Last week the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women concluded a two-week session which dealt with protecting women and girls against violence in the modern world. I was embarrassed to read in The New York Times that the Vatican delegation sided with Russia and several Muslim countries in blocking one of the declarations for women’s protection.
I am aware that the Vatican opposition is sometimes due to the wording rather than to the proposal itself. But I wish they could be more careful in their objections so as to avoid always appearing opposed to something which most people consider right and just. This is particularly true in regard to the rights of women, since the Church has the reputation of wanting to keep women in a subordinate role.
Unfortunately there is a basis for this reputation, beginning with the words of Saint Paul in his letter to the Ephesians where he wrote that wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything (5, 22-24). He continued along the same line in his letter to Timothy where he laid down rules about women’s hair-styles, and then forbade that women be allowed to teach or have authority over a man (1 Timothy 2, 9-12).
This basic teaching of women being subordinate to men was taken up in later centuries and put forward by Scholastic theologians as a reason why women could not be admitted to priestly ministry in the Church. This reason no longer has any acceptance, but the Church authorities continue their opposition to women priests on the basis of what the Popes now call “theological anthropology” (Angelus Domini Paul VI Jan 30, 1977; Ordinatio sacerdotalis John Paul II May 22, 1994).
Whatever about this new concept of theological anthropology, I am convinced that the Vatican delegations, which give the impression of opposition to women’s rights at international meetings, are not representative of the Catholic Church. They are called delegations of the Holy See which represents the Vatican City State at international meetings. The Vatican City State came into being in 1929 from a Papal agreement with the government of Italy.
The Holy See or Apostolic See is a term that came into use in the 4th century in reference to the diocese of Rome, the primary diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. Modern Church Law describes the Holy See thus: “The term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words” (Canon 361). In other words the Holy See is not the Catholic Church, but the central administration which has shown itself to the world in recent times as totally dysfunctional with its in-fighting, corruption and intrigue.
In future I will console myself with the thought that the Holy See delegations at international meetings represent only the Vatican City State and not the Church founded by Jesus Christ who taught us that authority is given not to dominate or control but to share and to serve. Our new Pope Francis is showing the way.
I was really surprised yesterday evening when I heard the announcement that Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires was elected as the new Pope and that he had taken the name of Francis. The Cardinal had not figured in any of the pundit short lists, and even though I had been to Buenos Aires a few times I do not remember ever having seen him or heard his name.
When the new Pope appeared on the balcony overlooking the Piazza San Pietro I thought he looked uncomfortable, almost apologetic as if to say, “I’m here not because I want to be here but only because they elected me”. What followed left me with the feeling, “I really do not know this man, but I like what I saw and heard”.
What impressed me more than anything else was when Pope Francis, before imparting the Papal blessing to Rome and to the world, asked the people to pray for him. The new Pope made a profound bow to the assembled people, and more than 100,000 people maintained a solemn silence for about 20 seconds while they prayed for Francis the Pope.
That simple gesture gave me hope that perhaps now we have a Pope who recognizes the enormous power and talent in the faithful Catholic laity who constitute more than 99% of the Church membership. This is in keeping with the Second Vatican Council which in many ways sought to empower the laity to take an active part in the life and governance of their Church.
Church authorities have been slow to fulfill the decisions of Vatican II in regard to sharing power with the laity. In fact the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that only the clergy are qualified to participate in the governance of the Church (Canon 129). Pope Francis’ humble gesture of respect towards the people raises the hope that he will be willing to engage the enormous talent and power of the Catholic laity at all levels of decision-making in the Church.
Pope Francis comes to the Papacy with the reputation of a man who is like his divine Master in his love of the poor and his caring for them. He lives a simple life in which there is no place for pomp and ceremony or the princely trappings of medieval finery. I think we have every reason to hope that he will bring to the Papacy that same simplicity of life and dedication to the poor.
I am willing to believe that Pope Francis is the kind of Pope the Church needs at this time. I want to believe that he will teach us by word and example that the Church is the Church of all God’s people, not just of the Cardinals and the clergy. I pray that he will be an instrument of God in helping the Church to become what she is meant to be, a loving mother to her children, and a living example to the whole world of God’s love for all humanity.
Some journalists were fascinated by the fact that Pope Benedict XVI freely surrendered his infallibility in giving up the Papacy. But however wonderful Papal infallibility may seem in theory, it really has not been of much significance in the history of the Church. It is very limited, and works only for faith and morals. It has never solved any problem for the Church, but rather has led to problems when there was an overlap between matters of faith and matters of science.
The Church authorities have sometimes extended their competence in matters of faith to cover other matters, like when they said that the bible taught that the sun goes round the earth, and therefore it was heretical to teach that the earth moves round the sun. At the time of Galileo (1564-1642) all writings that claimed that the earth was in motion were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. That remained in force until 1741 when the Roman authorities quietly relaxed the ban. They learned that they were not always infallible.
I have often wondered why Pope Pius IX was so anxious to get the Council of Vatican I (1870) to confirm his claim to infallibility as Pope. Some historians suggested that Pius was upset because he was in the process of losing the Papal States to Garibaldi and the Italian nationalists, and desperately wanted some new symbol of power to help him stay relevant in the world of politics. But Pius claimed that the Pope had full and supreme power over all the Church, so it puzzles me that he did not simply declare the dogma of Papal infallibility. To insist on confirmation from the Council seems to hint at some degree of self-doubt.
Anyway, Papal infallibility is not always what it is talked up to be. Pope Boniface VIII tried it in 1302, and it fell flat. He should have known better. Boniface VIII immediately succeeded Pope Celestine V (1294), who resigned after just 5 months as Pope. Before Celestine there was no Pope for two years, as the Cardinals could not agree on a candidate after the death of Pope Nicholas IV in 1292. But the fact that they dawdled for two years without electing a Pope seems to indicate that they thought the Church could manage quite well without somebody infallible in charge.
Boniface got into a head to head struggle for power with the Emperor Philip the Fair. To establish the Pope’s superiority over the Emperor he issued a Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, in which he refers to the two swords (Luke 22, 38) as the sword of temporal power (of the Emperor) and the sword of spiritual power (of the Pope).
According to Boniface, the Papal sword always trumps the Imperial sword. He concludes the document with these words: “We state, declare and define that every human being, in order to be saved, must submit to the Roman Pontiff”. (Denzinger n.874)
With this solemn choice of words it seems that Boniface wanted to appear to speak infallibly. Unfortunately for him, his declaration was so obviously self-serving that nobody took him seriously.
Centuries earlier there was the case of Pope Honorius I (625-638). As Pope he got involved in correspondence with some bishops and theologians in discussions about the human nature of Christ. The words used by Pope Honorius implied that Christ had no human will. This led to Pope Honorius after death being declared anathema by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680) and condemned by Pope Leo II (681-683) for “fanning the flame of heresy”. That was a sad fate for a Pope who could have taught infallibly if only he had remembered.
Even the first Pope Saint Peter was not immune from teaching error as the apostle Paul pointed out in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2, 11-14). Peter approved the ruling that gentile converts to Christianity were obliged to observe Jewish religious law. Paul objected to this and later wrote, “I opposed Kephas (Peter) to his face because he was clearly wrong” (Galatians 2, 11). Paul prevailed, and his teaching on this issue became official Church teaching.
With the history of occasional Papal mistakes it seems unreasonable to demand unquestioning assent to every public statement of a Pope as if it were infallible. I think the framers of the doctrine would have done better to insist on infallibility for the Church while admitting Popes as individuals can be wrong occasionally. Even in the contests with the Roman Emperor, history shows that the power of excommunication proved to be a much more effective weapon for the Pope than the claim to infallibility.
Benedict XVI must have been aware of all this when he handed in his infallibility badge on February 28, 2013. But I am sure he was quite confident that the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would not go astray even while Papal infallibility was temporarily placed on hold.