Talk:Ludmila Javorová

Disagreement about WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV

I've moved two posts here, which followed a revert I carried out on the article. I think the matter is better discussed here. AnnH ♫ 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I think that the fact that she was ordained by Davidek is beyond reasonable doubt by now (the Czech Wiki states it without reservation, by the way, and I have not heard here in Czech Republic that somebody would deny it). The question is of course how to interpret the act and whether it could realy give LJ the sacerdotal powers.

By the way, by reverting the article you destoyed several other useful pieces of information.

Therefore, please, revert the revert and edit the text using normal editing weapons :-) if you feel need to make it even more NPOV.

Have a nice day, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I can only say that your additions are not in accordance with Wikipedia polices about verifiability and neutral point of view. I'm sure you sincerly believe that Ludmila Javorová was ordained, but that's not the point. I think that you may be confusing truth with neutrality and verifiability. Let's take for example the case of Michael Jackson, who was accused of molesting children, or Lindy Chamberlain, who was accused of murdering her daughter. If you say (about one of them), this person was innocent, and another person says, this person was guilty one statement is true, but both statements are POVs, and therefore cannot go on Wikipedia. There is no proof that she was ordained, so no matter how true you may think it is, no matter how few people doubt it in your country and elsewhere, it is a violation of two Wikipedia policies to state as a fact that she was. If the Czech Wiki is breaking policy, that's too bad. I don't speak Czech, so I can't correct it; but it's no reason for us to do so here. Also, things like "without claiming her sacerdotal rights" are POV. First of all, it implies that she has sacerdotal rights. Now if she wasn't ordained, she certainly doesn't have sacerdotal rights. Also, if he ordination was invalid, (i.e. if it didn't take, if the bishop said the words, but nothing "happened" when he said them) then she doesn't have sacerdotal rights. And if the ordination was illicit, she presumably doesn't have sacerdotal rights.

Anyway, I'm going to move our two messages to the talk page of the article, as I feel they're more relevant there. So, if you want to make a comment, please make it there. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann! Regarding the "proof" that she was ordained, I added the citation of Fiala/Hanuš work. I think that citation of a serious historical study can be enough for this purpose. There are two direct witnesses in this case and a few indirect proofs - I think that the evidence is much more clear than in the case of Jackson. Moreover I added a section about controversies about LJ, where the different aspects (facticity, validity etc.) can be discussed in more detail. - Regarding the statement that she does not claim "her sacerdotal rights", I admit that my English is by far not perfect - please formulate it in a neutral manner so that it can be accepted by both people who believe and who do not believe in her "sacerdotal rights". The matter of fact is simply that she does not spend sacraments and does not say masses and lives like a normal Roman Catholic female. Have a nice day, Honza --Ioannes Pragensis 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had to remove more stuff. That Anglicans believe women's ordination to be valid is a truism, and is irrelevant to this article. We don't put that in the article about papal infallibility that methodists don't accept it. This suggests that one of the witnesses was six years old. I'm afraid that the citation of a "serious historical study" is not enough proof that the ordination happened. You'll get serious books arguing that Mary Queen of Scots did or didn't plot to kill Queen Elizabeth, but it would violate Wikipedia policy to state as fact one or other theory. All we can do is say that she says the was ordained. We don't want to make it sound as if she was lying or as if she was telling the truth. Neutrality is what we're aiming for.

"There are no reasons to believe that the action was a feminist uprising or that its direct purpose was to undermine theological positions of Vatican." That's a personal opinion, and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

"Documents and witnesses prove, that Davídek knew well what he was doing although he often used very unconventional methods." Documents and witnesses can't prove such a thing.

And actually, I think all the controversy about whether or not women can be validly ordained belongs in the women's ordination article.

Can you spend a little more time reviewing WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. And, if the Czech Wikipedia isn't following them properly, perhaps you could try to correct that.

By the way, I originally had in the article, that she was a grandmother. I found that information on the web, and it seemed accurate, but someone else removed it. I didn't protest, as I wasn't absolutely sure. Perhaps you know whether it's true or not? AnnH ♫ 13:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of the Depths is the only English-language biography as far as I know. In it there's no discussion of her marriage or having children. In that book written by a very sympathetic author, there's no discussion of testimony, witnesses, documentation, etc. of her alledged ordination or her alledged ministry, only a rumor, which Javorová confirmed.

If Fiala/Hanuš (who were 6 and 7 years old at the time of her alledged ordination) had more than the rumor that Miriam Winter had writing 2 years later (and 21 years after the alledged ordination) that would be an important contribution.

I can't speak to the commitment of the authors of the Czech Wiki to require a verifiable source for the Javorová claims. They should and if they don't, other Czech editors should insist upon verifiability. In any case, any article in another Wiki isn't a source for this Wiki which should rely upon verifiable primary and secondary sources. patsw 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann, please be less authoritative and try to understand what I am saying before deleting it. The two witnesses are Javorová herself and Jiří Krpálek, as it was in the version you reverted. Both were old enough in 1970 to understand what was happening. Fiala and Hanuš do not claim to be witnesses, they are only professors in Brno who were researching the Davídek's story and wrote a book about it. They are really too young to be directly involved, but this does not cast doubt on their ability to judge historical sources.

The fact that the book is in Czech and not in English does not diminishes its merits in my eyes. Is there any rule in Wikipedia that every source has to be translated into English before it can be used?

Regarding your comments about Anglicans etc. - I am able to accept it, but under two conditions: 1) It should be a link to the information here, and 2) The details about Catholic documents should be removed, as they are truisms irrelevant to the article, too (the cited Catholic documents were promulgated _after_ 1970). In order to keep neutrality.

Regarding Czech Wikipedia, I feel no responsibility for it and have no interest to change its articles and its way of life. But the Czech article cite the Fiala/Hanuš book as its source and I think that this is enough for proving the claim. This book is much better than your "Out of depth" for our purpose, because it is a standard historical book based on all available sources, not an interview.

Regarding the "grandmother" question: as far as I know, Javorová was never married and has no children. Therefore the word can be used only in a spiritual sense or it can mean that she is old (as it is often used in the Czech language).

Greetings, Honza --Ioannes Pragensis 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Still a claim

I don't know how a witness to her alleged ordination could have escaped any Internet reference for an event that happened in 1970.

There isn't a reference to the presence of Jiří Krpálek at the ordination of Ludmila Javorová on the net, and Ioannes hasn't mentioned some facts that would support the claim: when was it, where was it, who were there as witnesses, and why after the return of Czech sovereignty in 1990 (and persection of the Church ended), weren't the facts fully disclosed. It remains a claim, supported by one participant and one eyewitness.

What is meant by "sacerdotal tasks"? Does it mean the ministry of the sacraments and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? If that is the case, it's a paradox, it means she was ordained but didn't perform the ministry of a priest. But if that were the case, why be ordained in the first place? What do Fiala and Hanuš have to say about that? patsw 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pat and thank you for the interest in the Czech history. To the questions:

1) There are generaly few internet references to less important things happening before spread of internet in small "exotic" countries. So nothing what would surprise me.

There are some Czech references but without Krpálek, e.g. [1] - the title of this article can be translated as "She was consecrated as a catholic priest". Or a reflection over the Winter's book written by a well known Czech R-C theologian L. Karfíková[2], where Karfíková does not deny the Javorová's claim to be ordained, although she adds that the act was highly controversial and risky.

I think that the F/H book is the first instance where the Krpálek appears as a witness - it was published at the end of 90's, already after the interest in this theme was behind the peak. As fatr as I know the book was still not translated into English so perhaps the internet presence is still zero.

2) About the full description of when-where-who: In a short Wikipedia article, I would not go into such details. Much of the information is in the F/H book. I am currently not intending to make this a Featured Article with lenghty descriptions - to tell the truth, I intended only a bit better and more unbiased stub, and now I am working much more on it than originally intended.

3) Why she did not read public Masses? The F/H book says that even the underground church communinty was partly uninformed about the ordination and partly against it. Therefore LJ has not been accepted as a priest by the most members of her community. The article "She was consecrated as a catholic priest" says that she enjoyed her private masses where she was perhaps the sole person present.

Now one question to you: You added a section saying that "The Vatican announced in 2000 that her ordination, if indeed it took place, was not valid" - could you please cite the source? I've heard that the official church ban happened already in 90's, so it would be good to clear the matter.

And, please, cite sources relevant to the event - the current Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the papal document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are all from 80's, about 15 years later than the ordination. I would suggest to cite either the then valid CIC or nothing and let the details into articles about Davídek, about RC theology of priesthood and about controversies connected with female priests. I think that in an article whis is still a half-stub we should keep the right proportions and do not dive deep into ideological disputes.

Wish you a nice start of Spring, Honza --Ioannes Pragensis 08:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I remarked that you used a complicated wording "claim to have been ordained" instead of simple "ordination", suggesting that she has perhaps not beed ordained. I am perfectly OK with it, if it is really a known issue - please cite at least one good source, where this possibility (that she and Krpálek are lying or in an error of perception) is taken seriously, as a possibility with a non-neglectible probability. As Ann already remarked, we should not introduce here new themes/ideas not discussed before in a reliable source. If you know such a source, it would be good to introduce it in the list of literature, too, and perhaps cite one or two sentences from it. It would be also very interesting for me, since I do not know such a source. Thank you, --Ioannes Pragensis 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof for the Wikipedia is verifiability. When we apply that criterion to this case we only have one participant and one witness for an admittedly secret event. But there was no reason after 1990 for the secrecy, but it appears to have been maintained as a secret until 2000.

On the other hand, the constant teaching and practice of the Church to only ordain men is 2,000 years old and it's not disputed, why are specific page and paragraph citations necessary? The reason we cite the Canon, Catechism, and encylical is they are accessible and refer to this being the teaching and practice since the foundation of the Church. The sad fact is that the door was never open for Ludmila Javorová to be validly ordained in the Catholic Church. This didn't become a law starting in 1994.

Frankly, I am surprised that we don't have a consensus on what's relevant to the story:

• Who was present at the ordination?
• Where was the ordination?
• When was the ordination?
• After the ordination, did Javorová celebrate the sacraments and the liturgy for the faithful?

To say that one can read about it in a book is besides the point, these are the essential facts to support the claim she was ordained.

No one is ordained as a priest to enable that person to celebrate Masses privately. If that were the reason to ordain a man, that in itself might consitute an invalid ordination since the intention of the Church is for a priest to minister the sacraments to the faithful and not to confer a personal privilege. patsw 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to believe that the problem is mainly in that while I am trying to write an article about L. Javorová, you are trying to write an article about the Unchanging Teaching of the RC Church Regarding Impossibility to Ordain Women. Therefore what are neglectible details from my point of view ("Where was the ordination?" "What popes teached about it 25 years later?" etc.), seem to be very important questions for you. I understand that the _general_ theme of women ordination is an important one; but why to describe it just here? Please, find a better place for it, eleborate the theme there and give a proper link to this article. Nobody denies that the RC church is the last important bastion of the male-dominated traditional world in the modern Western culture; but why to stress this almost truistic fact in this place?

Since you gave no citation about the date and other circumstances of the RC church ban on Javorová, I remove the section for the time being. Later, when somedbody finds it, we will return it back. This would be interesting to have here because _this_ is a concrete detail related directly to Javorová - not the general theses of well known Vatican documents. Please seek it. --Ioannes Pragensis 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so much as a ban as a huh? As you have noted, who did what to whom when in the period of supression of the Church is rather unclear. As far as I know Javorová never presented herself for assignment to Bishop Davídek's superior, Bishop Blaha, which would have been the normal action for a priest after the former's death in 1988. My speculation is that had she done so in 1988 (or at any point since then), she would have been informed then of the invalidity of her reception of Holy Orders and the invalidity of the sacraments for which presumed to minister to the faithful. patsw 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pat that's it's still only a claim. Furthermore, regarding the importance and relevance of the Church teaching about women's ordination, can you tell me what possible claim Ludmila could have to an entry in an encyclopaedia if it were not for her claim to have been ordained in a religion which says that any attempted ordination performed on a woman would be automatically invalid? That's the only thing that makes her notable. Finally, when something is simply a claim, and has not been verified, we don't have to get sources saying that there's a doubt about it before we edit the article in such a way as to make clear that this is just a claim. And it remains a claim, even if two authors of a book believe her. That's not to say that it's not true — just that we can't report it as if it's something that unquestionably happened. AnnH ♫ 02:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann and Pat! Thank you for the link to the Cardinal Vlk words - it is clear from the article, that even the Prague Archbishop has no doubt about that the ordination ceremony happened:

These two bishops, Cardinal Vlk said, were responsible for [...] the ceremony in which Ludmilla 
Javorova was allegedly "ordained"-- although that "ordination" was clearly invalid. 

So I ask: When two known historians have no doubt, and the Prague Archbishop has no doubt, and no one reliable and current source I know has doubt about the happening of Javorová ordination ceremony - why you two are still tampering with the wording to show that this have possibly not happened? Stop it, please.

Quite another question of course is whether this ceremony may have caused Javorová to be really priest. In my understanding this is a question of theology and personal belief and the teaching of churches and this is really an open question - so you can add a link to articles where this question is disputed and of course mention that the RC Church has taken a stance against the possibility.

Regarding your question, Ann, why LJ deserves her place in the Wikipedia: In my opinion the main reasons are two: 1) She was probably the very first female vicar general of a RC bishop in the history of this old and world-wide church; and 2) she was an important figure in the Czechoslovak church underground during 1960's and 1970's, who helped with her service, friendship and leadership to many people. The fact of her ordination is of course important as well, or at least interesting, but - as we already mentioned - the validity of the ordination is dubious and she did not used her "sacerdotal powers" much. Therefore I would not like to center the article around the ordination question, but rather around what she really accomplished.

And again, Pat, PLEASE, if you write that "the Vatican announced in 2000 that her ordination, if indeed it took place, was not valid" GIVE THE SOURCE. (I think that there is no doubt that Vatican has this opinion; but we must give the correct date and the correct wording and the source.)

Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

More disagreements?

Hi, Ioannes. To deal first with your insistence that we find a published source arguing that the ordination never happened — that's not how Wikipedia works. Some months ago, I was very much involved in editing an article about a woman who collapsed while alone with her husband, and became severely brain damaged, and unable to speak. Some years later, when her husband was heir to the million dollars from her medical malpractice suit, and when he had become engaged to another woman, he petitioned the courts to have her feeding tube removed, so that she could "die with dignity". They may not have been his words, but they are words that are used in such cases. Her parents opposed this, and suggested that he had tried to strangle her. A bone scan showed injuries inconsistent with a simple collapse. Last summer, that article was being controlled by people who passionately supported her husband, and it read to say that she had collapsed in the hallway of the apartment, that the noise had woken her husband, and that he had immediately called the police. Now, that was what some newspapers, who were sympathetic to the husband, had reported; it had presumably been accepted by the courts, or at least, the courts had not been interested in investigating it. It may even have been true. I personally did not adhere to the strangulation theory. But it was completely out of line with Wikipedia policy to report it like that. The fact that it was just a claim from the husband, with no proof, meant that that wording was a violation of Wikipedia policy, regardless of how many judges and reporters and politicians sided with her husband.

Regarding whether Ludmila's ordination ceremony took place, we don't have the normal level of proof that would be required. We have her word for it and we may have a witness who was six years old at the time? The people you quote weren't there; they are not valid witnesses. I would accept a statement from the bishop's successor or from the Cardinal if there is such a statement and if he is basing it on proper official documents that he has access to rather than simply Ludmila's word.

I don't mean to imply that Ludmila is lying, and I don't want to saturate the article with "this so-called "ordination", if it really happened", but I will resist attempts to state it as a fact, just as I resisted attempts to state that the husband woke up from the noise of the wife's collapse and immediately called the police. (In that case, a few administrators became involved and discovered that some rules were being broken, a very abusive and foul-mouthed editor was blocked, another one left, and eventually the article was reworded to say that she collapsed in the hallway, and that firefighters arriving in response to her husband's 911 call found her face downwards. A perfectly good wording. It doesn't suggest he tried to strangle her or that he didn't try to strangle her. I did not have to look for published sources saying that the husband hadn't been asleep at the time in order to protest that we shouldn't report as fact something that is hearsay.)

I personally have no strong opinion as to whether or not this ceremony actually took place. I just want the article to follow Wikipedia policy. I do, in fact, have opinions as to whether or not such an ordination would have been valid, but my opinions, and yours, don't belong in the article, which is why I earlier removed the bit about not exercising her sacerdotal rights (which suggested that she did indeed have such rights).

To give another example, some people accept the claim Lucy Walter made that she had been secretly married to Charles II. I once read a book in which her marriage was stated as fact. But secret marriages, like secret ordinations, cannot be treated as fact, regardless of how many people believe they happened.

I can't understand this sentence:

In the case of Javorová, among the eyewitnesses was Jiří Krpálek, but most of the others clandestine priests of the group was informed about twenty years later.

I have removed it for the moment. The first part "In the case . . . Krpálek" is awkward, but it's the rest of the sentence that I don't follow. "Most of the others clandestine priests". Does that mean "other clandestine priests"? "Others", as plural, acts as a noun by itself, not as premodifying a noun. And "was informed about twenty years later". Are you saying that these other "priests" weren't told they were priests until twenty years after they were "ordained". I assume they weren't ordained while asleep, so I really don't know what you mean here. By the way, "priests" is plural, and so it needs a plural verb form.

By the way, in English, we use "ordained" or "ordination" for priests, and "consecrated" or "consecration" for bishops.

I don't normally edit something that's inside quotation marks, but since there's no published translation, so it was just your translation, I took the liberty of modifying it. I changed "takes" to "took". Even if the present tense is used in Czech, it would not be used in English. I also removed the square brackets from She. A reason for having them would be that the quotation had "she" (lower case) or Ludmila. But translations often break up sentences in different places, and change nouns to pronouns or pronouns to nouns where it would flow better in the target language.

I don't think there would be the slightest possibility of Ludmila having her own article here if it hadn't been for her claim to have been ordained. She's not internationally notable for any other reason.

Anyway, the main point of my post is that if four or fifteen or twenty-nine people say that something happened and we find out that three or fourteen or twenty-eight of them were just accepting what the first one had said, and were not independently verifying the account, then it's not really corroborated.

AnnH ♫ 13:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Ann, and thank you very much for the help with English. Regarding the argument with the (perhaps?) strangulated woman: I understand your intention and of course I have absolutely no objections to describe all relevant opinions in the article - if they were really relevant. This is the point where I think is the difference: In your example, the strangulation theory was clearly expressed outside Wikipedia, that is, it was possible to cite outside sources like newspapers, where this theory was seriously presented. In the case of Javorová, you and Pat are the only two persons I know who are saying that the ceremony have possibly not happened - and you are both from Wikipedia and have not cited any outside source which would support this claim. Similarly regarding the person who claims that she secretly married a king: There is probably another historical book outside Wikipedia describing her claim as unproven and it is possible to cite it. But how it looks with Javorová? There are currently 3 sources in the article: The Winters book supporting Javorová, the F/H book taking neutral, scholarly position, and the Cardinal Vlk statement opposing her. They have nothing in common - only this one simple thing, that they are all taking for granted that the ceremony in 1970 really happened. There is an important rule prohibiting to make primary research here in Wikipedia - you should only aggregate already existing sources. And that is what I need from you: Either give correct sources or let it be in accordance with the existing ones. (Yes this is exactly the same what you have demanded from me, so I think that this is a fair demand.) There are two things in the stake: 1) Wikipedia should be as correct as possible, and 2) We should not do harm especially to living persons using spinned and unfair words.

Regarding the bad sentence: It means that Jiří Krpálek (btw. ordained as RC priest in 1967 according to http://www.jaroska.cz/article.php?AID=164, also definitely not 6 years old in 1970, because the church does not ordain toddlers) was the witness of the ordination of Javorová, but that wery few other priests from the Davídek group knew about the ceremony in the time (1970). Most of these priests have been informed about 1990, that is 20 years later. Please be so kind and rework it into usable English. And have a nice weekend, --Ioannes Pragensis 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No original research/theories allowed

Ann, please keep the Wikipedia policy "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." You can wrote only things previously published in a reputable source.

But you wrote:

• "By her own account, as cited in a book by Petr Fiala & Jiří Hanuš..." - I told you already, that the point in the F/H book is based not only on her own words, but on another adult witness, a priest J. Krpálek, and on an indirect evidence (results of Kobeřice synod etc.). If you think that F/H are lying, give a source, i.e. another reliable book which claims that F/H are liars and Javorová's claim is unproven.

It is by her own account. That's a correct statement. The story of the other witness doesn't appear in any of the online articles supporting the fact that she was ordained and it doesn't appear in the account given to Miriam Winter.

It seems incredible that if there were witnesses to this disputed event in 1970, and revealed to the world in 1995, that no account would include that J. Krpálek was a witness until the one given to Fiala and Hanuš.

In fact, some of the online accounts have the ordination without any witnesses, and in one account the one witness was her brother Leo, who like her father, also ordained, (that account doesn't mention if Leo was ordained at the same time as his sister is alleged to have been).

I'm not asserting that Fiala, Hanuš, or Javorová are lying. I don't know and you don't know. We assume good faith. On the other hand, there's a glaring inconsistency in the stories given that must be fairly reflected in the article. Adding by her own account is to me the weakest possible representation that a story given in 1995 doesn't match a story given in 1999. This revert should be reverted. patsw 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, you cannot compare internet sources (some of them written far before F&H book, some of them translations of translations) or a book of interviews (Winter) and the standard historical work. The discrepancies which you have mentioned are easy to explain because none of the sources concentrates on the details of this type. If there are differences in sources, then it is better to base the main line of the article on the most scholarly one, the newest one, the one based on the broadest research. That is F/H here. And the phrase "on her own account" clearly opposes what F/H write about it. - If you find time, insert the source with Javorová's brother, please, it would be surely interesting. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge if F&H is a "standard historical work", but that it is based on "her own account." There is no evidence other than her account, and according to your cite, Jiří Krpálek.

But if Jiří Krpálek was a witness to her ordination why was his presence not mentioned in her 1995 interviews and the 2001 Winter book? Is that something that one would forget to mention given that the ordination is disputed to have taken place.

We know Javorová's account. What is Krpálek's account in the book? patsw 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only guess; but I think that she did not mentinon Krpálek because she do not wish to make him problems. As far as I know, he works as a Roman-Catholic priest and her statement could create him an image of a trespasser of canonical rules. Your second question (Krpálek's account in the book): there is no specific acount attributed to him, only one short sentence stating that the ordination act was in his presence, and the authors cite an interview with him, which they made during the preparation of the book. I can perhaps write them for more details, just out of curiosity, but I think that this is irrelevant for Wikipedia, as it is very near to "original research". For our article, it should be enough to cite the book. In every case, the phrase "on her own account" is not correct because it loks like there were no other sources about Javorová cited in the F/H book - but there is a plenty of sources here to the whole Javorová's life, at least some of them relevant to the question of her ordination. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that only a baptized male can validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." - As far as I know this teaching was clearly stated as a teaching (not only as a canon of CIC) in 1980s or 1990s. Distinguish please between teachings/doctrines (e.g. that there is only one God) and canons/laws (e.g. that every bishop should ask the pope for dismissal in the age of 70).

The statement is affirming that the Church always taught this and always held this as a doctrine. Recent statements only repeat what the Church has always taught and held as a doctrine. There is no distinction here. As originally written, it is a correct statement. If you have information from a verifiable source as to when and where the Church taught that it possessed the power to ordain women as priests or held this belief, that would be a reason to modify as you have. This revert should be revered. patsw 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to solve questions like this in this article. But if you please look at Ordination of women, then the oldest "teaching" source cited is Paul VI (about 1970 I guess), but it seems that the cited sentence is no official dogma but perhaps only his personal opinion. If I remember it well, the today's Roman Catholic church started about 1050 A.D., so I hardly can call this 1970's sentence a proof for the "always" - you should return at least further 900 years back. - Understand me, I am not an expert in this question, but can hardly allow such claims in the article without a proof. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I revert the page and please you, observe the policies.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction you make between "teaching" and "doctrine" does not exist. This teaching did not originate with Pope Paul VI. The Catholic Church teaches it is the one, true, Church founded by Jesus Christ entrusted with the mission to draw all to Him. You may disagree with this but we're editing in a context connected to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. So what matters is the Church teaches and what Catholics such as Bishop Felix Davídek, Ludmilla Javorová, and myself believe.

The matter first came up with heretical Christian and pseudo-Christian groups who ordained women. This practice was condemned in the first centuries and noted in a 1976 Vatican document. [3] Frankly, it's common knowledge that women were not ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. The reason for not finding new condemnations or teachings or legislation of this practice in every century in the history of the Church is simply that it was never again tested by disobedience until the 20th century. patsw 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not make distinction between "teaching" and "doctrine" (such a difference really do not exist) but between "teaching" and "canon law". In my opinion the early sources which you (and Vatican) cite prove that ordination of women was "always" (=since about AD 150) prohibited by the canon law and regarded as a nonsense or perversity. This is clear and every feminist would approve it :-) But at the same time, the teaching seems to be not from Paul VI, but rather from John Paul II. In every case, this interesting question should be cleared in Ordination of women and not here. - Moreover, it is not the task of Wikipedia to distinguish which groups in the Christianity are "heretical" or "pseudo-Christian" and which truly continue in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Rather, it must give the proper place to all relevant voices and do not prefer one over the another only because the former has more partisans now.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and its teaching

I'm a bit stunned that you say that the Catholic Church started around 1050. It started nearly two thousand years ago. Your assumption that the Church "began" to teach that women could not be ordained in the 1970s is completely inaccurate. I recommend that you study the works of the ancient Christian writers, including popes and canonized saints. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Doctor of the Church, also made it clear that the question of women's ordination was not ust a rule (something not allowed) but an absolute impossibility.

Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders.

(Summa Theologica, Supplementum Tertiæ Partis)

See also, the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, The Didascalia, Firmilian, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, The Apostolic Constitutions, Augustine, and many, many more. Believe me, there is far more evidence that the Church taught this before the 1970s, than there is that Ludmila went through an ordination ceremony, valid or invalid.

I have seen many old, dusty, out-of-print hardback Catholic doctrine books, with imprimatur etc., written long before Vatican II, saying that an ordination ceremony performed on a woman would be invalid. (On the other hand, an ordination performed on a baptized male infant would be valid, but extremely unlawful.)

I haven't time to deal with your other points now, but I have said before that there is no proof that that ceremony took place. I have no particular opinion as to whether it did or not happen, but am concerned that Wikipedia should not assert as fact things which are based on hearsay evidence. "By her own account" is most certainly not original research. And I agree with the points that Pat made above.

When a pope issues a statement, it is not "his personal opinion". His personal opinion might be found in a comment made at dinner that a particular saint is more appealing than a different one.

It's one thing to disagree with a teaching; it's quite another to argue that the teaching doesn't exist, or that it didn't until recently. As Pat says, the Church always taught this, and simply repeated it in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She didn't repeat and emphasize it as often before, because nobody challenged it, but she certainly taught it. AnnH ♫ 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann, I do not speak about the "Catholic Church" in general, since it is not quite clear what this means (or better, it has different meanings in different contexts). I speak about the "today's Roman Catholic church" and it started by the splitting of the Old Church in 11th century. - Regarding St. Thomas & others: 1) He lived 200 years after the mentioned date, so his theses are not much helpful for us in our small dispute. And 2) Not all thoughts and teachings of the ancient Christian authorities are regarded as absolutely true even by theologians; there are often contradictory things in these old texts. E.g. regarding our special question:

• "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2,12f) - But there are many female Roman Catholic Professors of Divinity today, for example.
• "the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife" (ibid 3,2) - But the today's Roman Catholic church likes rather paedophiles and gays than "husbands of one wife" in this role. (I am not criticising it, besides I personally know two gay priests who are quite clever and diligent; but that is the reality.)

The point is that you must be very careful if you say that this or that is the teaching of the church; and the more careful you must be if you claim that this teaching is here from the very begining.

But as said, this is a question for quite another articles.

Much more important here is the question whether "by her own account" is correct or not. As you know, F/H cite much more sources than her interviews. The list of the sources in my copy has 9 pages in a small font. I do not know any other article or book which would say that these sources are all faked or worthles. So I think that if you say something like this, then it must be either your original research or your speculation; and both is prohibited here.

I admit, that the book can contain inaccuracies - every book can have errors. I accept that you may have your personal doubts and you are fully entitled to make your independent research of the matter. But what I say is that Wikipedia is not the place where we should write about it if we have no independent sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V)

Wish you a nice weekend, --Ioannes Pragensis 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ioannes,

• spiteful comments like yours about paedophiles do nothing to help your cause.
• when Ann talks about Catholic Cburch, she is referring to the body commonly known as RCC - which other CC should she refer to when were are talking about Czechia?
• the (R)CC did not start in 1054 (actually nothing started in that year, the schism of that year has been exagerated in its importance) but centuries before that at least
• Thomas very well is relevant for the issue, since he lived about 700 years before 1970
• It is true that not every single saying of a church father is automatially church teaching, but given that Thomas has been named a church doctor, given that his summa is a standard work, given that many other saints agreed with him (while none disagreed), given that popes have condemned female ordination in Antiquity, given that today's church condemns it because, among other reasons, it feels compelled by its past teachings etc.
• Of course the teaching was not there from the beginning - it was there from the first time it was challenged.

To sum up, I can only quote Ann: "It's one thing to disagree with a teaching; it's quite another to argue that the teaching doesn't exist".

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977,

• My words on paedophiles were not spiteful but sad. I am the very last person who enjoys the paedophile crisis these years. Because it undermines the credibility of all believers, not only the deliquents and not only their church leaders. - And I have no special cause here, I am only trying to keep the article as exact as possible and moreover I wish to have here an article about Javorová and not about Church doctrines.
• Catholic Church may also mean under circumstances:

1. One of the other Catholic Churches in the narrower sense, e.g. Old Catholic Church (which is present in the Czech Republic);
2. The Old undivided Church before 1054;
3. and in broader sense every of the churches which accept the doctrinal heritage of the Old Church, e.g. RCC, Anglicans, Orthodox Churches;
4. The invisible community of all true Christians as stated in the Credo (Credo in ... sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam).

• The original issue was not whether this is the teaching of the RCC or whether this teaching belongs to Thomas, but whether the "Church has always taught" it.
• And first of all I think that this questions should be solved in another article. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about what?

Ann, I think that we both are giving too much time to this simple article. Please try to find a solution which is in accord with the Wikipedia policies and at the same time acceptable for all concerned.

Regarding your last edits:

• "there are no written records of it" - not true, as there are written records (protocols, field notes, letters...). You probably mean that the canonical documents are missing - but it is obvious why: The ordination act was illegal and punishable by the State, and they wished to avoid imprisonment.

So — there are no written records of her ordination is an accurate statement. Were any documents kept?

Of course they were: Bishop Davidek held onto written promises of "absolute silence" regarding her ordination from the circle around Davidek. Her ordination was not only to be concealed from the State but from the Church as well. This silence wasn't broken in the 1980's with the easing of restrictions on the Church or in 1990 with the fall of Communism but only in 1995, years after there was any possibility of punishment by the State. patsw 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; but it does not change the matter that there are written documents. We are not speaking about the silence in early 1990's but about the written records. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that..." - this is a very disputable statement; and there is no mention about it in the article Ordination of women, where it should be cleared first. Please do not abuse this article about LJ for solving general questions connected with the Church history of more than 1000 years back. It is enough for our purpose to state that the RC church teaches it now, which is perfectly verifiable.

If it is a disputable statement, then dispute it: Identify when the Church did not teach that only men can be ordained as priests, or show where the teaching cited has been incorrectly cited. patsw 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken - in this case, the burden of proof is on your side. If you are asserting the above hypothesis, you should 1) Find a generally accepted date of begin of the RC Church (an almost impossible task) and then 2) Prove that the Church taught it at this date (not only had it as a disciplinary measure or as a theory of theologians, but taught it).

But even more important is that this is not the right place for disputes like this. This is about Javorová, born 1932 and living in Brno, and not about things in Rome before hundreds of years.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Church teaching VERY relevant in this article" (from your summary) - this is of course true; but what I always say is that this article is not about the church teaching. It should of course contain a short summary of the teaching in one sentence, and it should contain a link to Ordination of women#Roman Catholic Church. But no more, I think. "The most readable articles contain a minimum of irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information. (...) If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it," says our Style guide and I think that we should keep it. --Ioannes Pragensis 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The parts of Church teaching which are relevant to the article are exactly what gave Javorová's 1995 claims to have been ordained in 1970 the attention of the world media. If this ordination occurred as Javorová claims, Bishop Davidek was acting invalidly and in disobedience to the Church in doing so. It is relevant, accurate, and cited, and as a matter of copyediting, not overly long. patsw 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Church teaching is very well known and easy to find. There is no need to go in details here if we have links. In the internet encyclopedia, it is very easy to connect ideas and themes - think about it: you are not writing a paper book, where it would be perhaps reasonable to repeat things in greater detail; you are writing a web based work, where you can easily "send" reader in the article about RC Church if he/she is interested to know more about it.

Allow me to give you an example: in the article about Pelé, there is no detailed explanation of the rules of football - although these rules (and his mastery of using them) were what gave him the attention of the world media and the right to have his article here. Similarly here is no need to explain the rules of RC Church in detail, although it is true, that these rules (and trespassing of them) gave Javorová her fame. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat is right. If Ludmila had belonged to a Church which allows women ministers, nobody outside of her country would have been interested in her story when she claimed to have been secretly ordained, and the article either would not have been created in the first place or would have been created and then put up for deletion as a biography of a non-notable person. And the references to the Church teaching are not lengthy — I could make them a lot longer! As for the Church teaching being very well known and easy to find, to the extent that there's no need to go into detail here, the fact that Ioannes made such extraordinary claims on this talk page about the Church having started in the 11th century, and about it not having taught that women couldn't be ordained before the 1970s, and about that teaching being just a law makes me more convinced than ever that we need to have the teaching clearly stated in the article. It doesn't have to clutter up the article. It's just a few sentences about something that makes an otherwise non-notable woman notable. AnnH ♫ 07:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I accept that my English is bad. But I think that at least in some cases I wrote my opinion clearly and you should read what is written and not fabricate other meanings. For example I did not wrote that the Church started in the 11th century, but that the today's Roman Catholic church started about this time; and moreover it was clearly in a context where it meant terminus ante quem, that is the latest possible date. - I believe you very much, that you can make the teaching part of the article a lot longer. Which is exactly what I wish to prevent. :-) See my example about Pelé. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources, please

Hi Pat and thank you for the today's edits. I feel that we are perhaps already near to a generally acceptable solution. It is far much better in Wikipedia to cite a senior official like John Paul II than to state something like this as an absolute truth without sources.

But there are still issues to solve, and I would prefer if you first try to solve them:

• Davídek "demanded that in writing" promises this would be kept secret from the Czech government and the Catholic Church — "absolute silence on the matter". Is a rather complicated sentence, almost incomprehensible for foreigners like me - could you please simply say something like that he demanded "absolute silence on the matter" from everybody? (BTW it was nothing unusual to keep secrets before the Church, because communist spies were even in Vatican as we know now, not to speak about the local administrators of dioceses, who were almost completely selected from the "loyal" or corrupted priests. It is hard to imagine the situation for a person who never lived in a totalitarian state.) - And first of all, could you cite the source for this?

• "If written records of the ordination exist, they have not been made public." is IMHO a weasel sentence and a bit contradictory to the previous statement; not to speak about the fact that there are written documents, although from a later time. I would therefore drop this statement.

• The Pope citation: is the word "always" really stressed in the encyclical? And could you give better citation (i.e. the chapter of the encyclical)?

• You cannot say that the law from 1970 reflects the encyclical written many years later. I would start with CIC (as directly relevant for the 1970 case) and then perhaps cite the Pope.

Wish you blessed Easter, --Ioannes Pragensis 07:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

With the publication of additional materials, it is no longer in controversy that a ceremony took place. The dispute is over the theological or supernatural result thereof. I have therefore taken the liberty of separating out those two matters, placing the bare facts first, and the controversy next. The majority of the material in the controversy section comes from the camp that holds the ordination ceremony had no religious significance, but it's only fair (and indeed proper) to state the position of those who felt otherwise. Also, in the lede, it is significant to know that this claim is not the lady's alone, but made by others and supported by her bishop (...whether properly or not is the whole point of the controversy) rewinn (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I have reverted a previous edit to the introduction of this article, which appeared to definitively take a position on the validity of the subject's ordination. The language I have reverted to appears to meet the requirements of neutrality. It also reflects that this article has been through much (as demonstrated by the above Talk history). Homagetocatalonia (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)