A new article in the Italian Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica raises questions about the teaching of St. John Paul II that women can never be ordained to the priesthood.
The essay in Civilta Cattolica carries special significance, because material in the journal is approved in advance by the Vatican. Moreover, the editor of Civilta Cattolica, Father Antonio Spadaro, is a key adviser to Pope Francis. The essay is by the deputy editor, Father Giancarlo Pani.
Although the essay does not directly advance the argument that women could be ordained, the author questions whether the statement by St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an authoritative and binding statement of the Church magisterium. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) answered that question in 1995, stating plainly that the papal teaching was definitive and should be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith.” Nevertheless Father Pani reopens that question.
Citing “tensions” between the Church’s teaching and the work of theologians, the author says that the 1995 statement from the CDF “does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century.” He says that there is “unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.”
“One cannot always resort to the past,” the article argues, calling for a new approach to the issue. Father Pani closes with the observation that Pope Francis has shown that he will not “limit himself to what is already known.”
Pope Francis himself has said that the teaching of St. John Paul II on the impossibility of ordaining women is “the last clear word… and this holds.”
Story from Catholic Culture.
To my simple mind this means that Pope Francisco will use the next synod to get women in the priesthood. The last two were about the family and he got normal sacraments for co-habitators, divorced, homosexuals and transgenics using the footnotes. Viva Benedictus XVI.
Gratis,
I have no idea what this pope will do. But regardless, based on the Tradition of the Church and the writings and statements of John Paul II, such a change would require the action of an ecumenical council. A mere synod would cause such a hugh uproar that an ecumenical council would eventually be invoked. And such a council, if it were to happen, would reaffirm the Tradition of the Church.
Pope Francis has already said (at least twice I think) that the door to women’s ordination is closed. I don’t expect to see female priests in my lifetime, probably not for another hundred years.
YFC,
I wouldn’t say it’s likely ever. The reason: The Church doesn’t have the authority. If she did, such a development would require an ecumenical council. But John Paul II has already used language suggesting back circa 2000 that a council would affirm Church Tradition and condemn the idea of ordaining women.
While it’s true that councils develop doctrine, it’s also true that they don’t overturn it.
…. and yet JPII was also clear about no Communion for those living in adulterous second marriages who had no purpose of amendment. But what have we now? A crap shoot of supposed misinterpretation.
The rooster is leaving the door of the hen house wide open while he hides behind the barn – not because he disproves evisceration of the flock – but so he can appear blameless for the killing of those he is supposed to protect.
The morning crow is only to say, “It wasn’t *my* fault,” as he then proceeds to lead the beleaguered survivors into a peace pact with the bloody mouthed possums for whom he carries copious amounts of water.
Ann,
I’ve had a similar impression. It’s as if he wishes to make everything a matter of conscience but knows full well that only a well-formed conscience yields correct results. So it’s as if he’s setting people up for failure which can potentially have eternal results — a dangerous game. The denial of communion, like that of ex-communication, has a pastoral component in that it informs people that they’re doing something wrong.
While JPII was clear about both the ordination and communion issues, he specifically singled out the ordination issue for special handling by a) using increasingly strong language and b) by intimating that he would either act ex cathedra or would call a council.
A person who views an encyclical, especially ones which she has probably never even read, as a “crap shoot” is a person who will go to just about any length to calumnize and blaspheme the Successor of Peter and the Church founded upon that rock.
YFC,
This is off topic, but were you ever able to find the polling data that you had referenced earlier about why people leave the Church. If not, no worries.
…and yet even JPII had his issues.
The “ecumenical” gatherings at Assisi were gravely scandalous and did much to undermine the Church. In so many ways, it would seem that Peter is doubting, leaving the side of Christ to warm his hands against the bitter cold while seeking to appease those who would otherwise call him out as a true Disciple.
The Peronist steam roll of mercy meaning never having to say you’re sinning is ushering in the religious solution clearly delineated in CCC #675. The “official” religious solution that mandates apostasy from the Truth.
Goes far in explaining to this Catholic the grinning intolerance of he who would be not Vicar, but King.
Ungodly Rage – Written by Donna Steichen
The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism
https://www.ignatius.com/Products/UR-E/ungodly-rage.aspx
Written by a Catholic journalist who has investigated feminism on its own ground, this remarkable book fully exposes the hidden face of Catholic feminism for the first time, revealing its theoretical and psychological roots in loss of faith.
continued…
Ungodly Rage – Written by Donna Steichen continued…
Extensively documented, this is the definitive account of a movement impelled by vengeful rage to revolt against all spiritual authority, providing detailed information on Catholic feminist theologians, organizers, the movement’s defense of abortion, its connections with witchcraft and New Age rituals, and its disastrous effects on the Catholic faithful.
This book should be welcomed by Catholic men and women striving to understand the disarray in the Church, and what can be done about it.
https://www.ignatius.com/Products/UR-E/ungodly-rage.aspx
Some keep beating a dead horse. A lot of us women are not falling for it guys. We have no intention of taking “Communion” from a priestess. Any church that ordains women as priestesses will no longer be Christian but pagan. End of discussion.
Fr. Spadaro is not known to be a good Catholic. Pope St. John Paul II was correct.
And, Linda Maria, just how do you know that “Fr. Spadaro is not known to be a good Catholic”.
A female does not present matter proper to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
What, AM? The Matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands, not the person receiving the Sacrament. Making things up again? The Matter of the Sacrament of Baptism is the water. The Matter of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist is the bread and wine. Matter is not the recipient of a sacrament. Stop making things up!
What? Proper to the Sacrament is a male of the species. Not a female. (One doesn’t baptize a chair. One requires a person to effect baptism.) Proper to the Sacrament of Marriage is the presentation of one man and one woman, not five women and one man or one woman and five men. Children are also not proper to legitimately effecting the Sacrament of marriage.
Stop making confusion your life’s work.
Is this the kind of mind that they rely on in today’s Catholic intellectual land? Let’s see, what “Saint” JPII said some thirty years ago is not to be followed because it is out of date? I guess that this sort of fits with what the Pope says about the Bible, Catechism, and Catholic morality in “accompanying” adulterers to Holy Communion. That was then, now is now — things are different. How Latin American, how Jesuit, how Protestant! Let’s have a “Vatican Counsel” every 20 years or so to “review/revise” Catholic stuff to make it relevant.
The 1960’s brought forth a truly evil time in the world. Not just in America, where LGBT politics has branded every issue, but in the world. No absolutes exist; everything is…
“Much of John Paul ll works should be questioned, re-thinking leads to growth!” Sure Miles, always rethinking until the Church conforms to your point of view.
(Part Duex) ” . . . transitional — except for silly arguments about “rights” and “love” as defenses to everything. Let Fr. Pani question all he wishes; absolutes do exist. In fact, he (and many other Catholic clerics) should join the Episcopalians: they could still prance around in their collars and church finery, have tea with their gal pals and sexual pervert buddies, and continue to be paid handsomely for doing absolutely nothing remotely positive. That’s OK; we know how the Book ends.
The reasoning given by F. Pani would, if applied, perforce extend to every element of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Humanae Vitae, for example, would then be soon in the cross hairs, to the applause of the New York Times and Washington Post, and secular progressives everywhere. Liberal protestants would hail the ultimate demise of HV as a sign the Catholic church has made peace with the sexual revolution, just as they have.
Many, Popes included, tell us that women cannot be Priests because Jesus had no women disciples. In recent years I have started to ask myself why that matters. I don’t have an answer yet, but the magazine article seems to have started a good discussion. I know that other denominations ordain women and it works for them. Why could it not work for us? In the Latin Rite, we demand that Priest be celibate, yet we don’t ask that of the Eastern Rite. The Orthodox churches don’t require celibacy. So, I keep wondering why a woman can’t be an ordained Priest. I keep getting emotional answers, not rational ones. Who can help?
Bob One,
There’s a short answer and a long answer. Since time/space is short, I’ll give the short answer.
Celebacy for priests is a discipline in the Latin Rite. However, there are some things that can’t happen because they’re against Tradition (note capital ‘T’) such as bishops must be celebrate and a marriage can not happen if one has already received Holy Orders.
Woman ordination, on the other hand, is unlike Latin Rite priestly celibacy in that it’s against the Tradition of the Church.
Thanks Steve. And yet, the Bible tells us how a Bishop should raise his children and lead his family!
Bob One,
As I recall, you’re correct. But there’s something to keep in mind. The Church had her starting point with Pentecost in a certain place and time. Much had yet to be revealed. As you’ll recall, the original Christians were Jews who were required to keep the full law. This changed with the Council of Jerusalem. Likewise, Christians observed the Sabbath on Saturday until this changed in AD 70. There evidently were also changes regarding Holy Orders.
JonJ,
By the way, are you confusing tradition (small t) with Tradition (capital T)?
Tradition is not the reason. There must be an underlying reason that still remains valid. One who mindlessly follows tradition makes the following definition true: Traditionalist = one who believes making the same mistake for 2,000 years is a good reason to continue for the next 2,000 years.
JonJ,
As I stated in my original reply to Bob One, I had a long answer and a short answer. The short answer, which I gave, was that it’s Church Tradition which is not a mere discipline or habit. The long answer, which I did not give for space and time considerations, was the actual reasons for the male priesthood.
Bob One, read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis yourself. It explains it all. I suspect your “confusion” is with your wife and/or your daughters being against it for some reason.
Bob One, I owe you an apology for the post above on Feb. 10 at 12:10 pm. My other answers below were far better. I suppose that in each generation what some of us know is a closed cases will be innocently question by younger people who just do not understand it, and you just might want to know how to explain that to them. I just wished I had the half the patience Jimmy Akins seems to show with his questioners. He certainly does not fit the stereotype of red heads having a fiery temper — at least not on line.
Anne T., I think it’s admirable that you are willing to be self-reflective and admit when you could have taken a different tack. Of course, all of us from time to time would find that, upon reflection, we should have taken a different tack. Thank you for being willing to admit this so publicly.
Your are welcome, YFC. It also seems I made some typos in that post.
What Anne Mallley is trying to tell you is that a Catholic priest stands “in persona Christi”, in the place of Christ, who chose to come as a man, therefore no woman can properly represent him as Mother Angela said.. Man and woman have equal value in the eyes of God, but each has his/her proper role. Just as the Virgin Mary is the queen mother, Christ is the King. Men and women are not interchangeable in all things as some would have us think.
Thank you, Anne. Well said.
You are welcome, too, Anne Malley.
Women should not be priests. Who knows what the pope will do, but he cannot licitly ignore what Saint JPII decided. He would need to reject it and replace with his own logic and conclusions; there goes the doctrine of being bound to the Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Church becomes no more than another banana republic church, like the nutty Latin American governments so beloved of our Pope.
Don’t confuse matters of clerical discipline (celibacy) with sacramental and doctrinal theology (the definitive judgment by JPII that the Church has no authority to confer ordination on females). Clerical celibacy isn’t an absolute, witness the married former Anglican ministers ordained as Catholic priests. Inability to ordain women is an absolute, as no Church (properly understood) has ever attempted it in 2,000 years. Protestants are members of ‘ecclesial communities’, not true Churches. They don’t have the 7 Sacraments. The Orthodox, for example, do, and there is no way that the Catholic Church would trash any possibility of re-establishing full communion with Eastern Churches by changing this fundamental understanding.
In recent years, many “Catholics” are also wondering why the Commandments, what Jesus said and did, etc matters. You may think you don’t have the answer yet, Bob One, but the answer is clear. You seek something besides Catholic Faith.
Other “demonstrations” are not the Catholic Church, but those who have gone their way, that is away from the teaching of the Church, not the sham obedience that passes today.
“We” do not demand the priest be celibate, Bob One, but Tradition does. The Orthodox don’t require celibacy, but they have their own problems in that regard. A married clergy isn’t a rose garden. Sadly, while posters do give you sound answers, you respond emotionally and get upset.
Who can help? You. By seeking…
… legitimate answers, not a sentimental yielding to the spirit of the age.
Bob One, Jimmy Akin has posted on line great answers to your question in his article “Women’s Ordination: It’s Infallible – Jimmy Akin”. I tried to put on here the website’s URL, but it would not post (come up blue) for some reason. Please pay close attention to #3 and #4 in that article, and also the two letters after his article. They should be of immense help in understanding all this.
“I know that other denominations ordain women and it works for them.” They can do that because those “other denominations” have lost Apostolic succession, and with it has gone any true priesthood and sacramental validity. Since their “ordained” men have no sacramental power, why shouldn’t they “ordain” women who won’t have any sacramental power either? Since we still have the succession, the validity and the power, we have to do it right. They don’t.
Larry, “sacramental power” is not something conferred on men only. If you recall, women can officiate at the Sacrament of Baptism in appropriate circumstances. I think we will ultimately figure out that other sacraments, maybe Matrimony or Anointing of the Sick, will one day be open to female officiants. I don’t think those questions have been asked and answered to the same extent that Eucharistic Ministry has been understood.
Again, because a male of the species is proper to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. While you accuse others of making things up, you make up your intense confusion that, in a person of good will, would be viewed as playing Devil’s Advocate in the hopes of pushing forward an agenda.
Like what you hope will be pushed through, not figured out.
Don’t confuse the issue, YFC. It so happens that any human being is empowered to effect Baptism providing he/she carries it out properly and intends to do what the sacrament requires. You don’t even have to be a believing Christian. Matrimony is actually effected by the spouses. However, the power to celebrate mass, confect the Eucharist and absolve sins in confession is EXCLUSIVELY that of priests or bishops. Only bishops can carry out Holy Orders. Only men can be priests or bishops, as JPII has definitively pronounced. Priests and bishops must receive their power in an unbroken line from the Apostles.
The conclusions of this article are mind-boggling. Pope St. John Paul II could not have possibly been clearer when he wrote that the Church has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to ordain women priests, and that this teaching must be given definitive consent of mind and heart by all the faithful. His teaching closed what some took to be a “loophole” left open by Paul VI, who wrote that the Church found itself without the authority to ordain women—causing some to find an implcation that the Church, in the future [through “development of doctrine”], might “find” that it has such authority. If there ever was such a “loophole” JP II definitively closed it.
By the way, the teaching in question, written by Pope St. JPII was titled “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”. The previous teaching of Paul VI, made more clear by St. JPII, was titled “Inter Insignores”. You can google the text of both.
If anyone doubts that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was expressed Ex Cathedra, I recommend these articles: ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: a definition ex cathedra” or “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: An Exercise of Infallibility — EWTN” or “Women’s Ordination: It’s Infallible — Jimmy Akin”.
If a teaching like that of Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics can be changed, then Pope Francis will have proven to the Church that other changes to church teaching are possible as well. He won’t be able to make that change regarding women’s ordination himself, but the door for it will have been opened by him.
“Women’s Ordination: It’s Infallible
https://jimmyakin.com/library/womens-ordination-its-infallible
The teaching that the sacrament of holy orders can be conferred only on a baptized male is an infallible teaching of the Catholic faith which has been passed down since the time of Jesus. Of necessity, this has been clearly re-stated in recent documents of the Magisterium.
We here present the two most important documents, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the CDF’s response to a question concerning it, both of which were writter or ordered by Pope John Paul II. For further background we have also included a letter by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger concerning the CDF reply and the document 1976 CDF document Inter Insignores, which goes into the…
Thank you, Michael McDermott, for posting the link. I forgot to put the “https://” before the link when I posted it.
Our Church needs a return to her True Faith– and to view the priest and his sacred role correctly, as our “alter Christus,” on the altar of God, with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! The male priest stands in the place of Christ! Especially, at the sacred moment of Transubstantiation!
Exactly when does that “sacred moment” occur: at the words of consecration, or at the epiklesis?
Bob One says: “I know that other denominations ordain women and it works for them.” Of course, it doesn’t really work for them when it comes to fidelity. Somewhere out there should be a PhD dissertation, if there isn’t one already, correlating women’s ordination and doctrinal infidelity of the Protestant churches. In my observation, denominations with higher percentages of female clergy are also denominations that slip away from orthodox doctrine (e,g. Trinity, Incarnation, uniqueness of the Christ) and morals (e.g. abortion, homosexuality). These bodies even slip away from their own foundational doctrinal distinctives. In my opinion, God makes it obvious how evil women’s ordination is by figuratively drawing with large…
Let us encourage the Novus Ordo Church, as La Civilta Cattolica’s editors wish, to have women’s ordination.
While vocations continue to collapse (we have P Francis’ own words affirming what many of us have said for the past 3 years) in the “Official” church, traditional orders such as the SSPX are experiencing growth.
As everyone probably knows by now, they inducted 57 seminarians this past October (2016);
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-57-new-seminarians-2016-18265
That number, 57, is about 10% of the entire US diocesan seminarian total nationwide.
So, let the N.O. Church have women priests, and the traditional Catholic Church will have valid orders and apostolic succession, and sacraments.
…
Anon. Anselm,
I’m a bit confused by your use of terms. Is the N.O. Church the Catholic Church?