text:
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
I don't disagree with this conclusion -- that the law should be clearly stated to avoid confusion -- but I do have questions for consideration which seem to me warrant further attention.
1. Granting the weight of Dr. Peters' historical evidence of the Western connection between orders and continence (although I'd be very interested in a church historian's take on all of this), I want to ask: "Why did the Latin church adopt this position in history? What was it about human sexuality and the use of the sexual gift -- even within marriage -- that somehow made this "unsuitable" or "inconsistent" with ordained ministry? For argument's sake, let us hypothesize that perhaps such a connection was made on the basis of a misplaced dualism which saw human sexuality and its exercise as somehow sinful or "dirty": if this were demonstrable, then perhaps it would be high time to move in a different direction that more clearly reflects the church's CURRENT teaching and understanding of human sexuality, including sexual intercourse, within marriage. In such an understanding, (active) sexuality and orders would be seen as complementary, positive values, and not as a condition in which one must be sublimated to the other.
What do you think?
2. Dr. Peters, if you happen to read this, I have a question for you. This is not meant as a debating point, because I truly and simply just want to understand a particular point better. If you don't see it here, I'll post in on your blog:
In my original post in this matter, I made a point of looking at related canons from the Eastern Code. You dismissed this, if I understand correctly, because you are speaking solely and discretely of the Latin Code; is this correct?
My point, however, is this: While the Codes are distinct, of course, I'm approaching this from a broader ecclesiological perspective, I believe. The Church is ONE, so when we consider our Tradition and our traditions, I believe that we need to let the traditions inform one another. I am not saying that "the East is always right" on an issue, but neither can we say that the West has all of the insights either (I know, Dr. Peters, that you are not saying that; I'm simply being hyperbolic). My point is that we should, as John Paul II liked to say, "breathe with both lungs." So, for me, it IS a matter of interest on how the Eastern churches view this issue of continence currently.
What do you think? This question is not addressed to Dr. Peters only! Chat amongst yourselves!
118 comments:
I think this development among married clergy reflects the development of the Church's teachings on heterosexuality and marriage as you point out.ReplyDelete
If we accept the Church teaching on marriage and sexuality then I fail to see how a sacrament that is an icon of Christ the Lifegiving Bridegroom and a sacrament that is an icon for Christ the Priest and Servant could somehow be in conflict. Rather then seem to marvelously complement on another.
I also agree that so many more "traditional" (for lack of a much better word) Catholics in the West seem (not a judgment but an observation based on many years of pastoral ministry and moving in clerical circles)to think that "might makes right" over the East since we are much larger in number and since the Bishop of Rome is at the same time pope. I have seen the rich spirituality and traditions of the East dismissed with a wave of the hand(Catholic and Orthodox) and heard them maligned so many times as if Blessed John Paul II had never referred to the "2 lungs of the Church".
As for me and this present issue: I am just praying and looking to St. Joseph as a great example. I know that these prudential and canonical decisions of the Church are not always the best but I pray for 'ears trained for obedience".
I, too, am concerned about a "...misplaced dualism which saw human sexuality and its exercise as somehow sinful or dirty.." in this whole question. I think we could look to Bl. John Paul II's writings on the Theology of the Body for some insights.ReplyDelete
Thanks, Bill. Grappling directly with this issue going back a year, I am most interested in this discussion and more than content to read and think moe deeply about this matter. I do think Dr. Peters has performed a great service by pointing out the incongruity between canon law and ecclesial praxis with regard to married permanent deacons. Like you, I think the best solution, forty years on and for a number of good reasons, is to resolve the matter in favor of what we currently do and amending canon law accordingly.ReplyDelete
If I may intervene on the issue of church history by bringing up a very valuable article, written some years ago by Daniel Callam, OSB (an article I brough to Dr. Peters' attention some time back): Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century: Three Papal Decretals. It was published in Theological Studies.
Peace, Scott
Re your point 2.ReplyDelete
I don't know why folks use two-lung language here. I don't think it's relevant to start with, but, even it were, my whole point could be re-phrased as being that one of those lungs, the Western, is no longer acting like itself and is now imitating the other (Eastern)! So Western lung, be yourself! Of course, we are not even imitating the East in regard to temporary continence; the West has simply abandoned completely ANY sort of clerical continence expectations for married clergy.
Anyway, as I say, I don't see the relevance of Eastern law for how Western law is to be interpreted here. I grant, Eastern law can suggest how Western law COULD be changed (or vice versa, if it came to that), but if the Western Church decided to move that direction, then my original point would still stand, i.e., that Western law would need to change, and not simply be ignored.
Let's stay in touch on this. Best, edp.
Hmmm. My FIRST post, with a reply to Dcn. D's first question, did not appear. It was longer (and more important for our exchange) but it was within the character-limits for a post. Maybe Dcn. D can find it? Else, I can try again. But I did reply in some detail. edp.ReplyDelete
(The rest of my reply to your Point 1)ReplyDelete
My task as a lawyer is narrower: to point out what the law says (and to point out that, virtually without exception, it has said what it still says for a millennium and a half) and to observe that the concomitant practice has, in almost no time (from a Church point of view), utterly disappeared. That's a grave problem, either for law, or for practice. The Church can decide which. If, however, she decides it is a problem for practice, I can and do say, "No need to run around thinking you have to change canon law to re-begin expecting continence. Your law already says exactly that. It's just that no one has adverted to it for some decades."
From a wider ecclesiological point of view, I think what might be happening in regard to the diaconate (and the clerical state in general) in this area is comparable to what has been going on with the liturgy for a decade or so, namely, a reform of the reform. See, e.g., http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-article-diaconal-categories-and.html
Hi. Okay well, it's not working, Rats. So i'll put the whole up in good order over at my blog, http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/. Regards, edp.ReplyDelete
Dear edp,ReplyDelete
Sorry you're having trouble posting here. I'll go read the full text on your blog.
To clarify: My interest in the Eastern experience has absolutely nothing to do with "the West must change to the Eastern ways" or anything at all like that. I'm simply saying that we must consider the varieties of experiences and values of the ancient church. As a church that is ONE in its diversity, we ALL must avoid characterizing one part of the Church's experience as reflection the whole of the Church's experience.
God bless,
I have been following this issue/posts here and on other blogs and I do not recall ever seeing Dr. Peters' response to the silence of Paul VI, John Paul I (his 30 days would have been long enough to say something if he saw this as such a horrid transgression), Blessed John Paul II, myraids of bishops and Vatican Congrgegation for the Clergy on married priests/deacons and their active conjugal sexuality.ReplyDelete
Dr Peters: I am very curious as to what you habe tp say to this collective silence on one hand and to the public addresses on the other hand which have praised the activw married and family life of these priests and deacons?
If you have already written on this elsewhere then please give reference and I will check it out. Thanks.
Hello Dante. Toward the end of our last thread you asked a long series of questions that were off-point. When I answered, correctly, the one semi-relevant question you had posed, you responded with sarcasm and then quite misconstrued my answer. It's just not the kind of exchange I wish to take part in again. Please read the materials I have posted and reach whatever conclusions you feel are justified.ReplyDelete
Dr. Peters - sorry if my posts on marriage and consumation thereof seemed off-topic. In my mind they were on-topic in an oblique related fashion but then we all think in somewhat different patterns, I suppose.ReplyDelete
As for sarcasm...I think that's something difficult to judge in the short written word. Easier to discern in audible converation. I actually DID mean it was good news for some couples and it was NOT a sling back at you.
However, I am not asking for a personal exchange with you, I could email you for that or post at your blog. I am asking for a public sharing of your thoughts on the silence of the Supreme Lawgivers on continence and at the same time their vocal support for married clergy to live out fully the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Regardless of what you or I may have thought of my previous post I think my present request is a valid and important one to ask a canon lawyer: what is your take on the silence of the Supreme Lawgivers of the Church, who are fully aware of the existence and ministry of sexually-active married clerics? Are they misinformed? Ignorant of the facts? Well-meaning but misled? Lukewarm in ministry? Or I guess the worst case scenario for some...are they somehow traitors to the Tradition?
I have indeed read most (not all) of your many postings at your blog and I do not recall seeing this question addressed, though there were discussions of silence and its meaning in this issue (though not as I recall silence from the Popes as Supreme Lawgivers).
BTW I agree that canon law needs to be changed to reflect current practice, even though the present canon seems upon reading to link continence with celibate state. But then laws (civil or canonical) always need updating and always seem to lag behind.
Ed Peters admits:ReplyDelete
the West has simply abandoned completely ANY sort of clerical continence expectations for married clergy.
And Canon Law needs to be interpreted in the light of that authentic interpretation of the tradition expressed by the Church.
God Bless
A contrary analysis by a different canon lawyer:ReplyDelete
Dear thetimman,ReplyDelete
Thanks for the link. While I'm put off a bit by "canonist X's" anonymity, I find his comments about the logical underpinnings of "ideoque" to be reflective of my own take on it.
Dante, I do believe you raise an excellent point (one I also raised) about the actual praxis of the Legislators (papal and episcopal) since the promulgation of the 1983 Code. I also include each and every document issued by the competent curial offices and Latin church episcopal conferences around the world.
Dr. Peters, can you summarize your response to these items, or direct us to specific citations within your article(s)?
Here's how a Canon Lawyer friend explained Can 277 to me:-ReplyDelete
As I understand the principles of the law – the prior claim of the rights of spouses arising from the sacrament of matrimony negates the requirement to continence if one of the partners of a marriage is an ordained deacon. Otherwise among other things, the conjugal rights of the wife are being denied when she has the prior claim. It is useful to note that a married deacon promises obedience to his ordinary not celibacy, whereas an unmarried deacon and a priest promise celibacy.
In other words if a right or responsibility is declared to exist by virtue of the law it cannot be summarily removed without the agreement of the individual to whom that right or responsibility rightfully belongs. In canonical circles this is called the law of priviledge. A privilege is a concession given by the law or by other competent authority to a person or group of persons enabling the privileged person to do or not to do some thing. Canon 1135 states that "Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. " Candidates for diaconal ordination who are married therefore already have the right to "things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life".
Privileges are divided into three types, personal, real and mixed. A privilege is personal if given to a person or group of persons. And while an individual who has been given a privilege individually is free to renounce it and the renunciation is effective when accepted by the competent authority. But if given by virtue of a dignity to a group of persons, individual members of the group are not free as individuals to renounce the privilege. Neither is anyone entitled to remove that priviledge. Canon 1336 tells us that to deprive one of his right, privilege or title is to inflict a penalty. At the same time canon 1342(2) forbids an ordinary perpetually to impose a penalty merely by administrative decree in a penal case. It follows that an ordinary cannot perpetually deprive a deacon who is married of the privilege of "things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life" by administrative process and he cannot be perpetually deprived of it by judicial process either. As I said before his wife has rights too and neither can she be deprived of them by the same token.
Divine Law establishes the rights and obligations of marriage and therefore mere man-made Canon Law cannot override what God himself has established as the rights and obligations of marriage.
God Bless
Hello Chris. I declined to engage this anonymous canonist when you brought him/her up in another thread, and decline here again. Take this for what it's worth, and feel free to ignore it, because I am not going to bother defending my assertion, but, there are several serious mistatements of the law in this passage. It might make a good quiz exercise to have students see how many they can spot. Best, edp.ReplyDelete
The 'silence' begins with a curious omission from Lumen Gentium 29 (can you spot it? I am going to go ahead and assume you are able to read the Apostolic Fathers in Greek...).
Diakonos, Mr. Sullivan,
This is for you:
I am not asking you to engage this canonist, but to engage his argument about the prior claims of marriage, which seems solid to me.
God Bless
Chris. It's in the article. Sorry to sound like broken record. Really. Best, edp.ReplyDelete
Dcn. Bill, well, since it's you, I will try to get to that. Best, edp.
Do you mean this in your Studia article ? :-
as a result of the husband's ordination, the wife were to suffer the loss of one of her own fundamental marital rights, as would be the case if all clerics, including married permanent deacons, were bound under c. 277, §1 to the obligation of "perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." In that case, obviously, the husband's choice to accept ordination and to assume its burdens, including continence (albeit without celibacy) would leave the wife without the opportunity to exercise her legitimately acquired conjugal rights. It is in the face of her own loss of conjugal rights, I suggest, and not because of some vague notions of marital harmony—and even less to canon law having granted one person a power of personal preference over another's ability to receive a sacrament—that the 1983 Code recognize a wife's extraordinary power of veto over her husband's desire to seek the sacrament of orders.
I agree with you that to impose continence would be a violation of the rights of the wife.
As it is explained to candidate permanent deacons, the wife's consent to her husbands ordination is because of the amount of time and energy her husbnad is comitting to the ordained ministry. That is the reason for the requirment of the wife's consent. Her consent has nothing to do with the supposed abrogation of her rights to marital relations.
This part of your article seems to rather accept the point of my Canon Lawyer friend, that the rights and obligations of marriage (established under Divine Law) cannot be abrogated by Canon Law.
God Bless
A question on the next sentance in your Studi article, viz:-
In sum, the 1983 Code expressly imposes two obligations on Western clerics, one of continence, and one of celibacy
Surely there is no obligation of celibacy (meaning being unmarried) for married clerics and therefore your assertion here is incorrect ?
God Bless
Casa Lidia - I'll ask you the same question Dante, Dcn Bill and others have asked of Dr. Peters: what s your stated opnion on the words, teachings, etc of Paul VI, john Paul I, Bl. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Vatican Congrgation of the Clergy, various universal andnational offices, etc on this issue? I am assuming they can read the Fathers in Greek and much much more than that or than the opinion of any canonist, they are the ones appointed to teach and lead and interpret for us. All I believe were also at the Council as Fathers except for B16 who was a theological advisor. Have they noticed this great ommission?ReplyDelete
So what's your own take on this? Are they ignorant? Misled? Mistaken in their teaching and legislating? Duped by advisors? Traitors to the tradition? etc.
So many of us are waiting to hear the reply.
Mr. Sullivan:ReplyDelete
"If the husband receive sacred orders with the knowledge and consent of his wife, she is bound to vow perpetual continence" (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5053.htm#article4)
Consent of the wife was not needed for receiving minor orders, even though those ministries could certainly also use up a lot of "time and energy."
No one has the right to abrogate the conjugal rights of the wife without her express agreement. Therefore, what your New Advent link says is contrary to natural justice and contrary to Divine Law on the rights and obligations of marriage.
As a candidate Permanent Deacon I can assure you that the Permanent Diaconate certainly does take a LOT more time and energy (time exceeding an order of magnitude more) than minor orders such as lector or acolyte. Hence the necessity for the wife's agreement.
Ed Peters' view that the wife's consent pertains to her sexual rights does not square with reality and that view has never been taught to those in my formation class.
God Bless
Reverend Diakonos,ReplyDelete
If you know of "words, teachings, etc." by the authorities you mention on this very issue (continence for married major clerics in the Latin Church), would you kindly give references for them or perhaps post links for them here? That would be helpful and enlightening for all of us (especially for me, given my area of research). Perhaps then I might be able give an "opinion" as you suggest, though I am just a lowly canonist.
With all due respect, I regret that I can't do your homework on St. Polycarp and LG 29 for you, since this is clearly a topic of interest to you, other than to suggest studying the primary sources (preferably in the original language) and the additional materials listed by Dr. Peters (my list is similar, with Cochini and Heid for starters).
I still think that all that Dr. Peters is asking for is a clarification, and I would be interested in seeing such a clarification myself.
Mr. Sullivan,ReplyDelete
I rejoice in your vocation. In the first millennium lector and acolyte were very demanding ministries indeed.
I do hope that in your formation class someone has mentioned that for those among you who are married, should your wife pass away (quod absit!), that you are prohibited from marrying again. And I hope they have explained why, lest you think your natural right to marry is being impeded.
(P.S. "my New Advent link" is St. Thomas Aquinas...and most of the time I don't argue with him).
St Thomas lived and wrote in an age without married Permanent Deacons so his view here is not really relevant to this discussion.
We have all had to give written assent not to remarry, although noone has been able to give any particularly convincing reason for this, other than long standing tradition and sign of devotion to ministry. What is stressed is that the Church can and does dispense from this in cases of need. So it is not strictly a set in concrete requirement of ordination.
God Bless
Part TWOReplyDelete
While others sorted that out, I would have returned to my basic observation that Catholic tradition and law yield many examples distinguishing between celibacy and continence. Mary was not celibate, but she was continent. St. Joseph was not celibate, but he was continent. My own patron, St. Edward the Confessor, and his wife Edith are generally thought to have observed unbroken continence, and others point to the example of Jacques and Raissa Maritain, and so on.
Most relevant for me as a canon lawyer —as I have made irrefutably clear in the Studia article— the 1917 Code, which did know of married clerics, made express provision for the absolute continence of the spouses after the husband took (major) orders. This is certain from the text of the law, and it needs no elaborate syllogism to prove it. This is the law Paul VI took up in Sacrum, and which has nowhere been modified.
Speaking of modifications of the law, one of most influential arguments for me was the discovery that an express exception for deacons in regard to Canon 277 § 1 had been proposed throughout the revision process, but it was, at the last minute, pulled by John Paul II. That this norm was a bona fide exception for deacons, and that it was pulled by John Paul II himself just before the Code went into effect, is disputed by no canonist I know of, not even, say, by the highly-regarded James Provost (rip) who would have not agreed with my final conclusions (Provost thought the exception for married deacons could be found elsewhere, and I deal with his claim in the article).
What this boils down to, I think, is this: my interpretation of Canon 277 requires one to hold that, in the heady days of post-conciliar enthusiasm (I mean that in a good sense) a very old and still active obligation in the law, but one seldom occasioned in fact, was simply overlooked by those in charge of forming the first married deacons, and few (not no one, but few) thought to question that oversight until the last few years, that is, after only a very brief period in Church history.
The school that holds I have committed a logical fallacy requires one to hold that, for roughly a millennium, and probably for a millennium and a half, at least, the whole Western Church labored under a rudimentary logical fallacy about the relationship between celibacy and continence, and that certainly every single commentator on the canon law that served as the foundation of Sacrum was mistaken in holding that married clerics were obliged to continence and that therefore the consent of the wife was required precisely for that surrender.
I'm willing to accept my burden.
Best, edp.
Your studia article asks
how it comes to be that the consent of a third party (i.e., not the hierarchically authorized minister and not the sui composrecipient) is necessary for any adult to receive any sacrament in the Church.
I suggest that baptism is an apt example: the Church requires the parents of a child to give their consent to the child's baptism. This seems analogous to the wife's consent for her husband's ordination. It is not really remarkable that those affected in the family need to give their approval as the family is affected.
I take from the discussion of the drafting history of Can 277 the clear mind of the Church, expressed in the multiple earlier drafts, not to require perfect and perpetual continence of married clegy.
Your "a certain continence" in the subsequent Vatican document clearly applies to all married persons, as is evident from St Paul, who are all called to perfect continence in times of sickess, NFP use etc, and to continence in the sense of a certain restraint. That the term "perfect and perpetual" is not used of this "certain continence" is, I think, very telling.
Definitions of "continence" as meaning "restraint" (eg Martens and some other dissertation on the Cannon whose author I forget but whom I expect is known to you) which may be partial or perfect are very pertinant here.
Coriden and Provost, which you quote on Can 4, are very much in line with what I quoted above from my Canon Lawyer friend. Can 1135 is very pertinent here
Each spouse has an equal obligation and right to whatever pertains to the partnership of conjugal life.
It seems to me that the universal practice of the Church in ordaining married permanent deacons without requiring perfect and perpetual continence does meet the 30 year requiement to establish customary practice law as the 30 years must be measured, not from 1983 but from the start of the modern practice of ordaining married permanent deacons (circa 1968?).
I summary, I contend that the correct interpretation of Can 277 does not mandate perfect and perpetual continece of married clergy as interpreted by Coriden, Provost, Woestman et al. This interpetation seems to be the clear mind of the Church as expressed by the practice of the Bishops and the norms established by the Vatican diacasteries.
God Bless
I think the wording of Can 277 establishes that it does not mandate perpetual and permanent continence for married clergy.ReplyDelete
If it did, in the words of the Canon, their continence would imply their celibacy, which is a nonsense as they are not celibate but married.
God Bless
Mr. Sullivan,ReplyDelete
I am very sorry to have to point out that if St. Thomas is speaking about priests in his own day in Q54-Art. 4., then those (married) priests he is describing passed through the diaconate also while married. If I could with all humility ask you to kindly read my post on clerical continence on my little blog, it might help fill in a few of the historical gaps, or material and resources not yet covered in your formation class -- which I truly hope they get around to, since it does sound as if there is still some confusion among your fellow deacon candidates (and your instructors) about the written assent you have all had to give in advance to not remarry if widowed (yes, dispensations are given here and there, but of course such a dispensation is always contra legem...and it is not specified which law is involved in such a case -- as married permanent deacons do not publicly promise celibacy or continence when ordained...).
I did read your blog post but I didn't find most of your arguments very convincing.
The Church has moved on from St Thomas, the middle ages, and mandatory clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite (it was never a mandatory requirement in the other 20 rites).
I think that is a very good and much needed development.
Sex is marriage is God willed, holy, sacred and deeply sacramental (it is a participation in the sacrament of marriage). As such it is a very good thing, and not something that could possibly detract from Holy Orders (one sacrament cannot contradict another).
I've yet to read any convincing argument as to exactly why marital sex of ordained clergy actually detracts from their ordained ministry.
God Bless
Dr Peters said above:ReplyDelete
"I don't know why folks use two-lung language here. I don't think it's relevant to start with, but, even it were, my whole point could be re-phrased as being that one of those lungs, the Western, is no longer acting like itself and is now imitating the other (Eastern)!"
While the approach of the East is in no way normative for interpreting the letter of Western law, it does have some bearing upon the intent of the Council Fathers in re-establishing the diaconate in the West.
The bishops readily acknowledged that the East had maintained the tradition of a "permanent" diaconate, and it was principally Patriarch Maximos of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church who prevailed on Paul VI to reinstitute a married diaconate in the West. The age restrictions on ordination which Paul VI adopts in Sacrum are precisely those recommended by Patriarch Maximos in his submission to the Conciliar preparatory commission, rather than the older age limits previously under consideration.
It is notable also that the Eastern Catholic churches demand a wife's consent before a man can be ordained to the diaconate, but obviously there is no implication here that she is consenting to perfect continence.
I think a case could be made that it was the intention of the Council Fathers and Paul VI to adopt the model of the diaconate in use in the East when they restored the diaconate in the West. It might be an interesting project for somebody who has access to the full Acts of the Council.
I appreciate that this does not address the issue of what the Code of Canon Law actually says, but it might offer an explanation as to why the hierarchy en masse seems to have adopted practices which on the face of it are at variance with the Code. Their assumption or intent may simply have been that we were adopting the practices of the East when the diaconate was restored here.
It wouldn't be the first time that ambiguities and novelties had arisen out of certain interpretations of Vatican II.
Dear Deacon Augustine,ReplyDelete
Thanks for your post. Perhaps I might be able to expand a bit on one or two of your points, since much of my own doctoral work was on the renewal of the diaconate in the Latin Church. In doing this work, I routinely worked within the full range of Vatican II related materials (including the Antepraeparatoria series, the Praeparatoria series, and the Acta synodalia). In fact, I particularly studied the 101 antepreparatory submissions which pertained specifically to the question of a renewed permanent diaconate. So I think perhaps I've done at least part of the study you suggest! LOL!
You wrote, in part:
"[I]t was principally Patriarch Maximos of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church who prevailed on Paul VI to reinstitute a married diaconate in the West. The age restrictions on ordination which Paul VI adopts in Sacrum are precisely those recommended by Patriarch Maximos in his submission to the Conciliar preparatory commission, rather than the older age limits previously under consideration."
This is not completely accurate. Certainly Maximos IV Saigh had a profound effect on many conciliar discussions, but the conciliar documents do not reveal any particular Eastern influence on these particular questions. In fact, by far, the majority of interventions favoring a renewed diaconate -- both written and oral -- came from the Latin bishops of Western and Eastern Europe (and NOT the mission territories, as is commonly and mistakenly held).
The age at ordination issue began, as you indicate, prior to the Council itself. At the beginning of the debates (October, 1963) on the diaconate, the age 40 was bandied about for married candidates. It was actually Cardinal Suenens of Belgium who, after listening to many Latin fathers complain that 40 was "too old" for ordination, proposed 35. That was the age adopted and recommended to the pope. As you indicate, that's what he eventually puts into SDO. There is no indication, however, that Maximos IV had any particular influence on this decision.
Many of the Latin fathers also complained that even those Eastern churches that had maintained a permanent diaconate had allowed it to become largely a liturgically-focused order, and what the Latin bishops had in mind was an order grounded in the liturgy (of course) but much broader in scope.
I would conclude that while the Latin bishops took some interest in what the East was doing vis-a-vis the diaconate, they were far MORE influenced by the post-War initiatives of Caritas and the diaconate circles which had sprung up in Germany and France. And the Eastern bishops generally had no interest in the question at all, since most of them already had deacons and thought that this was primarily of interest just to the Latin church.
God bless,
Dear Ed,ReplyDelete
Thanks very much for your multiple attempts to respond here. Sorry you're having difficulty posting.
More important, thanks for the ongoing dialogue on these questions.
God bless,
Deacon Bill,ReplyDelete
You are correct; though SDO clearly states this was something intended FOR "missionary countries" -- based on the assumption (on the part of the European bishops?) that in such places there would not be found large numbers of men who would embrace celibacy and higher studies required for the priesthood. Yet that's not where the permanent diaconate took off...
Mr. Sullivan,
The Church has moved on from St. Thomas? I had no idea -- that certainly explains a lot!
Best of luck with that formation class!
(PS: Heartfelt thanks for the blog visit -- most flattering of you, but many of "my" arguments are not mine, but rather the Fathers of the Church, as cited in Cochini et alii).
Dear Casa,ReplyDelete
The notion of using permanent deacons in mission territories was one that gained traction in the late 1950s after Bishop Willem von Bekkum (from the Netherlands, but serving in Indonesia), opined in Assisi (1956), that perhaps a renewed diaconate which was being discussed with great vigor in Germany, France and Italy would also be of some use there as well. So, by the Council, the idea had mushroomed out of Europe. Still, the MAJORITY of interest in the diaconate came from Europe itself.
This is most significant from a theological perspective. If a country needs more priests (which is usually the way the question is oversimplified, as in "The mission bishops wanted deacons because they didn't have enough priests") then ordaining deacons is not going to be the answer! Deacons would then be "used" as "mini-priests" and not as a mature order to be assessed in its own right (as a "full and equal order" as some have termed it).
What the Europeans were responding to, as I've explained in several books and earlier in this blog, were the horrors of the 20th Century and the need for a renewed diaconate working in tandem and in collaboration with the sacerdotal orders. In short, the Europeans saw the diaconate as necessary, NOT simply because of a shortage of priests, but because -- as my friend Joe Komonchak once put it -- of a shortage of deacons. The European bishops were looking largely for a sacrament sign of Christ the Servant as a complement to the sacerdotal orders as signs of Christ the High Priest. BOTH signs of Christ, they felt, would be needed in the contemporary world to avoid repeating the horrors of the first half of the 20th Century.
God bless,
I find it interesting that, unles sI have missed a post somewhere, neither Dr. Peters and nor now Casa Santa Lidia will simply give all of us non-canonist, non intellectual, lowly daily duty Catholic guys a SIMPLE and CLEAR response of what they think about the words and actions of the Popes as Supreme Lawgivers, of the bishops (including Burke who is canonist supreme) who have ordained the men, and of the various Church offices and conferences which has issued documents and directories.ReplyDelete
Never once in all this time and under all these Popes or from the lips of any of these bishops or from the offices of the congregation or conferecnes, of from the diaconate study of the (pontifical)International Theological Commission has there been even a hint or an oblique reference to the alleged canonical obligation to dynamic continence for today's married clergy, ordained or to be ordained.
Why the silence from these 2 canonists? Why dodge this simple request? Is it that this is a million dolar question which requires a statement that they have been either faithful or not in the exercise of their duties? PLEASE do us the favor of telling us plainly and simply, from the point of view of a canonist, what you think about their silence on continence and their encouragement to married deqacons to live out the sacraments of both matrimony and orders.
Thank you.
Deacon Bill,ReplyDelete
Thanks for your clarifications on the influence of the East - perhaps I was not critical enough regarding the perceptions of an old Melkite bishop who had attended all the sessions of the Council ;)
For anybody who is interested Patriarch Maximos' antepreparatory submissions can be found online here:
The Melkite influence may not have been as great as they thought, but in the restoration of the diaconate in the West they certainly considered that they had achieved one of their objectives for the Council (again if the words of an old bishop can be taken without a pinch of salt!).
On a totally different issue, I live in England where we haven't had many deacons receive dispensation to remarry on widowhood. I understand that this has been more common in the U.S. Do you or any of your readers know whether such deacons have been forbidden to consummate their new marriages on the grounds of obligation to perfect continence within marriage? Or does the Holy See expect them to contract valid marriages in the usual incontinent way?
Dear Deacon Augustine,ReplyDelete
During my years working at the USCCB in Washington, this question of dispensations from the "impediment of order" came up frequently. For those who might not be familiar with the issue, let me summarize it here.
Ordination constitutes an impediment to marriage according to canon law. In short, a married man may be ordained but an ordained man may not marry. This has been fairly consistent throughout history in both the Eastern and Western traditions of the church. In canonical terms, then, ordination constitutes an "impediment" to marriage: a cleric is not "free to marry" unless that impediment is removed.
So, in the case of a widowed deacon who later wishes to marry again, he needs a dispensation from this impediment. From 1983 until 1996, three conditions had to be present (ALL THREE): 1) he had to have children of "tender age" (this does not simply mean "minors"); 2) he had to be exercising some especially critical ministry within the diocese; and, 3) he had elderly parents, parents-in-law, grandparents or grandparents-in-law. As you can see, the need for all three of these conditions to be present at the same time would make the grounds for dispensation extremely rare. This was true EVERYWHERE, not just in the US.
Then, in 1996, John Paul II changed the practice when he determined that ONLY ONE of the grounds had to be met. Between 1996-2004 the numbers of dispensations granted rose very significantly, as you might expect! But then, under Pope Benedict, the window closed again, with three conditions again being imposed simultaneously: 1) MINOR-aged children (this was a change from before); 2) Positive recommendation from the bishop; and 3) something exceptional in the nature of the deacon's ministry. The number of dispensations is again, universally, very, very small.
I once talked with Cardinal Kasper about this in Rome, and he indicated that much of this was due to the ongoing conversations with the Orthodox, who had raised "frequent dispensations" as violating an ancient, shared tradition.
But in no case involving this issue has the the discussion of continence EVER been raised, nor has the "new wife" ever been asked to sign anything that indicates she is surrendering conjugal rights, OR that the new marriage would be only "ratum, sed non consummatum."
God bless,
Hi Diakonos.ReplyDelete
You are asking me to comment on a something-that-didn't-happen. But mind-reading is not my forte, law-reading is. So, you might want to ask the people who didn't do what they didn't do why they didn't do it. I am at something of a loss to respond for them.
Now, if your question really is "Is there is any legal significance to the fact that they didn't do XYZ?" that's a bit different. The answer there is either, basically, Yes or No.
I'm inclined to No, as I am loathe to use arguments ex silentio for or against conclusions except in highly refined circumstances. Those do not obtain here, in what amounts, I think, simply to large scale, multilateral inadvertence to a point of law, as I have described elsewhere. There is no fault or guilt involved, people just forgot, and then quickly forgot that they forgot. It happens. It has even happened in the Church, on this very point, before. Read Stefan Heid.
But even if one wanted to reach a Yes answer, and find legal significance in silence as if it were a deliberate act, even that, would be consistent with my claim that virtually unanimous Western tradition and current law hold one thing (unambiguously, in fact) and now practice has completely diverged from that.
My whole point is this: law and practice are in serious opposition here. I have argued that such conflict is not good for the ecclesial society. I don't see that as a startling claim to make. But I have not been so presumptuous as to tell the Church which way she should resolve the conflict. Indeed, I suggested four ways this could go, here: [my posts with URLs being rejected, just go to my homepage and follow links]
But so far, while indeed many find my narration of the law's import surprising (it's not really, their surprise is simply a function of their unawareness of Roman Church history), no one, in my opinion, in academe or in the blogosphere, has levied any credible challenge to its correctness.
(This is the long stymied first part of my post above.)ReplyDelete
Hi Dcn. Bill. Let me try this in two posts.
Some background might help.
My original article had been published in Studia Canonica, but referenced by me nowhere else, when in Fall 2008 it was invoked and rejoindered by two discussants in the pages of HPR, Dcn. Rex Pilger and Fr. Brian Van Hove, neither of whom is a canonist. That was the first time I saw Pilger's claim that I had committed a rudimentary logical fallacy in reading Canon 277 (although I think I later found out he had made his claim even earlier.) Anyway, I replied to Pilger, at some length and in unnecessary and at times unpersuasive detail on my website and his. For those who wish to revisit those exchanges, they have been available on-line ever since. [my posts with URLs are being rejected, just go to my homepage and follow links] Neither our public exchanges, nor our subsequent private ones, moved either Pilger or me from our respective positions. This claim of illogic by me has now resurfaced. Okay, fine.
If I had it to do over again, I would keep my responses to Pilger much shorter, and would begin by simply denying that the word "therefore" (ideoque) carries the specific logical connotation that Pilger insisted it must carry. The burden would then be on to Pilger to show that the Legislator meant 'ideoque' to mean the same thing in the canon that it means in formal logical discourse.
This would have been a difficult burden for Pilger to meet for a number of reasons, including the fact that 'ideoque' is used several times in the Code, not with a univocal connotation (an important fact for one undertaking what amounts to a can. 17 analysis of a word), and more broadly because, as we all know, many words can carry one meaning in one context and another meaning in another context. The logician's use of the word "valid" and the canonist's use of the word "valid" should suffice as an example. It is arrogant of one discipline to insist that a word used in its literature must carry the exact same connotations in another's discipline. I simply deny that 'ideoque' is being used by the Legislator to carry the logical burden that Pilger claims.
Deacon Bill,ReplyDelete
It is very interesting that the Holy See would be so responsive to the Orthodox in such a concrete way. A similar rationale was presented to the Anglicans entering the Ordinariate as to why their married bishops could not be consecrated as Catholic bishops.
I wonder whether Dr. Peter's Option 3 may end up being adopted in the West on similar ecumenical grounds?
It could have the advantage of introducing a certain asceticism to Western discipline without promoting obsolete and dangerous notions of ritual purity.
Dr. Peters: Thank you so much for your reply. It made a light bulb turn on in my head and showed me that I am asking a canonist a question, but expecting the kind of reply that can only come from a theologian or bishop. Of course as a lawyer you are going to see the law and the strict wording of a law and abide by strict legal quidelines. That makes sense.ReplyDelete
I suppose this is somewhat like those rather outdated civil laws that can still be found "on the books" in some states but which havr become obsolete due to changing times and practices. All we need now is for those who codify the laws to review and revise until changing times and practice in the future require further ammendation or elimination.
I appreciate your effort and timein replying.
I find the interpretation from logic persuasive.ReplyDelete
The wording of Can 277.1, expressed in mathematical logic, is:
PermanentAndPerpertualContinence => Celibacy
In the case of married clerics, we know that the RHS does not hold ie !Celibacy.
Therefore, in the married case, the LHS does not hold either.
To my mind, that's a clear and literal reading of what Can 277.1 actually says.
Therefore I conclude that the Bishops and the Vatican diacasteries are correctly interpreting Can 277.1 as not requiring mandatory continence of married clerics.
God Bless
Dcn Bill,ReplyDelete
I have never managed to find a persuasive argument as to why widowed permanent deacons may not remarry. Indeed there is a canon of an ancient council explicitly allowing such marriage after ordination if the deacon tells his bishop he cannot live continent,
I would be interested in your take on the reasoning for this rule. Perhaps a topic for another post ?
Go Bless
Diakonos. Yes, those occasional old laws are indeed the stuff of law student mirth, my favorite being my prof's quip that "The law in Missouri still is that anyone operating a motor vehicle at night must be preceded by a man on foot with a large lantern." The obligation of clerical continence is something else, though, from a purely legal point of view.ReplyDelete
First, I'm not pointing to the Decretals of Gregory (1234) or even to the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917) for the current obligation. I'm quoting the plain text of the 1983 Code, interpreted in light of canonical tradition, surely, but directly as it actually reads right here and now. Second, John Paul II personally removed the exempting language from c. 277 that would have freed married deacons from continence obligations, further strongly suggesting modern legislative intent. Third, unlike the common law system, wherein judges can authoritatively eliminate decrepit laws, the canon law system has strict rules for assessing things like the effects of contrary custom and desuetude, and, having mentioned that possibility in my Studia article, I suggested that the factors for effective contrary custom are not present in this case. I can't discuss everything in such detail, though, so I have admittedly left that one just sitting there, as it were. True, someone might yet venture a custom argument against married diaconal (and I suppose even against presbyteral) continence. If they do, I have pretty good idea of how I would respond.
Fr Emilian Kowcz was beatified on June 27, 2001, by Pope John Paul II.ReplyDelete
Fr Emilian Kowcz was a married Ukrainian Catholic priest, with six children, all born after his ordination (he did not live in perpetual and perfect contiennce with his wife). His father was also a married Catholic priest.
Kowcz helped the poor and orphans, though he had six children of his own. During World War II he bravely carried out his priestly duties, preaching love to people of all nationalities and rescuing Jews from destruction. He was arrested by the Gestapo on 30 December 1942. He displayed heroic bravery in the concentration camp, protecting the prisoners sentenced to death from falling into despair.
He was burned to death in the ovens of the Majdanek Nazi death camp on 25 March 1944. He was recognized as a "Righteous Ukrainian" by the Jewish Council of Ukraine on 9 September 1999.
Fr Emilian Kowcz, was born in The Ukraine on August 20, 1894, in Kosmach near Kosiv. His, was a family that had produced several priests. His father, was Father Gregory Kowcz, a Greek Catholic parish priest. Blessed Emilian completed school in Lviv, and then from 1905 to 1911, he studied theology in Rome. In 1911 he married Maria-Anna Dobrzynska, and the next year he was ordained a priest.
EWTN are screening a docu-drama, "Parish Priest of Majdanek," which airs at 10 p.m. ET, Jan. 30, 1 p.m. ET, Feb. 1, and 5 a.m. ET, Feb. 3.
Blessed Fr Emilian Kowcz, pray for us, that we might interpret Can 277.1 according to the Divine Will.
God Bless
Reverend Diakonos,ReplyDelete
I think Dr. Peters has answered your question(s). You yourself would seem to be dodging providing a list of the "words, teachings, etc." of the authorities you mention on the issue of continence for married major clerics in the Latin Church. Perhaps you have tried to come up with one, only to find that such is list is very, very short.
As you are a deacon, I would hope that you realize this is not a simple issue, and clarity only comes from doing the work necessary to understand it. Reluctance to do that work is apparent among the various commentators, here and on other blogs. I hope that would not be true of you, given your commitment to your ministry and the Church. One does not have to be an intellectual (I am certainly not) or a canonist to be that faithful Catholic who does his daily duty -- in your case, I would hope that would include at least some continuing education for deacons about your valuable ministry, as well as its history, theology, spirituality, and, yes, canonical aspects.
The "silence" you speak of regarding continence for major clerics is broken only by the supreme legislator, and his words on it are contained in canon 277.
If someone chose or still chooses to ignore that (like the deliberately omitted mention of continence in LG 29?), or if someone thought that at the time the permanent diaconate was created that surely the forthcoming new Code would not reiterate the ancient continence discipline for married clerics, or if it -- like so many things before, during and after the Council -- just got lost in the shuffle, it is simply not possible to tell at this point.
In my opinion (and only my opinion): the law is there -- married deacons (and married Catholic priests formerly of the Anglican Communion) who are just learning of this for the first time can, for now, freely make of it what they will.
Perhaps another modification of the Code is in the works as a follow-up to Omnium in mentem.
Here's a teaching from the Ecumenical Council that IS authoritative:-ReplyDelete
Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven ... is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches, where, besides those who with all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy, there are also married priests of highest merit.
God Bless
Dear Casa,ReplyDelete
I appreciate your contributions, but please don't slip into ad hominem arguments. Your recent comment: "Reluctance to do that work is apparent among the various commentators, here and on other blogs. I hope that would not be true of you, given your commitment to your ministry and the Church."
Just a gentle reminder: I see NO reluctance on the part of any participant here to do the intellectual work required to approach this and many other issues. I think everyone here has demonstrated their eagerness to learn. You repeatedly mention that it is necessary to study materials in their original languages, and so forth. I can attest that, speaking for myself and several other regular contributors here, we have done precisely that. But NOT doing so does not disqualify a reasonable, interested person from participating meaningfully in the discussions.
So, let's all discuss, debate, and perhaps even disagree, but let's not slip into anything further.
God bless,
Deacon Dr. Bill (or as my students refer to me, "DDD" (Deacon Dr. Ditewig). LOL!
Okay, I'm way behind on this thread.ReplyDelete
I'll try to catch up by first of all responding to the initial post.
1. Deacon Ditewig states: "Why did the Latin church adopt this position in history? What was it about human sexuality and the use of the sexual gift -- even within marriage -- that somehow made this 'unsuitable' or 'inconsistent' with ordained ministry? For argument's sake, let us hypothesize that perhaps such a connection was made on the basis of a misplaced dualism which saw human sexuality and its exercise as somehow sinful or 'dirty'"
Wade responds: First of all, is your "hypothesis" merely a hypothesis or your opinion? In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical UPHOLDING and DEFENDING mandatory clerical celibacy (against people in the Church like, for example, Chris Sullivan, who seems to want it abolished). He began, in true Thomistic style, with a list of "objections". Deacon Ditewig, your point number one lines up with the objection found in paragraph 6 of Paul VI's encyclical. He later gives a brief history of clerical celibacy in paragraphs 35-37, after giving a list of over a dozen good reasons for mandatory priestly celibacy in paragraphs 17-34 (reasons that were just as valid - and understood - in the early church as they are now). This encyclical should be REQUIRED reading for every man in the diaconal formation program (considering how many deacons half-heartedly embrace the requirement (and do so without a full understanding and appreciation of the beauty and glory of celibacy) that they remain celibate if their wives should God-forbid die - once again, I refer you to Chris Sullivan's comments. In my opinion, he is not ready to make that commitment).
2. Deacon Ditewig states: "The Church is ONE, so when we consider our Tradition and our traditions, I believe that we need to let the traditions inform one another. I am not saying that 'the East is always right' on an issue, but neither can we say that the West has all of the insights either"
Wade responds: Studies of the early Christian practice on this issue have intensified over the past 50 years, and most of it is favourable to the Roman practice. Fr. Christian Cochini, Fr. Roman Cholij (Eastern Catholic priest) and Cardinal Alfons Stickler have all published dissertations showing that both East and West required permanent continence of all married clerics upon ordination, and that only in later years did the East relax the discipline in response to widespread failure to practice continence (the West responded differently - by not allowing married priests at all: in other words, by mandating priestly CELIBACY [to be distinguised from CONTINENCE]). It seems as though many in the Church who want to abolish mandatory priestly celibacy (and/or who are enthusiastic about the married permanent diaconate) want to adopt Eastern customs because it is more in line with the practices they like - but not at all in line with Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (a Papal [i.e. "Patriarch of the West"] encyclical).
I can also detect in many of these posts an ignorance of the "dogma" of the "superiority" of celibacy to marriage (no, that wasn't just "pre-Vatican": the Church still teaches it). This is what I like to call the "forgotten dogma", or the "dogma that unwittingly makes heretics out of orthodox Catholics".ReplyDelete
Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Canon 10: "If any one saith ... that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema." (in other words, those who dissent from this "dogma" have excluded themselves from full communion with the Church because of heresy).
Sacra Virginitas, 32 (Pius XII): "This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. ... But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth."
Vatican II, Optatam Totius 10: "Students ought rightly to acknowledge the duties and dignity of Christian matrimony, which is a sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Let them recognize, however, the surpassing excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ".
Theology of the Body (April 7 1982): "In his pronouncement, did Christ perhaps suggest the superiority of continence for the kingdom of heaven to matrimony? Certainly ... Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony that they do 'well.' About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do 'better' (1 Cor 7:38). That is also the opinion of the whole of Tradition, both doctrinal and pastoral."
Until we have our dogmatic ducks in a row, until we have a solid dogmatic foundation resting upon the entire deposit of faith, we cannot consider this question without going off the rails.
I really should not have to reprint all these quotations, but since there is such an ignorance of the fact that the Church still teaches this and that it is dogma (besides numerous priests, I have also corrected a religious sister with a doctorate in catechetics who teaches at a well-respected Ex Corde Ecclesiae university - that's mind boggling!!), it needs to be repeated, or as Pius XII said, we must "take up the matter once again".
Diakonos: "I have been following this issue/posts here and on other blogs and I do not recall ever seeing Dr. Peters' response to the silence of Paul VI, John Paul I (his 30 days would have been long enough to say something if he saw this as such a horrid transgression), Blessed John Paul II, myraids of bishops and Vatican Congrgegation for the Clergy on married priests/deacons and their active conjugal sexuality."ReplyDelete
I addressed this in the combox of the St. Louis Catholic blog.
Diakonos: " I am very curious as to what you have to say to this collective silence on one hand and to the public addresses on the other hand which have praised the active married and family life of these priests and deacons?"
Just like everything the Vatican has said about the married ministry (including the Eastern married priesthood), it is political speech. As I pointed out on St. Louis Catholic, it is illogical to, on the one hand, uphold mandatory clerical celibacy for 15 different reasons (as Paul VI did) and then on the other hand to say that the Eastern practice of not having mandatory celibacy is "just as good". The Vatican wants to imply this - but knows in good faith it cannot teach this. So they speak equivocally.
Diakonos asks: "So what's your own take on this? Are they ignorant? Misled? Mistaken in their teaching and legislating? Duped by advisors? Traitors to the tradition? etc."ReplyDelete
I think they know there is a problem there. But they also operate by the parable of the wheat and the weeds (something Archbishop Rigali told my seminary professor when he asked why the Pope and Bishops allow so many dissidents and sinners to get away with so much). Why do you think Fr. Maciel (the weed) was allowed to continue? Pope John Paul had his suspicions - he had to. But he also saw the good fruits (the wheat) and did not want to jeopardize that at such a critical time in the Church's post-conciliar recovery.
Just throwing in some observations into the mix:ReplyDelete
I think at the council the "mission areas" had a little more juice than they are given credit for, and they help to see some of the council's thinking on the restoration of the diaconate. It had nothing to do with making "mini-priests" but the reality was there were already leaders in the faith community who were doing "diaconal works" and ordination was seen as a way to confirm them in their position and to strengthen them with the grace of the sacrament.
It helps to remember that the council never mandated the restoration of the diaconate. It was left up to the National Bishops conferences to seek permission and even then individual bishops did not have to implement it.
I think all of us in the American Church have a very hard time understanding the spiritual reality celibacy. We have a certain reductionism that just sees it as a negative (so sexual activity) or it gets lost in pious phrases. Like an alcoholic who thinks being "clean" is just not drinking and ends up only as a "dry drunk" because he does not see the deeper life that can come from real sobriety.
In a post Freud, post sexual revolution, sexually saturated culture; it is easy to understand why we have a hard time to really understand celibacy. I am not saying that there are not historical, cultural, economic and psychological dynamics for celibacy but it cannot be reduced to those and there is more to the reality. I think it helps to remember we may have a blind spot here and have to struggle more to see the reality and not just jump on slogans or simplistic explanations.
The restored diaconate is only 40 some years old and I know there are some deacons who see it with a certain triumphalism ("the diaconate is the best success story of the council") but maybe it is all not so black and white. No one really knows where it will end up in a few more generations, and maybe the church is taking a slower and lets see where all this goes attitude of discernment?
In the mid 1950's the founders of Madonna House (Eddie and Catherine Doherty) had an interview with Pope Pius Xll, they were seeking a way to obtain a more formal approval and connection with Rome. The Pope was encouraging but also said it would demand they take private vows of celibacy and live as brother and sister. This was not an easy decision for them, but they saw it as a demand necessary for call they were receiving. I do not bring them up for their celibate marriage but that only a few years before the council they could hear the demands being asked of them to enter their call. Where it seems we so easily fall into demands for our rights before we really listen and discern. Just a few thoughts.
@Wade St. Onge;ReplyDelete
"Just like everything the Vatican has said about the married ministry (including the Eastern married priesthood), it is political speech. As I pointed out on St. Louis Catholic, it is illogical to, on the one hand, uphold mandatory clerical celibacy for 15 different reasons (as Paul VI did) and then on the other hand to say that the Eastern practice of not having mandatory celibacy is "just as good". The Vatican wants to imply this - but knows in good faith it cannot teach this. So they speak equivocally."
This implies deliberate deception; and in the case of married deacons and married Anglican clergy, admitting them to ordination under false pretenses. I cannot buy this line of reasoning, such a thing would be worse than cynical if it were true.
- AnonymousJanuary 28, 2011 at 3:38 AM
It seems that the historical discipline of total marital continence for clergy, both in the East and West, is hard to separate from the historical discipline of making married clergy live apart from their wives from the moment of ordination.ReplyDelete
It is disappointing that this has not been part of the discussion.
some may find this recent talk by Cardinal Piacenza (current prefect for clergy) on celibacy interesting and informative.ReplyDelete
I think the teaching on the vocations to consecrated celibacy and Christian marriage is beautiful, particularly when seen as complementary (rather than in competition) as Blessed John Paul II most often taught. And in this light I also think the tradition of the Eastern Church upholds this nicely in its cherishing of consecrated celibacy as a chosen charism rather than enforced legislation.ReplyDelete
To the person who posited that the East's relaxation of celibacy/continencne was a concession to laxity: Paul VI disagrees and gave a magisterial view of this calling the East's married clergy tradition "a situation which the Holy Spirit has providentially and supernaturally influenced." (Sacerdotalis Caelitbatus).
Earlier in this encyclical he also reminds us as Supreme Teacher that celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood: "Virginity undoubtedly, as the Second Vatican Council declared, 'is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early Church and the traditions of the Eastern Churches.'" (SC #17)
The Holy Father clearly and strongly upholds the celbate tradition of the West and further down in this teaching he acknowledges exceptions, including married convert priests and married deacons.
"In virtue of the fundamental norm of the government of the Catholic Church, to which We alluded above, (82) while on the one hand, the law requiring a freely chosen and perpetual celibacy of those who are admitted to Holy Orders remains unchanged, on the other hand, a study may be allowed of the particular circumstances of married sacred ministers of Churches or other Christian communities separated from the Catholic communion, and of the possibility of admitting to priestly functions those who desire to adhere to the fullness of this communion and to continue to exercise the sacred ministry. The circumstances must be such, however, as not to prejudice the existing discipline regarding celibacy.
And that the authority of the Church does not hesitate to exercise her power in this matter can be seen from the recent Ecumenical Council, which foresaw the possibility of conferring the holy diaconate on men of mature age who are already married." (SC #42)
What is interesting to me in this section is that he makes no mention whatsoever to continence, which would seem such an unusual and immense oversight in an encyclical in which he has been and continues on to be so very detailed and specific in Church tradition, customs and teaching. Again (as with the past 40-plus years) silence screams out loudly and should cause anyone to pause and at least ask why. As a matter of fact continence is not mentioned at all, but there is reference to "perfect and perpetual chastity" for celibates just as the Code of Canon Law seems to link this term with celibacy.
It seems to be that in this debate those on both sides of the issue cane present very good arguments from history, theology, spirituality and lived practice. I pray and hope very much that the proper authority - I would imagine its the Congregation for Clergy - or the Pope in motu proprio - will speak clearly and soon.
P.S. Dcn Bill - thanks for your kind and clear words to Casa about all involved in this exchange.
Diakonos: "I think the teaching on the vocations to consecrated celibacy and Christian marriage is beautiful, particularly when seen as complementary (rather than in competition)"ReplyDelete
Yes, there is a complimentarity there. But there is also a superiority of celibacy over marriage. These are not mutually exclusive - in fact, it is ESSENTIAL both be upheld because both these aspects are part of the Church's teaching regarding these vocations. You seem to want to call them "complimentary" as a way of saying celibacy isn't really "superi
Diakonos: "The tradition of the Eastern Church upholds this nicely in its cherishing of consecrated celibacy as a chosen charism rather than enforced legislation."
Two things: (1) It seems we have another deacon here who wants optional clerical celibacy for the priesthood. (2) In the West, it is not "enforced legislation" - it is a declaration that if one is TRULY called to the priesthood, one HAS the charism of celibacy.
Diakonos: "To the person who posited that the East's relaxation of celibacy/continencne was a concession to laxity: Paul VI disagrees".
That was me (my name is Wade St. Onge). And no, he doesn't disagree. Listen to the political speech: "a situation which the Holy Spirit has providentially and supernaturally influenced."
The Crucifixion was also "providentially and supernaturally INFLUENCED". But that doesn't mean it was good that God was murdered at the hands of men. Was it providential? Of course. God guides everything by his providential hand. But in what ways was it providential? Paul VI doesn't say - for good reason. He prefers to leave that open-ended. Never is there an unequivocal statement from the Vatican that says the Western practice is no better than the Eastern practice. If you can find one, please point me to it.
Diakonos: "Earlier in this encyclical he also reminds us as Supreme Teacher that celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood".
Of course it's not. But it is most suited to it. In fact, it is so suited to it that the West has passed a law mandating it, and rightfully so.
Diakonos: "The Holy Father clearly and strongly upholds the celibate tradition of the West and further down in this teaching he acknowledges exceptions, including married convert priests and married deacons."
Right, but "the circumstances must be such, however, as not to prejudice the existing discipline regarding celibacy." The problem is that the arguments made for the pastoral provision and for the married diaconate have "spilled over" to talk of the priesthood, and therefore, there HAS been prejudice regarding celibacy. Diakonos, Chris Sullivan, Deacon Scott Dodge, Deacon Keith Fournier, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, etc., prove this very point.
"the recent Ecumenical Council, which foresaw the possibility of conferring the holy diaconate on men of mature age who are already married."
The thing I find funny is that the diaconate could be conferred on "men of MATURE age", and yet, somehow, this was interpreted in the confusion of the post-conciliar era as 35 years of age!! I am 33 - goodness, does Vatican II consider me a "man of MATURE age"?
Diakonos: "What is interesting to me in this section is that he makes no mention whatsoever to continence, which would seem such an unusual and immense oversight ... silence screams out loudly and should cause anyone to pause and at least ask why. "ReplyDelete
I have already addressed this.
"It seems to be that in this debate those on both sides of the issue cane present very good arguments from history, theology, spirituality and lived practice."
The problem in this debate is that we have many married deacons who are petrified that Dr. Peters might be right, and who will argue against him regardless of how good a case he makes. In other words, there is a lack of OBJECTIVITY here, but one that does not apply to Dr. Peters.
@Melody KReplyDelete
When I studied the seven ecumenical councils in my Christology class at Steubenville, what blew my mind was how many conciliar statements were politically-crafted statements intended to satisfy both sides. In this endeavour, it was largely successful. However, it also took four centuries and seven councils to express the Catholic doctrine.
Vatican II was no different - many of its statements were ambiguous and vague. Why? Because it had to be in order to get 2500 bishops to vote in favour of them. It should not surprise us, then, if various post-Conciliar statements from Popes follow in the same tradition.
Dear Wade,ReplyDelete
You make an interesting observation here:
"The problem in this debate is that we have many married deacons who are petrified that Dr. Peters might be right, and who will argue against him regardless of how good a case he makes. In other words, there is a lack of OBJECTIVITY here, but one that does not apply to Dr. Peters."
You make quite a leap of logic here. Speaking for myself alone (since I'm a deacon who has also been called to marriage and who has also spent several decades doing advanced theological study as well) I can confidently attest that I am not "petrified" by anything Dr. Peters has to say. Nor, do I suppose, are any of the other deacons -- and other people who have expressed disagreement with Dr. Peters' conclusions here. On the one hand, even if he IS correct and matters change in the future in this regard, it will have no bearing on current deacons anyway!
People can, in good faith and without fear, disagree; it's that simple. And no one, no matter how hard one might try, is ever absolutely objective, including Dr. Peters. Those of us who have dedicated ourselves to academic pursuits strive for objectivity, of course, but it is never completely possible.
So, I submit that "being petrified" of continence is not something that is at work here, at least not in the majority of the postings, just legitimate differences of opinion.
God bless,
i would suggest that you might find it very helpful to read the talk I linked to above. He goes into all the recent papal writings on celibacy and gives a good perspective and he is the prefect of the congregation of clergy so it gives some insight on how all this is seen over in Rome!
Patrick - I have read the address previously. As far as how this "is seen in Rome" the prefect is only the prefect and he speaks on his own accord. Only when a congregation issues a document or notice with the authority of the Holy Father can we take such as how "Rome" sees it. But thanks for your suggestion.ReplyDelete
Diakonos, i did not mean the article was an authoritative text, but i think each pope creates a certain climate and culture in the vatican that reflects its approach and emphasis, and for sure the recent appointments to the congregation of clergy and congregation of worship are hand picked by the Pope and most would see a certain direction and emphasis that is a core direction in Pope Benedict's papacy. so all i meant is that it reflects this overall context of the Pope's teaching ministry (which I think it does!)ReplyDelete
Deacon Ditewig, I think "petrified" was too strong a word. I believe it might be best to say "concerned" or even "afraid" - which is understandable. However, to me it shows a lack of preparedness for a life of continence if, God forbid, the deacon's wife should predecease him. The deacon should always be ready and willing to embrace continence and to enthusiastically embrace it.ReplyDelete
However, I would say any lack of fear is due to the belief that granting Dr. Peters is correct and that the Vatican does issue a decision, nothing would change for current deacons. In other words, if there was a possibility this would be applied to present deacons as well, there would be fear (and thetimman of St. Louis Catholic said it has disturbed a number of consciences, which is why he/she posted).
Believe me, Wade, no deacon of my experience is losing any sleep whatsoever on this question in our own lives.ReplyDelete
All of us, even the married guys like me, have ALL pondered the impact widowhood would have on our lives. We ALL deal with that in formation, and we ALL understand that if our wives predecease us, we will be bound to celibacy and continence. There is absolutely nothing new in any of that. You can even read all of the various documents on the formation of (permanent) deacons and so how this very matter has been a concern and an emphasis in formation programs from the beginning.
So, this is really not a concern whatsoever for current deacons, and it's nothing new.
Now, do some widowed deacons experience great difficulties following their wives' deaths? Sure! Do some seek to leave the clerical state; some do -- more do not, according to the statistics. Do some seek a dispensation from the impediment of orders so that they might be free to marry again? Yes, some do -- more do not, again, according to all the studies that have been done. Have some gone on to discern a vocation to the priesthood? Yes, some have -- and more have not, ut supra. The data are all there to support all of this.
Most widowed deacons carry on with deep spirituality and ongoing commitment to their diaconal vocations, now as celibate and continent men.
God bless,
I will quite happily admit to being an extremely concerned married deacon if Dr. Peters proves to be correct. But the concern has nothing to do with continence or celibacy if my wife predeceases me (we discussed this possible outcome in great detail prior to ordination and the potential consequences for my 5 children.)
My concern is that the Church of God, which we believe to be infallible and indefectible in matters of faith and morals, could have suffered so serious a bout of collective amnesia regarding her own teaching that she could have misled thousands of men into receiving ordination under false pretenses with all the consequences that follow from that. What's more, that collective amnesia has persisted for nearly 40 years.
Doesn't that concern you too? Doesn't that beg the question: what else has the Church of God "forgotten" that might be just ever so slightly important for the working out of our salvation?
For the record I am quite happy to affirm my belief that consecrated celibacy for the Kingdom of God is the highest calling a Christian can follow - higher than either the sacrament of matrimony or even the sacrament of holy orders. That is why Christ said that those who can become "eunuchs" for the sake of the Kingdom should do so. There is no more radical way of living a life totally available to Christ and His Gospel, so it makes absolute sense that the Church should call her bishops, priests and even some deacons from the ranks of those who have this calling.
Celibacy can be debased, though, if it is lived for the wrong reasons, with the wrong motives. It receives its power because what is sacrificed by the celibate for the sake of the Kingdom is very good: not evil, dirty, ritually impure or contrary to one's perceived "sexuality".
I have stayed out of this argument so far but I am amazed that it lasted this long. Sixty Nine comments on this blog posting alone? Not to mention your earlier posts and those of Deacon Greg? Amazing!
When it first came up, I dismissed it because of what Rabbi Saul of Tarsus talks about in his Letter to the Romans -- law always recedes into the background when the Spirit of the Living God enters our lives.
If there are folks who are wrapped up in legalisms, so be it, but I will not play that game.
Now to follow up on your answer to Wade. Almost 33 years ago, during my final Retreat before ordination, my wife and I had a long conversation about the issue that might surface if she died before me.
She, being the Nursing professional that she is, reminded me that women in her family line lived longer than their husbands and that men in my family line generally preceded their wives in death as well.
But even if those statistics did not prove true in our case, there was a good chance that both of us would live well into our seventies and thus the whole issue may be moot anyway.
Very quickly, I went to the Risen Lord in prayer and thanked him for giving me such a very wise wife. I also acknowledged to Him that he was the giver of all life and all grace and if he wanted my wife to die before me, he was also going to have to make sure I had the strength and grace to live my life and ministry to the fullest after that tragedy.
For what it's worth!
Deacon Norb in Ohio
A comment in general.ReplyDelete
Few outside of canonical circles are equipped to follow and/or verify the sources I used in my canonical analysis of Canon 277, et al. I understand that. But there is an alternative which, while not addressing the current Code, would in short order demonstrate the historical plausibility (indeeed, probability verging on indisputability) of my claims, and their consistency with perennial Church thinking. Indeed, it will quickly be apparent to any open-minded reader that the arguments being raised against my interpretation of Canon 277 are, for better or worse, simply old arguments against celibacy and/or continence recycled. As in, recycled from many centuries ago and at several points in the life of the Church.
Personally, I think Stickler's book THE CASE FOR CLERICAL CELIBACY (Ignatius Press, 1995) is the best short work, but for those for whom even a hundred-odd pages is too much to take on, could I suggest reading just chapter one, "A Historical Perspective", in Thomas McGovern, PRIESTLY CELIBACY TODAY (1998) pp. 32-69, and then going right to his Epilogue at pp. 224-233. He sums up the work of the other historians quite ably. Indeed, read just p. 45 of McGovern, and see whether the Gregorian reformers of the eleventh century faced any fewer objections to re-asserting clerical continence/celibacy than are being raised against it today after similar disregard of the law. After that, one could turn to Roman Cholij and Stefan Heid, and finally to Christian Cochini [all of these works are listed on website, but I cannot post URLs here for some reason].
I think a greater understanding of Church history, if not of canon law, will help folks keep a perspective on things.
This incredibly long discussion--which has stretched across Catholic blogs of several different perspectives--began at the very time we were supposed to be considering the deacon as servant of charity. If and when we get to it, I doubt that topic will generate such wide interest, but I suspect the same people who think we really need to keep our deacons "continent" also have strong reservations about the concept of the deacon as a minister of charity/justice to the poor and marginalized. In fact, they may well cite the research of a distinguished scholar who claims his studies of ancient texts have debunked that notion.ReplyDelete
I mention that because I don't think this controversy should be seen in isolation. Important as issues like these are individually, our stance on them relates to a larger sense of what the Church is and ought to be--and what the Gospel itself is saying to us today. When I read reflections like those Deacon Norb just posted, I think, "That is the voice of the Church I love." Sadly, I don't hear that voice in all the comments on this topic.
I, too, have been stunned at the length of this particular topic! I guess if you want to have a lengthy exchange in the blogosphere, all you have to do is talk about sex!ReplyDelete
I think we've pretty much talked this one out for now. So, I'll be posting some new things tomorrow after I finish teaching (our graduate courses are taught on the weekends). I won't write "finis" to this completely, if folks still want to chat about it, but I agree that it's past time to return to other important issues of the renewed diaconate.
My thanks to all who have participated and the general good grace and wisdom that has been shared.
God bless,
Ron, I think you are putting a little "spin" with your comment? These comments did not go off topic, read the titles for the past two topics on this blog. The owner of the blog brought up this topic.ReplyDelete
I am not sure how helpful it is to make statements of what others think about topics they have not commented on. You might be very surprised at what others might comment on "justice and peace" issues and it is not helpful to stereotype what others might be thinking.
It is easy to see why this topic may not interest others, but for some it is a topic that has value and it is helpful to express our insights and to listen to others. actually this thread has challenged me to read books and take a deeper look at ideas that I have not given real thought, and i realize the church we all love is much bigger and deeper than our own comfort zones!
Thank you, Deacon Augustine, for saying it so well. Like you I also have no problem acknowledging that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is a higher calling than even matrimony. However I don't believe that everyone called to the permanent diaconate is also called to continence and celibacy.ReplyDelete
And likewise I think it's just a little bit of a problem if someone forgot to mention it for 40 years.
Frankly I find all the legalism and hair-splitting disturbing.
It seems that since those objecting to Dr. Peters cannot take on his arguments directly and respond to the substance of them, they are going to fall back on fallacious arguments: i.e., "there are more important issues", "they are just 'wrapped up in legalisms'" (as if rules aren't important - they are, that is why the Church makes them), or "the only important thing here to consider is the theology of the deacon as minister of justice and charity" (as if to absolutize this one dimension to the exclusion of others, such as the theology of holy orders, as Dr. Peters pointed out and gave references for). Usually where there is a failure to address the substance of arguments and a plethora of red herrings used instead, it is a tacit admission that one is wrong.ReplyDelete
Unlike Melody K., I DO believe all deacons are called to continence. What is there preventing you from saying that not all priests are called to celibacy? Nothing, really. If married men are being called to the diaconate, who is to say they are not being called to priesthood too? If one can be true, so can the other. You see how ordaining married men to the diaconate undercuts priestly celibacy (something I have pointed out a couple times already but that no one has responded to?)
Unfortunately, it is futile engaging in this debate when many have not read the excellent work written by Cardinal Stickler or by Fr. Cholij (which would clear up much of the confusion and ignorance [a term I do not use derogatorily] I see in this combox).
Dear Wade,ReplyDelete
You are ASSUMING that no one has read those materials. That is fallacious, since I know of many of us who HAVE, in fact, read them. But reading them does not mean that everyone necessarily agrees with them.
Also, no one is minimizing the importance of the law. However, law is derivative from theology; it is, in fact, secondary to the church's theology. So for someone to suggest that discussions might return to a "first order" examination of issues related to the diaconate is not inappropriate or necessarily misplaced. To say that something is more important than the law is not to denigrate the law.
This blog is open to discussion on ALL dimensions of the diaconate.
That is not to say that those arguing against Dr. Peters have not made some excellent points - they have. But the substance of Dr. Peters' arguments have not really been addressed. If you read the original article, it is pretty well-argued, and I would say, airtight. Not to mention the arguments made by Stickler, Cholij, Cochini, etc.ReplyDelete
Wade, re your comment: "What is there preventing you from saying that not all priests are called to celibacy? Nothing, really. If married men are being called to the diaconate, who is to say they are not being called to priesthood too? If one can be true, so can the other. You see how ordaining married men to the diaconate undercuts priestly celibacy (something I have pointed out a couple times already but that no one has responded to?)"ReplyDelete
Maybe you are not aware, but the Church already teaches that some priests are not called to celibacy, and she does already call married men to the priesthood. I had the privilege of being present at the ordination Mass of three of them on 15th January. One of them had even been baptized as a Catholic when he was a child.
The Mass began with a message from the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith offering his prayers and regret that he could not be there in person, and in which he imparted the Apostolic Blessing of Pope Benedict XVI on all present including the ordinands and their wives.
I'm sorry to break it to you this way, but I'm afraid you have missed the boat and priestly celibacy has already been "undercut" - to use your word. You can rest assured, however, that married deacons had absolutely nothing to do with this and the culprits were a Pope, a Cardinal and an Archbishop - all of whom, I am reliably informed, are very much celibate.
If you think that married deacons undercut priestly celibacy, then you have the wrong target in your sights. If you really need a target then it would be more logical to take aim at the married priests. The Church will be ordaining more of them in my country this year than she will be ordaining married (permanent) deacons.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but can I ask if you are a Catholic who accepts that Benedict XVI is the valid Pope of Rome, Supreme Pontiff etc. etc.?
A Catholic can be a Catholic in good faith and disagree with certain disciplinary decisions, even if he must be obedient to them (which I am).ReplyDelete
I object to many disciplinary decisions, including the allowance of Communion in the hand (something our Holy Father has long objected to as well). And as a Catholic, I have every right to, and could be correct (although I may not be). And it doesn't make me "more Catholic than the Pope" (a catch phrase that is misapplied and misleading far too often).
And I do disagree with the disciplinary decision opening up the permanent diaconate to married men (especially ones as young as 35), and in that, I am joined by many bishops who were at Vatican II. Yes, the Church agreed to allow the POSSIBILITY of the married permanent diaconate, but they did not vote to lift the discipline of continence for them - something which apparently had never been done.
My main concern about the permanent diaconate is that it undermines support for MANDATORY priestly celibacy as a RULE.ReplyDelete
Many have come to the following conclusion: "Married deacons and Protestant minister converts have proven to us that there are a lot of benefits to having married ministers and that it can be done. Therefore, we should perhaps reconsider the rule of mandatory priestly celibacy". That was also the main concern of all the pontiffs who allowed, supported, or extended both the practice of the married permanent diaconate as well as the pastoral provision.
Wade: you obviously love the Faith and you obviously are drawn to more traditional things as are possible within the diversity of Cathoicism. You have energy, knowledge and drive. Why not join forces with some of the bishops and priests you mention or refer to and put these gifts into action to work towards a Tridentine Ordinariate? There seems to be a some pre-Vatican priestly fraternities and religious who can perhaps give you some guidelines and help. I am truly serious, this is not 'sarcastic" or whatever. I have long thought that those who yearn for the pre-Vatican II forms of Cahtholicism (in those things which we have legitimate diversity and options) should be able to have parishes and liturgies to suit their spiritual needs, just as the Anglicans do now. Perhaps this might also bring you the peace you seem to desire in your living out of the faith. God bless.ReplyDelete
Diakonos, I found your unsolicited spiritual direction somewhat offensive and condescending. You are now trying to dismiss my arguments by implying I am a frustrated and troubled individual or that I am just attracted "to a different kind of spirituality", whereas in reality, I am concerned for the entire universal church and for a rule which I believe runs contrary to the analogy of faith and what the Catholic Church has given us. By believing I just need to "find my place" in this broad church of ours, you can ignore my arguments and continue to believe the issues I raise are irrelevant.ReplyDelete
I discerned a priestly vocation and considered joining the Fraternity of St. Peter for some years. I am currently attending a Tridentine Mass in the city which I now live. However, the Catholic Church which I love is broader than my Tridentine community. It would be convenient for some if Dr. Peters and Myself just hid ourselves away in such communities and did not raise these inconvenient issues, but that is not going to happen, nor should it.
Deacon Augustine: ``For the record I am quite happy to affirm my belief that consecrated celibacy for the Kingdom of God is the highest calling a Christian can follow - higher than either the sacrament of matrimony or even the sacrament of holy orders. That is why Christ said that those who can become "eunuchs" for the sake of the Kingdom should do so. There is no more radical way of living a life totally available to Christ and His Gospel, so it makes absolute sense that the Church should call her bishops, priests and even some deacons from the ranks of those who have this calling.``ReplyDelete
My question to you, Deacon Augustine, is this: why do you just say ``some deacons`` and not ``some priests`` and ``some bishops``? Based on your logic for mandated celibacy and what you said above, why should it be mandated for bishops and priests but not deacons? Why should it instead not be mandated for all? Or why, as in the East, should it be mandated for bishops but not priests or deacons? Or why do we mandate it at all?
For those who support mandatory priestly celibacy but who agree with a married permanent diaconate, I have a question: ``Why do you support mandatory priestly celibacy?`` I will demonstrate, through your answers, how your position is illogical ...
Wade: "My question to you, Deacon Augustine, is this: why do you just say ``some deacons`` and not ``some priests`` and ``some bishops``?"ReplyDelete
I would have been more accurate if I had said "some priests" because obviously the Church does call some married men to the priesthood such as converts and Eastern Catholics. However, I was referring to the general rule that we have in the West that only celibate men are called to the priesthood.
I don't think that the language of "mandatory celibacy" is accurate or useful. Celibacy is a gift from God, therefore, how can we speak of it being "mandated" or even legislated by man? The Church has decided, as a general rule, only to call celibate men to the priesthood and she is perfectly within her rights to do so. Why should I oppose this? Who am I to question the Church's administration of her own sacraments? I am called to uphold the Church's teaching and law, not to dissent from it and debate it.
"For those who support mandatory priestly celibacy but who agree with a married permanent diaconate, I have a question: ``Why do you support mandatory priestly celibacy?`` I will demonstrate, through your answers, how your position is illogical ..."
Wade, the Church chooses to call celibates to the priesthood and she chooses to call both married men and celibates to the diaconate. This is the position she has arrived at after much prayer, debate and discussion before during and after the last General Council. Therefore I choose to support both priestly celibacy and a married diaconate, because I choose to "think with the Church". Isn't that the traditional Catholic thing to do on matters which are not doctrinal in nature, but matters of discipline which have no bearing on doctrine?
The Church is not a cosmopolitan debating society for "traditionalists" and "liberals" to grind their axes in perpetual, mind-numbingly, time-wasting dissent. Your opinions on the married diaconate count for as much as my opinions on priestly celibacy do - absolutely nothing! The Church has power to administer the sacraments in whatever way she discerns is the will of God, so get over it. That was defined at the Council of Trent if you would like to look it up.
If you think that celibate priests and married deacons are illogical then you obviously must think that the Church is illogical. Try thinking with the Church rather than railing against it - it will do wonders for your blood pressure and longevity, not to mention your peace of soul.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Sorry for the deletions and repostings - I had some bad typos. Here it is again:ReplyDelete
So your only reason for agreeing with the Church`s decision to as a rule call celibates to the priesthood is because that is what the Church`s (current) discipline is. I was looking for something along the lines of what you said before - theological reasons and spiritual reasons, like: ``There is no more radical way of living a life totally available to Christ and His Gospel, so it makes absolute sense that the Church should call her bishops, priests and even some deacons from the ranks of those who have this calling.``
By the way, is there anything in our practices or disciplines that you would like to see changed, Deacon? Would you like to see every liturgy done precisely as it is outlined in the liturgical books? Or do you like it when, perhaps, priests when using Eucharistic Prayer II add ``and all your people`` or ``and all ministers`` to the phrase ``with Benedict our Pope, John our bishop, and all the clergy``. You seriously do not have any desire to see anything different in the liturgy from what is written in the books? I doubt that (because I have only met about ten clerics in my entire life who did the liturgy precisely by the book). But I`ll take your word for it if you tell me that is so.
The Church sometimes gets it wrong. In this case, I think the Church got it wrong. And there wasn`t as much ``prayer, study, and deliberation`` that went into the restoration of the permanent diaconate as you might think - just as there was not a lot of ``prayer, study, and deliberation`` that went into the liturgical reforms. Pope Benedict XVI calls it a ``manufactured liturgy``.
As for your statement that the Church has decided as a rule to call celibates to the priesthood (which you would like to see changed, no doubt) and how we should be obedient to that, Dr. Peters has shown that the law requiring continence of all clerics in the Western rite was never abrogated even if there were exceptions made to the law of celibacy. But it seems you have chosen to be disobedient to that. So, in other words, you are picking and choosing. If you were serious about ``thinking with the mind of the Church``, you would be obedient to Church law. I know you believe you are thinking with the mind of the Church, but so far, the substance of the arguments raised by Dr. Peters and Myself and Casa have not been responded to. In other words, what we have argued remains VALID.
You say: ``Therefore I choose to support both priestly celibacy and a married diaconate, because I choose to "think with the Church".``
You are committing the same error cultural relativists make.
If, Deacon Augustine, that ``thinking with the church`` meant we agreed with and supported every practice and discipline and thus never questioned any practice and discipline, nothing would ever change in the church, correct?
If everyone at Vatican II ``thought with the Church``, the idea of ordaining married men to the diaconate, which came from the grassroots, would have never even come up!!
If everyone ``thought with the church`` in the way you outline, the Dogma of the Assumption would have never been proclaimed (another grassroots movement).
If everyone ``thought with the Church`` in the way you outline, we would have never had the Franciscan order (who challenged the idea that there could not be such things as mendicant orders).
And so on, and so on, and so on ...
Also, you are concerned about these ``perpetual, mind-numbingly, time-wasting`` debates, and yet you continue to engage in them. Or are we the ``bad ones`` for taking a position contrary to yours. We should all just agree with you, I suppose, and if we don`t, we should remain silent about it because it`s `not a big deal`. Is that it?
With all this talk of "celibate priests" and "married diaconate", I just want to give a loud shout out that there are single deacons, not all deacons are married when they are ordained.ReplyDelete
Carlo Carretto was a single deacon ( he was a disciple of Blessed Charles de Foucauld) and John Pozzobon was a widower when ordained a deacon (he was the founder of the Schoenstatt Rosary Campaign and his cause is in process for beatification).
It is good to remember that the diaconate is not something just for married men!
Poor St. Paul. He seems to be ignored in all this and he was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he urged a segment of the married population not to abstain for overlong here:ReplyDelete
I Corinthians 7:5
"Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control."
This would argue for c.277 being corrected as to deacons (and ex Anglican priests?) if Dr. Peter's view of c.277 were affirmed at Rome.
nannon31, you cannot isolate this passage from the rest of the Tradition and interpret it like a Protestant would.ReplyDelete
First, the purpose of St. Paul admonishing the Corinthians here was that some in the community were embracing perpetual continence NOT because they were called to it but because it was the "highest call" and they wanted that. As a result, they ended up sinning sexually and in other ways.
Second, your interpretation IGNORES the Tradition of Josephite marriages and IGNORES the longstanding obligation throughout the Western church (before celibacy was required of all) of the mandate of married men to practice perpetual continence after ordination. Clearly, then, your interpretation of "poor St. Paul" here is incorrect. And the Church Fathers, many of whom said the Apostles embraced perpetual continence after accepting Christ's call to become fishers of men, likewise disagree. Read them sometime - they knew this passage, but that did not stop them from maintaining that perpetual continence should be required of all married clerics. Or was there interpretation wrong and yours right?
The Church should have allowed the Josephite marriage only to the 2nd group of people Paul addressed....those who could live with or without marriage. She must exclude those who need it to avoid fornication....Paul's first group. She did that latter disallowance in the case of the parents of Theresa of Lisieux.
It's perfectly possible for Catholicism to be the true Church and sadly ignore Scripture in a small t tradition like inordinately promoting the Josephite marriage despite I Cor. 7:5.
We see it right now in larger matters in two Popes calling the death penalty "cruel" and the Bishops memorializing that in print despite Cardinal Dulles having noted that God commands it over 35 times in the Scriptures.
Example 2: wifely obedience strongly insisted on in section 74 of Casti Connubii and 6 times in the NT is
absent in our preaching, in our catechism and in Vatican II.
The Church sporadically gets it wrong on Scripture....despite being right on Petrine and Eucharistic passages.
Nor should you or anyone cite the Fathers on the Josephite marriage unless you are going to tell the truth about the Fathers and sex (two were exfornicators and may have had what Aquinas called "the remnants of sin"... strong temptations after forgiveness). See the "Good of Marriage" by Augustine in which he says that asking for the marriage debt is venial sin if one does not will procreation per incident.....totally repeated by Aquinas twice 700 years later...and the chief reason the natural methods met stern resistance from many in the Church in the early 20th century including Arthur Vermeesch as the natural methods became more accurate. Sex was concupiscence and procreation....not integral to love itself. Sex is not intimately tied to love because of this in a Church document until Casti Connubii in 1930 according to Noonan in "Contraception".... and that was thanks to Dietrich von Hildebrand perhaps (ibid).
You give no proof for your background setting to I Corinthians 7. You simply declare the background or context as people vying inordinately for the perfect state. Where in the world did you get that? In chapter 6 Paul is talking to the same people and they had to be told not to make their members one with that of a prostitute and they had to be told to expel from their midst the man among them who was sleeping with his step mother. That is the same audience in chapter 7.....though later in chapter 7, Paul addresses those who can live without marriage safely or they can marry....it's up to them.
patrick: I make your exact point in my "Diaconal categories and clerical celibacy" article. SeeReplyDelete
(trying a URL here with fingers duly crossed, http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons5.htm.
I don't know how Josephite marriages square with Catholic teaching that married couples must be open to life.ReplyDelete
If Mary and Joseph came to be married in the Church today, intending not to procreate, then Canon Law would have us refuse to marry them.
I am not quite sure how we resolve this apparent dilemma.
God Bless
Dr PetersReplyDelete
the link does not seem to work? could you double check, i would like to read the article. thank you
Hi patrick. The saga of me getting posts here even with in-active URLs is too long and boring to go into! :) My website is canonlaw.info, and the upper left hand boxes on my homepage have links to all of my discussions on this issue.ReplyDelete
I found it Dr. Peters and would love to hear some discussion of it by the diaconal community. I think it is spot on and points a way for the order of deacons to be be more rooted and part of holy orders. thank you for your work and your voice...it is needed.ReplyDelete
In general folks, if some married deacons fall underReplyDelete
I Corinthians 7:5 as those who married to avoid fornication and to whom Paul declares that they are not be away from sexual relations overlong lest Satan enter in...then if they were subsequently coerced into celibacy, the Church in effect would be placing them in a constant near occasion of sin...which is absurd. The Church would in such a case logically have to mandate that they separate from their wives to avoid a near occasion of sin....which is also absurd.
Ergo Dr. Peter's 4th option is the one that seems most
likely in the long run.....the one that a number of rites follow within Catholicism.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Referring to the public acceptance of an obligation to celibacy in c. 1037, Peters points out in his article that "No one seriously suggests that celibate clerics are not bound by the obligation of continence and the canon does not restate the obvious." Why can't Peters see the same logic that is so obvious to almost everyone else: "No one seriously suggests that married clerics are not bound by the obligation of rendering marital rights (c. 1135) and the canon does not restate the obvious."ReplyDelete
In Western Tradition, a married man could only be ordained to the diaconate if his wife had taken a "vow of chastity" sanctioned by the ordaining bishop or its equivalent. Peters ignores this aspect of the Western tradition. The fact that this requirement has been discontinued in current canon law gives a strong indication that the wife is not required to live "clerical continence". Her consent to the ordination is required because there is more to married life than sex, and more to Holy Orders than its absence. Peters shows the depth of his understanding of marital cooperation by suggesting that the wife should have no more say in the ordination of her husband than their children, except because of her marital rights. For Peters, that seems to be the only difference between the status of a wife and children in a family.
If the wife's choice of perfect and permanent continence naturally follows from 277 and 1037 (her consent to the ordination), then why does 1037 need to require a public commitment to celibacy for unmarried ordinands, when this also follows from 277. Why restate the obvious?
It is clear to most that the promotion of married men to the diaconate without requiring wives to take the equivalent of a "vow of chastity" indicates that this is a development in the modern Church… better still, a return to the tradition as it was 1000 years ago. It also seems clear that there is no need to change canon 277, its meaning is obvious to anyone with a proper estimation for the sanctity of marital relations and the importance of the obligations of a husband towards his wife. These obligations commute (and I am using the word technically) the clerical obligation of perfect and permanent continence, (which does apply to all clerics who do not have a conflicting obligation) to "a certain continence" for married deacons.
The old law required that an ordinand's "wife consented and the bishop sanctioned the vow of chastity to be pronounced by the wife". In his article, Peters writes that "the wife's consent had to be formally pronounced because, unlike her husband's obligations in this regard, hers are not already set forth in the text of the law." Peters confuses the effect of the consent with the effect of the vow of chastity here. Clearly it was not her consent to the ordination, but the vow that set forth her obligations. Understanding the role of this vow undermines Peters' argument that the consent of the wife to the ordination includes consent a life of perfect continence.
Peters thinks that the drafters of 277 were INARTICULATE and UNCOMPELLING: "Peters invites the competent ecclesiastical authority to articulate in canonically compelling terms why the obligation of continence should not be applied to married permanent deacons, ...". The fact that the requirement of a vow of chastity has been dropped is compelling reason to understand that the wife is not consenting to a life of perfect continence.
However, a married man awaiting ordination who was aware of the law could ask: am I foregoing my right to request marital relations (c.277), while still being obliged to render them for my wife(c.1135) – is that what the law presently indicates, and is what is meant by "a certain continence"?
The best thing that can come out of this discussion is a clarification of what the "certain continence" of married deacons and priests entails.
What can I say? If I were guilty of even half of the gaffs I have been accused of committing (albeit mostly by essentially unidentifiable comboxers), I would indeed be a shabby scholar. I am not guilty of these errors, but even the most reasonable among us know that it availeth me not to claim that; people have to reach, or not reach, that conclusion on their own. I do wonder, though, whether "daniel", who wrote "The best thing that can come out of this discussion is a clarification of what the 'certain continence' of married deacons and priests entails." realizes that he has just conceded a central option set out in my Studia article, and in my Four Options post, here: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons4.htm.ReplyDelete
Kind regards, edp.
Once again, I want to thank everyone for their participation in this extended conversation on the subject. I hope that Dr. Peters and I can continue this dialogue in other fora as well.ReplyDelete
I have upset several people, apparently, by my attempt about half way through this exchange to remind people of civility in the discourse. One person even wanted to complain to my bishop, which is, of course, perfectly acceptable. But I am glad that we have had this conversation and done so in a reasoned way.
After more than 100 comments, it's probably past time to move along to other topics, although if people want to continue on this one, we certainly can!
Thanks to all.
Deacon Bill
Sounds good, Deacon. I'll sign off from this thread. Best, edp.ReplyDelete
I agree that it is a long conversation on something that should be quite simple. I am also happy to concede that Peters makes lots of good points in his analysis.ReplyDelete
However, Peters is fundamentally saying that 35,000 married deacons are mistaken about how the law about clerical continence applies to them because of shabby oversight of their preparation by the bishops who ordained them and because the law itself is shabby (ie not articulate and compelling).
I am blogging because I don't want to come to a conclusion about the law on my own, I want help to understand the importance of the "vow of chastity" (or its Pio-Benedictine equivalent) that wives have been required to take in Western tradition until the present code came into effect.
Peters confuses the effect of the wife's consent to the ordination with the effect of her "vow of Chastity" when he writes that "the wife's consent had to be formally pronounced because, unlike her husband's obligations in this regard, hers are not already set forth in the text of the law."
Peters has decided to opt out of answering this and I understand that he has better things to do. Can anyone else fault my argument and show me that he is not confusing the consent with the vow?
(The old law required that an ordinand's "wife consented AND the bishop sanctioned the vow of chastity to be pronounced by the wife".)
I have just found this Blog and thread. Being a student in the first year of formation I find this fascinating. I am not sure if I am any clearer as to the official position on this. As my academic tutor is also Judicial Vicar in our Diocese I shall ask for his view when we next meet.ReplyDelete
Dear Barry,ReplyDelete
No need to trouble your JV. The official position of the church is that married deacons and married priests are NOT bound to continence following ordination.
Dr. Peters is arguing that this is not a correct application of the law, but the praxis of the church, including official documents of the Holy See have not concurred with his opinion.
God bless,
For those interested in the research by McLaughlin on this issue I have found a link that works:ReplyDelete
McLaughlin in his doctorate also agrees that in the old law the wife had to vow to live perfect continence:
"Legislation in the Corpus Iuris Canonici dealt with this question.
The wife had to consent to her husband taking a vow of perpetual continence, and she
had to either take a vow of perpetual continence or enter religious life."
McLaughlin comes to the same conclusion as Peters: "Furthermore, if a change in discipline was intended, then this needs to be more clearly enunciated."
In other words, Peters and McLaughlin hold that if a change in discipline was intended then the law is deficiently written, (needing to be more clearly enunciated).
Neither Peters nor McLaughlin understand the importance of the fact that the Church has dropped the age old requirement that the ordinand and his wife make a commitment to perfect continence BEFORE ordination.
There is another alternative to their opinion: JPII did intend a change and his law is clear as a bell: Clergy have an obligation to perfect continence, although this obligation is impossible for a married deacon until his wife decides to consent to perfect continence, (a possibility that a married deacon should consider with his wife from time to time).
Hi Dcn Bill. Stopping by to look at old posts, and I confess I'm a little surprised at your March 16 post. I thought this line of posts had basically wrapped up.ReplyDelete
I am more surprised, however, at your simple assertion to Barry that "The official position of the church is that married deacons and married priests are NOT bound to continence following ordination."
Do you have citation you could point me to where that "official position" is set out? Else, your response seems like a classic petitio principii. I have consistently given reasons for my positions in this controverted matter, so I tend to notice when others don't.
Nor do I know of any "official documents of the Holy See" that I have not addressed in my Studia article or here: [URLs still not posting, rats, so just go to my canon law website.] If you have in mind the 1998 joint dicasterial instruction (a la "a certain continence") I discuss that document , too, in a Memorandum (6) on the deacons' page at my website as well.
Personally, I would have liked to know what the JV said in reply to Barry's question, even if his JV disagrees with me. I have never discouraged anyone from asking questions on this matter. A good way to keep people from knowing that a point is being questioned is to discourage others from asking questions about it. Slippery slope, that.
Anyway, I am preparing some other materials on c. 277 for other fora, and you will doubtless see them when they come out. I'll look forward to your reactions.
Best, edp.
ps: Hi Daniel, sorry if I come across as ignoring you. It's not my intention, it's just that, in my opinion (which I know you don't share), you keeping asking questions that I think I have adequately answered and for that reason, I don't want to keep spending time responding. Cordially, edp.
Dear Dr. Peters,ReplyDelete
1) I had no intention of re-opening the discussion, but when someone posts, I try to respond.
2) My interpretation to Barry was simple: no bishop has ever implemented your interpretation of the law. No deacon candidate (to my knowledge, anyway) and no deacon has ever been told to remain continent, and deacons who have welcomed children into their families after ordination have never been chastised, disciplined or in any way taken to task for not remaining continent. The conclusion for me, in the pastoral sphere, is that the official church has spoken through its praxis.
I look forward to your continued work on the subject, but to me the biggest hurdle is not the law itself, but the interpretation of the law. And, it seems to me that the mens ecclesiae on this issue, given the decisions of the world's bishops vis-a-vis this issue, is at odds with your interpretation.
God bless,
Dr "EdP",ReplyDelete
I am happy with you not replying, you don't have to reply to every post on the internet - I wouldn't have bothered replying to half the posts you have. My posts are not all about you, and this issue is not all about you.
I am writing to a wider audience than just you to defend the canons of JPII as written against your attack, and defend the bishops who follow these clear canons when not requiring a commitment to perfect continence from ordinands against your charge that they are forgetting the Church's tradition.
Regarding Peters' request for a "citation you could point me to where that "official position" is set out".ReplyDelete
Most canon lawyers are happy to cite Can. 1135 "Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life."
The Church's official position is clear as a bell in this citation.It's is good enough canon lawyers and bishops who do not have a "reform the reform" agenda regarding canon law and the diaconate.
Deacon Bill mentions that deacons living married continence are not "chastised, disciplined or in any way taken to task".ReplyDelete
It is important to remember that until the present canon, the tradition in the West also included taking Bishops "to task", (including deposing them), if they ordained married men to the deaconate without insisting on perfect continence.
I would like to see research on the punishments available in canon law for all these bishops who Peters thinks have "forgotten" the Church's tradition regarding diaconal continence.
Okay, Dcn. Bill. Thanks. The impression I took above was that some document disproved my position. There is none, of course. I readily concede that current practice and law are at polar opposites, the question is, which way to resolve the tension. Personally, I think that the way current law reads, and the way it has been understood for 17-20 centuries, should prevail over the (in my view, inadvertent) way praxis has developed for a few decades, but that is not my call to make.ReplyDelete
And yes, Daniel, we do write for third parties here. So I can mention for them that I treat Canon 1135 in my Studia article in conjunction with cc. 1031 and 1050. Canon 1135 explains why we have cc. 1031 and 1050.
I think I am getting all this finally, and especially about 1031 and the wife's consent.ReplyDelete
Dr Edward,
A question for you if you have the time, (or any other canon lawyer):
Does 277#3 mean that a bishop, wanting to reform clerical continence in his diocese in view of continuity with the past, could add something like the following as as a requirement? -that a married man wanting to be ordained deacon would have to make, with the informed consent of his wife, an explicit commitment to perfect and permanent continence before ordination (or even during formation)?
I have just returned from a meeting with the JV in my diocese. He confirms what Deacon Bill said in his post of March 20. That the law as implemented by the Church does not require married deacons to be continent.ReplyDelete
So for me this puts the argument to bed (perhaps not the best phrase to use in this context)
You write "the law as implemented by the Church": the interesting thing is that JPII has left it up to each diocese. It would be better to say "the law as implemented in many dioceses".
Remember that some dioceses do not ordain married men to the diaconate.
The law no longer reads as requiring the bishop to insist on informed consent, (as it used to through the impediment) and many dioceses implement the law as it reads. However, theoretically, a bishop could use the law, as it stands, to only ordain a married man if his wife gives informed consent to her husband being bound to clerical continence.
Even an amateur would realise that if the law does not read as requiring informed consent in this situation then the law cannot be read as binding a deacon to continency. The framers of the law were not amateurs, so I assume they realised the consequences of not insisting on informed consent for a married ordinand (and his wife), while insisting on informed consent for an unmarried ordinand.
Peters seems to think that the framers did not realise the obvious consequences of omitting a requirement for informed consent, something that has been realised for 1500 years. He also seems to have a problem with a Church where some dioceses ordain married men, (using the fact the law does not require the wife to consent to clerical celibacy), and other dioceses do not take advantage of this innovation.