Deacons and perfect continence
#40
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.
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)