Deacons and perfect continence

[Historian]

How do you explain the fact that the Eastern Canon requires the same of its married clergy?  You admit they aren't required to undertake permanent continence, yet the permission of the wife is still required even though she will not be surrendering anything more than a Catholic woman married to a layman circa the Council of Trent.  How come?

Actually, your question is good, and has a simple answer:

Because the cleric can be removed from the clerical state or even excommunicated for violating what for him is law.  It's very serious for him.  That's the "why".

Excuse my apparent denseness, but I don't understand how you can offer that reason for the Eastern Rite and a completely different one for the Latin Rite when the same penalties and situations would apply to both.

You do make the very good point that periodic continence is so important in the history of Right Worship that it was even recommended to the laity.  I appreciate the contribution, I will be using that when indicated.   

You're welcome, but it wasn't recommended, it was required - just as fasting was.

Our preparation should not, however, be confined to the soul; it should also extend to the body. We are to approach the Holy Table fasting, having neither eaten nor drunk anything at least from the preceding midnight until the moment of Communion.

The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion.

[Basher]

Yes, we covered the case that you are making a political / doctrinal stand over a point of law.  I'm not interested in that, and I think it's foolhardy for reasons I could give if you're interested, but I suspect you're not.  I'll offer this, though:  doctrine isn't going to be fixed via Canon Law, Canon Law will only be fixed by fixing the doctrine - i.e., the nonsense that came out of the Council.

your responses really, truly do confuse me.  The idea of incontinent clergy is part of "the nonsense that came out of the Council".  

If you want to argue how the 1983 Code is untraditional and dubious in certain areas, you won't get an argument from me, but that won't change until the other stuff is changed.

Actually, I'm only arguing that the common interpretation of the Code is untraditional.  As I have repeatedly posted, the code itself is remarkably unmolested.  If the USCCB, for example, actually followed what is in the code according to tradition, they're extract a promise of perpetual continence from married deacons at their ordination.  Nothing at al untraditional about that.

As I suggested, I believe at most it will be 30 seconds for the Pope to make an adjustment to Canon Law if it even gets that far.
 
that ship has sailed.  JPII had the new code for a lot longer than 30 seconds and revoked that proposed chnage with his own hand.  That stands alone in this debate untouched.

This issue is a non-starter as far as promoting tradition.

That appears to be a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion I'm not going to be allowed to have here.

My position in the discussion is that the Canon Law is the Canon Law.

My position exactly.  I'm just interpeting it according to traditional principles instead of novel ones.  We're both adding words, I'm just adding old fashioned ones.

 Whether it is traditional or tone or not, and often it is not, that doesn't change the fact that if a deacon is brought before a tribunal charged with what you claim, they will judge the allegations as the law is written; he will not appear before the CDF / Holy Office.

Misses the point.  He was improperly ordained.  That's not his fault.  He's living according to the rule imposed on him by his ordinary.  This rule is contrary to law and tradition.  The ordinary got it from the national bishop's council.  I wouldn not presume to place blame in that mess.  

[Basher]

Excuse my apparent denseness, but I don't understand how you can offer that reason for the Eastern Rite and a completely different one for the Latin Rite when the same penalties and situations would apply to both.

OK, don't get mad, pointing out a mistake is not an ad hominem.

you asked for the difference in situation between an Eastern Cleric and Western Tridentine Layperson.

That's what I gave you.

So, in all fairness, at least keep track of what you ask for, so that when I answer you can respond appropriately.

[Basher]

Hey, at least I appear to have your full attention this evening.

[Historian]

OK, I'm done with the trolling.  Bye!

[The_Harlequin_King]

Well, so much for that.

I would've given the guy a fair argument if he wasn't so pissy. It was more fun to just make him mad.

[Historian]

Well, so much for that.

I would've given the guy a fair argument if he wasn't so pissy. It was more fun to just make him mad.

I gave arguments, but my goal was just to see where he was going with being here.

[Jesse]

Well, so much for that.

I would've given the guy a fair argument if he wasn't so pissy. It was more fun to just make him mad.

Yeah, it was rather fun for me (perhaps in a less-than-charitable way) to watch someone try so hard to get people upset.