Excommunicated for what?

By Brian Gaybba

The reported excommunication of an American priest, Fr Roy Bourgeois, who defends the view that women can and should be ordained raises disturbing questions about the way in which Church authorities use (abuse?) their God-given authority.

Excommunication is the most radical form of punishment that can be meted out to a member of the Church, since it effectively excludes that person from its spiritual life.

The offence that merited this punishment is said to have been the denial of the truth of a doctrine that does not form part of the Church’s dogma since it falls outside the ambit of what is traditionally called the “infallible” teaching of the Church.

I am fully aware that Pope John Paul II spoke about the inability of the Church to ordain women as if it were a dogma, but that did not make it a dogma — despite the (non-infallible!) opinion of the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that the pope’s words effectively indicated that the doctrine had obtained that status.

If one were to query the dogmatic status of the question of the ordination of women, one thing is absolutely clear: it is not clear that it is a dogma.  And if that clarity is lacking, then it cannot be given the status of a dogma, however venerable and traditional a part of the Church’s teaching and practice it may have been.

Barely 50 years ago, the conservative theologian Ludwig Ott categorised the doctrine of the non-ordainability of women as being only sententia certa — a phrase that means “a viewpoint that is certain”, something that is so well entrenched in the Church’s tradition that no one doubts it.  But this is still nowhere near being a doctrine de fide, a dogma of the faith.

The transmutation from a doctrine that is merely certa to that which is de fide in such a short period of time is unlikely. And in the case of the non-ordainability of women it simply has not happened.

Now the reason for this excursus into theological technicalities is to highlight the fact that the priest in question was excommunicated for denying a teaching that was, in fact, in no way a dogma of the faith.  The question therefore arises:  was this just? Is it just to excommunicate someone for honestly believing, after careful thought and study, that a long and venerable teaching of the Church that is not yet a dogma is wrong?

Remember that if it is not “infallible” it can be wrong.  It is only the infallible that, by definition, cannot be wrong. And if it can be wrong, it is perfectly possible that someone may come along and spot where and why it is wrong.

Moreover, if an increasingly significant number of believers and especially of theologians in the Church believe that the traditional doctrine (not dogma) is wrong, then the weight of evidence against its being unalterable begins to shift. And such a weight of evidence has already shifted in this matter.

The official response has been to ban discussion and penalise theologians who hold that opinion, and, worse still, to act as if it is a dogma. But the proper response should be something quite different and more in conformity with the sort of fellowship we profess to be: in other words, it should be a responsibly facilitated discussion of the pros and cons of the case. After all, is it not part of our doctrinal heritage that we are all guided by the Spirit, especially when we in prayer and mutual consideration and discussion seek to understand God’s truth?

I cannot therefore see the justice of the Holy See’s action in this case. Indeed, given the injustices that other theological dissenters have suffered at the hands of the same authority, I see only abuse of authority.  For God-given authority, even supreme authority, is as open to abuse as any other.

But the issue becomes even more disturbing when one considers the celebrated case, which occurred decades ago, of another — this time high-profile — theologian: Fr Hans Küng.

The Holy See had no doubt that he did indeed deny a defined doctrine of the Church — the doctrine of its infallibility. Indeed, it was also felt very strongly by the preservers of doctrinal integrity that he also denied the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity. Whether he did so or not is irrelevant (I believe he did deny the doctrine of infallibility as it was understood in the Church). But what is relevant is that he was not excommunicated.  He remained and still remains a priest in good standing with the Church, able to celebrate the sacraments and even preach. He did have his licence removed to teach as an officially approved Catholic theologian in a Catholic university. But that is a far cry from excommunication.

This in itself raises questions about how you can be given a licence to preach and yet have your licence to teach Catholic theology revoked. There is a contradiction here.

But the really glaring contrast is between the (relative) leniency with which the greater offence was treated and the massive punishment imposed on one guilty of a much lesser one.

Is this indicative of a hardening of the heart of a system that seems increasingly heartless in these matters? I hope not.

St Ignatius spoke of the Church of Rome as “presiding in love”, a title in which it has gloried.  But where is the love — and the honesty — in all this?

Brian Gaybba is Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at Rhodes University, Grahamstown.