July 17, 2012      Martin Mallon   (Ireland)       Martin's previous articles

                    INCONSISTENT  METHODOLOGY

Pope Benedict XVI stated in his Christmas 2005 Address to the Roman Curia that the documents of the Second Vatican Council should be interpreted using the hermeneutic of continuity (interpreted in keeping with previous Church teaching) as opposed to the hermeneutic of discontinuity (interpreted in rupture with previous Church teaching).   

Surprisingly, in view of his subsequent espousal of the hermeneutic of continuity, Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the CDF, supported the changing of Canon Law by the introduction of the term “definitive” for certain teachings as promulgated by John Paul II, in 1998, in his Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem.  

Ladislas Orsy, S.J. has pointed out, in his book Receiving the Council, Liturgical Press, Minnesota , 2009, chapters 8-9, that the idea of a “definitive” teaching was produced out of the blue and is not part of Church tradition. It breaches the hermeneutic of continuity so favoured by Pope Benedict XVI. This was confirmed when Cardinal Ratzinger entered into written public debate in the monthly religious journal, Stimmen der Zeit, with Father Orsy in 1999. The Cardinal would not have debated an existing teaching. Fr Orsy is a professor of law at Georgetown University and teaches Roman Law, History of Philosophy of Law and Canon Law.  

This new teaching came across as an attempt to introduce infallible statements without the Pope having to speak ex cathedra. It would appear that although it was John Paul II who introduced the term in his 1998 Motu Proprio that it was strongly supported by Joseph Ratzinger  

One of the reasons for the new idea would seem to have been to enable John Paul II’s “definitive” statement in his Apostolic Letter on the ordination of women priests, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in 1994, that women could not be ordained as priests, be confirmed, retrospectively, as infallible. Many theologians argued that it was not infallible as it was not an ex cathedra statement.  

The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger produced a statement from the CDF insisting that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’s teaching was infallible, in 1995, even though it was not ex cathedra, appears to confirm this theory.  

A result of extending papal infallibility is to give the Pope/Curia/Rome more power and control over the Church by centralising power. This contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on collegiality and subsidiarity and, therefore, breaches and undermines Vatican II.  

Another purpose in introducing the new theological idea of “definitive” teaching was to give Cardinal Ratzinger/ John Paul II a back door means of infallibly stating that women could not be ordained as priests. Possibly John Paul II was not prepared to or was advised that he could not, on theological grounds, prohibit the ordination of women priests ex cathedra. This seems likely based on the absence of any theological basis for this prohibition being included in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the fact that he did not make an ex cathedra statement. The intention was that the Motu Proprio would, retrospectively, make Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’s teaching infallible.

 The Commentary on the Motu Proprio was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone and appears to be only their opinion. The first disputed teaching mentioned in the Commentary is that of the Church having no authority to ordain women as priests.  

Pope Benedict XVI appears intent on reversing or going against the teachings of Vatican II, which emphasised the importance of the sacrament of baptism and, therefore, the role of the laity in the church and subsidiarity.

 It would appear that Pope Benedict will continue to use the hermeneutic of continuity to interpret the teachings of Vatican II while using “definitive” teachings to halt debate on disputed points of theology, such as ordaining women priests. The fact that the idea of “definitive” teachings is in conflict with the hermeneutic of continuity is not a problem, apparently.  

We are left in the inconsistent situation where the hermeneutic of discontinuity may not be used to interpret the teachings of Vatican II, but may be used to endorse “definitive” teachings.  

Christmas 2005 Address to the Roman Curia 

Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem  

Text of Commentary     

CDF response re teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis