O
otjm
Guest
Boy of boy do I wish I had a ringside seat for that one!My husband has Dr. Peters this semester. I’ll print the question & some of the responses out for my DH to get the info from the horse’s mouth (so to speak).
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
LOL. I hate those little keyboards…
I’d have to agree. Marriage carries with it certain obligations. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, as is Orders. Orders do not trump Marriage as a Sacrament. Wait a minute…my logic is getting absurd. :juggle:
Let’s just stick with yes, already married Deacons can have and should have marital relations that may result in children after ordination.
W
WSD
Guest
If I may throw a twist into this question (let me know if it doe not belong on this thread). Would there be anything that would stop a perminate Decon from adopting children after ordination?
My wife and I can only adopt to have children and I’ve wondered about becoming a Deacon. Do I need to take care of one first and then the other?
N
Newbie2
Guest
Good question.
The answer would lie in "Is there a difference in the choice in having an adopted child and a “natural” one?
I would think not. “Open to having children” doesn’t specify whether it’s from one’s own genes or anothers.
On the practical side, if another child could forseeably have an affect on the hypothetical deacon’s ministry, it would probably be wise for him and his wife to consult with the Bishop before taking on an adoptive child.
The answer would lie in "Is there a difference in the choice in having an adopted child and a “natural” one?
I would think not. “Open to having children” doesn’t specify whether it’s from one’s own genes or anothers.
On the practical side, if another child could forseeably have an affect on the hypothetical deacon’s ministry, it would probably be wise for him and his wife to consult with the Bishop before taking on an adoptive child.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
There is nothing that would prohibit a deacon from adopting. However, if you are considering doing that and becoming a deacon you might want to look at the time commitments that are necessary. Sometimes taking care of the family needs to come before the call to the diaconate.
If I may throw a twist into this question (let me know if it doe not belong on this thread). Would there be anything that would stop a perminate Decon from adopting children after ordination?
My wife and I can only adopt to have children and I’ve wondered about becoming a Deacon. Do I need to take care of one first and then the other?
Deacon Ed
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
I would disagree that there’s any ambiguity with regard to the term – all we have to do is look at papal writings, especially that of Pope John Paul II, to see how the term is understood. It becomes clear that this term refers to all the “rights” of married life.
Further, canon law does not stand in isolation. Like civil law, it must be interpreted. When there is doubt with regard to the law and its interpretation it is possible to submit a question (called a dubium) to Rome for an “authentic interpretation.” The interpretation is rightly given by “the Legistlator” (the pope) or by his designee. The Congregation for Clergy is empowered to provide such authentic interpretation with regard to issues related to the clergy. They have done so in the directory on life and ministry for the permanent deacon.
Of course, one must also consider canonical regulations that may be related to canon 277. For example, canon 1037 requires celibacy (understood as not starting a new family) of umarried candidates for ordination, but not for married men seeking to become permanent deacons. Clearly there is a reason for this exemption.
Deacon Ed
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Permanent deacons can’t have children before they’re ordained, either. They’re all men! 
B
Brendan
Guest
We can ‘have’ them, as they are gift from GodPermanent deacons can’t have children before they’re ordained, either. They’re all men!
, but we cannot ‘bear’ them 
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
He didn’t remove an exemption from “celibacy” but from " perpetual continence." A single man logically lives out that obligation through celibacy, a married man through abstaining from marital relations.
Of course let’s look at things in context - like the historical context. Marital relations are clearly something that can be voluntary given up by married couples; it was, after all, a requirement of the West’s married clergy for the millenium in which they were employed. Thus when people say that one sacrament can’t “trump” another, they are failing to include the history of practice that dwarfs the restoration of the married permanent diaconate.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
And that’s a discipline. The Congregation for Clergy has stated the current position on that discipline with regard to married deacons.
Deacon Ed
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
And that position, when read in light of the Church’s entire history, does nothing to exclude the opinion that deacons remain bound to perpetual continence. You say the procreation and education of offspring is essential to marriage, and thus any mention of conjugal life must implicitly include these. I say the Church has always held that same primary end of marriage while simultaneously excluding its further exercise from the marriages of its clerics.
C
Chatter163
Guest
Wow, who would ever have thought that this thread-seemingly with such a simple answer–would reach over **four **pages??? 
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
The point here is that it doesn’t matter what you or I say – it’s what the Church says. It is the Church that regulates the life and ministry of permanent deacons and the directory that specifies this says that we enjoy a full “conjugal life” which sustains and nourishes us. In the same paragraph as the one I cited earlier we read:
I’m not sure how else one can understand the idea of “a source of new life” if we are not referring to the sexual union of the deacon and his wife.
Deacon Ed
E
EasterJoy
Guest
How did you get to be a senior member, and yet still have that surprise you?Wow, who would ever have thought that this thread-seemingly with such a simple answer–would reach over four pages???
O
otjm
Guest
Well, part of the question afoot - or at least part that I have proposed - might be recast (with a nod to a prior president?) - what does the word “says” mean?
If the Church through its official proclamation - here, Canon 277 - “says” that permanent deacons will be continent, and unmarried (or widowed/divorced) permanent deacons will be celibate and continent, does that trump all further commentary which is not a specific revision of the Canon?
Or, does Canon law, which on the face of it and the history of the adoption of Canon 277 get either clarified or modified by a subsequent commentary by the dicastery overseeing the permanent diaconite?
Or, does Canon law, which on the face, etc. get either clarified or modified by continual and lengthy (what gets thrown around - 30 years? 40?) and almost absolute conduct to the contrary?
I am not disagreeing with you so much as saying that you speak to the obvious (and apparently US universal) practice that married permanent deacons are not required to be continent. But that does not specifically answer the commentary posed by Dr. Peters, et alia, who say that Canon 277 requires continence (and does not discuss the issue outside the parameters of the Code).
The point is, their discussion may or may not be esoteric. From their discussion, it certainly appears that the weight of authority is on the side of required continence, per the Canon. And on the other side, one has to question if something that seems to have been occuring openly for the decades that we have had a permanent diaconite restored is not known, and perhaps known widely, by Rome.
Again, it would be interesting, and not from a solely scholarly point, to know if JP2 wrote anything, either publicly or in memoirs, as to why he chose to have Canon 277 say what it does, and not what any of the proposals were or some alternative of them. Was he setting 277 as-is to mean exactly what it says? Was there a different purpose - perhaps to answer those who felt it was the “camel’s nose under the tent flap”, but did not intend to enforce it? Or perhaps to set the line where it had been for other clergy, and see what developed with the idea of revisiting 277 at a future date (e.g. assuming that the reinstatement of the permanent diaconite was highly favored, watching to see if the Canon would cause only a minimal number of candidates to seek the diaconite)? There may be other scenarios which could be spun out. It just seems illogical to me that an issue that is as absolute in terms of priesthood, and appears to be set in just as much stone for the permanent diaconite could slide so far below Rome’s radar for this long. I don’t have any statistics as to what percentage of the permanent deacons are married at the time of ordination - I would presume a significant majority. It is not like this is an isolated, hush-hush issue.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Do we not say that procreation is one of the ends of marriage, by virtue of the Divine Law? Or has that changed, and I’m not up-to-date on my magazine articles which declare that married deacons can’t have children?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
God to Archangel Michael “Get over there and stop the presses NOW! I was wrong, procreation isn’t a part of marriage after all! Haven’t you seen the latest article?”
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, canon law does not stand alone but, like civil law, is understood based upon either case law (e.g, marriage law) or based upon “authentic interpretation” which can come either from the pope or from his designee. In this case, the Congregation for Clergy. They provide guidance on how to understand (or, if you will, interpret) the law.
If we are given guidelines by which to understand the law and those guidelines come from the appropriate authority then that is the understanding we are to use.
Canon law is, of course, subject to tradition. It is also subject to “authentic interpretation.” Let me provide a different example to clarify this. Here’s the exact wording of canon 917:
On the surface it would appear that one could attend every Mass offered on a Sunday and receive communion at each Mass. Yet, the “authentic interpretation” is that one may not receive communion more than twice on any given day.
Yet that “obvious practice” comes from somewhere. Surely the bishops of the Church, both in the United States and elsewhere, were conginzant of canon 277. Yet no country requires a deacon to give up his marital rights (one might even say “obligation”). In fact, as the Directory I’ve cited makes it clear, married deacons may continue to have marital relations with their wives since that is how “new live” is brought about.
But the point is Rome does know, and permits, the current understanding as evidenced by the document from the Congregation for Clergy.
As far as I know, JPII did not write any commentary on Canon 277 specifically. Yet, when he addressed the deacons in Detroit (Sept. 19, 1987) he speaks of the love between the deacon and his wife and never, ever, mentions canon 277. I’m sure the pope was aware of the canon.
As In said, the “authentic interpretation” that we are following, not just in the United States but around the world, is that put forth by Rome.
Deacon Ed
O
otjm
Guest
Nothing has declared that deacons can’t have children. What has been declared is that those who would be ordained deacons must live in continence; which means that if they should seek to have children they should do that before seeking ordination. and as I have said, the history of the Church holds that married couples may choose to live continently, together or apart, and the Church’s view seems to have been that this was a bonum. and since your “handle” indicates that you are a priest, I would presume you understand the use of the word “bonum” to be in its technical theological sense.
I am not advocating that deacons not have sexual relations with their wives; nor am I advocating that they should not. I am simply discussing Canon 277, which is astounding news to me, since I had never hear of it before and I am old enough to remember the only deacons the Church had were transitional deacons, a few of which I (knew) (know) personally, as I attended more than one ordination to the priesthood before Vatican 2.
If you are surprised by this issue, well, welcome to the crowd.
You should also know from your studies, that if we agree that children are one of the divine ends of a marriage, they are not an absolute, as people who are sterile (as opposed to impotent) are allowed to marry. The discussion the Church has concerning the natural ends of the marriage and the parties intent is that the intent must be at the beginning of the marriage; the Church does not say that a couple can marry when one or more parties to it intend to not have children. There is a logical difference between marrying with the intent, and subsequently foregoing all sexual relations, and the intent to marry, have sexual relations and not be open to having children. To put it crudely, the Church does not condone, but rather condemns the attitude of “free sex” meaning the attitude of intentionally prohibiting sexual intercourse from being open to the natural consequences - of which I can speak, having twins.
Having sex with the intent to not procreate is not the same choice as choosing to give up the good - the bonum - of sexual intercourse at all. They are entirely two different choices made for entirely two different reasons. They are also choices that are made at different times; at the time of marriage the couple chooses to be open to children; at (actaully, prior) to the time of ordination if everyone was following Canon 277, a different choice is made, which is to forego the bonum.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
And who “declared” that? The Pope, John Paul II, who promulgated canon 277 apparently wasn’t aware that such was his intention because his own Holy See had a different opinion on the matter (as already cited here), and the same holds for Benedict XVI as nothing has changed since.
I am amazed at two things:
- A discussion about married deacons has said very little about the actual sacrament of marriage.
- Once again, I see on these posts an example of someone’s magazine article being offered as “proof” that the Holy See doesn’t understand canon law.
- Status