Illicit Celibacy and the Deposit of Faith

TO: Professor George Worgul, Theologian, Duquesne University
  Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, Theologian, Fordham University
  Terrence Tilley, Theologian, Fordham University
  John Thiel, Theologian, Fairfield University
  Gary Macy, Chair of Religious Studies, Santa Clara University

RE: Comments on National Catholic Reporter article,
"Theologians struggle to tie together roles in church, academia."

By Theology Correspondent Joshua J. McElwee

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/theologians-struggle-tie-together-roles-church-academia

Jason McElwee's recent NCR article exposes an ancient peril associated with any perceived
theological challenge of papal teaching; it has been so for centuries. In essence nothing has
changed since Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door in 1517. Recently, Cardinal
Donald Wuerl of the U.S bishops' doctrine committee issued an allegation condemning Sr.
Elizabeth Johnson's book, Quest for the Living God, stating, "It does not accord with authentic
Catholic teaching", this response is similar to Pope Leo X's response to Luther, without the threat
of public immolation.

Sr. Johnson finds herself threatened with reprisals such as the Vatican launched against
theologian Father Charles Curran, author of Loyal Descent. In 1986 the Vatican's Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, declared that Curran was
neither suitable nor eligible to be a professor of Catholic theology, effectively ending his career.

Condemnations such as Wuerl issued have again raised deep concerns among Catholic
theologians who are rightly fearful that repercussions from the U.S. bishops and/or the Vatican
may negatively affect their professional career. Theologian Terrance Tilley of Fordham University
tells us that hostile positions such as Wuerl's may "expose faithful theologians to derision",
resulting in "theology being laughed out of universities as mere propaganda." Tilley himself was
recently criticized by Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of
Doctrine, who stated Tilley had been guilty of “doctrinal ambiguity and error”, a threat less severe
than public immolation intended to silence Tilley.

McElwee's article reveals the latent threat of serious professional damage and covert
suggestions of apostasy from Church apologists for theologians who, according to John Thiel of
Fairfield University, do not "simply repeat the uncontroversial and recognized heritage of ancient
traditions." Among those ancient theological traditions four are unchallengeable, because they
rest upon pseudo-infallible papal doctrines; it is forbidden to question in any way mandatory
celibacy, women's ordination, contraception, and papal infallibility. As Gary Macy, Religious
Studies, Santa Clara University says of such volatile subjects, "Do I really want to say this?...I
could get my university in trouble with the bishops and that could be a problem for my career."

As a Catholic author who contests the licitness of these four doctrines I have experienced a
palpable reticence from nationally respected theologians who, after agreeing to critique my
controversial book, Illicit Celibacy and the Deposit of Faith, remain silent. In the judgment of this
writer there is yet another impediment for theologians to overcome today in order to challenge
or support any of these four ancient doctrines; this impediment results from a near complete
lack of knowledge of original Holy Traditions immutably ensconced within the Deposit of Faith as
handed on by Christ and His apostles. Many theologians doubt the legitimacy of these four papal
doctrines but without empirical evidence remain silent.

Clearly erroneous traditions that wrongly entered Christianity in the second century remain with
us today, but in defense of theologians it must be acknowledged they are not at fault for their
lack of historical understanding of non-Christian traditions used in support of these four doctrines;
students seeking an S.T.L. theological degree are indoctrinated with apocryphal traditions of the
second century that remain with us today. One notable theologian, who will receive this letter,
when asked to critique my understanding of historical and theological development, graciously
informed me he was not qualified to critique my book, saying, "Sorry, I am not familiar with
Christianities early history."

Professor Susan Roth, theology Department at Loyola University Chicago, says "The theologian's
task, while sometimes involving catechesis...is more properly the task of asking questions about
tradition." But unfortunately, with these four ancient traditions the Catechism is questioned

at one's peril. Still, Theologian Gary Macy of Santa Clara, speaking of legitimate questions
surrounding ancient tradition says, "Academics don't take questions off the table. We just don't
do that...theology has to put all the questions on the table." But to do so is to invite reprisals that
threaten one's career. It is inquisitive theologians such as this I continue to seek for critique of
my theological position. Unfortunately, while Duquesne University Professor George Worgul
realizes Bishops and theologians must "work together to show that the Gospel has some positive
response to offer", theologians and bishops who would deign to publicly support a challenge of
these four papal doctrines will be viewed as another Luther.

Having studied alone for 30 years with no input from credentialed theologians I wrongly believed
all were aware of the Church's origin as a Jewish sect composed only of Jews who followed
Jewish law, and that only Jewish laws that Christ "completed", and beliefs and practices that do
not contradict the Deposit of Faith, are the sole source of infallibility. I did not understand that
theological indoctrination since the Council of Trent includes apocryphal doctrines that provably
infiltrated Christianity after the Deposit of Faith was closed. Unless one studies legitimate history
of the Deposit of Faith, and is aware of apocryphal traditions that subsequently altered these four
ancient traditions one cannot intelligently comment - hence, silence.

Finally, realizing that much theological literature on which the S.T.L. is based contains these
theological-historical changes of the second century, I now include three historical articles on
my book's webpage outing these heterodox changes; changes presented in these articles will
become clear with careful reading and further personal investigation into the source of these
changes.

This author believes recorded historical changes in the Deposit of Faith during the second
century is a new, untapped, and fertile field for historical and theological investigation that can
fundamentally and positively change the Roman Catholic Church, without undermining the faith
of the laity. While acknowledging the above mentioned threats to one's career I continue to invite
theologians to study and candidly comment on infallibly issued contradictions that undermine
these four Papal doctrines, and consequently the monarchial papacy itself. To date I have failed
to find a theologian who will challenge the veracity of my book's core allegations.

Today Catholicism is once again facing implosive papal scandals world wide that are devastating
the Church in a manner similar to the Protestant Reformation; all can be traced to illicit papal
edicts. It is now time for reputable theologians to explain how history has finally caught up with
the papacy. This author invites legitimate criticism and is prepared to stand before assembled
groups of theologians to explain and defend his allegations.

Sincerely,

Edgar Davie

Jan. 23, 2012
DavieBooks@gmail.com
http://www.illicitcelibacy.com