German priests: open the priesthood to women, make priestly celibacy voluntary

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

German priests: open the priesthood to women, make priestly celibacy voluntary

 

[JackRT]

What a wonderful idea! Who'da thunk it?

 

[rockytopva]

The priest celibacy rule has imho put the Catholic church in good competition. If they were to...

Keep the priest celibacy rule for Monks, Cardinals, Bishops, and Pope
And pave a way for priests and pastors to be married

They would make up for a lot of lost ground.

 

[JackRT]

The priest celibacy rule has imho put the Catholic church in good competition. If they were to...

Keep the priest celibacy rule for Monks, Cardinals, Bishops, and Pope
And pave a way for priests and pastors to be married

They would make up for a lot of lost ground.

Better yet, keep celibacy for those who are called to it.

 

[dzheremi]

What is the apostolic, conciliar, or otherwise canonical basis for having women ordained to the priesthood?

Clerical celibacy can be traced back as a discipline in the Latin west to the Council of Elvira, c. 305 AD, and is hence one of the oldest continually-held disciplines in the Church of Rome. I am unaware of anything of that vintage concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Wasn't Luther from Germany? Sounds like Protestant philosophical influence.
But hey, this female ordination thing may not be as far into the future as I thought

 

[Fish and Bread]

What is the apostolic, conciliar, or otherwise canonical basis for having women ordained to the priesthood?

Vatican III.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm asking a serious question, F&B.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I'm asking a serious question, F&B.

It's not a completely unserious answer. If enough people feel that we would need the type of authority you're talking about to ordain women into the priesthood, we can in theory create it. If an ecumenical council were held and voted to do it, and the Pope accepted the conciliar documents, that would be one of the highest forms of authority possible in the Roman Catholic tradition.

An ecumenical council within the next generation or two also isn't completely out of the question- in Roman Catholic terms, the last two occurred in 1870 and throughout the 1960s, part of a total of 21 ecumenical councils. It's not something where we are talking about them as something that only occurred during the first 1,000 years of Christendom and where only 4 or 7 ecumenical councils occurred like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe (Though Roman Catholicism does recognize those same councils as the early ecumenical councils). Ecumenical councils have been a constant presence throughout the history of the western church- and some have made pretty strong pronouncements, including some of the ones after the Great Schism (Papal infallibility at Vatican I in 1870 is the first that comes to mind). Each of those councils is considered to hold the same weight as Nicaea.

Also, it's not necessarily clear to me that the ordination of women is a doctrinal issue. Some (Including, admittedly Benedict XVI) have cast it as a doctrinal issue, but it may simply be that churches have *chosen* not to ordain women, the same way they may choose to do any number of things, and it doesn't necessarily require much to change that. For example, the Latin church chose not to ordain married priests for most of it's 2,000 year history, and yet many of the folks here have probably seen former Anglican priests or Episcopalian pastors who married in their old churches, converted, and then were (re)ordained by Rome while married, and kept their wives and children.

It's possible that a Pope could change this policy with a figurative wave of his hand. An Apostolic letter by his own initiative (There is a Latin term for that that is eluding me- I am not talking about a Papal bull or an encyclical, this would be a different type of document- like the one that expanded use of the extraordinary form of the mass in 2007) would probably do the trick.

I think, alternately, if we could get a large number of bishops to openly just sort of do the ordinations and recognize the women as full priests in each of their dioceses, and it had widespread popular support, the Vatican might have to choose to either recognize it after the fact, or excommunicate everyone involved and create a large scale schism. It worked on a smaller scale for the Episcopal Church (Link). I think it would need to be done on a larger scale in this church, though, because if we had just a few bishops doing this, they would simply be excommunicated. If you could get, say 20 or 30 or more doing it in a coordinated way, though, that might be a different story...

I don't think the last paragraph is what is going to happen, though. I think one day a Pope will allow the ordination of women. And then women will be ordained. Some won't accept it, but most will. I think folks overestimate how many Catholics really would leave over the ordination of women. A large and growing number of Catholics support it, others might not but would at least grudgingly accept it if the Pope approved it and it became the status quo. This would probably be some time into the future and likely we'd have to create some alternative structures for the people who can't accept it, but structures that would still be in the church and eventually fade away.

Probably what would happen would be that the first Pope to do it would only it only in countries who's national bishops conferences specifically petitioned Rome for it, and then the ministry of women priests would only be allowed in the dioceses in those countries where the specific bishop of diocese allowed it *and* the country's national bishops conference had asked for and received permission for it. This would keep conservative bishops conferences and bishops within the fold, to a point. And eventually, the arc of history will bend towards greater acceptance of women priests, and the practice will slowly become universal.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I thought this quote might also help answer @dzheremi 's question:

"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."

-Excerpted from DEI VERBUM, Second Vatican Council, propagated by Pope Paul VI

 

[dzheremi]

As hopeful as such thinking as summarized in the above quotes may make some people, I note that previous Roman Popes -- writing long after Vatican II and surely aware of its spirit or what have you-- have declared the church itself to have no authority to do such a thing. Pope John Paul II put it in writing in the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, issued May 22, 1994: "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly Ordination on women".

Was Pope John Paul II wrong then, or are these German priests wrong now?

 

[Fish and Bread]

As hopeful as such thinking as summarized in the above quotes may make some people, I note that previous Roman Popes -- writing long after Vatican II and surely aware of its spirit or what have you-- have declared the church itself to have no authority to do such a thing. Pope John Paul II put it in writing in the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, issued May 22, 1994: "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly Ordination on women".

Was Pope John Paul II wrong then, or are these German priests wrong now?

I think, with due respect to the late Pope, that he was wrong then, and potentially being highly influenced by Cardinal Ratzinger (Who later became Pope Benedict) in his thinking. Moreso than who the Pope may or may not have been listening to, and who may or may not have been writing the rough drafts of his documents in the last 10 years or so of his pontificate, though, I think is the general context of what was happening in the Church in that era, which tells us why these documents were being written the way they were, because I don't really doubt that JP2 did believe what was on the page, but I do believe that he was a product, in part, of his time, and that the words appeared in that time and place for reasons beyond just teaching the faith.

Vatican II was largely a struggle between progressive and traditionalist bishops. The progressives won (As my earlier quote from the council is one indication of), but they weren't able to write the documents they really wanted to write, because the council was by its nature collaborative and significant concessions had to be made on wording to get traditionalists to sign on to what was really a theologically groundbreaking council.

Coming out of the council, both of these factions continued to exist, with progressives hoping to continue to progress and get to where they originally wanted the documents to be and to where continued theological discussions and pastoral experiences were leading them (Sort of a Vatican II Plus- Often spoken of as "The Spirit of Vatican II"), and traditionalists hoped to turn back the clock and find the most traditional possible framework to interpret Vatican II through the lens of (Sort of the "Vatican II counts, but it was really just an unfortunate rephrasing of the Council of Trent" school of thought. ).

Pope Paul VI is actually one of the few Popes before and after him who has not at this point been named a Saint, and that is in part because there were two factions in the Church hiearchy at that time and neither really ever fully embraced him. Pope Saint John XXIII was the person who actually announced that there would be a council, announcing that it was time for the Church to figuratively open its windows and doors and let some fresh air in, and he is the one who gaveled it to order. However, he died relatively early on, and so it fell to Pope Paul VI to hold additional sessions, gavel the council to a close, and then to implement the council's decisions (Remember, this council took place over the course of years, and of course, bishops had to go back to their dioceses and do the normal work of being bishops for extended stretches, so it was really a series of periodic meetings rather than being a situation where bishops all showed up for a few months or somethibg and just stayed until it was over). Actually, I think one of Vatican II's first acts was officially gaveling Vatican I to a close, and Vatican I took place in 1870- it just had never been officially concluded, but rather suspended indefinitely (If Vatican II did not actually declare Vatican I closed, just by opening it, it may have ended the prior council in a defacto sense).

So, Paul VI was the one who approved the 1970 missal, which was the first missal in the venacular (language of the people- i.e. English), and ended use of the prior 1962 missal, which was what we today might refer to as the last missal for the Tridentine Latin Mass (Some say he never ordered that, but let's just say that everyone in normal parishes stopped using the 62 missal and priests who didn't did not stick around long, SSPXer excepted, and they were small in number and arguably not in full communion with Rome).

Pope Paul also famously proceeded in one day to say a mass with his Papal tiara (a bejeweled crown of sorts worth a small fortune) atop his head, put it on the altar during the mass (As bishops do with miters), and then intentionally proceeded out without it, ordered that its proceeds be sold to the poor, and never wore it again. All Popes since that time have worn simple bishop's miters, though you will occasionally see a picture of a Papal tiara on Vatican stationary or the like.

As one might imagine, these things endeared him to progressives somewhat and infuriated traditionalists. Good Pope John was more of a progressove hero, but Pope Paul did some things that progressives liked (Basically the two things I just mentioned).

However, some progressives at the time perceived Pope Paul as failing to move fast enough or move at all in some cases to implement the full spirit of the council. He stuck with a celibate male priesthood and various other things.

However, the real "kicker" for progressives was when he propogated an encyclical affirming a ban in "artificial" birth control. The birth control pill was relatively new in the scheme of history, and almost everyone assumed that its use was going to be formally allowed, that it was only a matter of time. Many priests are said to have told women who confessed to using birth control in the confessionals that it wasn't really a sin and that the Vatican would be making that official any day now. When the Pope published the encyclical banned artificial birth control, it felt like a punch in the gut for progressives, not only because they thought its use should be allowed, at least under select circumstances (Like if a couple has 10 children and can't afford to feed more, and the doctor is telling the wife conceiving another child woild put her health at risk- potentially leaving 11 children under the care of a single grieving father), but also because they did not see the ban coming.

The Council of Canadian bishops wrote a joint pastoral letter to their flocks basically saying that the encyclical was wrong in less direct language. At least 50 prominent theologians directedly said the encyclical was wrong and signed their own joint letter that they purchased full page ads in major newspapers to publish.

So, both sides had things they didn't like about Pope Paul, although his image has slowly been rehabilitated in subsequent years. He was under a lot of pressure to keep two disparate factions together.

After a very brief pontificate of John-Paul I, who got very sick and died shortly after becoming Pope, the Cardinals with their two factions went back into a conclave to choose a new Pope. You still had traditionalists who wanted a Pope who would roll back the council and its reforms almost completely, and progressives who wanted to move it forward and implement it in a more progressive way. Neither group could get the required 2/3 majority for their candidate, and so eventually they agreed to appoint a relatively unknown moderate from Poland who got along with everyone and was thought to be a guy who would have a relatively uneventful Papacy, not rock the boat, and let the two factions meet again and pick another Pope when he was done, perhaps with one faction gaining a clearer majority in the interim.

The man selected became Pope John-Paul 2, reigned 26 years, and by the time he died had reshaped the Church to the point where only 2 or 3 of the 150 or so Cardinal electors in the conclave that selected his replacement had been in the conclave that selected him. Both factions that had fought with each other during and after the council were essentially gone. It isn't clear who won. Something else was in their place.

Some figures in high places who lived that era say that JP2 basically appointed bishops and Cardinals who agreed with him and would be yes men. What JP2 wound up being is a guy who took a hard line in favor of the new mass and ecumenism, but then was conservative in terms of internal church governance and morality. He and Cardinal Ratzinger thought the Church was spiraling out of control and brought the hammer down. Bishops weren't appointed who didn't toe his line, others who were already there were sometime sidelined. Ratzinger officially censored and silenced an almost unprecedentedly number of theologians during his time as Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Formally the Holy Office of the Inquisition).

One of the big things progressives thought coming out of Vatican II was that they'd get married priests and women priests in due time. The sort of joke that made the rounds back in the day was that at Vatican III, the bishops would bring their wives, and that at Vatican IV, they would bring their husbands.

JP2 and Ratzinger thought they had to squash that faction to preserve the Church and a lot of their writing should be viewed in that context. JP2 in his early years also tried to squash the traditionalist faction that would not accept the council, held a very prominent ecumenical gathering at Assisi with non-Christian faiths in 1986, and in 1988 essentially excommunicated all 5 SSPX bishops. Toward the end, he started to soften towards the remnants of the traditionalists, something Ratzinger pushed more when he became Pope and lifted the excommunications.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this (the ordination of women) was a very active issue post-Vatican II and I think JP2 and Ratzinger made a strategic decision to try to wipe it out by trying to state it definitively in a way that would cause progressives to lose hope and give up, making it so that it could not be reversed.

But some progressives have read 1Cor13 and still have hope. I do not know if you or I will live to see Canaan, but I have faith that the People of God will get there, and that there will be milk, honey, and women priests after all these years in the desert.

Don't forget, many people cited past church encyclicals against religious pluralism and said that it was doctrinally impossible for the Church to almost do a complete 180 and embrace religious liberty, that God would not let it happen. But Vatican II basically did it, and subsequent Popes have all affirmed it and expanded it. Some things that seem carved in stone turn out not to be. Jesus came as quite the surprise to many of the religious authorities of his day when he challenged them, but now his followers are the largest religion in the world.

 

[Colin]

Pope Francis has said that the final word has been said regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood , and that word is "No" .

Pope Francis reiterates a strong 'no' to women priests

Pope Francis says women will never be Roman Catholic priests

Catholic Church will never ordain women priests, says Pope Francis – CatholicHerald.co.uk

Why has the pope said no to women priests? - CNN.com

Pope Francis Says There's Zero Chance of Women Priests - World Religion News

 

[JackRT]

With regard to "Apostolic Tradition" --- if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. "What is that?" you ask. It is half the human race regarded as spiritually unworthy.

 

[Davidnic]

I thought this quote might also help answer @dzheremi 's question:

"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."

-Excerpted from DEI VERBUM, Second Vatican Council, propagated by Pope Paul VI

A growth in understanding is licit development in Dogma, women priests would be heretical development of Dogma where the core teaching is changed. Vatican II does not allow for changing the core teaching. No council could it is beyond even council authority. The Church is clear on that.

So honestly...if people want to promote that women can be priests in the Catholic Church that is one thing. But taking VCII quotes about development in ways they are not meant does not help. It does not help because it does not actually back the argument. It actually opposes it. The Church is clear on the limits of development. Even Vatican II.

 

[Fish and Bread]

A growth in understanding is licit development in Dogma, women priests would be heretical development of Dogma where the core teaching is changed. Vatican II does not allow for changing the core teaching. No council could it is beyond even council authority. The Church is clear on that.

So honestly...if people want to promote that women can be priests in the Catholic Church that is one thing. But taking VCII quotes about development in ways they are not meant does not help. It does not help because it does not actually back the argument. It actually opposes it. The Church is clear on the limits of development. Even Vatican II.

The teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women is not infallible because there is no evidence that the bishops around the world concurred with it, which is a condition of ordinary infallibility (As opposed to Papal infallibility, which is not claimed here). However, of course, the church does teach many things non-infallibly that are nevertheless considered important doctrines. Whether the lack of women's ordination is simply the result of patriarchal culture and attitudes about women's roles combined with prudence designed to ensure the Gospel could travel to the ends of the earth and thrive in such cultures, essentially a matter of discipline instead of a matter of faith, or whether it's part of the deposit of faith is highly debatable, though, in my opinion.

Though we Catholics are educated not to believe it, the Church has had reversals of this magnitude before. Go to the Salt of the Earth conservative section, find a SSPXer, and ask him or her about the second Vatican council's positions on religious liberty and other religions and whether they are compatible with prior Papal encyclicals. They'll give you an earful. I'm sure you know this, but I'm elaborating for those who may not (Although I do not seriously suggest engaging too much with an SSPXer for reasons that will become apparent if one tries. ). If you really want an earful, ask them about the Jews- or, um, on second though, don't (One of their bishops was brought up on charges in Europe for denying the Holocaust).

I think Limbo was very close to a sensus fildelium of the Church for 1,000 years, and we are now simply told we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies (I know you disagree with limbo as sensus fildelium, and I'm not picking a fight- again, it's just a recognition that others are reading).

The Church moves slowly. Sometimes it can take centuries to do the right thing. That's not always as bad as it sounds, though, because a certain deliberateness can result in greater stability and sounder moral judgements after all the facts are in. Women's liberation and especially the push for women to be ordained as priests is a relatively new thing in Church time. Right now, we're still seeing the push back. These comments from prelates that women's ordination is impossible are the Council of Trent Counter-Reformation phase of things. The equivalent of Vatican II, which stopped pushing the other way against the Reformation and embraced what it viewed as the good parts 400 years later, is still to come for women's ordination, in my opinion. Hopefully it doesn't take 400 years.

Changing tracks to more directly address Vatican II:

As noted earlier in the thread, the Vatican II documents were the result of a lot of push and pull between progressive and traditionalist factions. Concessions were made in places. I honestly think many of the bishops who signed those documents were signing them with two different sets of beliefs on development of doctrine. I feel that my way of thinking about development of doctrine is in accordance with the beliefs of *some* of those bishops who voted for and signed those documents. They lost power and were all replaced by people with John-Paul II and Benedict XVI's views on the matter. The pendulum may yet swing again.

My view on development of doctrine does not exclude reversals of lesser doctrine when they come to be seen in the light of more important doctrines as new evidence and new ways of thought come to the table. Jesus changed a lot of things for the People of God. Perhaps the Holy Spirit, an equal authority, still moves in our time, and has some things to say. Perhaps God is still speaking.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I don't know how even the Pope can say "never". Can he see into the future?
"Never say never" must give hope to those who are pushing for this.
I'm neutral . I don't care either way.

 

[Davidnic]

We've had the debate on it being infallible before. You are free to oppose the infallible here in TLT. You are even free to claim what is infallible is not infallible. That is part of why it is here. But even Pope Francis says the matter is settled. But after all this is what Liberal Catholic Theology is...the wider view of development that is generally considered not appropriate and even heretical by the Church Magisterium. This is what TLT is here to explore for its members.

I consider it beyond question. But that is why I do not identify as a TLT member, only a visitor.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

But that is why I do not identify as a TLT member, only a visitor.

What!! We've lost our credibility as Catholics because Davidnic only considers himself a visitor here.
Well, I'm sticking to this forum, even I don't like us being labelled simply pro-abortion, women's ordination and gay priests. We are more than that. Much more. And most of us don't wave a banner on those issues anyway.We are closest to what Pope Francis stands for. A humanistic approach to Catholicism. Reach out to the marginalised and poor. Those that are different to us. Embrace ecumenism. We are all part of the human race.
The people on this forum are good decent members. They have big hearts and show an openness to other points of view which I value. So a sub-forum is more than its mission statement. It is its members.

 

[Davidnic]

I've always been a visitor. One that likes and loves you all

And I do hold that the views here, even those I disagree with, are allowed in this area. But in the end, no matter what fellowship, the existence of this area is for a Catholic theology that is outside the Magisterium. How that co-exists with the fellowship of those who do not agree with them but post here will be seen as time goes on. In the past (the first TLT) it did not work well. Maybe you all can make that work differently.