Women Bishops. Here we go again. (1)

Date: 
Monday, May 7, 2018 - 00:00
Article link: 
Victor said...

It saddens me (although I find it very understandable) to see Cardinal von Schönborn being vilified not only here but all over the "blogosphere". During my time as a university student in Vienna in the early 2000s, I came to enjoy his monthly catecheses in the Stephansdom which, to my rather limited knowledge, were of sound doctrine. One must also not forget that it was he who drafted the Catechism of the Catholic Church which, as I understand, is a cornerstone of the whole Ordinariate endeavour.
That being said, I see His Eminence as a Hamletian personality - he wants to be an orthodox catholic bishop but, above everything else, he wants to be loved (an illness that has befallen many bishops of our church - even, as it seems, that of Rome). Now as long as the Pope's name was John Paul or Benedict, he was torn apart. But now he does not have to choose any more between the love of the Pope and the people/media - a win/win situation for everyone except the church (and his conscience). However I am convinced that, much like Darth Vader from the Star Wars franchise, "there is still goodness in him". Pray for him and all the bishops that have forgotten that leadership very rarely means being loved by those you lead...

Fr PJM said...

Did there not used to be an excommunication for the crime of appealing from the pope to an ecumenical council? How could Baron von Graf not know this?

 

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Cardinals claiming there can be women Priests, Prelates, and Popes must put their lofty status where their mouth is.

He should resign and announce that Ms. so-and-so is his replacement.

Jonathan Dandridge said...

Perhaps using the logic of Fr. James Martin they can state that Ordinatio sacerdotalis was never "received" by those desiring Women's Ordination which thereby trumps any Doctrinal considerations.

As someone who reverted to the Catholic Church after 20 years as an Episcopalian I also have no desire to plow that furrow again.

Arthur Gallagher said...

The Pope can do anything that a council can do- under the usual conditions. Certainly, he can- and has- stated that no woman can ever be a priest. Roma locuta est.

In cases such as these- Causa finita est!

Felsenwatcher said...

Fr. Hunwicke, you say "In fact, as pope Benedict also pointed out, there is another way in which the matter of women's ordination could be even more definitively resolved: by means of an ex cathedra pronouncement of a Roman Pontiff; it rather sounded as if he was looking forward to such a further clarification."

I'm neither a canon lawyer nor a theologian. I'm simply a relatively well formed (and informed) Catholic layman. It seems to me that the only way Pope John Paul's Ordinatio sacerdotalis could have been more clearly ex cathedra would have been for him to say "Oh, and just to be clear, I'm speaking ex cathedra." (Of course, the naysayers would then have said "but an ex cathedra statement can't say it is ex cathedra, therefore it doesn't have the form of an ex cathedra statement, and therefore isn't!")

My understanding (and I could easily be wrong here) is that a pope speaks ex cathedra when, "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held."

Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

I understand that he must be intending to speak infallibly and must frame his words in such a way as to make it clear that his is doing so.

In Ordinatio sacerdotalis, JPII says:

"4. 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."

This seems to me in every way to be as definitively defined as Pius IX's and Pius XII's statements on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, respectively.

This is a sincere question to which I would truly like to know the answer: Are there other elements that must be present for a papal statement to be considered ex cathedra, and if not, which element was missing in Ordinatio sacerdotalis? What am I missing?

Because to this layman, it all sure seems to be there.

Howard said...

@Victor -- Please go back and read Ezekiel 18 and Matthew 7:21. Having edited the Catechism does not make the cardinal impeccable.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

Dear Mr Felsenwatcher

I am not a canonist either. But Cardinal Ratzinger was writing officially as Prefect of the CDF; he explained the different levels of Magisterial statement and gave the Ordination of Women explicitly as an example of when something which has been been part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is lifted to the next stage: an infallible statement by a Council or Pope. Which makes a thing irreformable ... and to be held definitively de Fide.

I hate to sound sarcastic ... but I am inclined to think that he, writing officially as Prefect of the CDF, in collaboration with S JP2, is more likely to have got these important technicalities right than ... I am.

Cardinal R had previously made clear that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an authoritative statement of what the Ordinary Universal Magisterium already contains.

Again, this is clear enough for me. And the experts say that for something to be ex cathedra, this must be made clear by the Pope when he defines it. Since Cardinal R didn't think OS was ex cathedra, it can't be obvious that it was.

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

If there is any goodness in Cardinal Schönborn then he hides it very well because I have not been able to ascertain any evidence of it. Perhaps, in that case, the Darth Vader analogy is very apt.

The same Victor who made the analogy makes the point that Schönborn  "drafted the Catechism of the Catholic Church" as proof of the man's orthodoxy. My understanding is that he was actually the chief author of it, and not simply the head drafter. In any case, his involvement with the Novus Catechism of the Catholic Church is much more likely to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the Catechism than affirm his own orthodoxy.

When we are dealing with 2 potential but contradictory unknowns, trying to ascertain which one is more grounded in reality can be helpful in tipping the balance. There has been criticism issued against the new Catechism, and not on entirely false grounds, I would argue, since it is far less clear on many issues than the old Catechism of the Council of Trent. There has also been doubt cast upon Schönborns orthodoxy.

There can be very little doubt that Schönborn is extremely partial to heresy, so unless one is an expert scholar and can refute point-by-point the criticisms made against the new catechism, we must therefore conclude that the more sure thing (Schönborns heresy) trumps the less sure thing (the catechism's orthodoxy) and we therefore have more reason to have misgiving about the formulations, and perhaps even the content, of the new catechism.

That in any case, is as good a guide as any in trying to weed out confusion.