Becoming a deacon

[Aramis]

Thanks for your answer.

Let me be more specific.

A widower meets a widow and marries.

As a possible future Deacon, will they have to be celibate in marriage in order that
he may become a deacon?

That’s not celibacy. Celibacy is not contracting marriage.

You are thinking (an extreme form) of Chastity. And no; josephite marriage (as non-sexual marriages are known) is not a requirement and hasn’t been for centuries.

It is, however, unbiblical to ordain men on their second or later marriage. (1Cor, IIRC).

 

[otjm]

Well, that may or may not be the case. Dr. Ed Peters, I believe, and a Jesuit Canon lawyer whose name escapes me, have had an on-going discussion of one of the Canons, which, coupled with its history prior to being promulgated, appears to indicate that once ordained, a married deacon may not have sexual congress with his wife.

That is not to say that I agree with the position; but I found the discussion fascinating. Some of it is posted in another thread herein.

It would appear that the dicastery in Rome which is responsible for deacons may have drawn a different conclusion, as noted in documents from them, although the issue was not treated “head-on”. In addition, it appears that many, if not most deacons may not have ever been taught/told of the reading of the Canon that would so indicate; however, given the proposed Canon(s) allowed married deacons to live a normal married life and the proposed Canon(s) language was not adopted in the final version, coupled with the specific requirement that the wife must give consent for the deacon to be ordained, it makes for a very interesting (and lively, no doubt) discussion. What specific purpose would require the wife to give consent, if it were not related to continence? None specifically comes to mind.

 

[otjm]

All of which i do not disagree wtih in the least.

Re-read my post. The discussion was between two Canon lawyers; I don’t know the Jesuit but Ed Peters is someone who could be called a lawyer’s lawyer. It may well be that Dr. Peters is wrong in his analysis, and I have no idea if the discussion is going to go anywhere beyond an academic exercise. But I do find the discussion fascinating. A deacon weighed in on the discussion; I don’t know if there has been a survey done among maried deacons as to practice, or whether they were even made aware of the Canon, or Dr. Peter’s reading of it. My gut guess is that no one is aware. That, however, is not determinative of future praxis.

I agree that the ordination brings with it significant demands on time, particularly for those deacons who are employed by someone other than the Church (and that should be a significant number). However, in isolation from the Canon, it might make sense that the wife’s permission would be needed; but it makes far more sense if the reading of the Canon is as Dr. Peters suggests.

 

[Aramis]

It is more that the Good Dr. is ignoring the facts of the rubrics put in place, and the facts of the Eastern Catholic Churches, wherein the permanent deacon is a staple, and also where married clerics are the norm… and continence is periodic, not absolute, and for everyone.

 

[otjm]

It is more that the Good Dr. is ignoring the facts of the rubrics put in place, and the facts of the Eastern Catholic Churches, wherein the permanent deacon is a staple, and also where married clerics are the norm… and continence is periodic, not absolute, and for everyone.

I am not sure that I agree with you. The Canon in question was originally written, I believe, in two versions; and both acknowledged normal marital life. However, when the Code was adopted, that language was dropped.

In the normal process or creating a law or statute, if language is dropped and the result would be a significant difference, it is generally presumed that the significant difference was intended. I don’t know that the Code has anything resembluing a “legislative history”, but Peters did not seem to have anything other than the fact that the Canon, as written, did not specifically address marital relations, and further, is written in a way that leads to the conclusion that permanent continence is required.

It has been a few weeks since I accessed the issue. My recollection is that the Canon would cover more than just deacons; so continence certainly can be understood if it is dealing with priesthood (Here, only Roman rite). However, while we have a very limited number of married priests in the Latin rite, I have never heard any discussion of the issue. We have one married priest in my archdiocese, and while I have met him, I don’t think we are familiar enough that I could ask him “are you sleeping with your wife?”. And so, whether or not it is applied to married priests in the Latin rite, or not applied, or applied unevenly (some diocese’ requiring that, others either not requiring it, or simply not discussing it) I have no idea. And I have no idea that it is being discussed anywhere (including Peters’ article, which was focused on deacons) in reference to deacons.

However, the discussion indicated that continence has been practiced since ancient times (and goes back to Jewish law pre-Christ), either partially or completely. Partially being continence before saying Mass, which might last a night to up to 7 days prior to Mass.

In any event, the reintroducation of the permanent diaconite into the Latin rite made for new laws, and whatever the practice in the Easten rites, the Roman Canon would stand on its own if it were specific. Which the two of them indicate it is. And all of which I find fascinating; and from what little I have garnered, the deacons were never clued in.
And again, as to rubrics, the Latin rite seems to have none; or at least, none came up in the discussion (a married deacon had chimed in, so it wasn’t just the two lawyers speaking). So the history of the Eastern rites may not be acknowledged (the Latin rite being pretty good at avoiding a married priesthood in the large) and whatever is decided for Latin rite deacons, or married priests for that matter, is somewhat sui generis. Not that I promote that postion; that is just the reality of it.

 

[Aramis]

Well, knowing over a dozen latin rite deacons, I can assure you perpetual continence is NOT a current requirement. Several deacons have added to their families after ordination without any issue.

The current deacon directory doesn’t require it within the US, either.

 

[otjm]

Well, knowing over a dozen latin rite deacons, I can assure you perpetual continence is NOT a current requirement. Several deacons have added to their families after ordination without any issue.

The current deacon directory doesn’t require it within the US, either.

I don’t think that we can pass on whether or not Canon law requires a deacon to be continent by the fact that some of them have not been.

As to the deacon directory, unless there is a quote specific to the issue, I would say that it is non-responsive to the question.

I suspect that we may be getting off on a tangent to the main thread, and I am too computer illiterate to be able to find the other thread wherein this was discussed. As I noted: it appears that the dicastery in Rome has written as if there is no specific requirement that married deacons be continent (and I will pass on the issue of married priests being so required); however, Canon law seems to be written that they are so required. And as further noted, I suspect that most, if not all but maybe one or two or so married deacons have no knolwedge of the Canon or Dr. Peters’ discussion with the Jeusit Canon lawyer.

When I stumbled across it, it was the first that I had heard about it. It is not something that I am proposing; nor is it something that I agree with (since I think that the Church should allow married men to be ordained in the Latin rite even if they are not converts, assuming they actually have a vocation to the priesthood).

and I agree, that as far as I know and can observe, continence is not being required of married deacons as a matter of praxis. But that is not my commentary; my commentary is that per Peters, it appears that canon law requires it, contrary to praxis.

 

[Aramis]

From the USCCB’s NATIONAL DIRECTORY
FOR THE FORMATION, MINISTRY,
AND LIFE OF PERMANENT DEACONS
IN THE UNITED STATES, p33-34:

The Married Deacon

Married love is a sign of the love of Christ for the Church
66. The majority of deacons in the United States are married.61
These men bring to the Sacrament of Holy Orders the gifts already
received and still being nurtured through their participation in the
Sacrament of Matrimony. This sacrament sanctifies the love of husbands
and wives, making that love an efficacious sign of the love of
Christ for his Church. Marriage requires an “interpersonal giving of
self, a mutual fidelity, a source of [and openness to] new life, [and]
a support in times of joy and sorrow.”62 Lived in faith, this ministry
within the domestic Church is a sign to the entire Church of the
love of Christ. It forms the basis of the married deacon’s unique gift
within the Church.63
Family life, work,
and ministry
67. “In particular the deacon and his wife must be a living example
of fidelity and indissolubility in Christian marriage before a world
which is in dire need of such signs. By facing in a spirit of faith the
challenges of married life and the demands of daily living, they
strengthen the family life not only of the Church community but of
the whole of society. They also show how the obligations of family life,
work and ministry can be harmonized in the service of the Church’s
mission. Deacons and their wives and children can be a great encouragement
to others who are working to promote family life.”64
Witness to the
sanctity of marriage
68. A married deacon, with his wife and family, gives witness to
the sanctity of marriage. **The more they grow in mutual love, conforming
their lives to the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality,
the more they give to the Christian community a model of
Christ-like love, compassion, and self-sacrifice. The married deacon
must always remember that through his sacramental participation in
both vocational sacraments, first in Matrimony and again in Holy
Orders, he is challenged to be faithful to both. **With integrity he
must live out both sacraments in harmony and balance. The wife of
a deacon should be included with her husband, when appropriate,
in diocesan clergy and parochial staff gatherings. A deacon and his
wife, both as a spiritual man and woman and as a couple, have much
to share with the bishop and his priests about the Sacrament of
Matrimony. A diaconal family also brings a unique presence and
understanding of the domestic family. “By facing in a spirit of faith
the challenges of married life and the demands of daily living, [the
married deacon and his family] strengthen the family life not only of
the Church community but of the whole of society.”65
​

Bolding mine; side headers moved above paragraphs to which they were adjacent.

Given that it postdates Humanae Vitae, Humanae Vitae’s understanding of marriage as a vocation, that deacon’s wifes are also called to be witnesses to the sanctity of marriage, and that if perpetual continence were required of married clerics, a wife becoming pregnant would be proof of violation of one or another vow, and grounds for immediate suspension… it’s pretty clear the USCCB, and Archbishops Schweitz and Hurley, don’t feel perpetual continence is required.

 

[whynagg]

Waooow!!!
I did not know the issue was so prominent even in the minds of such an erudite
audience as this.
Nonetheless…I am grateful for the discussion…and glad I came…
BUT

Don’t you guys think that you are treating this issue on too tight a theological line, and with too much CANON LAW getting in the way, could will lead to a denial of what for most people the issue of Deaconage has become …

I am taking the naturalistic view…approach…whatever…

Surely the whole point is…that Deaconage has become the church’s answer to the decline in the number of priest’s serving the community…and offers a way to recruit new helpers of the priests that are left…who have’nt a prayer of coping with the job in hand.

Telling a married man, or married woman (if ever the Catholic Church allows) that sex is’nt on the menu, whether it is the first or second marriage, is the sort of hair splitting that will put peole off.

In my case I want to consider getting married to a very spiritual woman, a widow like myself a widower, who will support me 100% in my ministry, if I become a deacon, but
who needs the cuddles and the orgasms and the closeness and sharing that sex brings.

And so do I…otherwise I would give up sex, become incontinent, and a priest…going
all the way and celibate.

But please, if Canon Law does not understand the issue, do not quote me.
If you ask for “continmence” from Deacons how do you think the Anglicans will ever
be won over!!!

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Further on the issue of wives’ agreements pre-ordination – other than the continence issue: At least in our diocese, the wife of a diaconal candidate signs 3 times a formal letter, addressed to the bishop, that she understands that the diaconal position is unpaid, that she makes or will make no financial claim on the diocese either during her husband’s life or after his death, and that she understands there are no retirement or other financial benefits accruing to her husband or to her.These letters are executed at the time a man goes from aspirant to candidate, at the time of installation as lector/acolyte, and just prior to diaconal ordination. So there are other “practical” issues requiring her agreement and understanding beyond the possible continence issue.

I also noted in another reply in this thread that a poster knew of deacons who had added to their families following ordination. In our diocese a man isn’t even allowed to enter formation unless his youngest child is basically high school age, and there seems to be a kind of unspoken understanding that we’ll have none of that diaconal baby foolishness. The thought of diaconal canoodoling I think would be quite upsetting to our diocese, so we may be the first to change the praxis should Rome decide to side with Dr. Peters.

 

[plato3]

A majority of my class was older, but we had some younger couples of child bearing age. The wives signed those same statements, but there was never any talk that a deacon couple having more children would be harmful to the deacon. Since all our deacon candidates were married, the marriage vows were strongly stressed-the marriage vows include being open to children. The order of life for a deacon here is:love god above all things,next comes your wife and family,next comes your secular vocation, finally your deacon duties.

 

[otjm]

From the USCCB’s NATIONAL DIRECTORY
FOR THE FORMATION, MINISTRY,
AND LIFE OF PERMANENT DEACONS
IN THE UNITED STATES, p33-34:

The Married Deacon

Married love is a sign of the love of Christ for the Church
66. The majority of deacons in the United States are married.61
These men bring to the Sacrament of Holy Orders the gifts already
received and still being nurtured through their participation in the
Sacrament of Matrimony. This sacrament sanctifies the love of husbands
and wives, making that love an efficacious sign of the love of
Christ for his Church. Marriage requires an “interpersonal giving of
self, a mutual fidelity, a source of [and openness to] new life, [and]
a support in times of joy and sorrow.”62 Lived in faith, this ministry
within the domestic Church is a sign to the entire Church of the
love of Christ. It forms the basis of the married deacon’s unique gift
within the Church.63
Family life, work,
and ministry
67. “In particular the deacon and his wife must be a living example
of fidelity and indissolubility in Christian marriage before a world
which is in dire need of such signs. By facing in a spirit of faith the
challenges of married life and the demands of daily living, they
strengthen the family life not only of the Church community but of
the whole of society. They also show how the obligations of family life,
work and ministry can be harmonized in the service of the Church’s
mission. Deacons and their wives and children can be a great encouragement
to others who are working to promote family life.”64
Witness to the
sanctity of marriage
68. A married deacon, with his wife and family, gives witness to
the sanctity of marriage. **The more they grow in mutual love, conforming
their lives to the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality,
the more they give to the Christian community a model of
Christ-like love, compassion, and self-sacrifice. The married deacon
must always remember that through his sacramental participation in
both vocational sacraments, first in Matrimony and again in Holy
Orders, he is challenged to be faithful to both. **With integrity he
must live out both sacraments in harmony and balance. The wife of
a deacon should be included with her husband, when appropriate,
in diocesan clergy and parochial staff gatherings. A deacon and his
wife, both as a spiritual man and woman and as a couple, have much
to share with the bishop and his priests about the Sacrament of
Matrimony. A diaconal family also brings a unique presence and
understanding of the domestic family. “By facing in a spirit of faith
the challenges of married life and the demands of daily living, [the
married deacon and his family] strengthen the family life not only of
the Church community but of the whole of society.”65
​

Bolding mine; side headers moved above paragraphs to which they were adjacent.

Given that it postdates Humanae Vitae, Humanae Vitae’s understanding of marriage as a vocation, that deacon’s wifes are also called to be witnesses to the sanctity of marriage, and that if perpetual continence were required of married clerics, a wife becoming pregnant would be proof of violation of one or another vow, and grounds for immediate suspension… it’s pretty clear the USCCB, and Archbishops Schweitz and Hurley, don’t feel perpetual continence is required.

I am not convinced that the birth of a child would be grounds for dismissal. That, however, is an interesting twist to the whole issue.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the USCCB is not a governing (as in, law giving or necessarily law-interpreting) body when it comes to Canon law. At best they could be considered advisory.

I am going to go out on a limb here - I think the discussion of the the Canon was in Homiletic and Pastoral Review. It might be worth a read - or if you can scope out the other thread herein, that too could lead you to a further discussion.

A) I am not promoting it. B) I am not convinced that Dr Peters and the Jesuit Canon lawyer are correct in their reading of the Canon. C) it appears from what I read that their4 discussion was limited to the Canon itself, rather than to anything else that might elucidate the (apparent) current position - that continence is not required (and by that, I would consider somehting by the appropriate dicastery to be worthy of review, if not controlling - but I am not a Canon lawyer). D) it would be interesting, if it were available, to find any documentation behind the USCCB statement - footnotes, or other writings inciating what they may have relied on that would relate to this Canon.

As I have said, it would appear that the praxis is that continence is not required, but without a polling of all disoces’ which have permanent deacons, appearances can be deceiving. Not all diocese’ have permanent deacons; for example, Bishop Vasa last I heard was not ordaining any, but I have never hear why. Whether this is part of the issue I don’t know.

Net result may be that we have an intellectual exercise going about something which is not the intent of Rome; however, in reading it, it certainly sounds like there is a piece or two missing in the discussion. And as an aside, it has all the earmarks of the “camel with its nose under the ten flap”. As in, slightly Machiavellian.

By the way, thanks for the post! It certainly adds to the stew.

And as an aside - where would periodic continence come in (toher than as part of NFP)? Well, actually, that strays a bit from where I started.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I think the thread alluded to in this string is “Can Permanent Deacons Have Children After Ordination,” and began 2-12-09. (Sorry, I don’t know how to do the link thing.) The Canon Law article being referred to should be here: canonlaw.info/2008/10/res…mments-on.html

 

[Aramis]

I am not convinced that the birth of a child would be grounds for dismissal. That, however, is an interesting twist to the whole issue.

not dismissal, suspension ad divinis. If perpetual continence is required, and the wife is required to be an example of marital fidelity (as per the deacon directory quote given…you can grab the source at USCCB.org)… then the wife’s pregnancy is proof of failing to adhere to that, because one must presume the least offense… that against continence, rather than the most severe, violation of the marital bond…

And as an aside - where would periodic continence come in (toher than as part of NFP)? Well, actually, that strays a bit from where I started.

24 hours prior to liturgy is the norm in the Byzantine praxis (Orthodox and Catholic) , as is during the 4 fasts; not just for clerics, either… The orthodox in Alaska tend to have clusters of birthdays: late august to late september, and november-january; these correlate to 8.5-9.5 months after Phillip’s Fast (Advent) and Great Fast (Lent).

 

[otjm]

not dismissal, suspension ad divinis. If perpetual continence is required, and the wife is required to be an example of marital fidelity (as per the deacon directory quote given…you can grab the source at USCCB.org)… then the wife’s pregnancy is proof of failing to adhere to that, because one must presume the least offense… that against continence, rather than the most severe, violation of the marital bond…

Works for me. Certainly an interesting point.

24 hours prior to liturgy is the norm in the Byzantine praxis (Orthodox and Catholic) , as is during the 4 fasts; not just for clerics, either… The orthodox in Alaska tend to have clusters of birthdays: late august to late september, and november-january; these correlate to 8.5-9.5 months after Phillip’s Fast (Advent) and Great Fast (Lent).

I have seen information indicating that some may abstain for as long as 7 days. And as to the birthdays - no surprise; the balckout in New York some years ago showed a simialr pattern, and one quite distinct.

 

[whynagg]

Seems to me that The Church as an institution with it’s own laws has not made up it’s
mind about the issue!!!

It also seems that the issue is largely in the hands of the Bishop
of the day, and the Diocese in question.

In this he seems to have all the power.

For me it will be simple…

I will marry a second time, to a woman who is entirely free, and who is hugely
supportive and loves me unconditionally; who cannot have any more than her 5 children, and we expect to have a normal sexual relationship, as enjoyed by all married people.

The important thing is not to allow asceticism and sexual repression in others dictate
the modus operandi.

If there is no certainty in Canon Law, we will make our own.

If we do not have a supportive Bishop…we will simply stay married and forget about
the Deaconage…as will thousands of others…if they have any sense.

Thanks Guys and Gals…talking about here has helped, even if the answers came from
within.

I sense it is just as difficult an issue for many of you…so maybe I have helped you!!!

 

[Brendan]

Well, that may or may not be the case. Dr. Ed Peters, I believe, and a Jesuit Canon lawyer whose name escapes me, have had an on-going discussion of one of the Canons, which, coupled with its history prior to being promulgated, appears to indicate that once ordained, a married deacon may not have sexual congress with his wife…

Are you sure you read that correctly, when I was in Diaconate formation, I had Dr. Peter’s as my Canon law professor. I assure you that he sees no Canonical issue with a Deacon having sexual congress with their lawful spouses.

 

[otjm]

Are you sure you read that correctly, when I was in Diaconate formation, I had Dr. Peter’s as my Canon law professor. I assure you that he sees no Canonical issue with a Deacon having sexual congress with their lawful spouses.

Yes, I am absolutely sure. I read the article, and it blew my socks off, as it was the first I ahd ever heard about it. It was in another thread in these fora; someone above may have given a link, although it may be the link they gave was to his website, which is not the most intuitively naviagable I have seen.

As I noted, I thought the discussion was in H&PReview, but that’s just my recollection. Dang, I printed off the discussion and parked it somewhere other than at work. They went over the historical proposed alternatives to the accepted Canon and noted that language was dropped.

Leave it to some academics to go prowling through the books looking for issues…

and I assure you, that according tot he article, he does have issues.

Either that, or someone has done a very elaborate hoax for who knows what reason.

I mean, we have 4000+ permanent deacons, right? And a goodly number are married, right? And they are all going to be continent, right?

Riiiighttt!

 

[plato3]

Last figure I heard was 17,000+ permanent deacons in the U.S.

 

[otjm]

Last figure I heard was 17,000+ permanent deacons in the U.S.

Sorry. I can’t count that high without taking my shoes off - and I am not sure I would dare do that at work! I had dropped a digit - a measely little “1”. As in 14,000+. Sorry, old statistics and lousy typer.