Modest Support for CDF decree/Dulles
AVERY DULLES, S.J. is Fordham University's McGinley Professor of Religion and Society. Writing in The Tablet (12/9), he supports the CDF response, but makes many careful distinctions, and nowhere claims that infallibility has been "manifestly demonstrated." Here is a section of his article dealing with "difficulties" that won't go away.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, SOME remark that the consensus of the "ordinary magisterium" is difficult to verify at the present day. Does the unanimity of the Catholic bishops still stand in the face of the concerted movement on behalf of women's position in Church and society? In view of the heavy pressure placed on them to conform to papal teaching, are the bishops really free to express dissenting views? I am not sure of the answers to these questions, but the Holy See is reported to have conducted serious consultations before issuing its recent pronouncements.
Secondly, it is asked whether in a matter such as this the "sense of the faithful" should not play a role. There is no evidence of that kind of remarkable agreement between the faithful and the pastors that Pius IX and Pius Xll considered necessary before they issued their Marian dogmas. The sensus fidelium is difficult to determine because the views of many Catholics on the subject seem to be influenced more by the expectations and practices of secular society than by properly theological reasons.
Thirdly, it is often alleged that the patterns of man-woman relationships in the Church have been sociologically and culturally conditioned. While it cannot be denied that such conditioning has occurred, the Church must seek to apply the Gospel principles critically against any social situation, past or present. Revelation affirms both the essential equality of men and women before God and the diversity of their roles in the Church.
To support the argument for change, some contend that the exclusion of women from ordination is analogous to the acceptance of slavery, which was tolerated by the New Testament and by many centuries of Catholic tradition. The two cases, however, are not parallel. Whereas slavery is a denial of a natural human right, there is no natural right to ordination. It might indeed be unjust to exclude a whole class from ordination on grounds that were arbitrary, but not if the very nature of priesthood, as determined by Christ, requires the male gender.
To dispel any remaining doubts, it may be important to show some intrinsic grounds why women are unsuitable for priestly ministry. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis the Pope relies only on arguments from authority, but mentions in passing that there are "theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision". In Mulieris Dignitatem (1988) he used the so-called "iconic" argument, to the effect that the priest at the altar acts in the person of Christ the Bridegroom. Thcse theological reasons, while not strictly probative, show why it was fitting for Christ to have decided freely to reserve priestly service to men. If the maleness of the priest is essential to enable him to act symbolically in persona Christi in thc eucharistic sacrifice, it follows that women should not be priests. The "iconic" argument is complex and difficult to handle, but it does in the end give intelligibility to the authoritative teaching.
Spirituality/Justice Reprint is one of three quarterly publications from Call To Action. For more information, contact:
Call To Action
2135 W. Roscoe
Chicago, IL 60618
(773/604-0400; fax 773/604-4719)
cta@cta-usa.org