Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the role of the Magisterium (part 2)

( This is part 2 of 3 posts. Please see the first post below)

Here was the first reply which I received from Luis Gutierrez, editor of the Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence journal:

"The male-only priesthood is not a matter of faith, therefore it should be open for discussion. To forbid discussion is itself a clear sign that something is wrong. The exclusion of baptized women from one of the sacraments of the church is a rule made by human hands, and has nothing whatsoever to do with God's will. Making Christ the scapegoat by saying that the Lord does not allow the church to call women is outrageous.

The doctrine of Humanae vitae is not wrong; what is wrong is the authoritarian style of writing. The Christian ideal about the proper and responsible use of the gift of love and the gift of life remains true and beautiful. But telling people that they will go to hell if they don't follow certain rules and regulations is inviting a catatrophe, especially when bishops have been covering up for pedophile priests. Indeed, Humanae vitae was catastrophic.
In Christ,
Luis"

My lengthy response was:

Luis,
I appreciate your thoughts. Some things to consider:

You wrote: "The male-only priesthood is not a matter of faith, therefore it should be open for discussion. To forbid discussion is itself a clear sign that something is wrong."
The following is from an article on women's ordination that I wrote on my blog for catechists (http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/01/
vocation-spotlight-will-church-ever.html) :

"The Church (in the Latin rite) could change its discipline about reserving priestly ordination to celibate men and open up ordination to married men as a norm. This is a matter of discipline—which the Church can change. The reservation of ordination to men, however, has been interpreted by the Magisterium as a matter of doctrine—which cannot change. Sensing some lingering doubt, Pope John Paul II wrote the following in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

'Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.'

When there was still lingering questions after Pope John Paul II’s document was released, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote the following clarification in 1995:

'Dubium [Latin = doubt]: 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 to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum [Response]: 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 this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.'

Basically, Pope John Paul II seems to have been exercising papal infalibility in this pronouncement. " This teaching requires "difinitive assent" ... as having been "set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." I would say that this does make the male-only priesthood a matter of faith (doctrine) and not discipline. Where in either of the above quotations do you see any signs that the Church will change its teaching? If there is no indication that the Church has the power to change this teaching, why should that matter continue to be open to discussion? Why continue to beat a dead horse? That is not a sign that something is wrong, it is a sign that the matter has been decided--that is what bishops, popes, and councils do. Is it wrong to forbid discussion on the Real Presence of the Eucharist (Transfiguration)?... or on the canon of the Sacred Scriptures? YES, because the matter had been decided. The bad sign is when Catholics continue to press for discussion on a matter that has been settled because they do not like the answer.

You also wrote: "The exclusion of baptized women from one of the sacraments of the church is a rule made by human hands, and has nothing whatsoever to do with God's will. Making Christ the scapegoat by saying that the Lord does not allow the church to call women is outrageous."
Once again, citing Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, this rule of ordaining only men is not "a rule made by human hands, [that] has nothing whatsoever to do with God's will."

How do we know the will of God and the teaching of Christ in important doctrinal and sacramental questions unless we listen to the voice of the Church he left us? Jesus said to the apostles--he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16). Christ instituted a Church to be his body (led by the Holy Spirit) and to continue to shepherd the flock after he ascended into heaven. If we cannot trust in the Church's faithful preservation of the teachings of Christ in apostolic Tradition and sacred Scripture, then we have nothing to stand upon as Christians. If you trust the Magisterium to define the canon of the Scriptures, to refine the definition of the divine/human natures of Christ, to define the number of sacraments as 7, to denounce the heresies of docetism, gnosticism, pelagianism, Arianism, monothelitism, monophysitism, Protestantism, modernism, etc. etc.... if you trust the Magisterium to pass down and safeguard all the teachings that you now take for granted... why will you then distrust them and call them a merely human institution when it comes to the teaching about women's ordination?

Without the guidance of the Magisterium people can try to make Jesus Christ say all sorts of things: that homosexual marriages are valid unions, that abortion and euthanasia are ok, that the Jews are evil, etc. The question is, how do we KNOW what the true teaching of Christ is? I will throw my lot in with the magisterium of the Church and 2,000 years of tradition rather than some website called womenpriests (www.womenpriests.org where the article derives most of its arguments). Does the Holy Spirit guide the individual Christian and the collective body of Christ?--Sure (the sensus fidei)... but the Holy Sprit does not pit the Magisterium against the laity. If you think that ALL of the lay faithful are against the Church on these teachings, that is a presumption. Most (practicing and educated) younger Catholics I know support the Church in its teachings.

You then wrote: "But telling people that they will go to hell if they don't follow certain rules and regulations is inviting a catatrophe, especially when bishops have been covering up for pedophile priests. Indeed, Humanae vitae was catastrophic."

I am actually in the process of reading Humane Vitae now... and I have yet to come across the "authoritarian style" that seems so repugnant to some. In addition, I have not yet seen a reference to people going to hell (that is, in the document itself, I don't care what some Jesuit said in a private conversation as reported in that lame article). At any rate, of course the document was authoritarian in some sense... it was written with authority (the authority of the magisterium). The question is, does it assert the truth in a pastoral way. I will reflect on that as I continue to read Humanae Vitae. The only catastrophe was that HV was not taught well to people in the pews (the fault of both priests and bishops AND a lay faithful that did not seem overwhelmingly open to the teaching of HV--so blinded by the culture).

Where did the pedophile priest issue come in? Just because some priests were disobedient to the Church, and some bishops falied terribly in their duties as shepherds that does not mean that the truth taught INFALLIBLY by the magisterium (ordinary and universal) is not true. Truth is truth regardless of moral failings of some bishops. If a bishop affirms the doctrine of the Incarnation, conforming to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, then I accept the Incarnation as true. I don't base my assent to that teaching on how good of an administrator the bishop is. The pedophile priest scandal (really homosexual priest scandal) has become a strange prop wielded by those who want an excuse to dissent from the guidance of the Church (re: the issues of women's ordination and married priests--both of which have no relation to the scandal).

Bottom line: if you want to be Catholic, then truly be Catholic. It makes absolutely no sense to be "Catholic" and to reject the Church's teaching authority. That is what is outrageous. I regret to say this, but if one desires post-modern trends such as women's ordination, homosexual unions, contraception, and the rejection of 2,000 years of Tradition one should possibly consider the Episcopal Church?
Respectfully in Christ,
Chris

The next exchange follows in the next post (above) (#3)