tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post6326399633779096818..comments2023-09-27T02:46:21.569-07:00Comments on Deacons Today: Musings on Diakonia and Diaconate: So, sexuality and sexual continence: Where are we?Deacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-77463462188258893092011-03-27T19:42:27.252-07:002011-03-27T19:42:27.252-07:00Barry,
You write "the law as implemented by ...Barry,<br /><br />You write "the law as implemented by the Church": the interesting thing is that JPII has left it up to each diocese. It would be better to say "the law as implemented in many dioceses". <br />Remember that some dioceses do not ordain married men to the diaconate. <br /><br />The law no longer reads as requiring the bishop to insist on informed consent, (as it used to through the impediment) and many dioceses implement the law as it reads. However, theoretically, a bishop could use the law, as it stands, to only ordain a married man if his wife gives informed consent to her husband being bound to clerical continence. <br /><br />Even an amateur would realise that if the law does not read as requiring informed consent in this situation then the law cannot be read as binding a deacon to continency. The framers of the law were not amateurs, so I assume they realised the consequences of not insisting on informed consent for a married ordinand (and his wife), while insisting on informed consent for an unmarried ordinand.<br /><br />Peters seems to think that the framers did not realise the obvious consequences of omitting a requirement for informed consent, something that has been realised for 1500 years. He also seems to have a problem with a Church where some dioceses ordain married men, (using the fact the law does not require the wife to consent to clerical celibacy), and other dioceses do not take advantage of this innovation.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-38879463404055932222011-03-23T15:46:33.561-07:002011-03-23T15:46:33.561-07:00I have just returned from a meeting with the JV in...I have just returned from a meeting with the JV in my diocese. He confirms what Deacon Bill said in his post of March 20. That the law as implemented by the Church does not require married deacons to be continent.<br />So for me this puts the argument to bed (perhaps not the best phrase to use in this context)Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234034111126169326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-56240624647522665622011-03-22T14:51:12.433-07:002011-03-22T14:51:12.433-07:00I think I am getting all this finally, and especia...I think I am getting all this finally, and especially about 1031 and the wife's consent.<br /><br />Dr Edward,<br />A question for you if you have the time, (or any other canon lawyer):<br /><br />Does 277#3 mean that a bishop, wanting to reform clerical continence in his diocese in view of continuity with the past, could add something like the following as as a requirement? -that a married man wanting to be ordained deacon would have to make, with the informed consent of his wife, an explicit commitment to perfect and permanent continence before ordination (or even during formation)?danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-31116863124965481512011-03-21T08:05:47.661-07:002011-03-21T08:05:47.661-07:00Okay, Dcn. Bill. Thanks. The impression I took abo...Okay, Dcn. Bill. Thanks. The impression I took above was that some document disproved my position. There is none, of course. I readily concede that current practice and law are at polar opposites, the question is, which way to resolve the tension. Personally, I think that the way current law reads, and the way it has been understood for 17-20 centuries, should prevail over the (in my view, inadvertent) way praxis has developed for a few decades, but that is not my call to make.<br /><br />And yes, Daniel, we do write for third parties here. So I can mention for them that I treat Canon 1135 in my Studia article in conjunction with cc. 1031 and 1050. Canon 1135 explains why we have cc. 1031 and 1050.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-44768486736810235492011-03-20T20:44:00.929-07:002011-03-20T20:44:00.929-07:00Deacon Bill mentions that deacons living married c...Deacon Bill mentions that deacons living married continence are not "chastised, disciplined or in any way taken to task".<br /><br />It is important to remember that until the present canon, the tradition in the West also included taking Bishops "to task", (including deposing them), if they ordained married men to the deaconate without insisting on perfect continence. <br /><br />I would like to see research on the punishments available in canon law for all these bishops who Peters thinks have "forgotten" the Church's tradition regarding diaconal continence.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-88433347126666785102011-03-20T20:33:26.197-07:002011-03-20T20:33:26.197-07:00Regarding Peters' request for a "citation...Regarding Peters' request for a "citation you could point me to where that “official position” is set out".<br /><br />Most canon lawyers are happy to cite Can. 1135 "Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life."<br /><br />The Church's official position is clear as a bell in this citation.It's is good enough canon lawyers and bishops who do not have a "reform the reform" agenda regarding canon law and the diaconate.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-81219939633627067082011-03-20T20:26:36.607-07:002011-03-20T20:26:36.607-07:00Dr "EdP",
I am happy with you not reply...Dr "EdP",<br /><br />I am happy with you not replying, you don't have to reply to every post on the internet - I wouldn't have bothered replying to half the posts you have. My posts are not all about you, and this issue is not all about you.<br /><br /><br />I am writing to a wider audience than just you to defend the canons of JPII as written against your attack, and defend the bishops who follow these clear canons when not requiring a commitment to perfect continence from ordinands against your charge that they are forgetting the Church's tradition.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-77869204681689168442011-03-20T18:59:33.300-07:002011-03-20T18:59:33.300-07:00Dear Dr. Peters,
1) I had no intention of re-open...Dear Dr. Peters,<br /><br />1) I had no intention of re-opening the discussion, but when someone posts, I try to respond.<br /><br />2) My interpretation to Barry was simple: no bishop has ever implemented your interpretation of the law. No deacon candidate (to my knowledge, anyway) and no deacon has ever been told to remain continent, and deacons who have welcomed children into their families after ordination have never been chastised, disciplined or in any way taken to task for not remaining continent. The conclusion for me, in the pastoral sphere, is that the official church has spoken through its praxis.<br /><br />I look forward to your continued work on the subject, but to me the biggest hurdle is not the law itself, but the interpretation of the law. And, it seems to me that the mens ecclesiae on this issue, given the decisions of the world's bishops vis-a-vis this issue, is at odds with your interpretation.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-83211598529796689572011-03-20T18:25:27.298-07:002011-03-20T18:25:27.298-07:00Hi Dcn Bill. Stopping by to look at old posts, and...Hi Dcn Bill. Stopping by to look at old posts, and I confess I’m a little surprised at your March 16 post. I thought this line of posts had basically wrapped up.<br /><br />I am more surprised, however, at your simple assertion to Barry that “The official position of the church is that married deacons and married priests are NOT bound to continence following ordination.” <br /><br />Do you have citation you could point me to where that “official position” is set out? Else, your response seems like a classic petitio principii. I have consistently given reasons for my positions in this controverted matter, so I tend to notice when others don’t.<br /><br />Nor do I know of any “official documents of the Holy See” that I have not addressed in my Studia article or here: [URLs still not posting, rats, so just go to my canon law website.] If you have in mind the 1998 joint dicasterial instruction (a la “a certain continence”) I discuss that document , too, in a Memorandum (6) on the deacons’ page at my website as well.<br /><br />Personally, I would have liked to know what the JV said in reply to Barry’s question, even if his JV disagrees with me. I have never discouraged anyone from asking questions on this matter. A good way to keep people from knowing that a point is being questioned is to discourage others from asking questions about it. Slippery slope, that.<br /><br />Anyway, I am preparing some other materials on c. 277 for other fora, and you will doubtless see them when they come out. I’ll look forward to your reactions.<br /><br />Best, edp.<br /><br />ps: Hi Daniel, sorry if I come across as ignoring you. It’s not my intention, it’s just that, in my opinion (which I know you don't share), you keeping asking questions that I think I have adequately answered and for that reason, I don’t want to keep spending time responding. Cordially, edp.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-9201635542015285172011-03-17T21:31:06.244-07:002011-03-17T21:31:06.244-07:00For those interested in the research by McLaughlin...For those interested in the research by McLaughlin on this issue I have found a link that works:<br />http://dspace.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/9214/1/McLaughlin_cua_0043A_10068display.pdf<br /><br />McLaughlin in his doctorate also agrees that in the old law the wife had to vow to live perfect continence:<br />"Legislation in the Corpus Iuris Canonici dealt with this question.<br />The wife had to consent to her husband taking a vow of perpetual continence, and she<br />had to either take a vow of perpetual continence or enter religious life."<br /><br />McLaughlin comes to the same conclusion as Peters: "Furthermore, if a change in discipline was intended, then this needs to be more clearly enunciated."<br />In other words, Peters and McLaughlin hold that if a change in discipline was intended then the law is deficiently written, (needing to be more clearly enunciated).<br /><br />Neither Peters nor McLaughlin understand the importance of the fact that the Church has dropped the age old requirement that the ordinand and his wife make a commitment to perfect continence BEFORE ordination.<br /><br />There is another alternative to their opinion: JPII did intend a change and his law is clear as a bell: Clergy have an obligation to perfect continence, although this obligation is impossible for a married deacon until his wife decides to consent to perfect continence, (a possibility that a married deacon should consider with his wife from time to time).danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-64921438841141515862011-03-15T21:55:17.080-07:002011-03-15T21:55:17.080-07:00Dear Barry,
No need to trouble your JV. The offi...Dear Barry,<br /><br />No need to trouble your JV. The official position of the church is that married deacons and married priests are NOT bound to continence following ordination.<br /><br />Dr. Peters is arguing that this is not a correct application of the law, but the praxis of the church, including official documents of the Holy See have not concurred with his opinion.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-42741161694802162522011-03-15T16:55:25.742-07:002011-03-15T16:55:25.742-07:00I have just found this Blog and thread. Being a st...I have just found this Blog and thread. Being a student in the first year of formation I find this fascinating. I am not sure if I am any clearer as to the official position on this. As my academic tutor is also Judicial Vicar in our Diocese I shall ask for his view when we next meet.Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234034111126169326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-80110378328255956052011-02-01T16:43:25.817-08:002011-02-01T16:43:25.817-08:00I agree that it is a long conversation on somethin...I agree that it is a long conversation on something that should be quite simple. I am also happy to concede that Peters makes lots of good points in his analysis.<br /><br />However, Peters is fundamentally saying that 35,000 married deacons are mistaken about how the law about clerical continence applies to them because of shabby oversight of their preparation by the bishops who ordained them and because the law itself is shabby (ie not articulate and compelling).<br /><br />I am blogging because I don't want to come to a conclusion about the law on my own, I want help to understand the importance of the "vow of chastity" (or its Pio-Benedictine equivalent) that wives have been required to take in Western tradition until the present code came into effect.<br /><br />Peters confuses the effect of the wife's consent to the ordination with the effect of her "vow of Chastity" when he writes that “the wife’s consent had to be formally pronounced because, unlike her husband’s obligations in this regard, hers are not already set forth in the text of the law.”<br />Peters has decided to opt out of answering this and I understand that he has better things to do. Can anyone else fault my argument and show me that he is not confusing the consent with the vow?<br /><br />(The old law required that an ordinand’s “wife consented AND the bishop sanctioned the vow of chastity to be pronounced by the wife”.)danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-33792204694023268732011-02-01T11:28:06.404-08:002011-02-01T11:28:06.404-08:00Sounds good, Deacon. I'll sign off from this t...Sounds good, Deacon. I'll sign off from this thread. Best, edp.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194180416609950473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-30022244923041613672011-02-01T09:27:36.392-08:002011-02-01T09:27:36.392-08:00Once again, I want to thank everyone for their par...Once again, I want to thank everyone for their participation in this extended conversation on the subject. I hope that Dr. Peters and I can continue this dialogue in other fora as well.<br /><br />I have upset several people, apparently, by my attempt about half way through this exchange to remind people of civility in the discourse. One person even wanted to complain to my bishop, which is, of course, perfectly acceptable. But I am glad that we have had this conversation and done so in a reasoned way.<br /><br />After more than 100 comments, it's probably past time to move along to other topics, although if people want to continue on this one, we certainly can!<br /><br />Thanks to all.<br /><br />Deacon BillDeacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11525431509279159558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-22216882361486401922011-02-01T07:08:12.918-08:002011-02-01T07:08:12.918-08:00What can I say? If I were guilty of even half of t...What can I say? If I were guilty of even half of the gaffs I have been accused of committing (albeit mostly by essentially unidentifiable comboxers), I would indeed be a shabby scholar. I am not guilty of these errors, but even the most reasonable among us know that it availeth me not to claim that; people have to reach, or not reach, that conclusion on their own. I do wonder, though, whether “daniel”, who wrote “The best thing that can come out of this discussion is a clarification of what the ‘certain continence’ of married deacons and priests entails.” realizes that he has just conceded a central option set out in my Studia article, and in my Four Options post, here: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons4.htm. <br /><br />Kind regards, edp.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194180416609950473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-31811290385124641332011-02-01T01:22:52.140-08:002011-02-01T01:22:52.140-08:00Referring to the public acceptance of an obligatio...Referring to the public acceptance of an obligation to celibacy in c. 1037, Peters points out in his article that “No one seriously suggests that celibate clerics are not bound by the obligation of continence and the canon does not restate the obvious.” Why can’t Peters see the same logic that is so obvious to almost everyone else: “No one seriously suggests that married clerics are not bound by the obligation of rendering marital rights (c. 1135) and the canon does not restate the obvious.”<br /><br />In Western Tradition, a married man could only be ordained to the diaconate if his wife had taken a “vow of chastity” sanctioned by the ordaining bishop or its equivalent. Peters ignores this aspect of the Western tradition. The fact that this requirement has been discontinued in current canon law gives a strong indication that the wife is not required to live “clerical continence”. Her consent to the ordination is required because there is more to married life than sex, and more to Holy Orders than its absence. Peters shows the depth of his understanding of marital cooperation by suggesting that the wife should have no more say in the ordination of her husband than their children, except because of her marital rights. For Peters, that seems to be the only difference between the status of a wife and children in a family. <br /><br />If the wife’s choice of perfect and permanent continence naturally follows from 277 and 1037 (her consent to the ordination), then why does 1037 need to require a public commitment to celibacy for unmarried ordinands, when this also follows from 277. Why restate the obvious? <br /><br />It is clear to most that the promotion of married men to the diaconate without requiring wives to take the equivalent of a “vow of chastity” indicates that this is a development in the modern Church… better still, a return to the tradition as it was 1000 years ago. It also seems clear that there is no need to change canon 277, its meaning is obvious to anyone with a proper estimation for the sanctity of marital relations and the importance of the obligations of a husband towards his wife. These obligations commute (and I am using the word technically) the clerical obligation of perfect and permanent continence, (which does apply to all clerics who do not have a conflicting obligation) to “a certain continence” for married deacons. <br /><br />The old law required that an ordinand’s “wife consented and the bishop sanctioned the vow of chastity to be pronounced by the wife”. In his article, Peters writes that “the wife’s consent had to be formally pronounced because, unlike her husband’s obligations in this regard, hers are not already set forth in the text of the law.” Peters confuses the effect of the consent with the effect of the vow of chastity here. Clearly it was not her consent to the ordination, but the vow that set forth her obligations. Understanding the role of this vow undermines Peters’ argument that the consent of the wife to the ordination includes consent a life of perfect continence.<br /><br />Peters thinks that the drafters of 277 were INARTICULATE and UNCOMPELLING: “Peters invites the competent ecclesiastical authority to articulate in canonically compelling terms why the obligation of continence should not be applied to married permanent deacons, ...”. The fact that the requirement of a vow of chastity has been dropped is compelling reason to understand that the wife is not consenting to a life of perfect continence. <br /><br />However, a married man awaiting ordination who was aware of the law could ask: am I foregoing my right to request marital relations (c.277), while still being obliged to render them for my wife(c.1135) – is that what the law presently indicates, and is what is meant by “a certain continence”?<br /><br />The best thing that can come out of this discussion is a clarification of what the “certain continence” of married deacons and priests entails.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-61987000014059025262011-01-31T20:18:31.217-08:002011-01-31T20:18:31.217-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826624796618331043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-41991602358525731472011-01-30T12:04:34.577-08:002011-01-30T12:04:34.577-08:00In general folks, if some married deacons fall und...In general folks, if some married deacons fall under<br /> I Corinthians 7:5 as those who married to avoid fornication and to whom Paul declares that they are not be away from sexual relations overlong lest Satan enter in...then if they were subsequently coerced into celibacy, the Church in effect would be placing them in a constant near occasion of sin...which is absurd. The Church would in such a case logically have to mandate that they separate from their wives to avoid a near occasion of sin....which is also absurd.<br /> Ergo Dr. Peter's 4th option is the one that seems most <br />likely in the long run.....the one that a number of rites follow within Catholicism.bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-37441330197187369662011-01-30T11:57:01.844-08:002011-01-30T11:57:01.844-08:00I found it Dr. Peters and would love to hear some ...I found it Dr. Peters and would love to hear some discussion of it by the diaconal community. I think it is spot on and points a way for the order of deacons to be be more rooted and part of holy orders. thank you for your work and your voice...it is needed.patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12649642843714758175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-20517213941548513682011-01-30T11:47:47.775-08:002011-01-30T11:47:47.775-08:00Hi patrick. The saga of me getting posts here even...Hi patrick. The saga of me getting posts here even with in-active URLs is too long and boring to go into! :) My website is canonlaw.info, and the upper left hand boxes on my homepage have links to all of my discussions on this issue.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194180416609950473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-23743348029644273622011-01-30T11:23:31.908-08:002011-01-30T11:23:31.908-08:00Dr Peters
the link does not seem to work? could y...Dr Peters<br />the link does not seem to work? could you double check, i would like to read the article. thank you <br />patrickpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12649642843714758175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-46144316032943015362011-01-30T11:02:54.231-08:002011-01-30T11:02:54.231-08:00I don't know how Josephite marriages square wi...I don't know how Josephite marriages square with Catholic teaching that married couples must be open to life.<br /><br />If Mary and Joseph came to be married in the Church today, intending not to procreate, then Canon Law would have us refuse to marry them.<br /><br />I am not quite sure how we resolve this apparent dilemma.<br /><br />God BlessChris Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584323901208927740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-25364042130222925022011-01-30T09:33:57.573-08:002011-01-30T09:33:57.573-08:00patrick: I make your exact point in my "Diaco...patrick: I make your exact point in my "Diaconal categories and clerical celibacy" article. See<br />(trying a URL here with fingers duly crossed, http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons5.htm.Dr. Edward Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194180416609950473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2595608247665759734.post-65381258145708996262011-01-30T06:38:11.506-08:002011-01-30T06:38:11.506-08:00Wade
The Church should have allowed the Josep...Wade<br /> The Church should have allowed the Josephite marriage only to the 2nd group of people Paul addressed....those who could live with or without marriage. She must exclude those who need it to avoid fornication....Paul's first group. She did that latter disallowance in the case of the parents of Theresa of Lisieux.<br /> It's perfectly possible for Catholicism to be the true Church and sadly ignore Scripture in a small t tradition like inordinately promoting the Josephite marriage despite I Cor. 7:5.<br /> We see it right now in larger matters in two Popes calling the death penalty "cruel" and the Bishops memorializing that in print despite Cardinal Dulles having noted that God commands it over 35 times in the Scriptures.<br /> Example 2: wifely obedience strongly insisted on in section 74 of Casti Connubii and 6 times in the NT is<br />absent in our preaching, in our catechism and in Vatican II.<br /> The Church sporadically gets it wrong on Scripture....despite being right on Petrine and Eucharistic passages.<br /> Nor should you or anyone cite the Fathers on the Josephite marriage unless you are going to tell the truth about the Fathers and sex (two were exfornicators and may have had what Aquinas called "the remnants of sin"... strong temptations after forgiveness). See the "Good of Marriage" by Augustine in which he says that asking for the marriage debt is venial sin if one does not will procreation per incident.....totally repeated by Aquinas twice 700 years later...and the chief reason the natural methods met stern resistance from many in the Church in the early 20th century including Arthur Vermeesch as the natural methods became more accurate. Sex was concupiscence and procreation....not integral to love itself. Sex is not intimately tied to love because of this in a Church document until Casti Connubii in 1930 according to Noonan in "Contraception".... and that was thanks to Dietrich von Hildebrand perhaps (ibid).<br /><br /> You give no proof for your background setting to I Corinthians 7. You simply declare the background or context as people vying inordinately for the perfect state. Where in the world did you get that? In chapter 6 Paul is talking to the same people and they had to be told not to make their members one with that of a prostitute and they had to be told to expel from their midst the man among them who was sleeping with his step mother. That is the same audience in chapter 7.....though later in chapter 7, Paul addresses those who can live without marriage safely or they can marry....it's up to them. bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.com