Can a permanent deacon have children after ordination?

[Dicerning]

I would agree. I have 5 small kids and I was in formation for 3 years.

Yes, we did step back for a few years when DC 5 was born. My wife wanted the assistance in the pews. I also had a talk with the auxilliary bishop responsible for formation.

His recommendation, of which I comploetely concur, was to wait until my oldest was old enough to babysit. So I am holding off for a few years.

When I was in formation, the kids were great. In fact, I have difficulty in imaging how a Deacon can be effictive in certain ministries WITHOUT young children.

In my case, my two ministries were nursing home visits and assisting at a soup kitchen.

Nothing really brightens the day of an older person in a nursing home than recieving children as visitors. At the time, I had 1 boy and 3 girls. One lady remarked how lucky I was to have daughters.

She had 2 sons and now has 3 grandsons. She said that, when she was a little girl, she dreamed about have tea parties with her daughters.

So, on the next visit, I brought tea bags, cookies and my girls dressed in their best clothes, brought their dolls and they had a tea party.

When I was in the kitchen fixing everything up, I though about the institution of the Diaconate in Acts 6. St. Peter decreed that the purpose of the order was to bring food to widows and children. I thought that tea and cookies were probably NOT what he had in mind at the time, but this wasn’t too far off either.

At the soup kitchen, I bring my son and oldest daughter and they sort donated clothes and pack boxes of food for delivery. They both enjoy it enough that they ask to go back.

Hey brenden. Long time no talk.
Unfortunately my minstry is communion services at a nearby prison. Cant take the kiddies there. My yongest starts kindergarten next year. So I ( god willing) I will be ordained before my kids leave home. Oldest will be 16 at my oridnation…she will have gone through 5 years of formation with me along with the other kids. I am certain by the last year or so she will be sitting in class with us instead of being with the other deacon kids at their “class”

 

[Primrose]

dear Deacon ed. its called a blackberry. And I have huge thumbs.

Lol!!!:choocho: I’ve just found these new smilies. I love 'em!!!

 

[Primrose]

Indeed. My husband was 43 when he was ordained, and the youngest was 40 (with kids in grade school). Even our kids learned more by osmosis from their dad than they did in 12 years of Catholic school.

This made me snort! Do your thumbs look like this?

 

[otjm]

Deacon Ed I was told that our Deacons and their wives were asked to sign a paper that they would no longer have relations is this true or just maybe in our diocese?

This is going to sound rude, and I don’t mean it to be rude, but do you really believe everything you are told? Where do these stories start? Who is it that thinks these things up?

“Someone told me” reminds me of the group experience of getting ten or fifteen people into a circle; you tell one something, and they have to pass it on to the next person. When it gets to the end it has been so warped…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I am approaching the end of my first year.

I am happy to say (and so is my wife) that marital relations continue after ordination.

To say that a deacon cannot have children is the same as saying he cannot have sexual intimacy with his wife. Which is contrary to church teaching.

Historically it has been the practice of the Church to allow married couples who mutually agree to practice continence - in fact, Cdl. Stickler has made a very solid and compelling case that this was the ancient norm for married clergy until the East abandoned it at the Quinisext council. Apart from requring continence of married priests, the Church has also allowed married couples to go so far as to separate and take religious vows. Far from contrary to Church teaching, then, you will find that is has been the longstanding practice of the Church to require some married people to forego relations, either because they have accepted it for the ordination of the man or else for the religious profession of both.

Deacon Ed I was told that our Deacons and their wives were asked to sign a paper that they would no longer have relations is this true or just maybe in our diocese?

This is going to sound rude, and I don’t mean it to be rude, but do you really believe everything you are told? Where do these stories start? Who is it that thinks these things up?

“Someone told me” reminds me of the group experience of getting ten or fifteen people into a circle; you tell one something, and they have to pass it on to the next person. When it gets to the end it has been so warped…

What “someone told” the poster isn’t unbelievable at all. In fact, there is an ongoing debate at the moment about whether all dioceses should be requiring marital continence of their deacons because of canon law. This link is a good jumping off point: canonlaw.info/2008/10/responses-to-rex-pilgers-comments-on.html

Basically, canon law requires all clerics to observe perfect and perpetual continence. It doesn’t say “clerics who are not married” or “clerics who are celibate” but “clerics,” and makes celibacy a derivative of this requirement of continence. Well, continence for a married man means not having relations with his wife, and whereas earlier versions of the canon had a specific exemption for married deacons, but it was removed by explicit command of John Paul II. So we know that the code as promulgated contains no exemption for the married, and we also know that this is not an oversight - that exemption was intentionally and specifically removed. Thus any bishop requiring continence (like the anecdotal one above) is really just trying to obey canon law.

Now, you might ask, why would no one know about this if it were the correct interpretation, and why would the almost universal practice be contrary to this canon? I can only say that 1) we all know that the implementation of most of VII’s directives and suggestions was done quickly and from the hip; most people probably never imagined a married man might be asked to forego relations, and thus never bothered to ask. 2) Should we be surprised if this American practice is no more in line with canon law than so many other aspects of our ecclesial life?

That is not to say that deacons who are calling in the marriage debt are intentionally misbehaving. They are simply acting on what they were told was not only permissible but in all likelihood an integral part of their service to the Church (being the cleric who was also a family man and thus bringing the riches of that to bear in his ministry, etc.). But with the canon itself now being brought to light it amazes me that there has not been more attention given to it - if the above interpretation is correct, it is a big elephant in our living room - and that most candidates seem to remain unaware at least that there is current debate, even if they were to find the partisans of continence ultimately unconvincing.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

A posting in another thread has called into
question whether deacons are allowed intimacy
with their wives. Specifically, Canon 277 and John
Paul II’s removal of the clause exempting married
permanent deacons from the requirements of
celibacy were cited as proof that even married
deacons are required to be celibate, the U.S. being
in violation of this canon by failure to teach this
restriction to men in diaconal formation. Could our resident
deacons / canonists please comment?

 

[FrDavid96]

A posting in another thread has called into
question whether deacons are allowed intimacy
with their wives. Specifically, Canon 277 and John
Paul II’s removal of the clause exempting married
permanent deacons from the requirements of
celibacy were cited as proof that even married
deacons are required to be celibate, the U.S. being
in violation of this canon by failure to teach this
restriction to men in diaconal formation. Could our resident
deacons / canonists please comment?

Since procreation is one of the ends of marriage, it goes without saying that a married couple are not required by the Church to be celibate.

I would say that the reason why Pope John Paul II removed the examption allowing for married deacons not-to-be celibate is because telling a married man that he is “exempt from celibacy” is pointless and even absurd.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The current discipline of the Church has permitted deacons to retain normal marital relations with their wives. The discussion you mention is actually raised only by a couple of people and has not been submitted to Rome for an “authentic interpretation.” Until such interpretation has been given by Rome the current discipline, permitting marital relations, remains in force.

In the National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States we read:

Celibacy Affects Every Deacon
72. In one way or another, celibacy affects every deacon, married or unmarried. Understanding the nature of celibacy—its value and its practice—are essential to the married deacon. Not only does this understanding strengthen and nurture his own commitment to marital chastity, but it also helps to prepare him for the possibility of living celibate chastity should his wife predecease him. This concern is particularly unique within the diaconate. Tragically, some deacons who were married at the time of ordination only begin to face the issues involved with celibacy upon the death of their wives. As difficult as this process is, all deacons need to appreciate the impact celibacy can have on their lives and ministry.

This directory, approved by Rome, clarifies this when it speaks of “marital chastity” as opposed to “celibate chastity.”

This directory us based upon the Directory for the Life and Ministry of the Permanent Deacons issued by the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome (2/22/1998) which is even more specific:

Married Deacons

1. 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. Since family life and professional responsibilities must necessarily reduce the amount of time which married deacons can dedicate to the ministry, it will be necessary to integrate these various elements in a unitary fashion, especially by means of shared prayer. In marriage, love becomes an interpersonal giving of self, a mutual fidelity, a source of new life, a support in times of joy and sorrow: in short, love becomes service. When lived in faith, this *family service *is for the rest of the faithful an example of the love of Christ. The married deacon must use it as a stimulus of his diaconia in the Church.

Married deacons should feel especially obliged to give clear witness to the sanctity of marriage and the family. The more they grow in mutual love, the greater their dedication to their children and the more significant their example for the Christian community. “The nurturing and deepening of mutual, sacrificial love between husband and wife constitutes perhaps the most significant involvement of a deacon’s wife in her husband’s public ministry in the Church”. This love grows thanks to chastity which flourishes, even in the exercise of paternal responsibilities, by respect for spouses and the practice of a certain continence. This virtue fosters a mutual self-giving which soon becomes evident in ministry. It eschews possessive behaviour, undue pursuit of professional success and the incapacity to programme time. Instead, it promotes authentic interpersonal relationships, tact, and the capacity to see everything in its proper perspective.

Special care should be taken to ensure that the families of deacons be made aware of the demands of the diaconal ministry. The spouses of married deacons, who must give their consent to their husband’s decision to seek ordination to the diaconate, should be assisted to play their role with joy and discretion. They should esteem all that concerns the Church, especially the duties assigned to their husbands. For this reason it is opportune that they should be kept duly informed of their husbands’ activities in order to arrive at an harmonious balance between family, professional and ecclesial responsibilities. In the children of married deacons, where such is possible, an appreciation of their father’s ministry can also be fostered. They in turn should be involved in the apostolate and give coherent witness in their lives.

In conclusion, the families of married deacons, as with all Christian families, are called to participate actively and responsibly in the Church’s mission in the contemporary world. “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.”

I think that should make it clear how Rome views this question.

Deacon Ed

 

[centurionguard]

The current discipline of the Church has permitted deacons to retain normal marital relations with their wives. The discussion you mention is actually raised only by a couple of people and has not been submitted to Rome for an “authentic interpretation.” Until such interpretation has been given by Rome the current discipline, permitting marital relations, remains in force.

In the National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States we read:This directory, approved by Rome, clarifies this when it speaks of “marital chastity” as opposed to “celibate chastity.”

This directory us based upon the Directory for the Life and Ministry of the Permanent Deacons issued by the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome (2/22/1998) which is even more specific:

I think that should make it clear how Rome views this question.

Deacon Ed

The same rules follows for those men in the deaconate in Canada as well. Correct me if I’m wrong but is the Celibacy rule only enforced should the Deacon become widowed ?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The same rules follows for those men in the deaconate in Canada as well. Correct me if I’m wrong but is the Celibacy rule only enforced should the Deacon become widowed ?

That is correct.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Well, it’s clear that Rome doesn’t hold to that interpretation of canon law. Here’s a quote from the Directory for the Life and Ministry of the Permanent Deacons issued by the Congregation for Clergy on 2/22/1998:

1. 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.

Deacon Ed

 

[otjm]

Historically it has been the practice of the Church to allow married couples who mutually agree to practice continence - in fact, Cdl. Stickler has made a very solid and compelling case that this was the ancient norm for married clergy until the East abandoned it at the Quinisext council. Apart from requring continence of married priests, the Church has also allowed married couples to go so far as to separate and take religious vows. Far from contrary to Church teaching, then, you will find that is has been the longstanding practice of the Church to require some married people to forego relations, either because they have accepted it for the ordination of the man or else for the religious profession of both.

What “someone told” the poster isn’t unbelievable at all. In fact, there is an ongoing debate at the moment about whether all dioceses should be requiring marital continence of their deacons because of canon law. This link is a good jumping off point: canonlaw.info/2008/10/responses-to-rex-pilgers-comments-on.html

Basically, canon law requires all clerics to observe perfect and perpetual continence. It doesn’t say “clerics who are not married” or “clerics who are celibate” but “clerics,” and makes celibacy a derivative of this requirement of continence. Well, continence for a married man means not having relations with his wife, and whereas earlier versions of the canon had a specific exemption for married deacons, but it was removed by explicit command of John Paul II. So we know that the code as promulgated contains no exemption for the married, and we also know that this is not an oversight - that exemption was intentionally and specifically removed. Thus any bishop requiring continence (like the anecdotal one above) is really just trying to obey canon law.

Now, you might ask, why would no one know about this if it were the correct interpretation, and why would the almost universal practice be contrary to this canon? I can only say that 1) we all know that the implementation of most of VII’s directives and suggestions was done quickly and from the hip; most people probably never imagined a married man might be asked to forego relations, and thus never bothered to ask. 2) Should we be surprised if this American practice is no more in line with canon law than so many other aspects of our ecclesial life?

That is not to say that deacons who are calling in the marriage debt are intentionally misbehaving. They are simply acting on what they were told was not only permissible but in all likelihood an integral part of their service to the Church (being the cleric who was also a family man and thus bringing the riches of that to bear in his ministry, etc.). But with the canon itself now being brought to light it amazes me that there has not been more attention given to it - if the above interpretation is correct, it is a big elephant in our living room - and that most candidates seem to remain unaware at least that there is current debate, even if they were to find the partisans of continence ultimately unconvincing.

Talk about an elephant in the room… This is the first I have heard about the issue. However, given the comment by Deacon Ed, after your post, perhaps the issue is not cast in stone; or maybe it is cast in stone, but that is sandstone.

I had never heard the history of Canon 277 (and it would seem, if the history were all that was at issue, that the weight of evidence was in the favor of deacons being required to be continent), or for that matter, that there was even a Canon 277 to be dealt with. However, if a Congregation in Rome is heading a different direction, and Rome, which I can understand does not micromanage the Church, but is also not entirely isolated from all that happens is not stepping in since either JP2 passed the Code without the reccomended subparagraph, or since the Congregation subsequently made its comment, then perhaps neither Doctor Peters or the others who have weighed in are accounting for all facets.

I can understand a legal argument. I can also understand how a legal argument can be formulated on only certain grounds or facts, or that it can be a restricted argument. Without having training in Canon law, I cannot determine what weight, if any goes to the Congregation’s comment. I only gave a cursory review of the arguments, but none of them seemed to focus on anything other than the Canon itself. And given that Canons are subject to interpetation and revision or removal, perhaps the matter is not as solid as one might presume. However, referencing nothing more than the Canon itself and its history, it would appear that the matter does not comport with practice, without adequate explanation.

 

[otjm]

As an aside but concerning Canon law and practices within the Church, there is one thing that I think sometimes clouds understanding. That is, we (being those in the US) have a certain mindset in general when approaching issues of law and practice.

There are two general general philosophical approaches to law from a European perspective: Germanic or northern, and Mediterrainian, or southern. The northern philosophy or approach is that whatever is not permitted is forbidden; the southern is that whatever is not forbidden is permitted.

The US approach tends towards the northern. I say that because what struck me in part of the article(s) concerning the Western rite approach to celibacy is to see it as an absolute, followed by all, acknowledged by all, and universal in intent and application.

One has to step back at times and take a look at what actually happened: the issue of celibacy/continence was not one that was addressed once and followed absolutely, I suspect, if for no other reason than that it came up repeatedly in councils and rules. If the rule were actually universal from its first announcement, why in the world would anyone make further rules concerning the same issue, except for the fact that the rule was not universally practiced? What little I know of history (and it is most certainly not my forte), there have been times subsequent to the first announcement where it would seem that the rule was observed greatly in its non-application. Clerics in Rome with their concubines comes to mind. I bring this up because comments in the article(s) approached it from what appeared to be a northern approach (ya, das iss der rule, and it vill be obeyed!).

Being mostly of Dutch heritage, I am not going to propose that rules be obeyed by their non-application. However, it would appear that there are times where the southern attitude prevails, which makes a rule perhaps something other than a rigid absolute, but maybe more something of a serious goal to be attained (and thereby understood that it will not be universally practiced). Again, I am not advocating that the rule be ignored, so much as saying that perhaps there is a reason (or reasons) that what seems to be universally, or nearly practiced in the US is not drawing attention from anyone except US Canon lawyers.

Given that I was not aware of the Canon at all, I may perhaps be wrong in assuming that it can be waived - e.g. for those converts, married, who are subsequently ordained priests. It is waived at least to the extent that they are allowed to be married; whether they are (or must be - that is, it can’t be waived) continent also certainly is not something that is ever brought up. I would assume, however, that married priests can have relations with their wives, as per Eastern rites.

And given that there are something in the order of 16,500 or so deacons in the US, I find it interesting that Rome either doesn’t have a clue, or in the alternative, is not as clueless as we may be presuming.

 

[Aramis]

The same basic rule applies to married priests and deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches which have them, (and their Orthodox counterparts,) as well: Those married prior to ordination, may not remarry should they become widowers. With a few minor caveats, normal marital relations are permitted. Those unmarried prior to ordination remain unmarried for life.

Some have a traditional non-coital period prior to participation in the liturgy. Such continence is even a suggested practice for laity in the Byzantine tradition. The rule I’ve heard is continence from vespers saturday through vespers on sunday.

Continence during all of Great Fast (Lent) is also a known Slavic-Byzantine practice, tho’ it isn’t universal.

Byzantine praxis used to include that a married priest who was widowed and had no children left in the home would retire to the monastery.

 

[Aramis]

I recently had a conversation with a friend who told me that a permanent deacon can’t have children after they are ordained. I didn’t think this was true, but I can’t find any proof either way. Does anyone know if this is true or not, and is there anywhere that says why / why not this is the case.

Thanks

I personally know of several whose wives have… Seriously, tho’ it’s not common that they do, simply because, with the Roman rubrics for candidacy, most of the women are unlikely to become pregnant. Most are in their mid 40’s.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Well, it’s clear that Rome doesn’t hold to that interpretation of canon law. Here’s a quote from the Directory for the Life and Ministry of the Permanent Deacons issued by the Congregation for Clergy on 2/22/1998:

Deacon Ed

Of course, there is some ambiguity there as to what “conjugal” life means. IIRC, it simply means “married” life - life with one’s coniunx - as opposed to the connotations of a “conjugal visit.”

Now, although I find Dr. Peter’s argument quite convincing, I also think otjm was right to point out that it’s hard to believe Rome is entirely unaware that (at least American) married deacons are being allowed to continue with marital relations - so the silence does complicate the picture. Once again, on the other hand, Rome’s current toleration of the practice may not void the canonical argument, which might at some point force either the enforcement of the canon or its revision. Think of the case of female altar servers - they were practically forbidden until 1994, but then it was determined that, actually, the 1983 CIC contained nothing to substantiate that ban. What if married deacons and marital relations were to work in an opposite track? - “oh, I guess canon law is different than what we’ve been practicing.”

 

[otjm]

Of course, there is some ambiguity there as to what “conjugal” life means. IIRC, it simply means “married” life - life with one’s coniunx - as opposed to the connotations of a “conjugal visit.”

Now, although I find Dr. Peter’s argument quite convincing, I also think otjm was right to point out that it’s hard to believe Rome is entirely unaware that (at least American) married deacons are being allowed to continue with marital relations - so the silence does complicate the picture. Once again, on the other hand, Rome’s current toleration of the practice may not void the canonical argument, which might at some point force either the enforcement of the canon or its revision. Think of the case of female altar servers - they were practically forbidden until 1994, but then it was determined that, actually, the 1983 CIC contained nothing to substantiate that ban. What if married deacons and marital relations were to work in an opposite track? - “oh, I guess canon law is different than what we’ve been practicing.”

I find Dr. Peter’s argument convincing also, in the context of a case study or an intellectual exercise. However, again, I am not schooled in Canon law, and I don’t know to what extent praxis and the real world implications of it enter into the picture - or for that matter, what history (leagl or paralegal) the commentary by a dicastery subsequent to the Code may have. It would also be interesting if JP2 had written anything in context of his choice to not adopt the other proposed Canons or subsets.

 

[FrDavid96]

I find it fascinating that a thread about married deacons has so little in the way of posts about marriage.

Since we’re discussing canon law, let’s see what canon 1055 has to say:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; the covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Now, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but when people refer to “married deacons”, the “married” part refers to what I’ve quoted above from canon 1055, right? So if the procreation of offspring is one of the ends of marriage (again, unless I’m misreading 1055), and a married deacon is in that state-of-life which we call “marriage”, then it stands to reason that a deacon’s marriage is also “ordered toward …the procreation of offspring”?

Or am I missing something? Have I not connected-the-dots the right way? One of those must be the case because I am thoroughly confused by what I’m reading here…Please help!

 

[otjm]

I find it fascinating that a thread about married deacons has so little in the way of posts about marriage.

Since we’re discussing canon law, let’s see what canon 1055 has to say:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; the covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Now, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but when people refer to “married deacons”, the “married” part refers to what I’ve quoted above from canon 1055, right? So if the procreation of offspring is one of the ends of marriage (again, unless I’m misreading 1055), and a married deacon is in that state-of-life which we call “marriage”, then it stands to reason that a deacon’s marriage is also “ordered toward …the procreation of offspring”?

Or am I missing something? Have I not connected-the-dots the right way? One of those must be the case because I am thoroughly confused by what I’m reading here…Please help!

Marriage is ordered toward the procreation of offspring. If one is to be a married deacon, then one has to (by 2000 years of tradition, both East and West to the best of my knowledge) be married prior to being ordained. Given that one is married prior to, any children forn of the marriage would, according to the analysis of Canon 277, have to be conceived prior to ordination if one is to floow the Canon according to the interpretaion of Dr. Peters, et alia.

The fact that the marriage in “ordered towards” dos not mean that one has to have sexual realtions with one’s spouse; the history of the Church contains those married couples who chose, subsequent to marriage (at some unidentified point) to live continently. And since at least some of those took vows to do so, then it is not a violation of Canon 1055 to forego that subsequently. It is a general axiom of law (and I would presume of Canon law) that laws which appear to conflict are read in such a way as to not conflict if such can be done without doing violence to either law.

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

I find Dr. Peter’s argument convincing also, in the context of a case study or an intellectual exercise. However, again, I am not schooled in Canon law, and I don’t know to what extent praxis and the real world implications of it enter into the picture - or for that matter, what history (leagl or paralegal) the commentary by a dicastery subsequent to the Code may have. It would also be interesting if JP2 had written anything in context of his choice to not adopt the other proposed Canons or subsets.

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 ).