Karl Rahner – The Christian of the future will be a mystic…

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/karl_rahner_204837

Father Van Hove welcomes autumn

https://frvanhove.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/wp-1697929731366.jpg

“Who Was Hubert Jedin?”

In November, 1991, the Homiletic and Pastoral Review in the United States published a Memorandum of Hubert Jedin written in 1968. But many in the English-speaking world were quite unaware of who this man was and of what his contribution to the Church consisted. What follows is a brief sketch of his life.

This outstanding church historian of the Catholic world in the last century died July 16, 1980. He was buried in Bonn, then West Germany. Jedin was born June 17, 1900, in Grossbriesen, near Breslau, Upper-Silesia. After World War II this became Polish territory and today the city is called Wrocław. He was ordained a diocesan priest on March 2, 1924, and served a parish for the next two years. Toward the end of his life he was given the title “Monsignor”.

On September 1, 1933, his academic authorization was taken away by the German authorities because of his background. In 1936 he was named archivist of the Archdiocese of Breslau. Since his mother was a Catholic convert of Jewish ancestry, the Gestapo arrested Father Jedin in 1938, but he managed to get released and left Germany on November 1, 1939. He spent the next ten years in Rome, 1939-1949, quietly researching the history of the Council of Trent concerning which he became an acknowledged expert. He used only the original documents in the archives. Luckily friends such as Karl August Fink helped him retrieve out of Germany his scholarly papers which were of use to him in Rome when he lived at the Campo Santo Teutonico, inside the boundaries of the Vatican City State.

This exhaustive and original study of the primary source materials resulted in the publication of four large volumes of The History of the Council of Trent, only two of which have yet appeared in English. Some smaller studies of his are also well known. One of them is his 1937 Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, appearing in English in 1947. Others were on Tommaso Campeggio (1958), Carlo Borromeo (1971), and Cardinal Caesar Baronius (1978). He was a life-long specialist on councils, and on Trent in particular. One of his works was on the closing itself, Der Abschluss des Trienter Konzils 1562/63 (1964).

After the announcement (1959) by Pope John XXIII Roncalli that an ecumenical council would be held, Jedin published that same year his Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline (E.T. 1960) and then somewhat later, as Vatican II was in session, in 1964 as mentioned above, Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent (E.T. 1967). These were prepared for seminarians and other interested students of ecclesiastical history who were in need of some perspective on just what an ecumenical council was supposed to be in the Catholic Church.

For all of this, Jedin was also a generalist. He launched the massive ten-volume series History of the Church under his own editorship. It was originally designed as a text for students, but soon the volumes became more elaborate and detailed. The series has been called “the Fliche-Martin of our time”, and is today a standard reference. It appeared in seven languages nearly simultaneously with the German original. The tenth volume was at last translated into English in 1981, one year after Jedin’s death. An abridgement by D. Larrimore Holland of the first three volumes appeared in English in 1992. The introduction to the first volume, however, tells us about his motivation as well as his science: church history must be done from the point of view of faith. This was Jedin the Catholic speaking, not just Jedin the scholar.

Another of the projects which he supervised was the cartographic church history, Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte. Die christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, published in Germany in 1970.

Jedin had to suspend his work for four years, 1962-1965, in order to serve as a peritus at the Second Vatican Council. Very few historians of councils actually get to participate in one as he did! I know of no other who had this unique privilege. This also explains the lengthy interval of time between the publication of his first two volumes on Trent (1949, 1957) and the second two (1970, 1975).

From 1949 to 1965 he was professor in Bonn; before and after those years he received six honorary doctorates, including one from Louvain, and many other international awards and invitations. In 1970 Pope Paul VI had offered him the position of Prefect of the Vatican Library, though Jedin declined on the grounds of advancing age and infirmity. As early as 1951 Pius XII had offered him the post of Vice-prefect of the Vatican Library, but he had declined it even then, preferring to succeed Wilhelm Neuss in the chair of church history in Bonn. Poor health during the 1970s prevented him from making the kind of progress he wished, but fortunately in the end none of his projected works were left incomplete.

The autobiographical book, Lebensbericht, appeared posthumously in 1984. It was not the first such effort, since his early youth had already been presented as Eine Jugend in Schlesien, 1900-1925, and published in 1979 in the Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte. The book about his later life outlines his professional career and productivity rather than primarily providing us with personal reflections or a spiritual “journal of a soul”. Nonetheless it received some negative reviews in the United States from those who said Jedin had become too alarmed and saddened toward the end of his life because of his conviction that Vatican II had been either tragically misunderstood or, even worse, betrayed. He communicated his frank opinion on the matter in 1968 to the West German bishops shortly after the annual “Catholic Day” (“Katholikentag”) held at Essen that year. The event seemed to promote opposition to “Humanae vitae” more than anything else. He drew upon his knowledge of Trent and the Reformation process to illustrate for them a similar process underway in the postconciliar twentieth century. It had never been lost on the informed reader that the deliberate subtitle of his Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent was “a retrospective view from the Second Vatican Council”. The translation of this Memorandum emerged for the first time, perhaps belatedly, to benefit an English-speaking readership. It was an unusual “activist’s intervention” from a man who had been all his life a pure and almost reclusive professional.

Rev. Brian Van Hove, SJ

Revision of an article which appeared in shorter form in The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 16, no. 1 (December 1992) 19-20.

May 2023

Cochrane Says Review Does Not Show That ‘Face Masks Don’t Work’ Against Covid-19

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/03/11/cochrane-says-review-does-not-show-that-face-masks-dont-work-against-covid-19/

An apology

The Real Science on Masks: They Make No Difference

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-real-science-on-masks-they-make

The Free Press , by John Tierney

See later the Cochrane apology

Benedict XVI Describes ‘Protestantization’ of the Eucharist in Posthumous Publication | National Catholic Register

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/benedict-xvi-describes-protestantization-of-the-eucharist-in-posthumous-publication

Donald J. Keefe SJ also wrote in this vein.

Edward N. Peters on Canon 277

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm

Studia canonica 39 (2005) 147-180. Ottawa, ON

Donald J. Keefe SJ, 2015 Festschrift

https://wp.me/pn0tM-1k8

“Illuminism”

Keefe at Fordham in the Bronx, New York

“Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought”

At breakfast in the fall of 1972 Father Keefe explained the history of the doctrine of Illuminism. I am not able to remember which question of mine triggered his mini-discourse—something I had inquired about—but I listened attentively. From that moment I knew how at once creative and orthodox was Keefe’s thought, and I have never changed my mind.

Years later, Father Robert A. Brungs, SJ of ITEST remarked more than once to me that “Father Keefe is the best dogmatician writing in English—and he is unappreciated.” I was already convinced of Keefe’s competence from the informal conversations I had with him in St. Louis. After Keefe’s review of Tad Guzie’s “Jesus and the Eucharist” (1974) as mere warmed-over Calvinism, I knew that Keefe was not only correct but that he had both the courage and the analytic depth to help us through the new “hermeneutic of rupture.” I also became aware that the Eucharistic mystery was Keefe’s “true love.” Later, his original article “Toward a Eucharistic Morality” (1974-1975) made this point elegantly.

Perhaps his best student at Marquette, Joyce A. Little, published a summary of his “Covenental Theology” in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter (June 1992, 3-7, vol. 15, no. 3) called “A ‘Little’ Bit about Father Donald J. Keefe, S.J.” It is the place to begin for a concise introduction to Keefe’s systematic theology. Toward the end on page seven she writes:

“If Keefe’s work does no more than alert a new generation of theologians to the fact that traditional Catholic systematic theology is bankrupt, it will have performed an invaluable service. Happily, there is good reason to suppose that it will do much more than that. Keefe’s own conversions of Augustinianism and Thomism into theological methodologies, which he himself is the first to acknowledge as ‘hypothetical,’ are so cogently presented that there is little doubt, on their own merits alone, that they will earn serious exploration by future Catholic theologians.”

Dr. Little’s own dissertation directed by Keefe, “Toward a Thomistic Methodology” (Toronto, Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) refines and explores some of Keefe’s theological concerns. (Due to poor health, she was not able to contribute to “Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought.”)

In the Seventies it was feared that Hans Küng and his allies were taking over the theology of the Catholic Church. The battle-weary Pope Paul VI had been relentlessly attacked for his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (1968) and then afterward for his pontifical Declaration “Inter Insigniores” (1976). Having few sources of inspiration, I profoundly admired those such as Father Keefe who supported the pope and the pontifical magisterium in those grim days.

Father Keefe was of course not alone, but a search comes up with just a few who were courageous enough to go against the tide of the times. One of them, truly a “Doctor of the Church,” Dietrich von Hildebrand, had resisted National Socialism in Germany a few decades before. He was already a fighter so that from Fordham in New York von Hildebrand was engaged in this new struggle. Another valiant exponent of religious orthodoxy was Father Mark Hegener, OFM, editor of the Franciscan Herald Press. He published works we would otherwise not have seen in English.

Keefe was the chief dogmatician and protector of the sacraments. Von Hildebrand was an ethician and Hegener was a publisher. Others included John R. Sheets, Ralph McInerny, William E. May, Germain Grisez, Paul Quay, William B. Smith, George A. Kelly, Francis Canavan, James Hitchcock, Sara Butler, and James V. Schall.They were voices crying out in the wilderness which Catholic America had become—as Joyce Little wrote, “systematic theology has become bankrupt.” With hardly an exception, I met Father Keefe before I met others who had our ecclesiastical concerns.

Our young people today do not remember these heroes, and this short list is not taxative, but the youth should be taught about them. They should be advised to read “Divine Promise and Human Freedom in Contemporary Catholic Thought,” edited by Kevin A. McMahon (2015). The book is a collection of essays written in honor of Father Keefe on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday and presented to him on his ninety-first. Being introduced to certain “keefian themes” might be a life-changing experience. The contributors to the collection are orthodox, even if they would not agree with Keefe on a variety of points. Father Keefe in the course of his life returned to St. Augustine for theological solutions, whereas others held to St. Thomas more broadly.

What was the context of Father Keefe’s intellectual development? With his final work “Covenantal Theology” easily available, the road to it might not be obvious.

Not long before going to the Gregorian University in Rome for his doctorate, Father Keefe wrote a critique of Thomistic metaphysics. He was encouraged in this work by Gustave Weigel (d. 1964). For his doctoral research he chose the Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich, a somewhat daring subject for that time when “decadent Scholasticism” and “manualist theology” reigned and when the Ressourcement movement was suspect by certain scholars and important curialists in Rome.

The subordinate title of his work on Tillich was “comparison of systems.” He exhausted the resources of Thomism, and turned to examine those of the alternative, Augustinianism. He had spent the summer of 1956 with the first four of the five volumes of Joseph Maréchal’s great work, “Le Point de départ de la métaphysique.” He learned a lot of French from Maréchal and a little later from Henri de Lubac’s banned “Surnaturel”, all of which stood him in good stead when he got to Woodstock and read Jean Daniélou and other French Augustinians.

Ecumenism was much in the air then, and he took classes under a Dutch Jesuit, Jon Witte, a contemporary of Rudolph Bultmann, Oscar Cullmann, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. Witte was familiar with their work. At the end of the year Father Keefe asked him to direct his dissertation. Witte’s English was without noticeable accent, and his acquaintance with European theology, especially that of the German scholars, was extraordinary. His willingness to undertake the direction of Keefe’s dissertation was a high compliment. Father Keefe doubted it could have been written otherwise.

As for its subject, Tillich was at once an Augustinian, a systematist, and an enigma. His Lutheran faith was put in issue by many Lutherans, and his system, which in sum denied that the redeemer’s name is Jesus, did not precisely encourage its study. Nonetheless, he presented a formidable challenge, which he undertook to meet, albeit with some trepidation. In those days, Jesuits went to Rome for two years; dissertations had to be written within a year. He finished it well in time, but it was turned down. After some struggle and revision, it was accepted and published in 1971 as “Thomism and the Ontological Theology of Paul Tillich: A Comparison of Systems” (Leiden, E.J. Brill).

Critics of Father Keefe may point to a curmudgeonly side. Actually, his personality is a work of art, and his conviction and self-confidence can be misunderstood. I counter critical comments by reminding those who do not know him that curmudgeonliness was a hallmark of Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina. It did not impede Padre Pio from either fame or sanctity. Neither Donald Keefe nor Saint Padre Pio can be “reduced down” to a single facet of their personalities. Nor does personality equate with brilliance. Ironically, the popular press never adverted to the fact that Hans Küng is also as curmudgeonly as they come. The present writer can only aspire to become a saintly, scholarly curmudgeon.

Donald J. Keefe was born 14 July 1924 to Donald and Frances Keefe. The family lived on a farm near Hamilton, New York. He graduated from high school in 1940.

In 1943 he joined the V-5 naval aviation cadet program, emerging in 1945 as an ensign with a designation of flight navigator. He entered Colgate University in 1946, then entered Georgetown University Law School in January 1949. He graduated in 1951 and was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbus on April 27 of that year, then to the Bar of New York State in 1954.

Father Keefe entered the Society of Jesus in 1953 at age 29. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1962. He received a licentiate in sacred theology from Woodstock College in Maryland in 1963, and then two years later obtained the doctorate from the Gregorian University in Rome. He subsequently taught at Canisius College, Saint Louis University, Marquette University and St. Joseph’s Archdiocesan Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. He retired from teaching in 2003.

Currently Father Keefe lives at Murray-Weigel Hall near Fordham University. He is writing volume four of his “Covenantal Theology: The Eucharistic Order of History” whose earlier volumes appeared in 1991 and 1996. Volumes 3 and 4 may be found.

Covenantal Theology: Volume III ; Covenantal Theology: Volume IV .

At the age of 91 Father Keefe spends three to five hours each day working on volume 4. Father Keefe’s control of the sources is incredible. His footnotes stand as separate meditations.

Father Keefe died in New York in 2018. BVH

The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God

Paul Michael Quay SJ

The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God (American University Studies, Series 7: Theology & Religion) 3rd edition by Quay, Paul M. (2002) Paperback

Original sin, widely denied today, is nevertheless the condition in which our spiritual life begins. Fetal psychology helps one see original sin as a psychic negation of the created reflections in Christ of the traits of divine love within the Trinity. Hence, only through Christ can such damage be healed. But before we can live in the full freedom and power of the Holy Spirit, we must relive, in Jesus and as He did, all that God led His people through, from the fall of Adam till Jesus’ death and resurrection. Through the «spiritual sense» of the Old Testament, each word of which speaks of Jesus, we learn how to do this. The loss of this sense, embedded in the doctrine and practice of the much maligned «institutional Church» but forgotten by most Christians, explains the chasm that has opened between the intellectual life of the West and the spiritual life of Christians.

“Tribulation and Psychological Terror”

Cardinal Müller: For Faithful Catholics, It’s a ‘Time of Tribulation and Psychological Terror’

In an exclusive interview with the Register, the prefect emeritus of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith castigated the state of the Church in Germany and its ‘Synodal Way’ process.

Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, pictured at a penance service in St. Peter’s Basilica during the “24 Hours for the Lord” initiative on March 29, 2019. (photo: Daniel Ibanez / CNA/EWTN)

Edward Pentin Interviews February 11, 2022

VATICAN CITY — Faithful Catholics are today facing a period of persecution, tribulation and “psychological terror” that, in an unprecedented way, is coming from within their own countries that have ancient Christian traditions, Cardinal Gerhard Müller has observed.

The German cardinal made the observation in an exclusive Feb. 5 interview with the Register, during which he issued a blistering attack on the state of the Church in Germany and the “Synodal Way,” a controversial multiyear reform process that grew out of the clergy sexual-abuse crisis.

The prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) said these attacks on the faithful from within are coming from “secularized” parts of the Church and frequently occur in the workplace or in schools. 

Now is a “time of tribulation and psychological terror,” and orthodox Catholics are being “persecuted; and in some countries this is culminating in martyrdom,” Cardinal Müller noted. “Usually this has come from the outside, but now it’s from the inside, in our countries that have old Christian traditions. It’s a new situation.”

The cardinal’s words came as a plenary meeting of the “Synodal Way” was concluding last weekend. 

The participants voted at that meeting for a raft of dissenting notions that included same-sex union blessings; changes to the Catechism on homosexuality; the ordination of women priests; priestly celibacy to be optional in the Latin Church; and for lay involvement in the election of new bishops.

His comments also follow a spate of controversial statements from German and European prelates in recent weeks. They include Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich saying on Feb. 3 that priests should be allowed to marry “not just for sexual reasons,” but so they “wouldn’t be so lonely,” and Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg arguing that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is “false” and needed revision.

Last month, more than 120 homosexual Church employees in Germany demanded the blessing of same-sex unions and a change in the Church’s labor rules — an initiative welcomed by the German bishops’ conference. 

‘Secularized People’

Cardinal Müller, 74, who was bishop of Regensburg, Germany, from 2002 to 2012, said many of those promoting such dissenting views are “secularized people” who “want to keep the name ‘Catholic,’ to stay in the institution and take the money, but they won’t accept the teaching of the word of God.” 

“They relativize the Catholic faith, but remain with their titles: cardinals, bishops, theology professors — but in reality they don’t believe what the Church is saying,” he noted, and he described such people as “materialists” whose basis of belief is not in creation and Revelation but in pseudo-sciences. 

Similarly, he said the “LGBT” agenda that many of them support “is totally idiotic because its Neo-Gnostic mythology is absolutely against human nature, not only in a biological sense, but also in a philosophical one.”

Cardinal Müller, who was CDF prefect from 2012 to 2017, warned that the blessing of same-sex couples promoted by the German bishops is “absolutely a blasphemy” because it is a “negation of the constitution of human beings as man and woman, and there can be no blessing there.” He also decried the idea, proposed by some in the German Church, that a priest should have sexual relations with women so that “then they won’t take boys” as “scandalous argumentation!”

Upholding the teaching of previous popes, he also firmly ruled out a women’s diaconate, saying the “sacramental diaconate is one degree of an indivisible threefold order that cannot be transferred to women according to the permanent apostolic tradition.” 

And yet he noted that this is “what they’re voting for” in the German “Synodal Way,” in reference to the Feb. 4 vote by the members of the German synodal assembly in favor of women’s ordination, even though “they cannot vote against the revealed truth and its infallible definition by the ecclesial magistery.”

More generally, Cardinal Müller warned of determined attacks against the sacraments, especially the Blessed Sacrament and holy orders. 

“Not a few are denying the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the Real Presence,” he observed. “The role of the priest and the substance of the faith is in danger.” 

He added that those pushing for these changes have no “supernatural understanding,” and what they are calling for is, in fact, a “major anti-Vatican II movement” that goes against Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, and the Council’s decree on the ministry and life of priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis,on the dignity of the “priestly vocation and service in the understanding of priestly celibacy.”  

‘Social Worker’ Priesthood

These are the same people, he said, who want to “destroy the sacramental priesthood, firstly by being against celibacy and then denying the supernatural institution of this sacrament.” They would like to relativize the sacramental priesthood, he added, so that what is left is a “social worker,” leaving the identity of the priest “hollowed out” and vulnerable to breaking down. On Feb 4, the German “Synodal Way” also backed an appeal to relax the celibacy requirement for priests in the Latin Church, urging that the topic be taken up in a future ecumenical council.

Church leaders and lay Catholics pushing these anti-Catholic views do not believe in the Last Judgment, Cardinal Müller contended. 

“To them, God has to justify himself.” But he warned that their judgment will be harsher, given that they have apostatized. “As an apostate, that person has more guilt than someone who has never heard of the Catholic faith.” 

He further noted that these dissenters within the Church won’t criticize the decadence of the world, nor do they “dare” say “abortion is child-murder,” because then “they will be brutally attacked.” 

Instead, they focus on sexual abuse of children, but exploit it to advance their own agenda, without examining the causes or insisting on ordaining priests who can live in abstinence. “They say they’re ashamed of sexual abuse, but they don’t say what damage has been inflicted on the souls of those abused and the abuser, and the damage caused to the Body of Christ,” he said. “They’re instrumentalizing human beings; they have no respect for people. They manipulate young people, shed tears for abuse victims; but for others, they have no interest.” 

In sum, he said he believes those advocating changes such as those in the “Synodal Way” “are not reformers” but are pushing for “a deformation of the Church, a secularization of the house of the Triune God.”

And he said a key problem is the desire to compromise with the world, an unwillingness to live with the tension of living the faith in today’s highly secularized society. 

The aim of many bishops is to be loved and respected by society, as they were in the 19th century, but he said they know they cannot change the faith, so they call their efforts to do this “development of doctrine” and thereby “destroy and contradict the revealed faith.”

Attacks on Faithful Prelates 

Asked about the relentless attacks on prelates such as Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki of Cologne, Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg and, most recently, Pope Benedict XVI (over accusations of mishandling abuse cases more than 40 years ago, for which the pope emeritus denies wrongdoing), Cardinal Müller stressed that all of these bishops “took the most action against these abuses,” while other bishops, general vicars and others responsible for handling abuse cases “made big mistakes, but they’re not criticized because they belong to this ideological group of self-secularization.”

Cardinal Müller said that he and other prelates are on another “theological level” to their dissenting detractors, who “don’t have any argumentation, only personal attacks and defamation.”

He contended that Cardinal Woelki, for example, “can in no way be blamed” for mishandling abuse cases, “but the most furious slanderers among his German bishop-brothers can escape only because the anti-Catholic mass media is on their side, along with secularized Catholics inside.” 

Many of these attacks are whipped up by a highly secularized and anti-Catholic media whose biases, Cardinal Müller contended, date back to the Kulturkampf, the 1872-1878 conflict between Otto von Bismarck’s Prussian government and the Catholic Church, led by Pope Pius IX.  

“They take positions against the natural law, and what they ultimately don’t accept is a supernatural standpoint: that the highest authority is the personal and loving God, not us,” he said.

Further, he said that someone such as Cardinal Marx is often favored by the press because “he’s the best promotor of the aims they want — to neutralize the Church” and prevent it from giving “answers to deep existential questions.” 

What’s Needed

Looking forward, the cardinal said it is up to Pope Francis and the College of Cardinals to step in and discipline these prelates and the “Synodal Way” before it’s too late.

He also called for the Pope to have more German consultants to explain to him exactly what is happening. More broadly, he said correcting these wrong teachings “can only be done by promoting a better, theologically informed episcopate,” as happened “in the time of the Reformation in Germany and in other countries.” 

Meanwhile, for faithful Catholics enduring continual attacks on account of the faith, he encouraged them with Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:11): 

“Blessed are you when people abuse you and persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven; this is how they persecuted the prophets before me.” 

• Keywords:
• our lady of lourdes
• cardinal gerhard müller

Edward Pentin Edward Pentin began reporting on the Pope and the Vatican with Vatican Radio before moving on to become the Rome correspondent for EWTN’s National Catholic Register. He has also reported on the Holy See and the Catholic Church for a number of other publications including Newsweek, Newsmax, Zenit, The Catholic Herald, and The Holy Land Review, a Franciscan publication specializing in the Church and the Middle East. Edward is the author of The Next Pope–The Leading Cardinal Candidates (Sophia Institute Press, 2020) and The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (Ignatius Press, 2015). Follow him on Twitter at @edwardpentin.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller Calls COVID-Related Sacrament Restrictions ‘Grave Sin’

Edward Pentin Intervew56

Cardinal Müller: For Faithful Catholics, It’s a ‘Time of Tribulation and Psychological Terror’

Copyright © 2022 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved. EIN 27-4581132
Reproduction of material from this website without written permission, or unlicensed commercial use or monetization of National Catholic Register RSS feeds is strictly prohibited.

Red-Handed

by Peter Schweizer

Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063061147/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_glt_i_N1XAYP4ABKR2XFNV8E9D

Larry Sanger on Wikipedia

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger claims left-leaning editors have made the site biased, untrustworthy

In this Jan. 18, 2012, file photo, Mallory Whitt works at her desk at the offices of the Wikipedia Foundation in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File) more >

By Andrew Blake– The Washington Times – Friday, July 16, 2021

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger criticized the current state of the online encyclopedia he started in a recent interview, casting doubt on whether it can be trusted to provide unbiased information because of the heavy input of editors with “establishment” views.

“You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything,” Mr. Sanger, who launched Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales, said in an interview published online Wednesday.

“Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” added Mr. Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002 and has been vocally critical of the site ever since.

Mr. Sanger, 53, made the comments in a video interview conducted by the website UnHerd. Wikipedia did not immediately respond to a message from The Washington Times seeking a reaction to his remarks.

Recalling the early years of Wikipedia, which allows its users to anonymously contribute and edit content, Mr. Sanger said that it was a lot easier back then for people to participate in those processes.

---

Several years ago, said Mr. Sanger, a Wikipedia article for a hot-button issue such as a U.S. president’s record would be presented with “multiple different points of view, reasonably, fairly laid out.”But as Wikipedia gained influence over time, Mr. Sanger said that “a very big, nasty, complex game” emerged behind the scenes being played by people wanting the website to push a particular narrative, usually coming from the left side of the political spectrum.

Mr. Sanger cited the Wikipedia page for President Biden, arguing that it presented an “extremely biased” interpretation of allegations made against him and “reads like a defense counsel’s brief.”

Asked why the article about Mr. Biden was biased in the president’s favor, Mr. Sanger said he is “pretty sure” it is because of Democratic-leaning volunteer Wikipedia editors controlling the content.

“I think that there are a lot of people who would be highly motivated to go in and make the article more neutral, more politically neutral, but they’re not allowed to,” claimed Mr. Sanger.

“Wikipedia is pretty reliably establishment in its viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint is, which is ironic considering its origins from a couple of libertarians who, at least in the beginning, were really tolerant and open to all sorts of anti-establishment views being canvassed within the article,” he added.

Mr. Sanger argued Wikipedia readers “do not want to be led by the nose” before criticizing the website for not allowing content that cites outlets like the populist British tabloid The Daily Mail.

“So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream, center-left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia,” he said.

“If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” Mr. Sanger said. “And they do that.”

Wikipedia deemed the Daily Mail an “unreliable source” in 2017 and said it could no longer be cited in online entries. A spokesperson for the paper responded then by calling it a “cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press.”

• Andrew Blake can be reached at ablake@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Cardinal Burke on “Catholic” Politicians

OCT 28, 2021

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

For the past several months, the intention of the Church in the United States of America has been very much in my prayers. At their coming November meeting, the Bishops of the United States will be considering the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”[1] Their deliberations will address, in particular, the long-term and gravely scandalous situation of Catholic politicians who persist in supporting and advancing programs, policies and laws in grievous violation of the most fundamental precepts of the moral law, while, at the same time, claiming to be devout Catholics, especially by presenting themselves to receive Holy Communion. In praying for the Bishops and my homeland, the United States of America, I have, more and more, thought about the experience of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops over 17 years ago, at their summer meeting in Denver in June of 2004, in addressing the same issue. It is an experience which I lived intensely.

I have thought it important to offer the following reflections as a help to us all in addressing now and in the future such a critical matter – a matter of life and death for the unborn and of eternal salvation for the Catholic politicians involved – in my homeland, as in other nations. I had wanted to offer these reflections much sooner, but recovery from recent health difficulties prevented the writing of these reflections until now.

The context of the June 2004 meeting of the United States Bishops was the campaign of Senator John Kerry for President of the United States. Senator Kerry claimed to be a Catholic, while, at the same time, supporting and promoting abortion on demand in the nation. At the time, I was Archbishop of Saint Louis (appointed on December 2, 2003, and installed on January 26, 2004). As had been my practice as Bishop of La Crosse (appointed on December 10, 1994, and installed on February 22, 1995), I admonished Senator Kerry not to present himself to receive Holy Communion because, after having been duly admonished, he persisted in the objectively grave sin of promoting directly procured abortion. I was not the only Bishop to admonish him thus.

From the time of my first episcopal ministry in the Diocese of La Crosse, I had confronted the situation of politicians presenting themselves as practicing Catholics and, at the same time, supporting and advancing programs, policies and laws in violation of the moral law. As a new and relatively young Bishop, I spoke with brother Bishops, especially one of the senior suffragans in my ecclesiastical province, about several Catholic lawmakers in the Diocese of La Crosse, who were in this situation. The common response of brother Bishops was the expectation that the Conference of Bishops would eventually address the question.

Knowing my moral obligation in a matter of such serious consequences, defined in can. 915, I began to contact the legislators from the Diocese of La Crosse, asking to meet with them to discuss the complete incoherence of their position regarding procured abortion with the Catholic faith they professed. Sadly, none of them was willing to meet with me. One carried out a certain correspondence with me, insisting that his position regarding abortion was consistent with the Catholic faith, following the erroneous counsel presented by certain dissident professors of moral theology, adherents of the heretical school of proportionalism, at a summit held at the Hyannisport compound of the Kennedy Family in the summer of 1964. Documentation of the meeting is found in a book of Albert R. Jonsen who accompanied one of the dissident European professors of moral theology and was present for the entire meeting.[2]

Regarding the refusal of the legislators to meet with me, I must observe that I find, at best, naïve the common refrain that what is needed is more dialogue with the Catholic politicians and legislators in question. In my experience, they are not willing to discuss the matter because the teaching of the natural law, which necessarily is also the teaching of the Church, is beyond discussion. In some cases, too, I have had the strong impression that they were unwilling to discuss the matter because they were simply unwilling to have their minds and hearts changed. The truth remains that procured abortion is the knowing and willing destruction of a human life.

When I was Archbishop of Saint Louis, one Catholic legislator agreed to meet with me, even though, as his parish priest also attested, he was not presenting himself to receive Holy Communion. He began the meeting by showing me a picture of his family. As I recall, his wife and he had four children. As our conversation progressed, I asked him how, having so proudly shown me the picture of his children, he could regularly vote in favor of killing babies in the womb. He immediately lowered his head and said: “It is wrong. I know that it is wrong.” While I urged him to act according to his conscience, which he had just expressed, I had to admire the fact that, at least, he admitted the evil in which he was involved and did not try to present himself to me as a devout Catholic. Regarding the objective reality of the practice of abortion as a most grievous violation of the first precept of the natural law, which safeguards the inviolability of innocent and defenseless human life, there is nothing about which to dialogue. The subject of dialogue must be how best to prevent such an evil in society. Such prevention can never involve the actual promotion of the evil.

With the announcement of my transfer from the Diocese of La Crosse to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis on December 2, 2003, the secular press traveled to the Diocese of La Crosse, in order to find material for the creation of a negative image of the new Archbishop before his arrival in the Archdiocese. Whereas, before my transfer, there was no public discussion of my pastoral interventions with the lawmakers in question, as is altogether appropriate, the matter now became public in December of 2003 and January of 2004. In putting the question of the application of can. 915 before the body of Bishops at its meeting in June of 2004, the pastoral action which I had taken in the Diocese of La Crosse and was beginning to take in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis was placed in serious question. To illustrate the fact, during a break in the meeting, I encountered, on a stairwell, one of the eminent members of the Conference of Bishops, who shook his finger at me, declaring: You cannot do what you have been doing without the approval of the Conference of Bishops. To be clear, other Bishops were following a similar pastoral action. I responded to his declaration by pointing out that, when I die, I will appear before the Lord to give an account of my service as Bishop, not before the Conference of Bishops.

Here, I must note that the pastoral action taken had nothing to do with interfering in politics. It was directed to the safeguarding of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, to the salvation of the souls of the Catholic politicians in question – who were sinning gravely not only against the Fifth Commandment but also were committing sacrilege by receiving unworthily Holy Communion – and to the prevention of the serious scandal caused by them. When I intervened pastorally with Catholic politicians, it was done in an appropriately confidential manner. Certainly, I gave no publicity to the matter. It was rather the politicians who found it helpful to present themselves as practicing Catholics, in the hope of attracting the votes of Catholics, who publicized the matter for a political end.

The discussion during the meeting in June of 2004 was difficult and intense. Without going into the details of the discussion, there seemingly was no consensus among the Bishops, even though there was among some of the most influential Bishops the desire to avoid any intervention with Catholic politicians who, according to the discipline of can. 915, should not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Ultimately, the President, the then Bishop Wilton Gregory of the Diocese of Belleville, remanded the matter to a Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians under the chairmanship of the then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who was clearly opposed to the application of can. 915 in the case of Catholic politicians supporting procured abortion and other practices which gravely violate the moral law. The Task Force was comprised of a group of bishops with mixed views on the subject. In any case, with time, the Task Force was forgotten, and the critical issue was left unaddressed by the Conference of Bishops. When Bishop Gregory announced the Task Force, the Bishop sitting next to me observed that we could now be certain that the issue would not be addressed.

In the context of recalling the Denver meeting of the United States Conference of Bishops in June of 2004, it is important for me to recount two other related personal experiences.

First, in the Spring of 2004, while I was in Washington, D.C., for pro-life activities, I met privately for forty-five minutes with one of the highest-placed officials in the federal government, a non-Catholic Christian who manifested great respect for the Catholic Church. In the course of our conversation, he asked me whether, in view of the serious health difficulties of Pope Saint John Paul II, the election of a new Pope could mean a change in the Church’s teaching regarding procured abortion. I expressed some surprise at his question, explaining that the Church can never change its teaching on the intrinsic evil of procured abortion because it is a precept of the natural law, the law written by God on every human heart. He responded that he asked the question because he had concluded that the Church’s teaching in the matter could not be that firm, since he could name for me 80 or more Catholics in the Senate and House of Representatives, who regularly support pro-abortion legislation.

The conversation in question was an eloquent testimonial to the grave scandal caused by such Catholic politicians. They have, in fact, contributed in a significant way to the consolidation of a culture of death in the United States, in which procured abortion is simply a fact of daily life. The Catholic Church’s witness to the beauty and goodness of human life, from its first moment of existence, and the truth of its inviolability has been grievously compromised to the point that non-Catholics believe that the Church has changed or will change what is, in fact, an unchangeable teaching. While the Church, carrying out the mission of Christ, her Head, for the salvation of the world is totally opposed to the attack on innocent and defenseless human life, the Catholic Church in the United States seems to accept the abhorrent practice, in accord with a totally secularized view of human life and sexuality.

In this regard, I am told that the argument from the truth about human life is often ineffective, since the culture has no regard for objective truth, exalting the views of the individual, no matter how contrary to right reason they may be. Perhaps, the approach taken in assisting mothers and fathers contemplating abortion should be taken on a wider scale, namely the viewing of an ultrasound of the tiny human life at its beginning. In my experience, when mothers and fathers thinking to procure an abortion view, first, such an ultrasound, the greater majority of them do not proceed to the abortion. The visible image of the beauty and goodness of human life convinces them of the evil of abortion. Such ultrasounds should be readily viewable, especially by those who are responsible for leading the Church’s essential witness to life and by those who are responsible for the policies, programs and laws of the nation, which should protect and foster human life, not provide for its destruction.

The second event took place during my visit to Rome in late June and early July of 2004, in order to receive from Pope John Paul II the pallium of the Metropolitan Archbishop of Saint Louis. Given the difficult experience of the meeting in Denver, earlier in the month of June, I was counseled to visit the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to be certain that my pastoral practice was coherent with the Church’s teaching and practice. I was received in audience by the then Prefect of the Congregation, His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and the then Secretary of the Congregation, Archbishop, now Cardinal, Angelo Amato, and an English-speaking official of the Congregation. Cardinal Ratzinger assured me that the Congregation had studied my practice and found nothing objectionable about it. He only cautioned me not to support publicly candidates for office, something which, in fact, I had never done. He expressed some surprise at my doubt in the matter, given a letter which he had written to the United States Bishops, which had addressed the question thoroughly. He asked whether I had read his letter. I told him that I had not received the letter and asked whether he could kindly provide a copy for me. He smiled and suggested that I read it on a popular blog, asking the English-speaking official to make a photocopy of the text as it appeared in its entirety on the blog.[3]

The letter in question sets forth in an authoritative manner the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The failure to distribute it to the United States Bishops certainly contributed to the failure of the Bishops in June of 2004 to take appropriate action in the implementation of can. 915. Now, I am told that it is maintained that the letter was confidential and, therefore, cannot be published. The truth is that it was published, already in early July of 2004, and that clearly the Prefect of the Congregation, who authored it, was not at all disturbed about the fact.

Seventeen years have passed since the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Denver during the month of June of 2004. The most serious question of the application of can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law to Catholic politicians who support and promote programs, policies and legislation in grievous violation of the natural law seemingly remains a question for the Conference of Bishops. In fact, the obligation of the individual Bishop is a matter of universal Church discipline, regarding faith and morals, over which the Conference of Bishops has no authority. In fact, a number of Bishops have understood their sacred duty in the matter and are taking appropriate action. A Conference of Bishops fulfills an important role of support for the Diocesan Bishop, but it cannot replace the authority that belongs properly to him. It is the Diocesan Bishop, not the Conference, that applies the universal law to a particular situation.[4]

The work of the Conference of Bishops is to assist the individual Bishops in carrying out their sacred duty, in accord with can. 447 of the Code of Canon Law: “A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.”[5] What more corresponds to the promotion of “the greater good which the Church offers to humanity” than the safeguarding and fostering of human life created in the image and likeness of God,[6] and redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of Christ, God the Son Incarnate,[7] by correcting the scandal of Catholic politicians who publicly and obstinately promote procured abortion.

I invite you to pray with me for the Church in the United States of America and in every nation, that, faithful to the mission of Christ, her Bridegroom, she will be faithful, limpid and uncompromising in the application of can. 915, defending the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, safeguarding the souls of Catholic politicians who would grievously violate the moral law and still present themselves to receive Holy Communion, thereby committing sacrilege, and preventing the most serious scandal caused by the failure to observe the norm of can. 915.

May God bless you and your homes. Please pray for me and especially for the recovery of my health.

Yours in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and in the Purest Heart of Saint Joseph.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

28 October 2021
Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles

[1] “Can. 915 Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.”

[2] Cf. Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 290-291.

[3] Cf. https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055.html; English translation: https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055bdc4.html?eng=y

[4] Cf. can. 447; and Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae Motu proprio datae, Apostolos suos, De theologica et iuridica natura conferentiarum Episcoporum, 21 Maii 1998, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 90 (1998) 641-658.

[5] “Can. 447 Episcoporum conferentia, institutum quidem permanens, est coetus Episcoporum alicuius nationis vel certi territorii, munera quaedam pastoralia coniunctim pro christifidelibus sui territorii exercentium, ad maius bonum provehendum, quod hominibus praebet Ecclesia, praesertim per apostolatus formas et rationes temporis et loci adiunctis apte accommodatas, ad normam iuris.”

[6] Cf. Gen 1, 27.

[7] Cf. 1 Pet 1, 2. 19; 1 Jn 1, 7; Rom 3, 25; Eph 1, 7; and Heb 9, 12; and Rev 1, 5.

Faith, Love, and Mercy: Homilies for Catholic Life

Richard Russell Roach, SJ

Edited by Peter Weigel; foreward by Peter Ely, SJ; preface by Anthony Annett

https://images.app.goo.gl/8eY3ofSX8oMqZij57

Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers (October 26, 2015)

1934–2008

“With God in Russia” !

The Father Walter Ciszek Time Line

1904 Born in Shenandoah, PA

1929 Pope Pius XI assigns to the Jesuits the “Russian Mission”

1937 Father Ciszek is ordained in Rome in the Byzantine Rite of Russian usage

1940 Entered the Soviet Union from eastern Poland

1941 Arrest by the NKVD security services

1947 Declared “deceased” by religious superiors in Rome

1963 During Vatican II, Father Ciszek was released from the Soviet Union

1963 Debriefed by the United States Government

1965-1966
Period of his most intense speaking tours around North America

1979 Hospitalized

1984 Died on December 8 in the Bronx at the John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies on Belmont Avenue near Fordham University

1993 The ecumenical document referred to as “Balamand” is signed between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox churches, including the Moscow Patriarchate

1997 Ongoing conflicts unresolved by “Balamand”. See http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm

Bishop John R. Sheets, SJ (1922-2003)

The Most Reverend John R. Sheets, S.J. Auxiliary Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend in
Indiana, was an eminent Catholic theologian and author in the last half of the twentieth
century. He was particularly esteemed for his scholarly and insightful works in the areas
of Christian faith, morality and spirituality. “To Believe Is to Exist: Theological
Reflections for a Time of Crisis” illustrates the quality of his intellect and spiritual depth.
John Richard Sheets was born 21 September 1922 in Omaha, Nebraska, the second of
five children of Fred H. and Agnes O’Donnell Sheets. He grew up in the Catholic
community of Omaha and entered the Society of Jesus in 1940. His preparation for the
priesthood included studies for a bachelor’s degree at St. Louis University and a licentiate in theology at St. Mary’s College in Kansas. He was ordained a priest on 17 June 1953, and in 1957 he obtained a doctorate in theology from the Jesuit theologate in Innsbruck, Austria, where his teachers included Karl Rahner and Josef Jungmann.
After tertianship and final vows he joined the faculty of theology at Marquette
University. Along with Bernard Cooke, he founded the doctoral program in theology.
He served as novice master at St. Bonifacius, Minnesota, for one year, 1966-1967. The
following year, 1968, he was one of only two professors of theology at Marquette
University who refused to sign the protest against Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter
Humanae vitae. The other was William J. Kelly, S.J.
Father Sheets also taught theology at Creighton University, eventually holding the Chair
of the Theology Department there. Today, in memory of his pursuit of excellence in
study and ministry, graduate students in theology at Creighton enjoy the opportunity for
financial support through the Bishop John R. Sheets Scholarship for the Masters of Arts
in Theology. In 1974 he founded Creighton University’s Summer Program in Christian
Spirituality, which soon attracted students from across the nation. That same year he
visited Switzerland to collaborate with Hans Urs von Balthasar, the founder of
Communio: International Catholic Review.
Father Sheets’s scholarly career made him a frequent contributor to major spiritual
periodicals and the author of many books and articles on Christian faith. He was in
frequent demand as a retreat master and guest lecturer on theological topics. He was an
early opponent of the supposed ordination of women in the Catholic Church.
On 14 May 1991, Father Sheets was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Fort Wayne-South
Bend, and he was ordained Bishop on 25 June 1991. Bishop Sheets retired from his
pastoral responsibilities on 23 September 1997, and died in Milwaukee on 16 April 2003.
He had been a priest for fifty years and a bishop for twelve, having suffered from
Alzheimer’s Disease at the end of his life.
Besides his academic and pastoral contributions, Bishop Sheets was an enthusiastic
outdoorsman and prayerful mystic. He often gazed at the sunrise and the moon. He loved poetry and serious European films. It was said that he could perceive the gift of all God’s creation in a drop of water.

See:

To Believe Is to Exist: Theological Reflections for a Time of Crisis

by John R. Sheets | Apr 1, 1986

Can anyone find a copy of this book for me?

Joseph: the man closest to Jesus : the complete life, theology and devotional history of St. Joseph

Author:	Francis L Filas
Publisher:	[Boston] : St. Paul Editions, [1962]

Wer war Hubert Jedin?

Im November 1991 veröffentlichte die Homiletic and Pastoral Review in den Vereinigten Staaten ein Memorandum von Hubert Jedin, das er 1968 verfasst hatte. Im englischsprachigen Raum wussten jedoch Viele nicht, wer dieser Mann war und welchen Beitrag er für die Kirche geleistet hat. Hier folgt eine kurze Skizze seines Lebens.

Der vielleicht herausragendste Kirchenhistoriker der katholischen Welt starb am 16. Juli 1980 in Bonn, damals Hauptstadt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Er wurde am 17. Juni 1900 in Grossbriesen bei Breslau in Oberschlesien geboren. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde dieses Gebiet polnisches Territorium. Die Stadt heißt heute Wrocław. Er wurde am 2. März 1924 zum Diözesanpriester geweiht und arbeitete zunächst zwei Jahre in einer Pfarrei. Gegen Ende seines Lebens wurde ihm der Titel „Monsignore“ verliehen.

Am 1. September 1933 entzogen ihm die deutschen Behörden seine akademische Zulassung wegen seiner Abstammung. 1936 wurde er zum Archivar der Erzdiözese Breslau ernannt. Weil seine Mutter eine katholische Konvertitin jüdischer Abstammung war, verhaftete die Gestapo 1938 Pfarrer Jedin. Es gelang ihm jedoch, freizukommen und Deutschland am 1. November 1939 zu verlassen. Die nächsten zehn Jahre (1939-1949) verbrachte er in Rom und forschte still und unauffällig an der Geschichte des Konzils von Trient. Er wurde zum anerkannten Experten dieses Gebietes. Er verwendete nur die Originaldokumente aus den Archiven.¹ Er hatte Glück: Freunde wie Karl August Fink halfen ihm, seine wissenschaftlichen Papiere aus Deutschland zu holen. Die brauchte er in Rom, als er am Campo Santo Teutonico innerhalb des Vatikanstaates lebte.

Diese gründliche und originelle Untersuchung des primären Quellenmaterials führte zur Veröffentlichung von vier großen Bänden der „Geschichte des Konzils von Trient“. Zwei davon sind bisher in Englisch erschienen.² Einige kleinere Studien von ihm sind ebenfalls bekannt. Eine, die 1937 erschienene „Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando“³ erschien 1947 in englischer Sprache. Weitere Studien waren Tommaso Campeggio (1958), Carlo Borromeo (1971) und Kardinal Caesar Baronius (1978) gewidmet. Sein Leben lang war er Spezialist für Konzile, insbesondere das tridentinische. Eines seiner Werke behandelte dessen Abschluss: „Der Abschluss des Trienter Konzils 1562/63“ (1964).⁴

Nach der Ankündigung eine ökumenischen Konzils (1959) durch Papst Johannes XXIII., Roncalli, veröffentlichte Jedin im selben Jahr seine „Ökumenischen Konzile der Katholischen Kirche: Ein historischer Abriss“ (ET 1960). Etwas später, als das II. Vatikanum bereits tagte, folgte im Jahr 1964 das bereits erwähnte Werk „Krise und Abschluss des Konzils von Trient“ (ET 1967). Die beiden Schriften sollten Seminaristen und an der Kirchengeschichte interessierten Studenten eine Perspektive bieten, was ein ökumenisches Konzil der katholischen Kirche bedeuten sollte.

Bei alledem war Jedin auch Generalist. Er initiierte die große zehnbändige Reihe „History of the Church“ unter seiner Redaktion. Ursprünglich als Text für Studenten gedacht, wurden die Bände bald ausführlicher und detaillierter. Man nannte diese Serie den „Fliche-Martin⁵ unserer Zeit“, heute ein Standardwerk. Es erschien in sieben Sprachen fast gleichzeitig mit dem deutschen Original. Der zehnte Band wurde schließlich 1981, ein Jahr nach seinem Tod, ins Englische übersetzt. Eine Kurzfassung der ersten drei Bände durch D. Larrimore Holland erschien 1992 in Englisch. Die Einleitung zum ersten Band allerdings erläutert seinen Antrieb und sein wissenschaftliches Vorgehen: Kirchengeschichte muss aus Sicht des Glaubens betrieben werden. So Jedin der Katholik, nicht nur der Gelehrte.

Ein weiteres von ihm betreutes Projekt war die kartografische Kirchengeschichte, der „Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte. Die christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart“, 1970 in Deutschland erschienen.

Jedin musste seine Arbeit für vier Jahre, 1962-1965, einstellen, um als Peritus⁶ beim Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil zu dienen. Nur sehr wenige Konzils-Historiker dürfen selbst am Konzil teilnehmen! Kein anderer ist mir bekannt, der dieses seltene Privileg hatte. Dies erklärt auch die lange Unterbrechung zwischen der Veröffentlichung der ersten beiden Bände über das Tridentinum (1949, 1957) und der beiden weiteren Bände (1970, 1975).

Von 1949 bis 1965 war Jedin Professor in Bonn. Vor und nach diesen Jahren erhielt er sechs Ehrendoktortitel, darunter einen der Universität Löwen, und viele andere internationale Auszeichnungen und Einladungen. 1970 hatte ihm Papst Paul VI den Posten des Präfekten der Vatikanischen Bibliothek angeboten, den Jedin wegen seines Alters und der zunehmenden Schwäche ablehnte. Schon 1951 hatte Pius XII. ihn zum Vizepräfekten der Vatikanischen Bibliothek ernennen wollen. Er hatte jedoch bereits damals abgelehnt und zog vor, Wilhelm Neuss auf dem Lehrstuhl für Kirchengeschichte in Bonn zu folgen. Der schlechte Gesundheitszustand in den 1970er Jahren hinderte ihn dann doch daran, die gewünschten Fortschritte zu erzielen. Zum Glück blieb am Ende aber keines seiner geplanten Werke unvollständig.

Das autobiografische Buch „Lebensbericht“ erschien 1984 posthum. Es war nicht der erste Versuch dieser Art. Seine frühe Jugend war bereits als „Eine Jugend in Schlesien 1900-1925“ vorgestellt worden und wurde 1979 im Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte veröffentlicht. Dieses Buch über sein späteres Leben umreißt seine berufliche Karriere und Produktivität. Es waren nicht etwa primär persönliche Reflexionen oder ein spirituelles „Tagebuch einer Seele“. Dennoch gab es in den Vereinigten Staaten negative Kritiken: Man sagte, Jedin sei gegen Ende seines Lebens erschrocken und traurig geworden, weil er glaubte, das Zweite Vatikanum sei entweder auf tragische Weise missverstanden oder gar verraten worden.

Er teilte zu diesem Thema den westdeutschen Bischöfen kurz nach dem Katholikentag 1968 in Essen offen seine Meinung mit.⁷ Diese Veranstaltung schien ihm den Widerstand gegen Humanae vitae ganz besonders zu fördern. Basierend auf seinen Kenntnissen des Tridentinums und des Vorgehens bei der Reformation, veranschaulichte er ihnen einen ähnlichen Prozess, der im postkonziliären 20. Jahrhundert ablief. Dem aufmerksamen Leser war nie entgangen, dass der Untertitel von „Krise und Abschluß des Konzils von Trient“ lautete „ein Rückblick zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil“. Die Übersetzung dieses Memorandums kam, vielleicht etwas spät, zunächst der englischsprachigen Leserschaft zugute.⁸ Es war eine ungewöhnliche „Aktivistenintervention“ eines Mannes, der sein ganzes Leben lang ein reiner und fast zurückgezogener Fachmann gewesen war.⁹

Rev. Brian Van Hove, SJ Dezember 1993;2016;2019

Überarbeitung eines kürzeren Artikels, der in The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 16, nr. 1 (Dezember 1992) 19-20 erschien. Übersetzt 2019 ins Deutsche von Thomas Jury und Jochen Michels.

1Der Archivar und sein Freund, Msgr. Hermann Hoberg (1907-1992) assistierten bei der Aufgabe, insbesondere in den Kriegsjahren. Später war Hoberg von 1956 bis 1979 Vizepräfekt des „Archivio Segreto Vaticano“.

2Dies war mehr als anspruchsvoll. Andere vor ihm hatten es versucht, insbesondere Vincenz Schweitzer.

3Der päpstliche Legat beim Konzil von Trient: Kardinal Seripando

4Eine Sammlung von etwa sechzig seiner Hauptartikel wurde 1966 in zwei Bänden als Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichte gedruckt. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge (Freiburg,Brsg.-Basel-Wien: Herder). Einige dieser Artikel befassen sich mit Philosophie und Natur der Arbeit eines Kirchenhistorikers. Andere enthalten kurze bis mittelgroße Biografien von Hauptfiguren.

5Siehe Augustin Fliche und Victor Martin, Histoire de l’Église depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours, vols. I-XXI (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1934-1952); E.T. Eine Geschichte der katholischen Kirche (London-St. Louis, 2. Aufl. 1956). Diese Serie war ursprünglich in 26 Bänden geplant, wurde aber nie fertiggestellt. Es sollte andere mehrbändige Werke wie das Fernand Mourret Histoire Générale de L’Église übertreffen. Martin starb 1945 und Fliche 1951. Zwischen dem Erscheinen des ersten Bandes im Jahr 1934 und dem Todesjahr von Fliche wurden nur siebzehn Nummern veröffentlicht, von denen fünfzehn von Fliche persönlich herausgegeben wurden. Die Redaktion wurde von J.B. Duroselle und E. Jarry fortgesetzt. 1952 schrieb Roger Aubert Band 21 und veröffentlichte ihn 1964 erneut als Vatikan I. Diese Bände folgten nicht streng aufeinander: Band 19 erschien 1955; Band 19, Teil II, 1956; Band 18 im Jahr 1960; Band 14 von 1962; und sein Teil II erst 1964. Einige Jahre später veröffentlichte ein italienisches Team Band 22, der nicht in französischer oder englischer Übersetzung verfügbar ist. Werke dieses Umfangs sind so anspruchsvoll, dass sie in unserer Zeit der Spezialisierung fast unmöglich sind. Dennoch gilt die Sammlung „Fliche-Martin“ für die allgemeine Kirchengeschichte als Klassiker.

6Theologischer Konzilsberater

7Holmes sagt uns: „Das erste Treffen einer Versammlung deutscher Katholiken, der Katholikentag, fand 1848 in Mainz statt. Dieser Kongress hatte sich gegen die letzten Überreste des Josephinismus oder gegen jedwede Bewegung zur Errichtung einer nationalen Kirche in Deutschland gewandt. Der Katholikentag forderte Freiheit, „die katholischen Prinzipien in das gesamte Leben einzuführen und für eine Lösung des sozialen Problems zu arbeiten“. Die damaligen deutschen Katholiken wurden sich ihrer Rechte und ihrer Stärke bewusster und ultramontaner, aber nicht klerikaler. Der Katholikentag, der sich dann jährlich traf, bot ein naheliegendes Forum für die Erörterung sozialer Fragen. Diese Betonung sozialer Probleme wurde durch die Gründung des Volksvereins und durch Treffen katholischer Arbeiter weiter angeregt.“ Aus J. Derek Holmes, Der Triumph des Heilige Stuhl: Eine kurze Geschichte des Papsttums im 19. Jahrhundert, (London: Burns and Oates, 1978) 174. Der 92. Deutsche Katholikentag fand 1994 in Dresden statt.

8Mindestens einmal wurde es jedoch in gedruckter Form erwähnt, allerdings ohne den vollständigen Text anzugeben. Siehe Robert A. Graham, SJ, in seiner Kolumne „Vatikan“, in der Zeitschrift Knights of Columbus Columbia, als „Nebenergebnis des Zweiten Vatikanums: Gibt es einen bevorstehenden Abfall vom Glauben?“, Vol. LXV, nein. 7 (Juli 1985) 4.

9Möglicherweise war das einzige andere Mal seine öffentliche Kontroverse mit Erzbischof Annibale Bugnini über die Frage der Liturgie. Jedin veröffentlichte 1969 in L’Osservatore Romano einen Angriff auf den Reformprozess. Bugnini hatte auch einen Konflikt um die Liturgie mit Louis Bouyer. Für Bugninis Bericht siehe Die Reform der Liturgie 1948-1975 von Annibale Bugnini, tr. Matthew J. Connell (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990) 283-284.

43rd Wedding Anniversary–James and Helen McGee, visiting Father Van Hove in Alma

Julie Ann Van Hove at work in Duluth, 2010

cochlear implant–step I and step II

This gallery contains 2 photos.

My Office–a Hall of Fame

Remembering Mother

Father Vladimir and Matushka, 1996

One has Irish humor, and one doesn’t. One wears a hat, and one doesn’t.

As rockets fall on Israel, people try to shelter themselves. November 2018.

Why would ideologues want to kill babies?

Do we have two traditions, one Apostolic and one “modern”? Canon 277 says what it says.

Dr. Peters gives the best current summary and reply:

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm

 

A holy smirk greets you for the New Year.

One Year Later — Puppy and Me

“Clerical Continence and the Restored Permanent Diaconate” by Donald J. Keefe, SJ [1998]

Clerical Continence and the Restored Permanent Diaconate

The results of the historical research of Alfons Cardinal Stickler into the apostolicity of the tradition of clerical celibacy and continence,ⁱ the corroboration of his conclusions by Frs. Christian Cochini and Roman Cholij, and the theological analysis of the intrinsic relation between the sacramental signs of marriage and of priestly orders proposed by Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver at a recent Roman conference,ⁱⁱ are all in practice controverted by the effective condonation of the noncontinent exercise of their orders by post-conciliar married deacons who having lived in ignorance of any obligation to abstain from conjugal relations after their ordination, have now have been absolved of any obligation to continence, and in fact, if widowed, may apply for dispensation from what has been a diriment impediment to remarriage and, if remarried, continue in the exercise of their orders.ⁱⁱⁱ

This anomalous departure from the ancient tradition of clerical continence appears to have its inception in the discussions of the restoration of the permanent diaconate during the second Vatican Council.^iv However, it cannot be shown to have been authorized by the Council, whether tacitly or overtly, nor by Pope Paul VI in the documents by which he formally instituted the restored permanent diaconate and permitted the ordination to it of mature married men, nor by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Further, it is not unlikely that the practical condonation of the use of marriage by such deacons has led to a comparable condonation of the use of marriage by converts from among Protestant clergy who have later been ordained in the Roman Catholic rite; it is evidennt enough the noncontinence of married deacons is no more anomalous than the noncontinence of married priests.

Therefore, the restoration of the permanent diaconate and the ordination of married men to the permanent diaconate in the wake of Vatican II requires a further examination for, if the effective condonation of clerical noncontinence in married deacons and married priests in the Roman rite is in fact legitimate, that legitimacy can rest upon no other grounds than the documents underlying the restoration of the permanent diaconate. In what follows, we shall show that those documents provide no justification or warrant for diaconal noncontinence.

 I The Documents of Vatican II: Lumen Gentium §29

The concluding sentence of Lumen Gentium §29 reads:

De consensu Romani Pontificis his Diaconatus viris maturioris aetatis etiam in matrimonio viventibus conferri poterit, necnon iuvenibus idoneis, pro quibus tamen, lex caelibatus firma remanere debet^.v

It is as well to note at the outset that it is the significance of “lex caelibatus” which is in issue. Granted that the canonical requirement of consecrated celibacy for those in major orders, (the “lex caelibatus”) is waived for married candidates (men “in matrimonio viventes”), and is retained for presumptively unmarried, because more youthful, candidates for the diaconate (“pro juvenibus idoneis”), the meaning of this waiver of the “lex caelibatus” granted the more mature candidates for the diaconate must be determined. Specifically, does the waiver legitimate, for those candidates who are married, the continuance of conjugal relations with their wives after their ordination?

The language of Lumen Gentium itself cannot be said to do so. The waiving of the “lex caelibatus” refers simply to dropping the juridical prohibition of married candidates for higher orders; the dropping of the requirement of nonmarriage for an older candidate says nothing about a removal of the obligation of clerical continence after his ordination, unless his continuing in conjugal relations be thought inseparable from his marriage. Since continuing in conjugal intimacy is not thus integral to marriage, and that as a matter of canon law, such a reading of Lumen Gentium cannot be defended.^vi

Similarly, Austin Flannery’s translation of Lumen Gentium §29 offers no justification for diaconal noncontinence:

Should the Roman Pontiff think fit, it will be possible to confer this diaconal order even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men, for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force. (387)^vii

Neither do the reports of the conciliar discussions and debates concerning the restoration of the permanent diaconate justify the equation of the waiver of celibacy with a waiver of clerical continence, although some evidence of a conciliar confusion of the obligation of consecrated celibacy with the obligation of continence, whereby the waiver of the one might be thought to be assimilated to the waiver of the other, begins to surface in them.^viii

Herbert Vorgrimler’s commentary on Lumen Gentium §29 relates the procedure decided upon in the third session for the restoration of the permanent diaconate; he affirms, as in line with the conciliar decision, that the “duty” of celibacy is not to apply to married deacons:

Only two points are laid down with regard to the way it (the restoration of the permanent diaconate) is to be done: the competent authority is the episcopal conference, with the consent of the Pope; the duty of celibacy is not to be imposed upon men of more mature age, although it remains for younger men.^ix

The phrase used by Vorgrimler, that of a “duty of celibacy,” is entirely misleading; §29 of Lumen Gentium speaks of a “law of celibacy,” not of a “duty.” This is not mere quibbling: such a misreading reveals a certain lack of reflection upon the relation of major orders to consecrated celibacy on the one hand and to continence on the other. In fact, it amounts to a confusion over the meaning and therefore the interrelation, of celibacy and of continence, and of their respective relations to major orders. In the first place, major orders are a diriment impediment to marriage; e.g., we read in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” that

Post ordinem receptum diaconi, grandiore etiam aetate promoti, ex tradita Ecclesiae disciplina ad ineundum matrimonium inhabiles sunt.^x

As Paul VI here affirms, ordination to the diaconate makes subsequent marriage impossible: an unmarried deacon cannot marry, and a married deacon, upon the death of his wife, cannot remarry. The language here is not disciplinary: it speaks of a simple sacramental incapacity, the sort that is termed a diriment impediment. Canonists are accustomed to speak of major orders as a diriment impediment to marriage only when celibacy is formally embraced as a condition of ordination. However, the inability of a married major cleric to remarry upon the death of his wife can only be due to precisely such an impediment: i.e., one which as inherent in his exercise of his orders simply nullifies any such attempted marriage. It is of course true that this impediment is not absolute: a cleric may be laicized and, in consequence of such laicization, of such removal from the exercise of orders, he may be granted a papal dispensation from the law of celibacy. Nonetheless, in the absence of such dispensation, the “lex caelibatus” binds even the laicized cleric, and simply precludes a subsequent marriage.

This inhibition upon the marriage of major clerics is not mere Roman rigorism. The reasons for it rest upon the meaning of ordination itself, and finally derive from the nuptial relation between Christ and the Church which is celebrated in the Eucharistic sacrifice. A diriment impediment to marriage, an inability to marry, a sacramental incapacity, is inherent in the exercise in persona Christi of major orders. However, this impediment is distinct from (a) celibacy, and (b) continence.

Celibacy denotes the unmarried status, the absence of the marital bond.^xi Concretely, celibacy is thus merely a matter of fact: the absence of a marital bond. However, “consecrated celibacy” denotes a specific commitment to the unmarried state, as alone consonant with ordination to a major Order, whether that be in prospect, or already received.^xii Heretofore, in the Latin rite, consecrated celibacy has been canonically requisite to the reception of major orders. The institution of the married permanent diaconate is by way of exception to this canonical and liturgical tradition.

The noncelibate state, on the contrary, denotes the presence of a marital bond, and the consequent incapacity to enter upon another marriage prior to the death of one’s spouse. Prior to the approval of the admission of married men to the permanent diaconate by Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, noncelibate men, as has been seen, were barred by canon law from receiving major orders. However, noncelibacy — which is to say, the existence of the marital bond — has never been understood to be a diriment impediment to such ordination.

Continence is deliberate abstention from sexual relations. Its first reference is to abstention from marital relations; by extension and a fortiori, it denotes abstention from all extramarital sexual relations. Abstention from marital relations may be temporary, in accordance with the Pauline counsel in I Cor 7:5, or it may be permanent, as required by the reception of major orders, a sacrament transcending but not annulling marriage.^xiii Cochini has shown such clerical continence to have been required of married men by an tradition which can only be of apostolic origin.^xiv Married men who, with the consent of their wives, were ordained as bishops, priests, or deacons, were thereafter held to continence: only in the Eastern Church has this obligation not been observed, and Cholij has shown the inadequacy of the supposed conciliar foundation of that rejection of clerical continence. The Code of Canon Law continues to require the consent of the wife of the candidate for the permanent diaconate.

The canonical clerical celibacy proper to the Latin rite, which has been dropped for the “more mature” candidate for the restored permanent diaconate, is the unmarried status heretofore canonically requisite for ordination to any of the three major orders.

The sacramental character of Orders is thus analogous to the vinculum of sacramental marriage, in that ordination to a major Order simply renders the ordained man, whether married or unmarried, incapable of contracting marriage apart from laicization and papal dispensation. Thus, such ordination bars the cleric arctius altari conjungi from attempting or entering into marriage, quite as an existing marriage bars one from entering into another marriage.

It is then evident that one cannot accurately speak of a “duty” of celibacy any more than one can speak accurately of a “duty” of marriage. Quite as marriage connotes the obligation of fidelity, clerical (here, diaconal) celibacy connotes the duty or obligation of continence. But as marriage is distinct from fidelity, so celibacy is distinct from continence. As marriage is not the same as fidelity to marriage, neither is celibacy the same as the continence which, analogously, is fidelity to major orders. However, such casual reference to celibacy as a “duty” precisely suggests or connotes this identity, and so induces the confusion between celibacy and continence which seems to have governed much of the discussion of the celibacy of the permanent diaconate at Vatican II.

To speak of clerical celibacy as a “duty” further implies that clerical celibacy is not a committed state, but is only a continuing moral responsibility which one might fail to meet, as one may fail to meet the duty of marital fidelity. Such language further suggests what could not be affirmed, the merely “functional” status of clerical celibacy: that is, to speak of a duty of celibacy is to intimate that celibacy, with its connoted moral obligation of clerical continence, is not integral to major orders.

Therefore, while it is entirely proper to speak of a celibate major cleric’s duty of continence, it is quite misleading to speak of his celibacy as a “duty.” Duties are positive moral — and therefore free — concomitants of a positive office, or munus, which arise out of that office. Because they arise out of an office or munus such as orders, duties consist in continuing fidelity to that office, but they are not identified with the office, and should not be spoken of in such a fashion as to blur that fact. Once ordained, an unmarried deacon, priest, or bishop is not free to be noncelibate, for a man exercising major orders simply cannot marry: such a cleric cannot be married apart from dispensation. But he is certainly free to be continent, for otherwise continence would not be a matter of fidelity; therein lies the particular obligation, the “duty,” of the major cleric — here, the deacon.

Vorgrimler informs us that two points, viz., the authority competent to admit married men to the permanent diaconate, and the married (non-celibate) character of the permanent diaconate, were those most debated at the second and third sessions:

For the course of the voting, see the historical introduction to this commentary by G. Philips. In view of the interventions and the results of the voting, the text was considerably revised by the Theological Commission (relatores: B. Kloppenburg, O.F.M., and P. Smulders, S.J.), and adopted into the draft of July 3, 1964 in a form which differs substantially from the present text only in two points. One is concerned with the authority competent to admit married men to the diaconate. Here the Theological Commission was ordered to insert the words De consensu Romani Pontificis. The second point was whether young men who wished to be deacons were obliged to celibacy or not. The council decided in favor of celibacy, but it should be noted that as many as 839 Fathers rejected celibacy in such cases. The official relator, Bishop Jiménes L. Henriquez [sic], was not in favor of young married deacons. (227; emphasis added)

In the first place, if Vorgrimler’s recital of a conciliar discussion of the “obligation” of celibacy is accurate ad litteram, this usage again reveals the acceptance of a certain suggestio falsi within the conciliar discussion, wherein “celibacy,” which in the technical language of canon law simply refers to the unmarried state, is discussed as though it were an obligation: viz., the word is used by the conciliar Fathers as though it were associated with “continence” in such wise that a noncelibate or married diaconate is one which is noncontinent, i.e., a diaconate which contemplates the continuing use of marriage by the married ordinatus. If on the other hand, Fr. Vorgrimler may be thought to be reading his own confusion on this point into the conciliar discussion, it does not appear that that discussion contained anything which might have worked to correct such a mistake. As we shall see, this confusion of celibacy with continence, and of noncelibacy with noncontinence, did in fact obtain among the bishops, and nothing in the record of the conciliar discussion of Lumen Gentium §29 evidences any recognition of the confusion, nor any clarification of it.^xv

Further on in his commentary on this passage, Vorgrimler has observed that

It is also noteworthy that the tasks of the deacon include liturgical functions, but that his role in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is one of the most outstanding features of the diaconate in the Eastern Churches, receives no mention. (229)

Vorgrimler’s report of a lack of conciliar interest in the liturgical dimension of the diaconal office, particularly in the celebration of the Eucharist, is consistent with Michael Novak’s report.^xvi Gérard Philips’ historical survey,^xvii cited by Vorgrimler supra, contains the following observations:

Here (relative to the priesthood) the whole assembly was perfectly unanimous. But when the votes were taken on the diaconate, the difference of viewpoint emerged more strongly than ever. In principle, the revival of the permanent diaconate was accepted by 1903 votes against 242. But the next day, 29 September, the question came up as to whether the local authorities, with the approval of the Pope, could decide on the actual revival, and here almost a third of the voters expressed themselves in the negative. (702 against 1523). But the nub of the controversy was whether this form of diaconate could be entrusted to married men of mature age. Here the two thirds majority was slightly larger, 1598 ayes against 629 noes. The next clause was the only one which was rejected by the assembly. The draft envisaged the possibility of young men who were not bound by the law of celibacy being ordained deacons. Here a large majority of the Fathers flatly said no: 1364, against 839 ayes. (130).

Philips’ account says nothing of the noncontinence of the married men ordained to the permanent diaconate: again, the same silence characterizes Novak’s fuller treatment of the conciliar debate.

A confusion of celibacy with continence, of marriage with noncontinence, and so a confusion of the institution of a noncelibate (married) diaconate with the formal permission for the diaconal use of marriage, is evident on both sides of the debate. The only possible inference from Philips’ account is that the minority of bishops — 839 out of 2203 is no inconsiderable fraction —, who voted against holding even the younger and unmarried deacons to the “lex caelibatus,” could hardly have understood the universally noncelibate, viz., married, diaconate which they contemplated for the younger men nonetheless to oblige such men, once married, to abstention from the use of marriage. There would not have been sufficient point to such a proposal to gain the support of eight hundred and thirty-nine bishops. The minority bishops could only have had in view, and were understood by their conciliar adversaries to have in view, the establishment of a novel diaconate: one whose members, because they could marry after ordination, need not be continent after ordination. But there is no conciliar clarification of the minority’s obvious identification of noncelibacy with noncontinence. One can hardly avoid concluding that the majority of the conciliar Fathers shared this confusion with the minority.

The latent, or tacit — but in any case evident — confusion among the conciliar Fathers of clerical celibacy with clerical continence, and so of married clergy with clerical noncontinence, which this vote manifests, could not but have carried over into the conciliar approval of the ordination of married candidates for the diaconate, to whom the “lex caelibatus” would not apply.

For it does not appear that the conciliar Fathers ever considered a married diaconate to which the lex caelibatus would not apply, to be the mere tautology that it is. For the conciliar bishops, the waiver of the lex caelibatus with respect to married deacons was quite uncritically understood to connote the legitimation of conjugal intercourse. The vote on the waiver of celibacy for the younger deacons could only imply that more than a third of the bishops voting were in favor doing what had never been formally discussed: legitimating subsequent marriage or remarriage by a man in full exercise of major orders.

As Gérard Philips observes, “a large majority of the Fathers flatly said no” to the minority proposal of the dropping of the law of celibacy for the younger candidates for the diaconate. We may be quite sure that in the minds of the minority, the noncelibacy which they would permit the younger candidates did not carry the implicit qualification that as married deacons they would live in continence. Rather, for reasons which we shall later explore,^xviii the minority view of the restored diaconate had so accepted a dissociation of celibacy from major orders, at least with respect to the diaconate, as to no longer consider ordination to the diaconate a diriment impediment to subsequent marriage.

Given this dissociation, they could hardly be concerned for the continence of married deacons. But again, insofar as one may judge from the conciliar documents, as well as from the reports of those present, there was no significant discussion of this underlying point of view. It would seem to have passed unchallenged by the majority, who simply held to the ancient tradition. For there is no record of such a subtlety entering into the conciliar discussion. In the view of the minority at least, the relaxation for diaconal candidates of the lex caelibatus was identically the relaxation of the traditional requirement not only of married continence for those in diaconal orders, but was also the dismissal of the tradition which had found in major orders a diriment impediment to marriage.

But what of the majority? We can only conclude that they rejected what they understood the minority to approve: the admission to the diaconate of unmarried candidates, who subsequent to ordination might marry and enter into marital relations.

It is important to emphasize that an approval by the conciliar Fathers of the subsequent marriage of unmarried deacons would have for them to have flatly rejected the liturgical and doctrinal tradition of clerical celibacy which Stickler, Concini and Cholij have rightly judged to be apostolic in its origins — and more, to have done this without any conciliar discussion of so radical a step.

Yet further, that step — the conciliar approval of a view of diaconal orders in which ordination to the diaconate would not be a diriment impediment to marriage — would not only have amounted to a conciliar approval of the noncontinence of married clerics across the board; its dissociation of celibacy from major orders would have instituted a drastic alteration in the sacramental doctrine of Roman Catholicism, one extending to the Eucharist itself, which for reasons which cannot here be explored, would thereby have ceased to be the offering of the One Sacrifice.^xix

Therefore, the majority of the conciliar Fathers, whose views found expression in Lumen Gentium §29, were aware of the doctrinal significance of clerical celibacy, if inarticulately: for the majority, the celibacy required of the younger candidates to the diaconate connoted a continuing obligation to continence, and most certainly was associated with recognizing, in ordination to the diaconate, a diriment impediment to subsequent marriage. The majority’s rejection of a noncelibate youthful diaconate, one whose members might later marry, is otherwise unintelligible. This rejection of the minority approval of a noncelibate and noncontinent youthful diaconate cannot but have had consequences for what the majority understood the opening up of the diaconate to married men to entail, but these consequences seem never to have been explored at the Council.

Consequently it is manifestly important to clarify the terminology used in the conciliar approval of the restored permanent diaconate, and in the papal legislation implementing that restoration. Specifically, it is necessary to avoid what the conciliar Fathers did not avoid, the confusion which would identify the “lex caelibatus” with the obligation to continence and, eo ipso, would identify relaxation of the “lex caelibatus” with a relaxation of the obligation of continence in those ordained to major orders.

We have seen that “celibacy” and “celibate” do not identify respectively with “continence” and “continent.” A celibate priest or deacon is unmarried; he is expected to be continent, but a sinful noncontinence does not nullify his celibate state. A noncelibate priest or deacon is one who is married; his noncelibacy does not imply or warrant his noncontinence, in law or in fact.

Thus the celibacy and the continence of those in major orders are in the same positive correlation which links marriage to fidelity in the married;^xx a married deacon or priest cannot be celibate — this is a matter of definition. Nonetheless, he should be continent, for the reasons adduced by Cochini and Cholij, and resumed in Archbishop Stafford’s recent lecture.^xxi It is then evident that those men who are candidates for a liturgical office by which they will be arctius altari conjungi^xxii are held to continence, and precisely by such ordination, whether they are celibate or married. No other reading of Lumen Gentium §29 is internally coherent, nor could it be made consistent with the later papal legislation instituting the restored diaconate.

II The Papal Documents

Three years after the Council, Paul VI began to lay down the norms for the permanent diaconate: first in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,”^xxiii, then in “Pontificalis Romani Recognitio,”^xxiv and finally in “Ad pascendum”^xxv. Moreover, the Pope had earlier spoken to the same subject, if only briefly, in “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.”^xxvi

“Sacerdotalis Caelibatus” is then the first in time of these documents; it bears only in passing upon the diaconate but, because “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” follows immediately upon it, what it has to say on that subject is of no little interest. We quote §13 of “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus,” in full, and the final paragraph of §42:

§13 Porro hi contradictorum veluti concentus non solum perantiqua et grandia testimonia sive Pastorum Ecclesiae, sive magistrorum pietatis opprimere videtur, sed etiam viva in nostrisque oculis haerentia exempla, ab innumerabili cohorte edita sanctorum ac fidelium Dei administrorum, qui in re vera sacrum caelibatum demonstrant sibi causam itemque indicium eius fuisse doni, quo se totos laetissimosque Christi mysterio tradiderunt. Quae utique egregia exempla, non minus nostris quam praeteritis temporibus posita, placate constanterque adhuc loquuntur. Quapropter Nos, quibus praesentes res semper curae fuerunt, teneri non possumus, quin nec opinatam hanc mirificamque veritatem animadvertimus, qua docemur nunc etiam in Dei Ecclesia, ubicumque terrarum ea sancta tabernacula statuit, innumerabilem multitudinem sacrorum administrorum — subdiaconorum, diaconorum, presbyterorum, episcoporum — voluntarium Deoque sacratum caelibatum caste et integre servare.

§42 Ceteroqui Ecclesiae primores ab hac utenda potestate minime abstinere ex eo colligitur, quod recens Concilium Oecumenicum sapienter censuit, ut sacer nempe diaconatus ordo provectis etiam aetate viris, in matrimonio viventibus, posset conferri. (emphasis added)

The italicized phrase is perhaps a term of art, although the 1983 Code of Canon Law avoids it; first appearing in Lumen Gentium §29, immediately afterwards in “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus,” and then in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” it imports a continuing condition or status which will not cease upon ordination: this can only be the marriage bond itself. To interpret it otherwise, as warranting the continuing use of marriage by a married deacon is to rest the use of marriage by a deacon upon a highly debatable exegesis of a rather obscure canonical phrase, and to suppose that such a drastic departure from tradition could rest upon such a debatable exegesis.

Such a putative papal rejection of the tradition of diaconal continence would require more foundation than the documents instituting the permanent diaconate can provide. This is particularly the case when, as here, the implication of a papal dismissal of the requirement of diaconal continence would have clear doctrinal import, as is shown to be the case by Cochini’s establishment of the apostolic origin of the tradition of clerical celibacy.

The third of these documents, the “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” is Pope Paul VI’s formal statement of the rules governing the restored permanent diaconate. In it, a paragraph confirming the existing law relative to the diaconate, except insofar as specifically altered (“nisi aliter cautum fuerit”), prefaces the numeration of the new regulations; viz:

698 Principio igitur quae in Codice Juris Canonici de diaconorum juribus et officiis, sive omnium clericorum communibus, sive eorundem propriis, statuuntur, ea omnia, nisi aliter cautum fuerit, confirmamus et in eos etiam valere edicimus, qui stabiliter in diaconatu sunt mansuri. Pro quibus praeterea haec alia, quae sequuntur, statuimus.

There follow thirty-five headings of regulations respecting the restored permanent diaconate; of these, the second, eleventh, sixteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth bear upon the requirement, or not, of diaconal continence.

The second paragraph contains a clear if unattributed paraphrase of the final sentence of Lumen Gentium §29; it merely changes the order of phrases in that sentence. However, even as altered, this text deals only with celibate and noncelibate candidates for the diaconate, and says nothing which could be read to authorize the noncontinence of married deacons. The law of celibacy, imposed on unmarried candidates for the diaconate, obviously does not hold for married candidates: once more, “celibate” means “unmarried,” and it is simply as a matter of definition that married candidates are not celibate.

Here we place in sequence, for purposes of comparison, once again the final sentence of Lumen Gentium, §29, and the excerpt from “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” which depends upon it:

Lumen Gentium, §29: De consensu Romani Pontificis hi Diaconatus viris maturioris aetatis etiam in matrimonio viventibus conferri poterit, necnon iuvenibus idoneis, pro quibus tamen lex coelibatus firma remanere debet.^xxvii

699 “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” ¶2: In petenda ab Apostolica Sede approbatione exponendae sunt tum causae, quae novam huiusmodi disciplinam aliqua in regione constitutendam suadeant, tum rerum condiciones, quae veram boni eventus spem afferant; itemque describendus erit eiusdem disciplinae modus, utrum videlicet agatur de diaconatu conferendo iuvenibus idoneis, pro quibus … lex caelibatus firma remanere debet, an viris maturioris aetatis, etiam in matrimonio viventibus, an utrique candidatorum generi. (original emphasis)

To repeat, the reference in the latter excerpt to Lumen Gentium §29 is by way of italicization, not citation, and so can be said to be implicit. It can be read only as warranting or authorizing the ordination of deacons “in matrimonio viventibus,” which is to say, the ordination of married men to the diaconate. Nothing whatever appears in that text to authorize the novelty of a continuing exercise by them of conjugal relations subsequent to their ordination. It cannot be said to have been instituted by the Pope even tacitly, as by indirection. It is therefore evident that the condition of such a drastic change in the diaconate, as restored by Vatican II and Paul VI, viz., the “nisi aliter cautum fuerit” set forth in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” at 698, quoted supra and again here, simply is not met:

698 Principio igitur quae in Codice Juris Canonici de diaconorum juribus et officiis, sive omnium clericorum communibus, sive eorundem propriis, statuuntur, ea omnia, nisi aliter cautum fuerit, confirmamus et in eos etiam valere edicimus, qui stabiliter in diaconatu sunt mansuri. (emphasis added)

The eleventh paragraph of “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” requires the permission of the wife before the ordination of the married candidate to the permanent diaconate:

700 ¶11. Grandioris aetatis viri, sive caelibes sive etiam matrimonio conjuncti, ad diaconatum vocari possunt: hi vero ne admittantur, nisi constet non solum de uxoris consensu, sed de eiusdem etiam christiana morum probitate illisque dotibus, quae viri ministerium nec impediant nec dedecorent. (emphasis added)

Once again, we here see celibacy contrasted not with noncontinence but with marriage, and the contrast evidently is understood as exhausting the possibilities. This paragraph quite clearly restates the traditional requirement for permission from the wives of married ordinands who, by their husbands’ ordination and consequent continence, would find themselves comparably bound to continence: we shall see that the moral demands placed upon the wife by her husband’s ordination are sufficiently alluded to in the “nisi constet non solum de uxoris consensu, sed de eiusdem etiam christiana morum probitate illisque dotibus, quae viri ministerium nec impediant nec dedecorent.”

Paragraph sixteen is yet more difficult to account for, if one supposes the use of marriage by the married permanent deacon to be licit:

701 ¶16. Post ordinem receptum diaconi, grandiore etiam aetate promoti, ex tradita Ecclesiae disciplina ad ineundum matrimonium inhabiles sunt.

The phrase, “grandiore etiam aetate promoti,” can only refer to those candidates for the diaconate who are “viri(s) maturioris aetatis, etiam in matrimonio viventibus,” (“sive caelibes sive etiam matrimonio conjuncti”) i.e., the older candidates for the permanent diaconate, to whom the law of celibacy does not apply. Here, we are informed that, whether married or not, once ordained the older deacons are incapable of marrying, or of marrying again.

It is impossible to understand why a second marriage should be excluded “ex tradita ecclesiae disciplina” if, contrary to that traditional discipline, conjugal intimacy in an existing marriage is acceptable. The paragraph clearly refers back to the ancient tradition which found such a remarriage, with its implication of reinstituted conjugal intercourse by one in higher orders, entirely immoral and in fact impossible. This interpretation, the sole possible one, of course invokes again the traditional law of continence for married deacons.

The twenty-fifth paragraph is as follows:

702 ¶25. Diaconi, utpote qui Christi et Ecclesiae mysteriis inserviant, a quovis pravitatis vitio se abstineant Deoque semper placere studeant, ad omne opus bonum pro hominum salute parati.⁹ (Cfr. 2 Tim 2,21) Ob receptum ergo ordinem, longe aliis excellant oportet in vitae liturgicae actione, in studio precandi, in divino ministerio, in oboedientia, in caritate, in castitate. (original emphasis)

First to be remarked of this paragraph is the Pope’s emphasis upon the traditional liturgical responsibility of the permanent deacon, a matter we have seen to have been largely ignored by Lumen Gentium §29. Secondly, we note that the “castitas” to which the preceding quotation makes reference is the traditional equivalent of that “pudicitia” which from the earliest years had described the continence required of those ordained to the episcopacy, priesthood, and diaconate.^xxviii

The twenty-sixth paragraph of this papal document takes for granted the liceity of permanent deacons “in matrimonio viventium,” once again contrasting that state not with continence, but with celibacy. A single diaconal spirituality is said to be incumbent upon both celibate deacons, and those who are married, viz., those “in matrimonio viventes:”

702-03 ¶26. Episcopalis Conferentiae erit efficaciores normas statuere ad spiritualem vitam alendam diaconorum, tam in caelibatu quam in matrimonio viventium. Curant tamen locorum Ordinarii, ut omnes diaconi:

1) assidue legendo attenteque secum meditando Dei verbo vacent;

2) frequenter vel etiam cotidie, quantum fieri potest, Missae sacrificio actuosi intersint, SS. Eucharistiae sacramento reficiantur idemque pietatis causa invisant; (emphasis added)

Again, we note the stress which Pope Paul VI has placed upon the Eucharistic focus of the restored diaconate. Here the Pope makes the first clear reference, whether in Lumen Gentium or in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” to the ordained deacon as “in matrimonio vivens.” The only use of such language in Lumen Gentium or in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” related to married candidates for the diaconate. If in fact “in matrimonio vivens” does imply ongoing conjugal relations, surely here was the place to have made it clear, for the contrast, constant heretofore, of celibacy with marriage, not with noncontinence or with the use of marriage, has excluded a reading of “in matrimonio viven(te)s” which would imply the liceity of marital intercourse after ordination to the diaconate.

The earlier paragraph (11) of the same document, in which we have read that the consent of the wife of the married candidate for the diaconate is prerequisite to his ordination, only confirms the equation of “in matrimonio viventes” with the reality of marriage bond itself:

700 ¶11. Grandioris aetatis viri, sive caelibes sive etiam matrimonio conjuncti, ad diaconatum vocari possunt: hi vero ne admittantur, nisi constet non solum de uxoris consensu, sed de eiusdem etiam christiana morum probitate illisque dotibus, quae viri ministerium nec empediant nec dedecorent. (emphasis added.)

According to the tradition which Cochini and Stickler have cogently argued to be of apostolic origin, it was precisely the post-ordination use of marital relations by the married deacon which was described as an impediment to the diaconal ministry at the altar, and as indecent. Consequently, the addition of this ad cautelam proviso must be read as meant to guard the consequently continent modality of life required for the admission of married candidates to diaconal orders: that they be continent thereafter, and this with the wife’s consent and with her foreseen moral support.

This interpretation is the simplest reading of the language of paragraph 26, “tam in caelibatu quam in matrimonio viventium.” Once again, it is to be noted the paired opposites are presented as exhaustive; further, if “in caelibatu (viventes)” simply means “unmarried,” as opposed to “in matrimonio viventes” as the equivalent of “married,” nothing in this paragraph (26) can be shown to warrant a noncontinent married permanent diaconate. If on the other hand “caelibatus” does not exhaust the alternatives to “in matrimonio vivens” this needs to be shown, whereas that it does not has only been assumed — unwarrantably — by those who suppose the married deacon to be permitted conjugal relations simply qua noncelibate.

It must be therefore be concluded that at this point in the documentation there has appeared no warrant for the novel understanding of the diaconate whereby the ordination of married men to the permanent diaconate would no longer oblige them to subsequent continence. Because they are married, such deacons are by definition not celibate, but this says nothing as to their freedom to continue to engage in marital relations. The relaxation of the “lex caelibatus” for the permanent diaconate does not in any manner imply the relaxation of the obligation of continence for those in major orders. It is intended merely to open up candidacy for the permanent diaconate to a group of men formerly excluded from such orders by the fact of their married state, their noncelibacy.

It is further to be noted that conjoined to paragraph 26 supra is a subsection exhorting precisely the close association of the deacon with the Eucharistic sacrifice which has been — and remains — the liturgical ground for clerical continence. In fact, whatever the silence of the Fathers at the Council on the point, “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” clearly assigns to the restored permanent diaconate the liturgical responsibilities within the Church’s Eucharistic worship which have been traditional to the diaconate as such:

701 ¶22. Secundum memoratum Concilii Vaticani II Constitutionem, diaconi est, quatenus loci Ordinarius haec ipsa expedienda commiserit:

1) inter actiones liturgicas episcopo et presbytero adesse in omnibus, quae rituales varii ordinis libri eidem attribuunt;

3) Eucharistiam asservare, sibi ceterisque distribuere, eam in viaticum morientibus offere, atque eucharisticam benedictionem, quam dicunt, cum sacra pyxide populo impertire.

Further, the prefatory pages of “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” leave no doubt that the restored permanent diaconate is indeed the sacramental Order of the apostolic tradition, ordination to which confers a specific character, by which the deacon is ordered to the service of the altar. This service of the altar had been further spelled out in earlier introductory paragraphs, among them following, which assign and confirm the traditional liturgical duties of the diaconate:

697-98 Sacrum diaconatus ordinem iam inde a prisca Apostolorum aetate catholica Ecclesia magno in honore habuit, quemadmodum ipse Gentium Doctor testatur, qui diaconos una cum episcopis nominatim salvere jubet¹ (Cfr. Phil 1, 1) atque Timotheum docet, quaenam virtutes animique dotes ab iisdem sint expetendae, ut suo digni ministerio aestimentur.² [Cfr. I Tim 3, 8-13.] (emphasis added)

Porro Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum II, perantiquam huiusmodi morem servans, honorificam diaconatus mentionem in Constitutione, a verbis Lumen Gentium incipienti, fecit ibique, cum de episcopis et presbyteris egisset, tertium quoque sacri ordinis gradum celebravit, eius dignitatem illustrando atque officia percensendo. Verum hinc probe intellegens haec munera, ad vitam Ecclesiae summopere necessaria, in disciplina Ecclesiae latinae hodie vigenti in pluribus regionibus adimplere difficulter posse, hinc tantae rei commodius consulere exoptans, sapienter decrevit, ut diaconatus in futurum tamquam proprius ac permanens gradus hierarchiae restitui posset.³ (Cfr. n. 29; A.A.S. 57 [1965] p. 36.)

Quamvis enim nonnulla diaconorum munera laicis viris, in terris praesertim missionali opere excolendis, revera committi soleant, eos tamen juvat… qui ministerio vere diaconali fungantur…per impositionem manuum inde ab Apostolis traditam corroborari et altari arctius coniungi, ut ministerium suum per gratiam sacramentalem diaconatus efficacius expleant.⁴ (Cfr. Conc. Vat. II, Decr. Ad Gentes, n. 16; A.A.S. 58 [1966] p. 967) Qua profecto ratione optimo quasi in lumine collocabitur propria huiusce Ordinis natura, qui non tamquam merus ad sacerdotium gradus est existimandus, sed indelebili suo charactere ac praecipua sua gratia insignis ita locupletatur, ut qui ad ipsum vocentur, ii mysteriis Christi et Ecclesiae stabiliter inservire possint.⁵ (Cfr. Conc. Vat. II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, n. 11: A.A.S. 57 [1965] p. 46.)

In 1972, norms for admission to the diaconate were promulgated in “Ad Pascendum;” these include:

6. The special consecration of celibacy observed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and its obligation for candidates to the priesthood and for unmarried candidates for the diaconate are indeed linked with the diaconate. The public commitment to holy celibacy before God and the Church is to be celebrated in a particular rite, even by religious, and is to precede ordination to the diaconate. Celibacy taken on in this way is a diriment impediment to entering marriage.

In accordance with the traditional discipline of the Church, a married deacon who has lost his wife cannot enter a new marriage.²⁶

²⁶Apostolic Letter Sacram Diaconatus Ordinem, n. 16: A.A.S. 59 (1967), p. 701.

“Ad pascendum,” A.A.S. 64 [1972] 534-540; tr. Documents, 439

The language bearing upon the continence expected of the ordained deacon, married or unmarried, remains indirect. For example, the celibacy attaching to the office of the priesthood, and of the unmarried deacon, is said to be a diriment impediment to marriage. We have earlier seen that the married deacon is unable to remarry (“Post ordinem receptum diaconi, grandiore etiam aetate promoti, ex tradita Ecclesiae disciplina ad ineundum matrimonium inhabiles sunt”). If there was there no explicit mention of a diriment impediment, it is understandable enough, for it is ordination to the diaconate which is the ground of the impediment: the language quoted here is sufficiently explicit as to its reality. In the end, the obligation of consecrated celibacy is of sacramental, not merely of juridical provenance: thus before affirming that diaconal orders constitute a diriment impediment to marriage, “Ad Pascendum” speaks not of an illiceity but of an incapacity in the deacon with respect to subsequent marriage.

That the requirement of diaconal continence is left intact by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI is yet further manifest in the spate of scriptural and patristic references in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” and again in “Ad Pascendum” — these references to Phil 1:1, to I Tim 3, to 2 Tim 2, to Ignatius Martyr, to Polycarp, to Irenaeus, to Justin Martyr, to Tertullian, to the Didascalia Apostolorum, to Hippolytus’ Traditio Apostolica, to Leo the Great — invite the application to the renewed permanent diaconate of all that had been understood by the patristic tradition to pertain to the diaconal office.

With the publication of Cochini’s research, anticipated by the work of Alfons Cardinal Stickler and confirmed by that of Roman Cholij, the burden of going forward with the evidence rests upon whoever would deny that the apostolic tradition of continence is integral to the apostolic and the patristic understanding of the diaconal Order, and consequently that the tradition is liturgical and therefore is doctrinal. It is not at all a mere disciplinary usage, as Cochini and Cholij have shown.

As prelude to the list of “norms” set out in “Ad Pascendum,” Pope Paul VI recited his extensive consultation with “experts,” as well as with the episcopal conferences. It is inconceivable that he would have ignored the scholarship of Fr. Stickler who, raised by Pope John Paul II to the archiepiscopate in 1983 and to the Cardinalate in 1985, had already at the time of the Council a stellar reputation as a Church historian, and who as we have seen had published a paper directly on the continence of the diaconate in 1964 and another in 1970, well prior to “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” and “Ad Pascendum.” Cochini has written:

Fr. Stickler was an expert at the Second Vatican Council, which decided, as we recall, the restoration of the permanent diaconate in the Church. His study, “The Continence of the Deacon, Especially during the First Millennium of the Church,” published in 1964, was written as part of studies aiming to bring to the Council Fathers elements of reflection borrowed from history. The author points out that one must understand celibacy in the early Church not only as meaning a prohibition of marriage, but also in the sense of perfect continence for those who were already married. The Western Church Tradition is studied in the light of the teachings of the councils, of the Fathers, and of the Roman pontiffs who always preserved (or restored) its essential features. The author opines it is on the basis of motivations inherent in the very nature of the Order and of the sacred ministry that this uninterrupted tradition demands a perfect continence on the part of those who have been married before receiving sacred Orders.

Apostolic Origins, at 43.

The doctrinal point raised by Fr. Stickler — viz., that continence is integral to the diaconal service at the altar — seems never to have been expressly contested by the Fathers in the Council. This impression is confirmed by the conciliar reportage, supposing it to be accurate, of Vorgrimler and Philips, supra, as well as that of Henri Fesquet.^xxix Similarly, Michael Novak’s fuller account of the debate over diaconal celibacy never touches on this point. The only debate was over marriage versus celibacy for the diaconate; the continence which the tradition has required of married deacons simply did not arise as a topic of discussion.

In connection with this reportage, it is noteworthy that Stickler’s name, that of a peritus at the Council who had addressed this much-discussed subject expressly in the 1964 article cited by Cochini, supra, is not found in the index of Vorgrimler’s Commentary, in which the quotations supra from Vorgrimler and Philips appeared; neither is he mentioned in Fesquet’s book, nor in Novak’s, nor in the Actus Synodalia. It can hardly be supposed, then, that his well-known position had been controverted by the conciliar Fathers: such a controversy could not have passed unnoticed, whereas we have both Vorgrimler and Philips as witnesses to its absence from the conciliar discussion. We must conclude that Stickler’s point of view was never opposed at the Council, and more likely, that the question of whether or not the married permanent deacon was to be continent was not raised at all. As has been seen, it does appear that a large minority of the conciliar Fathers took for granted the noncontinence of the married diaconate: otherwise, the minority approval of waiving celibacy also for the younger candidates for the diaconate is without point.

Cochini has shown that the continence of the diaconate was from the earliest records considered to be on the same level as that of the priest and the bishop, and that this requirement of continence in those serving the altar did and does not rest upon such early legislation as that promulgated by the Councils of Elvira (305) and of Carthage (390) (which, bye the bye, are cited neither by “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” nor by “Ad Pascendum”) but rests rather upon a liturgically-grounded apostolic tradition which links celibacy and marital continence to the intercessory Eucharistic role of the higher clergy, whose rank reflects the level of their direct responsibility for the celebration of the Mass. Following I Tim 3:8-13, this continence was from the earliest times held consistent with the ordination of married men to the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate, who were held to strict continence thereafter. Such ordination of married men was predicated upon the prior consent of the wives of the candidates, for of course ordination imposed continence upon them as well as upon their husbands, even to the point of forbidding the widows of deacons, as well as of priests and bishops, to remarry quite as it forbade widower bishops and priests to remarry; we have seen this requirement reaffirmed in §11 of “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” and also in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The ordination of younger, unmarried men to the diaconate required then as now a life-long commitment to celibacy and obviously to continence.

It is only with the Council in Trullo, at the end of the seventh century, that this discipline lapsed in the Eastern Churches; Cochini has detailed the circumstances of this deviation, and Cholij, a priest of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, has seconded Cochini’s conclusion that it is indeed a deviation, as has also Henri Crouzel.^xxx

In the light of Lumen Gentium’s omission, stressed by Vorgrimler, of any mention of participation in the celebration of the Eucharist as among the duties, liturgical and otherwise, of permanent deacons, it might have been asked whether the “permanent diaconate” envisaged by the Council had not suffered a sea change from that of which the apostolic tradition has demanded celibacy. For an instance of such change exists: Cochini and Cholij both record a change in liturgical responsibility in the reverse direction, which affected the subdiaconate in the West from the fifth century onward to Vatican II. From its primitive standing as an exterior service or ministry akin to that of an acolyte, lector or porter, the subdiaconate had by the fifth century became directly involved in the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery. Thereupon it was recognized by the Pope as a major Order, and its candidates were committed to continence, despite the considerable inconveniences involved in the drastic demand this novelty placed upon married subdeacons. The abolition of the subdiaconate as a major Order, and its consequent dissociation from celibacy by Pope Paul VI in “Ministeria Quaedam,” §4,^xxxi can only reflect a shifting of the liturgical responsibilities of the subdiaconate away from direct responsibility for the Eucharistic celebration. In Rahner’s view, just such a shifting of responsibility, from liturgical to practical responsibilities, would appear to have long since overtaken the permanent diaconate at the time of its recommended reinstitution by Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes Divinitus, and its actual institution by “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” and “Ad Pascendum.”

However, if only because the conciliar motives for that reinstitution of the permanent diaconate, as set forth in Lumen Gentium, §29 did not touch the diaconal exercise of a direct responsibility in the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is evident that no change in the liturgical responsibilities of the permanent diaconate was in contemplation at the Council. What may have been assumed by many of the Fathers present there is another matter.

In any case, Paul VI, in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” explicitly reaffirmed the liturgical and particularly the Eucharistic responsibility, and the correlative Eucharistic spirituality, of the restored diaconate. The Pope was equally insistent upon the traditional hierarchical rank of the permanent diaconate, and upon the indelible sacramental character which the ordination to it, by the imposition of hands, effects.

There can be no doubt that the Pope has restored the permanent diaconate in the sense of the traditional, sacramentally-conferred, hierarchical Order, an Order which he describes in the traditional language of “altari arctius conjungi.”^xxxii It is this closeness to the altar, inseparable from their liturgical office, that Cochini has shown to be the basis for the ancient tradition requiring continence of deacons, as it is required of bishops and of priests.

Yet further: it must be kept in mind that the Nota Explicativa which Pope Paul VI added as an appendix to Lumen Gentium bars the reading into that document, by way of a supposedly latent implication, of any novel doctrinal affirmation:

the sacred synod declared as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.^xxxiii

It is impossible to find in the documents of Vatican II any intent or indeed any intimation of an intent to teach a novel interpretation of the sacrament of orders; in fact, the conciliar intent to attach the renewal of the permanent diaconate to the biblical and patristic tradition is evident.

Thus, the post-conciliar proliferation of married and noncontinent deacons, in the face of an evident apostolic tradition denying the liceity of such a practice, demands a solution which can only be an explicit recognition of the binding character of the apostolic tradition of diaconal continence. The pastoral problem has no other answer, for any alternative would undercut the nature of the diaconate itself, as arctius altari conjungi. Further, the implications of the noncontinent married diaconate for the celibate priesthood cannot be ignored: if a noncontinent diaconate, “altari arctius conjungi,” is legitimate in the Latin Church, all that remains for the legitimation of a married and noncontinent priesthood and episcopacy is negotiation of the terms of the surrender of all sacramental realism. In the final analysis, we are dealing with a matter which puts in issue the point upon which the Reformation turned, and which was resolved at Trent: the Mass as the celebration, or not, of the Eucharistic sacrifice. If the apostolic doctrine on that point is to be upheld, so also that which is strictly conjoined to it, the celibacy of those who serve the altar upon which the One Sacrifice is offered and the One Flesh of the New Covenant instituted.

The contemporary fact of the married deacons — and perhaps of married priests as well — in full exercise at once of their marital intimacy and their orders is an obvious surd in Roman Catholic life and worship, for the coincidence of conjugal relations with responsibility for service arctius altari conjungi has been illicit since apostolic times for reasons going to the heart of the Church’s Eucharistic worship in truth. Consequently, there is every reason to deny that the restoration of the permanent diaconate in any sense legitimates the noncontinence of deacons “in matrimonio viventes.”

The Fathers at Vatican II, and Paul VI in his implementation of Lumen Gentium, §29, were intent upon the restoration of the third hierarchical Order; it is evident from the opening paragraphs of “Pontificalis Romani Recognitio” that there was no intent to introduce a novelty:

Pontificalis Romani recognitio non tamen generali modo a Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II praescribitur,¹ sed etiam peculiaribus regitur normis, quibus eadem Sacra Synodus ritus Ordinationum, sive quoad caeremonias sive quoad textus² dimutari iussit. (original emphasis)

Sed ex Ordinationis ritibus illi imprimis considerandi sunt, quibus per Sacramentum Ordinis, vario gradu collatum, sacra Hierarchia constituitur: sic ministerium ecclesiasticum divinitus institutum diversis ordinibus exercetur ab illis qui iam ab antiquo Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi vocantur.³ (original emphasis)

In recognitione autem ritus Ordinationum Sacrarum, praeter principia generalia, quibus integra instauratio Liturgiae, iuxta praescripta Concilii Vaticani II, regi debet, summopere attendendum est ad praeclaram illam doctrinam de natura et effectibus Sacramenti Ordinis, quae in Constitutione de Ecclesia ab eodem Conciliio pronuntiata est, nam textus et ritus ita ordinari oportet ut sancta, quae significant, clarius exprimant, eaque populus christianus, in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione participare possit.⁴ (original emphasis)

¹Conc Vat. II, Const. de Sacra Liturgia, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 25: A.A.S. 56 (1964) p. 107.

²Ibid., n. 76: A.A.S. 56 (1964) p. 119.

³Conc. Vat. II, Const. dogm. de Ecclesia, Lumen gentium, n. 28: A.A.S. 57 (1965) pp. 33-34.

⁴Conc Vat. II, Const. de Sacra Liturgia, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 21: A.A.S. 56 (1964) p. 106.

After reading language such as this, it is impossible to believe that the restoration of the permanent diaconate by the Council and the Pope contemplated making any alteration in the sacrament of orders. Some at least of the conciliar Fathers must have been aware of the doctrinal weight of the traditional obligation of diaconal continence; Fr. Stickler’s articles would not have passed unnoticed. While the Fathers agreed at the Council to permit a married permanent diaconate, and while there is reason to suppose that the commentators we have cited (Vorgrimler, Philips, Novak, Fesquet), and with them a minority of the Fathers, understood the phrase “in matrimonio viventibus” to connote or denote permission for the continuing use of marriage by married deacons, there is no indication in the records of the conciliar debates that the Fathers ever approved a noncontinent married diaconate. In fact, the evidence is all to the contrary effect. The reasons for the confusion at the Council over the meaning of diaconal celibacy are not apparent on the record.^xxxiv

Married bishops, priests, and deacons are no novelty in the Church, but the use of marriage by men in major orders is precisely the novelty which Stickler understood it to be; we have seen Stickler repeat this conviction, which the research of Cochini and Cholij has since corroborated.

Finally, the theological development of the doctrine of “Pastores Dabo Vobis” presented by Archbishop Stafford’s lecture provides further reason for agreeing with Cochini’s affirmation of the patristic origin of the Latin tradition of clerical celibacy; it does appear that the sacramental signs themselves of marriage and of orders intimate the impropriety of noncontinence in anyone who is “altari arctius coniungi,” as we have seen the diaconal office described by Paul VI in “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem.”

Vorgrimler has pointed to the large minority of bishops at the Council who voted to relieve even the unmarried deacon of any consequent obligation of celibacy. We can hardly suppose so large a number of the world’s Catholic bishops to be intent upon dismissing an apostolic doctrine, and yet the perduring tradition of clerical continence can have no other ground — but this is precisely what does not appear to have been suspected by that minority of Fathers who voted against diaconal celibacy at the Council. The minority of the Fathers — a sizable minority — quite clearly intended to dispense even the young unmarried deacons from both celibacy and from continence in marriage. The only alternative to this conclusion is that the minority read “celibacy” strictly, to mean unmarried simply, so that the dropping of the requirement of celibacy for unmarried deacons meant permission for them to marry after ordination coupled with the obligation to live continently thereafter — but for the reasons which have been set out, that alternative appears to be excluded: in brief, it is pointless.

When the majority reaffirmed the requirement of celibacy traditional for unmarried deacons, and at the same time approved the ordination of married men to the diaconate — thus approved the ordination to the permanent diaconate of men who were not celibate — they did not thereby license the use of marriage by such deacons; had they done so, there would have been no possible basis for their firm refusal to drop the requirement of celibacy for younger candidates for the diaconate.

In sum, there is every reason to insist that the sacrament of orders remains as it has been, and that the current practice — one cannot speak of its canonical institution — of a noncontinent diaconate is an aberration which will not attain a permanent standing in the Church.

Donald J. Keefe, S.J.

St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie

October, 1998

iEndnotes

¹Alfons Stickler, “La continenza dei diaconi specialmente nel primo millenio della chiesa,” Salesianum 26 (1964) 275-302; “Tratti salienti nella storia del celibato,” Sacra Doctrina 15 (1970) 585-620; “Il celibato ecclesiatico” in L’Osservatore della Domenica, supplements to nos. 103, 109, and 115 of L’Osservatore Romano for May 6, 13, 20, 1979; “L’évolution de la discipline du célibat dans l’Église en Occident de la fin de l’âge patristique au Concile de Trente,” in Sacerdoce et célibat.

iiArchbishop (now Cardinal) J. Francis Stafford, “The Eucharistic Foundation of Sacerdotal Celibacy,” Origins 23/12 (2 Sept., 1993) 211-216. The then-Archbishop Stafford delivered this address at a conference on the priesthood, held under the auspices of the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy on May 26-28, 1993, at the Gregorian University in Rome to mark the first anniversary of the papal encyclical, Pastores Dabo Vobis. His essay relies upon Christian Cochini, S.J. [1929-2017] Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal. Préface du Père A. Stickler; coll. Le Sycamore (Paris: Éditions Lethielleux; Namur: Culture et Vérité, 1981). Page references hereafter to Fr. Cochini’s chef d’oeuvre will be to its English translation, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. With a Preface by Father Alfons M. Stickler. Translated by Nelly Marans (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990) [henceforth, Apostolic Origins]. This latter edition is furnished with an index, unfortunately lacking in the original. See also Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy In East And West. Foreword by Alfons Cardinal Stickler, S.D.B., Librarian and Archivist of the Holy Roman Church; Preface by Michael Napier of the Oratory (Leominster, Herfordshire: Fowler Wright Books, 1989) [henceforth, Clerical Celibacy]. At the time of his writing, Fr. Cholij, a priest of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, was secretary to the bishop of the Ukrainian-rite Catholics of London. As Cardinal Stickler observes, Fr. Cholij’s book is a most valuable supplement to Fr. Cochini’s work, the more so in that although himself a member of a rite (Ukrainian) permitting the ordination of married men and their subsequent exercise of marital rights, Cholij agrees with Cochini that this concession rests upon a mistaken interpretation written by the Quinisext Council (In Trullo) into the Greek translation of the canons of the Council of Carthage.

Fr. Cochini’s book originated as a doctoral dissertation for the Institut Catholique (Paris), while Fr. Cholij’s study was written as a doctoral dissertation in canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome. Cochini’s dissertation, defended before a board headed by Jean Cardinal Daniélou, S.J., was at the latter’s urging, with the approval of Henri Cardinal de Lubac, and under Fr. Alfons Stickler’s guidance, later expanded into the present work. Its invaluable contribution to the theology of Orders seems to have been little regarded in this country, although since its appearance in English translation it is being widely read. Its distinguished author is now a missionary in Taiwan.

iii During the summer of 1998, American ordinaries received two documents, written in close association by, respectively, the Congregation for Education and the Congregation for the Clergy. The document from the Congregation for the Clergy was published in English as “Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons,” Origins 28/11 (Aug. 1998) 181-91. In it we read:

For married candidates, to live love [sic] means offering themselves to their spouses in a reciprocal belonging, in a total, faithful and indissoluble union in the likeness of Christ’s love for his church, at the same time it means welcoming children, loving them, educating them and showing forth to the whole church and society the communion of the family (§68, 188a; emphasis added.

An English translation of the document issued by the Congregation for Education was published in the same number of Origins as “Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons,” ibid., 191-204; it contains the following passage:

In particular, the widowed deacon should be supported in living perfect perpetual continence.¹⁹² He should be helped to understand the profound ecclesial reasons which preclude his remarriage (cf. I Tim 3:12), in accordance with the constant discipline of the church in the East and West.¹⁹³ (§62, at 200b; emphasis added).

¹⁹²Cf. Canon 277.1.

¹⁹³Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, III, 16; Ad Pascendum, VI; Canon 1087. Provision is made for possible exceptions to this discipline in the June 6, 1997, circular letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship; and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Prot. No. 26397, 8.

The circular letter referenced in the footnote quoted supra (¹⁹³) was published in English as “Deacons’ Remarriage: Laicizing Priests,” Origins 27/11 (Aug. 28, 1997), 169, 171-72, wherein we read:

1. The competence¹ to treat of cases of dispensation from the obligations of sacred ordination and of vows in the above mentioned institutes, such dispensation being inseparably connected with dismissal from the clerical state, lies with this congregation. (at 169b; emphasis added)

¹Cf. Secretary of State, Letter 230.139 (Feb. 8, 1989).

On the next page of the English tr. of the circular letter the following language appears:

6. As a consequence of the new disposition concerning the permanent diaconate and of the norms issued by the Holy See⁵ and by numerous episcopates regarding formation, lifestyle and ministerial activities entrusted to deacons, a difficulty that arises from the impediment preventing “married permanent deacons, widowed after ordination” from contracting a further marriage [sic]. Such a second marriage after ordination could in fact be attempted only under the pain of canonical nullity.⁶ (at 171a-b)

⁵Cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 29; Paul VI, apostolic letter Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem (June 18, 1967): A.A.S. 59 (1967), pp. 697-704; apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani Recognitio (June 18, 1968): A.A.S. 60 (1968), pp. 369-373; apostolic letter Ad Pascendum (Aug. 15, 1972): A.A.S. 64 (1972), pp. 534-550; Code of Canon Law, Canons 236, 276.2 and .3; 1035.1; 1037; 1042.,1; 1053.3; John Paul II, “Catechesis” from the Oct. 13, 1993, general audience address: Insegnamenti XVI, 2 (1993), pp. 1000-1004; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1554.

⁶Ad Pascendum, VI, and Canon 1087 in connection with Canon 1078.2.1.

7. For some time it has been evident that because of this prohibition grave difficulties have arisen for those who have been widowed after ordination but are desirous of remaining in the diaconal ministry.

8. With a view to establishing a new practice modifying the current norm, which requires three cumulative and simultaneous conditions which would constitute motivating exceptions for the granting of a dispensation from the prohibition of Canon 1087, this dicastery has requested and has obtained from the Holy Father that any one of the three following conditions taken singly are [sic] sufficient for a favorable consideration of the dispensation from this impediment, namely:

—The great and proven usefulness of the ministry of the deacon to the diocese to which he belongs.

—That he has children of such a tender age as to be in need of motherly care.

—That he has parents or parents-in-law who are elderly and in need of care (§8, at 171b).

And finally, at the end of the circular letter:

9. The Cardinal Secretary of State, in a letter (No. 4092.629) of Feb. 27, 1997, has communicated the approval given by the Holy Father on Feb. 10, 1997, to these above-mentioned new criteria regarding the dispensation from celibacy for priests under the age of 40; and in a letter of March 22, 1997 (No. 4092.629) [sic], permission was given for the new conditions under which dispensation may be granted from the impediment to a second marriage on the part of the permanent deacons who have been widowed after ordination. It was further established that this circular letter be sent to diocesan and religious ordinaries informing them of these new measures for future reference.

10. Diocesan and religious ordinaries are therefore kindly requested to give due attention to these instructions should they have occasion to forward petitions for dispensation to this congregation.

Vatican City, June 6, 1997

Archbishop Jorge Medina Estevez, Pro-Prefect

Archbishop Geraldo M. Agnelo, Secretary

The first passage quoted, (§68) excerpted from the document published by the Congregation for the Clergy, clearly knows nothing of, or ignores, the traditional requirement that married men in major orders be continent in their marriage after ordination: the propriety of sexual relations between married deacons and their wives is even insisted upon. As will be shown, the liceity of this departure from tradition was never discussed during the Council by any of the bishops concerned for the married diaconate. Further: it is evident that with their promulgation by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the new norms annul the diriment impediment to marriage constituted by prior ordination to major Orders. The “diriment” character of that impediment has been summarily negated; the impediment of Orders has been treated as though it were of merely canonical provenance and standing, and its dispensability thereby taken for granted. The “great and proven usefulness of the ministry of the deacon, etc.,” now trumps “the constant discipline of the church in the East and West” which has required that “such dispensation (be) inseparably connected with dismissal from the clerical state” — this inseparable connection of its dispensation with dismissal from the clerical state is that which makes the impediment of Orders to be a diriment impediment. The constant tradition of the Church, East and West, has been denied doctrinal significance, and this without any discussion of the subject by the bishops at Vatican II or elsewhere, and in the entire absence of any competent theological inquiry into the matter other than that provided by Stickler, Cochini and Cholij, whose unanimity contradicts the assumptions of both Congregations and of the Secretary of State.

It is to be noted that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, while asserting that “this dicastery has requested and obtained from the Holy Father that any one of the three following conditions taken singly are sufficient for a favorable consideration of the dispensation from this impediment, etc.,” relies for this assertion of papal permission upon a document which on this point is at best ambiguous, for we have read in the circular letter that:

in a letter of March 22, 1997 (no. 402.629) permission was given for the new conditions under which dispensation may be granted from the impediment to a second marriage on the part of permanent deacons who have been widowed after ordination.

In the first place, the protocol number assigned this letter of March 22^nd is the same as given the letter received the previous February 27^th concerning the dispensation of laicized priests: both numbers may be in error, and one of them must be. However that may be, in the footnote citing both of these letters from the Secretary of State we have read that:

The Cardinal Secretary of State, in a letter (No. 4092.629) of Feb. 27^th, 1997, has communicated the approval given by the Holy Father on Feb. 10, 1997, to these above-mentioned new criteria regarding the dispensation from celibacy for priests under the age of 40; and in a letter of March 22^nd, 1997 (No. 4092.629) [sic], permission was given for the new conditions under which dispensation may be granted from the impediment to a second marriage on the part of the permanent deacons who have been widowed after ordination.

Here the Congregation clearly asserts, in the active voice, that the Cardinal Secretary of State has communicated to the Congregation for Divine Worship a papal permission to dispense, under certain circumstances, laicized priests under the age of forty from their canonical incapacity to marry. In this direct statement there is nothing startling, for while the laicization of a priest does not imply such dispensation, and while its discretional grant by the Pope to priests who have been thus dismissed from the clerical state may be more or less rare, such a dispensation presents no novelty. However, in the Congregation’s circular letter we find incongruously associated with this dispensation granted to laicized priests, another and entirely different situation. For it is to be noted that the description in the Congregation’s ‘circular letter,” of the Secretary of State’s letter of March 22^nd, couched in the passive voice, makes no mention of any papal approval of the dispensation which may be granted by the Secretary of State to widowed deacons from the canon law and the ancient tradition which have barred their remarriage. Rather, in that same passive voice, we read that, in the March 22^nd letter, “permission was given” to the Congreation for Divine worship to grant such dispensations: it does not say by whom permission was given.

Where, as here in the case of widowed deacons, a papal permission to dispense from a diriment impediment is not clearly asserted, as it was in the circular letter’s immediately prior discussion of the dispensation of laicized priests, that permission cannot be presumed, as the circular letter presumes it.

In the absence of a clearly and responsibly affirmed papal permission, who has the canonical authority to grant such a dispensation from a traditionally diriment impediment? Within the ambiguous context of the Congregation’s ‘circular letter,’ which touches its jurisdiction, the question does not arise. Viz., we read:

1. The competence¹ to treat of cases of dispensation from the obligations of sacred ordination and of vows in the above mentioned institutes, such dispensation being inseparably connected with dismissal from the clerical state, lies with this congregation. (at 169b; emphasis added)

¹Cf. Secretary of State, Letter 230.139 (Feb. 8, 1989).

The second clause of the quoted sentence is clearly a continuing limitation placed upon the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship. The limitation is stated in the present tense, as a fact in being at the time of the writing of the letter. And in fact, nothing in the following paragraphs of the letter recite any expansion of this jurisdiction by the Pope, who alone can dispense from diriment impediments. There is only the general statement by the Congregation in paragraph 8, which we have read supra, stating that:

8. With a view to establishing a new practice modifying the current norm, which requires three cumulative and simultaneous conditions which would constitute motivating exceptions for the granting of a dispensation from the prohibition of Canon 1087, this dicastery has requested and has obtained from the Holy Father that any one of the three following conditions taken singly are [sic] sufficient for a favorable consideration of the dispensation from this impediment, namely:

—The great and proven usefulness of the ministry of the deacon to the diocese to which he belongs.

—That he has children of such a tender age as to be in need of motherly care.

—That he has parents or parents-in-law who are elderly and in need of care (at 171b).

This is curious: the “motivating exceptions” apply to all dispensations from “the prohibition of Canon 1087”, which applies to everyone in major orders, not merely to deacons: it reads:

Can. 1087 – Invalide matrimonium attentant qui in sacris ordinis sunt constituti.

Yet we have seen that the circular letter’s application of these exceptions to the dispensation of priests from “the prohibition of Canon 1087” requires their prior laicization, in such wise that these exceptions can have no bearing on their case. Viz.: the first condition expressly concerns deacons who will remain in the exercise of their orders, while the second and third “conditions” for granting dispensations from Canon 1087 likewise can have no application to the previously unmarried and now laicized priest, unless it contemplates condoning the contumacious attempted marriage of the previously laicized priest under the age of forty who, unable for some reason to meet his responsibilities for his young children, or parents, or parents in-law, now seeks a dispensation from Canon 1087, which condonation can hardly be presumed. Nonetheless, we have seen that the next paragraph of the circular letter expressly applies these new conditions to priests:

9. The Cardinal Secretary of State, in a letter (No. 4092.629) of Feb. 27, 1997, has communicated the approval given by the Holy Father on Feb. 10, 1997, to these above-mentioned new criteria regarding the dispensation from celibacy for priests under the age of 40; and in a letter of March 22, 1997 (No. 402.629) [sic], permission was given for the new conditions under which dispensation may be granted from the impediment to a second marriage on the part of the permanent deacons who have been widowed after ordination.

The clarification of this confusion must be left to canonists: it defeats common sense.

The puzzlement over the reality of an intimated papal approval of the new conditions which would permit the novel remarriage of widowed men in major orders without their prior laicization, which in fact underwrites the encouragement given them by the Congregation for Education and the Congregation for the Clergy to live in marital relations with their wives, might easily be resolved, were the subject letter of March 22^nd letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Congregation for Divine Worship available for public or even episcopal inspection. However, such correspondence is not available in any published collection insofar as a reasonably diligent search can discover. Thus, even were its protocol number accurately cited in the English tr. of the circular letter in Origins, it would be without value to anyone seeking that information.

One cannot but wonder why these two letters from the Secretary of State, disparate in time as well as in subject matter, were so closely associated by the circular letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship. They were dealt with separately by the Secretary of State, and no reason appears for their being lumped together four or five months later by the Congregation for Divine Worship: we have seen the muddle which this close association has permitted and perhaps forced. Further, such a clear departure, in the case of the widowed permanent deacon, from an ecclesial tradition whose authority is nonetheless cited in the first section of that circular letter, needs some rather more solemn form of communication than can be provided by a circular letter.

In this connection, it should not pass without remark that the title given this circular letter by the editor of Origins simply reverses the letter’s order of treatment of its subject matter, which deals first with the dispensation of laicized clergy, and only then with the dispensation of widowed permanent deacons. This was hardly inadvertent: the editor recognized the relative unimportance of the former subject, and the high significance of the latter, and thus testifies further to the incongruity of their being bundled together in the circular letter.

Not only is the situation anomalous which results from the novel dispensation granted widowed permanent deacons from what has been the diriment impediment of Orders to marriage: it clearly invites a comparable nullification of the celibacy and continence required of the priesthood by a comparably ancient ecclesial tradition, and by the canon law. This outcome might be thought acceptable on the ground that several Eastern Churches in union with Rome nonetheless permit the marriage of their priests prior to ordination. They do not of course permit the re-marriage of their priests after ordination without having first dismissed them from the clerical state. The Eastern practice since Trullo provides no grounds for the re-marriage of widowed permanent deacons.

Once the widowed deacon’s re-marriage is admitted as consistent with his continuing in the exercise of his orders — i.e., with remaining in his clerical state — not only is there undercut the continent fidelity traditionally essential to the spirituality of Orders; there is also invoked by this anomaly a Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist.

Given that the permanent deacon is in major Orders, and thereby arctius altari conjungi, his capacity to remarry while in the exercise of his Order implies either that the diaconal Order is no longer arctius altari conjungi, or that the Eucharist is no longer the offering of the One Sacrifice of the Second Adam for the Second Eve. For by this remarriage of widowed deacons the nuptial symbolism of the sacrament of Orders has been dismissed without any discussion of that symbolism, or even any exhibition of interest in it, and this on the level of universally-distributed proclamations by two of the Vatican dicasteries.

The anomaly of diaconal remarriage may continue to be ignored, as it has been by documents issuing from three Vatican dicasteries and the from Vatican Secretary of State: it does not thereby cease to insert confusion into the sacrament of Orders, a confusion which touches the Church’s worship in truth. Catholic sacramental worship is utterly dependent upon the truth, the authenticity of its sacramental signs, whose institution is of God, not man, but whose safeguard must be the Magisterium.

iv⁴Actus Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Vol. III, periodus tertia, Pars I, Sessio Publica IV. Congregationis Generalis LXXX-LXXXII (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1973) [hereafter, Actus Synodalia], 259-69, esp. 266ff.

vA.A.S. 57 [1965] 36.

viCodex Juris Canonici, C. 277 distinguishes clearly between celibacy and continence:

§1. Clerici obligatione tenentur servandi perfectam perpetuamque propter Regnum coelorum continentiam, ideoque ad caelibatem adstringuntur, quod est peculiare Dei donum, quo quidem sacri ministri indiviso corde Christo facilius adhaerere possunt atque Dei hominumque servitio liberius sese dedicare valent.

§2. Debita cum prudentia clerici se gerant cum personis, quarum frequentatio ipsorum obligationem ad continentiam servandam in discrimen vocare aut in fidelium scandalum vertere possit.

The distinction between continence and celibacy is again recognized in C. 599:

Evangelicum castitatis consilium propter Regnum coelorum assumptum, quod signum est mundi futuri et fons uberioris fecunditatis in indiviso corde, obligationem secumfert continentiae perfectae in caelibatu.

The most recent examination of the historical articulation of this apostolic tradition, with an overview and criticism of previous studies of clerical celibacy, is provided by Christian Cochini’s study, cited in note 2, supra. In the foreword of Roman Cholij’s comparable work, Clerical Celibacy In East And West, also cited in note 2, supra, Cardinal Stickler has written that:

These two studies surpass, therefore, all the preceding ones which are often one-sided and even historically wrong, and will constitute in the future the new, scientifically certain basis for every safe statement in this delicate field with all its different and even opposed subjective meanings and objective difficulties.

viiVatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, [henceforth, Documents] at 387.

viiiThe official summaries of the Conciliar discussion of diaconal celibacy may be found in Francisco Hellín, Concilii Vaticani II Synopsis in ordinem redigens schemata cum relationibus necnon Patrum orationes atque animadversiones 2. Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia Lumen Gentium; ser. Studi sul Concilio Vaticano II (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1995), 310-315; see also “Relationes circa Caput III”, 2066-2067; 2077-2080.

ixThis may be found in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II [henceforth, Commentary] at 22-30.

x“Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” §16 (A.A.S. 59 [1967] 697-704) at 701.

xiStickler has drawn attention to the more inclusive understanding of celibacy in the early Church; see note 1, supra, and Cochini, Apostolic Origins, at 43.

xii“Ad pascendum,” A.A.S. 64 (1972) 534-540; tr. Documents, at 439:

6. The special consecration of celibacy observed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and its obligation for candidates to the priesthood and for unmarried candidates for the diaconate are indeed linked with the diaconate. The public commitment to holy celibacy before God and the Church is to be celebrated in a particular rite, even by religious, and is to precede ordination to the diaconate. Celibacy taken on in this way is a diriment impediment to entering marriage.

In accordance with the traditional discipline of the Church, a married deacon who has lost his wife cannot enter a new marriage.²⁶

²⁶Apostolic Letter Sacram Diaconatus Ordinem, n. 16: A.A.S. 59 (1967), p. 701.

xiiiArchbishop Stafford developed this point in the lecture cited in note 2, supra.

xivThe review article, “The Apostolic Origins of Clerical Continence: A Critical Appraisal of a New Book,” Theological Studies 41 (1982) 693-705, which Fr. Roger Balducelli, O.S.F.S., directed to the French original of Cochini’s study, applies an Enlightenment notion of historicity to Cochini’s conclusion of the apostolic origins of clerical celibacy, and on that rather fragile if commonplace foundation dismisses Cochini’s findings. This is to proceed rather by an ideologically-driven fiat than by a serious examination of Cochini’s argument. The Enlightenment’s rationalization of history is really not the last word on the subject.

xvI am indebted to a conversation with Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D., Diocesan Director for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of San Diego, for a clarifying insight into the failure of the conciliar Fathers to distinguish between celibacy and continence during their discussion of the renewal of the permanent diaconate. Their inadvertent melding of celibacy with continence may well underlie the post-conciliar divagation from the ancient apostolic tradition of diaconal continence.

xviMichael Novak, The Open Church: Vatican II, Act II (New York: Macmillan, 1962, 1963, 1964), 121-27; see also Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber: The Unknown Council (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1967), 96-100.

xviiGérard Philips, “History of the Constitution,” Commentary, 105-137.

xviiiSee note 33, infra.

xixThe point is developed in Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter’s “Do This in Memory of Me”: A Pastoral Letter on the Sacrament of Priestly Orders (Toronto: The Mission Press, 8 December, 1983); see also the comparable pastoral letter of Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, “In the Person of Christ, The Head of the Body: The Mystery of the Priestly Vocation,” Origins 18 (1988) 349-360, together with the address cited in note 2, supra.

xxAt bottom, as Cardinal Stafford has pointed out, this is the relation between the ex opere operato effect of the sacrament (the res et sacramentum) — which is the diaconal, priestly or episcopal character in the ordained, and is the matrimonial vinculum in the married — to the ex opere operantis effect, (the res sacramenti) of the sacramental sign — which in the ordained is celibacy, in the married is fidelity, and in each is the free fulfillment, the spirituality, of the respective sacramental sign — whether of Orders or of Matrimony.

xxiCf. note 1, supra.

xxii“Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,” A.A.S. 59 [1967] 697-704, at 698.

xxiiiA.A.S. 59 (1967) 697-704.

xxivA.A.S. 60 (1968) 369-373.

xxvA.A.S. 64 (1972) 534-540; (Documents, 433-441).

xxviA.A.S. 59 (1967) 657, 697; §§ 13 and 42.

xxviiSee note 4, supra.

xxviiiCochini, op. cit., 236 (quoting Ambrose, De officiis III (PL 104b-5a), 247-48, and citing Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, the so-called Canons of Hippolytus, Epiphanius of Constantia, and Jerome; et passim.

xxixHenri Fesquet, The Drama of Vatican II: The Ecumenical Council, June 1962 – December, 1965; tr. Bernard Murchland; American Intro. by Michael Novak (New York: Random House, 1967).

xxxHenri Crouzel, “Une nouvelle étude sur les origines du célibat ecclésiastique,” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 73 (1982) 293-97. Cochini’s and Cholij’s works are cited in note 2, supra, et passim.

xxxiA.A.S. 64 (15 August, 1972) 529-534; Documents 427-32.

xxxiiSee note 22, supra.

xxxiiiDocuments, 423.

xxxivThe reasons given by the bishops and their theologians at the Council for their advocacy of a noncelibate permanent diaconate sometimes simply assumed without discussion that diaconal celibacy is without intrinsic relation to the diaconate. This view appears in a highly pertinent document provided me by Fr. William J. O’Rourke, S.T.D., pastor of St. Steven’s Church, Quinebaugh, CT. Entitled “Formal Request to Restore the Diaconate as a Permanent Order Presented to the Fathers of Vatican Council II in 1962 by the Original Deacon Circle, Munich, West Germany,” it has more recently been translated and published by Patrick McCaslin and Michael Lawler as Appendix 2 of Sacrament of Service (Mahway, NY: Paulist Press, 1986). Its signatories stressed that

The diaconate, to which, according to St. Paul (cf. I Tim 3:12) the earliest Church councils and the custom of the Eastern Churches up to the present day, married men are admitted, had in the early Church its own specific nature: the basic fundamental was always the liturgical office, while the exercise of the other essential offices, namely the works of charity and the ministry of the word, varied in importance according to the needs of particular places and times. (at 146)

Further on, to the same effect:

The tasks of the restored diaconate would all have their source and center in the intimate connection of the deacon’s office with the Holy Eucharist. (at 146)

But the signatories and their theological advisor[s] evidently had no intimation of any causal link between that “intimate connection” and the tradition of diaconal celibacy, for they continue:

What of the question of celibacy? The celibacy of the priest plays an impressive part in witnessing to the reality of supernatural goods, especially in our day, when so much emphasis is placed on the goods of this world. This celibacy would also apply to deacons under the new plan, when they were members of religious orders. On the other hand, the Church is also stressing more and more today the witnessing power of the sacrament of matrimony as a sign of Christ’s union with his Church and as a means of sanctification in the world. As the diaconate of its nature does not require celibacy, it seems that there are rich potentialities for holiness in the married life for those who would also belong to the hierarchy of the Church as deacons. (at 148-49)

Obviously, this highly pragmatic rationale for a married diaconate can apply to the priesthood as well as to the diaconate. Further, we see here the confusion of noncelibacy with noncontinence in the allusion to the “rich potentialities for holiness in the married life.” It would strain the intention of the authors considerably to read into such language that transcendence of matrimony by major orders and the consequent obligation of the ordained to live in continence, which the apostolic and patristic tradition affirms.

The pragmatic mentality we have noted in the “Original Deacon Circle” surfaces again in the near-ultimatum presented the conciliar Fathers by Bishop McHugh of Panama: “Aut diaconatus instauretur uxoratus, aut non instauretur.” For Bishop McHugh, as for most of the bishops favoring the married diaconate, the justification for its renewal was pastoral and practical. The married diaconate was perceived as a means of bringing a more or less influential class of laity into closer association with the mission of the Church. Even Cardinal Spellman, although he had opposed the restoration of the permanent diaconate, had also treated the question of its restoration pragmatically, as a merely disciplinary matter, and Cardinal Döpfner of Munich, who rejected Cardinal Spellman’s objections to the restoration, evinced no interest in exploring the doctrinal content of the traditional requirement of celibacy in the diaconate, although he defended the sacramentality of the diaconate as a matter of doctrine.

Cardinal Döpfner was a major spokesman for the restoration of the permanent married diaconate; his argument, here as elsewhere, was clearly reliant upon the views of his famous peritus, Karl Rahner, whose viewpoint on the question is set out in “The Theology of the Restoration of the Diaconate,” Theological Investigations V, 269-314 (a translation of his contribution, “Die Theologie der Eneuerung des Diakonates,” to a massive collection of articles which he co-edited with Herbert Vorgrimler, Diaconia in Christo; ser. Quaestiones Disputatae 15/16 (Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau, 1962); see pp. 285-324). In this essay, Rahner displays a highly nominalist theology of diaconal ordination and diaconal orders. We find him simply reversing the order of sacramental causality, reasoning as though the sacramental sign were indefinitely plastic, continually informed by concrete facticity of the empirical situation, and not by the liturgical intentionality intrinsic to every sacramental sign and therefore intrinsic to the sacramental character received at ordination, the res et sacramentum which is the effect ex opere operato of the outpouring of the Spirit on the Church by the risen Christ.

E.g., we are told that

If one bears the distinction of office and of the rite of the transmission of office clearly in mind — and if one is quite clear in one’s mind about the fact that in the very nature of things a rite of the transmission of office can “demand” celibacy only if the office to be transmitted demands it — then it will be easy to answer the question with which we are now concerned. For the Church shows by her practice that she does not see any very close and necessary connection between the office of deacon and celibacy. For this office exists and is transmitted in the Church without celibacy being demanded. For, those men and office-bearers in the Church in whose case the desirability of a sacramental transmission of office is indicated here are de facto for the most part married men, and neither the official Church nor people in the Church have ever maintained or felt any incompatibility or inconvenience in the co-existence of this office in recent centuries or at the present time.

Throughout this widely-published article, Rahner expressly presupposes that the service rendered by the participation of married laymen in the Church’s mission is the concrete exercise of a factual if anonymous diaconate which, as anonymous, can only have arisen and been transmitted nonsacramentally: we have seen him speak nonchalantly of deacons as

those men and office-bearers in the Church in whose case the desirability of a sacramental transmission of office is indicated here. (emphasis added)

For Rahner, clearly enough, the meaning of the diaconal office is controlled by the pragmatics of its quite anonymous exercise. This entirely gratuitous presupposition controls his analysis. In view of the presupposed “de facto” situation, ordination to the diaconate, as he argues, must now conform to what that “diaconate” already is, by virtue of its supposedly de facto ongoing transmission and exercise by married laymen. Every significant question is begged.

Rahner’s reasoning discounts a priori the sacramental efficacy ex opere operato of ordination to the diaconate, and reduces the Church’s liturgical worship to that level of historical anonymity which will support the article’s major premise of an anonymously transmitted diaconate already in existence as a matter of hard fact: i.e., pragmatically. There is no reason for limiting his rational to the diaconate.

Consequently, for Rahner, the sacramental sign of diaconal orders is intrinsically empty, devoid of any intrinsic intelligibility and so without any intrinsic sacramental efficacy, for that intelligibility, and therefore that efficacy, according to Rahner’s postulate, have already been supplied ab extra, pragmatically and “anonymously” by the de facto historical situation.

To accept this rationale is to accept ordination sola fide; the diaconal Order can have nothing to do with the sacramental realism which specifies Catholicism, nor can any of those office-bearers in the Church in whose case the “desirability of a sacramental transmission of office is indicated”.

We need not here repeat nor enlarge upon the sharp criticism already made of Rahner’s sacramental theology: for a celebrated instance of that criticism, see William A. Van Roo, S.J., “Reflections on Karl Rahner’s “Kirche und Sakramente”,” Gregorianum 44 (1963) 465-500. The same sacramental nominalism as Rahner then endorsed now serves such organizations as CORPUS with respect to their dismissal of any need for priestly celibacy, and such organizations as the Women’s Ordination Conference with respect to their dismissal of any need for priestly masculinity, or indeed for the priesthood as defined by the Council of Trent.

Summarily, those theologians and bishops favoring the restoration of the permanent diaconate as noncelibate generally understood celibacy to be a merely disciplinary usage, advantageous under past circumstances but without intrinsic significance for the diaconate, and a matter therefore dispensable for practical purposes. The dropping of this supposedly extrinsic disciplinary requirement was dealt with by them simply as the quite acceptable and necessary price to be paid for supposedly pastoral ends — which were recited at length by some dozen contributors to the last section of the Diaconia in Christo. It is fairly evident that when celibacy is understood to be merely a disciplinary matter, its waiver is eo ipso the waiver of continence in the married deacon: any other view must derive from something more than an extrinsic disciplinary usage.

The conciliar Fathers’ unconcern for the doctrinal weight of the ancient tradition of diaconal celibacy, and for any doctrinal import which the restoration of the permanent diaconate as noncontinent might have, was not uncommon. While those favoring the restoration often stressed also the doctrinal character of the close association of the diaconate with the priesthood and the episcopacy, this association contributed little to the discussion. The novel association of the restored diaconate with marriage and the exercise of marital intercourse by married deacons was much more in view, however uncritically, as the language, already cited, of the “Formal Request” of the Original Deacon Circle reveals:

the Church is also stressing more and more today the witnessing power of the sacrament of matrimony as a sign of Christ’s union with his Church and as a means of sanctification in the world.

From the perspective afforded by the passage of more than thirty years, it may be said that the hopes placed in such a “diaconate” as Rahner, the authors contributing to the final section of Diaconia in Christo, and “The Original Deacon Circle” envisaged, have not been fulfilled, whether in the First World or in the Third. An anonymous diaconate is finally imperceptible, which is to say, fictive. An anonymous diaconate cannot but vanish from history, for it has no sacramental objectivity, no character given ex opere operato by the efficacious sacramental sign that is ordination to the diaconal service of the altar, and can only be imperceptible to, and thus without impact upon, the secularity of the world. If the restoration of the permanent diaconate is to be efficacious in those dioceses which elect it, such restoration can be realized only by a return to the Catholic tradition, and to a fuller appreciation of the sacramental, liturgical, and apostolic specificity of the diaconate than was in evidence among those discussing its renewal at Vatican II, or has been in evidence since.

Joyce A. Little – dissertation 1984

Joyce A. Little   click there

Alcuin Reid on Klaus Gamber

Friday, March 23, 2007

A Review of Msgr. Gamber’s Classic Study by Dr. Alcuin Reid

Shawn Tribe

Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, Roman Catholic Books 2006, 224pp pb. $24.95

Reviewed by Dr. Alcuin Reid

The news that Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background has been brought back into print by Roman Catholic Books is very good news indeed, for it is a seminal work which has done much to expose the extent of discontinuity in the post-conciliar reform. It stands alongside Archbishop Bugnini’s own book, The Reform of the Liturgy, as essential reading – though Gamber is certainly the more accessible of the two.

Gamber’s book is in fact two books. The first examines the overall work of the changes made to the liturgy in the 1960’s. He sees the question of whether or not the changes were an organic development as crucial. His conclusions speak for themselves: “Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful” (p. 100). Gamber is clear and unequivocal: a large mistake has been made with regard to the liturgy, unprecedented in the Church’s history.

However, it would be wrong to align Gamber with traditionalists who draw a line at 1962, 1955, or even earlier, beyond which all change is anathema. Gamber is a critical liturgical historian, as shown by his precise and detailed discussion of the question of which way the liturgy should be celebrated, which comprises the second book in this volume. (A more recent and comprehensive treatment of facing east, including a critical evaluation of Gamber’s contribution, is to be found in Fr U.M. Lang’s Turning Towards the Lord.)

Gamber’s concerns are historical, doctrinal and pastoral. He readily accepts the appropriateness of vernacular readings, and even of the pruning of some of the later accretions to the Traditional Roman Rite (Psalm 42 from the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Offertory prayers, the last Gospel). These prudential decisions can be argued about, as they were at Trent. But he staunchly defends traditions integral to the Roman Rite throughout its history, e.g., facing eastwards and the Roman Canon, and deprecates “the cold breath of realism [that] now pervades our worship” (p.13).

Gamber speaks frankly of the destruction of the Roman Rite after the Council, the last example of which can be found in the Ordo Missae promulgated in 1965 as the reform called for by the Council. Significantly, Archbishop Bugnini dismissed this 1965 reform as insufficient because its alterations were merely “peripheral”, insisting that “radical” changes were what was needed.

It is Gamber’s brave but loyal ‘critical traditionalism’ that gives such importance to his writing. His theses are well documented, and his research is impressive. One hopes more of his writings will be made available in translation.

After reading Gamber (and also Bugnini) it is difficult if not impossible to maintain an uncritical acceptance of the new liturgy, even when it is celebrated devoutly and with the right intention. When we recall the doctrinal importance of the liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi), we realise that the question of how we worship is central to our faith. What then is to be done?

“What we need today … [are] bishops like those who in the fourth century courageously fought against Arianism when almost the whole of Christendom had succumbed to the heresy. We need saints today who can unite those whose faith has remained firm so that we might fight error and rouse the weak and vacillating from their apathy,” writes Gamber (p.113). At tall order, certainly, but not beyond the possibilities of Divine Providence.

---

Posted Friday, March 23, 2007   

quotation of the day

THE RHINE FLOWS INTO THE TIBER,

BUT THE TIBER IS PROTECTED BY AFRICANS.

-bvh

Ronstermonster long ago

2008

The Bees are Busy

St. Mary

Reflections on the Functional Priesthood

Donald J. Keefe SJ

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yYJAmJJiZVlNvZ3W1B5JshOcQu3JbMoG/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=109153762732312684566&rtpof=true&sd=true

Exploring the World’s Foundation in Christ: An Introduction to the Writings and Thought of Donald J. Keefe, S.J.: Kevin A. McMahon (Editor):

https://www.christianbook.com/exploring-foundation-introduction-writings-thought-donald/9781621646433/pd/64643X

Peter asleep

Peter asleep

https://frvanhove.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/wp-1713366819388282350422474556056.jpg

Thanks to Father Edd for the St. Ignatius Hall pictures

https://frvanhove.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/wp-17131929129777757718538363892857.jpg

Our backyard in April

https://frvanhove.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/wp-17131928645399145552482044878088.jpg

Lutheran Pastor finds Fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church

https://wp.me/p80W36-1L

Daniel Tews