Cultural Hypocrisy

President Obama's speech from Sandy Hook on Sunday night exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of our culture.  Here's a salient quote:

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself.  That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation.  And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.  This is our first task — caring for our children.  It’s our first job.  If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.  That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.  And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations?  Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? [emphasis added]


This is, of course, a fundamental truth.  The whole point of "culture" is to raise children into virtuous, competent adults, and to reinforce by the continuous formation of adults the same virtues being passed on, in a manner consistent enough across time and space to be a shared and unifying vision of the Good.  Successful cultures are successful, stable, and enduring exactly in these terms.  People come to share this commitment to the Good that is envisioned, because it is demonstrably a Good, and because it tests positively against human experience.

But in this speech, Obama moves too easily from truth to truism, and thence to misdirection.

The truism is that threats of violence against our children come from outside, from disordered elements of the culture (like mental illness, or the apparent randomness of many forms of violence):

We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.  They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school; in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America....  As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice.  We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate....

This dichotomy is partly true, at the level of personal experience, and yet wholly false, morally.  Obama alludes to this falsity when he says:

[T]his job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation.  And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.

But if that's true, then there's not an "us" who try to protect children from violence and raise them in virtue, and a "them" who try the opposite.  Those who harm our more vulnerable members are also "us."  But from  the ambiguity of the superficial truism, the speech is able to misdirect:

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.  Because what choice do we have?  We can’t accept events like this as routine.  Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?  Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

The misdirection here is actually three-fold.

First, there is the straw man of opposing "freedom" with "preventing more tragedies like this."  Politically, this is a false dichotomy because freedom - true freedom, virtuous freedom, not license (as "freedom" is often cast) - is what makes a culture strong and resilient.  Only a society characterized by humility, fortitude, and prudence is capable of reining in the impulses to violent brutality, without resorting to strict tyranny.  Morally, this is a straw man because moral freedom is essential to love, and to the meaningfulness.  Without moral freedom, life just is; neither good nor evil, but simply to be endured.

Second, there is the implied "big government" thinking, that only (or perhaps, best) the federal government is equipped to deal effectively with this problem.  This is typical of this president's work (bailouts, Obamacare, etc).  This is misdirection in this context to the extent that it belies the need for vigorous subsidiarity in making and enforcing good laws, and so forth.  (The whole question of proper care for the mentally ill can be hooked onto this point.)

Third, and most blatantly, there is the elephant in the room of abortion, and indeed of the whole contraceptive mentality of behavior without natural consequence.  Mr. Obama said, "Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm?"  Abortion is the most grievous form of violence visited upon our children - in scale (roughly 3000 children murdered daily), in social damage (emotional consequences, lives and relationships gravely harmed, etc), and in moral damage (abortion justifies other grave evils, because if this person's humanity can be denied, then so too can this one's).  Abortion is a fatal cancer at the heart of our culture.

A society that teaches people that actions don't have natural consequences is doomed.  Likewise, a society that teaches that some people aren't really human.  A healthy society, by contrast, teaches natural virtue, respect for human dignity regardless of "utility" or circumstances, and the truth that love requires self-sacrifice.  A society that doesn't "accept events like this as routine" is one that also condemns abortion, adultery, promiscuity, infidelity; that also upholds chastity, the sanctity of marriage, and the high dignity of the vocation to parenthood.  Hence my opening comment about fundamental hypocrisy.  It is viciously hypocritical to condemn violence against children in a school, and to propose sweeping societal changes to counter it, while also promoting systematic, devastating violence against children in the womb, and resisting efforts to counter it.

Pope Benedict addresses bishops of Region VIII and IX

Thanks to Rocco at Whispers, here's the text of Pope Benedict's address this morning (Friday) to the bishops of Region VIII (Minnesota, the Dakotas) and IX (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri). Note well the stress on proper formation for marriage and for chastity, as part of coherent witness to and defense of the four-fold meaning of marriage (unity, complementarity, permanence, fecundity). Note also the point that marriage is a matter of justice.

Dear Brother Bishops,

I greet all of you with fraternal affection on the occasion of your visit ad limina Apostolorum. As you know, this year I wish to reflect with you on certain aspects of the evangelization of American culture in the light of the intellectual and ethical challenges of the present moment.

In our previous meetings I acknowledged our concern about threats to freedom of conscience, religion and worship which need to be addressed urgently, so that all men and women of faith, and the institutions they inspire, can act in accordance with their deepest moral convictions. In this talk I would like to discuss another serious issue which you raised with me during my Pastoral Visit to America, namely, the contemporary crisis of marriage and the family, and, more generally, of the Christian vision of human sexuality. It is in fact increasingly evident that a weakened appreciation of the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, and the widespread rejection of a responsible, mature sexual ethic grounded in the practice of chastity, have led to grave societal problems bearing an immense human and economic cost.

Yet, as Blessed John Paul II observed, the future of humanity passes by way of the family (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 85). Indeed, "the good that the Church and society as a whole expect from marriage and from the family founded on marriage is so great as to call for full pastoral commitment to this particular area. Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself" (Sacramentum Caritatis, 29).

In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.

In our conversations, some of you have pointed with concern to the growing difficulties encountered in communicating the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family in its integrity, and to a decrease in the number of young people who approach the sacrament of matrimony. Certainly we must acknowledge deficiencies in the catechesis of recent decades, which failed at times to communicate the rich heritage of Catholic teaching on marriage as a natural institution elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, the vocation of Christian spouses in society and in the Church, and the practice of marital chastity. This teaching, stated with increasing clarity by the post-conciliar magisterium and comprehensively presented in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, needs to be restored to its proper place in preaching and catechetical instruction.

On the practical level, marriage preparation programs must be carefully reviewed to ensure that there is greater concentration on their catechetical component and their presentation of the social and ecclesial responsibilities entailed by Christian marriage. In this context we cannot overlook the serious pastoral problem presented by the widespread practice of cohabitation, often by couples who seem unaware that it is gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society. I encourage your efforts to develop clear pastoral and liturgical norms for the worthy celebration of matrimony which embody an unambiguous witness to the objective demands of Christian morality, while showing sensitivity and concern for young couples.

Here too I would express my appreciation of the pastoral programs which you are promoting in your Dioceses and, in particular, the clear and authoritative presentation of the Church’s teaching found in your 2009 Letter Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan. I also appreciate all that your parishes, schools and charitable agencies do daily to support families and to reach out to those in difficult marital situations, especially the divorced and separated, single parents, teenage mothers and women considering abortion, as well as children suffering the tragic effects of family breakdown.

In this great pastoral effort there is an urgent need for the entire Christian community to recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. The integrating and liberating function of this virtue (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2338-2343) should be emphasized by a formation of the heart, which presents the Christian understanding of sexuality as a source of genuine freedom, happiness and the fulfilment of our fundamental and innate human vocation to love. It is not merely a question of presenting arguments, but of appealing to an integrated, consistent and uplifting vision of human sexuality. The richness of this vision is more sound and appealing than the permissive ideologies exalted in some quarters; these in fact constitute a powerful and destructive form of counter-catechesis for the young.

Young people need to encounter the Church’s teaching in its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly, they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to its truth. They also need to be supported as they struggle to make wise choices at a difficult and confusing time in their lives. Chastity, as the Catechism reminds us, involves an ongoing "apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom" (2339). In a society which increasingly tends to misunderstand and even ridicule this essential dimension of Christian teaching, young people need to be reassured that "if we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, absolutely nothing, of what makes life free, beautiful and great" (Homily, Inaugural Mass of the Pontificate, 24 April 2005).

Let me conclude by recalling that all our efforts in this area are ultimately concerned with the good of children, who have a fundamental right to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. Children are the greatest treasure and the future of every society: truly caring for them means recognizing our responsibility to teach, defend and live the moral virtues which are the key to human fulfillment. It is my hope that the Church in the United States, however chastened by the events of the past decade, will persevere in its historic mission of educating the young and thus contribute to the consolidation of that sound family life which is the surest guarantee of intergenerational solidarity and the health of society as a whole.

I now commend you and your brother Bishops, with the flock entrusted to your pastoral care, to the loving intercession of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. To all of you I willingly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, strength and peace in the Lord.

"Bought with a Price"

His Excellency, Paul Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, Virginia, has published an excellent pastoral letter on pornography. He deals with what pornography is, he demolishes the false arguments that try to justify its use, he details the ravages to persons and to families that is causes, and he lists several concrete things that we can do to push back against its insinuating corruption. I really hope this finds its way onto marriage prep reading lists. Please read the whole thing.

Maniple manipulation to W4, where I stumbled on it.

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.

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.