FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Deacons and perfect continence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(02-08-2011, 08:50 PM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]OK, I'm on notice.  I get it. 

I for one am not against what you are saying.  I posted someone else's take without explicitly endorsing it.  Elsewhere, I posted an article on the SSPX site which makes very strong claims about celibacy which include the Eastern clerics.  I found it provoking and haven't come to a resolution in my mind.

It is unreasonable to expect people to be able to do intense research on Canon law and then immediately return to an internet discussion thread with newly edified thoughts on the topic.  Without speaking for HK, I think we are conceding to you that you probably know more about the topic. 

Maybe I can find that SSPX article again to add to the discussion.
Let's see if I can do this the way the man wants it done.

"It is unreasonable to expect people to be able to do intense research on Canon law and then immediately return to an internet discussion thread with newly edified thoughts on the topic. "

True.  However, it is NOT unreasonable to expect people to hold their tongues and keyboards when they haven't done any research on a topic, rather than offering snarky or insulting opinions about carefully-researched and reasoned work of Doctors of Canon Law.

Agreed?

(02-08-2011, 08:05 PM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]This is what happens when you post ignorant things that disparage real people on teh interwebs.  Somebody who's not similarly uninformed may read it, take exception, and school you in public.  Catholics aren't supposed to call people with DCL's who take the law seriously names.  That's bad form.

Catholics aren't supposed to call anyone names. Having a licentiate or a doctorate doesn't make a person any more (or less) entitled to common courtesy.
(02-09-2011, 12:05 AM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]Let's see if I can do this the way the man wants it done.

"It is unreasonable to expect people to be able to do intense research on Canon law and then immediately return to an internet discussion thread with newly edified thoughts on the topic. "

True.  However, it is NOT unreasonable to expect people to hold their tongues and keyboards when they haven't done any research on a topic, rather than offering snarky or insulting opinions about carefully-researched and reasoned work of Doctors of Canon Law.

Agreed?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of scholars in all sorts of fields whose work I do not hesitate to criticize. I am entitled to my opinion, regardless of whether someone with a fancy degree holds a different one.
There are plenty of scholars in all sorts of fields whose work I do not hesitate to criticize.

Do you bother to read them first?  Or do you criticize them without knowing what they wrote?  that's sort of the point here, you know, of this whole thing.
(02-08-2011, 02:38 AM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that a married diaconate is automatically envisioned as a sexually active diaconate is belied by the abililty of the wife to veto the ordination of a deacon.  No third party can veto the reception of a sacrament unless a natural right is being given up by that third party.  What natural right would the wife of a deacon give up at his ordination?  Only the right to sex in marriage.  IOW, Canon Law is actually providing specifically here for a married but perpetually continent diaconate in its sacramental law.

That's not accurate.  Parents, by natural right, can veto the baptism of their child and they are not surrendering any natural right when doing so.

The other problem is that this would in effect cancel out the primary purpose of the Sacrament of Marriage.

The permanent deacon would, in essence, be saying he will no longer fulfill that primary purpose for the purpose of reception of another Sacrament.  Sacraments do not, generally speaking, nullify one another.  Rather, Sacraments often build on one another.  Baptism is required for the rest, confirmation for a licit reception of Holy Orders, etc.  This would be a unique case where one Sacrament, licitly received, interferred with the primary purpose of another.  Is this an impossibility?  Well, no, not necessarily, but it seems to put the burden on the supposer that the married diaconate is not automatically envisioned as a sexually active diaconate.

Quote:..and so on.  An actual reading of Peters or the other canonists examining this position will be enlightening.  They do in fact have a compelling case.  The differential minimum ages of permanent vs. transitional deacons points to expected continence, as does the ban on marriage after the death of a spouse for a deacon. 

I think these inferences are non sequitur.  It can easily be said the age difference is due to the different responsibilities, and the ban on marriage follows from the tradition of the Eastern Rites and Scripture.  So, I don't think there is anything that can be clearly discerned from this supposition.

Quote:The fact that this "problem" existed before 1983, and JPII had the perfect opportunity to "fix" the problem but declined to allow a specific canon to address it is provocative. 

Provocative or sloppy.  Based on history, I would have to vote with sloppy.

Quote:If one follows the letter of the law, Deacons, like all clerics of the Latin Rite, are to be perpetually continent.  Their wives are not to be dragged into this unwillingly, so they are given the not inconsequentual power to veto a Holy Ordination.  (IOW, in this one case, the wife outranks the Bishop.  Stew on that.)  They are to wait until their childbearing years are mostly passed before they are able to be ordained.  If their wife dies, they are not re-marry as this may not be conducive to the observation of perptual continence.  Etc. and Etc.

If one follows the letter of the law in toto, married and permanent deacons are to be celibate, which they cannot be, so it can be argued this law does not apply to them.

Quote:an. 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.

Laws cannot contradict each other.  So either this law doesn't apply to married permanent deacons, or it does and therefore they are bound to something they cannot be bound to since they are already married.

Quote:That's a quick overview.  It's not some crackpot theory, qualified canonists are taking a close look into the entire mess and no one is certain what's going to happen here. 

No, it's not a crackpot theory, but it is a difficult theory to make an argument for, and I think it will eventually lose.  Even if it doesn't, B16 can take 30 seconds out of his day and change Canon Law, and probably would.  So, the most that would happen is Canon Law is amended.

Another problem is an unenforced law is no law at all.  Let's say all these deacons are guilty of violating Canon Law.  It doesn't render their Orders invalid or even the reception illicit.  The only censure possible for this is really removal from public ministry, laicization, or suspension.  And those are possible; they are not required.  The Holy See could turn around and say, "OK, they're in violation of Canon Law. Punishment is three hail marys."

Probably the only people who care about this are permanent deacons and Canon Lawyers.  As a traditional Catholic, I am against permanent deacons in the Latin Rite, but that isn't going to be changed because of sloppy Canon Law.  I'm more interested in the doctrinal questions around V2.
Quis Wrote:As a traditional Catholic, I am against permanent deacons in the Latin Rite

As an aside, do you mean permanent deacons in general, or only married deacons? Married deacons I can understand, but in light of the Council of Trent's decree on the reformation of Holy Orders and its desire to restore the diaconate and other orders, I don't see how one can be opposed to permanent deacons in principle, even if you limit it to a Latin Rite perspective. (Even Archbishop Lefebrve is said to have liked the idea of the prmanent diaconate.) At best, I can see why one may argue it's not a priority at the moment.
(02-09-2011, 04:59 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]
Quis Wrote:As a traditional Catholic, I am against permanent deacons in the Latin Rite

As an aside, do you mean permanent deacons in general, or only married deacons? Married deacons I can understand, but in light of the Council of Trent's decree on the reformation of Holy Orders and its desire to restore the diaconate and other orders, I don't see how one can be opposed to permanent deacons in principle, even if you limit it to a Latin Rite perspective. (Even Archbishop Lefebrve is said to have liked the idea of the prmanent diaconate.) At best, I can see why one may argue it's not a priority at the moment.

I was sloppy.  I meant married permanent deacons.  I don't oppose them in the Eastern Rites, though, nor do I oppose married priests in the Eastern Rites, nor Anglican or Orthodox priests who come over and receive a dispensation.  In fact, I think the Eastern Rites have been unfairly stifled in the U.S. with regard to a married priesthood.

I don't think it's the end of the world that we have married permanent deacons in the Latin Rite or that we would continue to do so.  It's 5000x better than EMHC's, etc.  I think, though, it would be better not to.
Okay. Gotcha.
That's not accurate.  Parents, by natural right, can veto the baptism of their child and they are not surrendering any natural right when doing so.

Actually, it's precisely the same thing.  It's natural right of the parent to *make this choice about Baptism* and so they have the veto of the recpetion.  It's the natural right of the wife to *make that choice about sex* and so she has an analgous veto power.  In effect, you've proven the case by noting that a 3rd party must have a compelling natural right interest to have veto over the reception of a sacrament.  Name another, different, natural right interest a wife has over her husband's ordination?   If you can't, then provide some other reason she'd have this power? 


The other problem is that this would in effect cancel out the primary purpose of the Sacrament of Marriage.

And yet this is the tradition of the Church amply demonstrated from Patristic times...so maybe it's not the practice of continence in this case which is flawed, but rather the emphasis on the unitive aspect of sex within marriage as "primary"...which has been debated among and by traditionalists many times before and so should not be surprising here.


The permanent deacon would, in essence, be saying he will no longer fulfill that primary purpose for the purpose of reception of another Sacrament.  Sacraments do not, generally speaking, nullify one another.  Rather, Sacraments often build on one another.  Baptism is required for the rest, confirmation for a licit reception of Holy Orders, etc.  This would be a unique case where one Sacrament, licitly received, interferred with the primary purpose of another.  Is this an impossibility?  Well, no, not necessarily, but it seems to put the burden on the supposer that the married diaconate is not automatically envisioned as a sexually active diaconate.

The burden is not, and never could be on a party arguing from legitimate Church practice from earlier times.  No need to make another analogy on this point, we're at fisheaters, see any other thread about any topic and the point is being made for me.

I think the primary problem with this section of your post is the unsupported argument that it is somehow wrong, improper, or unnatural for a married couple to abstain from sex for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  This is a side debate which we can have, and I'm used to having, I'm just taken aback that I would be having it here, rather than on, say, Catholic.com. 

I think these inferences are non sequitur.  It can easily be said the age difference is due to the different responsibilities

Let's see if it can be "easily" said.  The two differing cases here are Permanent vs. Transitional Diaconate.  You propose that the transitional deacon can be younger than the permanent because of differing responsibilities.  This would indicate that the permanent deacon has *more* or *greater* responsbilities, since he must wait until a later age.  However, we know that this is absolutely not the case, since the transitional deacon, one year or so later, will be elevated to the priesthood and its attendant much greater responsibilities such as confession/penance and of course the consecration of the Eucharist (source and summit, you know).  So, no, that's not it at all.  Seriously, I'd like to see if anyone can support this idea on the terms you've stated. 

Laws cannot contradict each other.  So either this law doesn't apply to married permanent deacons, or it does and therefore they are bound to something they cannot be bound to since they are already married.

Well, not to be blunt, but welcome to the party, now we all are talking about the same thing.  The permanent diaconate was re-formed and re-instituted according to the 1917 code which was plainly contradictory of the practice of married and incontinent clergy.  Everyone knew it, everyone expected a change of the law to retroactively allow the common practice...and it didn't happen.  Now it's time to follow the chain of reasoning (which is the chain I gave in the earlier post, but sometimes it helps poster and reader to do it a different way):

1. Paul VI reinstituted (as was his idiom) an archaic practice, the permanent diaconate, in the spirit of ressourcement, and did not do anything official or specific to change the status of the diaconate as a major order of clergy bound to continence and celibacy. 
2.The Bishops' conferences of the nations (most notably the USA) began to ordain married men to the permanent diaconate without obtaining specific permissions or clarifications on how Canon Law was to be interpeted.  This reform was rushed through without proper study or consideration (as is their idiom).
3.Two specific permissions were *assumed* to exist:  A.To ordain married men to the permanent diaconate without a promise of continence B.To modify the rite of ordination to accomplish this feat.  It was further assumed that if these permissions existed, they would be codified shortly, with the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law being the obvious opportunity, since these assumed permissions were technically breaches of the 1917 code.
4.The new code did not address these apparent contradictions.  Rome has subsequently not addressed these contradictions.  Leaving aside Peters and his comrades, the USCCB has been aware of this issue before, and it is fair to characterize their response as "ignoring the issue". 

So, what is the Traditional Catholic interpretation of a series of events like this, where Rome does not officially sanction the actions of a national Bishop's council, but the council proceeds hell-bent anyway and builds up some edifice on a foundation of "expectations" and "interpetations of the spirit of the movement"?  We've been over this ground many times.  What Peters' proposal points to is merely one more case in the which the USCCB did something unwarranted and tremendously harmful and perhaps even contradictory to the mind of Rome in the wake of VII and now finds itself in an impossible situation. 

We know this music very well, I don't find it hard to believe at all. 

I'll deal with your objection "So either this law doesn't apply to married permanent deacons, or it does and therefore they are bound to something they cannot be bound to since they are already married" next, it deserves its own post.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7