IN THE eyes of many, the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is a somewhat discredited on. Committed members of the church are deeply angry, not only at clerical abuse of children, but at what has been seen (sometimes unfairly) as the ineptitude, devious answers and cover ups by church leaders.

One reason for this is that the church set itself up as the moral guardian not only of its own members but of the whole country. We laid down rules for others, especially women, to follow in the most intimate areas of their lives. It is hardly surprising, then, that many react with deep and lasting anger when they discover that our practices have at times fallen well short of what is acceptable in a church.

Deeper than the issue of abuse, however, is the problem of authority. This has been exacerbated recently not only by the Papal statement on the ban on ordaining women but also by the claim by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, supported by the Pope, that this teaching is infallible.

The claim has been contested by Francis Sullivan on the basis of tradition and on canon law grounds by Ladislas Orsy (both writing in the December issue of the Jesuit magazine America). Neither can be described as wild radicals.

In Roman Catholic thinking, infallible or non reversible teachings can be arrived at in three ways by the teaching that a doctrine is infallible, while at the same time making dear that he means his statement to be infallible (this has happened, twice); secondly, by the bishops of the world agreeing in an ecumenical council that a particular teaching is infallible; or, thirdly, by establishing as fact that both the Pope and the bishops throughout the world promulgate a particular teaching as infallible. It is this last method which is the basis of the Congregation's claim that the ban on the ordination of women is infallible.

AT different times in history, some teachings have seemingly been unanimously held by the Pope and the bishops, but have subsequently been shown to be erroneous. An example is the Council of Florence's view in 1442 that all pagans and Jews would certainly go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. In this instance, the bishops were wrong. But there is no evidence to suggest that they claimed infallibility for their view.

Examples such as this show the need for great care in suggesting that any teaching is infallible if the claim is based on the universal teaching of bishops. Sullivan suggests three ways how this might be done.

One, indicated by the present Pope, is to consult the bishops throughout the world. A second, suggested by Pius IX, is to establish that a teaching is held "by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians". A third, proposed in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, relies on infallibility being "manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful".

None of these seems to fit the ban on the ordination of women: as yet there has been no clear evidence that the bishops worldwide have been formally consulted on the issue; theologians are certainly divided on it; and so also are the faithful, many of whom are deeply angry at the ban.

Focusing on canon law, Ladislas Orsy points out that the Congregation's document does not claim a "special" approval of the Papacy for its document. In canonical practice, this means that the document is given only the level of authority that pertains to the Congregation, not that which pertains to the Papacy. Vatican congregations do not have the charism of infallibility.

Both Sullivan and Orsy refer to Canon 749 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such."

All this seems very technical and so it is. Roman Catholic teaching is based on the Scriptures and tradition. Over the centuries, the church has worked out methods for approaching these. They are always imperfect but, nonetheless, they need to be taken seriously.

THAT does not seem to have been done in this instance. Although the Congregation refers to Scripture and tradition, it does not spell out any arguments based on them. Perhaps it was wise not to do so. Parts of Scripture are clearly patriarchal, although the example of Jesus and the very early church is in marked contrast to this.

For its part, the tradition generally sees women as inferior creatures. Any argument, therefore, that women cannot "represent" Christ if based on tradition, would seem to be based on quicksand.

Finally, infallibility has been used historically about teachings that were not considered new. In the light of questions raised in this century by feminist thinkers, the ban on the ordination of women has, at the very least, to be considered in a completely new light and one that takes account of the historical and continuing prejudice against women in the church.

For many, it would be more appropriate to consider the issue as a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine.

The experience of modern democratic theory and of human rights has not been absorbed well by the Catholic Church. Our teaching on authority maintains that the Pope on his own can, in certain circumstances, teach definitively for all church members.

Further, the Pope and the bishops can together do likewise. There is no place for any of the non ordained and, therefore, for women to make decisions. That is why the issue of the ordination of women raises questions not only about patriarchy within the church but also about our structures of authority.

One wonders if the Holy Spirit does not have some extra cards up her sleeve.

Father Brian Lennon SJ is author of After the Ceasefires: Catholics and the Future of Northern Ireland and co author of Women in the Church: An Issue of Solidarity.