On Whether to Move Forward

Because it is snowing still in West Michigan and the icy streets have me trapped inside for the second day in a row I am going to break from the typically “detached” nature of this web-log for a bit. The good news is that this will provide a break for those of you who are tired of what seems like an endless series of posts on the Christian East. The bad news is that I am still neglecting the other topics that seem to draw the most readers here, namely Catholic Social Teaching (CST), traditional Catholicism, and liturgy. What can I say? Sometimes I bore even myself with the subjects that matter to me most.

Married Eastern Clergy, Traditionalist Panic?

The traditional Catholic web-log Eponymous Flower has a post up stating “Pope Francis Allows Uniate Churches Worldwide the Ordination of Married Men.” The piece is actually a (somewhat poor) translation of an Italian article. It’s tone is needlessly panicked, and I must confess I have some concern that the traditional Catholic community, without due reflection, may go into an uproar. That would be unfortunate, not only because it would demonstrate a lack of respect for the Eastern churches in communion with Rome, but also because this move is unlikely to change the status quo. While their numbers are not large, there have been married Eastern clergy in the West for some time now. There is no evidence whatsoever that their presence has adversely affected the Roman Catholic priesthood or undermined the longstanding Latin practice of clerical celibacy. Moreover, given their minority presence in the West, it is unlikely — and almost inconceivable — that this decision will lead to a wave of seminarians transferring from the Roman Church to, say, the Ukrainian Church. That process is far from easy, and I would hope the proper authorities would put their foot down if the sole purpose of a rite transfer is to receive ordination while being married.

Now, whether or not this new broad permission benefits the Eastern Catholic churches remains to be seen. I, for one, hope that it does. Too long the Eastern churches in the West have had to live a hyper-ghetto existence while being largely restrained from growing their flocks. If this new move by the Pope, which is consistent with the articles of the Union of Brest and every other unification accord ever struck with Eastern Christian communities, yields more Eastern clergy to minister to the Catholic faithful of all rites, then praise be to God. Traditional Catholics should rejoice in the strengthening and expansion of the Eastern Catholic churches, not use their differences from Latin praxis as a cause for chauvinism and scandal.

The New Yorker Goes Theocrat

Never in my life did I think I would read this in The New Yorker:

It’s a shame that there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States that would permit Pope Francis to serve as the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Or, for that matter, that there’s no way for him to lead the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Weekly Reading Postscript – November 14, 2014

I lied. In addition to the pieces on natura pura and textualism that I recommended in the previous post, I should stress — with a capital — the importance of reading Joseph Pearce’s two recent pieces at The Imaginative Conservative: “Distributism in the Shire: The Political Kinship of Tolkien and Belloc” and “Tolkien and Belloc vs. Richards and Witt.” Pearce, who is well known for his books on Tolkien, Belloc, Chesterton, and Solzhenitsyn, takes issue with Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt’s questionable new book, The Hobbit Party. Both men are unabashed economic liberals aligned with the Acton Institute, and so it comes as no surprise that they have no shame hijacking Tolkien and his seminal creation to provide apologetic heft for their brand of free-market capitalism and limited government. Pearce, rightly, cries, “Foul!” From the second of Pearce’s articles:

In an effort to end on the cheerful note of finding something to cheer about in [The Hobbit Party], I can indeed find much that is good and insightful. The overarching problem, however, is that the authors’ ideological agenda reduces the whole book to a woeful and unconvincing effort to squeeze the square peg of Tolkien’s traditionalist genius into the round hole of the authors’ modernist ideology. It’s akin to trying to squeeze the majesty of the Church into the travesty of the factory chimney. It doesn’t work.