Deacons and perfect continence
#60
(02-15-2011, 09:32 PM)Basher Wrote: Now, although I fully expect to be banned, I think I need to make an explanatory post for the peanut gallery who are reading and wondering what the truth is here.

What we are discussing here is an arcane point of Canon Law, but it has important ramification to ordinary Catholics, and here's why:  There are two things at issue here, the proper interpretation of the Law, and the Doctrine behind it.  If one does not have a doctrinal foundation to work from, then Canon Law is just a series of arbitrary rules that the Church made up for itself.

If one has a proper doctrinal foundation, then the Law is a juridical expression of Truth. 

To apply this to the current situation, look at how modern Catholics understand these ideas.  For them, to abstain from sex in marriage is not logical.  As far as the modern Church is concerned, sex is entirely compatible with worship, and it would be entirely appropriate for a married deacon to "do the deed" then throw on the alb and stole and serve at Mass.  Of all the ideas that came out of the Church immediately after the council, this may be the most novel. 

If you look at this from an entirely traditional perspective, then the Law must be an expression of correct doctrine to be correct, and only interpretations which *preseve clerical continence for major orders* could possibly be in keeping with tradition, correct doctrine, and thus only those could be considered correct interpretations of the law. 

Using these rules, even if the traditional interpretation was the more tortured one, requiring more mental gymnastics, we'd still have to opt for it.  Thankfully, when all of the aspects of the law are taken in the context of Church history, it's by far the most comfortable one as well.  Once one starts twisting, then one has to twist everything, and that's what we've seen in this thread.  If one has a goal-directed  approach, where one is attempting to achieve the goal of proving that married incontinent deacons as OK, then one has to try to prove some odd ideas.  As just one for instance, one has to try to prove that a basic statement in the law such as about deacon's wives vetoing ordination means something entirely different in 1983-2011 than it meant in the entire history of the Church before that.

I really do not see this issue very much different than the other various controversies and absues that arose after the council.   In order to sneak these inventions and abuses past the people of God, the abusers first had to make the people ignorant of true doctrine.  Once the people had been convinced that all aspects of the faith were arbitrary, then anything could be changed. 

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.  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.

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

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