tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post1379048582218137464..comments2023-09-27T02:46:21.569-07:00Comments on Deacons Today: Musings on Diakonia and Diaconate: So I leave town for a few days and look at what happens!Deacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-489794011700213212014-12-11T19:15:56.293-08:002014-12-11T19:15:56.293-08:00(Deacon Bill Toronto)
Seems pretty clear to me th...(Deacon Bill Toronto)<br /><br />Seems pretty clear to me that 277 does not apply considering I had two children in formation my wife was pregnant at my ordination and one after my ordination,<br /><br />The following I believe carries some canonical interpretive weight per Can 32. I wonder why no ever uses this quote maybe I am misreading it?<br /><br />"61. The Sacrament of Matrimony sanctifies conjugal love and constitutes it a sign of the love with which Christ gives himself to the Church (cf. Eph. 5:25). It is a gift from God and should be a source of nourishment for the spiritual life of those deacons who are married."<br /><br />CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY<br /><br />DIRECTORIUM PRO MINISTERIO ET VITA <br />DIACONORUM PERMANENTIUMDeacon Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04798688802453717558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-57328906915876118952014-12-11T19:09:57.679-08:002014-12-11T19:09:57.679-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Deacon Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04798688802453717558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-17016118952213101322013-01-26T14:41:46.838-08:002013-01-26T14:41:46.838-08:00I have another point. Marriage came first. Does ...I have another point. Marriage came first. Does the fulfillment of that sacrament usurp those of Holy Orders when a permanent deacon is already married. At my ordination, a widower was ordained to the deaconate, and also was required to avow celibacy.<br />Steve Apodacahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09455424538986848183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-13512506647694680702011-12-30T00:43:23.157-08:002011-12-30T00:43:23.157-08:00In 1997, the CDW issued a letter stating the condi...In 1997, the CDW issued a letter stating the conditions under which a deacon may remarry (there is some debate as to whether "some" or all of the criteria are necessary:<br />1) his ministry his "great and useful" to his diocese; 2) his children are young and require maternal care; 3) he has elderly parents, in-laws (or presumably other disabled adult relatives) who require care.<br />The reasoning is basically that if a deacon has to hire a nanny or nurse, the situation creates the scenario that Canon 277 is targeted at: a position of potential temptation and scandal.<br /><br />The assumption is that if a deacon has a nurse or nanny living in his house to care for his kids or their grandparents, he might be tempted to have intercourse with her, and it's better to let him marry her than be in active sin or in constant temptation, or to have tongues wagging.<br /><br />So doesn't that ruling by the Church imply that deacons are allowed to have sex with their wives?John C. Hathawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272753692878529218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-59025158248029914572011-09-13T19:35:30.866-07:002011-09-13T19:35:30.866-07:00I wish to comment that I'm very strongly in fa...I wish to comment that I'm very strongly in favor of clerical continence including for married clerics. This reflects a profound reverence for the Sacred Mysteries. That relationship, in some way more absolutely personal than the marital relationship (because this Person is self-existent Being) overwhelms everything and demands all, transforming all but not destroying anything that is human and good. I think we can have mercy on the permanent deacons (and their wives) whom nobody told prior to ordination that this was a requirement. But I think that men who are not willing in regards to the obligation of continence and the sacrifice that entails, may be lacking in freedom to put God radically first. Continent clergy remain married anyway, and I think continence is not going to destroy the friendship and bond of the spouses in a good marriage, but elevate and transform it.Elizabeth Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888400643867182872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-88863797906528346202011-01-28T15:18:12.727-08:002011-01-28T15:18:12.727-08:00Leave it to you, Ken! Thanks, yerhonor, I'm g...Leave it to you, Ken! Thanks, yerhonor, I'm giving you the last word!<br /><br />Love to you and Rita,<br /><br />BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-84342305332500127532011-01-28T13:54:29.215-08:002011-01-28T13:54:29.215-08:00Bill;
A few jokes would have made it more interes...Bill;<br /><br />A few jokes would have made it more interesting.<br /><br />KenanKenan Bresnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05106206936715882320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-28904945324627617512011-01-23T15:45:54.662-08:002011-01-23T15:45:54.662-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ed Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07552127238192346393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-12896777728910350472011-01-23T12:36:49.380-08:002011-01-23T12:36:49.380-08:00Ok so I have been following the issue here and at ...Ok so I have been following the issue here and at Deacon Greg's blog and have even put in my reactionary 2 cetns. I spent the weekend really praying about this. The Church will decide one way or another, sooner or later. and we know that these decisions are not always the best but they still need our obedience. And so that made me think of St. Joseph. When he became betrothed to Mary I am sure he wasn't planning on a continent marriage. Yet that's what he got and he did it well! Why? I think because he didn;t focus on himself but on his spouse and Child, on his work and on others. Now I am not throwing in thw towel, but I AM, from this moment on no matter what the eventual outcome may be, taking St. Joseph as my special personal patron saint. he was a man, on ordinary guy, a carpenter, hard worker, probably in shape and eager for a good life. If he could do with God's grace so can we if it turns out that God is asking this of us.Diakonoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896251554818257122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-91883767752236709642011-01-22T20:49:04.775-08:002011-01-22T20:49:04.775-08:00Thanks, Dr. Peters. I guess that's great news ...Thanks, Dr. Peters. I guess that's great news to impotent couples. Knowing they can marry since there is no obligation to consumate the union...spiritual/emotional union counts as much as the physcial.Dantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15600678598451488566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-73073928030560942662011-01-22T11:10:50.659-08:002011-01-22T11:10:50.659-08:00Dr. Peters-- thanks for responding to my post alth...Dr. Peters-- thanks for responding to my post although, respectfully, I don't think you engaged the argument. Perhaps you agree that there is nothing in the Bishops' "Marriage" document, or in canon law, or in the CCC that supports the notion of "continent marriage." Certainly the CCC section you cited in your article, section 2349, doesn't. It says:" Married people are called to live conjugal chastity [ie, sex only in marriage]; others [ie, those NOT married] practice chastity in continence.<br />Your example of Mary and Joseph actually supports the notion that a foundational element of marriage is co-operating with God in the creation of new life. The way they did that is unique to them, but it was foundational to their marriage. For everyone else in history, we co-operate with God in the old-fashioned way. The procreative aspect of marriage is simply inconsistent with "continence."<br />I stand by my statement that "continent marriage" is an oxymoron because marriage (the livelong hetersexual union ordered towards the good of the spouses and the creation of offspring-- the Bishops' definition) is definitionally inconsistent with continence (total absence of sex in marriage). For you to disagree, you must be using the term "marriage" in some way other than what the Bishops say. What is it?Deacon Bob Schnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02711346809202185366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-79476249550086008372011-01-22T09:09:16.489-08:002011-01-22T09:09:16.489-08:00I've been following this debate for several mo...I've been following this debate for several months, word of the controversy is leaking out of the blogosphere into the "real" world. <br /><br />People with no stake in the matter can read 277 and 288 for themselves and realize that a tremendous gaffe was made by someone, somewhere, and the Church has been operating contrary to its own code of law for 3 decades. <br /><br />So, the code will have to be amended to expand 288 to include continence. In other words, yet again, what began as an abuse and became "too large to fail" will have to be hastily propped up by official action.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05609291783807648075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-75203703507311438332011-01-22T05:53:36.491-08:002011-01-22T05:53:36.491-08:00Hi Dante. You asked "So a marriage need not b...Hi Dante. You asked "So a marriage need not be consummated for it to be valid or 'take effect'"?<br /><br />Correct.<br /><br />For the rest of your questions, please consult any standard marriage law commentary. We are talking about something else in this thread.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-3272796651409127082011-01-21T21:06:08.258-08:002011-01-21T21:06:08.258-08:00So a marriage need not be consumated for it to be ...So a marriage need not be consumated for it to be valdi or "take effect" (whatever the term is)? Hmmmmm...I always thought that sex was the actualization of the proclaimed vows and of the essence of matrimony. As a matter of fact, doesn;t the Church forbid a couple from marrying who are unable to consumate a marriage (such as permanent impotence)? And how can the marriage be valid if there is a defect of intention? Aren't the couple obliged to accept whatever children God sends them (which implies sex)? OR is this all an example of different kinds of marriage such as legal vs. valid?Dantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15600678598451488566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-53471169107098265512011-01-21T17:05:28.986-08:002011-01-21T17:05:28.986-08:00It’s probably not fair to wait until Dcn Schnell r...It’s probably not fair to wait until Dcn Schnell reappears; and there’s no obligation to answer questions anyway, so I’ll just say it: The answer is, “None of the Above.” <br /><br />Mary and Joseph were, of course, the one possibility that is not listed above, and which Dcn. S dismisses as being oxymoronic and a contradiction in terms. Mary and Joseph were absolutely continent and fully married. Church history affords us many examples of continent married couples, but I only needed one to make the point.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-83174439304265449662011-01-21T14:04:08.670-08:002011-01-21T14:04:08.670-08:00Hi Dcn. Schnell, who writes "[Peters'] co...Hi Dcn. Schnell, who writes "[Peters'] construct--continent marriage--is simply an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms." Hmmm.<br /><br />Were Mary and Joseph celibate, continent, neither, or both? An orthodox answer will exonerate me at least of having offered an oxymoronic contradiction in terms, I think.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-82666444221749093622011-01-21T13:31:10.571-08:002011-01-21T13:31:10.571-08:00It seems to me that Prof. Peters whole argument is...It seems to me that Prof. Peters whole argument is built on a fundamentally-flawed view of the sacrament of marriage. His construct-- "continent marriage"-- is simply an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Whatever a hetersexual relationship might be called where the parties have agreed never to have sex, that sort of a relationship is not a marriage as the Church uses the term.<br />Prof. Peters never addresses the issue of sexuality in marriage, other than to say that "a married man may, under certain circumstances, choose to live continently or not." As authoirity for this "continent marriage" he cites sections of the Catechism which actually say quite the opposite. Makes me wonder about the rest of his citations.<br />But fortunately the Church has spent a good deal of time teaching about the essentials of marriage-- most recently in response to the push for so-called "gay marriage." In November, 2009, the USCCB published "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan." The Bishops clearly defined marriage as a lifelong heterosexual partnership ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation of offspring. Over and over again the Bishops emphasize the essential attributes of marriage-- in natural law and history--at the center of which is conjugal love. You can't find anything like "continent marriage" in this 60-page theological work. Sure, sometimes aging, physical problems or other reasons cause couples to be unable to have have sexual relations. But someone who has publically promised not to have sex, or who refuses to have sex after marriage, simply should not be married, and cannon law says as much.<br />If this were not the case-- if heterosexual relations open to cooperating with God in creating life-- were not at the core of marriage as the Church sees it, then we'd have simply a contractual relationship of rights and responsibilities, which is what Prof. Peters seems to think is the case. And, for him, sex is just a "right" which the wife gives up when her husband is ordained.<br />But if that is the case-- if marriage is just a deal between consenting adults which might or might not include conjugal love-- then it bears no special relationship to God's plan for humanity and we're perilously close to the arguments made for other kinds of "marriage."<br />Let me suggest that the reason no Bishop has ever had the slightest concern about ordaining non-continent married men is that the ordination of a married man ipso facto dispenses the husband/couple from the obligation of Canon 277. Were that not the case the ordination would make a mockery of the pre-existing marriage.Deacon Bob Schnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02711346809202185366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-13449518904604078442011-01-20T15:47:27.313-08:002011-01-20T15:47:27.313-08:00Today I read the apostolic constitution "Angl...Today I read the apostolic constitution "Anglicanorum Coetibus",in English and portuguese(my language).<br />The Pope , at VI # 1.,pointed out a difference concerning married ministres and not married ministres.<br />There we can read that only not married ministres must follow the canon 277.adrianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10609152576026451186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-1918583137677511272011-01-20T10:14:02.265-08:002011-01-20T10:14:02.265-08:00Eureka! Registration glitch (apparently) resolved....Eureka! Registration glitch (apparently) resolved....<br /><br />Three things if I may.<br /><br />First, most of the (substantive)comments offered against my thesis on clerical continence focus on various aspects of Marriage. That’s understandable, in that we are talking, after all, about MARRIED deacons and priests. Now, after 25 years of marriage, and 10 years in tribunal work, and 10 more years of teaching and writing about, inter alia, Christian marriage and marriage canon law, I know how much more I still have to learn the Great Mystery that is Matrimony! I appreciate the kind efforts of some to make sure that I understand what Marriage is all about.<br /> <br />But this exclusive discussion of MARRIAGE in regard to married deacons and priests misses the fact that we are, obviously, talking about married DEACONS AND PRIESTS, in other words, that one must consider the doctrine, theology, and, yes, the canon law of HOLY ORDERS in order to understand this issue, and not just continue to ruminate on Marriage. Virtually no one (besides me, and in places, you, Dcn. Ditewig) seem to be talking at any length about the demands that HOLY ORDERS makes upon men (and, if they are married, upon their wives). But folks, I gotta say, that's rather like trying to compete in the Tour de France on a unicycle. One might be moving, but one is not going to get very far.<br /> <br />In the Studia article, I discuss canonical issues related to holy Orders at length.<br /> <br />Second, Dcn. D, did you see (you probably did) my response to your original post earlier, at http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-thoughts-on-dcn-ditewigs-comments.html.<br /><br />Third, I have outlined what I think are four possible ways the questions of continence and married clergy might be eventually resolved, here: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons4.htm.<br /><br />Kind regards, edp.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-57111402552466701172011-01-20T09:49:38.632-08:002011-01-20T09:49:38.632-08:00I never know which posts will go through here (ala...I never know which posts will go through here (alas!), but in case this does: ronconte, let me ask you, is the right to enter marriage something to which “Magisterial teaching frequently refers to … as a right”? Tell me you’ll say Yes. Now, does the Western Church require single men seeking holy Orders to give up the exercise of their right to marriage? (Again, I assume you see that she does). In making that demand on men who seek Orders, is the Church 'violating' their rights, or her own Canon 18? I hope you’ll say No. Well then, my point is that, when married men seek Orders, the Church requires men (and their wives) to give up the exercise of their right to marital relations. Now, I might be right in that claim (I think I am) or I might be wrong, but I am certainly NOT overlooking a major point of canon law in offering it. You are misunderstanding Canon 18.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194180416609950473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-20981323256838565942011-01-20T07:39:47.035-08:002011-01-20T07:39:47.035-08:00Dr. Peters' position is based on an interpreta...Dr. Peters' position is based on an interpretation of Canon law, on what is (supposedly) implied, but not explicitly stated.<br /><br />Can. 18 “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”<br /><br />Magisterial teaching frequently refers to marital relations as a right. Therefore, Canon law cannot be interpreted so as to take away that marital right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-25605180376516980992011-01-19T20:13:50.507-08:002011-01-19T20:13:50.507-08:00I'm posting my comments on this topic in the, ...I'm posting my comments on this topic in the, 'might as well throw my two cents worth in', category. I am neither a theologian nor canon lawyer. I am merely a second year aspirant desperately struggling to discern and form my vocation. As always I am immensely impressed with Deacon Bill and his measured response to any and all topics. (You will be remembered in my prayers if I am ever ordained). As a retired police officer I am QUITE familiar with the parsing of words in the law. Many times it is helpful and necessary and many times it is not. I am quite undecided which category this particular topic falls into, however, I think it falls into the broader, let's resolve the Deacon issue clearly, definitively, and once and for all category. Lets resolve clerical wear, two classes of Deacons, continence, and any thing else that has or might become an impediment to Service. I, for one, have already experienced the double standard and I am not even ordained! It was often said during my years of government service, that the last thing you wanted to do was introduce common sense. Please don't let that philosophy come to define this next phase of my life.Ken Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06817533038279154938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-4816486291953321172011-01-19T15:03:59.689-08:002011-01-19T15:03:59.689-08:00Deacon J.M.B.- I called my husband a 'permanen...Deacon J.M.B.- I called my husband a 'permanent priest'- he thought I was brilliant- had to attribute the phrase to you :)priest's wife - S.T./ Anne Boyd https://www.blogger.com/profile/03792937108732259684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-86222887460726244982011-01-19T15:02:53.356-08:002011-01-19T15:02:53.356-08:00Charles- very good point! I haven't been to a ...Charles- very good point! I haven't been to a Roman-rite ordination in a long timepriest's wife - S.T./ Anne Boyd https://www.blogger.com/profile/03792937108732259684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-73550902905915546022011-01-19T12:12:47.810-08:002011-01-19T12:12:47.810-08:00The supreme law giver has changed, abrogated, or m...The supreme law giver has changed, abrogated, or modified Canon 277 for the new Ordinate and indicated that can happen for additionally created ordinates. So Canon 277 will not have universal applicability to Latin Rite clerics, if it has been abrogated as to those clerics. The same is true for former Anglican, Episcopalian, and Lutheran clergy ordained to the priesthood under the Pastoral Provision.<br />Now with regard to permanent deacons, Pope Paul VI’s motu proprio reestablishing the permanent diaconate did not enjoin permanent clerical continence and was in derogation of the 1917 Code. That motu proprio was not and has not been supressed or modified by Popes John Paul, John Paul II nor Benedict. Canon 277 does not apply to permanent deacons on the force of the motu proprio alone of Pope Paul VI.Wm Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14523031758614929928noreply@blogger.com