Deacons and perfect continence
#36
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 01:12 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 01:31 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 02:38 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:32 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:45 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-08-2011, 07:46 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 07:51 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:05 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:15 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-08-2011, 08:23 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:35 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-08-2011, 08:40 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-09-2011, 12:05 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Resurrexi - 02-09-2011, 12:24 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Resurrexi - 02-09-2011, 12:26 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-09-2011, 01:06 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-09-2011, 04:14 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-09-2011, 05:04 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 01:57 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 03:23 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 08:24 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 09:00 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-10-2011, 09:31 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-10-2011, 10:38 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-11-2011, 09:46 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 04:31 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 11:46 AM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 08:36 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 09:34 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 09:46 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:04 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:13 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:18 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:23 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:25 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Basher - 02-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Historian - 02-16-2011, 12:22 PM
Re: Deacons and perfect continence - by Jesse - 02-16-2011, 12:46 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)