I think the matter is a bit more complex than this.   The 19thc
definition of infallibility was necessary in part because of shifting
ideas about historical development, notably the idea of
historicism--that doctrines are historically conditioned.  In various
ways this Enlightenment-derived principle affected the varoius
"liberal Catholic" and "gallican movements" of the 19thc.

As I think I have written on this list before, solemn definitions of
doctrine are always made in response to controversy.  Until someone
challenges a long-held but less precisely defined belief, no
definition is needed.  Before Vatican I in various forms the
indefectibility and irreformability of central Catholic teachings that
had never been formally defined in precise language was nonetheless
presumed.  Because of the particular challenges (stemming ultimately
from the Protestant Reformation but becoming acute with the liberal
Catholic movements of the 19thc), the infallibility decree of Vatican
I came about.  It employs "ex cathedra" language but the key is not
actually whether the phrase "ex cathedra" is invoked or not, rather,
the key to the irreformability of a doctrine lies in whether it has
been definititely stated (that is precisely and carefully and
deliberated stated) and  whether enough attention to the
definitiveness of the statement is given to make it clear that
irreformability is claimed.

John Paul II has carefully avoided using "ex cathedra" language.  But
he has made what appears to be an irreformable statement on the
ordination of women in _Ordinatio Sacerdotalis_ (1994).  He invoked
not ex cathedra phrasing but phrasing from the Vatican II constitution
on the Church, Lumen Gentium, in the section speaking about the
infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.  He did not need to use ex
cathedra phrasing because the matter in question involved an unbroken
tradition established by Christ himself (in choosing twelve men as
apostles, bypassing his own Mother).  Since the Council of Trent had
already spoken defniitively on the priesthood/episcopacy being
established by direct authority of Christ (against Protestant
rejection of this idea), one could not argue that the restriction of
priesthood to men alone was a mere accident of history (otherwise
Jesus would have been subject to the vagaries of culture rather than
being Lord of culture) or a deliberate act by Jesus that was unjust to
women by excluding them.  Essentially what the pope was saying was
that one could not reject the men-only priesthood without in effect
rejecting what Jesus deliberately chose to do or accusing Jesus
himself of being captive to culture.

Notice that the issue of sacramental ordination of women did not come
up until the late 20th century.  That no formal pronouncement was made
until now is not because no one believed the restriction of priesthood
to men was optional or arbitrary but because no one seriously proposed
sacramental ordination of women until Episcopalians did in the late
1970s.  Other Protestant groups had women ministers beginning in the
17thc, but they did not have a sacramental understanding of
priesthood, so their practice in no way raised an issue for the
Catholic Church.  Hence the issue was not addressed until Paul VI did
so in Inter insigniores in the early 1970s, I believe (the point at
which pressure to ordain women was building among Episcopalians and
Anglicans).

The pope did not invoke ex cathedra authority for Ordinatio
sacerdotalis in 1994, yet Cardinal Ratzinger, in his formal response
to a query, asserted that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis enjoyed
infallibility.  Why?  Because the document claims to confirm an
unbroken practice.  One cannot overturn a practice of 1900 years
duration in an office dogmatically declared to have been instituted by
Christ without in effect saying the Church was wrong and unjust to
women all 1900 years on this point,  because it was captive to a
patriarchal culture.  In this case, the captivity would have begun
with Christ himself (who did not hesitate to violate "patriarchal
culture" in many other ways).  If Christ himself was wrong (or didn't
know that he was setting a precedent when he chose only 12 men),then
the whole basis for all Catholic ecclesial authority disintegrates,
including the doctrine of infallibility.

(I might add that the main arguments advanced in favor of ordaining
women come from modern culture, so those who favor it are in effect
saying that the Church can't help but be captive to culture--for 1900
years captive to an unjust patriarchal culture, now to be captive to a
more just non-patriarchal culture.  But that would be a monumental
change in Catholic teaching, since Catholicism has always understood
the Church, as founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, to be
uncaptive to culture and has criticized [sometimes inadequately]
captivity to culture where it rears its head.)

In short, one has to adopt a non-Catholic understanding of the Church
in order to argue for the ordination of women.  Cardinal Ratzinger's
claim that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible is based on this
reasoning, I believe: to maintain a Catholic understanding of the
Church as established in its institutional leadership by Christ
himself and guided indefectibly by the Holy Spirit over time, one
cannot accept this proposed innovation.  Those who favor the
ordination of women, the pope is saying, have adjust their
ecclesiology accordingly.  They are free to do so and they would have
his blessing as long as they realize what they are doing--adopting an
ecclesiology that was rejected at Trent.  Since the sacramental nature
of the priesthood ultimately, in Catholic undestanding, goes back to
this direct institution by Christ (all sacraments, qua sacraments,
were instituted by Christ), again, a shift on ordination of women
would require a change in the sacramental understanding of priesthood,
another position considered but rejected at Trent.

So what the pope is saying is that you can have ordination of women
but it won't be a Catholic, sacramental ordination in a Catholic
understanding of Church or you can do without ordination of women and
retain the understanding of church and sacramental ordination affirmed
down through the centuries, but you can't mix the two and be
coherent.

The infallibility here rests not on an ex cathedra statement.  This
is in keeping with Lumen Gentium, I believe.  I think one reason John
Paul II has avoided making ex cathedra pronouncements (he made three
infallible definitions, on abortion and euthanasia in his encyclical
_Evangelium Vitae_ in 1995, again invoking the common tradition,
scriptural authority, natural law but not ex cathedra) is that Vatican
I's ex cathedra approach is frequently cited by Eastern Orthodox as
one of the developments in the Western Church they object to.  If he
is dealing wth a matter on which the tradition is utterly clear and
therefore all he needs to do is make a definitive confirmation of the
tradition as Lumen Gentium provides for, then he has no need to reach
for an ex cathedra statement.  He can thus avoid introducing one more
obstacle to rapprochement with the Eastern Orthodox.

This _is_relevant to medieval religion because the way John Paul II
has exercised his infallible teaching is in many respects an effort to
employ an earlier approach, one that de facto functioned during the
Middle Ages but had not yet been spelled out (largely because it had
not yet been challenged).  It was challenged seriously by the
Protestant Reformation and it still took another 250 years to define
an existing practice more clearly (Vatican I).  I would guess that
John Paul II would make use of ex cathedra pronouncements if he though
he had to, but as long as he doesn't need it, he won't.  He is not
trying to undo Vatican I, but he is making use of all the lower levels
of infallible authority available in the tradition.

How does any of this apply to Humanae Vitae in 1968?  Those who argue
that it was infallible and irreformable do so on the basis of unbroken
tradition: all Christian denominations universally opposed
contraception until 1930--"unbroken tradition" doesn't get much more
unbroken than that.  The issue was raised in an acute way in the
mid-20th century because of technological advances in contraceptives,
but a long tradition of opposition to more primitive forms of
contraception was clear.  Pius XI in Casti connubii responded to the
first challenges of the 1930s with a confirmation of the tradition,
not with ex cathedra pronouncement; Paul VI did the same in 1968.

Because Paul VI and John Paul II have not used ex cathedra language,
they leave themselves open to continued challenge by those on the
other side of these issues.  Whether an ex cathedra pronouncement
would satisfy their critics is, however, doubtful.  And they, I think,
recognize that the Catholic understanding of the indefectibiliity and
irreformability of the tradtiion is more complex than the mere words
'ex cathedra" could indicate.  They understand that a complete
reversal on a central matter has implications far beyond the
particular matter itself--it goes to the heart of the supernatural
claims the Catholic Church makes about herself, claims long since
rejected by Protestant Christians and Enlightenment thinkers.

Finally, lest someone raise this point: it is often said that the
Church has completely reversed herself on other matters (usually usury
and slavery are cited), so why not on contraception or ordination of
women.  I will not make the argument here, but on both usury and
slavery I think (contra John Noonan), no reversal took place at all,
rather, a nuanced development in keeping with changes in economic
practices and in chattel slavery took place.  I think the Church was
consistent but was responding to apples and then to oranges in each
case.  But in the case of contraception or ordination of women, the
changes in technology on the one hand or in women's roles in society
on the other are of a different order such that to ordain women or
permit contraception would in fact be a real reversal in essentials
and inconsistent with the unbroken tradition.

So, I agree with Bill East, that Paul VI was not speaking ex cathedra
in Humanae Vitae, but I (in keeping with Vatican II) do not believe
that Catholic teaching on infallibility restricts it to ex cathedra
pronouncements.

Dennis Martin

>>> Bill East <[log in to unmask]> 12/19 5:42 AM >>>
> 
>     Was the Pope not speaking "'ex cathedra' on a matter of
morals"
> in the late
> 1960's when he published Humanae Vitae?

No he most certainly was not!!!

Oriens.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk 
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%