Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:32:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Peter Burns <rburns-AT-scf.usc.edu>
Subject: Celibacy, infallibility, etc.


Jazzman, you are so way off the mark on this one, it's hard to know where
to begin.  First, you need to distinguish *doctrine* from *canon law*.
Celibacy is part of the current law of the Church in the Roman rite.  <But
not in all the Eastern rites--and DON'T confuse Eastern rite Catholics
with Greek or Russian Orthodox types>.  It is something that can be
changed, as can any part of the law which is not also a doctrinal matter. 
A new code of canon law was promulgated as recently as 1983, and made lots
of changes from the previous laws.  But it is not part of Catholic
*doctrine* and never has been that priests must be celibate.  It has
nothing to do with infallible teaching.  Up until the 11th century priests
were not obliged to be celibate in many parts of the church. This is so
well known that there can be no question of even the Vatican pretending
that it is really part of the doctrine concerning priesthood.  They just
want to maintain the current rule, but even they recognize that that rule
is not part of the doctrine of priesthood. 

The issue with women's ordination is different in that the Vatican wants
to say that this *is* part of the doctrine of priesthood.  But this is
very controversial, and others would argue that the ban on women priests
is no more part of the doctrine than is compulsory celibacy.  The Canon
Law Society of America just published a study on this showing that women
were ordained in parts of the Church in the early centuries.  This would
tend to show that the ban on women can't be doctrine, and must just be a
feature of the current, changeable, law.  Also, despite what you may have
heard in the press lately, there has been NO infallible teaching that
women can't be ordained.  An infallible teaching is very rare and must
meet all sorts of special conditions. The only things a pope says that can
be infallible are what are known as "ex cathedra" definitions. There's
only ever been 2 of these, one in 1854 and one in 1950, <both concerned
doctrines about Mary the Mother of Jesus>.  General Councils *can* also
infallibly teach a doctrine, though nothing Vatican II said, for example,
was infallibly taught.  Also what has *always and universally* been taught
about a matter of faith or morals by all the bishops in union with the
pope <the "ordinary magisterium", this is called> can also be infallible. 
But NOTHING a mere Vatican office <"congregation"> says is EVER
infallible.  What happened recently was that a fallible statement was
made--suggesting, in effect, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that
women cannot be validly ordained.  But, the evidence of women's ordination
in the early church would show that this was not part of the ordinary
magisterium because some bishops in some places at some times did not
teach this as a doctrine and indeed ordained women themselves.  Secondly,
and VERY interestingly, there are strong rumors circulating that during
the Communist oppression of the Church in Czechoslovakia, one or more
women may have been ordained by a bishop there.  This ordination may have
been illicit by the norms of canon law, but that is not the point.  If it
was done, it would show that the ban on women's ordination is not part of
the ordinary magisterium and so can't be an infallible doctrine on that
ground. But in any case, there is a VAST difference between someone in the
Vatican, even the pope, giving his *fallible* theological opinion about
what is or isn't infallible, and an actual infallible definition ex
cathedra by the pope, or infallible teaching by a General Council of the
Church or by the ordinary magisterium.  The same remarks roughly apply to
the issue of contraception.  Nothing has infallibly been taught on that
issue.  Papal teaching has condemned it <just like it used to condemn
taking interest on loans> but never in an ex cathedra definition.  If a
teaching is not infallible, then it's fallible and could be changed as has
happened quite a few times in the past.  The only reason Catholics believe
in infallibility is that we have faith that God would not allow the Church
to fall into errors on the *fundamentals* of Christian teaching.  But
contraception and women's ordination are not fundamentals, and so the
Church could quite easily balls it up on those matters.
  
Now I know all these points may be lost on you, and the Vatican fascists
like people to get mixed up about them so as to intimidate them into
toeing the line and thinking that *everything* said in the Vatican is
infallible.  <A number of marxist parties do this sort of thing too, as
you may have noticed>.  But knowledgeable theologians know all about them,
and so we don't get *too* bothered by all the fuss and spin-doctoring and
ill-informed jibes.  Something similar, I believe, takes place with regard
to disputes within the Marxist church--was only Marx infallible, or were
Engels and Lenin as well?  Were Stalin and Mao heretics or was it just
Trotsky?  Was Luxemburg validly ordained?  When is something an infallible
Marxist teaching, or just a fallible teaching that can be subsequently
changed, er, developed?  Was Marx infallible when he was young and
fallible when he was old, or was it the other way round?  Etc., etc., etc. 

Theology lesson over.  Now go back to fighting those budget cuts in
Ontario. 

Peter



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------