In appreciation of Dr. Ed Peters

As long-time readers know, I had the privilege of being taught canon law by Dr. Edward Peters (in the spring of 2000), and in the years since I've had the pleasure of communicating with him many times on a professional and personal basis. To give you a sense of how much I admired Dr. Peters as a professor, I can honestly say that canon law was my least favorite subject, but that his canon law class was one of my favorite classes. (Quite the opposite of a class I took twenty years ago as an Evangelical, in which a topic that fascinated me—evangelization—was turned into a lifeless, disfigured pile of pulp. But I digress.)

Anyhow, that is simply a short, personal preface to a series of blog posts by Dr. Peters on his "Light of the Law" blog that are, I think, a nearly perfect combination of erudition, rhetorical brilliance, charity, and canonical clarity. They consist of Dr. Peters' responses to several folks, notably Sean Michael Winters and Fr. Thomas Reese, regarding his recent statements in a February 21st CNSNews article about New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Since Dr. Peters' posts contain all pertinent links to his interlocutors, I'll simply list and link his posts, in order:

• My brief replies to Albany's brief response (Feb. 23, 2011)

• Michael Sean Winters' column “Peters v. Cuomo”: a reply (Feb. 25, 2011). This is an especially exceptional reply to an especially condescending progressive pundit who unwittingly, in his arrogance, brings a broken plastic knife to a gun fight. Here is the opening of Dr. Peters' response:

Well, how about with two preliminary observations: (1) even people of obvious intelligence can be of little expertise in an area in which they opine; (2) when unfounded and/or ill-formed opinions are expressed with rhetorical skill and disseminated through the media, they require an extraordinary amount of time and energy to untangle. But, let’s see what we might try.

Winters avoids the vulgarism of “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, but he just as surely dismisses the role of law in the Church when he says that “Recourse to the canons of the Church are [sic] not just a last resort, they [sic] are an admission of failure.” If that really is Winters’ position, why does he bother asking a lawyer, canon or otherwise, to defend the role of law in society? Any answers that a lawyer might offer would be futile, per Winters: “There is not a brief in the world that can explain the role of briefs in the world.” So, although I believe that there are many errors in Winters’ essay, I’ve been forewarned that my answering them will be pointless.

How regrettable, for I might have something perhaps useful to say, like, for example, how Winters’ essay is a prime example of the lingering effects of the destructive antinomianism that swept through the West, including the Catholic Church, in the 1960s and 1970s.

Whence sprang that pervasive distrust of law that so blindsided my parents' generation and still haunts mine? Who really knows? My hunch is that several pernicious philosophical currents finally came crashing together in two human meat grinders called World Wars One and Two, leaving large segments of Euro-American society deeply disillusioned about the possibility that reason (a constitutive element of human law, per St. Thomas) could be relied on to save us from ourselves. So, naturally, substitutes needed to be sought—science became a major one in the world, and the “spirit” of Vatican II became a major one in the Church. Whatever strengths these substitutes possessed, and whatever weaknesses they suffered from, both were fundamentally immune to law (or at least to lawyers), and many found that a highly attractive trait. Civil authority and lawyers cannot tell chemicals how to react in test tubes, and Church authority and canonists cannot tell Catholics how to live their faith. From there…

But I forget myself. Winters has disqualified lawyers from explaining why we have law in society, and so I stop and suggest only that Winters direct his questions about the role of law in society to someone else. As a lawyer, I apparently could not know how to answer.

Read the entire post.

• A reply to Dan Collins at the Huffington Post (Feb. 26, 2011). Whereas Winters vainly employed a plastic utinsel, Collins drags out a wet paper towel. Typical of the Huff-and-Puff Post.

• Some brief reactions to Fr. Reese's characterizations of my position on Canon 915 (Feb. 27, 2011). Alas, one can all too often count on Fr. Reese, S.J., to defend Catholics from the teachings and requirements of the Catholic Church.

• Again re Winters and Canon 915 (Feb. 28, 2011).

Anyone who is interested in a good introduction to the purpose and nature of the Code and Canon Law should read Pope John Paul II's the apostolic constitution, Sacrae disciplinae leges, with commentary by Dr. Peters.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com pages:

• Excommunication! | An interview with canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters
• Question: Who Is Married? | Edward Peters
• Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide Open | Edward Peters

Comments

[Ed Peters]

What a kind post, Carl. I'm glad some people find these writings useful.

(We did have a good group up there, didn't we? Two in fact, no? What good memories you brought back.)

[Carl E. Olson]

It was a great group. I forget the exact numbers (as I'm shabby with numbers), but out of a class of 21 or 22, there were seven permanent deacons, one priest (Eastern rite!), a guy by the name of Harold Burke-Sivers (now a deacon and an internationally-known speaker), and many other very talented folks. Being able to study under yourself, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Mark Brumley, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Mark Lowery, Christopher Ruff, and many others was a real privilege and blessing. I think that three (perhaps four?) classes graduated from the U of D/Portland IRPS program.

[Nancy D.]

The Church is in crisis. The loving anathema is not only for the sake of the individual, but it is also for the sake of Christ and for the Good of His Church. Why do so many of our Shepherds refuse to lead their sheep?

[LJ]

From your last post Ed;

Perhaps I fail in patience.

On the contrary, that is one thing that stands out for me in all of this. You set a great example for us all in patience. I read the litany that you gave of the tone of commentary you have been getting. I sincerely doubt I could have continued to respond with such clarity and charity.

God bless you for standing for the truth, especially when it doesn't conform to the popular idea of what that truth is.

[Dan Deeny]

Very interesting and helpful. I wonder if Dr. Peters could tell us if there are any canon laws that might apply to the bishop.

[Carl E. Olson]

Dan: The simple answer is, "Yes, lots!" Simply go to the Table of Contents for the Code of Canon Law and do a search for "bishops".

[Dan Deeny]

Carl,
Thank you. I made a preliminary search, and, while I'm no canon lawyer, it looks to me as though the bishop is at fault at least as much, if not more than, Gov. Cuomo. The law is worded in such a way as to place the main responsibility on the person administering Communion. That would be the bishop, I suppose. Are there penalties for a bishop? I didn't find any.
One problem here is that it is easier to accuse a layman than a bishop. A canon lawyer runs the rish of causing real problems if he comes out against a bishop. Perhaps that is why so little was done during the great Arian heresy.

[Teo Matteo]

I thank Dr. Peters for his insight and the generosity of his time in explaining canon law, for without him i dont think there is another? Where else would we get such explanation?