evidence . . . modern genetic science brings valuable
confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant,
the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a
man, this individual - a man with his characteristic aspects
already well determined". [173] It adds that "the conclusions of
science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication
for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the
moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human
individual not be a human person?" (ibid. ).
STUDIES OF RELIGION
Before leaving the discussion of Religious Education, I wish to
draw attention to the fact that many schools have now replaced
school based religious education programs in years 11 and 12 with
a Board of Studies HSC course entitled Studies of Religion. The
Studies of Religion Course is divided into three sections:
Foundational Studies (35%), Depth Studies (50%) and Interest
Studies (15%). According to the Board of Studies Syllabus
document: "Foundation Studies introduces students to the essential
concepts of the courses. It seeks to provide an understanding of
the nature of religion and the expression of religious thought and
practice in various belief systems". [174] The Syllabus document
adds that in this initial study students are: "required to achieve
outcomes that are about the general nature of religion, rather
than those specific to particular religious traditions". [175]
Foundation Studies are expected to make substantial references to
Christianity and Aboriginal Spirituality as formative and enduring
influences on Australia. The Foundation Studies serve as an
introduction to the five religious traditions of the depth
studies. In the Depth Studies section, students have to pick one
topic from each of two groups. Group 1 is called Religious
Traditions and is comprised of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,
Islam and Judaism. Group 2 is called Cross Religion Studies and is
comprised of Rites of Passage, Sacred Writings and Stories,
Teachers and Interpreters, Ways of Holiness, Women in Religion. In
the Interest Studies section of the course there is a wide range
of options that can be studied such as Religious Biography,
Religion and Literature, Religion and Ecology, Confucianism,
Sikhism, Taoism etc.
This Studies of Religion course is often taught from a non-
confessional perspective, and while I have no doubt that a
knowledgeable and committed Catholic teacher could use it to
strengthen in some way the Catholic faith of his students, I am
convinced however that the decision to introduce it to the
Catholic school system was ill-conceived. The new orientation
which the course gives to religious education in Catholic schools
has profound implications for the long-run role of Catholic
schools in evangelisation. I recall one teacher telling me how
ridiculous he thought it was for him to have to teach a unit on
the Hindu Scriptures to students who after 10 years of Catholic
schooling could not be relied on to write a coherent sentence on
the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament or
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
The Studies of Religion course looks at religion from a
comparative and sociological perspective. In doing so, I believe
it promotes a syncretistic view of religion which is willing to
accommodate many different spiritual traditions on an equal level
with Catholic faith and practice. In the Studies of Religion
Course, the foundational writings of different religions are all
put on the same level by being labelled "sacred". Similarly,
different deities are subsumed under the general category of the
Transcendent, and various rituals are all considered to serve the
same function of contacting and establishing unity with the
Transcendent. In this setting, Christ and Krishna are presented as
merely two different ways of breaking through to the divine. This
however contradicts Catholic doctrine since Jesus is not just one
of several names for the divine drawn from human experience of the
transcendent. For Catholics Jesus Christ is "the Word Made Flesh",
i. e. the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who has taken on our
human nature so as to lead us to share eternally in the
Trinitarian life. Our Lord did not say that he was one of the
ways, instead he said "I am the Way". Consequently, young
Catholics should not be encouraged to subscribe to the proposition
that the experience of Christ and of Krishna are equally valid
experiences of the divine. In this syncretistic perspective,
Christianity becomes only one amongst several ways to God and is
no longer the definitive way through which God has made contact
with and come to save his people. [176]
An interesting thing about the way in which this Studies of
Religion course was foisted on Catholic Schools was the part
played in facilitating its adoption by members of the Religious
Education Department at the ACU in Sydney. They conducted many of
the inservice courses that accompanied the introduction of the
course to Catholic schools. In many respects, the Studies of
Religion course is a perfect realisation of Br Rossiter's call for
"a creative divorce between catechesis and religious education".
Sr Patricia Malone, Head of the Religious Education Department at
the ACU in Sydney, was the chairperson of the syllabus committee
that developed the course for the Board of Studies. On the basis
of survey work she has done, Sr Malone is of the opinion that:
"Studies of Religion in religiously affiliated schools has
improved the status of this subject area and has encouraged
students to seriously look at their own religious tradition as
well as the broad area of religion". [177] The question Sr Malone
needs to address however is to what depth does it encourage
Catholic students to look at Christianity and from what
perspective? Even if Christianity is the chosen option for the
Depth Study section of the course, what guarantee can Sr Malone
give that this will necessarily involve the students in a serious
study of Catholic doctrine?
Some Catholic high schools have made the Studies of Religion
course compulsory. Coupled with this, just recently I was reading
through the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC) Year 10 Booklet
for Tertiary Entrance Requirements 1999. This book is essential
reading for teachers involved in advising students on courses to
take in Years 11 and 12 that will give them a pathway into any
course they may wish to take at university. The booklet lists all
Prerequisites, Assumed Knowledge and Recommended Studies for
courses available at all universities in NSW and the ACT. It is
interesting to note that in the entry for the B. Teaching / B Arts
- Humanities, Religious Education at the ACU, the only recommended
studies for HSC is Studies of Religion. This in itself may amount
to a recommendation to all Catholic High Schools to adopt Studies
of Religion as the only form of Religious Education they should
provide at the Senior High School level.
Already there is evidence that some Catholic youth who take the
Studies of Religion course are adopting a syncretistic mentality.
In 1993, Gideon Goosen of the Australian Catholic University
conducted a survey of 300 students who had completed the course in
that year. He found that "the students were more inclined to agree
that what people believe is not important as long as they believe
something and that all religions are equally good or bad". In
saying that the students "were more relativistic about religions",
Dr Goosen said that the students' increased openness to Aboriginal
spirituality is "very gratifying". In expressing his desire "to
stress the positive things", Dr Goosen said that "the relativism
is just one negative thing that's got to be investigated further".
Describing the educational process upon which the course rests, Dr
Goosen said: "You stand back from your own faith commitment" he
said. That, he added: "leads to people saying they [religions] are
all much the same. They've all got a prophet. They've all got
sacred writings. They've all got ritual". [178]
I think that Dr Goosen's ideas on high school religious education
are somewhat coloured by his views on Ecumenism. In a recent
article entitled Ecumenism Is A Christmas Cake which he authored,
Dr Goosen introduced himself by saying: "My perspective is that of
a Roman Catholic having been born and bred in that denomination".
[179] Having said this, Dr Goosen then went on to say:
Sometimes I wonder about the future of ecumenism. There seems to
be a number of current problems that lead into culs-de-sac. One
such factor would have to be the discouraging comments that the
Administration of the Roman Catholic Church makes from time to
time about the efforts put into agreed statements between
Churches. I am thinking particularly of the recent comments about
ARCIC-I (Anglican and Roman Catholic International Commission)
over which they brooded for ten years. But then again I console
myself with the thought that a church's administration is not the
whole Church and at the time of Vatican II it was ultimately the
Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church that had their way, not the
Roman Curia . . . Another worry is the persistence among Catholics
of the 'return-to-Rome' theology of ecumenism . . . I suppose
sociologically speaking it is not surprising that in a Church
which since the Reformation has been teaching that it is all right
and others all wrong, this attitude should continue to prevail.
[180]
Division between Christians "openly contradicts the will of
Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts
damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to
every creature". [181] At the Second Vatican Council, "the
Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the
path of the ecumenical venture". [182] Stressing the importance of
the Ecumenical movement, the Council stated: "This sacred Synod
exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognise the signs of the
times and to participate actively in the work of ecumenism". [183]
To this the Council added: "Concern for restoring unity pertains
to the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike. It extends to
everyone, according to the ability of each, whether it be
exercised in daily Christian living or in theological and
historical studies". [184]
The ability to dialogue is essential to the ecumenical process.
True ecumenism however requires that those who engage in it have a
clear understanding of their own faith in order to be of service
to those with whom they are called to dialogue. Participants in
dialogue from different denominations should seek to explain the
teaching of his or her Communion "in greater depth" in order to
bring out clearly "its distinctive features". [185] By engaging
"in frank dialogue, Communities help one another to look at
themselves together in the light of the Apostolic tradition. This
leads them to ask themselves whether they truly express in an
adequate way all that the Holy Spirit has transmitted through the
Apostles". [186] The dialogue process must not mean a watering
down of truth. There must be no question "of altering the deposit
of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential
words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a
particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under
the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The
unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all
to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of
faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth".
[187]
Dr Goosen is wrong in asserting that documents produced by the
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission represent agreed
statements "between Churches". They are simply reports of
discussions between commission members and as such they have no
official Church status. Goosen is trivialising the whole meaning
of ecumenism when he asserts that the Catholic Church has, since
the Reformation, been teaching that "it is all right" and that
other ecclesial communities are "all wrong". For example, Vatican
II's Decree on Ecumenism acknowledges that in regard to the lack
of unity among Christians - "people of both sides were to blame" -
and that consequently responsibility cannot be attributed only to
the "other side". [188] Coupled with this, Vatican II also teaches
that while the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church,
which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in
communion with him", it also acknowledges that "many elements of
sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible
structure". [189]
Goosen's statement about the Holy See's response to ARCIC-I is
superficial. The Holy See's response gave "a warm welcome" to the
Final Report of ARCIC-I and it expressed "gratitude" to the
members of the International Commission responsible for drawing it
up. [190] It congratulated the members of the Commission on "the
points of convergence and even of agreement" which they were able
to arrive at. In the spirit of authentic ecumenism however, the
Holy See drew attention to sections in ARCIC-I that while
appearing to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine would need to be
further clarified so as to ensure that this was in fact the case.
Most importantly, the Holy See's response drew attention to areas
of difference between Catholics and Anglicans which had been
inadequately treated in ARCIC-I. These areas included: Papal
Infallibility, the Marian Dogmas, the scope of Magisterial
authority, the nature and composition of the Church, the mode of
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist following the
substantial change in the elements of the bread and wine, the
reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, the ordination of
women and the interpretation of Scripture.
At times Goosen seems to be advocating some kind of new Church
that would subsume existing Churches by pretending that
differences between them are of no significance. He says:
"Ecumenism is bringing the Churches together to form one united
Church. That means existing Churches 'die' in some way to be
resurrected in the form of a united Church, not unlike mergers and
amalgamations in society at large. To my knowledge no institution
readily agrees to its own demise even with the promise of a
resurrection! Understandably, therefore, ministers who are the
visible and official signs of their institutions, recoil from
movement which ultimately aims at their dying and transformation".
[191] Goosen does not appear to view the question of women's
ordination as representing an insurmountable obstacle to the
evolution of this new Church of his. He says:
The question of women's ordination I see as the context of the
very complex interweaving of ideology, culture, and belief. People
like Leonardo Boff and Hans Kung have tried to show where these
hold us back. I think the ordination of women could be one of
these areas. When one is defending an ideology (assuming for the
moment it is an ideology), one has to be exceptionally clever at
looking for arguments because, in fact, there may not really be
any substantial ones. Again, looking at those Churches not in
favour of ordaining women, one has to ask oneself why this is so.
Is it a threat to a celibate, male control of power structures
within that institution, or simply a very human and rigid
conservatism afraid of change? I suspect that we often look at
theological reasons in these cases when sociology, cultural
anthropology and ideology hold the answers. I think, too, that
Church members are increasingly beginning to debunk the line that
religious matters like these are somehow above sociological and
ideological factors. If we take culture and pluralism seriously,
is it not possible that solutions to these problems might mean
some local Churches having ordained women and others not? Behind
every honest search for a solution is the threat of the millstone
of uniformity. [192]
From what he has written above, Goosen does not seem to understand
that unity in Christ's Church has to be constituted by the bonds
of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical
communion. [193] Also, he does not seem to understand that any
"local Church" with "ordained women" could never be in communion
with the Catholic Church. The syncretistic views expressed by
Goosen above may explain why he is an apologist for the adoption
by Catholic schools of the Board of Studies Course Studies of
Religion. Earlier we noted that one of the problems with this
course is that it seems to serve as a vehicle for indoctrinating
our youth into a new religious syncretism!
CHAPTER 7 ENDNOTES
1 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 7
2 Pope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae, n. 1.
3 Ibid. n. 5
4 Ibid. Cf. n. 6
5 Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 32
6 Fr Marcial Maciel, Inside the Vatican, May 1995, p. 47
7 Marcellin Flynn, FMS. The Culture of Catholic Schools: A Study
of Catholic Schools: 1972-93, St. Pauls, Sydney, 1993, p. 297
8 Ibid. p. 413
9 Ibid. p. 313
10 Ibid. p. 414.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid. p. 430.
13 Br Graham Rossiter, "The Need for a 'Creative Divorce' Between
Catechesis and Religious Education in Catholic Schools," Religious
Education 77:1 (January/February 1982). See also Catechesis and
Religious Education by Thomas H. Groome in The Living Light, Fall
1992.
14 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Catechesis Tradendae, n. 55.
15 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 22/4/85.
16 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 11/1/95.
17 A report on the Wagga Diocese syllabus appeared in the Irish
Family, Friday, 26 April, 1996. The report was headed New RE
Syllabus Based On Catechism.
18 Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, II, cited by
Archbishop Eric D'Arcy in The New Catechism and Cardinal Newman,
Communio 20, Fall 1993, p. 499.
19 Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons II, cited by
Archbishop Eric D'Arcy, op. cit. p. 496.
20 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae, n. 55.
21 Cardinal Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, op.cit. p. 25.
22 Ibid. p. 61.
23 Cardinal Newman, Grammar of Assent, cited by Archbishop Eric
D'Arcy, op. cit. p. 499.
24 Pope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae, n. 30.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid. n. 22.
27 Ibid.
28 Peter Ritzer, Living Light, Summer 1994, pp. 52-53.
29 Archbishop Eric D'Arcy, Australasian Catholic Record, October
1988, pp. 392-393.
30 Archbishop Eric D'Arcy, Communio, Fall 1993, p. 492.
31 Pope Paul VI, Evangeli Nuntiandi, n. 41.
32 Ibid. n. 76.
33 For a penetrating review of Kosnik's work see On Understanding
Human Sexuality by William May and John Harvey O.S.F.S., Synthesis
Series.
34 Cf. Support Units Years 11 and 12, Parramatta CEO, 1993,
Suggested Activity 2.22, Human Relationships, pp. 47-49.
35 Catholic Schools Update, Parramatta CEO, Vol. 5 No 4, June
1996, p. 6.
36 Aristotle, On the Heavens, 271b 9-10.
37 The Catholic Institute of Sydney was formerly Manly Seminary.
It is now located in Strathfield.
38 The New Catechism: Analysis and Commentary, edited by Andrew
Murray, Catholic Institute of Sydney, 1994.
39 I will have more to say about Original Sin in the next Chapter
when we look at what is being said about it at the Australian
Catholic University in Sydney.
40 The terms "exegesis" and "hermeneutics" refer to scientific
methods which have been developed for the interpretation of
Scripture.
41 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure
of the Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1986, p. 9.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid. p. 30.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Fr Avery Dulles, S.J., The Challenge of the Catechism.
Published in First Things, New York, January 1995, p. 46.
47 Ibid. p. 49.
48 Ibid. pp. 49 and 52.
49 Ibid. p. 53.
50 Fr James V. Schall, S.J., The Church explains itself: The New
Catechism, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June 1993, p.11.
51 Cf. CCC. n. 232.
52 CCC. n. 234.
53 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure
of the Church, op. cit. p. 15.
54 Ibid. p. 76. Cf. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, 4,
76.
55 Cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the
Structure of the Church, op. cit. p. 75.
56 Oscar Cullmann, Petrus: Junger-Apostel-Martyrer, Zurich:
Zwingliverlag, 1952, 238f., 240. Cited by Hans Urs von Balthasar,
The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, op. cit. p.
75.
57 Bishop Christoph Schonborn with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco, 1994, p. 91.
58 Cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, nn. 9-10.
59 The Interpretation of the Bible In the Church. Pontifical
Biblical Commission (April 1993): St. Paul Book and Media, Boston.
Pope John Paul II's Address is given in the first part of the
Biblical Commission's document.
60 Ibid. p. 19 (n. 9).
61 Ibid. p. 20 (n.10).
62 Ibid. pp. 37-38.
63 Cf. Ibid. p. 38.
64 Cf. ibid. p. 36.
65 Ibid. p.38.
66 Ibid. p. 35.
67 Cf. Fr Brendan Byrne, S.J., The New Vatican Document on the
Bible, Australasian Catholic Record, July 1994, p. 326.
68 The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical
Biblical Commission, op. cit. p. 82.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid. p. 85.
71 Ibid. p. 84.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid. p. 85.
74 Ibid. p. 85.
75 Ibid. p. 87.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
80 Cf. CCC. 109-119.
81 Fr Joseph Jensen, OSB, Living Light, Summer 1993, p. 50.
82 Ibid. p. 52.
83 Ibid. p. 54.
84 Mons William Smith, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1995,
p. 69.
85 Fr Giuseppe Segalla, L'Osservatore Romano, 9/6/93.
86 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen,
op. cit. p. 34.
87 Ibid.
88 Gideon Goosen and Margaret Tomlinson, Jesus Mystery and
Surprise: An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, E. J.
Dwyer, Sydney, 1989. Goosen is Associate Professor of Theology and
Tomlinson a lecturer in Culture and Creation Spirituality at the
Australian Catholic University in Sydney.
89 On this see: Pope Vigilius, Constitutum, 14. 5. 553, DS 419;
Pope Gregory the Great, Letter to Eulogius, DS 475-476; Decree of
the Holy Office of 1907 and 1918, DS 3432, 3424, 3435, 3645-3647;
Pope Pius X, Misserentissimus Redemptor, 8.5.1928, AAS 20, 174;
Pope Pius XII, Mysticii Corporis, 2. 6. 1947; idem. Sempiternus
Rex, 8. 9. 1951; idem. Haurietis Aquas, 15 . 8. 1956; CDF 24. 7.
1966, AAS 58(1966) 650 660; CCC. n.474.
90 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n. 23.
91 Fr. William G. Most. The Consciousness of Christ, Christendom
College Press, 1980, p. 144. This book contains a very useful
exegetical section which resolves, according to the Tradition of
the Church, passages in the Gospels which on the surface appear
contradictory. I will have more to say on this question of
Christ's knowledge in Chapter 8 when I look at what Laurie Woods
is saying about Christ's awareness of his Divine nature.
92 CCC. n. 473.
93 Ibid.
94 CCC. n.474.
95 What I say about the Resurrection in this Chapter should be
read in conjuction with what I say about it in chapter 8 where I
respond to what Laurie Woods is saying about the Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus.
96 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 6/2/89.
97 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 6/3/89.
98 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 30/1/89.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 CCC. n. 639.
102 CCC. n. 643.
103 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 6/3/89.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid.
106 The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Pontifical
Biblical Commission 1993, op.cit. p. 93.
107 Cf. Review of The Mystery of God's Word, by Kenneth Baker S.J.
, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May 1995.
108 Fr. Thomas McGovern, The Gospels as History, Homiletic and
Pastoral Review, November 1992, p. 10.
109 Michael Sheehan, Apologetics and Doctrine, M. H. Gill and Son,
Dublin, 1962, Part 1, P. 87.
110 St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, cited in William A.
Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, op. cit. Vol. 2. p. 48.
111 CCC. n. 1507.
112 CCC. n. 548.
113 Pope John Paul II, General Audiences, 7 & 14 December
1987.
114 Taguchi, Cardinal Paul. The Study of Sacred Scripture,
L'Osservatore Romano, 15/5/75.
115 The Historicity of the Gospels, Instruction of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, April 21, 1964, n.2.
116 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 ibid.
119 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11.
120 See Dei Verbum, n. 11, footnote no. 5. See also Fr. William
Most, op.cit. pp. 10-11.
121 CCC. n 550.
122 Fr. William Most, op.cit. p.17.
123 Quadratus, quoted by Fr William Most, op. cit. p. 18.
124 D. R de Lacey and M. M. B Turner, Jesus and the Gospels,
Hulton Educational, London, 1983, p. 29.
125 Cf. D. R de Lacey and M. B. Turner, op.cit. p. 83.
126 Cf. Scripture Scholars Losing Scepticism, AD2000, October
1990, p. 5.
127 Ibid.
128 Cf. Acts 9:20; Jn 20:31; Mt 16:18; CCC. 441-445.
129 CCC. n. 446. Cf. 1 Cor 2:8.
130 CCC. n. 449.
131 Fr. Terry J. Tekeppe. A Note on Roger Haight's Spirit
Christology, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 1993, p. 55.
132 Instruction On Certain Aspects Of The Theology Of Liberation
(CDF), 1984, St. Paul Publication, Sydney, pp. 7-8.
133 Ibid.
134 Ibid. p.9.
135 Ibid. n.15, pp. 22-23.
136 Ibid. n. 8. p. 26.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid. n. 2, p. 41. The explanation in brackets in this
quotation has been inserted by this author.
139 Ibid. n. 13, p.45.
140 Boff Brothers, cited by Rev. Professor J. H. Gillis in
Liberation Theology: A Debate, Challenge Magazine, Canada, May
1990, p. 24.
141 Rev. G.H. Duggan S.M. quoting Boff, The Priest, Australian
Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, Winter 1989, p. 9.
142 Bishop Christoph Schonborn, O.P. From Death To Life: The
Christian Journey, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1995. Cf. Book
Review by Edith Myers, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, January
1996, p. 77.
143 Hans Urs von Balthasar. Test Everything: Hold Fast To What Is
Good. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1989, pp. 41-42).
144 Pope John Paul II, Enc. Centesimus Annus, n. 14.
145 Ibid. n. 4.
146 Ibid. n. 13.
147 Michael Bezzina, Exercising a Preferential Option: A
Reflection for Catholic Schools, in Catholic School Studies: A
Journal of Education for Australian and New Zealand Catholic
Schools, May 1996, p. 31.
148 Ibid.
149 Ibid. p. 33.
150 Ibid. pp. 32-33.
151 CDF Instruction On Certain Aspects of the Theology of
Liberation, op. cit. n. 6, p. 29.
152 Support Units, Who Is Jesus, p. 61.
153 Ibid. pp. 61-62.
154 Ibid. p. 62.
155 Ibid.
156 Ibid.
157 Cf. Vatican Instruction On Liberation Theology, 1984, op. cit.
nn. 3-5, pp. 41-42.
158 Ibid. p. 63.
159 Support Units, Search For Meaning Unit, Section, p. 64.
160 Lumen Gentium, n. 8. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.
771.
161 Cf. Historical Approach to Contemporary Expressions of Church
Unit, p. 28.
162 Fr Paul Collins, Mixed Blessings, Penguin Books, Australia,
1986, p. 159.
163 Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 103.
164 Pope John Paul II. Familiaris Consortio, n. 84.
165 Ibid.
166 Cf. Mk 10:11-12; Mt 5:32; 19:9; Lk 16:18; Council of Trent,
Session XXIV, 11 Nov. 1563, canon 7; Pius XI, Enc. Castii
Connubii.
167 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church Concerning The
Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of
the Faithful.
168 The 1990 edition of O'Connell's book still had problems of
ambiguity and confusion.
169 Cf. Pope John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor, nn. 56 and 59. I
will be saying more about conscience in Chapter 8.
170 Both Consequentialism and Proportionalism were condemned by
Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: cf. n. 71-83.
171 Cf. Dr. Bernadette Tobin, Australasian Catholic Record, Oct.
1994, p. 412.
172 Donum Vitae is listed in the general reference section of the
Support Unit. At the time the Support Units were published,
Evangelium Vitae had not yet been published.
173 CDF, Donum Vitae, St. Paul Publications, pp. 20-21.
174 Board of Studies, Studies of Religion 1/2 Unit Syllabus, 1991,
p. 13.
175 Ibid.
176 The descriptions of religious syncretism which I have used
here have been adopted from an excellent article on the subject
written by Fr Bernard Green which was published in the April 1994
edition of The New Oxford Review.
177 Sr Patricia Malone, Word In Life, February 1996, p. 14.
178 Gideon Goosen, Catholic Weekly, 8/12/93.
179 Gideon Goosen, Ecumenism Is A Christmas Cake, Compass: A
Review Of Topical Theology, Autumn 1996, p. 4.
180 Ibid. pp. 4-5.
181 Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism), n.
1.
182 Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One), n. 3.
183 Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, n. 4.
184 Ibid. n. 5.
185 Ibid. n. 4.
186 Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, n. 16.
187 Ibid. n. 18.
188 Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, n. 3; Cf. Pope John Paul II,
Ut Unum Sint, n. 11.
189 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 8.
190 For the complete text of the Catholic Church's response to
ARCIC-I, see L'Osservatore Romano 16/12/91.
191 Gideon Goosen, Ecumenism Is A Christmas Cake, op. cit. pp. 6-
7.
192 Ibid. p. 5.
193 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, n. 9; Vatican II, Lumen
Gentium, n. 14.
CHAPTER VIII : THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: WHAT IS TRUTH?
1.THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY AT THE SERVICE OF TRUTH
2.THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
3.HAS THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY REPUDIATED THE CHURCH'S
MORAL DOCTRINE?
4.INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS
5.FUNDAMENTAL OPTION AND DELIBERATE CHOICES
6.CAN THE MAGISTERIUM TEACH INFALLIBLY ON SPECIFIC MORAL ISSUES?
7.SHOULD CATHOLICS DISSENT FROM THE MORAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH?
8.ST THOMAS AQUINAS DID NOT PERMIT ABORTION AT ANY STAGE
9.JESUS KNEW HIMSELF TO BE A DIVINE PERSON
10.THE CORPSE OF JESUS DID NOT REMAIN IN THE TOMB AFTER HIS
RESURRRECTION
11.CONFUSION AND ERROR IN FIRST YEAR UNDERGRADUATE COURSE
In Chapter 2 of this book I noted how the Church's doctrine on the
ministerial priesthood was being undermined in the Graduate
Diploma in Religious Education course at the ACU in Sydney. In
this course the Church's moral doctrine also appears to be under
attack. The Christian Ethics Unit of this Graduate Diploma course
commenced in February 1996 and from what I have seen of its
content I am convinced that students who complete it may be left
with the impression that dissenting viewpoints are compatible with
the doctrine of the Church. In this Chapter, I want to focus not
only on this Christian Ethics Unit, but also on an undergraduate
course being conducted at the ACU as well as on some aspects of
the Christology that Laurie Woods is teaching to students there.
Before turning directly to the Christian Ethics Unit, I will first
outline some principles which should guide the running of a
Catholic University. In particular, I will discuss the notion of
academic freedom and how this should be understood and applied
within Catholic tertiary institutions.
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY AT THE SERVICE OF TRUTH
The secularism which permeates Western culture treats everything
from economics to medical ethics without any reference to
transcendent values which alone can give the human person a
unified vision of reality. In this regard, it is worth recalling
the words of Pope Paul VI who said:
A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the values of the
spirit and to God who is their source, could achieve apparent
success. True, man can organise the world apart from God, but
'without God he can organise it in the end only against man. An
exclusive humanism is an inhuman humanism' (Henri de Lubac, Le
drame de l'humanisme athee, p.10). There is no true humanism but
that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation
which gives human life its true meaning. Far from being the
ultimate measure of all things, man can only realise himself by
reaching beyond himself. [1]
The "inhuman humanism" which Pope Paul VI referred to above is
deeply rooted in Western consumerist and secularist culture and it
presents universities with a challenge to act as a critical
conscience for society by placing themselves at the service of
truth. At the University of Atma Jaya in Jakarta in 1989, Pope
John Paul II while speaking of the important part universities
have to play in shaping the future of society said: "Universities
form . . .an important part of the great network of persons,
institutions and traditions from which ideas arise, are tested and
are proposed to the wider community. Academic research, debate and
teaching have a profound influence upon men and women far beyond
the university campus. This enormous yet often hidden influence of
the universities makes them a powerful force within society". [2]
By seeking to be centres where truth in its manifold dimensions is
respected and sought after, universities can help to create a
culture which is more respectful of the integral dignity of the
human person. Such a culture can be built only on the foundations
of a common heritage of values accepted by all such as "respect
for the dignity of the human person, a willingness to welcome
life, the defence of human rights and openness to transcendence
and the realm of the spirit". [3] In 1990, Pope John Paul II
issued an Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities entitled
Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Here the Holy Father said that the Catholic
University has "always been recognised as an incomparable centre
of creativity and dissemination of knowledge for the good of
humanity". [4] However, since Catholic institutions exist to serve
the Gospel of Christ who came into the world "to bear witness to
the truth" (Jn 18:37), Pope John Paul II added that a Catholic
University serves the human person and society by seeking "to
unite existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality
that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they
were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of
already knowing the fount of truth". [5] In developing this point
further, the Holy Father went on to say:
Without in any way neglecting the acquisition of useful knowledge,
a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the
whole truth about nature, man and God. The present age is in
urgent need of this kind of disinterested service, namely of
proclaiming the meaning of truth, that fundamental value without
which freedom, justice and human dignity are extinguished. By
means of a kind of universal humanism a Catholic University is
completely dedicated to the research of all aspects of truth in
their essential connection with the supreme Truth, who is God . .
Through the encounter which it establishes between the
unfathomable richness of the salvific message of the Gospel and
the variety and immensity of the fields of knowledge in which that
richness is incarnated by it, a Catholic University enables the
Church to institute an incomparably fertile dialogue with people
of every culture. [6]
In effect, what Pope John Paul II has said above is that Catholic
universities are called to serve the new evangelisation. In
pursuing this new evangelisation, the Church looks to her
educational institutions as an important means by which she can
strive to permeate the whole of culture with the liberating truth
of the Gospel. Catholic universities will contribute to this new
evangelisation to the extent that they can prepare a new
generation of Catholic intellectuals who are competent in their
chosen academic and professional areas and who are also deeply
convinced Catholics. In pursuing these integral objectives, a
Catholic university must ensure that "Catholic ideals, attitudes
and principles penetrate and inform university activities in
accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these
activities". [7] Applying this principle of operation to
scientific research and technological development for example, we
can say that research in a Catholic University should "always be
carried out with a concern for the ethical and moral implications
both of its methods and its discoveries". [8] It is essential then
that all who teach and study at a Catholic University be convinced
"of the priority of the ethical over the technical, of the primacy
of the person over things, of the superiority of the spirit over
matter". In other words, men and women of culture and science
"will truly aid humanity only if they preserve the sense of the
transcendence of the human person over the world and of God over
the human person". [9] A Catholic University has to be more than
simply a generic university with a religious studies or theology
course thrown in as is the case with universities run by the
state. The Catholic University must enable its students to acquire
a critical consciousness with all that pertains to the world of
culture, science and religion. The pursuit of this critical
consciousness however must always be undertaken with regard to the
fact that, in the doctrine of the Church, Catholics already have
"the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth" to use again
the words of Pope John Paul II quoted earlier. Consequently, while
the Catholic university must seek to enable its students acquire a
critical capacity and equip them with the necessary competencies
that will enable them to successfully take their place in the
various professions, all of this however must be grounded in a
Catholic vision of life. At a minimum, this requires that students
be taught to distinguish the doctrine of the Church from the
opinions and speculations of theologians and others. Coupled with
this, the Church's doctrine should be presented in such a way that
it contains an apologetical dimension that will enable the
students to see that there can be no conflict between faith and
reason. The pursuit of such an educational objective will require
that the process involved be global in its scope. In pursuing this
objective, care needs to be taken to avoid any undue emphasis on
pluralism lest there arise a "pluralism of fundamentally opposed
positions and hence a loss of identity". [10] Consequently, when
contradictions of the Church's teaching are put forward and
examined in courses at Catholic universities, this should be done
only to acquaint students with the operative ideas in the
prevailing culture which are an obstacle to evangelisation. In
other words, Catholic universities must prepare students for the
world while at the same time preventing them from succumbing to
those values and ideas present in it which are opposed to the
faith.
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
The overriding objective of a Catholic University is that it
exists to foster the growth in holiness of all who are associated
with it. As I intimated above, in pursuing this objective the
Catholic university has a particular responsibility to help its
students train and purify their reason in order to accept, with
the aid of the Holy Spirit, all that the Church teaches on faith
and morals. In pursuing this objective, the Catholic university
will help its students forge a synthesis of faith, culture and
life. If the students enter the world of work without having begun
to develop such a synthesis, then their ability to serve the new
evangelisation will be very limited. Consequently, it is only by
basing itself firmly on the Gospel, as it is guarded and handed on
by the Magisterium, that a Catholic university will be able to
instil in its students a passion for truth and justice that will
render them capable of bringing the light of faith to bear on the
great problems of today. In view of this overriding objective, an
essential requirement therefore for a Catholic University is that
it be known for its fidelity to the teaching of the Magisterium.
The Magisterium serves the People of God by protecting them "from
deviations and defections" and by guaranteeing them "the objective
possibility of professing the true faith without error". [11] Thus
the pastoral duty of the Magisterium "is aimed at seeing to it
that the people of God abides in the truth that liberates". [12]
For a Catholic university therefore, adherence to the teaching of
the Magisterium requires that Catholic faculty members be noted
for their "personal fidelity" to the teaching authority of the
Church and that non-Catholic members be "required to respect the
character of the University, while the University in turn respects
their religious liberty". [13] Adherence to the teaching of the
Magisterium is especially required of those who teach subjects
such as theology and related disciplines. Through prayer, study
and obedience to the teaching of the Church, the theology teacher
should seek to penetrate the doctrine of the faith more deeply.
While doing so, he or she will attempt to remove linguistic or
conceptual barriers to the effective communication of the Church's
doctrine in order that its hearers will better understand it and
be able to apply it more effectively to life. In carrying out this
task, the theologian is not confined to any particular pedagogical
mode or stage of theological formulation. However, he or she has a
grave responsibility to bear disciplined academic witness to the
doctrine of the Church in continuity of understanding of doctrine
as found in the constant teaching of the Magisterium. Therefore,
in order to develop a truly Catholic ethos, tertiary institutions
run by the Church should:
� Recruit committed Catholic faculty members who will inspire
their students and help them develop an integral Catholic vision
of life;
� Terminate the employment of personnel not committed to
supporting the teaching of the Magisterium;
� Develop a curriculum where all subjects are researched and
taught in the light of Catholic doctrine. [14]
Given the three conditions listed above as essential to the
creation of a Catholic ethos, we can now examine the question of
whether or not those who teach in educational institutions run by
the Church should have a right to dissent from the teaching of the
Magisterium. Those who do in fact dissent often claim a right to
do so on the basis of a perceived conflict between their
obligation to adhere to the teaching of the Church and their right
to academic freedom - a conflict which they assert should be
resolved in favour of the latter. This argument however is quite
specious. All academic disciplines have laws internal to them to
which obedience is a pre-condition for further development. For
example, when I am teaching mathematics, I can only achieve my
overall objectives if I adhere strictly to the laws of number and
to other fundamental mathematical principles. In similar fashion,
the academic freedom of the Catholic theologian is not an
engagement with no frontiers, it too has a limiting principle in
that it rests on Divine Revelation whose authentic interpretation
has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church
whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. [15]
Consequently, teachers of theology and related disciplines in
Catholic tertiary institutions must regard fidelity to the
teaching of the Magisterium as part of their stock-in-trade to
which they are obliged to bear disciplined academic witness as
does a mathematics teacher to the laws of number. In the current
struggle between orthodoxy and heresy going on in Catholic
tertiary institutions, there are two incompatible definitions of
academic freedom vying for acceptance. The first, which I will
call the secular definition, posits that professors and teachers
of theology and related disciplines should have no fear of
dismissal if they teach and write in accordance with procedures
that are generally acceptable in their academic discipline even if
this leads them to teach and promote ideas that are at variance
with the teaching of the Church. The second definition, which I
will call the religious one, posits that teachers of theology
based subjects must be thoroughly professional and scientific in
their research and teaching, but if this leads them to contradict
the doctrine of the Catholic Church which their institution was
founded to uphold, then they are no longer suitable for teaching
Catholic theology and should be dismissed. The religious
definition of academic freedom is the only one that is rational.
It is based on the consideration that not only is the teacher
entitled to academic freedom, but so too must the Catholic
educational institution itself be free to do what it was founded
to do which is to educate students in the Catholic faith. If it
were obliged to allow professors and lecturers to openly teach
against the doctrine of the Church, then the institution could not
carry out the purpose for which it was established. Since one who
accepts a job at a Catholic institution thereby commits himself or
herself to support the purpose for which the institution exists,
then it is only logical that the freedom of a Catholic university
to safeguard its particular ethos takes precedence over a
particular teacher's perceived right to academic freedom when it
is a question of that teacher wanting to use his or her position
to launch an attack against the doctrine of the Church. Viewing
this question from a slightly different perspective, it is clear
that the freedom of the University and of the lecturers, are both
ordered to the freedom of the students to obtain a Catholic
education and to the freedom of the Church to supply it. The
principle of fundamental justice involved here is so simple that
civil law can accommodate it quite easily as the history of the Fr
Charles Curran case in the United States indicates. Dissenters
favour the secular definition of academic freedom as it allows
them to peddle their dissenting views in the Church's educational
institutions without fear of being dismissed. In effect what the
dissenters are seeking is a right to use Catholic facilities to
teach Catholics to repudiate the teaching of the Church and to be
paid a good salary for doing it.
HAS THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY REPUDIATED THE CHURCH'S
MORAL DOCTRINE?
In an Address to participants at a Congress on Catholic
Universities, Pope John Paul II noted that the "crisis of the
University" is more a crisis of identity, ends and values than it
is of means. [16] Commenting on the loss of identity by Catholic
universities in the United States, Fr James V. Schall, S.J. says
that "a young student in a Catholic university can usually get in
his courses a more objective account of Buddhism or liberation
theology than of Catholicism". [17] He adds that in courses on
Catholicism there is little thorough or adequate presentation of
Catholic doctrines as the Church proclaims them. He states also
that in many Catholic universities, Catholicism comes to mean
whatever those who hold academic positions say it means and he
points out that these institutions can be so caught up in
political correctness that "even when prominent faculty and
administration members support or tolerate abortion,
homosexuality, feminism, versions of Marxism, paganism, or
whatever, it remains dangerous to say in public that the school
itself is not Catholic". [18] In Veritatis Splendor (VS), Pope
John Paul II noted that a crisis had arisen in the area of moral
theology. [19] A characteristic of this crisis is the frequency
with which individuals who hold teaching positions in Catholic
tertiary institutions promote dissent from the Church's doctrine.
When error is allowed free rein in the teaching of moral theology
and Christian Ethics courses in Catholic institutions, there
inevitably follows dire consequences for individuals, for the
Church and for society. In an Address to Australian Bishops in
1993, Pope John Paul II said: "One of the principal services which
the Church can offer to humanity at this time is to teach the true
nature of conscience, to defend the universality and permanent
validity of moral norms, and to foster a genuine sense of human
freedom. The precise purpose of the new Encyclical [Veritatis
Splendor] is to present the Church's teaching on these fundamental
matters which are at the heart of the moral crisis affecting
contemporary society". [20] Returning now to the Christian Ethics
Unit of the Graduate Diploma in Religious Education course at the
ACU in Sydney. [21] The prescribed text for the Unit is a book
entitled Freedom and Purpose: An Introduction To Christian Ethics.
This book, which in several places contradicts the teaching of the
Church, is authored by Robert Gascoigne who is a Senior Lecturer
in the Department of Theology and Philosophy at the ACU in Sydney.
In referring to mortal sin, Gascoigne says: "The traditional
understanding of mortal sin defined it in terms of full knowledge,
full intent and grave matter. The defect of this understanding lay
in its tendency to equate the degree of subjective sinfulness with
objective gravity of matter, coupled with an understanding of sin
in terms of individual actions" (p. 86). To highlight this
perceived "defect" in the Church's teaching on mortal sin,
Gascoigne cites the example of a husband who he suggests may not
have committed mortal sin by freely and knowingly engaging in an
act of adultery. The reason Gascoigne gives as to why this might
be so is that this man was "normally faithful to his wife" (p.
83). After citing this example, Gascoigne claims that "what is
highly implausible" about the Church's teaching on mortal sin is
its insistence that "one action can totally reverse the character
of someone's life" (ibid.). In order to overcome what he calls
this "crucial flaw" in the Church's teaching (p. 85), Gascoigne
argues that mortal sin should be understood in terms of a
"fundamental option" which he says "is a state of personal being
which rejects the love of God and neighbour at the deepest and
freest core of the person" (p. 84). Explaining how the fundamental
option would operate to determine the moral nature of a person's
life, Gascoigne says: "Usually, the nature of our selves can only
be judged by the long-term pattern of our actions. We express our
fundamental option for goodness in a pattern of good actions, but
this does not mean that we are totally consistent in this
goodness. We can sin by freely doing wrong in individual actions,
without these individual actions necessarily reversing the whole
thrust and meaning of our lives" (p. 83). A component of the
assessment for the Christian Ethics unit involves the students
developing a moral norm for an ethical question they have chosen
and presenting this to the class. For the specific details on the
assignment the students are referred to page 181 of Gascoigne's
book. Here Gascoigne advises the students that in doing their
assignment, "a careful reading of Chapter Eight is important as
preparation for using Church documents on moral issues". Chapter 8
of Gascoigne's book is entitled Christian Ethics and the teaching
authority of the Church. In this chapter Gascoigne says that "the
Church's magisterium has never issued an infallible teaching on a
moral question . . .There is a very good reason why such an
infallible teaching has never been made: it would be so general,
without any clear application to any specific issue, that it would
contribute little to the solution of any particular moral problem"
(p. 189). Gascoigne argues that the Magisterium could not
infallibly teach specific moral norms. He says: "Teaching on
specific norms would be too specific to be able to make a direct
claim for the authority of divine revelation, the authority of the
Gospel. This is because the development of a specific norm
involves a process of moral reasoning, and this process includes
elements which cannot directly claim the authority of the Gospel"
(p. 190). Gascoigne even argues that the Church has no unique
authority to teach moral truth. He says: "Although it has a very
considerable body of knowledge at its disposal, the magisterium
has no unique competence or authority in the detailed knowledge
required for developing specific moral norms" (p. 190). In
reference to the level of magisterial authority he believes is
associated with the moral teaching of the Church, Gascoigne says:
"The magisterium's moral teaching, then, is an exercise of its
ordinary, non-infallible, teaching authority" (p. 192). On the
basis of this assertion, he then offers the following advise to
his readers: "The moral teaching of the magisterium calls for
respect and serious reflection by members of the Church, and
should only be departed from after conscientious and self-critical
consideration of the relevant question" (p. 196). Finally, he
states: "Public dissent from the magisterium's moral teaching can
assist the Church in developing this teaching, but should be
engaged in only in the appropriate manner and forum" (ibid.). A
surprising thing about this Christian Ethics course at the ACU is
that when we look at the bibliography for supplementary reading
that is given in the Unit outline, not one single Church document
is listed. However, well known dissenters from the Church's
teaching such as R. M. Gula, B. Haring, R. McCormick and T.
O'Connell are included. Given this line-up, it is not surprising
that we even find one of Peter Singer's most recent books listed.
Singer is one of the driving forces of the pro-euthanasia campaign
in Australia and he is also an advocate for the legalisation of
infanticide. The problem with the prescribed text and the
supplementary reading list is not that they contain material
opposed to the Church's doctrine, rather it is their lack of
balance. [22] College students are particularly vulnerable to
relativistic indoctrination. However, a good purpose can be served
by introducing them to erroneous ideas with a view to critiquing
them. If the students are not helped to understand the jargon in
which dissenters package their erroneous ideas, then they will be
more easily seduced by them. However, when introducing students to
such material, it is essential that they simultaneously be
introduced to the very best material from the alternative side
which reinforces the Church's teaching. Consequently, apart from
making a study of Veritatis Splendor and the morality section of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church part of the prescribed
reading for this Christian Ethics Unit, good pedagogy would have
ensured that Gascoigne's book as a prescribed text was balanced by
another prescribed text by an author such as William May for
example who has distinguished himself as a defender of the
Church's teaching. The fact that the prescribed text and reading
list is prejudiced towards dissent is in itself a recommendation
in this direction by those who put the Unit together. The problems
with the Christian Ethics course do not end with the prescribed
text or with the supplementary reading list. At the first lecture
of the course, the students were given a handout of nine pages for
Preliminary Reading to which the name of the author was not
appended. In reference to the influence of St Augustine on the
development of Christian Ethics, this Preliminary Reading Material
states:
Augustine's influence on Christian Ethics is profound because of
his interpretation of Greek philosophy as pertaining to a more
personal dimension of ethics . . .Until this time most Christian
Ethics centred only on social ethics or public ethics. Sin until
the time of Augustine had two streams (if you want, you can think
in terms of mortal and venial), serious sin, which was by
definition public and required public confession and conversion;
the second was more like imperfection, that is, Christians were
encouraged to constantly strive to become more perfect, more
worthy, etc, etc. This later type was considered to be a personal
matter between the individual and God or at most including one's
'spiritual director'. On the other hand, serious sins were limited
to four: Adultery, Murder, Heresy and Apostasy. Given that we are
talking about small communities (even in larger cities Christians
probably lived within smaller communities), each of these is
public and result in a major breach between the sinner and the
rest of the community which all would be aware of. Augustine and
his writings, over time, had the effect of focusing Christian
attention about sin on what had been previously thought of as
small imperfections. We still have the legacy today of his pre-
occupation with matters sexual. [23]
Under another section of this Preliminary Reading Material headed
Covenant Theology we read:
One of the reasons why, at first glance, Scripture appears to have
limited application in Ethics today is that many of the ethical
situations that we find ourselves in were not envisaged by the
Biblical authors: transplantation, IVF, environmental degradation.
However, it may not be correct to use Scripture only when it gives
set answers to set questions. More likely Scripture needs to be
read against the background of a developing tradition. Rather than
seeking specifics, we should seek the flavour or the story theme.
For example Jesus does not anywhere condemn sexual immorality;
however, that does not mean that it is valid to claim that he
would condone pornography, or sexual abuse. There is plenty of
evidence that he opposed exploitation and always sought to heal
and nurture. It would be just as wrong to assume that because
Jesus was a Jew he would have opposed homosexuality per se. There
is a good deal of evidence to suggest that he challenged the
adherence to the Law which placed the statute above the people; he
affirmed interpersonal relationships. [24]
In another section of this Preliminary Reading Material on St
Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law we read:
The central dimension of Aquinas' thought that we need to consider
is that of Natural Law. This theory is not purely ethical but has
been applied by Roman Catholic Moralists to Christian Ethics.
Importantly, most Church teaching in personal ethics, derives from
this theory. In this capacity, it has been misused and abused.
Aquinas does not claim that Natural Law, on the level of first
principles, does apply equally to everyone, everywhere, everywhen.
However, in regard to second principles, the level of application,
time and circumstances may affect the application of Natural Law .
.Natural Law is dependant on what we know and understand about
our world and how human beings work. Since, today, we have a more
developed understanding of the human person than it was possible
for Aquinas, it follows that our understanding of Natural Law will
be somewhat different. Aquinas permitted abortion up until around
the end of the first trimester on the grounds that one could not
detect any movement of the foetus until this time (movement was
one of the things that set humans and animals apart from plants,
in humans it was thought to be the work of the soul), if it did
not display movement then it obviously was not human yet.
Obviously with our superior medical knowledge we could not contend
that the being in the process of being formed is not human.
Aquinas was not alone in this view, it was the commonly held view
of the time. [25]
The target audience for this Graduate Diploma in Religious
Education course at the ACU is primarily teachers in Catholic
Schools. Many of those who complete the course will end up as R.E
coordinators in primary or secondary schools. Given the structure
of this Christian Ethics Unit - the prescribed text, exclusion of
Church documents from the supplementary reading list, the
Preliminary Reading Material - we should not be surprised to find
that further down the educational ladder the Catholic school
system is having difficulties passing on a knowledge of Catholic
doctrine to the younger generation.
INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS
In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II focused on the
foundations of morality and on the meaning and nature of
conscience. While not minimising the role of motives and
circumstances in morality, [26] the Holy Father stressed however
that "the morality of the human act depends primarily and
fundamentally on the 'object' rationally chosen by the deliberate
will". [27] The object of an act refers to its matter - whether or
not it is good or evil in itself. Intrinsically evil acts are
those which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances
and intentions, are by virtue of their object (e.g. adultery)
always objectively and gravely sinful. The Holy Father stated the
central theme of Veritatis Splendor to be "the reaffirmation of
the universality and immutability of the moral commandments,
particularly those which prohibit always and without exception
intrinsically evil acts". [28] The Pope stressed that he was
restating this theme "with the authority of the successor of
Peter" and that he was setting forth "the principles of a moral
teaching based upon Sacred Scripture and the living Apostolic
Tradition". [29] The doctrine of "intrinsically evil" acts teaches
that there are actions which in themselves are opposed to love of
God. Their 'object' is evil in itself and as such they cannot be
ordered to God and they radically contradict the good of the human
person who is made in His image. [30] Some examples of
intrinsically evil acts cited by the Pope John Paul II in
Veritatis Splendor are: premarital sex, contraception, direct
sterilisation, abortion, IVF, euthanasia, homosexual acts,
masturbation, exploitation of workers, mental and physical
torture. [31] We do not create the distinction between good and
evil. That distinction has already been drawn by God who is the
Supreme Good and the author of the objective moral order.
Reaffirming this truth, Pope John Paul II, in reference to the
words of Genesis whereby God forbade man to eat from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil said: "The power to decide what is
good and what is evil, does not belong to man, but to God alone".
[32] The Holy Father rejects the view that love and respect for
God and neighbour is compatible with exceptions to specific moral
norms. He does so on the grounds that in teaching "the existence
of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of
Sacred Scripture". [33] In teaching this, the Holy Father draws on
St. Paul who teaches that "your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit within you" (1 Cor.6:19) and who declares that several
forms of sinners including "the immoral, idolaters, adulterers,
sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards . . ." are
excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6: 9). Pope John Paul II
cites the Council of Trent which repeats Paul's warning in its
solemn teaching that one sins mortally whenever he or she
deliberately and knowingly engages in certain specific kinds of
behaviour. [34] Moreover, the Holy Father points out that in the
Gospel account of the Rich Young Man, Jesus himself reaffirms that
there are moral prohibitions which allow no exceptions. In
response to the Rich Young Man's question about the way to eternal
life, Jesus answered: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the
commandments . . .You shall not murder, You shall not commit
adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness"
(Mt 19: 17-18). [35] In view of what has been said above, it is
clear that a good intention can never make behaviour which is
intrinsically evil good or just. For example, the murder of an
innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of
saving an entire nation. One may not do evil so that good can
result from it. [36] In other words, circumstances or intention
cannot of themselves change the moral quality of acts themselves:
"they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself
evil". [37] On the other hand, a bad intention, such as the
pursuit of public acclaim, makes an act evil that in itself is
good such as almsgiving. [38] Therefore, "a morally good act
requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the
circumstances together". [39] Moreover, this doctrine of the
'object' as a source of morality represents "an authentic
explication of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the
commandments". [40] Possessed of a rational nature, man has been
created by God so that he can initiate and control his own
actions: "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his
own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator
and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to
him". [41] Freedom is the power "rooted in reason and will, to act
or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate
actions on one's own responsibility". [42] By free will one shapes
one's own life. Human freedom "is a force for growth and maturity
in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed
toward God our beatitude". [43] There is no true freedom except in
the service of what is good and just. The "more one does what is
good, the freer one becomes". The choice to disobey and do evil
"is an abuse of freedom and leads to the slavery of sin". [44] The
human person "is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and
of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other
persons", and he "is called by grace to a covenant with his
Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other
creature can give in his stead". [45] The Natural Law "expresses
the original moral sense implanted by God in every person at
Creation which enables him to discern by reason the good and the
evil, the truth and the lie". [46] It is called "Natural" because
reason which decrees it belongs to human nature. It shows the
human person the path to follow so as to practice the good and
thus attain the end for which he or she was created. Quoting St.
Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "The
natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding
placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what
we must avoid. God has given us this light or law at creation".
[47] It states the first and essential precepts of the moral life.
It is "present in the heart of each man" and "is universal in its
precepts". Its authority extends to everyone and it "expresses the
dignity of the person and determines the basis of his fundamental
rights and duties". [48] The Natural Law is immutable meaning that
its principles are always true and binding. Even when its
principles are rejected, it cannot be destroyed or removed from
the heart of man. [49] By his reason, man "recognises the voice of
God which urges him to do what is good and avoid what is evil.
Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard
in the conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of
neighbour". [50] As well as providing the solid foundation upon
which the human person can build the structure of moral rules to
guide his choices, the Natural Law also provides the indispensable
moral foundation for building the human community and it thereby
represents a necessary basis for civil law which should draw
principles and conclusions from it. [51] The Decalogue (Ten
Commandments) has been revealed to us by God and it expresses the
principal precepts of the Natural Law which due to sin are not
perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. The Ten
Commandments lay the foundations for the vocation of the human
person fashioned in the image of God. They prohibit what is
contrary to the love of God and neighbour and prescribe what is
essential to it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that
the Decalogue is "a light offered to the conscience of every man
to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him
against evil". Then quoting St. Augustine, the Catechism adds:
"God wrote on the tables of the law what men did not read in their
hearts". [52] [] The human person "is alive and free only to the
extent that he observes God's commandments". [53] Properly
understood, the commandments "do not consist merely in a series of
prohibitions, but rather express the basic values, closely
connected with the truth and dignity of the human person". [54] By
observing the commandments, man "acts in conformity with his being
and his profound calling, and journeys towards that full life that
finds in Jesus its paradigm, its source, its fulfilment: If you
want to enter into life, keep the commandments". [55] In Veritatis
Splendor, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the object of
intrinsically evil acts is at odds with "the goods safeguarded in
the commandments". [56] These moral commandments "safeguard the
good of the human person" and they "express with particular force
the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of
persons in marriage and so on". [57] The moral law finds its
fullness and its unity in Jesus Christ who in person is the way of
perfection. Speaking of this Vatican II said: "The fact is that
only in the mystery of the incarnate Word is light shed on the
mystery of man . . .Christ who is the New Adam, by revealing the
mystery of the Father and his love, also fully reveals man to man
himself and makes his exalted vocation known to him".
[58]Consequently, Jesus' words and deeds are the ultimate criteria
for the discernment of ethical norms. In terms of his conduct,
Jesus teaches that the vocation of the human person is to love and
worship God through unconditional obedience to the Divine will.
From the first moment of the Incarnation, Jesus embraced the
Father's will: "You have fashioned a body for me . . .Lo, I have
come to do your will, O God" (Heb. 10:6-7). Throughout his life on
earth he never veered from this objective: "My food is to do the
will of the one who sent me . . .I do always what pleases him" (Jn
4:34; 8:29). Jesus' obedience was of such an unconditional nature
that, "although he was Son, he learned to obey through suffering .
.even unto death on a Cross" (Heb 5:8; Phil 2:8). The obedience
of Jesus contrasts with the disobedience of the first man Adam.
Sin, which is the opposite of love, is disobedience to the Divine
Law. Speaking of this St. John says: "We can be sure that we know
God only by keeping his commandments . . .Let us love one another
since love comes from God and everyone who loves is begotten by
God and knows God . . .We can be sure we love God's children if we
love God himself and do what he has commanded us; this is what
loving God is - keeping his commandments and his commandments are
not difficult" (1 Jn 2:3; 4:7; 5:2-4). There is no separation or
opposition between the Beatitudes and the commandments: "both
refer to the good, to eternal life". [59] The Beatitudes are
"above all promises, from which there also directly flow normative
indications for the moral life . . .they are a sort of self-
portrait of Christ . . .and . . .invitations to discipleship and
to communion of life with Christ". [60] Consequently, the moral
life ultimately means the following of Christ who became a servant
even to the point of giving himself up to death on the Cross. It
is possible for us to be conformed to Jesus "only because of God's
grace". [61] Pope John Paul II notes that "those who live 'by the
flesh' experience God's law as a burden," while those "who are
impelled by love and 'walk in the Spirit' (Gal 5:16) . . .find in
God's law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice
love as something freely chosen and freely lived out". [62] With
God's grace, men and women can "abide" in love, but they can do so
"only by keeping the commandments". As Jesus says: "If you keep my
commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
Father's commandments and abide in his love' (Jn 15:10)". [63]
Sin, on the other hand, has been defined by Pope John Paul II as:
"the disobedience of a person who, by a free act, does not
acknowledge God's sovereignty over his or her life, at least at
that particular moment when he or she transgresses God's Law".
[64] From the story of the Fall in Genesis, we see that sin stems
from inattention to the Word of God expressed through the
rejection of a truth contained in it. The essential characteristic
of the first sin in human history was that Adam and Eve
transgressed a prohibition laid on them by God.
FUNDAMENTAL OPTION AND DELIBERATE CHOICES
The theory of the fundamental option as it is presented in
Gascoigne's book was rejected by Pope John Paul II in
Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and again in Veritatis Splendor. [65]
That the Gospel is not solely a promise without any tie to the
commandments was defined by the Council of Trent. [66] In
Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II affirms that the only
fundamental option with which the Christian is confronted is "the
decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16:26) 'by
which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering
the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals".
[67] Faith is called to bear fruit in love which as we saw earlier
requires the fulfilment of the specific requirements of the
Decalogue. [68] In other words, Catholic moral doctrine has to be
understood in harmony with the words of Jesus: "It is not he who
says: Lord, Lord, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 7:21). In
Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II rejects the interpretation
of the fundamental option as it is articulated by Gascoigne. The
Holy Father here teaches that we cannot dissociate the fundamental
option from particular choices in given acts on the grounds that
it is "contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees
the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links
that choice profoundly to particular acts". [69] In rejecting the
fundamental option theory as it has been proposed by Gascoigne,
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the permanent validity of the
distinction between mortal and venial sin. He said that mortal sin
exists "when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever
reason, chooses something gravely disordered". [70] In rejecting
the theory of the fundamental option, the Pope recalled the
doctrine solemnly defined by the Council of Trent that "the grace
of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by
which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin".
[71] In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II concludes his
discussion of the fundamental option by saying: "The separation of
fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of
behaviour, disordered in themselves or in their circumstances,
which would not engage that option, thus involves a denial of
Catholic doctrine on mortal sin". [72] Then, after saying this,
the Holy Father comprehensively defined mortal sin as follows:
With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin an act
by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the
covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself
or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the
divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct
and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or
in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God's
commandments in a grave matter. [73]
CAN THE MAGISTERIUM TEACH INFALLIBLY ON SPECIFIC MORAL ISSUES?
Gascoigne's assertion that the Magisterium has not taught
infallibly on specific moral issues because it has no authority to
do so is wrong. He ignores the fact that the Church's position on
the indissolubility of sacramental and consummated marriage was in
fact defined by the Council of Trent and so belongs to the
patrimony of the Faith. Gascoigne likewise gives insufficient
weight to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council which
condemned abortion as "an unspeakable crime". [74] Indeed,
Gascoigne's whole treatment of infallibility is inadequate and
confusing. He makes no reference whatsoever to the teaching of the
Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which as we saw in Chapter 4, is
the normal means by which the infallible teaching of the Church
finds expression. In view of this critical omission, it is not
surprising to find that Gascoigne equates "infallibly taught" with
"solemnly defined". According to Vatican II, the Magisterium
teaches with the authority of Christ himself not only the truths
of faith, but also "everything that serves to make the People of
God live their lives in holiness". [75] By way of the Ordinary
Universal Magisterium, the core of Catholic moral teaching in
respect to the specific precepts of the Decalogue has been taught
by the Church in a way which meets her criteria for proposing
teachings infallibly without solemnly defining them. Two of the
most distinguished moral theologians in the world today are
Germain Grisez and William May. In relation to the question of
infallible teaching and specific moral norms, Professor Grisez
says: "Having been proposed with one voice by Catholic bishops as
a requirement for eternal salvation, the whole body of common
Catholic moral teaching concerning acts which constitute grave
matter meets the requirements articulated by Vatican II for
teaching proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium". [76] In
relation to the same question, Professor May says: "The core of
Catholic moral teaching, as summarised by the precepts of the
Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), precisely as these precepts have
been traditionally understood within the Church, has been taught
infallibly by the magisterium in the day-to-day ordinary exercise
of the authority divinely invested in it. We are not deliberately
to kill innocent human beings; we are not to fornicate, commit
adultery, engage in sodomy; we are not to steal; we are not to
perjure ourselves". [77] To cite an example of Episcopal support
for the position of Grisez and May, we can take the 1986 statement
by the Puerto Rican Episcopal Conference who in relation to the
Vatican's declaration on Fr Charles Curran's unsuitability to
teach Catholic theology said:
Fr Curran has for many years publicly expressed his dissent from
the ordinary Magisterium of the Church in regard to matters such
as the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage,
abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, premarital sexual relations,
contraception and homosexual acts. Thus, one can readily imagine
his popularity in many sectors of contemporary society . . .Before
Fr. Curran and his sympathisers arrived on the theological scene,
the Successor of Peter and all the bishops of the entire world in
all ages, in communion with him taught definitively the immorality
of acts contrary to the proper use of sex, against life, and
against the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage -
as listed above. We regard it as an inescapable conclusion that
the immorality of the said acts has been proposed infallibly as
the teaching of Christ". [78]
Most significantly, in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John
Paul II invoked the formula that the Second Vatican Council used
to identify the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal
Magisterium. [79] In first declaring the general moral principle
regarding the respect that is due to innocent human life, the Holy
Father said: "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred
upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the bishops
of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary
killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This
doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of
reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by
Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the tradition of the Church and
taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium". [80] Then, in a
text incorporating all the elements laid down by Vatican II for an
infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, Pope John Paul II
said: "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon
Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops - who on
various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the
aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the
world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine - I
declare that direct abortion, that is abortion willed as an end or
as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is
the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine
is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is
transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary
and universal Magisterium". [81] Finally, in the third text of
Evangelium Vitae to concern us here we read: "Taking into account
these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of my
Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic
Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law
of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable
killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural
law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the
Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium". [82] According to Evangelium Vitae therefore, the
Church has taught infallibly the specific moral norms that direct
abortion and euthanasia are always gravely immoral. The encyclical
was issued with the intention of arousing the conscience of
society which seems to have lost its "sense of sin". In the
Encyclical, the Pope confirmed a universally held doctrine taught
and defended by the Church. They are unalterable pronouncements
and their acceptance is a condition for communion in the Catholic
Church. [83] One final point I would like to stress is that
Evangelium Vitae did not teach what some commentators have
referred to as "a new doctrine". In fact the Church has never
taught anything 'new', she simply "confines herself to repeating,
stressing, safeguarding and defining with ever greater clarity the
doctrine transmitted to her by her Lord". [84]
SHOULD CATHOLICS DISSENT FROM THE MORAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH?
Gascoigne's claim that public dissent from the moral teaching of
the Magisterium "can assist the Church" and that it should only be
engaged in "in the appropriate manner and forum" is wrong. While
there is no explicit mention of a so-called right of dissent in
the documents of Vatican II, Professor William May points out
however that the question was dealt with by the Council's
Theological Commission. In response to a question on dissent from
only three bishops during the Council's proceedings, the
Theological Commission referred them to approved theological
manuals which in no way supported a right to public dissent from
magisterial teaching. [85] In the 1990 Instruction on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Donum Veritatis), issued by
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the approval
of Pope John Paul II, the Magisterium devoted nearly one-third of
the document to "The Problem of Dissent". The document listed some
reasons which are regarded as justifying dissent such as appeals
to "the opinion of a large number of Christians" which is then
mistakenly identified with the sensus fidei. [86] Describing some
of the different ways in which dissent expresses itself, the
Instruction stated:
Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims
at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes
its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is
asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any
Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a kind of
theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines
proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said
to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual
completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian
would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the
non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the
case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he
would even be making a contribution to the development of
doctrine. [87]
While acknowledging and giving honour to the high calling of the
theologian - who seeks "the reasons of faith" and offers these
reasons as a response to those seeking them - Donum Veritatis
disallowed the claim of certain theologians to be a "parallel
magisterium" in the Church. [88] Since the teaching of the Church
enjoys divine assistance, the document pointed out that the modern
tendency of placing the teaching of the Magisterium on an equal
footing with mere theological opinion served only to call the
integrity of the faith into question. [89] The Instruction pointed
out that the role of the theologian is to pursue a deeper
understanding of the doctrine of the Church, a role which he or
she must carry out "in communion with the Magisterium which has
been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of
faith". [90] In harmony with this fundamental aspect of the role
of the theologian, the Instruction stated that arguments of
theologians appealing to the right of private conscience in order
to legitimate dissent had no validity. It said:
Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an
act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right
conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective
moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will
in the pursuit of the true good. The right conscience of the
Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God
whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from
whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely
assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of
conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means
adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the
economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus
also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the
theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere
individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but
constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from
the Bishops who watch over and keep the Apostolic Tradition alive,
it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised". [91]
Therefore, Catholic theologians and others who are employed to
teach in the name of the Church have no right to undermine the
doctrine of the Church by publicly dissenting from it. Instead
they have a grave duty to teach authentic Church doctrine. Put
simply, their job is to instruct the faithful about "all those
commandments and practical norms authoritatively declared by the
Church". [92] In thus setting forth the teaching of the
Magisterium, moral theologians "are called to develop a deeper
understanding of the reasons underlying its teachings and to
expound the validity and obligatory nature of the precepts it
proposes, demonstrating their connection with one another and
their relation with man's ultimate end". [93] In fulfilling their
duty in this way, moral theologians "are to set forth the Church's
teaching and give, in the exercise of their ministry, the example
of loyal assent, both internal and external, to the Magisterium's
teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality". [94] Cardinal
Edward Clancy, in commenting on Donum Veritatis, summed up well
the case against dissent when he said: "It makes no sense for
theologians to voluntarily accept the task of teaching the
doctrine of the Church in the name of the Church if, at the same
time, they do not find themselves in agreement with that
doctrine". [95] It is clear then that when a teacher in a Catholic
institution publicly dissents from the teaching of the
Magisterium, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in
conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right
of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and
integrity must always be respected". [96] Consequently, those who
work in institutions run by the Church and who feel entitled to
teach or publish dissenting opinions must be prepared to face
"serious measures" such as firing. [97] Those teachers in Catholic
institutions who act as though they have a right to dissent
publicly from the Church's moral doctrine are in effect a source
of scandal. Speaking of this aspect of dissent in the context of
the moral norm of Humanae Vitae which teaches that contraceptive
acts are intrinsically evil, Pope John Paul II said: "Those who
place themselves in open conflict with the law of God,
authentically taught by the Church, guide spouses along a false
path. The Church's teaching on contraception does not belong to
the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians.
Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of
spouses into error". [98] Our Lord was unequivocal in his warning
to those who lead the consciences of others into error: "Woe to
him by whom temptations to sin come! It would be better for him if
a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the
sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin"
(Lk 17:1-2). In advising his readers that "the moral teaching of
the magisterium . . .should only be departed from after
conscientious and self-critical consideration of the relevant
question" (p. 196), Gascoigne is thereby contradicting the
teaching of the Church. Conscience can be viewed as that "secret
and decisive place where the bridge between faith and concrete
living is built". [99] Speaking of the relationship between faith
and observance of the moral law, Livio Melina said: "To detach the
witness of faith from the observance of determinate precepts is to
place oneself in contradiction to the dynamics of the Incarnation,
which brings salvation not only to the spirit, but to the whole
man in the concreteness of his own choices". [100] Since the
Magisterium proclaims moral doctrine with the authority of God
Himself - "Teach them to obey all that I have commanded" (Mt
28:20) - then the moral doctrine of the Church binds the
consciences of Catholics. In this regard the Second Vatican
Council emphatically reminded the faithful that "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 of soul. This religious submission of will and
mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching
authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex
cathedra. That is it must be shown in such a way that his supreme
magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgements made by
him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and
will". [101] Gascoigne's assertion that Catholics are free to
depart from the Church's moral doctrine once they have given it
serious consideration, is expressive of a distorted concept of
subjectivity and is in effect a prescription for anarchy in
society. Describing how this is so, Fr Georges Cottier, O.P. says:
"Indeed, freedom negates and destroys itself, and leads to the
destruction of others when it no longer recognises and respects
'its essential link with truth'. Social life is at the mercy of
the arbitrary; everything is negotiable, even the first right, the
right to life". [102] Gascoigne's proposal implies that a choice
by Catholics to exploit workers, to torture political opponents,
to engage in homosexual acts or in sexual relations with children
would be subjectively defensible if, in having considered and
reflected upon the Church's teaching, the consciences of these
Catholics nonetheless told them that in their particular situation
it is right for them to engage in these actions. To accept
Gascoigne's line of reasoning is equivalent to saying that the
human person is a totally autonomous creator of his or her own
moral truth. The First Vatican Council said: "Every created
intellect is subject to the uncreated Truth, and owes to it a
perfect obedience both of reason and will". [103] In his Letter to
the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Newman stressed that "conscience has
rights because it has duties". [104] The first duty of conscience
is "to listen to the truth and prescribe it for man". [105]
Freedom of conscience does not mean the right to follow one's
preferences. Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said: "Freedom
does not mean the right to whatever one wants. Freedom is not
licence. Whoever turns freedom into licence has already dealt it a
mortal blow. The free man is bound to the truth; otherwise his
freedom has no more permanence than a lovely dream that vanishes
on waking. Man does not owe his existence to himself, but is a
creature of God". [106] Speaking of the erroneous understanding of
conscience whereby Catholics ascribe to themselves an exaggerated
moral autonomy, Bishop Kevin Manning said: "The acceptance of a
certain concept of autonomy questions the connection between faith
and morality. Faith is not merely the intellectual assent to
certain abstract truths; it also possesses a moral content which
entails the keeping of the commandments. 'Not everyone who says to
me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who
does the will of my Father in Heaven' (Mt 7:21), i.e., faith in
Jesus means assent to what he taught. Today, consequentialism,
proportionalism and the fundamental option, while retaining a
faith in Christ, separate faith from the morality in his
teachings". [107] Bishop James T. McHugh made a similar point when
he said: "To be a Catholic means to adhere to the Church's faith
and moral reasoning. It means unity with the Successors of Peter
and the Apostles and the constant building of communion within the
Church. Those who reject unity and/or fidelity to the Church
cannot claim the title Catholic, and Bishops must make this clear
to the faithful, to organisations calling themselves Catholic and
to overall society. In some cases, pastoral vigilance may require
withdrawing the title Catholic from certain groups or
institutions". [108] In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II said
that the Magisterium had the task of "discerning by means of
judgements normative for the consciences of believers, those acts
which in themselves conform to the demands of faith and foster
their expression in life and those which, on the contrary, because
intrinsically evil, are incompatible with such demands". [109]
Having said this, the Holy Father then added: "In proclaiming the
commandments of God and the charity of Christ, the Church's
Magisterium also teaches the faithful specific particular precepts
and requires that they consider them in conscience as morally
binding". [110] Gascoigne's assertion that Catholics are free to
depart from the moral teaching of the Church after a
"conscientious and self-critical consideration of the relevant
question" is not reconcilable with this magisterial. This is made
even more clear in Veritatis Splendor where Pope John Paul II
says: "Circumstances or intentions can never transform an act
intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act
'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice". [111] In speaking
of the relationship between the moral life and the unity of the
Church in Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II said : "No damage
must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of
the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort
the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral
obligations to which they are called by the Gospel". [112] Then,
in order to highlight the attitude we should have towards the law
of God, the Holy Father went on to recall the example of the
martyrs who chose death rather than violate the absoluteness of
the moral order and they thereby bore witness to their faith in
God. [113] From the Old Testament the Holy Father cited the
example of Susanna who was prepared to die rather than commit
adultery. From the New Testament he cited the example of John the
Baptist - who in "rejecting any compromise with evil" - laid down
his life in witnessing to Herod "the Law of the Lord" regarding
marriage. Most significantly, the Holy Father cited the countless
martyrs who accepted death rather than perform the idolatrous act
of burning incense before the statue of the Emperor (cf. Rev 13:7-
10). In doing so, these martyrs "even refused to feign such
worship, thereby giving an example of the duty to refrain from
performing even a single concrete act contrary to God's love and
the witness of faith". Pope John Paul II pointed out that like
Christ himself, these martyrs "obediently trusted and handed over
their lives to the Father, the one who could free them from death"
(cf. Heb 5:7). [114] In concluding his discussion of the witness
of the martyrs in Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II said: "The
Church proposes the example of numerous Saints who bore witness to
and defended moral truth even to the point of enduring martyrdom,
or who preferred death to a single mortal sin. In raising them to
the honour of the altars, the Church has canonised their witness
and declared the truth of their judgement, according to which the
love of God entails the obligation to respect his commandments,
even in the most dire circumstances, and the refusal to betray
those commandments, even for the sake of saving one's own life".
[115] More recent examples of this type of faithful witness to the
inviolability the moral law include St. Maria Goretti who died
rather than fornicate and the Ugandan Martyrs who choose death
rather than be forced into committing homosexual acts. Gascoigne's
work fails to treat adequately of the way in which faith and
morality compenetrate in the spiritual life and of how this
relates to conscience. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says
that conscience is "a judgement of reason whereby the human person
recognises the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to
perform, is in the process of performing, or has already
completed". [116] In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II
explained that conscience is not a "creative" decision but rather
is a judgement drawn from moral truths, including the negative
precepts of the Decalogue which oblige in every case. [117] He
cites Romans 2:15 which "clarifies the precise nature of
conscience: it is a moral judgement about man and his actions, a
judgement either of acquittal or of condemnation, according as
human acts are in conformity or not with the law of God written on
the heart". [118] Speaking of the obligatory nature of the Ten
Commandments, the Catechism says: "Since they express man's
fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbour, the Ten
Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave
obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige
always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten
Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart". [119] It is
in light of this truth that we should understand teaching of
Vatican II which says: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a
law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its
voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to
avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment . . .For man
has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . .His conscience is
man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with
God whose voice echoes in his depths". [120] If freedom is not
based on truth, the human person becomes a slave to sin. The
dignity of the human person requires that conscience be properly
educated. A well-formed conscience "is upright and truthful". It
formulates its judgements "according to reason, in conformity with
the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator". [121]
Therefore, conscience "depends on the moral law which it does not
create but which it must receive as an imperative". [122] When
conscience becomes detached from its safe mooring in the Divine
Law, it ends up sanctioning behaviour which is both sinful and
destructive of the fundamental rights of others. For example, a
decision to abort results in a murdered baby irrespective of the
subjective disposition accompanying the decision. Consequently,
the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who
are "subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer
their own judgement and to reject authoritative teachings". [123]
Speaking of the link between the development of an informed
conscience and the moral law, Pope John Paul II said: "When God's
truth is obscured, human consciences are also deformed, if sin is
denied, God is also denied . . .Human conscience goes astray if it
is neglected and deprived of the truth . . .Conscience has an
inalienable right to the truth and it is most intimately related
to human dignity . . .Therefore human dignity requires that a
person orient his conscience in accordance with the lawful order
established by the Creator". [124] It can happen that moral
conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgements
about acts to be performed or already committed. If the ignorance
is invincible, or if the person is not responsible for his
erroneous judgement, then the evil committed by the person cannot
be imputed to him, even though it remains an evil, a privation, a
disorder. [125] Speaking of this, the Catechism of the Catholic
Church says: "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be
diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress,
fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or
social factors". [126] Consequently, it is necessary to always
keep in mind that there is a distinction to be drawn between the
objective sinfulness of an act and subjective culpability. In the
moral life there are also "laws of growth" and of maturation.
[127] Such growth towards maturation requires the help of grace
and needs to be fostered by the community through the provision of
a suitable formation and education. [128] While unintentional
ignorance can diminish or even remove responsibility for an
objectively grave sin, [129] Vatican II however reminded us that
this cannot be said about the person "who takes little trouble to
find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees
almost blinded through the habit of committing sin". In such
cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. [130] One
must therefore work to correct any error of moral conscience by
seeking the truth. For Catholics this job is made easier because
the Church is itself the "pillar of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). The Pope,
and the bishops in communion with him, are the authoritative
teachers of this truth. They are endowed by Christ himself with
his very own authority to "preach the faith to the people
entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into
practice". [131] The teaching authority of the Magisterium
"extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because
their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for
salvation". [132] In recalling the prescriptions of the natural
law, the Magisterium of the Church "exercises an essential part of
its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and
reminding them of what they should be before God". [133] Jesus
tells us that only the truth will set us free and that all who are
on the side of truth listen to his voice (cf. Jn 8:32; 18:37-38).
Part of the joy in being a Catholic is the certainty of knowing
that when we listen to the teaching of the Magisterium we are in
fact listening to Christ himself: "Anyone who listens to you
listens to me" (Lk 10:16). Speaking of how the teaching of the
Magisterium serves Catholics in the correct formation of their
consciences, Professor William May says: "The moral teachings of
the Magisterium are to be looked upon not as legalistic rules but
as precious truths intended to enable the faithful to come to know
who they are and what they are to do if they are to be fully the
beings God wants them to be: his faithful children, ready to walk
worthily in the vocation to which they have been called, ready to
follow the call to participate in Christ's redemptive work". [134]
In view of this, it is clear that a certain connaturality should
exist between the conscience of the individual Catholic and the
teaching of the Magisterium. In speaking of this, Pope John Paul
II said: "It follows that the authority of the Church, when it
pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of
conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of
conscience is never freedom 'from' the truth but always and only
freedom 'in' the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not
bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to
it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to
possess . . .". [135] Consequently, the teaching of the
Magisterium challenges Catholics to choose between two freedoms
which St Augustine described as a conflict between two loves: the
love of God to the point of disregarding self, and the love of
self to the point of disregarding God. [136]
ST THOMAS AQUINAS DID NOT PERMIT ABORTION AT ANY STAGE
Turning now to the contents of the Preliminary Reading Material
which was provided for students during the Christian Ethics course
at the ACU. It is nonsense to say that "Jesus does not anywhere
condemn sexual immorality". It is equally absurd to suggest that
Jesus would not "have opposed homosexuality per se" - especially
if the term 'homosexuality' is intended to include homosexual
acts. [137] In the Sermon on the Mount, which in Veritatis
Splendor Pope John Paul II refers to as "the magna charta of
Christian morality", Jesus himself confirmed the precepts of the
Decalogue. [138] Speaking of this, the Holy Father says: "Jesus
brings the commandments to fulfilment . . .by interiorising their
demands and by bringing out their fullest meaning . . .Thus the
commandment 'You shall not murder' becomes a call to an attentive
love which protects and promotes the life of one's neighbour. The
precept prohibiting adultery becomes an invitation to a pure way
of looking at others, capable of respecting the spousal meaning of
the body". [139] Speaking of the Biblical teaching on sexual
immorality, the Irish Bishops' Pastoral Love is for Life says:
"Any separation of physical, sexual union from the fullness of its
meaning, which is found only in marriage, is a disruption of God's
plan. It is a betrayal of love. All acts of sexual intercourse
before or outside of marriage are acts of fornication or adultery
and these are, in themselves, always gravely sinful. This is the
clear law of God, proclaimed in both the Old Testament and the New
Testament". [140] As we saw earlier, Jesus repeated the Ten
Commandments to the Rich Young Man who asked him about the way to
eternal life (cf. Lk 7:21-23). He listed the type of actions that
make a person 'unclean' such as "fornication, theft, murder,
adultery . . ." (Mt 7:21-23). Though this list is not complete, it
spells out the type of actions that are incompatible with love of
God and love of neighbour. As St. John and St. Paul both teach,
these are the kinds of actions that are so sinful in themselves
(intrinsically evil), that if knowingly and freely engaged in, and
if not repented of, they will exclude one from the Kingdom of
Heaven (cf. Eph 5:5; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:9-21; Rev 21:8). In the
teaching of Jesus, the moral duty to do good and avoid evil is
summed up in the commandment to love (cf. Mk 12:30-31). The
commandment to love is intended however to sum up the whole of the
Divine Law. The Gospels bear witness to the fact that truth and
mercy unite to form a single and undivided attitude of the Lord
Jesus. This attitude is revealed for example in the words Our Lord
addressed to the woman who was caught committing adultery: "Has no
one condemned you? . . .Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not
sin again" (Jn 8:10-11). Jesus does not equivocate when it comes
to naming evil. He calls adultery by its proper name when he tells
this woman not to "sin" again. By so doing, Jesus teaches us that
an essential aspect of pastoral care is the duty to tell the truth
about sin. Jesus does not falsify moral truth, but "bears witness
to it in an unmistakable way; and in offering his merciful love to
the woman who had sinned and repented, he leads her back to the
truth and to salvation". [141] The assertion in the Preliminary
Reading Material that St Thomas Aquinas "permitted abortion up
until around the end of the first trimester" is bizarre. While it
is true that St Thomas laboured under the limitations imposed by
the biological knowledge available in his time, he would never
however have permitted abortion at any stage. Following
Aristotle's philosophy, St Thomas held that ensoulment did not
occur at conception but at a later time, at forty days for the
male and ninety for the female. [142] Despite this however, St
Thomas still taught that it was a "grave sin against the natural
law" to kill the foetus at any stage, and a graver sin of homicide
to do so after ensoulment. [143] Besides, it would have been
illogical for St Thomas to have permitted abortion at any stage
since he was so opposed to contraception in regards to which he
said: "Next to murder, by which an actually existent human being
is destroyed, we rank this sin by which the generation of a human
being is prevented". [144]
JESUS KNEW HIMSELF TO BE A DIVINE PERSON
A university has no right to call itself Catholic if it cannot
affirm in all its courses that Jesus was aware of his divinity.
Neither should a university call itself Catholic if some of its
staff teach a version of the Resurrection that does not
necessarily involve the raising up of the remains of Jesus which
were placed in the tomb after his crucifixion. In regard to the
Graduate Diploma Course in Religious Education being run at the
ACU in Sydney, I made reference in Chapter 2 to erroneous
assertions about the origin of the ordained priesthood contained
in a Book of Readings entitled The Christian Story which was
authored by Dr Laurie Woods. This book was published by the ACU in
1995 and in the publishing details we read: "Material contained in
this book has been especially developed for teaching the Unit The
Christian Story". Like so much other material written by members
of the Religious Education Department at the ACU, this Book of
Readings by Woods contains correct doctrinal statements jumbled up
with others that are often dangerously ambiguous and in some cases
even erroneous. Here are some examples:
"It was only after reflecting on the fact that he was with God in
heaven that Christians began using messianic language to describe
him as . . . God's agent, who would come to judge all people at
the end of time . . ." (p. 73);
"Paul declares to the Corinthians that he proclaims 'Christ Jesus
as Lord' (2 Cor 2:5). The title Lord certainly indicates the early
Christian belief that Jesus was more than human even though it is
not an explicit statement of belief in the divinity of Christ" (p.
82);
"The divinity of Jesus is stressed far more in the fourth Gospel
than in the other three . . .There is paradox in the fourth Gospel
when Jesus speaks of being 'sent by God' (3:34) and also declares
that he and "the Father are one" (10:30; 17:21). But it has to be
remembered that the writer was trying to express the deeply felt
conviction in the Johannine community that commitment to Jesus was
commitment to God.." (p. 103);
"The language and the theology of the 'I am' statements uttered by
Jesus are unique to the Gospel of John. The question is, did the
unpretentious teacher of the Synoptics call himself 'the bread of
life' (6:35), 'the resurrection and the life' (11;25), the one who
was before Abraham (8:58) . . .The probability is that Jesus never
used such language . . .The best way to approach this question is
to see that these statements say more about the faith of the
Johannine community than about the actual words of Jesus . . .The
bottom line is that, while Jesus may not have said these words
during his historical life, no one would doubt their truth,
particularly in view of later theological reflection"(p. 105);
"In the Jewish culture a faithful observer of the law was referred
to as a son of God . . .while further back in Hebrew history the
kings were looked upon as sons of God . . .However, in the
Gospels, which reflect the faith of Christians in the second half
of the first century, Jesus speaks of God as his father a number
of times . . .This illustrates the growing conviction that Jesus
was the son of God in a unique way . . . We can safely say that
Jesus began the process of regarding himself as the son of God.
Later on, when Christians gave the title a very specific
definition as the divine son of God and finally as the Second
Person of the Trinity, the title took on a more developed meaning.
The term 'Son of God' now implied that Jesus was divine. Whether
Jesus saw himself as divine is a question of debate. The Gospels
do not solve the problem because they reflect the faith of the
Gospel writers and do not give us undiluted insights into the very
mind of Jesus" (p. 115);
" . . .many of the expressions used to describe the person and
mission of Jesus had been borrowed from the Jewish Wisdom
theology. It must be kept in mind, though, that just as Wisdom was
regarded as being one with God and yet was never called God or
Yahweh, so Jesus Christ was seen as being one with God without
being regarded as Yahweh, the God of Hebrew history" (p. 116).
Woods is wrong when he says that the use of the word "Lord" by the
early Christians to address Jesus "is not an explicit statement of
belief in the divinity of Christ". The Catechism of the Catholic
Church says: "The title 'Lord' indicates divine sovereignty. To
confess or invoke Jesus as Lord is to believe in his divinity. 'No
one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit' (1 Cor
12:3)". [145] Coupled with this, I find it incredible that once it
is accepted that Jesus is a Divine Person, it can subsequently be
asserted that he may not have understood himself as such. By
asserting that it is debateable whether or not Jesus saw himself
as divine, Woods has again raised the question of Our Lord's self-
consciousness and knowledge. I have already touched on this
question in Chapter 7 when responding to Goosen/Tomlinson's
erroneous assertion that Jesus was possibly not aware of the
salvific meaning of his crucifixion. Jesus referred to himself as
the "only Son of God" (Jn 3: 16; cf. 10: 36). The Catechism of the
Catholic Church says that by giving himself this title, Jesus
"affirms his eternal preexistence". [146] The Catechism also says
that "Peter could recognise the transcendent character of the
Messiah's divine sonship because Jesus had clearly allowed it to
be so understood". [147] Since any deficiency of knowledge is
incompatible with the Divine nature, then how could a Divine
Person not see himself as divine? To answer this question by
asserting that Jesus was divine without him necessarily seeing
himself as such, is to engage in an act of Orwellian
"Doublethink". Explaining the nature of 'Doublethink' in his novel
1984, Orwell wrote: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
The party intellectual knows he is playing tricks with reality,
but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that
reality is not violated". [148] If one asserts that Jesus did not
know himself to be Divine, then one is left with no other rational
alternative than to also assert that Jesus was not a Divine
Person! The "truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the
divine life of his person". [149] Consequently "the human nature
of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew
and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God". When
I read Woods' assertion that it was debateable whether or not
Jesus saw himself as divine, it brought to mind the declaration
issued by the Jesus Seminar in Toronto in October 1989 which
stated that "Christ did not regard himself as divine". A Jesus who
does not know himself to be divine is an "Arian" Christ. Arius
(c.256-336) was an Alexandrian priest who denied the divinity of
Christ by reducing him to the level of a mere creature who was son
of God only by "grace". Arius was extremely bright and
consequently few bishops felt themselves capable of questioning
his theological learning. Arianism had the Church struggling for
its very survival in the fourth century. Philip Hughes, the famous
historian, has noted that at one stage during the 4th century the
Church found her membership to be 80-per-cent Arian. The classic
account of the Church's struggle with Arianism is told by Cardinal
Newman in Arians of the Fourth Century. The great champion of
orthodoxy in the struggle against Arianism was St Athanasius. He
recommended that theologians spend more time in prayer and in
mortifications before putting their ideas down on paper. With
great skill he rallied the truly Catholic Bishops with the result
that Arianism was condemned by the First Ecumenical Council of
Nicea in 325 which also gave us the Nicene Creed. After the
Council of Nicea, the strategy of the Arians was to adopt its
terminology while interpreting it in a way which denied Christ's
divinity. Using this strategy, they were able to have such an
impact that they nearly destroyed the Eastern Church. Speaking of
the problems in the Church at the time, St Basil the Great wrote:
"The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are
set at naught; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in the
Churches. Men have learned to be speculatists instead of
theologians. The wisdom of the world has the place of honour,
having dispossessed the glory of the Cross . . .the aged sorrow
comparing what is with what was; more pitiable the young, as not
knowing what they are deprived of." [150] Today we need to be
aware of more subtle forms of Arianism which while not directly
attacking the divinity of Christ, instead undermine this truth by
attacking doctrines which support it such as Christ's knowledge of
the salvific meaning of his crucifixion and his awareness of the
fact that he was a Divine Person.
THE CORPSE OF JESUS DID NOT REMAIN IN THE TOMB AFTER HIS
RESURRRECTION
In his Book of Readings entitled The Christian Story, Laurie Woods
not only casts doubt on Jesus' awareness of his divinity but he
also casts doubt on the Bodily nature of the Resurrection.
Speaking of the Resurrection he says:
In his letter to the Corinthian community . . .Paul discusses the
issue of the resurrection, that is Jesus' resurrection and the
resurrection of the individual Christian. He says explicitly that
belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the very foundation of
Christian discipleship . . .In discussing the resurrection of
Jesus Paul has nothing at all to say about the tomb of Jesus being
empty and this is probably because he does not consider it
essential to his argument at that particular time. In 1 Cor 15:35
he asks the question that the Corinthians have been asking,
namely, what sort of body will the resurrected person have? Paul
dismisses this as a stupid question (1 Cor 15:35-36) and
emphasises that the body that is raised will be a spiritual body.
We can sense that Paul is searching here for words to express the
inexpressible because a spiritual body is a contradiction. In
general speech the word "body" usually means a physical body, but
Paul is carefully trying to say that the resurrected body will not
be physical, and therefore will not possess the properties of a
physical body (15:42-44). He affirms that a physical body cannot
enter into the glory of heaven so our bodies will have to be
changed in some way and this will happen through the process of
death. Paul says quite explicitly that the resurrected body will
be transformed into an imperishable, immortal and non-physical
reality.
By obvious implication the body of the risen Christ is also non-
physical, immortal and imperishable. Confirmation of this view is
present in the resurrection narratives of all four Gospels. Jesus
appears in an instant to his disciples through locked doors (Jn
20:19) and then disappears just as suddenly. This terrified the
disciples who thought they were seeing a ghost. (Lk 24:36-37). But
Jesus showed the wounds in his side and his hands and feet to show
that it was really him. In Luke's Gospel he even asks for food,
not because he needed it, but to demonstrate that he was not a
ghost or a figment of their imagination (Lk 24:41-43) . . .In all
the Gospel descriptions the writers are not describing a
resuscitated corpse. Jesus is not bleeding all over the floor from
his wounds and he shows no signs of weakness from his ordeal. In
fact, the writers are trying to express the Christian belief that
. .his body is transformed and does not possess physical
qualities . . .
Paul argues in his Corinthian letter that all Christians will be
instantly transformed after death in order to enter into the glory
of heaven (1 Cor 15:50-54). It is of no consequence to him what
happens to a person's mortal remains; after all they are physical
and physical things cannot inherit the kingdom of God ( 1 Cor
15:50). By implication we could argue that Paul is not concerned
whether a person's tomb contains their bones or not, it still will
not affect their resurrection and transformation after death. To
believe, as some pious Christians have done, that our resurrection
bodies will be reconstituted from our mortal remains is definitely
not what Paul or the Gospel writers are saying . . .
The Gospel resurrection narratives are saying that the risen
Christ is a complete person and not just a spirit. His
resurrection appearance in bodily form demonstrates that he can be
recognised as the person whom the disciples had followed from
Galilee and who underwent the pain of death by crucifixion. They
are not saying that his resurrection body is a physical one, much
less the exact same body, in every respect, that was buried a few
days before. It follows from this that it was not necessary for
the tomb of Jesus to be empty in order for the disciples to
believe that he had been raised from the dead. Paul's idea of the
transformation of the resurrection body , does not require a
person's physical corpse or mortal remains as necessary
ingredients" (pp. 137-139. Words in bold print and italics have
been inserted by Woods).
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb is the linchpin of
Christian hope for it validates all that he said and is a proof
that he was both God and man. Consequently, the message of the New
Testament leaves no scope for a profession of faith that would
allow the bodily remains of Jesus to remain in the tomb after his
Resurrection. What Woods asserts about the resurrected body of
Jesus being non-physical is not compatible with the teaching of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is that "Christ's
Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the
physical order" (CCC. n. 643). Therefore, there is something
seriously wrong with Woods' interpretation of St Paul since the
Apostle would not contradict the received doctrine: "I taught you
what I had been taught myself" (1 Cor 15: 3). Woods' problems with
the Resurrection of the body are possibly due to his piecemeal
approach to Divine Revelation. His interpretation of St. Paul's
statement in 1 Cor 15:50 to mean that - "It is of no consequence
to him [St. Paul] what happens to a person's mortal remains; after
all they are physical and physical things cannot inherit the
kingdom of God" - is faulty. In 1 Cor 15:50, St. Paul is speaking
of our natural incapacity for the new life which God will bestow
on us in the resurrection. [151] That St. Paul does not mean what
Woods says he means is made clear from the Apostle's Letter to the
Romans where in reassuring believers about the resurrection he
says: "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells
in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to
your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom
8:11). By suggesting that Jesus' Resurrection did not necessarily
involve the lifting up of his physical remains which had been
placed in the tomb after his death, Lauri Woods seems to be
repeating an error which was propagated by Fr David Coffey in the
early 1980s. [152] At that time, Fr Coffey argued that the Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus "does not require or even allow the re-
involvement of a corpse". [153] In critiquing Fr Coffey's theology
of the Resurrection, Bishop John Cullinane said: "I submit that Dr
Coffey has made a glaring mistake in a matter of fundamental and
wide ranging importance". [154] Fr Coffey was eventually corrected
by Church authorities. Cardinal Clancy, in a public statement he
issued on the matter said:
It is widely known that some of the theological views of the
Reverend Dr. David Coffey, of the Catholic Institute of Sydney,
have been subject to study by Church authorities. These
authorities include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith; Dr. Coffey has himself taken part in the discussions. The
views in question concern the nature of the bodily resurrection of
Christ . . .The issues being now sufficiently clarified, I have
advised Dr. Coffey to align his teaching with that of the
Magisterium of the Church, which is that the physical remains of
Jesus, placed in the tomb after his death, were raised in his
Resurrection. Hence, the empty tomb. This, Dr Coffey has readily
undertaken to do. [155]
In regard to the Resurrection of the Lord, the first fact recorded
by the Gospels is that of the Empty Tomb. While it is true that
"this in itself is not a direct proof of Resurrection",
nevertheless "its discovery by the disciples was the first step
towards recognising the very fact of the Resurrection". [156]
Christ's Resurrection is the "strength" and "secret" of
Christianity. [157] Since it involved the raising up of Christ's
physical remains that were placed in the Tomb after his
Crucifixion, then it can only be regarded as a real "concrete
event". [158] When faith in the Resurrection of the Lord is based
on belief in such a real, historical and concrete reality, then
the Empty Tomb becomes a sign of Christian hope and joy. As I
noted earlier, a characteristic of many of the courses in
religious education conducted at the ACU in Sydney is that they
contain only scant references to the teaching of the Magisterium
and fewer even still to the works of the Church Fathers. This is
very poor methodology. One reason why the Church Fathers are so
important in the study of theology is because of the clarity of
their exposition of the contents of the Deposit of Faith. St
Augustine, in defending the physical resurrection of Jesus against
the pagan philosophers of his time wrote: "Here then we have these
incredibilities; yet they happened. It is incredible that Christ
rose in the flesh and with his flesh ascended into heaven. It is
incredible that the world believed so incredible an event; and it
is incredible that men of no birth, no standing, no learning, and
so few of them, should have been able to persuade so effectively,
the whole world, including the learned men". [159] With marked
realism, St Ignatius of Antioch stressed again and again the
concreteness of the Christological mystery. In reference to the
Death and Resurrection of Jesus he said:
He underwent all these sufferings for us, so that we might be
saved: and He truly suffered, just as He truly raised Himself, not
as some unbelievers contend, when they say that his passion was
merely in appearance. It is they who exist only in appearance; and
as their notion, so shall it happen to them: they will be bodiless
and ghost-like shapes. I know and believe that He was in the flesh
even after the Resurrection. And when he came to those with Peter
He said to them: 'Here, now, touch Me, and see that I am not a
bodiless ghost'. Immediately they touched Him and, because of the
merging of His flesh and spirit, they believed. For the same
reason they despised death and in fact were proven superior to
death. After His Resurrection He ate and drank with them as a
being of flesh, although He was united in spirit to the Father. I
warn you, beloved, although I know that you are of one mind with
me. Yet, I would guard you in advance against beasts in the shape
of men, whom not only must you not receive, but if it is possible,
do not even meet them. Only pray for them so that they might
repent, difficult though that be: yet, Jesus Christ, our true
life, has the power to do even this. If it was merely in
appearance that these things were done by our Lord, then it is
merely in appearance that I am a prisoner. [160]
Those who shy away from the Resurrection of the body need to ask
themselves what is it that is so "contemptible" about the flesh as
to make it unacceptable to God? Did not God look upon it at the
beginning of creation and note that it was indeed "good" (cf. Gen
1:31). Even though it fell under the power of sin and death does
this mean it will not partake of the fruits of Christ's Paschal
victory? Are we to believe that our bodies are incapable of being
recreated according to their original potentiality? Those who want
to banish the body to eternal death are in fact promoting Gnostic
ideas which as we saw in Chapter 3 asserted that salvation
necessitated the soul's shedding of all contact with the flesh
which was deemed to be evil. Against the heresy of Gnosticism, the
cause of orthodoxy was championed by St. Irenaeus. He taught that
the entire person - body and soul - would participate in eternal
life as "it is the mingling and union of all these things which
constitute the perfect man". In writing of the Holy Eucharist he
said: "Utterly foolish are those who despise the divine scheme for
man; who deny the salvation of the flesh and scorn the notion of
re-birth, alleging the flesh incapable of immortality. If the
flesh is not to be saved then the Lord did not redeem us by his
blood, nor is the bread we break the partaking of his body". [161]
Of the corporal Resurrection, St. Irenaeus wrote:
If men think only of the weakness of the flesh, and do not
consider the power of him who raises it from the dead, they ignore
the might of God . . .For God fails in power if he does not give
life to mortality and bring corruptibility to incorruption. But we
ought to infer God's power in all these things from consideration
of our beginning; God took clay from the earth, and fashioned man.
Now to bring man to being, to make a living and rational creature,
of bones, muscles, veins and all the rest of man's economy, which
as yet did not exist; this was a task far harder, far more
incredible, than to restore this creature when it had been created
and then re-dissolved into the earth, having returned to these
elements out of which man was first created. If God gave
existence, when he so willed, to those who did not exist, much
more will he restore those who have come into being to the life
which he gave them, if he so wills. The flesh which at the
beginning was the subject of God's art will be found capable of
receiving and assimilating God's power. [162]
In speaking to a group of French theologians on the contemporary
importance of St Irenaeus, Pope John Paul II warned them of the
need to be wary of wrong uses of Revelation which, in attempting
to accommodate themselves to the rationalist spirit of the age and
to other fashionable intellectual tendencies, often tended to try
to explain the how of the divine actions by having recourse to the
"familiar formulae of the Christian Creed in order to justify a
doctrine contrary to the faith". [] [163] In this sense said the
Holy Father, "the Gnostic temptation is always an obstacle for the
Church". [164] The idea of the resurrection of the body is really
not such an extraordinary idea. There are signs of death and
resurrection all around us in nature. A seed which falls to the
earth and dies in winter, in spring sprouts into a living plant.
The same with our risen bodies. Though they will have different
qualities to the bodies which are buried or cremated, they will
still be the same bodies we had on earth. St. Justin Martyr
described this well when he said: "We expect to receive our own
bodies again, even though they be dead and buried in the earth . .
Because you have never seen a dead person rise, you disbelieve.
But just as in the beginning you would not have believed that from
a little drop such persons might be produced, and yet you see them
so produced, so now in the same way realise that it is not
impossible for human bodies, after they have been resolved and,
like seeds, dissolved into earth, to rise again in God's appointed
time and put on incorruption". [165] St Hilary of Poitiers also
described the same truth well when he said:
[God] will repair what has been shattered, but not by mending it
with something else. Rather, out of the old and very same material
of its origin He will impart to it an appearance of beauty
pleasing to Himself; and the resurrection of corruptible bodies in
the glory of incorruption will not take away their nature by the
utter destruction thereof, but will work only a qualitative change
of condition. For it is not another body that will be resurrected,
but the same body in another condition, as the Apostle says: "It
is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in
ignominy, it will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it will
rise in strength; it is sown an animal body, it will rise a
spiritual one" (1 Cor 15: 42-44). There will, therefore, be a
change, but this does not mean an annihilation. And if that which
was, rises up as that which it was not, it has not lost its
original material (non amisit originem) but has perfected it unto
glory. [166]
Not only does the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus confirm that he is
truly God, but paradoxically it also confirms that he is truly
man. Speaking of the Resurrection in this perspective, Pope John
Paul II said:
The Resurrection confirms in a new way that Jesus is truly man.
The Word was born in time 'by becoming flesh', and in the
Resurrection he returned to life in his own human body. Only a
true man could suffer and die on the cross, and only a true man
could rise from the dead. To rise again means to return to life in
the body. The risen Christ makes contact with the Apostles; they
see him, look at him, touch the wounds which remained after the
crucifixion. He not only speaks to them and stays with them, but
he also accepts some of their food. He is true God and true man,
not a man merely in appearance, not a phantasm, but a true man.
This is how the Apostles and the group of believers of the early
Church knew him. This is the testimony that they passed on to us.
[167]
The Holy Trinity was involved in all the events of our creation
and redemption. Everything that is involved in our redemption,
including the resurrection of our bodies, occurs because what is
impossible to man is possible to God (cf. Lk 1:38). In raising
Jesus Bodily from the tomb, God the Father thus "perfectly
introduced his humanity - even his body - into the communion of
the Trinity". [168] We too are destined to enter with the fullness
and perfection of our humanity into the Beatific Vision. The
Resurrection of Jesus in the same body as the one that was placed
in the tomb is the pattern for the resurrection of our bodies on
the last day (cf. Jn 5: 28-29; 6: 54; 1 Cor 15: 12-14). The Mother
of God has already preceded us into this glorified state of
blessedness. When her earthly life was finished, Mary "was taken
body and soul into heavenly glory" so that "she might be more
fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin
and death". [169] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary "is a
singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an
anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians". [170] Mary,
the Mother of the Church, who is now in heaven in body and soul,
anticipates the resurrection of all members of Christ's Body.
[171] Belief in the Resurrection is an article of the Christian
Creed. It is a profession of faith in the Holy Trinity and thus in
the power of God's creative, saving and sanctifying action. [172]
Speaking of the resurrection of the dead on the last day, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "The term 'flesh' refers to
man in his state of weakness and mortality. The 'resurrection of
the flesh' (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means
not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that
even our 'mortal body' will come to life again". [173] Hope in the
bodily resurrection of the dead "established itself as a
consequence intrinsic to faith in God as creator of the whole man,
soul and body". [174] On no point does the Christian faith
encounter more opposition "than on the resurrection of the body".
[175] It is very commonly accepted that the life "of the human
person continues in a spiritual fashion after death. But how could
we believe that this body, so clearly mortal, could rise to
everlasting life?". [176] In death, the separation of the soul
from the body, the human body "decays and the soul goes to meet
God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in
his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to
our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of
Jesus' Resurrection". [177] Indeed, "the flesh is the hinge of
salvation". [178] We believe in God "who is the creator of the
flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the
flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfilment
of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh". [179] This
"how" exceeds our imagination and understanding - "it is
accessible only to faith". [180] Denial of the "resurrection of
the flesh" can also stem from the heresy of Deism which asserts
that while God is indeed the creator of the Universe, he does not
however exert providential or sovereign control over it. In
opposition to Deism, belief in the bodily resurrection is an
expression of confidence and trust in the almighty power of God
and in his fidelity to his creation. Speaking of this, St.
Augustine said: "Perish the thought that the omnipotence of the
Creator were unable, for the raising of our bodies and for the
restoring of them to life, to recall all parts, which were
consumed by beasts or by fire, or which disintegrated into dust or
ashes, or were melted away into fluid, or were evaporated away in
vapors". [181] Cardinal Ratzinger has said that belief in the
Bodily Resurrection is a "profession of the real existence of God
and a profession of his creation, the unconditional 'Yes' with
which God stands before Creation, before matter. The word of God
truly penetrates to the heart of the body. His power does not end
at the confines of matter. It embraces everything . . .The power
of God is hope and joy . . .this is the liberation revealed at
Easter. In the Pasch, God reveals himself, his power - superior to
the power of death - the power of the love of the Trinity. So the
paschal revelation gives us the right to sing 'Alleluia' in a
world overcast with a cloud of death". [182]
CONFUSION AND ERROR IN FIRST YEAR UNDERGRADUATE COURSE
The problems in the Religious Studies Department at the ACU is not
confined to its Graduate Diploma in Religious Education Course.
The Studies in Religion and Philosophy Unit which is taken as part
of a first year Bachelor of Teaching / Bachelor of Education
course has some problems as well. The aim of the Unit is to
explore "ways in which religion and philosophy have sought to help
people find meaning and purpose in life as they face contemporary
issues and human dilemmas". The course examines "the motivations
and manifestations of different religions, with a more detailed
treatment of Christianity" (Unit Outline). The course was run over
12 weeks in 1996 and its official Code is PH 114/121. Of the
twelve lectures that were set down for the course, five were to be
given by Robert Gascoigne. The prescribed text for the course is a
Book of Readings which is compilation of articles on different
themes drawn from various sources. For example, there is a one
page article taken from St Augustine's Confessions, a 15 page
article taken from the 1980 edition of Richard McBrien's
Catholicism, an entire chapter from Gascoigne's Freedom and
Purpose: An Introduction to Christian Ethics, various articles on
Hinduism, Buddhism and Human Rights etc. [183] A striking thing
about this Book of Readings is that while even the works of Hans
Kung appears in the lists for further reading, not a single
Magisterial document of the Church is included. One article in the
Book of Readings is entitled A History of God. It is an extract
taken from a book written by Karen Armstrong who presents herself
in the article as an ex-nun who has outgrown Catholicism. In this
article we read: "Did the New Testament really teach the elaborate
- and highly contradictory - doctrine of the Trinity or was this,
like so many other articles of faith, a fabrication by theologians
centuries after the death of Christ in Jerusalem". [184] To this
Armstrong adds: "The Gospels tell us that God had given Jesus
certain divine 'powers' (dunamis), however, which enabled him,
mere mortal though he was, to perform the God-like tasks of
healing the sick and forgiving sins". [185] In speaking of St
Paul, Armstrong says:
Paul never called Jesus 'God'. He called him 'the Son of God' in
its Jewish sense: he certainly did not believe that Jesus had been
the incarnation of God himself: he had simply possessed God's
'powers' and 'Spirit', which manifested God's activity on earth
and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine
essence. Not surprisingly, in the Gentile world the new Christians
did not always retain the sense of these subtle distinctions so
that eventually a man who had stressed his weak, mortal humanity
was believed to have been divine. [186]
In reading through this Book of Readings, which is the compulsory
part of the course upon which assessment tasks are based, one gets
the impression that it was cobbled together with insufficient
forethought as to content and process. For example, the
introductory note accompanying Armstrong's History of God says:
"This reading provides for merely a preliminary introduction to
Hinduism and Buddhism". [187] When we examine the entire article
however, we find that Armstrong spends approximately 7 pages
bemoaning her Catholic upbringing and developing her "theology" of
Christian origins, while she spends only approximately 3 pages
describing the experiences of Hindus and Buddhists. The direction
of this First Year undergraduate course becomes all the more
questionable when we read the article in the Book of Readings
entitled Evil and Suffering from a Religious Perspective by Dr
Laurie Woods. Speaking of the presence of the Devil in the story
of the Fall in the Book of Genesis, Woods says: "It is important
to realise that the presence of the snake implies that there is
mystery and complexity in the story. The snake in Genesis is not
presented as Satan or a devil figure, but it is evidence that the
biblical writer is coming from a tradition that recognises that
there is a mysterious force for evil that pushes humans into
actions that will bring pain on themselves and others". [188]
Explaining how Satan came to occupy a place in the Old Testament,
Woods says: "It is during this period after the Babylonian exile
that the figure of Satan first appears in Jewish thinking. Some
scholars would see this as the result of the influence of Persian
ideas. In any case, it is evidence of a growing opinion that a
demonic force was responsible for causing trouble by enticing
humans to do evil and cause suffering to themselves and others.
What is more, the later books of the Hebrew Scriptures make it
clear that the problem remains unsolved and that people are more
content to live with unanswered questions". [189] As far as the
Catechism of the Catholic Church is concerned, there is no doubt
regarding the identity of the Tempter in the Book of Genesis. It
says: "Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a
seductive voice opposed to God, which makes them fall into death
out of envy. Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this
being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil'. The Church
teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God". [190]
Further to this, the Catechism adds: "Scripture witnesses to the
disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls 'a murderer from the
beginning,' who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission
received from his Father. 'The reason the Son of God appeared was
to destroy the works of the devil' (1 Jn 3:8). In its consequences
the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led
man to disobey God". [191] Dr Woods has trouble also with the
Church's teaching on Original Sin. Speaking of this he says: "The
whole idea of original sin in Christianity is an expression of the
firm belief that all humans are born with human weakness and
imperfection. The best way to understand this doctrine is to
regard human beings as inheriting not somebody's sin, because no
one can bear the responsibility of another person's sin, but
rather the weakness and tendency to sin that is part of being
human". [192] Speaking of Original Sin, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church says: "Following St Paul, the Church has always
taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their
inclination toward evil and death, cannot be understood apart from
their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has
transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a
sin which is 'the death of the soul' (Cf. Council of Trent: DS
1512). Because of this certainty of faith, the Church Baptises for
the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed
personal sin". [193] In teaching about the mode of transmission of
Original Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "We
therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is
transmitted with human nature, 'by propagation, not by imitation'
and that it is . . . 'proper to each'". [194] Finally, the
Catechism warns us that "we cannot tamper with the revelation of
original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ". [195] As
I have already noted in this Chapter, the problem in presenting
this type of material to students in Catholic tertiary
institutions lies not so much in the fact that it contradicts the
Church's teaching, but rather in the fact that it is not balanced
by an equal amount of material which convincingly shows the
reasonableness and superiority of the Church's doctrine. A
defender of the way these courses are being run might argue that
unless one actually attended the lectures one is not in a position
to criticise them. In response I would say that on the basis of
what has been published by some members of the Religious Education
Department at the University, the concern that the courses are
prejudiced against the Church's doctrine is well justified. If the
materials from the various RE units we have looked at so far in
this book are an indication of the material being presented in the
rest of the courses conducted by the Religious Education
Department at the ACU, then one might legitimately raise questions
of concern about the general direction of the University itself.
On the basis of the structure and orientation of the Christian
Ethics course for example, one could hardly claim that Catholic
academic standards are even remotely being complied with. If there
is no scrutiny of the required reading as set down by lecturers
and upon which student assessment is based, does this mean that
the teaching of Religious Education at the ACU has no one
supervising it?
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 8 ENDNOTES
� 1 Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, n. 42.
� 2 Pope John Paul II, Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XII, 2
[1989] p.867, cited by Cardinal Pio Laghi, L'Osservatore Romano,
24/8/94).
� 3 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 26/8/92
� 4 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Ex Corde Ecclesiae,
n. 1
� 5 Ibid.
� 6 Ibid. nn. 4 and 6
� 7 Ibid. n. 14.
� 8 Ibid. n. 18
� 9 Ibid.
� 10 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to group of Bishops from
India, September 12, 1989
� 11 CCC. n. 890.
� 12 Ibid.
� 13 Pope John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, n. 27.
� 14 See Canons 808-813 of the Code of Canon Law for endorsement
by the Magisterium of the conditions I have here listed as
essential to the creation of a genuine Catholic ethos in
universities controlled by the Church.
� 15 Cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 10.
� 16 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to Catholic Educators at a
Congress on Catholic Universities, April 25, 1989.
� 17 James V. Schall, S.J., Does Catholicism Still Exist? Alba
House, New York, 1994, p. 9. Fr Schall is very well qualified to
comment on the state of Catholic university life in the Western
world. He is a Professor in the Department of Government at
Georgetown University and is a former member of the Pontifical
Commission on Justice and Peace in Rome. He has also taught at the
Gregorian University and in the Department of Government at the
University of San Francisco.
� 18 Ibid.
� 19 Cf. Veritatis Splendor, n. 5
� 20 Pope John Paul II, Address to Australian Bishops,
L'Osservatore Romano, 20/10/93.
� 21 The official Code for this Christian Ethics Unit is TP 400.
� 22 While the reading list does include a book by William May who
has distinguished himself as a defender of Church teaching,
overall the list is skewed towards dissent. The greatest anomaly
however is the total absence of any reference whatsoever to
Magisterial documents of the Church.
� 23 Christian Ethics Unit, Graduate Diploma in Religious Studies,
ACU, Sydney (Strathfield Campus), Preliminary Reading Material.
� 24 Ibid.
� 25 Ibid.
� 26 Cf. VS, n. 80
� 27 VS, n. 78
� 28 VS, n. 115
� 29 VS, nn. 5, 115
� 30 Cf. VS, n. 80
� 31 Cf. VS 47 and 80
� 32 VS, n. 35
� 33 VS, n. 81
� 34 Cf. VS, n. 49
� 35 Cf. VS, n. 52
� 36 Cf. CCC, n. 1756
� 37 CCC. n. 1754
� 38 Cf. CCC, n. 1753
� 39 CCC, n. 1755
� 40 VS, n. 82
� 41 CCC, nn. 1733 and 1740
� 42 CCC, n. 1731
� 43 Ibid.
� 44 CCC, nn. 1733 and 1740
� 45 CCC, n. 357
� 46 CCC. n. 1954
� 47 Ibid.
� 48 CCC. n. 1956
� 49 Cf. CCC. n. 1958
� 50 CCC. n. 1706
� 51 Cf. CCC. n. 1959
� 52 CCC, n. 1962
� 53 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 3/11/93
� 54 Ibid.
� 55 Ibid.
� 56 VS, n. 79
� 57 VS, n. 13
� 58 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 22
� 59 VS, n. 16
� 60 Ibid.
� 61 Cf. VS, n. 22
� 62 VS, n. 18
� 63 Cf. VS, n. 24
� 64 Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio Paenitentia, n. 14
� 65 Cf. Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 17,
Veritatis Splendor, nn. 65-71
� 66 Council of Trent, DS 1570, 1501. Cf. Moral Conscience and
'Communio': Toward a Response To The Challenge of Ethical
Pluralism, by Livio Melina, Communio, Winter 1993, p. 675.
� 67 VS, n. 66
� 68 Cf. VS. nn. 24, 66,
� 69 VS, n. 67
� 70 VS, n. 70, Cf. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 17
� 71 VS. n. 68
� 72 VS. n. 70
� 73 Ibid.
� 74 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 51. The points made here in
relation the degree of authority pertaining to the Church's
teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and abortion were made
by Cardinal Ratzinger in his Final Reply to Fr Charles Curran
regarding his dissent from the moral doctrine of the Church. This
Reply was published in the Summer 1986 edition of The Priest.
� 75 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 8
� 76 Professor Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol 1,
Christian Moral Principles, Franciscan Herald Press, 1983, p. 847
� 77 Professor William May, An Introduction to Moral Theology, Our
Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Indiana, 1994, p. 231.
� 78 Declaration of the Puerto Rican Episcopal Conference, Fr.
Charles Curran, Ex-professor of Catholic Theology, 1986. This
Declaration was originally published in Spanish with an English
translation appearing in the Summer 1986 edition of The Priest
which is a publication of the Australian Association of Catholic
Clergy.
� 79 Cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25
� 80 Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57
� 81 Ibid. n. 62
� 82 Ibid. n. 65. The reference in this text to "distinctions"
refers to the complex problem of using "extraordinary or
disproportionate" means to support the life functions of a
terminally ill patient, as well as to the use of "methods of
palliative care" in the final stages of certain illnesses (cf. n.
64).
� 83 Cf. Bishop Jorge Medina Estevez, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/6/95
� 84 Fr Domingo Basso, O.P., L'Osservatore Romano, 6/9/95
� 85 Cf. Professor William May, op. cit. pp. 236-240
� 86 The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, (Donum Veritatis),
CDF 1990, nn. 34, 35
� 87 Ibid. n. 33
� 88 Ibid. nn. 6 and 34
� 89 Ibid. nn. 34 and 38
� 90 Ibid. n. 6
� 91 Ibid. n. 38
� 92 Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 110
� 93 Ibid.
� 94 Veritatis Splendor, n. 110; Cf. Humanae Vitae, n. 28
� 95 Cardinal Edward Clancy, Catholic Weekly, 27/6/90
� 96 Veritatis Splendor, n. 113.
� 97 Donum Veritatis, nn. 31 and 37.
� 98 Pope John Paul II, Address to participants at a Study
Conference on Responsible Parenthood, 5 June 1987.
� 99 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 5/9/88.
� 100 Livio Melina, Moral Conscience and Communio, Winter 1993
edition of Communio, p. 675.
� 101 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
� 102 Fr. Georges Cottier, O.P., L'Osservatore Romano, 25/10/95.
� 103 Vatican Council I, Constitution on Catholic Faith, Chapter
3.
� 104 Cardinal Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, cited by
Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, n. 34.
� 105 Cf. Archbishop Tettamanzi, L'Osservatore Romano, 27/10/93.
� 106 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 10/7/96.
� 107 Bishop Kevin Manning, AD 2000, April 1994, p. 12
� 108 Bishop James T. McHugh, L'Osservatore Romano, 27/4/94
� 109 Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 110; Cf. Donum
Veritatis, n. 16
� 110 Ibid.
� 111 Ibid. n. 81
� 112 Ibid.. n. 26
� 113 Cf. VS. n. 91
� 114 VS, n. 91
� 115 Ibid.
� 116 CCC, n. 1778
� 117 Cf. VS, n. 56
� 118 VS, n. 59
� 119 CCC. n. 2072
� 120 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 16
� 121 CCC. n. 1783
� 122 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 10/11/93
� 123 Ibid.
� 124 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 5/9/88
� 125 Cf. CCC. n. 1792
� 126 CCC. n. 1735
� 127 Cf. CCC. n. 2343
� 128 Cf. CCC. n. 2344.
� 129 Cf. CC. n.1860.
� 130 Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 16; CCC. n. 1791.
� 131 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25.
� 132 Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 4.
� 133 CCC. n. 2036.
� 134 William May, op. cit. p. 244.
� 135 VS, n. 64.
� 136 Cf. St Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIV, 28, cited by Pope
John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, n. 6.
� 137 The fact that I have here narrowed down the focus on
'homosexuality' to homosexual acts should not be understood as
though I am suggesting that a homosexual tendency or orientation
is in itself a neutral reality. The 1986 CDF Letter to Bishops of
the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
said: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual
person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency towards
an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be
seen as an objective disorder" (n. 3).
� 138 VS, n. 15
� 139 Ibid.
� 140 Irish Bishops' Pastoral Love is for Life, L'Osservatore
Romano, 20/5/85.
� 141 Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, 27/2/89, p.7. The article from
which I have quoted here was an official Church response to
expressions of public dissent from the teaching of Humanae Vitae
by Fr Bernard Haring.
� 142 St Thomas's views on this question are expressed in his
Commentary on Book 3 of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
� 143 For St Thomas Aquinas' teaching on this question, see entry
under Abortion by Robert M. Friday in New Dictionary of Theology:
Editors Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, Dermot A. Lane, Gill
and Macmillan, Dublin, 1987, p. 3
� 144 St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter
122
� 145 CCC. n. 455.
� 146 CCC. n. 444.
� 147 CCC. n. 443.
� 148 George Orwell, 1984, Penquin, p. 220.
� 149 CCC. n. 473.
� 150 St Basil the Great, cited by John Henry Newman in Historical
Sketches, Vol II, "The Church of the Fathers", Westminister, 1970,
p. 43.
� 151 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'osservatore Romano, 20/3/89.
� 152 Fr Coffey's ideas on the Resurrection gave rise to
considerable controversy in the early 1980s. The following
literature is relevant to this controversy: The Resurrection of
Jesus and Catholic Orthodoxy, Studies in Faith and Culture No 4,
Catholic Institute of Sydney, 1980; the review of Fr Coffey's
article by Bishop John Cullinane in the Australasian Catholic
Record (ACR), January 1981; Fr Coffey's Reply to Bishop Cullinane,
ACR, April 1981; observations by Fr Francis J. Maloney,
Resurrection and Accepted Exegetical Opinion, ACR, April 1981;
Bishop Cullinane's final Reply to Fr Coffey, ACR, July 1981.
� 153 Fr David Coffey, The Resurrection of Jesus and Catholic
Orthodoxy, Studies in Faith and Culture No 4, 1980, p. 114.
� 154 Bishop John Cullinane, Resurrection and Orthodoxy, ACR, July
1981, p. 299.
� 155 Cardinal Edward Clancy, Catholic Weekly, 28/9/88.
� 156 CCC. n. 640; cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano,
1/4/96.
� 157 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/4/96.
� 158 Ibid.
� 159 St. Augustine, City of God, Bk. XXII, ch. 6.
� 160 St.Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. AD
115] , cited in William Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Church
Fathers, op. cit. Vol. 1, pp. 24-25.
� 161 St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, v. ii. 2.
� 162 Ibid. v. iii. 2.
� 163 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 9/2/87.
� 164 Ibid.
� 165 St. Justyn Martyr, First Apology, cited in William A.
Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, op. cit. Vol. 1, p. 52.
� 166 St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentaries on the Psalms, cited in
William A. Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, op. cit. Vol.
1, p. 384. St. Hilary has been called the Athanasius of the West
because of his staunch support for the Nicene doctrine against the
Arians.
� 167 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 1/2/88.
� 168 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 6/3/89.
� 169 CCC. n. 966.
� 170 Ibid.
� 171 Ibid. n. 974.
� 172 Ibid. n. 988.
� 173 Ibid. n. 990.
� 174 Ibid. n. 992.
� 175 Ibid. n. 996.
� 176 Ibid.
� 177 Ibid. n. 997.
� 178 Ibid. n. 1015
� 179 Ibid.
� 180 Ibid. n. 1000.
� 181 St. Augustine, The City of God, cited in William A. Jurgens'
The Faith of the Early Fathers, op. cit. Vol. 3. p. 107.
� 182 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Journey Towards Easter, Ignatius
Press, San Farancisco, 1988, p. 117.
� 183 Cf. Studies in Religion and Philosophy, Book of Readings,
Australian Catholic University Printery, North Sydney, 1996
� 184 Ibid. p. 71
� 185 Ibid. p. 73
� 186 Ibid. p. 74
� 187 Ibid. p. 70
� 188 Laurie Woods, ibid. p. 124
� 189 Laurie Woods, ibid. p. 125
� 190 CCC. n. 391
� 191 CCC. n. 394
� 192 Laurie Woods, Studies in Religion and Philosophy, Book of
Readings, op. cit. p. 126
� 193 CCC. n. 403
� 194 CCC. n. 419
� 195 CCC. n. 389
Downloaded from St. Michael's Depot
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Home_Pages/St_Michaels_Depot.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
