Diaconal Bombshell: "Wait, this isn't what I signed up for!"

ubertrad

So this is the first I've heard, and I suspect most, if not all, permanent deacons in Britain and Ireland probably weren't told about this at the time of their formation and ordination:

Church Law says Permanent Deacons (and all clerics) are obliged to abstain from sex, notes Canonist Edward Peters

:eek:

Slav

Good example of what can happen to our RC brothers who were unfortunate enough to become canon lawyers: you can come up with some rather bizarre ideas when you study Canon Law too hard and don't study the Scriptures hard enough.

ubertrad

Slav wrote: »

Good example of what can happen to our RC brothers who were unfortunate enough to become canon lawyers: you can come up with some rather bizarre ideas when you study Canon Law too hard and don't study the Scriptures hard enough.

Seems like you have an axe to grind. Maybe you'd do better to read this article.

A brief excerpt:

In this music, just a couple of things are usually heard and understood.

The first is that the celibacy of the clergy is a rule imposed in recent centuries on the Latin clergy alone.

The second is that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry "as in the primitive Church."

The problem is that both of these things are at odds with history and theology.

*

Also at the heart of the error is a poor understanding of the concept of clerical celibacy.

Throughout the first millennium and also afterward, in the Church the celibacy of the clergy was properly understood as "continence." Meaning as complete renunciation, after ordination, of conjugal life, even for those who had previously been married.

The ordination of married men, in fact, was a common practice, also documented by the New Testament. But in the Gospel, one reads that Peter, after his call to be an apostle, "left everything." And Jesus said that there are some who even leave "wives or children" for the Kingdom of God.

While in the Old Testament, the obligation of sexual purity applied to priests only during the periods of their service at the Temple, in the New Testament the following of Jesus in the priesthood is total, and consumes the entire person, always.

The fact that since the beginning of the Church priests and bishops were required to abstain from conjugal life is confirmed by the first rules written on the matter.

These began to appear in the fourth century, after the end of the persecutions. With the sharp rise in the number of the faithful, ordinations also increased, and with them the violations of continence.

Against these infractions, councils and popes intervened repeatedly to reaffirm the discipline they themselves called "traditional." This was done by the Council of Elvira in the first decade of the fourth century, which punished lack of respect for continence with exclusion from the clergy; other councils a century later; popes Siricius and Innocence I; and still other popes and Fathers of the Church, from Leo the Great to Gregory the Great, from Ambrose to Augustine to Jerome.

For many more centuries, the Western Church continued to ordain married men, but always demanded that they renounce conjugal life and separate from their wives, after receiving their consent. Infractions were punished, but they were very frequent and widespread. In part to combat this, the Church started trying to select its priests from among the celibate.

In the East, however, from the end of the seventh century onward the Church held firm the absolute obligation of continence only for bishops, who were increasingly chosen from among monks rather than from among married men. With the lower clergy, it allowed the married to continue leading a conjugal life, with the obligation of continence only "on the days of service at the altar and of the celebration of the sacred mysteries." This was established by the Second Council of Trullo in 691, a council never recognized as ecumenical by the Western Church.

From then until now, this is the discipline that has been in effect in the East, as also in the Churches of the Eastern rite that have returned to communion with the Church of Rome since the schism of 1054: absolute continence for bishops, and conjugal life permitted for the lower clergy. On the condition that marriage must always precede sacred ordination, and never follow it.

The tolerance adopted by the Eastern Churches for the conjugal life of the lower clergy was encouraged – according to the historians – by the particular organization of these Churches, which were constituted as patriarchates and were therefore more inclined to make autonomous decisions on the disciplinary level, with a prominent role played by the political authority.

wolfsbane

ubertrad wrote: »

So this is the first I've heard, and I suspect most, if not all, permanent deacons in Britain and Ireland probably weren't told about this at the time of their formation and ordination:

Church Law says Permanent Deacons (and all clerics) are obliged to abstain from sex, notes Canonist Edward Peters

:eek:

It's OK. Based on weren't told about this at the time of their formation and ordination, they will be able either:
1. To walk away from their office, as not really having been ordained in the first place. Or
2. To walk away from their marriage, as not really having married in the first place.

That's how RC marriages are annulled, isn't it? One or other of the parties did not understand what they were getting into.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 15:3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

ubertrad

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's OK. Based on weren't told about this at the time of their formation and ordination, they will be able either:
1. To walk away from their office, as not really having been ordained in the first place. Or
2. To walk away from their marriage, as not really having married in the first place.

That's how RC marriages are annulled, isn't it? One or other of the parties did not understand what they were getting into.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 15:3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

I'm guessing they can walk away from diaconate, but I don't see anyone about to push this as an issue, i.e. the bishops...

The deacons didn't know what they were signing up for cos they weren't told.

Slav

ubertrad wrote: »

Seems like you have an axe to grind.

I don't. Why?

Maybe you'd do better to read this article.

While still having a good number of inaccuracies and questionable points the article is about the priesthood celibacy, isn't it? There is nothing unscriptural about celibacy but pushing sex ban into someone's else marriage for whatever reason (as suggested by that canon lawyer and his father) is not biblical and against the apostolic tradition.

ubertrad wrote: »

The deacons didn't know what they were signing up for cos they weren't told.

And they won't be told. It's just not serious.

ubertrad

Slav wrote: »

I don't. Why?

While still having a good number of inaccuracies and questionable points the article is about the priesthood celibacy, isn't it? There is nothing unscriptural about celibacy but pushing sex ban into someone's else marriage for whatever reason (as suggested by that canon lawyer and his father) is not biblical and against the apostolic tradition.

And they won't be told. It's just not serious.

No I think you are mistaken. The Latin Rite Catholic tradition is that the deacons, as well as the priests, renounced sexual relations with their wives once they were ordained. That article refers to priests yes, but the principals apply also to the permanent diaconate.

Anyway that is the opinion of Ed Peters. I'm sure the Church has its own position. I am not totally clear on what that is, though the comments in this entry on Fr Z's blog are interesting if not conclusive - http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/continence-and-married-deaconspriests/#comments

ISAW

Slav wrote: »

Good example of what can happen to our RC brothers who were unfortunate enough to become canon lawyers: you can come up with some rather bizarre ideas when you study Canon Law too hard and don't study the Scriptures hard enough.

I assume all candidates would see this document on norms and be aware of paragraphs 6;60 and 61.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19980331_directorium-diaconi_en.html

ubertrad

ISAW wrote: »

I assume all candidates would see this document on norms and be aware of paragraphs 6;60 and 61.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19980331_directorium-diaconi_en.html

Caveat emptor.

I guess the deacons would have a good case if they want to be laicised since they didn't enter into the sacrament with full knowledge.

Manach

Slav wrote: »

Good example of what can happen to our RC brothers who were unfortunate enough to become canon lawyers: you can come up with some rather bizarre ideas when you study Canon Law too hard and don't study the Scriptures hard enough.

OT: Obviously you've never studied the common law, that is the epitome of oddness.

ubertrad

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

----

According to this Canon lawyer, permanent deacons are bound to continence but not celibacy:

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm

PDN

Incontinent deacons? Sounds messy!

Puck

PDN wrote: »

Incontinent deacons? Sounds messy!

Deacon Blew

zoomtard

Vatican II's Optatam totius taught, "it will be possible for the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy....(and confer it) even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force”

Canon Law states that married men who are called to the diaconate should be at least 35 and have 5 years of theological formation. At no point does the Code or any Vatican text I have encountered imply that married deacons are to be celibate- it would be a dreadful clash of theologies between ordination and marriage for one thing - and I think that this so called "bombshell" is just yet another interpretation.

wolfsbane

zoomtard wrote: »

Vatican II's Optatam totius taught, "it will be possible for the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy....(and confer it) even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force”

Canon Law states that married men who are called to the diaconate should be at least 35 and have 5 years of theological formation. At no point does the Code or any Vatican text I have encountered imply that married deacons are to be celibate- it would be a dreadful clash of theologies between ordination and marriage for one thing - and I think that this so called "bombshell" is just yet another interpretation.

Does the above even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, imply mandatory celibacy for these men? Surely any married man has sexual obligations to his wife?

_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Xizors Palace

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does the above even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, imply mandatory celibacy for these men? Surely any married man has sexual obligations to his wife?

_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Celibacy means to be unmarried.
Continent means to abstain from sexual relations
Chastity refers to sexual purity according to one's state in life.

The permanent deacons, according to Canonist Ed Peter's, are called to continence within marriage. It remains for the Church to decide if it wants to keep the law as it is or revise it such that married deacons are permitted to engage in relations with their wife. At the moment, Ed Peters is of the opinion that the permanent deacons are called to continence within marriage, which is one reason why the wife's consent is required.

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Celibacy means to be unmarried.
Continent means to abstain from sexual relations
Chastity refers to sexual purity according to one's state in life.

The permanent deacons, according to Canonist Ed Peter's, are called to continence within marriage. It remains for the Church to decide if it wants to keep the law as it is or revise it such that married deacons are permitted to engage in relations with their wife. At the moment, Ed Peters is of the opinion that the permanent deacons are called to continence within marriage, which is one reason why the wife's consent is required.

But is that not in opposition to the apostle's word?
and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.


__________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Xizors Palace

wolfsbane wrote: »

But is that not in opposition to the apostle's word?
and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Not really. Have a look at this.

I am too poorly now to get into it, sorry.

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Not really. Have a look at this.

I am too poorly now to get into it, sorry.

Sorry to hear of your frailty. Take it easy.:)

____________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 9:3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

Xizors Palace

This is an interesting opinion on this matter:

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/may-married-deacons-have-marital-relations/

I have no opinion really, I merely post this for interest's sake.