Echoes of Galileo in ordination
controversy
By WILFRED THEISEN
Striking parallels exist between the churchs behavior in the
17th century with respect to new scientific discoveries and its conduct now
with regard to the ordination of women. Drawing attention to them might help
todays ecclesiastical leaders avoid the errors of their predecessors.
Santayanas dictum comes to mind: Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it.
First of all, it must be stressed that Copernicus claim that
the earth revolves around the sun was condemned as a heresy, not merely by
certain theologians, as John Paul II implied in a 1992 address, but
by the official church. It was the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith) that condemned it as heretical in 1616. Pope Paul V
instructed Cardinal Robert Bellarmine to convey the decision to Galileo.
Shortly afterward, the Congregation of the Index placed Copernicus book
on the forbidden list.
It is clear, therefore, that two of the churchs governing
congregations and a pope agreed that the Copernican theory was contrary to the
deposit of faith.
Seventeen years later, Galileo was brought before a special
commission of cardinal-judges with the charge of being under vehement
suspicion of heresy. If Urban VIII did not personally orchestrate the
trial, there is no doubt that he was very much aware of the proceedings, being
a former friend of the accused. The pope made no attempt to overthrow the
guilty verdict and the consequent sentence.
That these decisions were not temporary lapses of judgment is
clear from the fact that for 200 years they stood as guidelines for
ecclesiastical policy. As late as 1822, a church official refused to grant the
imprimatur to a book that assumed the truth of the Copernican system. Only in
1835 were the works of Copernicus and Galileo taken off the Index.
During all this time the church never purported to teach
infallibly that the earth is at the center and immovable and that the sun
revolves around it. But considering the weight of the authority behind this
teaching and its consistency, can one avoid concluding that the teaching was
intended to be definitive? Had Catholics regarded the condemnation of the
theory to be merely the opinion of certain theologians, could they
have escaped retaliation from the Holy Office? Europes greatest
scientist, Galileo, tried that route and suffered for it.
With regard to the teaching on the ordination of women, it is only
in the last two pontificates that this issue has been expressly addressed. In
1975 Pope Paul VI wrote to Archbishop Donald Coggan, stating that The
Catholic church holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the
priesthood. This pronouncement was followed by a declaration from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In 1994, Pope John Paul II affirmed
that the non-ordination of women must be held definitively by all the
churchs faithful. Shortly thereafter, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote
that whoever does not accept the popes teaching on this matter
separates himself from the church.
To support its teaching on both of these matters the
ecclesiastical authorities provided justification from the Bible and from
tradition. Since the Bible states in many places that the sun moves and the
earth is immovable, the Holy Office inferred that the Copernican theory was
untenable. The decree also cited the common agreement of the fathers, as
well as the teaching of learned theologians.
Similarly, Paul VI, John Paul II and Ratzinger have all based this
decision regarding the exclusive nature of the priesthood on these same two
authorities. Although Jesus did not expressly state, Women are not to be
ordained, this is to be inferred from the fact that Jesus chose only men
to be apostles and did not include the Blessed Mother in the ministerial
priesthood.
Since the question of womens ordination did not even arise
among the fathers of the church, no support for or against this practice can be
cited from that quarter. In this respect the case against Copernican theory was
actually much stronger, since one can find many passages among the fathers
where they expressed their belief in the stability of the earth and the
mobility of the sun.
In another respect, the reaction of the church has been remarkably
similar. In both the 17th and 20th centuries, church officials have been true
to the dictum, Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Galileo
was told not to hold, teach or defend the Copernican theory and
when under house arrest could receive only Catholic visitors under the
condition they did not discuss Copernican theory. Likewise, Pope John Paul II
has stated that there is to be no more discussion about the possibility of
womens ordination, an admonition repeated by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Finally, the motives of the protagonists are worth examining.
Galileos loyalty to and love of the church cannot be questioned. As a
scientist, he was committed to promoting the Copernican theory. As an Italian
Catholic, he wanted to see the church respected and admired not only for its
spiritual leadership but for its promotion of secular learning as well.
Similarly, many Catholics who have supported the ordination of
women have done so because in their hearts and minds they are convinced that it
will help relieve the shortage of priests and will enrich the churchs
ministry.
When Galileo died in 1642, it must have seemed that his efforts to
win ecclesiastical acceptance of Copernican theory had failed. Church
authorities even took steps to prevent a public funeral or the erection of a
monument. In time, however, this judgment was reversed.
Will church authorities in time also take a different position on
the ordination of women? That chapter of church history has yet to be written.
Benedictine Br. Wilfred Theisen is a member of the Department
of Physics at St. Johns University in Collegeville, Minn.
National Catholic Reporter, February 27,
1998
|