May the graces of this season of Lent enkindle the desire for deep prayer in all our lives.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
St. Leo the Great on our participation in Christ's own life and salvation
Pope St. Leo the Great is generally recognized as a great Church leader, a great theologian, and a vigorous defender of Rome and the Church. He is counted as one of the doctors of the Church, certainly. But he's also a great teacher of prayer. Here's a short reflection on part of one of his homilies on the Nativity, concerning Leo's view of how we participate in the life and salvation of Christ. It follows his profound understand of Incarnation (atonement, rebirth, freedom = the same pattern as his Tome to Flavian, "pre-existence, kenosis, exaltation") in how we receive the life of grace from Him (interior life) and how we live it out in the Church's mission (vocation, exterior life).
May the graces of this season of Lent enkindle the desire for deep prayer in all our lives.
May the graces of this season of Lent enkindle the desire for deep prayer in all our lives.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
O Happy Fault
As you know, this is my first Lent as a deacon. That means I'll be practicing the Exultet for the Easter Vigil, starting now. This is one of the things I've been looking forward to for a long time. It's never too early to start getting ready! Lent is, after all, about preparation for Easter.
Here is a good recording to practice with, and the sheet music to practice reading while singing it.
Here is a good recording to practice with, and the sheet music to practice reading while singing it.
Monday, February 7, 2011
St. Anselm on theology and interiority: how to study while remaining open to mystical ascent
In our Christology class, we talked last time about St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). For all of us, here's a reflection on how St. Anselm sees the connection between theology and our interior and devotional life, taking three short passages from that work. Once again, I think he is masterful in this, and worthy of our friendship and imitation.
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.
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").
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)