Monday, January 31, 2011

More March for Life footage

This 1-minute time-lapse of the March passing by a certain intersection is great!



Maniple wave to American Papist.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Other "Diaconal Categories" and Canon 277

My thanks to Dr. Peters for obtaining permission to post his 2010 article, "Diaconal Categories and Clerical Celibacy" (Chicago Studies 49, pp 110-116) on his website. I was disappointed I couldn't get my hands on it last year, and am very grateful to be able to read it now.

I completely agree with his initial premise, that the so-called "permanent" and "transitional" distinction in the diaconate is fundamentally inaccurate, and that there is only one order of deacons. His brief sketch of how canon law treats all deacons the same in their canonical obligations and limitations shows how true this is.

I would quibble, though, with what he identifies as the significant difference, which the labels "permanent/transitional" attempt to identify. He says that some deacons (mostly "permanent" ones) are married men, and some (mostly "transitional" ones) are not. But as he then shows, this distinction breaks down rather quickly, not least because there are now also married priests in the Roman Church.

To my mind, the difference in not married vs. unmarried state, but rather the intention (or its absence) to ask the Church to discern a vocation to the presbyterate. So-called "permanent" deacons are, for the most part, "permanently" in their ecclesial rank (i.e. the one order of deacons). So-called "transitional" deacons, again for the most part, enter the diaconal rank already having asked the Church to consider if they have the presbyteral vocation. And nearly always, the Church calls them to Holy Orders as deacons precisely because she does discern their presbyteral vocation, and intends to call them to this rank of the clerical hierarchy in the future. In this sense, these deacons (though of course they never cease to be deacons) "transition" (lit. "go through") to the priesthood. Despite their inaccuracies, the adjectives "permanent" and "transitional" do (badly) describe this difference of intention.

What are the implications of this for our current fracas about Canon 277?

If this is true, then Dr. Peters is not correct to identify the present moment as the "crisis" of the Latin tradition of clerical celibacy. The crisis has been and gone, and this is rather its denouement. The admission of married men to the diaconate, and more recently also to the priesthood in certain circumstances, cannot be a "challenge" to clerical celibacy, since the Church has already passed the judgment that its tradition of clerical celibacy could and would be changed. That judgment came when Lumen Gentium noted the possibility of ordaining married men into the clergy, and Pope Paul VI issued Sacrum Diaconatus, permitting the Church to do so. Once that decision was made, the Church changed the meaning of its tradition of clerical celibacy, and therefore of clerical continence (whatever canonical relationship between these two might obtain).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law held all clerics to celibacy, and in practice married men were not ordained. As Dr. Peters argued in his 2005 article, everyone then understood "clerical celibacy" to mean the same thing as "clerical continence." In 1917, these were not two separate canonical obligations (even though conceptually a necessary distinction is made between them), but one and the same obligation. With the admission of married men into the clergy, and the necessary change of the meaning of the tradition of "clerical celibacy," some necessary change in "clerical continence" must also be made.

Dr. Peters's core argument is that this change came in the form of a new distinction, in the 1983 Code, between celibacy and continence, as no longer the same obligation, but now as two separate obligations. I remain unconvinced by this argument, in part precisely because of how closely "clerical celibacy" and "clerical continence" were tied from the 11th to the 20th century. Given the intensity and unanimity of that tradition for nine centuries, it is simply inadequate to introduce and define this new distinction in such a tepid and ambiguous manner as the current wording of Canon 277.1.

Therefore I still would tend to think that there is a defensible argument to be made, to the effect that, for unmarried clergy (regardless of rank), the Church still interprets "clerical celibacy" and "clerical continence" in the same way it has since the Gregorian Reform (one and the same obligation); and that, for married clergy (regardless of rank), there is a new and separate way of interpreting "clerical celibacy" (married men may be ordained under thus-and-such circumstances, but not remarry after ordination) and "clerical continence" (the details still being worked out in practice, as mentioned previously, but not "perfect and perpetual").

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Diaconate, Marriage, and Continence

One of the things I think has been missing from most of this week's fracas about Canon 277 is the recognition that continence is, first and foremost, a virtue, a response of the heart touched by the grace of Christ, before it is an external, legal obligation. But then, of course, married clergy, just like all followers of Christ, are not exempted from it -- even if, as married men, they are not obliged (or at least have not been held to the obligation) to observe the same "perfect and perpetual continence" as unmarried clergy. So then, what manner of pursuing this virtue is desirable for married clergy?

As a virtue, continence is oriented to chastity (the universal virtue of "right use of the sexual faculty," from which no one is exempted). Right use of the sexual faculty means not using it in the wrong ways (e.g., it must be open to life), or at the wrong times (i.e., not outside of marriage, and even within marriage not when e.g., it fails in respect or self-gift to the spouse, or would give scandal), or for the wrong ends (e.g., separating in any of a number of ways the procreative and unitive dimensions). Continence supports chastity, by allowing us to choose not to use the sexual faculty when it would be wrong to do so. Marital chastity means that periodic continence is necessary.

The Christian marriage of all married clergy, then, ought already to include some measure of practical, periodic continence, by the time of ordination. But as clerics, married clergy are called to some manner of more effective leadership, or witness, or demonstration, of the possibilities of Christian virtue. There are two aspects of clerical continence for married clergy that we might consider. The first is "doing more;" the second is joy.

Doing More

Doing more with respect to clerical continence means responding more generously, in our interior life, to the grace which perfects our virtue. We have already the habit of practical, periodic continence. This habit could be strengthened by a more intentional practice of the same choices, by which, within the realm of our shared spiritual life in marriage, the sacrifice of the periodic continence is more deliberately made an act of spiritual union with Christ. A whole range of possible devotional and spiritual connections will suggest themselves here.

This habit could also be strengthened in another direction, through our clerical service to Jesus Christ (diaconal or sacerdotal). This is, in effect, the "Levitical" continence which is the tradition of both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox married clergy. By deliberately subordinating our chastity (and our practical continence by which we grow more chaste) to our conformity to Christ, we submit, together with our wives, more fully to Him. This would eventually entail growing into a certain uniformity of ecclesial practice in what, exactly, that means for our service to the Holy Mass. The Latin Church has no existing tradition of this form of continence, but perhaps our experience, now and in the coming handful of generations, will be a gift to the Church.

Joy

The visible aspect of our steeping ourselves in Christ-like virtue in these ways ought to be joy. We grow in joy by growing in obedience, in the freedom to love more whole-heartedly, which is the best and deepest fruit of grace and virtue. And of course, continence and chastity are about precisely that freedom, for married Christians, just as celibacy is about that same freedom, in a different way.

Continence, whether merely periodic, intentional, Levitical, or perfect-and-perpetual, is part of our Christian lives. I hope we can do a better job of using it well, to grow in chastity, and therefore in freedom and joy, so that we can better serve our Lord Jesus Christ, in every vocation, for the salvation of many souls.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Diaconal Continence and Canon 277 - An Inconsequential Response -- Updated 1/26

Whether or not this response to Dr. Peters's argument is of consequence, I hope I avoid the mistake of letting it be consequence-driven. I have hesitated to comment in public on Dr. Peters's article, because my expertise is elsewhere. I offer this response in the spirit of collegial dialogue, not as the last word, and, as I have previously stated, as an act of fraternal service to those most disturbed by the current fracas.

Canon 277 reads thus: "§1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. §2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. §3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation."

Dr. Peters's argument about Canon 277 hinges on whether "continence" and "celibacy" are two separate obligations on the clergy, or two aspects of one single obligation. If they are two separate obligations, then I can't refute his conclusion that only the obligation of celibacy is removed for married clergy. (Someone else more versed in canonical argumentation that I might still do so, but to my knowledge, no one has.) But if they are together one single obligation, then permitting a married man to receive Holy Orders as priest or deacon removes together both parts of the one obligation.

Here are some reasons one could argue that the latter option is the correct one:

(1) Since this article appeared in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI has written the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. One of the canonical provisions of this document reads thus: "VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1 [see above]. § 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."

Notice here two things. First, Pope Benedict identifies the core of Canon 277.1 in the "norm of clerical celibacy," not the norm of perfect clerical continence, to which celibacy is ordered as a secondary good, as Dr. Peters argued. Second, the permission for married former Anglican clerics to be ordained as married Catholic priests or deacons includes a formal "derogation from" Canon 277.1 -- that is, one single derogation, as from one single obligation.

(2) The encyclical of Pope Paul VI referenced above, Sacerdotalis Coelibatus, consistently uses the term "celibacy" for both the concepts of celibacy and clerical continence. Only in #34 does the term "continence" show up, where it is taken from another source (namely, Perfectae Caritatis #12, wherein it is used interchangeably with "chastity"), and in the context of this section of the document seems equivalent to "celibacy."

So one might conclude that Pope Paul VI also thought "celibacy" and "continence" to be aspects of one single obligation or commitment of clergy.

(3) If that's true, then in permitting married men to be ordained to the diaconate, Pope Paul VI did in fact exempt them from both celibacy and continence together, in his motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem: "Therefore, in the first place, all that is decreed in the Code of Canon Law about the rights and obligations of deacons, whether these rights and obligations be common to all clerics, or proper to deacons--all these, unless some other disposition has been made-- we confirm and declare to be in force also for those who will remain permanently in the diaconate. In regard to these we moreover decree the following...." Rather than finding celibacy in what followed (#2, 11), and continence in what remained, both together are exempted for married men in what followed.

(4) Pope John Paul II also used "continence," "celibacy," and "virginity" interchangeably in his Theology of the Body audiences. (See especially Audiences #74-77, on interpreting Mt 19:10.) Granted this is not any kind of canonical or quasi-canonical source, but it's consistent with his predecessor and successor, and I would not be surprised, if one went looking, to find it in suitable canonical sources also.

I note, finally, that this argument makes rather more sense of the past four decades of Latin practice than the "two obligations" argument. Dr. Peters's conclusion implies a very serious discrepancy between law and recent practice. But this conclusion implies that recent practice is consistent with the law as written.

Therefore, I am lead to conclude (at least tentatively), Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have all understood Canon 277.1 to involve one obligation, that of continence-and-celibacy, and not two separate obligations. In permitting married men to be ordained, both aspects of the one obligation are removed together.

UPDATE - Dr. Peters on the Anglicanorum Coetibus reference to Can. 277. Unfortunately his first point merely begs the question: is it one obligation or two? If one, of course AC is silent on continence as distinct from celibacy, while if two, why is it silent? His second point is technically correct, but I don't see that it actually answers the challenge. Yes, AC only applies to former Anglican clergy, but could it really be the case that there is one interpretation of Can 277 for one group of married clergy, and another for another group? It seems that such a difference would have to be explicitly stated in some canonical document, in order to overcome the presumption that this provision is being established for this group of clergy precisely because the normal interpretation of Can. 277 is "one obligation."

Diaconal Continence and Canon 277 - There Is No Cause To Panic

Dr. Ed Peters, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting but with whom I have at times exchanged pleasantly cordial emails, five years ago wrote an article ("Canonical considerations of diaconal continence," Studia Canonica (2005) pp. 147-180) on Canon 277. It's available on his website as a PDF file. It's a very careful and thorough analysis of this canon, and I'm not really qualified to respond to it in depth. However, in the past several days, and rather more in conjunction with the erection of the Ordinariate in England than with us married permanent deacons, this article has become the center of an uproar.

American Papist posted this.

Deacon Greg Kandra responded, not trying to take on the argument of the original article; Dr. Peters replied.

Deacon Bill Ditewig responded, calmly and from an interesting point of view; Dr. Peters replied, with moderation and fairness.

Deacon Keith Fournier also responded, with considerable insight.

As a general comment, Dr. Peters has also posted this plea to avoid "consequence-driven analysis." I complete agree with this. Dr. Peters's argument needs to be responded to on its merits.

This dispute is also making the rounds of several other blogs and portions of the Catholic commentariat, and my above links aren't meant to be exhaustive, but do trace the main lines of the debate.

What I am noticing among the various comments and replies is a considerable share of alarm, coming from ordained permanent deacons, from men in discernment of or formation for the permanent diaconate, and from their wives. This is what motivates me to throw my hat into this ring. As a formator of permanent deacons, I feel a certain responsibility, not only to the men of my own deacon community, ordained and in formation, but also to all those who are disturbed in their vocation or discernment of same by this sudden eruption of academese.

First, please do not do anything sudden or hasty in your vocation or discernment. Dr. Peters is offering a theory about the meaning of Canon 277. He's a canonist, and a good one; it's part of his job to offer it. Because he's a good one, he's careful to offer a coherent, thorough, and well thought-out theory. But his argument, however good it is, is only a theory, unless the Magisterium affirms it as the proper interpretation of the law. That hasn't happened.

Second, as Pope John Paul II said so often, "don't be afraid." Just as Dcn. Fournier said, if this really is part of the true meaning of our vocation, then the grace to accept it, to thrive under this discipline (just as we try to thrive under the current discipline and its graces) will abound. Despite the emotional baggage of this particular topic, it's really just one more piece of our discernment and submission to God's will. Take a deep breath; don't panic. (Repeat as necessary.)

Third, remember that Dr. Peters's argument may in fact be incorrect. I'll post my thoughts on that separately.