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

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

Okay…but the Sacrament of Holy Order confers the major orders which are the diaconate, the prebyterate, and the episcopate.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders was never used to confer any of the minor orders (tonsure, porter, exorcist, lector, acolyte, or sub-deacon). Those rites were sacramentals not Sacraments.

 

[Vico]

Okay…but the Sacrament of Holy Order confers the major orders which are the diaconate, the prebyterate, and the episcopate.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders was never used to confer any of the minor orders (tonsure, porter, exorcist, lector, acolyte, or sub-deacon). Those rites were sacramentals not Sacraments.

Except subdeacon was a Latin Church major order (beginning 1207 A.D.) yet not a Holy Order, and they were not to marry after becoming a subdeacon.

Council of Trent:

“… to wit those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeavonship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.”

“On the conditions required in the Ordination of a Subdeacon and Deacon: on no one shall two sacred Orders be conferred on the same day.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html

Lateran Council 1123 A.D. Canon 7:

“7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.”

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum10.htm

In the Eastern Churches these are the minor orders: acolyte, lector, cantor, and subdeacon.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Except subdeacon was a Latin Church major order (beginning 1207 A.D.) yet not a Holy Order, and they were not to marry after becoming a subdeacon.

Council of Trent:

“… to wit those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank: for the subdeavonship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.”

“On the conditions required in the Ordination of a Subdeacon and Deacon: on no one shall two sacred Orders be conferred on the same day.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html

Lateran Council 1123 A.D. Canon 7:

“7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.”

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum10.htm

In the Eastern Churches these are the minor orders: acolyte, lector, cantor, and subdeacon.

Please notice my Church affiliation. I think that will explain my “mistake” in this.

Anyways, the sub-deacon has been suppressed (for the most part) in the Roman Church along with the rest of the minor orders. They now only have the ministries of acolyte and lector.

But that does not change the fact that the diaconate is one of the major orders.

 

[Vico]

Please notice my Church affiliation. I think that will explain my “mistake” in this.

Anyways, the sub-deacon has been suppressed (for the most part) in the Roman Church along with the rest of the minor orders. They now only have the ministries of acolyte and lector.

But that does not change the fact that the diaconate is one of the major orders.

It is a little known trivia about the subdeacon. I agree you are 100% correct on the Holy Orders for the three highest orders of today.

 

[Young_Thinker]

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

I see what you saying, Brother. Deacons can distribute the Eucharist but cannot consecrate it.

 

[whm]

From USCCB website

“Bishops, priests and deacons distribute Holy Communion in virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord. (1)”

1. Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America [NDRHC] (August, 2002), no. 26 and cf. GIRM no. 162 and NRHC, no. 28

 

[Lapey]

Sex is unitive in a marriage. Marriage takes all the strength, grace, and sacramental help it can get. Living a good Catholic marriage is not always easy. To take away the amazing graces from sex within marriage is not healthy. Yes yes yes, I realize there are couples who can’t have sex for one reason or another, so don’t even go there, that is an exception to the rule. I have long felt that a man can’t serve two vocations, something has to give. And expecting this of married men in the diaconate is no different.

Pick a vocation and dedicate your life to it. Don’t try to do two things only halfway.

~Liza

I tried reading this entire thread before commenting, but I can’t get past some of the opininated and judgemental statements here. If you do not know what you are talking about, please keep quiet.

I am a husband, father of three teens, and a deacon, so does that mean in your OPINION i am 33% vested in each?

I love how some people know so much about things they have no experience in. I agree with another poster, this is simply a VAT II back door attack.

Some forget that this “change” is a revert back to the first years of the Church, it’s not new!

 

[Lapey]

I am confused. Does this mean that nobody bothered to read the code of canon law? It is right there in black and white as clear as day. How can you miss that?

In any case I find the whole thing immensely amusing. I can’t imagine that many married men would have become deacons to begin with if they new it meant perfect continence. Expecting that of them now is too rich. God sure does write a lot of comedy…

I would have still said yes! I know it was God’s call to marry my bride…also 100% sure He called me to the diaconate. Although I understand the teaching and the discipline now enforced through the wisdom of the magisterium, if that would have been different, had continence been the teaching, my yes would have been just as loud!

So please don’t answer for others, thanks!

 

[Lapey]

Church Law says Permanent Deacons (and all clerics) are obliged to abstain from sex, notes Canonist Edward Peters

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

If someone can answer that, I would be grateful. From the article, I would assume so, given that deacons are clergy, but I am not certain.

Sorry BoBo, I tend to lean towards what the Church teaches and practices, rather than an opinion. 5 years of formation, by the guidlines established by the same Church who wrote the canon law sited in this piece; I’ll take the side of the Church. She understands the teachings in their entirety better than this “canonist”.

If this would be correct, that would mean that the entire Church and it’s teaching leg is wrong, I choose to have more faith in my Church than this. The three legged stool remains ever right and ever strong my brothers and sisters.

Jesus gave us His Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit, what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, I shall trust the magisterium!

There are no contradictions between Scripture, Sacred Tradition or Magisteriem. All are in agreement, to agree with the “canonist” would mean otherwise.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry BoBo, I tend to lean towards what the Church teaches and practices, rather than an opinion. 5 years of formation, by the guidlines established by the same Church who wrote the canon law sited in this piece; I’ll take the side of the Church. She understands the teachings in their entirety better than this “canonist”.

If this would be correct, that would mean that the entire Church and it’s teaching leg is wrong, I choose to have more faith in my Church than this. The three legged stool remains ever right and ever strong my brothers and sisters.

Jesus gave us His Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit, what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, I shall trust the magisterium!

There are no contradictions between Scripture, Sacred Tradition or Magisteriem. All are in agreement, to agree with the “canonist” would mean otherwise.

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.

There is probably documentation sinse the re-esstablishment of the permanent deacon which better clarifies the issue of married deacons with regards to sexual relations with their wives.

However as you state, until the Church teaches otherwise and the Church has not taught us that a married deacons had to stop having sexual relations with their wives, the 1917 canon law quoted alone, is suspect.

Jim

 

[Lapey]

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.

There is probably documentation sinse the re-esstablishment of the permanent deacon which better clarifies the issue of married deacons with regards to sexual relations with their wives.

However as you state, until the Church teaches otherwise and the Church has not taught us that a married deacons had to stop having sexual relations with their wives, the 1917 canon law quoted alone, is suspect.

Jim

Agreed…but let’s go a little further. The diaconate was in existence and in use in this time, the transitional deacon. The TD is required to be celibate, therefore exhibit pure and perpetual continence. The last stipulation in that canon, #3, gives the bishop the opportunity to differentiate between the two “types” of deacon.

Remember, the PD was not reinstated to every diocese, only the ones in which the bishop approves this. In my diocese the bishops up until now have supported the PD, however, we could get a new bishop tomorrow who changes that. Wouldn’t mean I am no longer a deacon, I would just be a deacon with no faculties; which come from the local ordinary.

 

[cargau]

I would have still said yes! I know it was God’s call to marry my bride…also 100% sure He called me to the diaconate. Although I understand the teaching and the discipline now enforced through the wisdom of the magisterium, if that would have been different, had continence been the teaching, my yes would have been just as loud!

So please don’t answer for others, thanks!

Lapey,

Congratulations on your ordination.

The poster you responded speaks of the same outlook as many who favor same sex marriage.

So much emphasis is placed on human sexuality as though it is as necessary to our existance as the air we breathe. The truth is, there is so much more to who we are than having sex. I am not knocking sex, I’m just thinking that we place way to much importance on it.

I am in formation for the Diaconate. I,too would gladly give up sexual relations if that is what God called me to do. The fact is, I am responding to His call, not mine and it has to be unconditional.

Now, I should say, I have heard nothing about this issue, thus I don’t believe that continance is a condition that is mandated. Still, as you know this path does call us to sacrifice and commitment. It is not an easy road, but the joy is profound…

 

[gmarie21]

Agreed…but let’s go a little further. The diaconate was in existence and in use in this time, the transitional deacon. The TD is required to be celibate, therefore exhibit pure and perpetual continence. The last stipulation in that canon, #3, gives the bishop the opportunity to differentiate between the two “types” of deacon.

Remember, the PD was not reinstated to every diocese, only the ones in which the bishop approves this. In my diocese the bishops up until now have supported the PD, however, we could get a new bishop tomorrow who changes that. Wouldn’t mean I am no longer a deacon, I would just be a deacon with no faculties; which come from the local ordinary.

Exactly, and since our bishop actually has a degree in Canon Law and all the PD who are married do not practice and are not asked to practice perpetual continence I’m not too concerned as a wife who’s husband is in second year Aspirancy

 

[Lapey]

Lapey,

Congratulations on your ordination.

The poster you responded speaks of the same outlook as many who favor same sex marriage.

So much emphasis is placed on human sexuality as though it is as necessary to our existance as the air we breathe. The truth is, there is so much more to who we are than having sex. I am not knocking sex, I’m just thinking that we place way to much importance on it.

I am in formation for the Diaconate. I,too would gladly give up sexual relations if that is what God called me to do. The fact is, I am responding to His call, not mine and it has to be unconditional.

Now, I should say, I have heard nothing about this issue, thus I don’t believe that continance is a condition that is mandated. Still, as you know this path does call us to sacrifice and commitment. It is not an easy road, but the joy is profound…

Amen brother! And many wishes of peace to you and your group of men and wives currently in formation. God bless you for answering the call to formation.

 

[Lapey]

Exactly, and since our bishop actually has a degree in Canon Law and all the PD who are married do not practice and are not asked to practice perpetual continence I’m not too concerned as a wife who’s husband is in second year Aspirancy

I feel compelled to tell you how important it was for my wife to sit next to me in these formation classes. She took all the classes for credit just as I did, except homiletics. She said she heard me preach enough at home!

Anyway, having my bride there was a key to me completeing the bus ride. She had to drop out the last year for family reasons, we adopted a 15 year old girl. It was her duty to become a full time mom after that.

I just wanted to say thank you for the support you give your husband in formation.

 

[gmarie21]

I feel compelled to tell you how important it was for my wife to sit next to me in these formation classes. She took all the classes for credit just as I did, except homiletics. She said she heard me preach enough at home!

Anyway, having my bride there was a key to me completeing the bus ride. She had to drop out the last year for family reasons, we adopted a 15 year old girl. It was her duty to become a full time mom after that.

I just wanted to say thank you for the support you give your husband in formation.

I will have to show this to my husband tomorrow. He’ll be glad to know that someone else has told me what he’s told me. We have three little ones at home so I only go to the classes that wives are required to attend. But when I go, I love those classes! But I think I will agree with your wife, I’ve heard my husband preach enough at home!

 

[Vico]

…
Now, I should say, I have heard nothing about this issue, thus I don’t believe that continance is a condition that is mandated. Still, as you know this path does call us to sacrifice and commitment. It is not an easy road, but the joy is profound…

In my post (link below) there are Church documents showing that it is chastity (also “a certain continence”) rather than perfect continence that is required for the married deacon.

…

 

[Angel_Bradford]

The issue is not celibacy but continence. I believe the tradition is that priests and deacons gave up sexual relations with their wives. Can someone confirm or deny this, with evidence?

While I cannot provide documentation, I’m a lay person sitting through a diaconate formation class and I can tell you that the deacon canidates have been told that, if their wives die before them, they will be expected to live celibate lives. However, nothing was said about giving up sexual relations with their wives after ordiantion.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Here is a link to Deacon Bill Ditewig’s blog, where he posts a very insightful explanation of this issue.

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

I know Deacon Bill Ditewig; he is an inspiration.

 

[JugglingReferee]

Sex is unitive in a marriage. Marriage takes all the strength, grace, and sacramental help it can get. Living a good Catholic marriage is not always easy. To take away the amazing graces from sex within marriage is not healthy. Yes yes yes, I realize there are couples who can’t have sex for one reason or another, so don’t even go there, that is an exception to the rule. I have long felt that a man can’t serve two vocations, something has to give. And expecting this of married men in the diaconate is no different.

Pick a vocation and dedicate your life to it. Don’t try to do two things only halfway.

~Liza

Then how do you explain Eastern Priests?

Every UC Priest I had served the community just as well, and better in my opinion, than the Latin Priests that I had. And every single UC Priest had 2, 3 or 4 children.