Could a Pope have decided women should be ordained?

Well, demographically speaking, the Asian, African, and to a lesser extent Latin American Catholics have far higher birthrates than North American and Europeans. That doesn't even factor the record low attendance and rise of irreligiousness in which many nominal Catholics have abandoned the faith.

Perhaps their attitudes will change, but that's conjecture and requires more data than I have on hand.

I don't disagree.

Either way, the episcopal establishment in the Roman Catholic Church isn't going to budge on this issue for the foreseeable future. Women's ordination, if it happens at all, and I'm skeptical, is 30+ years away at the absolute earliest.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
what about women ordination as a deacon, not as priest ? They have precedent in the bible, could it be accepted earlier ?

I always thought, Catholic Church with a lot more married men and women as deacon would be easier to endure "priest shortage", the priest could have mass with eucharist in one church, then the Bread delivered to many church where deacon lead mass without sacrament.
 

It's important to realize that what John Paul II was doing when, in 1994, he declared that the Church did not have the authority to ordain women in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacderdotalis (excerpted by you above), he was confirming what had always been understood (since women had never been ordained priest at any previous time in Church history) - mainly in the face of growing calls by some theologians and activists for the Church ordain women.

The following year, there was further clarification. A bishop had written to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then-Prefect Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. How are we to understand this definition, he asked? Is this infallible? A lot of back-and-forth followed between the CDF and the Pope, and a new statement was issued, clarifying the authority of what had been said:

Dubium: 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: 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.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

So, in short, the Church does consider this to be an infallible teaching.

If a new Pope were to infallibly define that women *could* be ordained, the Catholic Church would be in the hands of a conundrum: It would now be directly contradicting an existing teaching on a subject. It would be far beyond a "development" of an existing teaching.

There was a previous statement issued by the CDF on the question in 1976, which was more in the way of an explanation than a formal pronouncement, under Pope Paul VI, John Paul II's more liberal predecessor. It's called Inter Insigniores, and you can read it here.
 
If the next pope does it at his first public audience, the laity will be mostly enthusiastic but the bishops will freak out. You would absolutely see a schism, with the emeritus pope leading the way. It's why reform is so unlikely, the bishops have mostly closed ranks on this and many of the other areas where they are deeply out of step with lay opinion.

It's not just the bishops, though - or even most of the clergy.

There *are* polls, such as the New York Times poll this week, that suggest that even a majority of weekly Mass-going Catholics in the U.S. favor ordination of women. I question the accuracy of that poll, given some problems in its sampling methodology, and also because these polls are always plagued by people over-representing to pollsters how often they actually attend Mass; but there's no doubt that a sizable number of American Catholics favor ordaining women, and that the same is true of Canada and Western Europe.

But there are plenty of laity in the West that would oppose it, and a big supermajority of the same in most of the developing world, or would otherwise be troubled by the prospect, which I alluded to in my last post, that the Church could contradict itself clearly and blatantly on an infallible teaching. It's not just the growing ranks of traditionalist Catholics (now much larger than the canonically irregular Society of St. Pius X), but plenty of conservative Catholics besides, including the members of the new Anglican Ordinariates, many of whom came over to Rome in the last few years in part (not solely, but in part) because of the Anglican Communion provinces growing move to ordain women and priests and even bishops. They would have some serious whiplash.

It would be like the Church suddenly declaring that, no, the Blessed Virgin Mary was *not* immaculately conceived; we misunderstood it before. Some would question whether the Pope in question was actually validly elected; and the result would almost certainly be a massive schism. And given the numbers in question, one that could see the election of a rival or anti-Pope with an actual majority of global lay Catholics, not just bishops, following him.

It would also kill, stone cold dead, any chance of reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, who oppose women's ordination overwhelmingly.

It's really impossible to answer this question without first establishing whether you believe the Catholic Church is what she says she is - the Mystical Body of Christ, established by Christ, unable to err or contradict herself on questions of faith or morals, or simply a human institution, at best a group of people trying to live out the commands of God incarnate with missteps and stumbles along the way (the Protestant view) or at worst a mass of humanity deluded by a madman or a charlatan (or a group of them). If it's the former, this question is really an impossibility; you can cavil about doctrinal developments on usury or slavery all you like, but this change would be a clear reversal, a contradiction that could not be explained or glossed. If it's the latter, there are the practical obstacles that I have just alluded to: the result would be a massive schism in the Church, in which an outright majority around the world would almost certainly defect, and a massive battle over legitimacy, property and the like would ensue that would make current schisms in the Anglican Communion look like a day at the beach.

Before the last generation or two such a declaration would have been an impossibility, since no one Catholic prelate would ever have seriously contemplated the possibility; since then, it is at the very least the fear of such a schism that helps ensure that it's not happening now. Could it happen in the future, at some point when even most Africans become "progressive" on questions like this? If you hold to the materialist view of the Church, sure, it's possible. But even then, you'd surely face a major schism. The Catholic Church is, inherently, a conservative institution, and it will always have a major element of traditionalists within it.
 
PhilippeO:

what about women ordination as a deacon, not as priest ? They have precedent in the bible, could it be accepted earlier ?

There's always been doubt about just what diakonos means in the context of the New Testament passages that allude to it (Romans 16:1 and 1 Timothy 5:3-10). In the case of Phoebe, it may simply mean, as the Vulgate renders it, that she was "in the ministry [i.e. service] of the Church", without implying any official status.

The view that these were simply that - women tasked with helping of the poor or elderly women, especially during baptism (which was often full immersion, and so risked scandal or near occasions of sin if men were present), in a non-ordained state - is most ably set forth in Aime Georges Martimort's Deaconesses. That's essentially been the official view of the Catholci Church (and the Orthodox) all along. There are some scholars, particularly progressive ones, who think they were, in fact, an ordained ministry, and therefore that the Church could ordain women as deaconesses now with good precedent. I find Martimort persuasive on this point, but those arguments are out there.

I always thought, Catholic Church with a lot more married men and women as deacon would be easier to endure "priest shortage", the priest could have mass with eucharist in one church, then the Bread delivered to many church where deacon lead mass without sacrament.

Well, married priests and women priests are two different questions - the Catholic Church *has* thousands of married priests already, either in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (Melkites, Ukrainians, Maronites, etc.) or among those formerly Protestant ministers (usually Anglican or Lutheran) who converted and were ordained as Catholic priests under the 1980 Pastoral Provision or under the new Anglican Ordinariates. There is also the newly restored permanent diaconate (1970), which is open to both celibate and married men - most deacons are married. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, albeit a discipline of longstanding normativity. Women's ordination is considered a dogmatic impossibility.

Would relaxing the celibacy discipline help address the priest shortages? Possibly. But there are no guarantees. The Episcopal Church has been ordaining women since the 1970's and married men since, well, the beginning, and has a vocations shortage sufficiently severe that it has had to close three seminaries in the last several years (A big hit, considering their size). So there's no guarantee, just a likelihood.

I think any Protestant minister or Orthodox priest would tell you that married ministry creates new practical problems just as it helps solve others (like vocations shortages). The married priest has to take care of his family, not just his parish, and both are beyond full-time jobs. Being married and a priest or minister is very hard on a marriage. The problem of divorced or adulterous (or even sexually abusive) married priest has to be confronted. Priests with families also cost much more to support than celibate ones.

If anything is likely to happen, you might see a slight relaxation: A limited dispensation to some dioceses to accept and ordain a limited number of viri probati - older, married, proven, mature laymen. Their children would be adults or nearly so, so support issues would not be so severe. If their wives died, they could not remarry. They could never be appointed as bishops. These are all restrictions that Eastern Rite (Catholic or Orthodox) priesthoods have always operated under, and they would surely hold true here, too.

But most leaders in the Catholic Church is reluctant, I think, to take such a move now, out of fear that it would stoke demands for expanding ordained ministry further. Bad timing, in short.
 
Last edited:
The Roman catholic church has numerous Uniate churches, local churches that united with rome.

The most prominent of which are the Byzantine rite churches, e.g. Greek Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic. These guys all use Byzantine rite liturgy, with a few modifications. When they negotiated union with rome, they got to keep their liturgy and some of their traditions, like married priests.

Later, the US Latin rite church kicked up such a fuss about married "Catholic" priests, that the uniate priests in the us lost the privilege.

I grew up in Saskatchewan, where probably 100k people are Ukrainian Catholic, and about the same Ukrainian Orthodox.

When i was quite young people still referred to "Ukrainian Greek Catholic".

There are other uniate groups. I think there are 2 or more in Lebanon. I think Flocc may have said theres one in south India from his Mar Tomas tradition.

One point: "Uniate" is considered pejorative by these Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. It was a disparaging term coined by some Orthodox churches, and has caused real frictions in ecumenical talks with Rome.

There are, in fact, 22 autonomous particular churches, all Eastern Rite in full communion with Rome, each with its own liturgical rite, canon law, and practices, most of which do include a priesthood open to married men:

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church Patriarchate
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Eparchy of Krizevci
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Byzantine Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Maronite Catholic Church
Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
Romanian Greek-Catholic Church
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church
Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

But these are distinct from Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, who are not in communion with Rome.

As for the married priests: there was a controversy back in the early 20th century, when some Roman Rite priests (mostly Irish) complained that married Eastern Rite (Slavic, usually) priests scandalized their faithful, and Rome finally responded in 1929 by forbidding these churches in the U.S. from ordaining married men, which resulted in some significant defections to the Eastern Orthodox. But the Vatican II Council (1962-1965) reaffirmed the Eastern tradition of married clergy, and moves began in the 1970's allowing Eastern Rite jurisdictions in the U.S. to start accepting married men for the priesthood and diaconate. Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests may now come from the ranks of married men.
 
Anglican priests who cross the Tiber may keep their wives (though obviously female priests can't convert and keep their priesthood, and gay priests mayn't keep their husbands). The Mar Thomas are in communion with Canterbury, at least the ones that live near me in Washington DC are, so I doubt that they are in communion with Rome.

Those are the Mar Thoma Malankara Orthodox who are essentially a halfway house between the Syrian Orthodox and the Anglicans. The Syrian Catholics are a related denomination who are in communion with Rome. The difference is that the Orthodox rebelled against the Portuguese Inquisition while the Syrian Orthodox reached an accomodation with the inquisitors
 
Anglican priests who cross the Tiber may keep their wives (though obviously female priests can't convert and keep their priesthood, and gay priests mayn't keep their husbands). The Mar Thomas are in communion with Canterbury, at least the ones that live near me in Washington DC are, so I doubt that they are in communion with Rome.

Those are the Mar Thoma Malankara Orthodox who are essentially a halfway house between the Syrian Orthodox and the Anglicans. The Syrian Catholics are a related denomination who are in communion with Rome. The difference is that the Orthodox rebelled against the Portuguese Inquisition while the Syrian Orthodox reached an accomodation with the inquisitors
 
Those are the Mar Thoma Malankara Orthodox who are essentially a halfway house between the Syrian Orthodox and the Anglicans. The Syrian Catholics are a related denomination who are in communion with Rome. The difference is that the Orthodox rebelled against the Portuguese Inquisition while the Syrian Orthodox reached an accomodation with the inquisitors

Thank you for the explanation. The history of Oriental Orthodoxy is one of those fascinating things that I wish I had more time to properly study.
 
Regarding married Roman Catholic Priests:

An old family friend of ours was a married Roman Catholic Priest, and one of the first three Episcopal priests to cross over to the Roman Catholic church. (He may have been the second. I don't recall thee exact timing.) I grew up with his kids. We went to his ordination, with our Episcopal Parish priest in the pew with us. For a while there, our little church produced several luminaries in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches. :D IIRC, Father Munn had gone as far up the "corporate" ladder as possible, since married Roman Catholic priests are forbidden from becoming Bishops.

I have to agree that an expansion of married Roman Catholic priests is more likely that woman in the "near" future.

Torqumada
 
I stand corrected.
However, it's not like the Church never contradicted previously established teaching, though it usually happened gradually through a work of revision and interpretation that seems to be complicated in this case.
As others said above, the lines of dogma have become somewhat blurred in later decades, and the room for ex-cathedra infallibility application is not always clear.
I doubt that a Pope can just say, "sorry, we were wrong, free for all now". But he could say "the matter requires further scrutiny" and then manage to officially downgrade the issue. The problem seem to be that male-only ordination is currently regarded by the Vatican as article of faith, not changeable as such.
But this position is very questionable and can be slowly revised.

It's going to be a convoluted and long process I guess.
 
Do you mean Greek Catholic priests? Because IIRC the Greek Catholic Church =/= Roman Catholic Church.

No, he is referring to the Eastern Catholic Church in western Ukraine.

From about 1400 to about 1800 this area was ruled by the Catholic Kingdom of Poland. The local population were Eastern Orthodox Christians.

During the period of Polish rule, part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church agreed to unification with the Roman Catholic Church. The Ukrainians accepted the ecclesiatical headship of Rome, but were allowed to retain their own liturgy and other distinctive practices, including marriage of priests.
 
Top