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
(02-10-2011, 01:57 AM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]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? 

But that's not what you said.  What you said was this, emphasis mine:

Quote:No third party can veto the reception of a sacrament unless a natural right is being given up by that third party.

The parents do have a natural right, yet they are giving up nothing.  Further, one may have veto power even if they don't have a natural right.  A bishop has the right to veto ordination even if the recipient is willing.  The authority of the bishop is not natural, but ecclesiastical.  His right to veto comes from his office, not natural authority.

There are lots of reasons why the wife might have to give permission.  It can be anything from a relic of the tradition of continence, down to practical considerations such as lessening of income - a husband's responsibility does not end with the marital debt, to the fact that the husband cannot remarry and in the case of her death provide a mother for her children, to practical considerations such as it would be very difficult for him to fulfill his responsibilities as deacon if she were actively against it.  In fact, besides putting a spanner in the works, it could damage their marriage.

Quote: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.

That is the tradition of the Latin Church, not the Eastern Church.  The discipline diverged not long after patristic times. 

I don't know any debate about the unitive aspect of sex being primary; I do know a debate about the unitive aspect of marriage being primary instead of secondary.  Is that what you mean?  In the case that separation is not required, that end of marriage would still be fulfilled even if the spouses remain continent.

Quote: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.

The burden is on the person making the supposition as an argument.   You are arguing as evidence for an interpretation of 1983 Canon Law that the diaconate was envisioned as a continent one.  That is a strong claim considering in practice those responsible for interpretation and enforcement of Canon Law, including the Popes and those who wrote the Canon Laws, have given zero indication that was the case.  They obviously knew and know that married permanent deacons are not living in continence.  That works against your claim that: "The idea that a married diaconate is automatically envisioned as a sexually active diaconate..is belied...."

I think that a married diaconate was automatically envisioned as a sexually active diaconate by those who wrote, interpret, and enforce Canon Law.  I think it's clear that is the case, so I'm asking you why you don't think that.

Quote: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'm not making that argument at all.

Quote: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. 

A married man has responsibilities to his family which may include small children.  Notice that permanent deacons who are not married are allowed to be younger, the same age as a transitional deacon:

Quote:§2. A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married is not to be admitted to the diaconate until after completing at least the twenty-fifth year of age; one who is married, not until after completing at least the thirty-fifth year of age and with the consent of his wife.

Quote: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". 

OK

Quote: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. 

It seems like you are interested in making this a "political" issue rather than a question of Canon Law.  If it were merely a question of Canon Law, I think my "so what?" stance is appropriate for Traditional Catholics.  If the law is sloppy, they'll just change it.  No one will be laicized, etc.

Making it a "political" issue seems imprudent to me and a distraction from doctrinal questions that need to be answered.  Most traditional Catholics would want the permanent and married diaconate abrogated.  Arguing legal points on apparent flaws in the 1983 Code isn't going to obtain that.  Answering doctrinal questions and changing Canon Law to specifically disallow them would.
Quis Wrote:Notice that permanent deacons who are not married are allowed to be younger, the same age as a transitional deacon:

To help refine your argument, I'll just add that this is the general rule, yes. Unmarried permanent deacons can be 25. However, as far as I can tell, no bishop in the entire U.S. has ever ordained a man below 35 to the permanent diaconate. I can't find an actual USCCB rule for it, but it probably might as well be one. I know that much, at least, since I was looking into becoming an unmarried deacon not too long ago and found out that if I were ordained before the age of 35, I'd probably be the first American ever to do so. And my diocese in particular doesn't even offer formation to diaconal candidates until 35. So it's clear to me that in practice, the American bishops want to keep the diaconate reserved for older men. (I think this is ridiculous, of course.)
I'm writing a response.  In the meatime, there's another issue, which is:

Why would traditionalists not be interested in the political aspects of a matter of the reforms in the wake of VII which was contrary to the ancient tradition, slapdash, internally contradictory, and which I am making the case may be another instance of the USCCB directly defying the will of Rome? 

That's pretty much a trad's favorite topic... 
(02-10-2011, 08:24 PM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]I'm writing a response.  In the meatime, there's another issue, which is:

Why would traditionalists not be interested in the political aspects of a matter of the reforms in the wake of VII which was contrary to the ancient tradition, slapdash, internally contradictory, and which I am making the case may be another instance of the USCCB directly defying the will of Rome? 

Because traditionalists should not be interested in machinations but purity of Faith and Doctrine.  In other words, we shouldn't stoop to their level.  Christ had a lot of problems with politicking prelates and lawyering.  His answer was to preach doctrine and talk past the politics.  I think that is the noble way.

In this specific case, I don't think the USCCB is defying the will of Rome.  I think the will of Rome is a married deaconate that is not continent.  Maybe we should instead mark our calendars for one of the few times the USCCB is following the will of Rome....

Quote:That's pretty much a trad's favorite topic... 

Not mine.  :shrug:
I think the will of Rome is a married deaconate that is not continent.

I think you're letting emotion make your arguments, because you've taken the contra-tradition interpretation of every point of law so far in an attempt to defeat me.  Wait just a bit and I'll give it to you point by pont and we'll see if you still want to claim that a married, incontinent clergy is possible or that Rome could ever specifically will it or that it should *ever* be considered the default position and the burden of proof be on the other side. 

What is the traditional in traditionalist for? 
(02-10-2011, 09:00 PM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]I think the will of Rome is a married deaconate that is not continent.

I think you're letting emotion make your arguments, because you've taken the contra-tradition interpretation of every point of law so far in an attempt to defeat me. 

I think that's just a bit ludicrous of a statement.  If I had knee-jerked to a traditional interpretation of what was written and what has been going on, then that would be emotional.  Instead, I have looked objectively at what is in Canon Law, what Rome has allowed knowing full well what is going on, etc., and come to a conclusion.

Further, you have offered no points of law.  You've offered conjecture and conclusions based on circumstantial evidence on your part.  I've merely pointed out where your conclusions are non sequitur or not necessary conclusions based on the facts.

Quote:Wait just a bit and I'll give it to you point by pont and we'll see if you still want to claim that a married, incontinent clergy is possible or that Rome could ever specifically will it or that it should *ever* be considered the default position and the burden of proof be on the other side. 

That's not the discussion, though, is it?  The discussion is whether married deacons are required to be continent under the Canon Law of 1983 or not.  That's what I'm arguing.  The law and the actions of Rome show that it does not. 

Here is a point of law for you in the form of a legal maxim: silence implies consent.  Rome has been silent on the deacons being incontinent.  What does that imply according to that legal maxim?

A permanent married diaconate is not traditional, and I am not for it.  You can see I volunteered that statement like 10 posts ago in response to someone else.  That's much different than asking what the 1983 CCL requires.

Quote:What is the traditional in traditionalist for? 

The tradition of the Church.  Examining with virtue and an eye to the truth instead of political gain.  If we act like the Modernists, we are no better than them.

BTW, I would appreciate if you refrain from the ad hominem attacks, both explicit and implied, on how "trad" I am and stick to the discussion.  Thank you.
I think the problem here is that I've made the mistake of assuming some general knowledge on this topic.  OK, let me correct that.

Absolute clerical continence is the constant tradition of the Latin Rite of the Church.  Bookended Canonically by Elvira and Trent, the entire period from the triumph of the Church over persecution until the suppression of married men admitted to tonsure provides ample evidence that married men were welcomed to the major orders only if they with the consent of their wives (and the judgement of their superiors that their wives were of sufficient moral character) would promise absolute continence after ordination.  This lex continentiae applied of course to married deacons, priests, and Bishops.  The formulation found in Canon 33 of Elvira reflects the practice of the Church during this period:

33. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.

The precursor for the congregation of the clergy, the Sacra Congregatio Cardinalium pro executione et interpretatione concilii Tridentini interpretum, the body charged with interpreting and implementing Trent in the Church, restated the necessaity of all clergy to follow the lex continentiae in 1610.  The 1917 code of Canon Law established marriage as an impediment to Orders subject to dispensation, but this dispensation required the promise of perpetual continence.

The above is a simple exposition of the constant practice of the Church.  If someone wanted to research this, some excellent sources are Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini S.J. and  The Case for Clerical Celibacy by Cardinal Stickler.  Stickler was himself present during the debates immediately following the Council, and wrote in defense of perpetual diaconal continence as the constant law of the Church (subject to penalty of dismissal from the clerical state) applying specifically to married deacons.  These scholars establish the the *traditional purpose* of receving the permission of the decaon's wife, of limiting the age of married men admitted to orders, and of examining the moral character of the wife of a potential cleric was indeed to insure the observation complete continence after ordination.  This is not within the bounds of argument or opinion, but is historical information established by Catholic scholars and is not disputed by their peers.

Let's start with that.  This is the traditional practice of the Church which would require more than omission to modify.  Exactly what would be required to modify it is an interesting topic in itself, since it is the opinion of some that the practice of some form of continence by married men who serve at the altar has apolstolic origin and is not subject to any modification.  At the very least, a matter of ancient and constant tradition (with elements of apostolic origin) cannot be modified by omission or by silence, and most certianly not by an uneasy silence of a single generation. 






 

I have a fine general knowledge on the topic, and even some specific knowledge, but thanks for the overview.

No one is denying that continence has been the long-standing tradition of the Latin Rite and reaffirmed at Trent, etc.  That's not in dispute.

The question here is if the 1983 Code requires it for permanent married deacons.  Or are we no longer talking about Dr. Peters' statement and Canon Law?
I don't think we're having an honest debate here.  Unless you dispute some of the above information, then most of what you've posted on previous pages is exposed as bunk.  The *reason* the wife can veto the ordination is that she is meant (in the law and in tradition) to be giving up her right to sex in the marriage - not some other reason you've speculated.  Etc.

I submit again that you're just taking positions against me for the sake of it, and if examined, these positions are in fact modernist since you are using them to argue that the constant and ancient tradition of the Church can be changed by mere silence and omission in regards to abuse.

To make it as simple as possible:

There are two possible interpretations of Canon 277:

Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy, except permanent deacons who are married, who are bound to neither.

Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy, unless already married, in which case they are bound only to continence.


One of these interpretations represents the constant and ancient tradition of the Church and has not been over-ruled or abrogated by any act of the Church.  The other is a speculation which Rome has declined to endorse officially.  I'm with Peters, we can only choose one of these. 



(02-15-2011, 04:31 AM)Basher Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think we're having an honest debate here.  Unless you dispute some of the above information, then most of what you've posted on previous pages is exposed as bunk.  The *reason* the wife can veto the ordination is that she is meant (in the law and in tradition) to be giving up her right to sex in the marriage - not some other reason you've speculated.  Etc.

The fact that the same veto is present in the 1983 Canon as it has been in the past does not prove it is there for the same reason.  In fact, even though I agree that was the main reason, in the past there were other reasons besides the fact she was giving up her right to sex in marriage.  If they had to live separately and such, she was giving up provision, a father for any children they had, etc.  You can't look at one aspect of the history and ignore the rest such as the fact during one period the woman would enter a convent.

Quote:I submit again that you're just taking positions against me for the sake of it, and if examined, these positions are in fact modernist since you are using them to argue that the constant and ancient tradition of the Church can be changed by mere silence and omission in regards to abuse.

I've about had it with you making accusations and ad hominem attacks.  I've also had it with your trolling.  This is your last and final warning.  Either discuss the topic at hand without directing attacks at me or anyone else, or get out.

If you're going to deny your trolling and looking for trouble, read my response to you here first before you bother:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33409327

Quote:One of these interpretations represents the constant and ancient tradition of the Church and has not been over-ruled or abrogated by any act of the Church.  The other is a speculation which Rome has declined to endorse officially.  I'm with Peters, we can only choose one of these. 

You are now arguing something completely different: namely that the Church cannot change this particular law which is different than the question as to what the current law actually says, which is the point of this topic.

You are also not being accurate in some areas which go against your argument.  It has been the constant and ancient tradition of the Church in the Latin Rite, not Universally.  Therefore at first glance it would seem to fall under the same area of tradition as leavened vs. unleavened bread which could be changed by the Church if she so desired, or do you deny the Holy See has the authority to force the Byzantine Rite Churches to use unleavened bread?

There is also the problem that the only penalty, if one is applied, has been laicization and as I said, if there is no punishment applied, there is, in effect, no law.  These men are still valid deacons, they would only be operating illicitly, but the final determination of licitness goes to the Holy See, not you or Dr. Peters.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7