'No' to women priests is definitive, Vatican consultor says
Print Friendly VersionNOTE: The issue of womenâs ordination is again generating headlines, in part due to a recent decision of the Anglican synod in England to open the door to female bishops, in part due to a disciplinary action in St. Louis against a religious sister who attended a womenâs ordination ceremony. The July 11 issue of LâAvvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishopsâ conference, featured an interview on the issue with Monsignor Antonio Miralles, a consultor to the Vaticanâs doctrinal office. The interview was conducted by Italian journalist Gianni Cardinale. The full text appears below in an NCR translation.
By GIANNI CARDINALE
Rome
The decision of the Anglican Synod of England to open the door to the nomination of female bishops has generated ample media coverage. On the subject of why the Catholic church admits only men to the priesthood, Avvenire put certain questions to Monsignor Antonio Miralles, of the clergy of Opus Dei, and an ordinary professor of sacramental theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. A Spaniard from Salamanca who has spent 47 years in Rome, Miralles is a consultor of the Congregation for the Clergy and, since 1990, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Monsignor Miralles, why does the Catholic church not admit women to the priesthood?
In 1975, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, Donald Coggan, informed Pope Paul VI that the Anglicans were on the verge of admitting women to the priesthood, which they later did. Pope Montini wrote him a letter to explain that the Catholic church does not feel authorized to do the same, because it is constrained by the choice made by Jesus, the Lord, to choose only men as his apostles. In that context, the pope asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to prepare a document that provided the reasons for this position, which was how the declaration Inter insigniores, published in 1976, was born. In it, the argument given by Paul VI is explained more fully. In May 1994, this position was confirmed in a definitive way with the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio sacredotalis.
But some object that the choice of Jesus may have been determined by the historical context, the mentality of the epoch.
Itâs an objection that does not have any foundation. Jesus demonstrated that he felt free from the conditioning of the society in which he was born. He demonstrated this freedom, to take just one example, when he opposed the custom of Jewish society of his day, as well as of Greco-Roman society, permitting men to repudiate their wives ⊠in other words, divorce. Certainly, women were among the most faithful followers of Jesus, beginning with his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary â at the foot of the Cross there were several women, but only one disciple! Nevertheless, Jesus deliberately and freely chose only men as his apostles. This choice cannot be anything but binding for the community that wants to be his church.
Why did Jesus make this choice?
Theologians try to answer this question, which is their duty. But all the explanations that can be given in response to this question always remain secondary with respect to the choice itself made by Jesus, which the church must follow. The church canât change that choice to suit its own tastes, or on the basis of the desires of sectors of public opinion, however large they may be.
Isnât the exclusion of women from the priesthood an offense against their dignity?
The dignity of women in the church certainly does not depend upon access to the priesthood. The history of the church, from the Blessed Virgin Mary to so many saints and beatified women, makes the point.
Why did the magisterium wait until 1975 to solemnly proclaim that women cannot be admitted to the priesthood?
Simply because prior to that moment, the fact that the priesthood is reserved to men was an uninterrupted praxis that had not been placed into discussion for almost 2,000 years, not even when the church began to expand in cultural and religious contexts where there were already forms of female âpriesthoodâ (Iâm thinking, for example, about the Greco-Roman world), and not even in the face of vocational scarcity or a shortage of clergy. The magisterium normally does not intervene to resolve a dispute when a given truth is peacefully accepted and not under discussion.
Is it possible that in the future the Catholic magisterium, having reflected more on the question, could arrive at a different conclusion and thereby open the door to womenâs ordination?
This possibility is excluded. Thatâs because the all-male priesthood is a truth considered part of the inviolable deposit of faith â in other words, it belongs to Tradition with a capital âTâ. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith underscored the point in a formal way with its document âResponse to a doubt concerning the doctrine of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalisâ published in October 1995, with the approval and at the request of Pope John Paul II. Some Catholic authors have insinuated that the ânoâ to womenâs ordination should be considered provisional and open to future reconsideration, but in fact thatâs not how things are.
Monsignor Miralles, will the decision of the Anglican Synod to admit women to the episcopacy further distance it from the Catholic church??
Relatively. The dramatic rupture occurred with the Anglican decision to admit women to the priesthood. The choice to admit them also to the episcopacy is, in itself, a secondary consequence, which cannot help but worsen a situation that has already deteriorated.
A final âsecondaryâ question. Whatâs the status quaestionis on the issue of the ordination of women to the diaconate?
On this issue, there has not yet been a pronouncement from the magisterium as there has been on women priests. The current norms, however, and ecclesiastical practice restrict the diaconate to men. Itâs true that in the early centuries of Christianity there were references to âdeaconesses,â but it would seem that they were not simply a female equivalent of male âdeacons.â For now, the permanent diaconate is restricted to men, but the question is still under study.
Mary was ordained a priest
Mary was ordained a priest long before the apostles (and whoever else was there). She spoke the words of consecration of acceptance of her motherhood of Jesus and Jesus lived, for the Father, for her and for us. For the Church to put Mary on a pedestal, remove her from the reality of priesthood is even more unfathomable than their exclusion of every other mother of Jesus. Never in the history of mankind has such a dispicable interpretation been perpertrated and maintianed. We are sheep.
News? No. Definitive?
News? No. Definitive? ROFL
Englishwoman
"4. Although the teaching
"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." ~Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I always thought it was
I always thought it was interesting that JPII used the self reflective I, and not the formal 'we', in this statement.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
I wish the monitors could
I wish the monitors could find a better definition for a "1" rating. "Just fair" seems to imply that "fairness" has something to do with it.
Someday they will apologize
Someday they will apologize for this--just like with Galileo.
I am bringing up some points
I am bringing up some points that I brought up a few months ago:
1) If only the Apostles were at the Last Supper, and all the Apostles
were men, and only men were entrusted with being able to "confect"
the Eucharist, how is it that women may receive Holy Communion?
2) Was the Last Supper a Passover meal or not? If it was not a
Passover Meal, then perhaps only the Apostles were there. But
if it was a Passover, then, women and children were also present.
3) The Apostles did not prepare the Upper Room for the Meal, nor did
they prepare the many dishes for the Meal. Who did?
4) If the Women were not present at the Last Supper, how did they
know where the Apostles would be at after the Resurrection (Magdalene
knew exactly where to find the Apostles--how did she know that?)
5) Of the two disciples going to Emmaus, one was identified as Cleopas. But
in other passages, Cleopas' wife, Mary, was one of the women in Jesus'
company. Mary was more likely than not, a disciple as well, and
trained as a disciple by Jesus.
6) How is it that Women would not be present at the Last Supper, but permitted
to be present when the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost?
Finally, what is often taught at Scriptural Institutes: The Bible is a book written by men, for men, diminishing the role of women.
I contend also, that the WRITERS of the Gospel, were not present at the Last Supper and had no idea as to who was really there.






Sorry, doesn't wash. The
Sorry, doesn't wash. The pope's own biblical commission said there was nothing in scripture to stop the church from ordaining women. So how can the hierarchy give an answer based on the gospel accounts-Scripture--as a 'definitive' no?