The papal envoy sent to move the U.S. church

Why would one even need to ask?

BRAVO and AMEN!!!

Thank you, Fr. McBrien, for your recollection of Archbishop Jadot, of whom the outgoing Prince Bishop of New York spoke so disparagingly. It is to the everlasting shame of the inner circle of the Polish Pope's Curia (including the present Pope) that Jadot was never named to the College of Cardinals. Thank you, too, for mentioning Frank Murphy, the late, great Auxiliary of Baltimore, of blessed and revered memory. And to respond to the question with which you end this column, as my students would say, "Yeah, right!"

Fr. O'Brien's comments are always refreshingly honest and provde much food for thought.

I would like to comment on his closing statement : "One might ask if that is still the case today."
I would like to believe that Pope Paul VI's intentions were to further the
work of Vatican II, but I have some suspicion that he was greatly influenced by the opponents of Vatican II (most of those in the Curia), especially when he so strongly affirmed the Church's rigid position on birth control in his 1968 encyclical, "Humanae Vitae". I happened to be staying at the Jesuit House in Tubingen, Germany at the time and witnessed the dismay and anger of members of the Society.

I often wonder about the sudden and mysterious death of Pope John Paul I and what the Holy Spirit may have had in mind during a pontificate that never got started.

There is no doubt in my mind that Pope John Paul IInd and the current Pope
have led the effort to undermine the theological and pastoral advances under
Pope John XXIII and Vatican II which had at its disposal some of the most
gifted advisors the Catholic Church has ever assembled.

Our prayers shold be that the Holy Spirit will guide the next conclave to
find (even if it be outside the Cardinal ranks) a person who has the courage,
charisma, and informed concience to call for a Vatican III to complete the
interrupted work of Pope John XXIII.

"This usually meant that they were totally closed to the idea of women priests, married clergy, and a critical second look at the Church's official teaching on birth control. All other priests were excluded from consideration."
- That's because aside from the 'married clergy' question, which is one of discipline not part of the deposit of Faith, the other questions have been settled through infallible teaching. Holy Mother Church HERSEFL is closed to these changes. They aren't going to change Fr. McBrien. Get over it.

How refreshing to read content that reflects my personal views of the current state of the Catholic Church that I was raised to love, honor and depend on. Everywhere I turn, both locally, nationaly and internationaly, there is another new rule imposed which seems to have less to do with the everylasting love of God for his creatures and the tangible evidence of that love in human form with the gift of Hs Son, Jesus Christ, but much more to do with CONTROL. No women in positions of authority (and even service), a dismissive attitude toward the loyal female religious who continue to serve in spite of the near contempt with which they are often treated by clergy, no room for married priests, no contraception even in the most poverty-stricken areas where there is already a scarity of resources, a return to the Latin Mass which, for all its drama and mystique, is no more comprehensible now than it was then (it even now sounds pretentious to me to hear a priest intoning the prayer over the bread and wine in Latin rather than English at conscencration) and on and on!
In lieu of emphasis on these very real issues, we have bishops and priests denying Eucharist to politicans based on their role as lawmakers, an absolutely inane emphasis on such inconsequential issues whether in a diocese, congregations sit, kneel or stand at designated times in that particular diocese, and the horrifying spectacle of "shoot-from-the-hip" public statements much ballyhoed in the secular press made by bishops who carry their ultra conservative views to extreme degrees further alienating Catholics and non-Catholics, alike.
Vactican 11 was, for many of us, a welcome and inclusive move by the Church to bring people closer to the love of God, the reality of Christ still among us in the suffering that surrounds us and a realization of our duty and ability to ease that suffering, and the wonderful encouragement to actually think/reason/discuss, to pray for discernment in order to make moral decisions and to engage with Scripture, long under-stressed, which then became common reading.
I live in a diocese which long ignored the most bullying, irresponsible behavior by a few priests who had been poorly educated and formed in seminary and delivered weekly homilies which were more personal attacks rather than vehicles for education in the ways of Christ.
Those members of the hierarchy such as Archbishops Francis Healey and Raymond
Hunthausen and Bishop Michael Kenny were too often silenced or at least kept under wraps, as if their messages of love and peace, both spoken and practised, were in some way a threat to the Church. Kudos and sincere thanks to Fr. McBrien for bringing these issues openly to light and affirming what many of us believe.

I remember Archbishop Jadot very well. He was a kind, pastoral cleric. He was not on the fast track. It is perhaps a shame that he never became a Cardinal, but the fact that he did not is testament to his style and his work.
We have had enough Noble Romans ruling our dioceses rather than true overseers who are pastoral in nature and spirit. We all accept what we are given in our time and pray for better in the future. Fr. McBrien has never been afraid to address issues. So many issues within the Church are man-made issues involving control and autocracy. I suppose some clergy in the Church missed lectures in the seminary about humility. Thank you Fr. McBrien for telling us about the good Archbishop Jadot.

Thank you Fr. McBrien for this refreshing look-back at the influence Archbishop Jadot has/had on the US Catholic Church. It was an exhilarating time through the late '60s to the mid-70s when one felt the winds of the Spirit blowing through the church and the rest of society (who says the church does not lead--at times?) One of my professors during my graduate theological studies emphasided the fact that the church does change; albeit sometimes slowly. He told us that some of the major concerns today i.e.married clergy, women clergy 100-200 years from now would be a reality, not simply a history lesson. My great, great grandchildren will definitely see a better, loving, compassionate church. Your final question summed it up beautifully. Keep on keeping on!

That list of bishops reads like a Who's Who of wreckovators and dissenters. Bishop Clark of Rochester? Bishop Untener (God rest his soul and have mercy) of Saginaw? Yes, one only need to examine the fruit of their dioceses - practically no priestly vocations and liturgical abuses run amuck. Fortunately, Saginaw is now served by Bishop Carlson, and their vocations have been rising dramatically every year. Only a few years left for Clark, and perhaps a strong, orthodox bishop will replace him.

Perhaps instead of praising and canonizing the life of Archbishop Jadot, McBrien ought to be praying for his soul should it be in purgatory...oh wait, does he even believe in purgatory?

At last, a semblance of a position on the current state of affairs. Working at Notre Dame, you should know when it's time to get off the bench and into the game, Fr. McBrien.
Craig B. McKee ND Liturgy '80

Nice little game here Fr. B. You are not telling the entire truth about these pastoral men, who abused or permitted the abuse of children to go on. These guys are some of the most infamous along with the current cardinal in LA. I sense a homosexual subculture going with these men.

Do people understand the concept of infallibility? It has only been used twice in history by a Pope and it did not include a statement about women priests. Catholics argue about things like they know what their talking about and get all in a twitter about non-factual issues and then repeat them as gospel. Geez!

I’m surprised you count Rembert Weakland as one of Jean Jadot’s good appointments. From what I’ve found on the internet, he was guilty of transferring priests with a history of sexual misconduct back into churches without alerting parishioners. When teachers wrote letters of concern about a pedophile priest, he threatened them with slander lawsuits and job termination. He also used a huge amount of diocesan money to cover a personal transgression.

Thank you Fr. McBrien for your knowledge and opinions, which echo my feelings and perspective. Women should have a larger role in the Church just as they do in civil government, science, medicine, law, and other professions. Because of pedophile scandals and the male-only attitude of the bishops for Church leadership, many of us simply ignore the bishops, and go on our way, generally loving our Catholic faith and working hard for it.

Was Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese appointed by Archbishop Jadot? He certainly fit the True Pastoral Model. He managed details of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Iowa. He also advanced the work of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, later frustrated by less pastoral leadership. I had the privilege of working very closely with him for a few short years, and with his very dear friend, Bishop L. David Brown, ELCA.

I met Jadot when i was a seminarian because he was comfortable coming to clergy meetings and gatherings of seminarians if invited. He showed up for three days in Hendersonville NC where we ran a diocesan summer camp at the time. The seminarians of the Charlotte diocese had convened for a week long orientation to this (then) missionary southern diocese and for three days he sat with us, ate with us, took walks around the place with us.

The simple fact that he saw that as part of his role garnered my deepest respect for him. I was saddened when he was no longer on the American scene. I know my own priesthood would have been envigorated all the more by his commitment to the pastoral ministry and the pastoral church.

Rest in peace, Jean.

Excuse me, please. Did I read this right? Rembert Weakland, who carried on a homosexual relationship and then spent $450,000 donated by parishioners for the work of the church in an unsuccessful attempt to hush it up, is being pointed to as an appointment Jean Jadot should be proud of and "unusually good?"

Lord, have mercy on me, but was Robert Sanchez omitted from the list because he got into women's pants, not men's?

I will grant you that that William Borders and Francis Murphy were appointments Jadot could take some pride in.

Perhaps the best thing we can do is ignore the provocations of the "Mike's in KC" It makes these pages unreadable

Mike in KC--you are my hero. Way to take the heat, brother. I am new to this page and do not know this McBrien author. Is he really a priest or is this a joke? He sounds like a member of the United Church of Christ, yet it is not April Fools yet.

As a young Catholic, I love John Paul the Great and his efforts to reform the Church. In college, I realized one night while talking with my protestant roommates (we were college baseball teammates) that I am proud to be part of a faith that champions objective truth and defines moral teaching clearly. From that day on, I have been excited to be Catholic. I don't understand my parents' generation that is embarrased to stand up for their faith and doesn't want any rules or defined truth. I didn't live in the 60s or 70s so I don't get it, and I kinda like being questioned about the faith because it makes me learn more and be prouder of it.

Tom H--you are right, our young generation is the "relief pitcher" that is coming in to save the game!

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the document issued by JPII stating that the church has no power to ordain women to the priesthood, does not convey infallible teaching (contrary to the assertions of one of my fellow bloggers here).

There are three modes of infallible teaching in the church:

1. Papal "ex cathedra" statement

2. Solemn definition issued by the college of bishops (including the bishop of Rome) at a general/ecumenical council of the church

3. Teaching defined/identified as definitive by the whole college of bishops (including the bishop of Rome) dispersed throughout the world.

In a clarification re: OS, then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that this document was not itself an infallible pronouncement. Instead, he claimed that it met the standard reflected in 3 above, i.e., that it was an exercise of the so-called "ordinary universal magisterium."

However, biblical scholars, theologians, and other knowledgeable persons have clearly demonstrated that OS does not meet the test of what constitutes the "ordinary universal magisterium." For one thing, the Pontifical Biblical Commission --- an advisory group comprised of experts far more versed in biblical scholarship than either JPII or Benedict --- concluded that sacred scripture could not be used in arguments for or against women's ordination. In addition, many observers have noted that it would be difficult if not impossible to demonstrate that every single bishop at every point in history throughout the world has taught that only men can be validly ordained to the priesthood. Indeed, it was not that long ago that two or three women, if I recall, were ordained to the priesthood in a Communist state by a duly consecrated bishop. This action was taken to preserve access to the divine liturgy for underground Catholics. Although there are folks who would state that such female ordinations were invalid, the crucial point here is that a bishop of the church determined it necessary and appropriate to ordain these women. More recently, the church has seen the rise of the RomanCatholicWomanpriests movement that received important support from one or more bishops who illegally ordained women to the priesthood. Again, the issue in this case is not one of validity/invalidity but, again, a clear demonstration that not all bishops agree with the proposition that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood.

Thus, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has not been shown to convey infallible or otherwise so-called "definitive" teaching. We should remember, too, that canon law --- specifically canon 749.3 --- squarely places the burden on the proponent of a purportedly infallible teaching to clearly demonstrate any claim to infallibility. Obviously, this legal standard has not been met. Clearly, most Catholics --- a growing sense of the faithful --- have no problem with women's ordination. We should keep in mind, too, that there were no "priests" in the primitive Catholic church. Indeed, every baptized person was a member of a "priestly people" who offered sacrifice directly to God through Jesus, the High Priest. The "presider," on the other hand, merely guided the service by maintaining order and calling forth the gifts of members of the congregation.

Canadian theologian Bernard Lonergan, I have read, asserted that Vatican II was all about the acknowledgement of history. We really must look back to the sources of our faith and church to appreciate what is most important in its belief and expression. Anything less cannot do justice to the mission of the institutional church.

The brouhaha over women's ordination, ( or in reality, the status of women in the Church and society), will one day be seen as ridiculous as the affair over Galileo and heliocentrism.
It's just part of an ongoing re-examination of what it means to be "human", ( and also what it means to be divine). This re-examination is not limited to Catholicism, or Christianity. It involves all the world's major religions.
The reactions of the "young", ( in age only), about all this is very interesting. I expect them to broaden their views as they encounter life and humanity in its diversity, ( Of course, they could just become more fossilized).
To view Hans Kung as "reactionary" is laughable. One only has to read one of his latest boks to obtain a far different view.

Contrary to the assertion made by "Mike in KC," it (non-ordination of women to the priesthood) is not part of the deposit of faith.

Furthermore, the statement in OS by the late pope (i.e., that the church has no authority to ordain women) has not been "received" by the vast majority of Catholics. This ancient understanding of reception is reflected, if I recall, in canon law --- canon 750, if I remember. The teaching about reception simply reflects the reality of the influence of the Holy Spirit among the People of God, lay and ordained alike.

To reiterate, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did not --- and, therefore, does not --- satisfy the requirements of mode 3 of infallible teaching, much less canon 749.3. And, of course, OS was not issued by a general/ecumenical council, nor did JPII issue it "ex cathedra" (a point then Cardinal Ratzinger was forced to admit in his clarification).

For a historical overview of the doctrine of reception in the Catholic Church, folks can go to:

http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm

This historical overview was prepared by James A. Coriden whose qualifications are mentioned at the bottom of the link's page.

In late 1995, Francis A. Sullivan, a leading theological authority on the magisterium, demonstrated how appeals to long-standing tradition of the past might not suffice as proof that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (THE TABLET, 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646). (One should note that synomyns for infallibility include irreversibility, definitiveness, and irreformability.)

According to Sullivan, "What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held."

Sullivan outlined three Vatican documents that suggest the different ways it can be established that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium:

1. Papal consultation with all the world's bishops, as suggested by JPII in his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995),

2. The universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, as suggested by Pius IX in his Tuas libenter (1863), and

3. Canon 750-1 of the Code of Canon Law (1983), which states that when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is "manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful."

"The CDF," wrote Sullivan, "has not invoked any of these criteria in support of its assertion that the doctrine excluding women from the priesthood has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium." We know, of course, that then Cardinal Ratzinger essentially asserted that JPII's assertion reflected the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. In other words, the head of the CDF basically put an assertion on top of an earlier assertion. Whatever "arguments" used by Ratzinger have been clearly refuted (and disputed) by biblical scholars, theologians, and others --- not to mention the widespread rejection of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by the faithful!

When specialists and others --- as in this case --- widely reject a papal assertion, such action is not heresy. Indeed, it is anything but! The rejection, the challenge puts the burden (rightly) on the proponent(s) of allegedly infallible teaching. The ecclesiological "sense of the faithful," acknowledged by the pope and fellow bishops at Vatican II, can be seen at work here.

Why did JPII and Ratzinger (the latter being fallible in judgment at the time) not rely on historically genuine criteria in their assertions that the non-ordination of women to the priesthood is God-given? Good question. And one that, as far as one knows, neither individual ever answered.

Not every papal teaching is per se infallible. Most such teaching is not. When the laity and specialists in various fields challenge the pope, they are exercising their duty to protect and safeguard the faith. It might also be said that they are protecting gullible persons from statements that cannot be demonstrated to pertain to our salvation, i.e., the deposit of faith.

A few concluding points need to be made:

a. "Mike in KC" gave pertinent quotes from JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Cardinal Ratzinger's Responsum ad Dubium as apparent proof that the late pope's teaching "is to be held as part of the deposit of Faith." I then noted in reply that even Ratzinger was forced to admit that JPII's conclusion --- that the church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood --- was not, in fact, an "ex cathedra" statement. However, I failed to identify the source of Ratzinger's admission. "Mike in KC," of course, never mentioned this source at all!

This source, at least alluded to by me, is Ratzinger's Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which the cardinal issued in conjunction with his Responsum ad Dubium. In it, the CDF head basically reiterated key points made in the earlier papal statement. Indeed, Ratzinger's letter is an explanatory extension of his Responsum ad Dubium.

b. What makes this letter by Ratzinger important is his acknowledgement that "the definitive and infallible nature of this [papal] teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." In other words, the CDF head concedes that the papal statement is not an "ex cathedra" one. Ratzinger continues, "In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible [and, therefore, potentially fallible], witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church." By implication, one can also conclude that this teaching has not been solemnly defined by the world's bishops including the pope at a general/ecumenical council. Since there are only three modes of infallible judgment/teaching and the two aforementioned ones are not at play here, this leaves recourse only to the ordinary and universal magisterium, i.e., the third mode.

Recent female ordinations in both a Soviet-bloc country and in western Europe provide ample reason to question, if not refute, Ratzinger's claim in his Responsum that official teaching on women's ordination has been "constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church." In theory, mode 3 makes sense, but how to prove it in a nearly 2,000-year-old institution? Therein lies the rub. Who is qualified to certify that women have never been ordained to the priesthood in the history of the church? Who is qualified to certify that not a single bishop united with Rome today disagrees with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Who is qualified to certify that every bishop throughout history has supported the non-recognition of women's ordination? Yet, both JPII and Ratzinger essentially made such certifications. On what basis???

c. JPII made a critically important (and, one might add, damaging) word choice in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when he used the word 'held' as in "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." By using this word ('tenenda' in Latin) instead of the word 'believed' ('credenda'), the pope appeared to concede that non-ordination of women was a matter not strictly revealed by God but, instead, was nonetheless and somehow necessary for preserving and expounding divine revelation. In other words, this particular doctrine was not core teaching, i.e., dogma. Instead, it was supposedly infallible teaching located a bit lower than dogma on the doctrinal totem pole. Some theologians refer to this category of inferior but infallible teaching as "definitive doctrine."

Something "to be held" does not carry quite the imperative of acceptance as something "to be believed." Indeed, the latter justifiably commands a response of faith or belief; there is no need for or expectation of proof. Something "to be held," on the other hand, is something surmised by human beings as necessary for safeguarding the deposit of faith, i.e., what God has done for us in Christ by the power of the Spirit. To say that so-called definitive doctrine is a murky and/or contentious area of church teaching is, to put it mildly, an understatement. It certainly feeds into the widely held perception of a rather novel historical development in the church, namely, the phenomenon of "creeping infallibility:" everything from Rome is the last and final word on a matter.

In light of the above, how does gender-based ordination help preserve and expound divine revelation? How can a reasonable person exercising critical judgment somehow conclude that women preaching or presiding at the liturgy or administering the sacraments pose a threat to the deposit of faith? Indeed, how can such a restriction be believed? Even JPII acknowledged that this teaching is not be "believed" --- but only to be "held!"

d. In history and in law, the church has witnessed popular (and legitimate) doctrinal debate. We have, for instance, the history of reception (an earlier link discusses this practice in the area of canon law). We have canon 750-1, which states that when a doctrine/teaching is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium (i.e., mode 3 cited by JPII and his CDF head), its acceptance is "manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful." Has there been this "common adherence" to JPII's conclusion in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? No, far from it, and for many solid reasons provided by theologians, biblical scholars, and others.

e. Despite JPII's clear attempt to quash discussion on this issue, it not only continues, but increasing numbers of Catholics --- lay and ordained alike --- have rejected Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as flawed and untenable. We see anything but a manifestation of "common adherence." Indeed, more and more Catholics accept the female ordinations to date as valid, as legitimate manifestations of new doctrine inspired by the Holy Spirit.

f. The claim made by JPII, to wit, that the church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, has not withstood critical biblical, theological, and historical scrutiny. Nor has it met the common acceptance of the faithful at large. In the meantime, we see continuing erosion of papal credibility as women's ordinations continue and old men in Rome struggle to sustain archaic beliefs and practices.

Wonderful work Joseph Jaglowicz, in informing us about women ordination rules from JPII and BXVI. You write clearly, concisely and explain difficult ideas very well. Thank you. I support women priests and know there is no reason not to ordain women. It is crazy of the pope to turn away women from being priests. We need the good works of all, including women. Jesus knew that, and called lots of women to be co-workers , the harvesters of souls, as men do. Apostolic succession was granted to both women and men by Jesus and God. I do not get how the pope can possibly say there are no women apostles. PBXVI saying that (writing that) makes him look like such a fool. A quick read of the New Testament shows how wrong the pope is. Thanks for the great info.