The Holy Innocents

Lullay, Thou little tiny Child, 
By, by, lully, lullay. Lullay, 
Thou little tiny Child. 
By, by, lully, lullay.


 O sisters, too, how may we do,
 For to preserve this day; 
This poor Youngling for whom we sing, 
By, by, lully, lullay. 


Herod the King, in his raging, 
Charged he hath this day; 
His men of might, in his own sight, 
All children young, to slay. 


Then woe is me, poor Child, for Thee,
 And ever mourn and say;
 For Thy parting, neither say nor sing, 
By, by, lully, lullay.


Today the Church remembers some of the most innocent blood ever shed, the blood of little babies who were killed by the order of King Herod the Great when he, on hearing of the birth of the Messiah, became fearful and jealous for his own power. Herod's reaction was to have every newborn boy in the vicinity of Bethlehem killed by his own soldiers, because to his reckoning any of those little boys could have been the Christ. Herod sacrificed the blood of innocent children in order that he might save his own political fortunes. In this way, Herod wasn't unlike some of our so-called "leaders" today who think it good political policy to allow for the massacre of the unborn in the name of "choice." Some of these same leaders then wonder why our society has become so prone-and in such a deadly way-to violence, especially violence aimed at children (sometimes coming, God help us, even from other children).


Some historians and archaeologists question the Scriptural account of the massacre of the Innocents, but the Roman historian and politician Macrobius records it in his Saturnalia, saying that Herod had ordered a massacre of Jews two years old and younger, and that Herod had also, as part of this order, ordered that one of his sons also be killed (apparently because he was a threat to Herod). Upon hearing this, Macrobius records that Octavian Augustus said that "it is better to be Herod's pig than his son."


It is especially apt today to pray for children who have died or who are suffering as victims of abortion, war, famine, abuse, or needless disease. Today is especially a memorial and a remembrance for them.

Matthew 2:13-18:


When the magi had departed, behold,
   the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said,
   “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,
   and stay there until I tell you.
Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”
Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night
   and departed for Egypt.
He stayed there until the death of Herod,
   that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled,
   Out of Egypt I called my son.

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi,
   he became furious.
He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity
   two years old and under,
   in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.
Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:

   A voice was heard in Ramah,
      sobbing and loud lamentation;
   Rachel weeping for her children,
      and she would not be consoled,
      since they were no more.





 This version of The Coventry Carol is sung by the choir of the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood, commonly called Westminster Cathedral, which is the seat of the Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster in England.

The Feast of Stephen

It is no accident that the feast of the very first martyr for the faith falls on the day after we begin to celebrate the Lord's birth. For deacons-and for those of us who are Aspirants to the deaconate-it is a most significant feast because it celebrates the martyrdom of one of the first deacons-Stephen-who was stoned to death for preaching in Jesus' name.

Stephen was not afraid to meet death for the sake of the Holy Name, and the freedom to preach in Jesus' name. We live in a country where we have enjoyed that freedom for many decades and, by and large, been able to take it for granted. In other parts of the world, especially in places like the Khartoum region of Sudan, or in parts of Nigeria, or in Indonesia, or North Korea, churches are burned, Christians  are hunted down, many are forced underground, a great many are killed for the sake of Jesus' name. We read the account of Stephen's stoning-it is the first reading at Mass today, and the lengthier reading of the account can be found in the Office of Readings for today-and we laud the great martyrdom and heroism of Stephen and we might speak of his willingness to give everything for Christ, even his very life. The reality, though, is that we are called to the same spirit of sacrifice for the sake of Christ-even unto our life. We may never have to give our life, as Stephen did, but it is a legitimate question: Are we willing to, because Jesus himself said we might have to (cf. Matthew 24:9-10). On most days of the year, the Church commemorates a saint who died that day, and very often is this notation next to that person's name "____, martyr." The word martyr means "witness."

Stephen was a great witness for the faith in its earliest days. His witness causes me to ponder...am I a great witness, how can I be a better witness?

_________________________________________________

Nicole got me the most awesome Christmas present. It was the New Testament of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. The notes and commentaries in it are extensive and excellent-they are written by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. I find myself reading some passage of scripture and then getting some insight from the notes that then causes me to cross reference some other passage where I will then find more information. My only problem with it seems to be that I spend so much time buried in it that I have to remind myself to finish the assigned reading for formation this coming month!

Nativity of the Lord

When I celebrate Vespers in about two and a half hours from now, it will be the First Vespers of Christmas. Some parishes in our diocese and around the country will have their first Christmas Masses about a half an hour from the time I am writing this-some parishes around the Eastern part of the country have already had that first Christmas Mass. Most of us will go to Mass tonight for the traditional Mass at night on Christmas-I'm still getting used to this whole idea of having Midnight Mass at 10pm, even though it has become the new standard in many places for some years now. Yes, I know it is designed to insure that we can get to bed at a decent hour, and that nowadays even the Pope celebrates the Christmas Liturgy at 10pm-but I'm a traditionalist at heart. I think we've lost something-however small and insignificant-by moving the Liturgy heretofore known as the Midnight Mass to a time when no part of it is likely to be occurring at or near the Midnight hour. However, many years from now we are all likely to be used to the new custom and might find a Mass at Midnight very strange indeed.


I hope and pray that wherever you are, you've had a Blessed and a prayerful Advent, one to prepare you in a joyful spirit for celebrating the Lord's coming. It is a busy time, yes. It can be a time when it is very hard to reflect on the reason for celebration and festivity.


Remember that Mary and Joseph couldn't find a room at the inn for the Christ Child, and as the Holy Father has pointed out this evening in his Christmas homily, in a very real way we fail to make room for Christ when we find time for all of the other concerns and cares of this world, but fail to make time for God. God loved us so much that he sent his only-begotten Son into the world to live as one of us, and to be tempted, suffer, and to die. Yet, on the very day we commemorate this reality, many are so concerned with merriment, food, drink, gift getting and gift giving that they won't even darken the door of a church today. Still others may "go through the motions" of Christian worship on this Feast of the Nativity, but forget entirely those who have nothing to eat, let alone gifts or goodies. In this way, we also fail to leave room for Christ in the inn of our hearts.


This is not to say that our celebration, merry-making, gift exchanges, and joyful intake of food and spirits shouldn't happen-I'll enjoy those same things today, and I would encourage all of you to do the same. If the birth of the Messiah isn't a reason to get happy, I don't know what is! But we should have a joy that is worth sharing with others, especially those who have many reasons in their life not to be joyful. First and foremost, Christ has come for them, to proclaim liberty to captives of all kinds, and proclaim the "year of the Lord's favor."


Finally-and this one is for you Catholics (as well as those from other liturgical traditions)-we need to be careful that we do not let our Christmas celebrations end after tonight and tomorrow. When we engage in this kind of behavior, we have not only allowed for the Protestantization of our Christmas observance, we have done far worse, we're giving in to the secular spirit of this age. Christmas does not end at Midnight on December 25th/26th. The Christmas season really ends on January 13th, the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. Christmas is also celebrated as an Octave-an eight-day feast, from December 25th until January 1 (the Feast of Mary, the Mother of God). Why we've gotten it into our heads that we need to do everything that has to do with Christmas in a day and a half I have no clue, but this may be one reason why some folks aren't ever able to fully enjoy Christmas, they feel like they've got to hurry and rush around to see everyone, do everything, and give all gifts and participate in all appropriate celebrating by the end of the day December 25th-that's not Christmas as it is supposed to be celebrated! If you want to do Christmas right, try spreading your celebrations out to take in as much of the season of Christmas as you possibly can-you'll really feel like you've had a Merry Christmas!


Now as you celebrate tonight-and I hope all week-read afresh the reason for that festivity.

____________________________________________________________

Luke 2:1-19:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria.  And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 

 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.  And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered.  And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. 

And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear.  And the angel said to them, "Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 

And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."

And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.  And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child; and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart. 

Long Ago Prophets Knew...

One of my favorite Advent hymns is actually a more modern composition, written by Fred P. Green in 1971, listed in many hymnals as Long Ago Prophets Knew.


Long ago, prophets knew Christ would come, born a Jew, Come to make all things new, Bear His people’s burden, Freely love and pardon.

Ring, bells, ring, ring, ring! Sing, choirs, sing, sing, sing! When He comes, when He comes, Who will make Him welcome?

God in time, God in man, This is God’s timeless plan: He will come, as a man, Born Himself of woman, God divinely human.

Mary, hail! Though afraid, She believed, she obeyed. In her womb, God is laid Til the time expected, Nurtured and protected.

Journey ends! Where afar Bethlehem shines, like a star, stable door stands ajar. unborn Son of Mary, Savior, do not tarry!




This particular version is by the Choir of Lichfield Cathedral (the Cathedral of St. Chad and St. Mary, as it was known before Henry VIII) in England, and was part of the British hymns program Songs of Praise. Considering the religious climate in Britain, it is amazing the show is still on air, but it has been going for 50 years and more. In our bustle to prepare for Christmas and to get those last-minute gifts bought and even work out our schedules for Monday and Tuesday (who shall be visited when, when shall we eat, and what, and where) we have forgotten that we don't do these things because we have just declared that we need to mill about at our families' houses all day Monday and Tuesday...whether people realize it or not (and yes, many do not) is because this is a set-aside or sacred time of year. Our culture is moving away from that recognition, preferring "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas," and as we have heretofore discussed, totally ignoring the Advent season.


Remember why we anticipate and celebrate this season of the year, this is not merely an excuse for family gatherings, an extra day or two off, or a schedule adjustment. When we realize those things without having to be reminded periodically of them, you have figured out what Advent is about...you've truly observed Advent, and you are ready for the coming of the Lord.

The choices people make

The question comes all the time from honest people, but especially after a terrible tragedy like the school mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut yesterday, is this: "How can a just and a loving God allow for such a terrible thing to happen?" If you are a family member of one of the slain children or adults, you might ask: "How could God let this happen to my baby?"


It would be disingenuous to say that there is an easy answer to these questions, because their isn't, but Scripture does give us an incredible piece of insight into God's way of dealing with human nature in giving us the free will choice between right and wrong (Deuteronomy 30:15-20):

"See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you this day, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land which you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess."

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." 

This passage is a warning by the Lord (which the Deuteronomist tells us was given though Moses) to the children of Israel to obey his commandments or face the harsh consequences of their own disobedience. God was warning the Israelites not that he was going to "kill them off" if they went their own way, but that they would bring about their own destruction in view of their own bad choices. What this important Old Testament passage is telling us today is something similar but far more simple-God has given humanity the free will to choose right and wrong, good and evil. God has shown us what good is, having done so sending his Son, the Word Incarnate into the world. Jesus Christ came into the world to redeem humanity, but he didn't come to force anyone to follow him or force people to do good or right. That choice is ours alone, and the choice we make has consequences.


Knowing this helps us understand that people have the power to make choices, even the most terrible choices. We believe that people will be held to account for their choice to rebel against the laws of God and his command to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We believe that God loves the humanity that he created so much that he sent his Son into the world-the second person of the Trinity and the Incarnate Word-to redeem us from our own sins, our decision to make choices that lead to what the Scripture passage above calls "death and evil," to give us the ability through the redemption of the Cross to reclaim for ourselves the side of "life and good." It is this desire on the part of God from the very beginning to be reconciled with mankind which he made in his image and likeness that is what Advent and Christmas (and, for that matter, Lent, Holy Week, and Easter) are really all about.

In Newtown, Connecticut yesterday, for reasons we do not know and have no power or authority to judge, a young man chose death and evil over life and good. As public figures on all sides begin a disgraceful attempt to politicize the massacre, virtually no one is blaming the root cause that brings about all such violence in our age: A Culture of Death in Western society which not only says that the unborn and the aged and the infirm and the helpless have only the value that we as individuals assign to them, but one which glorifies violence, demeans and objectifies the human person, and perverts liberty itself. Our present culture is saturated with the glorification of sin and the public promotion and encouragement-and even promotion by the state-of the worst forms of social and human depravity, and we wonder how someone could get it into their mind to do such a thing.


When society chooses "death and evil," it is telling individuals that death and evil and all of the sins that go with them are also an acceptable personal choice. We will not see peace in our culture until we begin to choose life and good anew.


Pray for the families and the people of Newtown, Connecticut.


Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual Light shine upon them. May their souls and the souls of all the Faithful Departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

I'm not in formation to play dress-up

After our extended thoughts yesterday in defense of the Order of the Diaconate as a permanent order of the Church in response to a post of an e-mail by Deacon Greg Kandra from a priest in the Diocese of Lincoln about said priest's rather negative feelings about the diaconate, I got to exploring some deacon-related posts on Deacon Greg's blog as well as the highly potent thoughts of Father John Zuhlsdorf from some two years ago on the idea of permanent deacons sporting the Roman collar since-by virtue of their ordination-deacons are and will forever be clergy.  Some, like Deacon Greg and, it would seem, Father Z., have come to the conclusion that it is alright to do so. In a very raw and literal sense, I also have reached the notion that there is nothing illicit about deacons wearing the collar since deacons are clergy. In many dioceses, it is allowed for deacons to wear the collar, and in some it is not because the bishop does not want to confuse deacons and priests. Father Zuhlsdorf thinks such bishops may be acting silly, since un-ordained seminarians are encouraged and often expected to wear clerical dress, but a fully ordained and functioning deacon can't wear the collar...

I get and respect this point. If I am-by God's grace-ordained-I'll probably keep a set of clericals around should the bishop permit it. I think they are appropriate for certain special occasions. However, just because someone has been given the privilege and authority of wearing a Roman collar by virtue of their ordination or station in the Church doesn't mean that it is either always or normally appropriate, either. After seeing some of these posts and some of the comments about collar-wearing, I am actually quite disturbed by the militancy of some of these folks-I'll call them "collar people"-about deacons wearing a Roman collar. It made me wonder if some of these folks went through formation just so they can go around and say "look, I'm married, and I get to wear a Roman collar!" I didn't enter formation to wear collars, let alone to concern myself with whether the bishop would allow me to wear one. If a blacksuit and collar are your big obsession (One commenter even said deacons could/should be able to wear black biretta-I like birettas, I think they are really cool actually, but seriously...this is how some of you see your ministry?) It begs the question whether you entered formation for the diaconate for the right reasons in the first place.

After reading some of these various posts, I put the question of appropriateness of the collar to my spiritual director, I wanted his input from experience. He said that he had an issue in seminary with the seminarians wearing cassocks and collars because Joe Catholic on the street sees collar and says "priest!" I shared with him that I hung out for a few drinks with seminarians from time to time when I lived in Cincinnati as part of my role in the K of C in those days, and in that heavily Catholic area, priests do get stopped on the street and asked to hear confessions-I've stopped priests begging for Reconciliation myself. It puts a deacon in a very awkward situation to have to explain that he can't do that-better to avoid the problem altogether when possible.

The militancy of some of the collar people put me in mind of this post in which an Aspirant in formation somewhere complains that he is "bored to tears" because he knows more than most of the class, and he writes this bombshell:

I am currently in formation for the permanent diaconate.  I have often thought in the back of my mind that, at some point in the not-so-distant future, the door will open wider for a married priesthood in the Latin Rite, with permanent deacons an obvious source of potential candidates.  This post made me realize that I’m probably wrong.

[Note: He was referring to a different post he'd seen]


So this fellow thought that somehow Rome was going to allow married priests wholesale, and he wants in on the action? Talk about a wrong reason for being in formation...This is likely the kind of person who has scandalized that priest in Lincoln I talked about from Deacon Greg Kendra's blog yesterday.

I'm not sure this fellow gets it. Even I don't completely "get it" yet, that is what formation is for...discernment. It is all about understanding God's call to ministry, and the Holy Spirit's call for your life. It is not about what you know or don't know, it is about letting the Holy Spirit take you to school. It isn't about putting on a Roman collar or not, it is about putting on the whole armor of God. It is not about "will I get to preach or not," but it is being able to help when that child or that layperson comes to you as they did to Christ and says "teach us how to pray." It isn't about you...it is about the people God is sending you to.

A moderate defense of the permanent Order of Deacon

My friend and fellow deaconate Aspirant Scott Maentz has disseminated a post from Deacon Greg Kandra's blog The Deacon's Bench. Deacon Greg ministers in the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and is a former media personality. Frequently, Deacon Greg will answer e-mails that he receives on his blog, and he got one from a priest of the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska who is not at all hot on the permanent diaconate. This priest writes:

Now, priests aren’t sure what exactly to do with deacons, much of the time. The liturgy doesn’t require them, necessarily. It is obvious from a cursory glance at the rubrics that the Holy See anticipates a deacon serving at Mass, but it is not required as it was for the Solemn High Mass. On the other hand, the diaconate was suddenly made unique, and somewhat separated from the priesthood. The dalmatic under the chasuble was eliminated and priests cannot vest as a deacon at Mass in the Ordinary Form.  Some dioceses see deacons as suitable for parish administration; others see them as suitable for chaplaincy at prisons and hospitals, among other tasks. Yet others simply assign them to parishes with their job left up to the pastor. The law seems to be quite silent on this, even though it’s quite specific on most other clerical assignments.

I think the issue of deacons preaching at Mass shows why the permanent diaconate was not thought out well. Bishops aren’t always clear on the faculties given, and each bishop rules differently (as is their right, but it causes confusion nonetheless). Quite honestly, the deacon should not preach at Mass. This was never a function of deacons, and is the job of priests.

 Firstly, let me say that I have great respect for Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln. His reputation for orthodoxy and fidelity to the Holy Father precedes him, and he is a shepherd who I have admired without even knowing. For those of you who have been impacted by the lay ministry of Dr. Scott Hahn, it was then-Monsignor Bruskewitz who helped bring Dr. Hahn into the Church. I have to believe that Bishop Bruskewitz has done what he believes is best for the Diocese of Lincoln, and I fully respect that. I pray that perhaps his successor might have a change of heart about deacons, but I really hope he has a change of heart about not much else, to be honest.

The thoughts that Deacon Greg brought from the priest in Lincoln saddened me a great deal, firstly because I really think that Father has a right spirit in his zeal for the Church, but I'm not so sure he isn't aiming it in the wrong direction. Most importantly, I must say with the deepest respect I can give to this holy priest and his many more years of learning than I have that I am not so sure that he isn't missing the point of the permanent deaconate theologically. He's right that His Holiness Pope Paul VI issued the current norms under which deacons may be ordained in 1967, but the impetus for the restoration of the permanent deaconate in the modern era came well before that. There was a very distinct recognition of the deaconate as a separate and distinct order from priests even at the Council of Trent, but there was not yet a move to restore the order to its permanency. That came with the Second Vatican Council and Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution On the Church (29):

At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed "not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service." For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: "Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all."

Since these duties, so very necessary to the life of the Church, can be fulfilled only with difficulty in many regions in accordance with the discipline of the Latin Church as it exists today, the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. It pertains to the competent territorial bodies of bishops, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune for such deacons to be established for the care of souls. With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate can, in the future, be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men, for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact.

Lumen Gentium is clear that the Holy Father may choose to allow for the restoration of the deaconate as a permanent order of the clergy, and the urge to do so is right in the document with the words "proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy." I think the very reason that so many dioceses use deacons in so many different ways is precisely because each deacon's gifts are different, and so are the needs of each diocese and each bishop, and not only do bishops and good deacons understand that, the Holy Spirit understands it first and foremost, which is why we have deacons today.

In charity, I don't understand Father's argument that "priests aren't sure what to do with deacons most of the time." Perhaps he is not, but my own parish has a pastor and an associate-two priests. Yet, we have only one deacon at present and he is absolutely overloaded with work (although he does not seem to mind this). I don't think we have a "what to do with Deacon Jim" problem at St. Pat's-he has plenty to do and so do our priests, and we don't really have a priest shortage here in the Diocese of Knoxville. Father complains that:

 I think the issue of deacons preaching at Mass shows why the permanent diaconate was not thought out well. Bishops aren’t always clear on the faculties given, and each bishop rules differently (as is their right, but it causes confusion nonetheless). Quite honestly, the deacon should not preach at Mass. This was never a function of deacons, and is the job of priests.

Seems to me that it wasn't St. Stephen distributing food to the poor that got him stoned to death, but his preaching (cf. Acts 7:1-54). St. Francis of Assisi was a deacon too-and we know he did plenty of preaching. What saddens me most is that this tone almost seems like a kind of "turf war" mentality, wherein Father seems to believe that those of us who are called to the deaconate are somehow going to try and "take the place" of priests. This holy and zealous priest isn't alone in his thinking. I know that there are plenty of other priests who genuinely believe that the permanent deaconate is some kind of "backdoor" for married men to weave their way into the priesthood. That certainly isn't how I view the deaconate and it isn't how I am seeing my own call. If the Holy Spirit had called me to the priesthood, I would have gone to the seminary. I do not desire to "take the place" of our precious priests, I merely desire to do God's will. I don't see my ministry as "taking the place" of a priest or anyone else. I am a tool in the hand of the Lord. Only a priest can consecrate the Holy Eucharist. Only a priest can hear confessions and absolve sins, and that is the way that I believe it should be.

Further, I know that there are some who think the permanent deaconate is just some kind of a gateway to a married priesthood as the norm in the Latin rite. Not only do I not view the permanent deaconate in this way  (such a view is a grave error), but ask those of my classmates about how Oatney feels about the idea of making married priesthood the norm. Those who have heard me speak of the matter at all outside of class-usually when the subject is brought up around the table will probably tell you "Oatney believes strongly in a celebate Latin priesthood." For those really interested, I will go into greater detail about my personal opinion on such matters in a later post (no, by the way, that DOES NOT MEAN that I think women have no role in the Church...that is horse hockey, and I am using mild verbiage there-some of the most influential people in my spiritual life have been women with strong roles in the Church/parish community). What if the standards changed in the Latin Rite, and there were greater latitude for married priests or even ordained women deacons? I'm just a servant of God...at the end of the day, my knee bows in obedience to whatever Holy Mother Church says about clerical norms.


Most importantly, the deaconate, or even the formation process itself is not about me at all. It is not about my opinions and it is not about what I think. Yes, we are entitled to those views to some degree, but the reality is that deacons are clergy, and if I am-by the Grace of God-ordained, I am bound to obedience to the bishop and his successors, and to the Magesterium.

I know not yet what my ministry will be, but I trust in God's grace, and that is really what the Sacrament is all about, as Deacon Greg and others have rightly said...grace. I am praying for this and for all of our priests to continue to grow in holiness.

My own prayer of Advent abandonment

Today is the last day of Ordinary Time, and Advent (and a new Year of Grace, the Church Year 2013) begins tonight at Vespers. This has been a busy year of change and reflection for both Nicole and myself. My studies in the permanent deaconate program for the Diocese of Knoxville are moving along, and I continue to pray and discern-and I continue to believe that the Holy Spirit is calling me to continued discernment. As time passes, I believe that the Lord is calling me to the deaconate. What I have yet to discern or discover is just what my ministry will be if-by God's grace and favor-the Church does call my name on ordination day. I'm sure I'll minister at the altar, and I am sure that the pastor I serve under-whether my current one or another-might even turn me loose to preach from time to time. I hope that if that does happen, my preaching might bring both blessing and conviction to those who need those things-that I would be able in preaching to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


But the deaconate is not about-to quote our diocese's Assistant Director of Deacons "about being up at the altar and dressing up like the Infant of Prague." Sure, the ministry of the altar and the ministry of preaching and teaching that is a part of that is an extremely important part of being a deacon, but that isn't a deacon's exclusive function. Deacons were established initially both to proclaim the word as a prophetic function, but more importantly to care for widows, orphans, the very poor among the community (cf. Acts 6:1-8). I'm not sure what my ministry may be in the future if I am ordained, but my spiritual director has also told me not to worry so much about that-he said that there have been times in his priesthood when he didn't know what his ministry would be-it should be left ultimately to the Holy Spirit.




That is how I have come to see my ministry. In whatever way and in whatever capacity God calls me to service, even if it seems small and insignificant, then if one soul is impacted with the Gospel as a result-and not even directly by me-then all of the obstacles and hardships and trials and questions of the discernment and formation process will have been worth it.


Every day I pray that God will give me the grace I need to abandon myself completely into His hands, and to die more fully to self. When I think I am making progress in that department, I will say or do something that reminds me that I still have a long way to go...that I'm not yet where God wants me to be, but I'm willing to be, and that if I let him take hold of me more completely, he'll get me there.


This Advent, I make anew a prayer of total abandonment to God-that as Christ abandoned his very Glory to become one of us, I might abandon my own desires in order that God's purposes might be achieved, and his Name and His Church be glorified afresh in me.