Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:23 pm

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=12987

Simply put: the law of the Church says that permanent deacons, because they are clerics, are obliged to observe “perfect and perpetual continence.” In simple terms, permanent deacons are obligated by law to refrain from sexual relations with their wife once they are ordained.

More than that, the same obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence would seem to apply to married priests who obviously remain married after they enter the Church and are ordained as priests (this would seemingly apply to all married Anglican clergy about to be ordained as Catholic priests). Again, simply put, ordination to holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church always carries with it the obligation to abstain completely from sexual relations.

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:49 pm

Interesting. I read the first part of the article. It must be noted that Mr. Peter's arguments apply to the LATIN rite, not to the Eastern rites.

Perhaps this will spark some clarification from the Vatican...don't hold your breath. If it is true though, there are a heck of a lot of permanent deacons who are in a difficult situation now, because many of them probably were not aware of this when they decided to be deacons.

Just another example of how the Church is in crisis.

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:55 pm

RashaLampa wrote:It must be noted that Mr. Peter's arguments apply to the LATIN rite, not to the Eastern rites.

Yes, and he does generally specify "Roman" (i.e. Latin rite) or "in the West".

Though, I think everyone will use §3 of the Canon to explain away the discrepancy of practice.

columba Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:07 pm

Doesn't total abstinence require the consent of both spouses?
And, wouldn't that also mean staying clear of proximate occasions?
Looks like trouble ahead.

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:11 pm

I just read the whole thing. I think it makes sense. Why else would the woman have to consent to the man being a deacon?

My only question is if it is true wouldn't that mean that the man and woman would have to live separately? Brother Francis and his wife through mutual agreement separated and Brother Francis entered the religious life. It seems that a permanent deacon would have to do the same thing. He would have to move out and live in the rectory or in some other place.

I am going to send this to someone I know who is thinking of the diaconate. It would be good for them to know about this controversy before taking any steps.

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:14 pm

If Peters is right I'll bet that they will give all these Anglican priests that are coming into the Church a dispensation.

Guest Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:19 pm

columba wrote:Doesn't total abstinence require the consent of both spouses?

Yes. It does. To become a permanent deacon in the Roman Catholic Church, a man's wife must give her consent.

And, wouldn't that also mean staying clear of proximate occasions?
Looks like trouble ahead.

If the wife agrees, proximate occasions should be able to be avoided. You make boundaries, and you abide by them. Our Lady and St. Joseph were married and yet remained chaste without trouble (sure, they had lots of grace, but the key is that they both freely and willingly cooperated with that grace).

RashaLampa wrote:My only question is if it is true wouldn't that mean that the man and woman would have to live separately?

It doesn't seem we would need to go that far... separate beds perhaps (at the very least). But moving out would seem to be an offense to the marriage... they should be able to live out the remainder of their married days in chaste abstinence-- still being a mutual help to the other, etc.

Guest Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:10 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote: Though, I think everyone will use §3 of the Canon to explain away the discrepancy of practice.

Apparently Mr. Peters anticipated this...
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-canon-277-3-does-not-allow-bishops.html

At the risk of running down a rabbit trail, I will point out just two of the reasons why Canon 277 § 3 does not avail those who argue that married clerics in the West are not obligated to continence.

1. Canon 277 § 3 authorizes bishops to make specific rules which, given local circumstances, would support clerics in living in continence. To argue that local legislation can exempt clerics from a universal requirement is to turn the whole idea of local adaption of rules on its head.
...

2. Those who argue that Canon 277 § 3 allows bishops to relax the obligation of continence should think about what they are implicitly acknowledging: namely, that, if some bishops can relax the obligation thereby, others can impose it. But that would result in disciplinary chaos, of course, if say, the Archdiocese of San Francisco imposed continence on married clerics while across the bay the Diocese of Oakland exempted them from it. What would happen then?

Guest Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:56 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:
columba wrote:Doesn't total abstinence require the consent of both spouses?
Yes. It does. To become a permanent deacon in the Roman Catholic Church, a man's wife must give her consent.
And, wouldn't that also mean staying clear of proximate occasions?
Looks like trouble ahead.
If the wife agrees, proximate occasions should be able to be avoided. You make boundaries, and you abide by them. Our Lady and St. Joseph were married and yet remained chaste without trouble (sure, they had lots of grace, but the key is that they both freely and willingly cooperated with that grace).

RashaLampa wrote:My only question is if it is true wouldn't that mean that the man and woman would have to live separately?
It doesn't seem we would need to go that far... separate beds perhaps (at the very least). But moving out would seem to be an offense to the marriage... they should be able to live out the remainder of their married days in chaste abstinence-- still being a mutual help to the other, etc.

Whow WHOW!!! Dudes and dudettes, This is gettin WEIRD! Are you saying a man and wife should live in the same house and not have sex? Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain 676358

Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain 676358

Talk about occasions of sin!!!

This is close to Jansenism making the act itself sinful. I know we are over stimulated by the secular world but part of marriage is sex. To go to the other extreme would be wrong too. Regarding marriage, Paul states that it is better for Christians to remain unmarried, but that it is better to marry than sin.(1Cor 7:9)

Plus we need more good Catholic children from good Catholic homes!

Allie Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:42 pm

I remember hearing that in the history of the Church, before celibacy was a requirement for the priests of the Latin Rite, that those that were married had to abstain a certain number of days before they took part in the Sacrifice of the Mass (but not altogether).

Does anyone know about this?

Is this the case now with Eastern Rite (and Orthodox) and could this not be the case with the Deacons as well? I skimmed over the OP somewhat quickly so I probably missed the answers to my own question(s)...but what exactly are the reasons for this for Deacons? I'm just curious.

Elisa Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:45 am

Canon law 16 says that all Canon law is interpreted by the canon law maker, the legislator, the Church Herself. It doesn’t matter what a few canon lawyers say. It only matters how the Church (the Bishops in union with the Pope) interpret the law and how they promulgate it.

My former pastor, the Monsignor, may he rest in peace, was the founder of the reinstituted permanent diaconate in my large NJ Archdiocese in 1973. It was one of the first in the country and we have had for over 35 years a large and active diaconate. (We also often lead the country in the number of priestly ordinations, praise be to God.)

My Archdiocese website and all the Vatican documents on this and the US Bishop’s formal statements (all approved by the Pope) say that while a deacon cannot marry after ordination, even if widowed (although there can be exceptions for those with small children,) he is only called to chastity, as all Catholic married men are. Not continence. Only unmarried men or widows need to promise celibacy.

We can be sure that the priests and Bishops and Vatican who are in charge of the diaconate and its reinstitution examined every aspect of the deaconate and the disciplines involved and if the Church believed that her own laws forbad married deacons acting married, it would have made this clear from the beginning and certainly by now. They can all read and they are not stupid. Are we to believe that this never occurred to anyone in authority in the Church over the last 40 years? Or that no authority in the Church realized that married deacons were acting like married men?

So it seems obvious that in regards to this discipline and the interpretation of canon 277, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” Especially when this canonist (who seems very nice and competent) brought this up several years ago already.

Disciplines can and do change throughout the history of the Church and vary from place to place. And even canon laws and their intent can change. They are not faith beliefs that are unchanging and universal.

As you all know, Eastern Catholic priests, like Eastern Orthodox priests can be married at the time of ordination, but not afterwards. Eastern Orthodox priests however have a discipline that they are to abstain from sex the night before offering Mass. The Pope a hundred years ago removed that discipline from Eastern Catholic priests.

A call for voluntary celibacy to deepen one’s closeness to Our Lord, like fasting, is a good thing and very powerful. But so is the loving marital act within the SACRAMENT of marriage a good thing, ordained by God Himself. The Church recognizes both.

Quite honestly, since a canon law on a discipline does not rise to the level of a faith belief, especially a discipline that is not universal to the Church, East and West, I don’t personally understand why a talented canonist would raise this issue so publicly, which the Church seems to have already settled in her approved practices. Aren’t there so many more important problems to discuss in the Church and the world, especially related to people’s salvation?

God bless you all.

Guest Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:45 am

Elisa that's what I meant to say. LOL Smile

Elisa Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:26 am

You did say it, I just talk too much. lol

You know, I woke up this morning wondering why this annoys me so much and realized why.

First of all, this esoteric discussion is unnecessary. This canonist did not have to do this so publicly. If he had a concern, tell the Church officials in Rome.

Secondly, it can cause scandal to some of the faithful. A few will now believe that their deacons are behaving in ways they shouldn’t be. (and imagining things private and personal to the deacon that should be respected.)

More importantly, it will make some question the Church. Don’t we have enough problems that some faithful have to doubt the Church? Let’s just add one more thing. Look at the section this topic is in – “Crisis in the Church.” There is a reason it’s not in the Catholic news section.

Most importantly to me is that this is not some abstract debate to deacons. This will unnecessarily upset many deacons who have enough on their plates in service to the Lord. Good and devout people who would never want to do something against God’s commands.

Another problem is that this creates doubt in the minds of men called to the diaconate or called to convert as Anglican priests, who also feel called to be in an active marital state. (yes, God does call some to that as well as calls other married people to have permanent or temporary celibacy.) This could deter some very good men now being called by God.

And for what? The Church isn’t going to retroactively tell deacons, OK rule change here. That would be involuntary celibacy, something the Church has never practiced in 2,000 years. These deacons were told one thing at ordination, officially by the Church.

Just a couple more tidbits that might interest some.

St. Peter and his wife remained continent for the rest of his life. It’s unclear if this started when he first became an Apostle or if it was after the ascension or later. I think it was St. Clement who reported this in the first century. The interesting thing is that his wife accompanied him throughout his travels and she herself evangelized many.

Also, while the New Testament talks of married bishops, this discipline changed very quickly and in both the Western and Eastern Churches from ancient times, married men could not become bishops.

Guest Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:22 pm

Elisa wrote: More importantly, it will make some question the Church. Don’t we have enough problems that some faithful have to doubt the Church? Let’s just add one more thing. Look at the section this topic is in – “Crisis in the Church.” There is a reason it’s not in the Catholic news section.

Actually, I originally posted it in the 'Catholic Living' section and then moved it here because I thought more people would look here. It was a ploy to get more topic views. It doesn't seem like the news gets very many comments... and hey, it worked.

Guest Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:29 pm

Elisa wrote:And for what? The Church isn’t going to retroactively tell deacons, OK rule change here. That would be involuntary celibacy, something the Church has never practiced in 2,000 years. These deacons were told one thing at ordination, officially by the Church.

Secondly, I wonder if you took the time to read Mr. Peters argument as he addresses many of your concerns? No where does he suggest involuntary celibacy in the argument re: Canon Law that's been published and re-published recently on the website of his son.

Elisa Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:42 am

I was thinking about this at work today and I’d like to address 2 more points on this.

Mr. Peters makes a big deal about how the Church requires that wives consent to their husbands becoming deacons and he reads into this the reason must be because they may have to be continent.

This speculation is not sound or convincing in any way. The reason a wife needs to consent is because up until that point the sole vocation of this man was to be her husband and father to her children. (work vocations are different) And his sole vocation was joined to her sole vocation by sacrament.

Now these men are taking on another lifetime vocation, which is not only time consuming, but will take a lot of their energy, mental and spiritual and physical. Time and energy taken away from the family. (by the grace of God, we pray the Lord provides what is needed by the family and a deacon’s duties are less than a priests’, whom he assists.) There is a lot more to married life than sex, as I’m sure many here would agree.

Also, this man could not properly execute the duties of his new vocation as a deacon without the assistance and acceptance of his wife. He is bound to her, and her life will now also change and she will have new duties in her married life, even if those duties are not specific or concrete.

Mr. Peters describes in great detail canons of the 1917 code of canon law. But since it only speaks about priests and the Western Church did not have permanent deacons at that time in history, he is making a leap connecting the 1917 codes to current deacons.

Secondly, Mr. Peters is reading an intent by the Church into the fact that c. 277 in 1983 does not specifically address married deacons, even though some previous drafts did. He seems to think this means that the Church, bishops and the Pope, intended married deacons to be continent.

2 reasons I totally disagree.

First of all, in 1983 there were already many married permanent deacons who were specifically told before ordination that they did not have to be continent, and the Pope and Bishops knew that this was how they were living their lives. How stupid and ridiculous would it be for the Church to knowingly make a law saying it was wrong and intending to forbid an active married life, but to knowingly continue to allow the married deacons to go against the law and continue to ordain new deacons telling them to go against what the Church prescribed and intended?

More specifically to Mr. Peter’s argument is that one cannot read an intent into the absence of an exception, even if they toyed with the idea of writing in a specific discipline for married deacons.

It may not seem like it, since the code and all the many Church documents are so voluminous, but the formal Church has always made a point of saying the LEAST she possibly can on any given topic. Only writing, orating and detailing things that, out of necessity or pastoral concern, need to be specified.

Because the Church waits on the Holy Spirit for clarification and details and guidance. And because the Church does not want to restrict herself in any way and be able to change things in the future, if need be. (remember the Bride of Christ, Holy Mother Church, is a “she” and “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.” just kidding, I couldn’t resist that. lol)

Silence on a detail does not make it a specific law, unless the Church says it does. And in this case, clearly the Church has said it doesn’t make it binding on all deacons.

While they might have thought about putting an exception for married deacons in and then discarded the idea, it could have been for any number of good reasons.

Even I can think of a few reasons. Not wanting to confuse the issue when talking about clerics, which would include priests. Why then couldn’t priests be married and remain continent? You know some would jump on that opening.

The diaconate is one diaconate made up of transitional deacons who are unmarried, permanent deacons who are married and permanent deacons who are unmarried. Maybe the Church didn’t want to be detailing specific rules in it’s canon laws that were not universal to all deacons and wanted to describe and rule on those discipline details elsewhere instead.

Or leave it completely open to change when they saw fit, without having to change a canon law. Maybe they foresaw there might be a time when they might want to have married deacons be continent and didn’t want to be restricted from changing it.

My guess is that they had widowers in mind. Because the rules in 1983 and today say that once a deacon is widowed, he cannot remarry. But in 1983 and today the Church does make some individual exceptions for deacons who have very young children. Making too many specific details in c 277 might have made exceptions difficult.

And these are just the reasons that have popped into my head in 5 minutes. Imagine the reasons that the learned Bishops entrusted with our pastoral care might have thought of during the years they were contemplating this.

Again, Mr. Peters and those who agree with him are interpreting c. 277 to mean that married permanent deacons must be continent. The Church through her practices and all formal statements around the world and from the Vatican for decades now and even before 1983 interprets c. 277 to not say that.

And one more time – canon law 16 says that canon law is to be interpreted by the canon law maker, the legislator, the Church Herself. And the Church owes no one an explanation. Just like she doesn’t owe liberals explanations for things they disagree with, she doesn’t owe explanations to conservative and devout canon lawyers who disagree with her or question her. Even if they think she does owe them a clarification. Especially when the vast majority of the over billion faithful around the world aren’t asking for clarification. They think the Church has already decided on this topic by actual practice that involves no abuse whatsoever.

The Christian Church follows Jesus’ example and is not LEGALISTIC, as some of the people of the old covenant were. It was the heart of the old Law that was reawakened in the hearts of the Jewish people by God through King Josiah, and the Law was about faith beliefs and expressions of that, not simply pastoral disciplines.

Elisa Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:51 am

You’re right, Marian, that was a nice ploy to get us to read it. lol But my point still stands. Raising this subject publicly to a peer review 5 years ago and then allowing it to be published online and publicized on his son’s website now does create scandal for some Catholics over this. Like I said, if he had concerns, then send them privately to the approved Church authorities in Rome.

Exactly what good can come of this for the Church? How does this public discussion help the Church in any way? We are NOT talking about a faith belief here or heresy or anyone’s salvation.

We are talking about a single sentence in canon law, which is not like the old Law was for the Jews, (as both canonist and son Peters infer it is, a“Josiah moment”). We are talking about disciplines in the Christian Church. Not the Torah, Law, Word of God binding to the Jews in the old covenant. Even that was criticized by Jesus if Jews were LEGALISTIC and followed the letter of the law and not the heart/intent of the law. Like how this one sentence needs to be interpreted with the mind of the Church and only the Church has the authority for this interpretation, not a single individual, no matter how educated.

I did read Mr. Peters argument and while he doesn’t take sides on which way the Church should go, he clearly says that the Church MUST address this one way or the other publicly and either change the canon law or make married permanent deacons subject to it.

Quote from his son’s website:
“It is up to the bishops of the Church, together with the competent authorities in Rome, to issue a clarification and enunciate a full and timely response to the theological and pastoral questions raised by this argument.

From Mr. Peter’s (the canonist’s) conclusion:

"If such a development truly reflects the mind of the Church, then it
seems incumbent on the proper ecclesiastical authority to enunciate the
reasons behind such a major change in discipline, lest the example of what
otherwise might seem like an amnesic development of practice be established
and accepted. In other words, there is need to demonstrate why the law must
be accommodated to the practice, lest law fall into disrepute. . . . .
and therefore, at best, the current situation of
non-continence among married permanent deacons is markedly anomalous,
then that fact should be admitted and forthrightly addressed. In this last case,
one wherein a practice must be brought into conformity with law, the example
of King Josiah upon rediscovering the forgotten Law (2 Kings 22-23) might
be instructive."

While Mr. Peters (the canonist) notes that since these deacons and their wives did not “consent . . . it seems that they should not be bound to observe c. 277,” he then says:

From Mr. Peter’s (the canonist’s) page 178:
"It would, on the other hand, be difficult to try to parlay this widespread
inadvertence to the requirement of clerical continence among permanent
deacons into a "custom contrary to law."90 First, acting out of ignorance of
a legal requirement does not seem to be the equivalent of acting with the
intention to establish a law that is demanded by the plain terms of c. 25.91
Moreover, to claim custom as a canonical defense for clerical non-continency
in the West raises questions about related matters as whether married
permanent deacons around the world constitute "a community capable of
receiving a law" and, especially given the express castigation of clerical noncontinence
as "sacrilegious" under the 1917 Code, even about whether such a
practice might indeed be "contrary to divine law."92 Finally, however, because
such a practice is, it seems certain, one actually "contrary to canon law," it
could obtain force of law only if it was "legitimately" observed for "thirty
continuous and complete years."93 The norm in question, of course, c. 277 of
the 1983 Code, while consistent with earlier law, has itself been in place only
for some twenty years. . . ."

“raises questions about . . .whether married permanent deacons” are “capable of receiving a law. . . clerical noncontinence as ‘sacrilegious’ . . . such a practice might indeed be ‘contrary to Divine law.’ . . .A practice must be brought into conformity with law.”

Can the Church have some married deacons subject to one set of rules and other married deacons not? Both at the same time? With a cutoff date of their ordinations marking who falls into which category? The reason for some subject to the discipline of continence because otherwise it would be “sacrilegious” and might be “contrary to divine law,” but the other guys are allowed to be “sacrilegious” and go “contrary to divine law?”

Would that make any sense? In theory or in practice?

Which means that it might be possible in the future that these mostly good and devout men would have their lives turned inside out, after the fact, and have to decide if they want to remain active deacons (a vocation and calling dear to their hearts) or resign from active ministry. Of course they will always be a deacon, because Holy Orders give a man a permanent mark on his soul, like baptism.

And meanwhile, have their most private lives open to public discussion and have to wonder, while they are on the altar or at the pulpit, if any of those in the congregation had read about this controversy and were wondering about him.

Even if they are not ever required to change retroactively, a future change would affect them and they would feel they were not doing all they should for the Lord, like future fellow deacons were. Some might be called by God to continence from their hearts, but others would be guilted into it or feel unworthy or defective in some way.

An unnecessary controversy. And while my choice of the words “involuntary celibacy” were not accurate, (I apologize), all the aforementioned would easily be seen by those deacons and wives involved and those who love to ridicule the Church and even by the faithful, like me, as a coercion or guilt into celibacy. Something the Church has never done.

No, Mr. Peters does not address any of my many concerns satisfactorily. If you think he does, please tell me what I missed. Because, quite frankly, the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. (and as many here will tell you, I don’t get annoyed much.) There are other points he makes in his argument that seem like complete leaps to me or fallacious reasoning, but I’ve written too much already.

If my tone sounds annoyed, I’m not annoyed at you. I’m sure both Messrs. Peters are good men, but I think they are wrong doing this.

God bless all of you here and God bless our holy Church.
Love,
Elisa

Guest Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:21 am

Hmm, I think Elisa has a point as well.

One thing that is clear: IF Peters is right, then ANY deacon and his wife who did not know this going into the diaconate would not be bound to it. You cannot vow something that you don't know you are vowing. In addition, perhaps many would not have even considered the diaconate if they knew that there was such a requirement.

It's kind of like the Legionaries of Christ and other such "new groups". They tell young men that if they don't follow a vocation to their group then they will go to hell. Many young people get the impression that they have two options #1 Leave the Legion and commit mortal sin #2 Stay in the Legion and have a chance at heaven. Many don't realize they have a free choice.

How does this relate to deacons? My point is that bad criteria given to the person taking the vow can actually invalidate it or justify a dispensation. I think it might be the same case with these deacons IF Edward Peters is right.

I think this is just one more example how the East does a LOT of things better then the West.

I like how they confirm and give communion to babies, how they don't change their liturgy, how their lay people look to the monastic life as an ideal for fasting and prayer, and how they have a strong monastic tradition AND married diocesan priests. The Ukrainian Church even has missionary orders like the Basilians and the Redemptorists. The fact that they allow married priests does not detract from the strength of their celibate orders.

I think the main reason why married priests should not be allowed in the West (at this point) is because today those that promote married priests in the west are usually the same ones that promote divorce, homosexuality, and contraception. It would just create too much confusion if it were allowed at this point. On the other hand, it could purge the effeminate/homo element in a lot of our Latin rite seminaries.

Anyway that is my two cents- A feeneyite who doesn't have a problem with married priests- you can begin to pounce on me now, LOL.

It just seems that the East is more balanced: They have a tough monastic tradition but at the same time they are merciful and realize that there are young men that would be good priests and pastors that perhaps can't live a solitary celibate life: "Tis not good for man to be alone" & "Better to marry than to burn".

Deacon Augustine Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:46 pm

Elisa, as you might guess, I have more than a little interest in this question and have been following it and throwing in my own 10 cents worth on several blogs. However, despite a number of highly qualified theologians and canon lawyers being involved in these debates, you have come up with some of the best responses I have seen

Elisa wrote:Mr. Peters makes a big deal about how the Church requires that wives consent to their husbands becoming deacons and he reads into this the reason must be because they may have to be continent.

This speculation is not sound or convincing in any way. The reason a wife needs to consent is because up until that point the sole vocation of this man was to be her husband and father to her children. (work vocations are different) And his sole vocation was joined to her sole vocation by sacrament.

Now these men are taking on another lifetime vocation, which is not only time consuming, but will take a lot of their energy, mental and spiritual and physical. Time and energy taken away from the family. (by the grace of God, we pray the Lord provides what is needed by the family and a deacon’s duties are less than a priests’, whom he assists.) There is a lot more to married life than sex, as I’m sure many here would agree.

Also, this man could not properly execute the duties of his new vocation as a deacon without the assistance and acceptance of his wife. He is bound to her, and her life will now also change and she will have new duties in her married life, even if those duties are not specific or concrete.

I fully agree that his arguments on spousal consent are very weak, and if he thinks he can dismiss a wife's interest in her husband's ordination the way he does, then I don't think he understands women very well. I could only add to what you have said by mentioning the fact that Eastern Catholics also require the wife's consent for ordination either to the diaconate or the priesthood. Here there is absolutely no question of consenting to continence, but rather all those reasons which you mention above.

Elisa wrote:Mr. Peters describes in great detail canons of the 1917 code of canon law. But since it only speaks about priests and the Western Church did not have permanent deacons at that time in history, he is making a leap connecting the 1917 codes to current deacons.

Alleluia, I have been looking for a way to express these sentiments, but you have given the words. It does seem an incredible leap to draw inferences from a code written in an era when there was no expectation of married clerics to a code when the order had already been restored for 11 years. Of course there were exceptions in the 1917 code and some married men were ordained even back then. But the expectation was that these men would put their wives aside and live as if they were not married, so of course they would have to be continent. That is not the expectation for married deacons these days, however.

Elisa wrote:Secondly, Mr. Peters is reading an intent by the Church into the fact that c. 277 in 1983 does not specifically address married deacons, even though some previous drafts did. He seems to think this means that the Church, bishops and the Pope, intended married deacons to be continent.

2 reasons I totally disagree.

First of all, in 1983 there were already many married permanent deacons who were specifically told before ordination that they did not have to be continent, and the Pope and Bishops knew that this was how they were living their lives. How stupid and ridiculous would it be for the Church to knowingly make a law saying it was wrong and intending to forbid an active married life, but to knowingly continue to allow the married deacons to go against the law and continue to ordain new deacons telling them to go against what the Church prescribed and intended?

More specifically to Mr. Peter’s argument is that one cannot read an intent into the absence of an exception, even if they toyed with the idea of writing in a specific discipline for married deacons.

It may not seem like it, since the code and all the many Church documents are so voluminous, but the formal Church has always made a point of saying the LEAST she possibly can on any given topic. Only writing, orating and detailing things that, out of necessity or pastoral concern, need to be specified.

Because the Church waits on the Holy Spirit for clarification and details and guidance. And because the Church does not want to restrict herself in any way and be able to change things in the future, if need be. (remember the Bride of Christ, Holy Mother Church, is a “she” and “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.” just kidding, I couldn’t resist that. lol)

Silence on a detail does not make it a specific law, unless the Church says it does. And in this case, clearly the Church has said it doesn’t make it binding on all deacons.

While they might have thought about putting an exception for married deacons in and then discarded the idea, it could have been for any number of good reasons.

Even I can think of a few reasons. Not wanting to confuse the issue when talking about clerics, which would include priests. Why then couldn’t priests be married and remain continent? You know some would jump on that opening.

The diaconate is one diaconate made up of transitional deacons who are unmarried, permanent deacons who are married and permanent deacons who are unmarried. Maybe the Church didn’t want to be detailing specific rules in it’s canon laws that were not universal to all deacons and wanted to describe and rule on those discipline details elsewhere instead.

Or leave it completely open to change when they saw fit, without having to change a canon law. Maybe they foresaw there might be a time when they might want to have married deacons be continent and didn’t want to be restricted from changing it.

My guess is that they had widowers in mind. Because the rules in 1983 and today say that once a deacon is widowed, he cannot remarry. But in 1983 and today the Church does make some individual exceptions for deacons who have very young children. Making too many specific details in c 277 might have made exceptions difficult.

And these are just the reasons that have popped into my head in 5 minutes. Imagine the reasons that the learned Bishops entrusted with our pastoral care might have thought of during the years they were contemplating this.

Again, Mr. Peters and those who agree with him are interpreting c. 277 to mean that married permanent deacons must be continent. The Church through her practices and all formal statements around the world and from the Vatican for decades now and even before 1983 interprets c. 277 to not say that.

And one more time – canon law 16 says that canon law is to be interpreted by the canon law maker, the legislator, the Church Herself. And the Church owes no one an explanation. Just like she doesn’t owe liberals explanations for things they disagree with, she doesn’t owe explanations to conservative and devout canon lawyers who disagree with her or question her. Even if they think she does owe them a clarification. Especially when the vast majority of the over billion faithful around the world aren’t asking for clarification. They think the Church has already decided on this topic by actual practice that involves no abuse whatsoever.

The Christian Church follows Jesus’ example and is not LEGALISTIC, as some of the people of the old covenant were. It was the heart of the old Law that was reawakened in the hearts of the Jewish people by God through King Josiah, and the Law was about faith beliefs and expressions of that, not simply pastoral disciplines.

All good points.

Peters assumes too much when he tries to interpret the intent of the lawmaker in the way he does. As you say, the Church is the lawmaker, but more specifically in the case of the 1983 code, it was John Paul II. He gave a couple of very public addresses to deacons in Rome and in one of those he exhorted us to make sure that our marriages were always open and welcoming to new life. Assuming that he did not want us all to become farmers or market gardeners, I think it is reasonable to interpret that as meaning that he wanted us to have lots of children and live by the Church's teaching on chaste conjugal relations within marriage - to put it bluntly: no contraception!!! However, Peter's tries to get round that by saying that JPII meant welcoming children conceived in the 9 months prior to ordination or welcoming them by adoption!!! (you couldn't make this garbage up!).

Having said all that, Peters does make some good points on the way the law is written as it stands, but it is not interpreted that way by any bishops I know of including such notable consevatives as Archbishop (is he Cardinal yet?) Burke, who ordained several married deacons himself.

Deacon Augustine Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:35 pm

cowboy wrote:Whow WHOW!!! Dudes and dudettes, This is gettin WEIRD! Are you saying a man and wife should live in the same house and not have sex? Talk about occasions of sin!!!

This is close to Jansenism making the act itself sinful. I know we are over stimulated by the secular world but part of marriage is sex. To go to the other extreme would be wrong too. Regarding marriage, Paul states that it is better for Christians to remain unmarried, but that it is better to marry than sin.(1Cor 7:9)

Plus we need more good Catholic children from good Catholic homes!

cowboy, you have hit an interesting point re Jansenism, but I think it may be an "ism" which is far more pernicious even than Jansenism, and if so would not be surprising that this has all kicked off from a canon lawyer based in the U.S.

The timing of this new push by Peters Snr. & Jnr. on this issue was very unfortunate as it was precisely the same weekend that the Pope established the first Ordinariate for Anglicans to be reunited with the Church while bringing some of their patrimony with them. One aspect of this patrimony is married priests and deacons. I have questioned Peters about the timing of it with respect to the Ordinariate and he assures that he was not trying to undermine the Holy Father's initiative. I believe him, but it was unfortunate timing nevertheless, and there may have been an unconscious desire to shore up the teaching on celibacy at this particular moment in history.

If you look at Peters' sources which lead him towards the position of clerical celibacy being a dogma rather than a discipline, these include Cochini, Cholij and Stickler. The problem with all of them though is that they uncritically accept some very specious arguments for clerical continence and celibacy based on appeals to ritual purity - particularly by Pope Siricius. Pope Sircius leant strongly on the Old Testament regulations for the Levitical priesthood of the Jews which demanded that the priests lived continently while they were serving in the Temple in order to maintain their ritual purity. They took the view that sexual intercourse even within marriage made a man ritually unclean.

He was not the first Pope who was tempted by the arguments of the Judaizers of course. It was St. Peter himself who was persuaded by them to avoid eating with gentile Christians in order to keep on the right side of the Jewish purity laws. Fortunately he had a St Paul to remind him that the New Covenant was not bound by the Mosaic law which was fulfilled and replaced by the new law of grace.

This whole notion of ritual purity should have no place whatsover in Catholicism, even if it is being used to defend the vocation of celibacy. When Christ recommended celibacy for those who could keep it for the Kingdom, He in no way appealed to the laws on "cleanness", but rather He and St Paul taught that it was a way of living with an undivided heart for God, as an eschatological sign of the Kingdom to come. Any reading of the Gospels will give a clear idea of what Our Lord's view of the ritual purity laws were!!!

My suspicion of this drive to dogmatize celibacy is that it has arisen from yet another resurgence of the Judaizing heresy which the Church has struggled with in every century since Pentecost. It comes from the same source as "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" and "Christian Zionism.", both of which the neoconservative Catholics in the U.S. have largely taken on board.

Unfortunately if you mention any of this to Peters' defenders, you are immediately branded as a "celibacy hater" even if you believe that the Church's current discipline on priestly celibacy is right for the times in which we live. It makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion with them.

If conjugal relations within marrige are evil, as some of them seem to think, then celibates are not making any kind of virtuous sacrifice - we should all be celibate anyway. The Cathars and Albigensians would have been right all along.....

Deacon Augustine Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:47 pm

RashaLampa wrote:I think the main reason why married priests should not be allowed in the West (at this point) is because today those that promote married priests in the west are usually the same ones that promote divorce, homosexuality, and contraception. It would just create too much confusion if it were allowed at this point. On the other hand, it could purge the effeminate/homo element in a lot of our Latin rite seminaries.

Anyway that is my two cents- A feeneyite who doesn't have a problem with married priests- you can begin to pounce on me now, LOL.

It just seems that the East is more balanced: They have a tough monastic tradition but at the same time they are merciful and realize that there are young men that would be good priests and pastors that perhaps can't live a solitary celibate life: "Tis not good for man to be alone" & "Better to marry than to burn".

I largely agree with you, Rasha. Priestly celibacy is a discipline which could be changed if the Church so decides, but now would not be a good time to do it. There is still too much mess that needs to be put right before more changes are brought in.

Another aspect of Eastern monachism which we don't have in the West is that it should influence the spirituality of all the faithful. Hence in Great Lent and other fasting seasons, not only married clergy, but lay faithful as well are encouraged to join with the monastics in embracing continence as part of their ascetical discipline. Imagine how that would go down in Fr. Trendy's parish?

If we were ever to adopt Eastern practices with regards to clerical celibacy, it would be rather inconsistent if we didn't also embrace the rest of the tradition that goes with that.

Elisa Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:42 am

I could only add to what you have said by mentioning the fact that Eastern Catholics also require the wife's consent for ordination either to the diaconate or the priesthood. Here there is absolutely no question of consenting to continence, but rather all those reasons which you mention above.

Good point, Deacon. And great posts. Thank you. I't a pleasure to agree with someone for a change. lol Better yet, it's a pleasure to have someone say they agree with me. lol

And thank you so much for your service to Our Lord's Church.

May God always bless you and your family for it.
Love,
Elisa

Dominion Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:06 am

Married deacons not allowed to have sex with their own wives? Laughable, and if forced, totally evil. The wife could sue for divorce and she'd win. Paul wrote that he desired bishops and deacons to be married but once, probably referring to divorce rather than to having more than one wife, but nevertheless the notion of them not performing their conjugal duty most certainly never entered his mind. He'd be horrified by such a travesty. Furthermore, Paul may have desired this or that, but even so, a married bishop with two or three wives is a far better choice than some blockhead or worse, some pedophile. Even if a bishop is divorced, so be it, if he's the best they've got, he'll just have to do. Or would you rather be a mule...

I'll have some ecclesiam if you've got extra...no wait, I knew a guy who suffered an ecclesiam and lost the use of his hair....I'll pass on that. Hold the salus, I'm on a diet...

It's snowing, woooooo Very Happy

columba Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:03 am

I'll have some ecclesiam if you've got extra...no wait, I knew a guy who suffered an ecclesiam and lost the use of his hair....I'll pass on that. Hold the salus, I'm on a diet...

If it were so dangerous for the hair then there'd be no point in Luke 12: 7 geek

Sponsored content

Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain

Re: Canonist says permanent deacons MUST abstain