How Catholic is the CTSA? Three views

Commonweal, March 27, 1998 by Avery Dulles, Mary Ann Donovan, Peter Steinfels

His first charge, that "the convention put itself on record as collectively opposing the irrevocable character of the teaching that the church has no authority to ordain women," misreads the resolution adopted by the society. Its text is: "(1) There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in Tradition. (2) There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the church. (3) Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition of the church in our day."

Sentences 1 and 2 do not "collectively oppose" anything. They simply state two facts: there are serious doubts about what kind of authority this doctrine has and these doubts exist among theologians and others throughout the church. Consequently, states sentence 3, the members of the church should give this matter further study, discussion, and prayer. The resolution endorsed by the CTSA states two facts and a consequence that is reasonably drawn from them. I strongly disagree with anyone who chooses to interpret the approval of this resolution as an act of dissent. This resolution was not asserted against the magisterium; it was submitted to the episcopal conferences of the United States and Canada. Theologians are expected to make difficulties clear to the magisterium. Doing so is part of their work.

Father Dulles has accused the speakers at the 1997 convention of rejecting "fundamental articles of Catholic belief regarding priesthood and Eucharist." Presumably he bases this charge on the various places in the Proceedings to which he then refers. The following comparison between what Dulles has written and what the speakers at the convention actually said, will, I believe, suffice to show that he has not offered a fair and objective presentation of what was said.

Dulles: "One speaker lamented what he described as the 'ideological misuse' of the imagery of Christ as Bridegroom and the importance of the maleness of Christ."

What was said: "Taking a useful metaphor like Bridegroom from the tradition and raising it to a principle of theology is dangerous business, for it fails to respect the genre in which the metaphor has been proposed and runs the risk of ideological misuse."

Dulles: "The idea that the priest-celebrant acts in persona Christi was repeatedly assailed."

What was said: In fact none of the speakers "assailed the idea." Dulles seems to have found an example of this in the passage to which he then refers:

Dulles: "The debate 'about in whose persona the priest acts in the Eucharist,' one speaker sarcastically declared, is of interest 'primarily as a disputational exercise, yielding occasional experiences of theological "Gotcha."'"

What was said: Whether this was said "sarcastically" is for those who were at the convention to judge. That the speaker was not "assailing the idea that the priest-celebrant acts in persona Christi" is clear from her next sentence, which gives her reasons for judging that dispute to be of minor importance: "Why? The premise of the debate is that the priest is the sole effective human subject of liturgical action, and that premise itself is no longer tenable."