Diaconal Bombshell: “Wait, this isn’t what I signed up for!”

[Brendan]

Well as the article that criticised the OP article stated, the canon law on this was written in 1917, when the diaconte did not exist. So the authors using the term “clergy,” only had priest and bishops in mind, no permanent deacons, which did not exist.

Just a bit of clarificaiton. The diaconate has existed since Acts 6. And have always been permanent deacons in the Church, they were almost exclusively in the religious orders, so marrital continence was not an issue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just a bit of clarificaiton. The diaconate has existed since Acts 6. And have always been permanent deacons in the Church, they were almost exclusively in the religious orders, so marrital continence was not an issue.

The ministry of “permanent diactonate,” wasn’t re-established until 1967 by Pope Paul VI.

Those in religious orders were still considered transitional deacons, even if they chose not to go onto the priesthood.

So, whent the canon law was written back in 1917, there were no married deacons.

Jim

 

[Vico]

The ministry of “permanent diactonate,” wasn’t re-established until 1967 by Pope Paul VI.

Those in religious orders were still considered transitional deacons, even if they chose not to go onto the priesthood.

So, whent the canon law was written back in 1917, there were no married deacons.

Jim

The early Church, east and west, did have married clergy, but the practice began to diverge by the time of Pope Leo.

…".bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men … a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us."

“In the patristic era, clerical celibacy, strictly speaking meant the inability to enter marriage once a higher Order had been received.”

Pope Leo wrote (458/9): “The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so.”

“The laws, so clearly expressed in the East, prohibiting marriage to the already ordained may thus be reasonably understood to be but the reverse expression of this more basic discipline of continence.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Vico

The early Church, east and west, did have married clergy, but the practice began to diverge by the time of Pope Leo.

But at the time the canon that is stated in the OP was written,1917, married men where not allowed into the ranks of the clergy, so going back before that time when married men were allowed to become priest and deacons is moot.

Jim

 

[Vico]

Vico

But at the time the canon that is stated in the OP was written,1917, married men where not allowed into the ranks of the clergy, so going back before that time when married men were allowed to become priest and deacons is moot.

Jim

I am not sure of what the canon in the OP is, I was thinking of post #1 though saying:

“I have a question: were deacons called to continence from the early Church times onwards, just as the priests were, according to this article?”

The article (Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Argument over Celibacy) states that:
“Moving past” the discipline of celibacy has long been the basso continuo of the music of the innovators. In this music, just a couple of things are usually heard and understood. The first is that the celibacy of the clergy is a rule imposed in recent centuries on the Latin clergy alone. The second is that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry “as in the primitive Church.” The problem is that both of these things are at odds with history and theology."

The document on the Vatican site states that there was such a practice in the primitive Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am not sure of what the canon in the OP is, I was thinking of post #1 though saying:

“I have a question: were deacons called to continence from the early Church times onwards, just as the priests were, according to this article?”

The article (Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Argument over Celibacy) states that:
“Moving past” the discipline of celibacy has long been the basso continuo of the music of the innovators. In this music, just a couple of things are usually heard and understood. The first is that the celibacy of the clergy is a rule imposed in recent centuries on the Latin clergy alone. The second is that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry “as in the primitive Church.” The problem is that both of these things are at odds with history and theology."

The document on the Vatican site states that there was such a practice in the primitive Church.

Well I believe the article here is discussing celibacy, not perfect countenance.

Jim

 

[Vico]

Well I believe the article here is discussing celibacy, not perfect countenance.

Jim

Continence is discussed.

The clergy those with orders: episcopate, presbyterate, diaconate, and without orders in the west, the subdeacon. The article mentions, for the east:
With the lower clergy, it allowed the married to continue leading a conjugal life, with the obligation of continence only “on the days of service at the altar and of the celebration of the sacred mysteries.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Continence is discussed.

The clergy those with orders: episcopate, presbyterate, diaconate, and without orders in the west, the subdeacon. The article mentions, for the east:
With the lower clergy, it allowed the married to continue leading a conjugal life, with the obligation of continence only “on the days of service at the altar and of the celebration of the sacred mysteries.”

Well, it’s not an issue for me, so, I’m just going to sit back and watch how the Church handles this.

Jim

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There has always been a diaconate since it was created in Acts.

There have always been permanent deacons in the Church. The Roman Church may have stopped using these in the secular clergy but they existed in the Religious Orders and the Eastern Churches have always had them (married as well as celibate, just a priests).

While you may say that there were only “transitional” deacons in the Roman Church prior to the revival of the “permanent” diaconate following Vatican II there is no such theological distinction. Both the “transitional” and the “permanent” are deacons.

 

[Brendan]

While you may say that there were only “transitional” deacons in the Roman Church prior to the revival of the “permanent” diaconate following Vatican II there is no such theological distinction. Both the “transitional” and the “permanent” are deacons.

Correct, the terms ‘transitional’ and ‘permanent’ didn’t even enter into Church vocabularly until relatively recently.

As you mentioned, there were certainly men in the Roman Church who were Ordained as Deacons with no intent on anyone’s part that they would eventually be ordained as priests.

And that has been true for millenia.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While you may say that there were only “transitional” deacons in the Roman Church prior to the revival of the “permanent” diaconate following Vatican II there is no such theological distinction. Both the “transitional” and the “permanent” are deacons.

Theologically there is no difference.

Discipline wise, since establishing the permanent diaconate, there is. Permanent Deacons can be married.

The point is, the canon code of 1917 did not have permanent deacons in mind when it was written, because the ministry didn’t exist.

Jim

 

[Vico]

Well, it’s not an issue for me, so, I’m just going to sit back and watch how the Church handles this.

Jim

I think I located the America article you referred to.
americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=1&entry_id=3802

I see what you mentioned about the 1917 Canon law in that article. Also that there was no married diaconate at that time. Another comment there is that the word chastity is used not continence in the 1917 Canon law.

What did chastity mean back then?

1. Reading the 1965 book The Faith Explained by apologist Leo J. Trese (with nihil obstat and imprimature) that:

chastity is proper use of sex in marriage only, not as a plaything, not as a source of self-gratification

continency is self control in all that is done, temperance.

1. From Catholic Encyclopedia (1908):

“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance,…”

“Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, …”

1. Second Vatican Council (Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16), celibacy is “Perfect and perpetual continence.”

Note that the diaconal ordination has no promise of continence for married candidates, but has a promise of celibacy for unmarried candidates.

For 1983 CIC Can. 277: the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think I located the America article you referred to.
americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=1&entry_id=3802

I see what you mentioned about the 1917 Canon law in that article. Also that there was no married diaconate at that time. Another comment there is that the word chastity is used not continence in the 1917 Canon law.

What did chastity mean back then?

1. Reading the 1965 book The Faith Explained by apologist Leo J. Trese (with nihil obstat and imprimature) that:

chastity is proper use of sex in marriage only, not as a plaything, not as a source of self-gratification

continency is self control in all that is done, temperance.

1. From Catholic Encyclopedia (1908):

“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance,…”

“Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, …”

1. Second Vatican Council (Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16), celibacy is “Perfect and perpetual continence.”

Note that the diaconal ordination has no promise of continence for married candidates, but has a promise of celibacy for unmarried candidates.

For 1983 CIC Can. 277: the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence.

Actually the article I was refering to was here;

pilgrimsfootsteps.blogspot.com/2011/01/so-i-leave-town-for-few-days-and-look.html

But it pretty much says what the article you linked said.

Jim

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The point is, the canon code of 1917 did not have permanent deacons in mind when it was written, because the ministry didn’t exist.

I know many religious who would disagree with you on the ministry not existing.

But then Canon Law is lacking sometimes when it comes to the religious life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ByzCath

I know many religious who would disagree with you on the ministry not existing.

They’d be arguing with the Pope Paul VXI and the USCCB, not me, for it’s from them that I got my information that the Permanent Diaconate was Restored.

SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM
General Norms for Restoring the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church
Pope Paul VI
Motu Proprio issued June 18, 1967

And from the USCCB

May married men be ordained deacons?

Yes. The Second Vatican Council decreed that the diaconate, when it was restored as a permanent order in the hierarchy, could be opened to “mature married men,” later clarified to mean men over the age of 35.
usccb.org/deacon/faqs.shtml

But then Canon Law is lacking sometimes when it comes to the religious life.

Especially in the matter of the Permanent Diaconate.

Jim