I’ve been following this thread with some interest, to say the least. I’m not Catholic (at least, not yet); my beliefs are more accurately labeled as Hindu.
If the Second Council really did not say anything about pre-existence of the soul, then that means that there has been no conciliar decision on either pre-existence or reincarnation (and by “reincarnation”, I mean a theory of reincarnation that would be compatible with resurrection).
I was perusing the CAF site, and I found this:
Members of what is commonly called the “New Age” movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: “The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea sic]” (Out on a Limb, 234–35).
Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names)—and neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.
The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before A.D. 553, when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly “taken out of the Bible.”
I’m tempted to say one could believe in not only pre-existence, but also a suitably modified form of reincarnation, and still be a good Catholic. I won’t actually say so: many Church Fathers spoke out against reincarnation, but not infallibly (right? or am I mistaken here?), and, in my opinion, they rejected certain versions of reincarnation, but not all. It does seem that there is some wiggle room in this area.
I have to say that if some version of reincarnation were at least theoretically possible within Catholicism (adherence to which might place on the border adjacent to heresy, but not over the line), that I would seriously consider becoming Catholic this very second.