Deacons and Continence (continued)
While the discussion of this has died down here at Vox Nova, it continues elsewhere on the web. Here is an interesting take by Ronald Conte, pointing out that Pope JP II interprets one key passage of canon law differently than Dr. Peters. Here is the money quote:
Dr. Peters’ interpretation of Canon 1031 §2 is that the consent of the wife required therein is a consent to permanent and perpetual continence (i.e. to abstain from marital relations). Pope John Paul II gives a different interpretation of this Canon:
“Equally important is the contribution that a married deacon makes to the transformation of family life. He and his wife, having entered into a communion of life, are called to help and serve each other (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 48). So intimate is their partnership and unity in the sacrament of marriage, that the Church fittingly requires the wife’s consent before her husband can be ordained a permanent deacon (Can. 1031 §2).”
The debate also rages here, and a critque by an anonymous canonist appeared here. Dr. Peters has refused to engage this, saying only that it contains serious misstatements of canon law.
As I said in an earlier commbox, I am not sure why I am so intrigued by this debate. In the end I think it points to something really painfully wrong with the Church today.
Comments are closed.
it points to something really painfully wrong with the Church today
You ain’t kiddin’, bro.
But this contradiction has been there from the beginnning–beginning from when both Paul and Christ insist that eunuchdom “for the Kingdom’s sake” is preferable to the connubial state.
CCC Article 7: 1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ORDERED TOWARD THE GOOD OF THE SPOUSES AND THE PROCREATION AND EDUCATION OF OFFSPRING; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”
Why should this not also be the role of a married diaconate?
Peters did respond briefly to the anonymous canonist’s non sequitur charge at some point in the comments threads at Deacon Ditewig’s, his argument being that ‘therefore’ doesn’t usually have the logical force in canon law UCLX attributes to it; his statement about refusing to engage with it was about refusing to engage with an anonymous canonist whom he regarded as making several obvious errors in canon law, on the subject of canon law itself.
I find Conte’s argument very puzzling; setting aside the aspects of it to which Peters had already responded in his argument, it would only be relevant if JPII’s interpretation were logically inconsistent with Dr. Peters’s interpretation, but I don’t see that he ever actually shows this in the post in question. The most natural reading of the passage is merely that, because of the unity they have with their wives through the sacrament of marriage, men can’t be ordained as deacons without the consent of their wives. But that’s not inconsistent with anything Peters has said.
I think Conte is making, using different evidence, a point I have made elsewhere: however Dr. Peters reads canon law, the Vatican and all bishops interpret it differently as not binding married deacons to continence. Conte’s point is that JPII does not interpret the consent of the wife of a deacon as being related to a vow of continence, but rather just to his being ordained.
Which involves being ordained to a clerical state, to which the norms of a clerical state apply except where there are exceptions. At least in the passage in question JPII doesn’t specify what it is in the ordination that requires the consent, just saying that the reason for the consent is the unity coming from the sacrament of marriage. So I think that precisely the problem is that it isn’t clear that it is different evidence, because it isn’t actually clear what it implies about the norms of the diaconate as a clerical state. Sure, it can be read as “different evidence” but surely it’s obvious that it could just as easily be read a different way?
I think you are quite right to observe that there is “something really painfully wrong”, and the first commenter points to it precisely; we are so enthused these days to avoid undervaluing the state of marriage that we forget that perfect continence embraced for the sake of Heaven is superior to it. Von Balthasar’s Christian State of Life is ‘magisterial’, although critics attempt to render it suspect because of his relations with Adrienne von Speyr etc.
[I meant my comment just made to be directed to your post itself, not Brandon's at 1230; sorry.]
it points to something really painfully wrong with the Church today
Not really. Dr. Peters has looked at the text of a particular canon totally outside of universal practice and custom and come up with a particular reading at variance with that universal practice and custom.
Conservatives, at times with value to the community of faith, often warn against overly flexible interpretations of law. In this case, even if Dr. Peter’s reading was judged correct, the most that would come out of this is a setting aside of canon law in favor of common practice. Practice trumping the letter of the law is hardly the outcome I think conservatives want.
What is surprising (to me at least) and maybe even painfully wrong, is how certain (marginal) elements of the Catholic community, seeing a possible legal loophole, have leap at the possible opportunity to revert to the precouncilar situation for the diaconate. Among the complaints conservatives have about the renewal, I did not think the permanent and married diaconate was a big problem for them. I am rather amazed they seem so enthusiastic about the chance to end this reform.
I don’t have a problem with married deacons. Obviously holy orders and marriage aren’t mutually exclusive: consider Eastern Rite priests. And they’re not mutually exclusive in the Latin Rite: consider married Anglican priests who convert and become Catholic Latin Rite priests, but who remain married. So by extension, I don’t have a problem with married deacons. I even see the arguments in favor of that status: married deacons can show by example the good of married sacramental life to the people of the Church, while ministering to them.
But I’m not sure I understand why there has been such resentment to Peters’s argument. (As an aside, I’m no canon lawyer so I don’t know whether Peters’s argument is faulty or not — maybe a clarification in the canon law code would be useful or maybe not.) Why do you, David and digby, “think it points to something really painfully wrong with the Church today”? In the Latin Rite, celibacy is the norm for priests (though there are exceptions as noted above). For those wanting to become permanent deacons but who are unmarried or whose wives later pass away, celibacy is also the norm. In the Latin Rite, there is a long tradition of celibacy and of continence and there are many good reasons for its practice. So what is the worry?
Consider it this way. Forget the Peters incident ever happened. Assume Peters’s argument is entirely wrong and that not only is there absolutely no problem with married deacons, the Church should and does rightly encourage and support married deacons. Would there be a problem with suggesting to a married man thinking about the diaconate that he and his wife might want to consider mutually agreeing to be continent when he receives holy orders? A couple who agreed to a Josephite marriage might be quite a witness in today’s world.
Sure, a deacon couple could have a “Josephite” marriage, for various reasons. If they do or don’t, it isn’t anybody else’s business. We live in an age of TMI. It crosses the line for someone to suggest that to them.
Not sure why it’s TMI. Sisters, brothers, and priests express vows of chastity publically – not sure why a couple that chose continence and expressed that to the community would be TMI.
Also not sure why it crosses the line to suggest it. I’m not advocating that continence be required of married deacons. In fact, I see many good things with having married deacons. But I don’t see why continence can’t be a suggested option (without denigrating his marriage) for a man considering the diaconate.
Thales
No one is denying people to have that option (and it wouldn’t have to end with deacons).
Thales
“No one is denying people to have that option (and it wouldn’t have to end with deacons).”
And no one is saying that deacons should be forced to be continent.
Again, I’m puzzled why the suggestion of deacons and continence has generated so much ire.
Thales
Actually, the whole point is that someone is making that argument.
By definition priests (in the Latin rite), brothers, and sisters are continent; they’re not married. The fact of their continence, and the reason, are a matter of public knowledge; it’s not a violation of anyone’s privacy.
People deciding for themselves for one reason or another to have a Josephite marriage is one thing. It is quite another thing for someone else to suggest it to them, what would be the reasons for such a suggestion?
Melody
There are married Latin Rite priests. And Peters is talking about them as well.
Yep
Here is the bottom line in this whole controversy: the main concern about a married (and not continent) permanent diaconate, by the ones who are arguing against it, is that they think it undermines support for mandatory priestly celibacy. So this whole thing is about circling the wagons and filling all (perceived) loopholes with concrete. It seems to me that what they are really saying, reams of papers and many scholarly tomes extolling the beauty and moral superiority of priestly celibacy notwithstanding, is that they think no one will willingly choose celibacy unless they are forced to as a condition of ordination. I don’t think this line of thought holds water. To some degree the Church has developed a two-track system; both in the Eastern rites, and in the West with ordination of married deacons and a celibate priesthood. Men still enter priestly formation, knowing that celibacy remains the rule. In fact there is a modest increase in ordinations to the priesthood recently; I don’t think it can seriously be said that the existence of married deacons has detracted from numbers entering the priesthood. The system doesn’t seem to be broken; why all the rush to fix it?
For the record, I don’t have any problem admitting that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is a higher calling than matrimony. But neither Christ nor Paul said that everyone who is called to ministry is called to celibacy.
Personally I think that it does point out to what is wrong not in the Church but in Catholic blogdom. This was an obscure article that should of been of interest to canon lawyers sitting in ivory towers. Not a single bishop AFAIK see no issue with this.
There is so much beauty and joy going on in the Catholic Church and the world to write about. How about hundreds of thousands persons mostly young marching for life in our capitol or in San Francisco? Or how abou the beatification of Pope John Paul II? Or how abou the Assisi ecumenical gethering? Or the Anglican Ordinate?
But why this?
“This was an obscure article that should of been of interest to canon lawyers sitting in ivory towers.” I couldn’t agree more. However it was some of the canon lawyers who took it public.
You mention the Anglican Ordinariate, which indeed is a cause for rejoicing. And unfortunately it is not unrelated to the present controversy.
Here’s an authoritative teaching from the Ecumenical Council that :-
This is a fascinating article on Josef Ratzinger’s support for reviewing the requirement of priestly celibacy.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3840
God Bless
Why exactly does this point to something being “painfully wrong” with the Church today? I think that can only be true from a very narrow and disordered perspective.
Do you think the Church has never experienced this type of debate or tolerated or even learned something from these types of things?
What the heck is the big deal? either he’s right, or he’s wrong, and the Church will decide. And either way, who cares?
Zach
There are very many concerns one can come out of this debate. For example, there is a question of the treatment of sexuality and the Church. Secondly, it has ramifications of people who feel called to be deacons, and the wives of such people. These are real people. What’s the big deal? Are you that unreceptive of the people who are serving the Church and their own needs? Are you that uncaring? Third, this is also a question of theological anthropology, and different anthropologies will lead to different interpretive schemes, not only of canon law, but of moral, spiritual and theological questions. There is a very questionable theological lens which is being employed. Then there is the question of what authority private interpretations of canon law have on the Church — why does a canon lawyer bring this to the people and find ways to cut the Church and its practices and how it has interpreted the canons? It would be one thing to say “we can say this better,” but that is not what is being used here. There is a real thrust to say “it is better to force people called to service to be a-sexual.” Say what? This again then cuts to the heart of the sacrament of marriage. If we are talking about defense of the family, well, Zach, here we go….defend the sacrament of marriage and family life from those who would like to use canon law to undercut both!
Henry
It’s not about sexuality and the Church. The Church’s teaching on sexuality is not going to change as a result of this debate. The debate is about whether or not there is or ought to be a vow of celibacy amongst clergy.
And I’m not indifferent to the lives of those married people who feel called to the Deaconite. Quite the opposite, actually. I don’t understand where you are coming from with that comment or why you think I would think like that.
Anyways, my comment comes to this: if the Church were to make obligatory celibacy for the Deaconite, then I think that we should listen to the Church. I don’t think we need to worry either way, because it’s ultimately in God’s hands. This is a very small debate, taking place in a small forum that will probably amount to nothing. I read this site and people seem to be having panic attacks about even discussing the question. It’s strange to me.
And while I appreciate your attempt to educate me in nuance, it’s nevertheless unclear to me how this question deals with theological anthropology (which I take to mean the relationship between man and God.) in any substantive way. I’d welcome an explanation of what you mean.
Finally I’m greatly concerned that you think celibates are called to be asexual, and also that you think that the desire to discuss this question somehow indicates a desire on the part of some to “to force people called to service to be a-sexual.”
Celibates are not asexual, and the Church does not and has never understood celibacy to be a call to relinquish one’s sexual identity. A celibate can and ought to embrace his sexual identity just as much as a married person. Celibacy simply means no intercourse.
Zach
Actually, there are many false views of sexuality involved with this debate. You still do not understand that a big part of the issue is that this is an expression of more fundamental issues. This is where some think they can push forward their desires under the guise of a legalistic, poor interpretive scheme of canon law.
“What the heck is the big deal?” Those are your words. If you don’t care about the way some people are trying to push a poor interpretive scheme into canon law to force their way into the lives of deacons today, that’s how you would express it. Now you say you care. If you care, you wouldn’t ask what the big deal is.
The Church doesn’t make an obligatory celibacy. The Church has already shown this. Someone is trying to force a forced reading of canon law, using a highly questionable legalistic interpretive scheme which ignores how the Church actually works, as a way to make the Church act contrary to what it does now. And the idea expressed is that this is some sort of major moment of reform. Seriously?!
As for theological anthropology – we are talking about fundamentals, such as the relationship between a husband and wife. Scripture has used such a relationship as points out how they reflect Christ and the Church. Many theologians also see something Trinitarian in the family life. The relationships are now being questioned and denigrated, and the rights of married life are thrown aside. Do we really want to look at marriage in such a way? Do you really think there will be no ramifications of this in other areas of the Christian life?
Once again, I find it funny and sad that we see find those who are promoting culture wars are now finding themselves attacking Christian marriages.
Henry,
First of all, celibacy–the state of not being married–is different than perfect continence within marriage. Mary and Joseph were not celibate, but–if the tradition is right about Mary’s perpetual virginity–perfectly continent.
And there is a wealth of historical data to support that the Latin Church has, from a very early period, recognized this distinction and that canon law takes it into account.
The question is about whether permanent members of the diaconate and priesthood in the Latin rite should be called to perfect continence. The canon reads one way, the practice goes the other–assuming that Peter’s argument is correct.
That is all.
WJ
The East calls Mary “the unwed bride.” There is again some fundamental questions about marriage between East/West which have not been properly explored. And the reading of the canons outside of the practice of the Church and saying “well, that’s how they are read” again is a very Protestant interpretive scheme, and indeed, it ignores other possible interpretive methods (as I have told him). He is forcing one scheme, and it is clear, the Church doesn’t read canons the way he does. Why not? And again, why is he so concerned about the sex lives of married deacons? And why, again, has he said that this is more than merely about his reading of the canon bringing up a question of the canons, but that he is promoting that this is the best practice for the Church as well?
Henry, please consider what I wrote as opposed to what you think I think.
I can’t have a conversation with you if you don’t respond what I’m saying.
A celibate can and ought to embrace his sexual identity just as much as a married person.
Zach,
Is this true for gay priests as well? And how does it work for heterosexual priests?
Celibacy simply means no intercourse.
For priests, celibacy means no marriage. The debate is about “continence.”
Here is my simpleminded view. We were always taught that marriage was a vocation. Unless you made a big mistake, if you were married, it is what God called you to do. Since sex and procreation are what marriage is all about (to Catholics), it would seem very strange to require — or even ask — married people to practice “continence.” It is the antithesis of marriage.
David,
I meant by sexual identity one’s “maleness”. Not one’s sexual desires.
And there are lots of married couples who remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Many saints have done this. While the purpose of marriage is primarily procreation, the Church would never prescribe that married couples ought not ever give the gift of sexual continence.
Look, this is getting rather out of hand. Nowhere do I find E. Peters arguing for a normative theological position that it is better that we “force people to be a-sexual” in Karlson’s formulation. Peters himself has said that one option, moving forward, is the reassesment of the canon in question on the basis of theological development. He admits that theology comes prior to law, he is only pointing out what the law says and how what the law says conflicts with a current ecclesial practice. That’s it. There’s nothing more here. I also find tedious the suggestion that Peters is somehow out of line by making his argument. He’s a scholar. He’s in the business of making arguments. And their strength or weakness has nothing–I repeat, nothing–to do with whatever motivations he may have in making them. So it’s completely irrelevant to respond to Peters by casting aspersions on his motivations. I could care less about his motivations. I’m interested in the soundness of his interpretation of the canon in question, the objections he has considered and met, and the strength of his argument. That’s all anybody should be concerned about. Peters is not making facts up, he’s not engaging in propaganda, he’s rather engaged in the scholarly enterprise of doing canon law. You can agree or disagree with his interpretation, but you can’t dismiss his interpretation by appeal to the irrelevant and, in any event, unavailable motivations that led to his making it. If anything, Peters is doing a service to the Church by forcing it to acknowledge that practice has moved beyond the formulated law. I just don’t understand the response at this website to Peter’s scholarly activity. I assume–just on the basis of what’s been said on this topic here before–that Peters is suffering from association with his son, who really doesn’t know very much, and who really is a dangerous influence for well-meaning, but historically and theologically uninformed Catholics. But it’s not right to treat Peter’s scholarly article as thought it’s the equivalent to a rant on American Papist. And it’s even irrelevant that the American Papist drew attention to the article in the first place. We need to separate legitimate scholarly inquiry from the intellectual posturing that occurs on American Papist, and we need to do this even if we don’t agree with the conclusions of the inquiry in question.
WJ
He has said more than what you just pointed out — Peters made it clear, not only does he think this is the way the law should be read, but it should be enforced. He connects his reading (as does his son) with a reformation in ancient Israel. And he has made it clear, though he says “one can push for a change in canon,” his position is that the canon as it is, is good and should be enforced as per his interpretation of it. Again, he does not explain why the interpretation he gives fails to be the way authorities have interpreted it. He ignores rules of logic (as the anonymous canon lawyer points out). There is indeed more to this than just “this is the canon, this is how I think it should be interpreted, let’s now fix things.” He is coming to it with a questionable interpretation and desire to change the practice of the Church based upon one questionable interpretation of a canon.
Yes. That’s the real problem here. I suspect it reveals a certain energy of American Protestant culture to it.
I have heard from several men considering vocations to the permanent diaconate, from at least one wife, and of several others, for whom the supposed continence requirement raised by Ed Peters and pushed aggressively by his son Thomas and some others on the Catholic Right blogosphere has been a serious disincentive to pursue their vocation to the diaconate.
I have no doubt that the campaign around this to try to mandate permanent and perpetual continence on married clerics is discouraging vocations to the permanent diaconate.
Anything which discourages vocations ought to be of serious concern to us all.
It cannot be the Divine Will.
God Bless
A brief word: The reason I think that this debate points to something “wrong” in the Church is precisely the legalistic terms in which it is being debated, and the fact that a lot of conservatives see the law as trumping current practice, implying that something went wrong with the restoration and it needs to be fixed. On one site I saw this linked to the “reform of the reform”, and I think that this points to some really deep problems with this proposed reform.
I am going to let Henry carry the battle regarding continence and its links to theological anthropology, but I find his arguments generally reasonable.
I find it interesting that you would say that, given that there are conservatives who would also say it says something wrong precisely in the tendency to laxism being encouraged by their opponents. Frankly, I think it’s pretty clear that when we are talking about a debate on a technical point in canonistics of which most people aren’t even aware and which has a direct affect on considerably less than a hundred thousand people in the entire world and has not even got beyond the stage of argument yet, seriously to take it it as a sign of something wrong with the Church is coming close to being an admission of being off one’s rocker, regardless of where one sits on the issue. If the Church were that ridiculously fragile, it wouldn’t have survived the age of the apostles. The legalistic and the lax have been with us always. Not, of course, that anyone can tell whether people are being legalistic or lax from a single issue, however much people may try.
What I find more worrying is the histrionics of it, the outright refusal of some to consider that the other side might actually have real reasons for their position, even if they turn out to be inadequate. “For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?” It has been a bit ironic recently to go from Masses in which I Corinthians is read to this argument online.
Look, we’re talking about CANON LAW. A LEGALISTIC interpretation of CANON LAW is EXACTLY what one should be after. This does not entail a LEGALISTIC interpretation of Christianity, of the Catholic Church, or of sexuality. A legal code, as such, DEMANDS a legalistic interpretation. That is why we have them, after all, why we recognize their importance and their limitations.
And I’d like some specificity here: why is Peters’ reading a “Prostestant” one? That seems just a bizarre accusation, unless you think that reading carefully and closely, paying attention to the history of a clause’s interpretation, and comparing that clause to other similar clauses in Canon Law is a Protestant endeavor. This is name calling rather than argument.
WJ
No, canon law is often to be read within the greater context of economia (even if the West has not used the term, it often lives out the term). When we are told, even in Scripture, it is not the letter of the law but the spirit of the law which is at issue, then we must first discern that spirit. When dealing with Scripture, for example, different people will always argue “this is the letter, so this is how it must be interpreted.” But what they mean is “this is how I now understand these words.” This is where by the letter, ignoring the spirit (which includes, the tradition and the greater ecclesial context, including the practice the Church has put into effect) is off. It’s wrong with Scripture, and if it is wrong with Scripture, it certainly is wrong with discipline.
There once was a monk who fasted all the time. Rigorous fasts. He was holy and very devout. Yet, he had to go to Moscow in the middle of the Great Fast. Once he got there, he was starving and had to eat. There was hardly any place left for him to go beyond establishments run by non-Christians, selling meat. He went, got some meat, and ate. Many Christians saw him and scorned him “look at that good for nothing lazy monk. Doesn’t he know the Church’s fasting rules? Isn’t he supposed to do better than this?” Oh, how legalistic they were, but how far were they in understanding the point of the fast. So, too, it is often the case with canon law.
The theme of the Josiah moment is much more akin to many impulses in American Protestant culture (the emphasis here is more on the American part) – the recovery of Original Purity in law and church – rather than the more traditionally Catholic approach of having much less trouble over untidiness between practice and legal text.
Actually, the correct, legalistic, interpretation of Canon Law is that it does NOT require perfect and perpetual continence of married clerics, as is clear from the very wording of Can 277.
Ed Peters is simply wrong on his interpretation of the law and the bishops are correct in their interpretation.
God Bless
I should state that I have no opinion on Ed Peters’ reading of Can 277–I am not a canon lawyer and I haven’t even looked into the situation past his article and the objections to his reading I’ve seen around the web. He may be right, he may be wrong.
What concerns me is the insinuation that his motivations in making his argument should have any bearing on the strength of that argument itself.
I completely agree with you WJ.
I think this is absurd.
No one’s attacking marriage.
I have read Peter’s article, and had in fact read it years ago. I find his logic sound, but there were a few small flaws from my point of view. He seems to think that the word “continence” in the current code means the same as the word “chastity” in the 1917 code, which I find to be a bit problematic. There are a few other minor issues, too.
However, I think ultimately this case can be solved on the question of the intent of the legislator. What does Rome intend? Answer: what does Rome do? If Rome is ordaining married men as deacons without any expectation of continence, then it is reasonable to suggest that shows the intent of the legislator, the letter of the law not withstanding.
I suspect revising the code is the likely eventual outcome.
I would not be suprised if the eastern discipline of temporary continence is at least made a recommendation, since that is the age old custom for married clergy of those rites with such an established tradition.