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

[LilyM]

I must be missing something here - surely the fact that a married permanent deacon is not allowed to remarry if his wife dies is not news? At least not to those going through the training? So in what sense is it a ‘bombshell’?

I agree with the article in that it perhaps is something some candidates perhaps don’t give sufficient thought to prior to ordination, but then so is celibacy something some candidates for the priesthood clearly don’t give sufficient thought to either, and priestly celibacy certainly can’t be described as a ‘bombshell’ either.

 

[LilyM]

Celibate = not married
Chaste = no sex if you are single, only sex with your spouse if you are.
Continence = no sex regardless of your marital state.

Forgive me for asking, but where did you get that definition of ‘continence’? Is it defined anywhere in Canon Law as specifically meaning NO sex, ever, for marrird people? Such a definition would certainly depart radically from the ordinary meaning of the word ‘continence’.

Say someone suffers from a medical condition and is ‘incontinent’ in regards bladder or bowel function. Would ‘continence’ - even ‘perfect continence’ - for such a person mean they never EVER went to the toilet? Of course not. It would simply mean that they didn’t go excessively often, and otherwise had good control over their bladder and/or bowels.

 

[Shin]

We can trace continence back to the holy scriptures in which the apostles themselves who were married did this, that is practiced perpetual continence. And too the canons of the earliest Church Councils.

‘This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none;’

1 Corinthians 7:29

"We know that at least Saint Peter was certainly married, since Peter said to his Master: “What about us? We left all to follow you.” To this Christ responded (Saint Luke): “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or *children *for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life.”

-‘The Case for Clerical Celibacy’ by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler

Of course it normally requires a wife’s permission to do this, since the marriage contract exchanges rights over the other… This also makes it clear, while Josephite marriages are beautiful things, it’s obvious enough that there’s a conflict normally.

 

[Vico]

I must be missing something here - surely the fact that a married permanent deacon is not allowed to remarry if his wife dies is not news? At least not to those going through the training? So in what sense is it a ‘bombshell’?

I agree with the article in that it perhaps is something some candidates perhaps don’t give sufficient thought to prior to ordination, but then so is celibacy something some candidates for the priesthood clearly don’t give sufficient thought to either, and priestly celibacy certainly can’t be described as a ‘bombshell’ either.

First the definition of continence from Merriam Webster:
1 : self-restraint;especially : a refraining from sexual intercourse

The bombshell is that married deacons are not directed to practice perfect continence in their marriage, but Dr. Peters has presented his case from canon law that they are obliged to.

In the Eastern Churches, it is common that the married are ordained. They practice limited continence. If a married presbyter becomes a bishop, then they live as brother and sister in their marriage. The western practice has taken a different direction, and pthe ermanent deaconate faded out after the fifth century, but eventually the permanent diaconate was restored by Pope Paul VI.

 

[LilyM]

First the definition of continence from Merriam Webster:
1 : self-restraint;especially : a refraining from sexual intercourse

The bombshell is that married deacons are not directed to practice perfect continence in their marriage, but Dr. Peters has presented his case from canon law that they are obliged to.

In the Eastern Churches, it is common that the married are ordained. They practice limited continence. If a married presbyter becomes a bishop, then they live as brother and sister in their marriage. The western practice has taken a different direction, and pthe ermanent deaconate faded out after the fifth century, but eventually the permanent diaconate was restored by Pope Paul VI.

Back up - you and Shin.

The Apostles were bishops, so it makes sense that THEY would live as brother and sister with their wives, as such is still the discipline.

They were neither simple priests nor permanent deacons - in fact the INSTITUTION of the permanent diaconate didn’t exist, if memory serves, in Apostolic times. So appealing to Apostolic practice in regards them is somewhat odd.

What is the rationale behind supposing that permanent deacons are expected to live like married Bishops instead of married priests? What do the canons say about married priests anyway? Is the term ‘perfect continence’ also used about them or not?

And as I said earlier, where is the term ‘perfect continence’ defined to mean no sex ever for married persons? I’ve used a practical example to show that continence, even ‘perfect’ continence, can mean something totally different to complete absence.

I’ve seen no evidence presented here that the Church, or Canon Law, anywhere suggests that ‘perfect continence’ need means anything more than MODERATE or TEMPERATE indulgence in sex for married couples.

I’ve not seen evidence presented here that a married couple who occasionally indulges in sex is anything other than perfectly continent, as someone who occasionally goes to the toilet isn’t anything other than perfectly continent.

 

[Shin]

'The real meaning of celibacy, which today is in general almost totally forgotten but which in the first millennium and beyond was well known, consists in this: complete abstinence in respect to the procreation of children even within the context of marriage. In fact all the first laws written of celibacy speak of this prohibition, that is, of the further procreation of children, a point which we will convincingly document in the second part of this study.

This indicates that, despite the fact that many clerics were already married before their ordination, they were nevertheless held to this particular obligation before they could be ordained. in the beginning, the actual prohibition to marry remained somewhat in the background. It emerged only later when the church imposed this prohibition against marriage on those celibates from whom virtually all the candidates for sacred orders were exclusively recruited.

To complete this initial understanding of celibacy which from the very beginning was correctly termed, “continence”, we must immediately note that married candidates could approach sacred orders only with the consent of their wife. The reason for this lies in the fact that, on the basis of the sacrament that had already been received, the wife had an inalienable right to the use of the valid (and consummated) marriage, which in itself was indissoluble. We will consider the complex problems that resulted from this renunciation in the second part of this work."

'. . . we must begin first with the Council of Elvira. . . . Canon 33 of this Council contained the first regulation on celibacy. . . “It has seemed good absolutely to forbid the bishops, the priests, and the deacons, i.e. all the clerics engaged in service at the altar, to have relations with their wives and procreate children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honor of the clergy.”

. . .the African Council (390). . … Bishop Epigonius. . . says: The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council. Let it be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by virtue of their consecration, are under the same obligation of chastity, i.e. the bishop, the priest and the deacon, and let them be instructed to keep their purity. Bishop Genetlius says: As was previously said, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God;** what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep.**

The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from [conjugal intercourse] with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.’

“The Case for Clerical Celibacy”, Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler

Well I’m a little tired of typing. I recommend if necessary acquiring and referring to the book. It’s slim, inexpensive, easy to read, and full of source citations expressing the continual teaching of the Church.

Of course there’s good source material beyond what it holds too, such as Our Lady speaking to St. Bridget of Sweden on the subject, etc.

 

[LilyM]

'The real meaning of celibacy, which today is in general almost totally forgotten but which in the first millennium and beyond was well known, consists in this: complete abstinence in respect to the procreation of children even within the context of marriage. In fact all the first laws written of celibacy speak of this prohibition, that is, of the further procreation of children, a point which we will convincingly document in the second part of this study.

This indicates that, despite the fact that many clerics were already married before their ordination, they were nevertheless held to this particular obligation before they could be ordained. in the beginning, the actual prohibition to marry remained somewhat in the background. It emerged only later when the church imposed this prohibition against marriage on those celibates from whom virtually all the candidates for sacred orders were exclusively recruited.

To complete this initial understanding of celibacy which from the very beginning was correctly termed, “continence”, we must immediately note that married candidates could approach sacred orders only with the consent of their wife. The reason for this lies in the fact that, on the basis of the sacrament that had already been received, the wife had an inalienable right to the use of the valid (and consummated) marriage, which in itself was indissoluble. We will consider the complex problems that resulted from this renunciation in the second part of this work."

'. . . we must begin first with the Council of Elvira. . . . Canon 33 of this Council contained the first regulation on celibacy. . . “It has seemed good absolutely to forbid the bishops, the priests, and the deacons, i.e. all the clerics engaged in service at the altar, to have relations with their wives and procreate children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honor of the clergy.”

. . .the African Council (390). . … Bishop Epigonius. . . says: The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council. Let it be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by virtue of their consecration, are under the same obligation of chastity, i.e. the bishop, the priest and the deacon, and let them be instructed to keep their purity. Bishop Genetlius says: As was previously said, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God;** what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep.**

The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from [conjugal intercourse] with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.’

“The Case for Clerical Celibacy”, Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler

Well I’m a little tired of typing. I recommend if necessary acquiring and referring to the book. It’s slim, inexpensive, easy to read, and full of source citations expressing the continual teaching of the Church.

Of course there’s good source material beyond what it holds too, such as Our Lady speaking to St. Bridget of Sweden on the subject, etc.

Yes, it’s such continual and binding teaching that

a) it’s nowhere documented in any code of canon law as being binding and applicable to married priests (as opposed to bishops), and

b) priests in our Eastern Churches are in fact no longer bound by it, and are free to indulge in at least limited marital relations.

So what makes you think permanent deacons, and I must remind you the permanent diaconate didn’t even exist as an institution until after these quotes were made, be bound by this when the married priesthood (as opposed to the episcopate) isn’t?

By the way - Levitical priests certainly could and did have sex, and the commentary which obviously assumes otherwise is completely in error. How else do you think Aaron and all his successors in the priesthood procreated and bore sons to follow them? For that matter, how else was John the Baptist conceived, Zechariah being a priest?

It was only for a short time before offering the sacrifice that Levitical priests were to abstain from sexual relations, not on a permanent basis.

 

[Shin]

LilyM, another term for the Christian clerics serving at the altar is Levites too, as if you read what was quoted you might’ve noticed, rather than condemning a Church Council for ignorance.

When the Councils say ‘deacons’, that should be enough precedent I would think.

As for how restrained the holy and religious are in regards to marital relations, if you read the writings and revelations of the saints, you will see they were -very- -very- very- restrained. It was for children’s sake. Not for carnal concupiscence’s sake.

God has strong statements to say about continence and clerics as well.

When Apostolic tradition is not fully observed… I think people should realize this is a failing and a bad thing. “Hold fast” we are taught. It’s not all free form, or whatever rules we want are best.

 

[whm]

Here is the major problem with the canon (interpretation) in questions. Observation of it contradicts 1 Corth 7 and could cause the married deacon or priest to commit mortal sin by not rendering the marriage debt. Avoiding mortal sin trumps everything including death ( a concept that seems to forgotten these days).

Another related problem is it would put the deacon in a situation of extreme temptation. It one thing to avoid temptation when you live with a bunch of men, it is quite another to live with the woman you love and have bonded with in one flesh and not have relations. This situation would elevate married deacons to a higher level of virtue (in this area) then priests and bishops,

One other thing to consider, is that deacons to not have any sacramental faculties. They can perform baptisms (which any human can) and witness marriages (which the priest deacon protestant minster etc do not preform the sacrament). That being said MARRIED SEX is not dirty or defiling in anyway. For some people they reach higher holiness by restraining from sex, not needing it to avoid temptation and become closer to God. For others, they also do need sex to avoid temptation but rather become holy by being open to procreation and producing large families for the glory of God. Priests come from large families such as these. I have high admiration for both.

Lastly what value is a law if it is not followed, made know or enforced? This is all very interesting, but if the issue ever sees the light of day, it is pretty easy to predict that the law will be clarified or bishops will grant dispensations.

 

[dans0622]

…

What is the rationale behind supposing that permanent deacons are expected to live like married Bishops instead of married priests? What do the canons say about married priests anyway? Is the term ‘perfect continence’ also used about them or not?

And as I said earlier, where is the term ‘perfect continence’ defined to mean no sex ever for married persons? I’ve used a practical example to show that continence, even ‘perfect’ continence, can mean something totally different to complete absence. …

Hi LilyM,

You won’t find any definition of continence, whether perfect or otherwise, anywhere in canon law. I don’t think it really matters, though, because canon 277.1 uses the adjectives “perfect” and “perpetual” to qualify the continence that is required of all clerics. This seems to remove all doubt as to what sort of continence is required of clerics.

Traditionally, as far as I know and for what it’s worth, “perfect continence” has been defined to mean complete or absolute continence, as opposed to periodic continence.

I hope this is clear.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[chuckram]

I’ve seen no evidence presented here that the Church, or Canon Law, anywhere suggests that ‘perfect continence’ need means anything more than MODERATE or TEMPERATE indulgence in sex for married couples.

I’ve not seen evidence presented here that a married couple who occasionally indulges in sex is anything other than perfectly continent, as someone who occasionally goes to the toilet isn’t anything other than perfectly continent.

Hi Lily - yes, in this context, it means no sex.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia -
“Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage.”

The full article from the CE can be found here. It goes on to give examples of the tradition of continence in both Christianity and other religions.

The problem is that Canon 277 and Catholic tradition pretty clearly seem to indicate perfect continence for all clerics but there are other non-papal writings which would seem to indicate otherwise for permanent deacons.

I’m not a canon lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I don’t know if there are valid arguments against Dr Peters’ interpretation. I’ve seen many emotional appeals as to why his argument MUST be wrong on other sites, but no real logical refutations, and believe me, I want him to be wrong, but I just don’t think he is.

The fact that this thread exists is evidence that clarification from Rome is needed.

With Immaculate Mary.

 

[VeroNihilVerius]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1579:

"All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

I have also put in a direct request to the USCCB for clarification on this matter, and will let you all know when they respond, but this idea that permanent deacons should follow perpetual continence within marriage seems to be novel, to me. (especially given the fact that we even have early Church leaders, such as the married bishop, St. Hilary of Poitiers)

Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not doctrine, and as far as I understand it, the Church has not demanded nor requested this of permanent deacons in the married state. Again, though, my opinion matters no more than a grain of sand on a beach, so I will relay what the USCCB says when they come through.

+VNV+

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. §2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. §3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

As mentioned in the Article from America Magazine states, this goes back to 1917, when
the permanent diaconate was not in placed.

So, in 1917, the term Cleric is speaking of those in the Hierarchical Order, priest, Bishops etc.

A deacon is in the minor order, so the term cleric in the the canon law above would included permanent deacons, because permanent deacon did not exist back in 1917.

This to me means that Can. 277 §1 needs to be amended to exclude, married deacons and provide better detail about their marital status and obligations.

Jim

 

[Young_Thinker]

So, in 1917, the term Cleric is speaking of those in the Hierarchical Order, priest, Bishops etc.

A deacon is in the minor order, so the term cleric in the the canon law above would included permanent deacons, because permanent deacon did not exist back in 1917.

Actually, the diaconate is one of the major orders. The highest minor order was that of acolytes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, the diaconate is one of the major orders. The highest minor order was that of acolytes.

According to the encyclopedia, I’m understanding it to be that deacons are of minor orders;

As to the liturgical functions attached to the various minor orders, they are really but a participation, originally rather indefinite, in the liturgical ministry formerly confided entirely to the deacons.

newadvent.org/cathen/10332b.htm

Of course newadvent.org is taken from the Encyclopedia of 1917, which the canon law being recited is also of that time period.

Anyway, when I was in discernment for the diaconate, continence within marriage within our marriages was never mentioned.

Jim

 

[Vico]

…

The Apostles were bishops, so it makes sense that THEY would live as brother and sister with their wives, as such is still the discipline.

They were neither simple priests nor permanent deacons - in fact the INSTITUTION of the permanent diaconate didn’t exist, if memory serves, in Apostolic times. So appealing to Apostolic practice in regards them is somewhat odd.

What is the rationale behind supposing that permanent deacons are expected to live like married Bishops instead of married priests? What do the canons say about married priests anyway? Is the term ‘perfect continence’ also used about them or not?

…

“The Apostles were bishops, so it makes sense that THEY would live as brother and sister with their wives, as such is still the discipline.”

Of course.

“They were neither simple priests nor permanent deacons - in fact the INSTITUTION of the permanent diaconate didn’t exist, if memory serves, in Apostolic times. So appealing to Apostolic practice in regards them is somewhat odd.”

The permanent diaconate existed in early times, and faded out by the middle ages. There is no appeal on my part, because I am presenting the current practice of married deacons and the document to support it.

“What is the rationale behind supposing that permanent deacons are expected to live like married Bishops instead of married priests? What do the canons say about married priests anyway?”

The example is from the Eastern Churches highlighting how the practice is different for bishops, and priests or deacons, east and west. I did not focus on canon law for priests because this is about deacons. But we know from Pope Paul VI and the pastoral solution for Anglicans, what is expected of Latin Church married priests.

 

[Young_Thinker]

According to the encyclopedia, I’m understanding it to be that deacons are of minor orders;

Thank you for your reply. However, that seems to contradict everything else that have heard about deacons. For instance, those in minor orders could always marry, even after attaining their status. In addition, deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. Minor orders were considered members of the Clergy. Tonsue entered one into the Clergy.

2)Under the section of the Code of Canon Law on the Sacrament of Order.
Can.
1009 §1 The orders are the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate.
From the Catechism in the section on Holy Orders.
1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).

1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

1595 Priests are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity and at the same time depend on them in the exercise of their pastoral functions; they are called to be the bishops’ prudent co-workers. They form around their bishop the presbyterium which bears responsibility with him for the particular Church. They receive from the bishop the charge of a parish community or a determinate ecclesial office.

1596 Deacons are ministers ordained for tasks of service of the Church; they do not receive the ministerial priesthood, but ordination confers on them important functions in the ministry of the word, divine worship, pastoral governance, and the service of charity, tasks which they must carry out under the pastoral authority of their bishop.

1597 The sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands followed by a solemn prayer of consecration asking God to grant the ordinand the graces of the Holy Spirit required for his ministry. Ordination imprints an indelible sacramental character.
In all my formation and theologate (seminary) education I have always been taught that the diaconate is the first of the three major orders. Never has it been described as a minor order.

The Sub-diaconate was the last of the minor orders.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you for your reply. However, that seems to contradict everything else that have heard about deacons. For instance, those in minor orders could always marry, even after attaining their status. In addition, deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

Ordinary ministers of Communion, only the bishop and priest are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

 

[Vico]

…

Can. 1009 §1 The orders are the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate.
…

Thank you for the canon and catechism. There is an interseting change in effect now, from Omnium in Mentem, 2009, which added a new canon:

Can. 1009 §3. Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html