The ban on Catholics debating the ordination of women is unsustainable and wrong, says The Tablet in an editorial this week. “Is it compatible with the Gospel to suppress, and impose sanctions upon, individual Catholics who express what their conscience honestly tells them?” it asks.
In a ruling in 1994, Pope John Paul II had declared: “The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,” and went on to insist “this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”. The Tablet comments: “It is not disloyalty to that ruling to ask: what did it mean exactly?”
It points out that the Church's jurisdiction over the sacraments, including who is and who is not eligible for ordination, is exercised through Canon Law. It instances Canon 1031, which limits valid ordination to the priesthood to those who are 26 years old or more. It is Canon 1024 which states: “A baptised male alone receives sacred ordination validly.” But what is to stop a Pope inserting “and women” if he chose to do so? “Can one pope bind another in this way? Forever?” it asks.
The Tablet itself does not come down on either side of the argument, but points out that the ruling of Pope John Paul II cannot prevent individuals thinking that the ordination of women would be a good idea, or change the mind of someone who believes that the argument that Christ appointed only male apostles is not the last word.
It continues: “While the Church may indeed have no authority ‘whatsoever’ to confer priestly ordination on women at present, as Canon Law stands, could it not at some point in the future authorise itself to do so by changing Canon Law? Does this not precisely describe, for instance, what the Church of England did in 1992?”
The Tablet's first leading article warns that “arbitrary rules arbitrarily imposed” in the struggle to control the Covid-19 epidemic could turn the public against the government. Measures restricting personal freedom should not be imposed merely on the signature of a government minister, but ought to be authorised by Parliament after proper scrutiny. Only that way will the public have confidence in them and consent to obey them. The leader also challenges the practice of issuing on the spot fines, up to £10,000, for breaches of the coronavirus regulations. Such penalties should only be imposed by a court after due process, it says.
As for blaming the public for the recent surge in cases, it suggests a major factor is loss of trust in the Government itself. It sees only muddle and confusion at the top. The choices facing Government are difficult, but “the issue is not a binary choice between the economy and public health. Each affects the other. Lockdowns cost lives too. What needs to be injected into the balancing act are the special needs of those most at risk – a ‘preferential option for the poor’ who might otherwise be overlooked.” That includes the elderly and infirm. The safety of people in residential care homes must be the number one priority. Also high on the list should be keeping schools open, as children too are a very vulnerable group.
Loading ...
