I use the term "theologians" advisedly.
Here's what they were arguing:
Last June, three Dominican theologians in the Netherlands issued a pamphlet entitled Kerk en Ambt ("Church and Ministry"), which was fashioned as a response to severe shortage of priests in that country. The pamphlet, which was circulated widely among Dutch parishes, argued that in the absence of an ordained priest, any Catholic-- male or female, married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual-- could preside at the Eucharist. That role, the pamphlet said, "is not a prerogative reserved to the priest." The pamphlet was circulated with the approval of Dominican provincial leaders in the Netherlands.
This is clearly contradictory to Church teaching; Christ gave the Eucharist to the Apostles at the last supper, and the Church has always maintained, from its earliest times, that the priesthood derives its authority to consecrate the host as a part of their apostolic succession; the priest being delegated that authority from his bishop, who, in Catholic ecclesiology, is the heir to an Apostle. A layperson lacks the authority to consecrate. Period.
The relevant passages from the Catechism have been gathered and summarized here, at the Adoremus site.
Just because one is a Dominican, and a "theologian", does not mean one can simply make stuff up. You can't simply say "Nuh uh" to the Catechism and decide that the old rules no longer apply. The hubris of these Dominicans is shocking; frankly, I think the entire leadership of the Dominican order in the Netherlands needs to be summarily sacked for this outrage.
While not going quite that far, the Vatican did act swiftly:
The Dutch pamphlet drew calls for a response from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in turn asked the leaders of the Dominican order in Rome to address the matter. The resulting report from Rome-- of which La Croix has obtained a copy-- is frankly critical of the Dutch pamphlet, saying that the authors distort the teachings of the Church and particularly the documents of Vatican II.The report from Rome, dated January 23, does not call for disciplinary action against the Dominicans responsible for the pamphlet. But it directs the Dutch Dominicans to publicize the response in all the parishes where the original pamphlet was circulated last year-- as many as 1,500 parishes.
The best response to pride is to enforce a little humility, I suppose.
The Dominicans in Rome would probably done well to leave it at that, but they did manage to slip in a little coded message to the Dominicans in the Netherlands that said "We sympathize."
The Roman response acknowledges the severity of the shortage of priests in the Netherlands, and the need to make plans to serve the pastoral needs of parishes without priests. However, the document remarks, any such pastoral plans must be made with an eye to the teachings of the Church and the need for unity among the faithful.The author of the Roman response, the French Dominican Hervé Legrand, does express some sympathy for the Dutch Dominican theologians on one issue: the question of priestly celibacy. On that issue "there must be a debate," the document says, noting that "the current situation for priests is not the only one possible."
Sometimes loyalty means keeping your mouth shut. Yes, the Dominican theologians have to eat their pamphlets in front of 1500 parishes. But why do the Dominicans' superiors in Rome open an issue that the current pope has already considered? Wouldn't the better answer simply be to say "As a matter of doctrine you're wrong; retract the pamphlets in front of the 1500 parishes" and leave it at that? This "discipline" practically bats the Order's eyes and says "Oh, you're so right, but we can't say that publicly."
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but that's what the Dominicans in Rome really seem to be saying here.
And I'd like to pose this question to the Dominicans in the Netherlands -- you complain that recruitment to the priesthood is down, and yet you're doing everything in your power to say that the priesthood has no meaning, anyway. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you might be contributing to the problem?