Has the Pope made an ex cathedra pronouncement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, stating that the Church lacks the authority to ordain women? I want to argue that he has, but before doing so there is something else to be stressed, namely, the obligation to accept the teaching as true even if it is not proposed infallibly.

As Vatican 11 taught, interior assent must be given to the Pope's teaching even when he does not speak infallibly.' The Code of Canon Law says the same: "While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a question of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Because the Holy Spirit assists the Magisterium, we can be confident such teachings are true. The pronouncement on ordaining women is given with a degree of authority which, at the very minimum, comes close to infallibility, and Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept it as true.

Besides this, there are solid grounds (to say the least) for maintaining that the doctrine is infallible by reason of the infallibility of the ordinary universal Magisterium: that is, by reason of the constant teaching of the Church. The Pope points out, in the present document, that priestly Ordination "has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone." He quotes the words of Pope Paul VI that the Church's living teaching authority "has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for His Church." Toward the end of his apostolic letter, Pope John Paul reiterates: "The teaching that priestly Ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church."

The argument about whether the present apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, gives an infallible (ex cathedra) definition will no doubt be used to obscure the issue of the assent we owe the decision. It will be claimed the Pope did not intend to speak infallibly, and the conclusion will be implied (or drawn explicitly by the bolder dissenters) that we are therefore free - after prayerful and mature deliberation, no doubt! - to proclaim our "loyal dissent." We must insist, against this ploy, that the teaching has such great authority that all Catholics have an obligation to accept it, regardless of whether the Pope has now made an infallible pronouncement or not.

I believe he has done so. All the conditions required are satisfied. The First Vatican Council, in 1870, enumerated the conditions in its definition of papal infallibility; let us, therefore, check them against Pope John Paul's historic apostolic letter.

The pronouncement must be in regard to faith or morals. This condition is obviously present. It is a question pertaining to the nature of Holy Orders; and as the Pope says, it concerns "the Church's divine constitution itself." The pronouncement "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly Ordination on women" is a statement of doctrine.

The Pope must speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful. This condition, too, is fulfilled. He is not addressing a particular

group, or speaking as bishop of his diocese, or in some other limited capacity. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is for the whole Church.

The judgment must be one that is to be definitively held by the whole Church. In his reviews of previous teaching on the subject, the Pope makes it -clear that he believes women are certainly excluded from Ordination. Then he says he is giving his decision "in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance * " But above all we have his express statement: "This judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Canon law expresses the conditions for infallibility in these words: "In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as Chief Shepherd and teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals .113 But all this is found in the decision we are discussing.

Yet not only dissenters but some orthodox Catholics are reluctant to see the decision as ex cathedra. They point out the language differs from that found in the infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX, and of the Assumption by Pius XII. The former uses the words "We ... declare, pronounce, and define"- then after the definition says those who do not accept it "are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck to their faith and fallen from the unity of the Church, that they henceforth subject themselves ipso facto to the penalties provided by law if they shall dare to express their views in speech or writing or in any other way."" Pius XII, defining our Lady's bodily Assumption into Heaven, states that he defines it to be a dogma (a dogma is necessarily infallible), and warns that if anyone "should willfully dare to deny or call in doubt what we have defined, let him know that he has certainly abandoned divine and Catholic faith."'

The question is therefore asked: If Pope John Paul 11 intended his decision to be infallible, why didn't he use similarly unmistakable language? And since he didn't do so, aren't we rash if we maintain that his decision is infallible? Can we be sure that he really had that intention?

It is true that the Pope's intention is vital. As Ludwig Ott says, in dealing with the conditions for an ex cathedra teaching, the Pope must have "the intention of deciding finally a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circumstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete."' Can we be sure of the Pope's intention in the present case? Yes, we can. Why? Because he states it explicitly, as we have just seen. He is giving his judgment "that all doubt may be removed," and the judgment "is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

The fact that he didn't use the kind of language employed by earlier Pontiffs. when they defined infallibly is no reason to doubt the infallibility of his decision. Such terms are not a requirement. All that is needed, in regard to intention, is that he manifest his intention clearly. And he has done so. The objection acts as a smoke screen to conceal the ex cathedra status of the pronouncement, and some people will want to use it for that purpose. Others, while happy to accept the pronouncement as ex cathedra if they could be satisfied it is, will hesitate because of the contrast with the language of the earlier Popes. Yet quite unreasonably.

I am sure there is a psychological factor. Dissenters have promoted a climate of opinion in which the authority of Church teachings is weakened; they have tried to condition us to look for loopholes, to see rulings as provisional when they really are not, or as less than definitive when they really are definitive. Even people who have every wish to be fully in harmony with the Church can be subconsciously influenced by this climate of opinion.

Surely the difference in style in this matter is in line with the differences in style generally between recent Popes and earlier Popes. Indeed, Pius IX, writing in 1854, uses tougher language about those who reject his teaching than does Pius XII, writing in 1950. In general, one finds a milder tone in John XXIII and the Popes who have succeeded him than in earlier times; and in the documents of Vatican 11 compared with those of Vatican 1.

The conclusion stands that the statement of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly Ordination on women" - is an infallible pronouncement.