Lately, I have been seeing a trend in Catholic discourse. Maybe it’s just me, but I really do think certain people are heeing and hawing back their way to the pre-Vatican II Church. First, of course, there is the whole Latin Mass movement. Interesting, but barely a blip on the radar screen in the real world. Then, there was Tuesday’s post about a bishop in Kazakhstan (who do you have to piss off to get stationed in Kazakhstan?) calling for a new Syllabus of Errors. Then it was some convert professor bemoaning the death of a homogenous Catholic philosophy, as they had before the Council. And finally, and most bizarrely of all, some right wing canonist is saying that permanent deacons on the books are supposed to be celibate, as are all of the other married men ordained to orders without having to put away their wives.
Now, as usual, I am not interested in the particulars of their arguments, but I am interested in why all of this is happening now (if it can be called a trend, which I am willing to concede that it isn’t). Perhaps the most surprising is the last argument about permanent deacons and celibacy. From what I have read of this argument, legalism trumps common sense. As a refresher, the restoration of the diaconate to married men is found in Lumen Gentium, though no explicit directive concerning celibacy is given. Now, I don’t like the permanent diaconate. Even though they do things like baptize babies when the priest is too lazy… I mean, too busy… to baptize them, marry couples, etc., mostly one encounters them at least around here as a bunch of retired guys who try to tie in stories of their fishing trips into the sermon. That being said, such a maneuveur as saying that they can no longer have sex with their wives would pretty much read the restoration of the permanent diaconate out of existence. Otherwise, the permanent diaconate would be for those who are just not that into their wives (they are mostly older men, but…), or are too stupid to be ordained priests. As I said, in this case legalism is trumping common sense for this busybody canonist. Is that not the definition of fundamentalism?
I don’t think that this will influence the bishops at all (the Internet is full of self-important people shouting into their ready-made echo chamber). But these days, who knows?
As for the Catholic philosophy question, I liked this retort in the article linked to above:
At the same time, I tend to worry that those who wax nostalgic for pre-Vatican II theology are nostalgic for something they/we didn’t know. I have heard enough stories about what going through the theologates in that era was like. So I was tempted to send Prof. Hutter a copy of Denzinger, in case he doesn’t have one. Now that’s old school. I actually kind of like Denzinger–and I can work with it just fine. Not, however, because I’ve been trained in theology post-Vatican II, even at Yale. Because I’ve been trained in law, post-Vatican II, even at Yale. And I certainly wouldn’t want all Denzinger, all the time. I can’t believe Prof. Hutter would, either. So what does he want?
I’m old school, too, but I still have to say to those afflicted with nostalgia: careful what you wish for.