Celibacy for Deacons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stratiotes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stratiotes

Guest
What do you think about the topic? I heard something about this on CA Live last night and so I made a web search for some info. I ran across something at SSPX (I know, not the ideal place to find information but opinion is interesting at least):
sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm

Is it something that differs between diocese or is it a universal “dispensation” for deacons now? I don’t think our diocese enforces celibacy on married deacons but I wasn’t sure if it was something each could decide or not.
 
Stratiotes said:
What do you think about the topic? I heard something about this on CA Live last night and so I made a web search for some info. I ran across something at SSPX (I know, not the ideal place to find information but opinion is interesting at least):
sspx.org/miscellaneous/celibacy_for_deacons.htm

Is it something that differs between diocese or is it a universal “dispensation” for deacons now? I don’t think our diocese enforces celibacy on married deacons but I wasn’t sure if it was something each could decide or not.
Click to expand...
It is yet more proof that the SSPX has some wacky theology.

Nicea also listed among it’s Canons the prohibition on kneeling on Sundays, yet I’m sure even the SSPX recognize that that is a disciplinary canon. ( otherwise, they would be standing throughout the Consecration at their Masses)

They cannot have it both ways, either the Church has the authority to change disciplines, or they should all be standing during the Consecration.
 
Aside from the fallacies in that particular article however, could there not be legitimate points to be made in favor of celibacy?
 
I haven’t read the article, but…

I do think that it would be worthwhile to have more deacons who are dedicated as celibates in ministerial service. The whole idea of the diaconate being basically a “married man’s vocation” is, I think, a little skewed. That isn’t to say that I am not extremely thankful that there are so many married men in this order. However, I do think that it ought not be the only, or necessarily primary, expression of it. Just as we have celibate religious brothers, why not more men whose dedication in life and ministry is as celibate deacons?
 
What exactly does the OP hope to gain by imposing this hardship on already married men AND their wives (other than driving away the service and wisdom of some amazing men and their families whom perform such a valuable service in these days of priest shortages?!)

Our parish has been without a pastor for about the last 8 months with a replacement just having been named. Without the guidance and leadership of our two (married) deacons I can’t imagine what we would have done. Aside from this staffing challenge, I cherish the insight the decons share with the congregation about the challenges and rewards of parenting and married life as Catholics in a secular world. It is wisdom and experience the priests simply do not have. Absent some compelling reasons, I think it would be entirely unnecessary and ill-considered to impose such an expectation upon the deacons.
.
 
Island_Oak said:
What exactly does the OP hope to gain by imposing this hardship on already married men AND their wives (other than driving away the service and wisdom of some amazing men and their families whom perform such a valuable service in these days of priest shortages?!)

Our parish has been without a pastor for about the last 8 months with a replacement just having been named. Without the guidance and leadership of our two (married) deacons I can’t imagine what we would have done. Aside from this staffing challenge, I cherish the insight the decons share with the congregation about the challenges and rewards of parenting and married life as Catholics in a secular world. It is wisdom and experience the priests simply do not have. Absent some compelling reasons, I think it would be entirely unnecessary and ill-considered to impose such an expectation upon the deacons.
.
Click to expand...
👍 I totally agree. Being celibate should not take away from the person’s worthiness to serve in this ministry.

I’m married but am also discerning the call to the diaconate. From what I have learned so far, deacons must prioritize their life 1. Family (including their marriage), 2. Employment, 3. Ministry.

I believe that if he is a single man, a deacon must be celibate. If he becomes widowed, he is not allowed to re-marry. So, ineffect, theses men do take a vow of celibacy since they are aware of these rules prior to ordination.

We so need more holy men to serve as deacons. We need to pary that more will listen to the call.

Also, in the case of a married man, it would go against his marriage vows to be elibate after becomming a deacon since he promises to be open to children. You can’t do that while celibate.
 
idrum677 said:
Also, in the case of a married man, it would go against his marriage vows to be elibate after becomming a deacon since he promises to be open to children. You can’t do that while celibate.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point I had not thought about. But, is it not acceptable to abstain as a method of “birth control” in natural family planning? Or, if a spouse is ill and cannot participate due to that illness, is it not acceptable for such a married couple to live as brother and sister - both being celibate? I’m not sure the question of openess to life is quite so cut and dry. One can be open to life without actively seeking to produce it :). I’m certain most priests, for instance, are open to life - they have just chosen not to pursue producing it.
 
That would go completely against the vows of the Sacrament of Marriage! Then, therefore, they should just be a Priest…:rolleyes:
 
DJgang said:
That would go completely against the vows of the Sacrament of Marriage! Then, therefore, they should just be a Priest…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Just playing the deacon’s advocate 😉 here, but, I never heard anybody make such a vow at their wedding - “I promise to…you know…” On the other hand, Joseph and Mary had just such a relationship - something our culture finds unbelievable. Our protestant brothers and sisters all the time say it is too unbelievable to imagine that Mary remained a virgin throughout the marriage. But, it is not an entirely unheard of practice in some cultures. I think we too often bring our own cultural presuppositions into marriage and the underlying assumption (and a very unholy assumption in my opinion) that marriage is about sex. I think our culture has a very poor view of marriage to reduce it to its physical aspects as more important than all others. It seems odd to us but that does not mean it is incorrect or unholy.
 
chicago said:
Just as we have celibate religious brothers, why not more men whose dedication in life and ministry is as celibate deacons?
Click to expand...
Simple: human nature is such that if you ALLOW the option for marriage, people are going to get married. That is why those who argue for optional celibacy are wrong when they say some will still choose to be celibate priests. Nope, wouldn’t happen. Just look at the Eastern Church.
 
Island_Oak said:
Aside from this staffing challenge, I cherish the insight the decons share with the congregation about the challenges and rewards of parenting and married life as Catholics in a secular world. It is wisdom and experience the priests simply do not have
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Have you ever read “Love and Responsibility” or “Theology of the Body” by John Paul II? He was never married, and he has a heck of a lot more “wisdom” and “experience” (through counseling couples and reading a lot of books) than most married people. As Christopher West - the world’s foremost Theology of the Body speaker - states: “I have learned more about sex and marriage from John Paul II than I have learned first hand from my own marriage and from my wife”. That statement you made is a terrible insult to our fine priests - many of whom are nothing like what you describe.
 
Stratiotes said:
Just playing the deacon’s advocate 😉 here, but, I never heard anybody make such a vow at their wedding - “I promise to…you know…” On the other hand, Joseph and Mary had just such a relationship - something our culture finds unbelievable. Our protestant brothers and sisters all the time say it is too unbelievable to imagine that Mary remained a virgin throughout the marriage. But, it is not an entirely unheard of practice in some cultures. I think we too often bring our own cultural presuppositions into marriage and the underlying assumption (and a very unholy assumption in my opinion) that marriage is about sex. I think our culture has a very poor view of marriage to reduce it to its physical aspects as more important than all others. It seems odd to us but that does not mean it is incorrect or unholy.
Click to expand...
St. Cecilia, St. Catherine of Genoa, the Little Flower’s parents - all of them decided (at various times in the marriage) to live as “brother and sister”. St. Cecilia never did consummate. St. Catherine of Genoa never really did want to get married, and after her husband finally converted, they agreed to live as brother and sister - she served in a hospital and he joined an order. The Little Flower’s parents always wanted to be religious too, but they were both turned away from their respective orders, married a bit later in life, and I think after consummating, decided to live as brother and sister - until their spiritual directors convinced them otherwise. I could name other saints, but you get the point.

Entirely legitimate.
 
Michael_Saint said:
I’m sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Have you ever read “Love and Responsibility” or “Theology of the Body” by John Paul II? He was never married, and he has a heck of a lot more “wisdom” and “experience” (through counseling couples and reading a lot of books) than most married people. As Christopher West - the world’s foremost Theology of the Body speaker - states: “I have learned more about sex and marriage from John Paul II than I have learned first hand from my own marriage and from my wife”. That statement you made is a terrible insult to our fine priests - many of whom are nothing like what you describe.
Click to expand...
I think this is another common assumption that is incorrect. We assume that someone who has never been married can know nothing about marriage. I think we grossly underestimate our priests in making that assumption. There is a great deal of value in the objectivity they can bring to the matter. When I have talked to other couples I find myself too often relating to one or the other and it is easy to “take sides.” I lack the objectivity that someone who is not married could give. It is a common mistake to assume experience is the only teacher from which we can learn when it is experience that sometimes robs us of the very objectivity we require for learning.
 
Michael_Saint said:
Simple: human nature is such that if you ALLOW the option for marriage, people are going to get married. That is why those who argue for optional celibacy are wrong when they say some will still choose to be celibate priests. Nope, wouldn’t happen. Just look at the Eastern Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, just look at the Eastern Church, where a great many of their priests are celebate men. The only difference is that the Eastern Church tend to send married priests to do parish duties, as they figure that like ministers best to like, so a married priest will be good at counselling married people and young people in parishes, while celebate priests tend to work as theologians, cathedral priests or in monastaries (the East doesn’t have the same concept of ‘orders’ (benedictines, franciscans, etc.) that exist in the West, so secular and religious priests are more easily interchangeable, at least among the celebates). If there were no celebate priests in the East, they would have no bishops!

The East does have the concept of ‘white marriages’, usually something that men and women agree on later in their lives, marriages for companionship without a sexual element. St Augustine was also quite supportive of the concept. I think it’s a nice idea for those who get older and feel that their sex lives are no longer helping the unitive aspect of their marriage, where sexual arousal becomes more difficult for whatever reason, it’s surely better to both agree prayerfully to seek other forms of intimacy than to keep pumping ourselves full of chemicals to extend that physical intimacy until it becomes physically impossible and is torn away from a couple by force. The idea of anyone going into a marriage at the beginning with that intention, or being forced to take up such a discipline because of the diaconate, seems like a warped understanding of marriage though.
 
I guess in my mind, requiring a Permanent Deacon to be celibant is in a way trying to make them “mini” Priests, which they are not. Yes they do have liturgical roles, but their main ministry is supposed to be out in the community, as was the case of the first Deacons:

Acts of the Aposltes 6: 1-5

***1 **About this time, when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenists made a complaint against the Hebrews: in the daily distribution their own widows were being overlooked. 2 So the Twelve called a full meeting of the disciples and addressed them, ‘It would not be right for us to neglect the word of God so as to give out food;
3 you, brothers, must select from among yourselves seven men of good reputation, filled with the Spirit and with wisdom, to whom we can hand over this duty.
4 We ourselves will continue to devote ourselves to prayer and to the service of the word.’
**5 *The whole assembly approved of this proposal and elected Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

The priority for a Deacon is this:
  1. Family (this is most Deacons first vocation - remember that a valid marrage is one of the sacraments that leaves an indelible mark on the soul and are only done once - Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Baptism are the other ones.) I don’t think most wives go into a marriage thinking that it will be a marriage involving celibacy.
  2. Career (Deacons are unpaid and must be able to support thier families)
  3. Perfroming the tasks of the Deaconate (their second vocation)
If the Deacon’s wife dies, then the Deacon cannot remarry and now celibacy will be the path for the Deacon as now they no longer have 2 vocations, but only one.

Just my two cents worth and you probably didn’t get your money’s worth!

Stillkickin 👍
 
Stillkickin said:
The priority for a Deacon is this:
  1. Family (this is most Deacons first vocation - remember that a valid marrage is one of the sacraments that leaves an indelible mark on the soul and are only done once - Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Baptism are the other ones.) I don’t think most wives go into a marriage thinking that it will be a marriage involving celibacy.
  2. Career (Deacons are unpaid and must be able to support thier families)
  3. Perfroming the tasks of the Deaconate (their second vocation)
If the Deacon’s wife dies, then the Deacon cannot remarry and now celibacy will be the path for the Deacon as now they no longer have 2 vocations, but only one.

Just my two cents worth and you probably didn’t get your money’s worth!

Stillkickin 👍
Click to expand...
With respect, I don’t think you’re correct regarding a valid sacramental marriage leaving an “indelible mark” on the soul. Don’t think the Church teaches that. Clearly a valid sacramental marriage can be contracted more than once in the case of a spouse’s death.
 
DL82 said:
Yes, just look at the Eastern Church, where a great many of their priests are celebate men. The only difference is that the Eastern Church tend to send married priests to do parish duties, as they figure that like ministers best to like, so a married priest will be good at counselling married people and young people in parishes, while celebate priests tend to work as theologians, cathedral priests or in monastaries (the East doesn’t have the same concept of ‘orders’ (benedictines, franciscans, etc.) that exist in the West, so secular and religious priests are more easily interchangeable, at least among the celebates). If there were no celebate priests in the East, they would have no bishops!
Click to expand...
Yes, but the bishops are chosen among the MONASTIC priests. Celibacy is REQUIRED of them. But for those who have the option - the SECULAR priests, there are almost NONE of them.
 
Also, in the case of a married man, it would go against his marriage vows to be elibate after becomming a deacon since he promises to be open to children. You can’t do that while celibate.

The marriage vows do not require you to be sexually active! There can be many good reasons to abstain from sex within marriage, for a given period of time, OR, in the case of a couple being particularly called to it for spiritual reasons, for the remainder of their married life. It is a decision they would make together. Many married couples who are now canonized saints chose this path. Surely not for most-- but by no means breaking the marriage vow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top