More on clerical continence

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
triumphguy said:
Thanks Deacon Gary.

I’m one of the 1% Brother JR alludes to, since I am in formation right now.

It’s irritating to see this topic brought up again and again, since it is not a canonical requirement of the diaconate. If it was I would leave formation. My vocation is to my wife first. I made vows to love, honour and obey her 'til death us do part, not until I had a brain storm about another vocation.

It’s for this reason why 99.999% of the time you cannot enter religious life while still married.
Click to expand...
And thanks to you for answering the call to enter formation; but most importantly, thank you for the witness you give the world by being first a good husband. Remember your wife has to be part of your ministry, as she is part of you; “the two become one flesh…”

These are not mere words on paper, they are words of God. We married men are joined to our wives, the scripture says “…so a man leaves his mother and father and CLINGS to his wife.” This is what the Church upholds, marriage and celibacy side by side. One is not more than the other, but each is less without the other. A married deacon is both married and clergy. One does not, and is not expected to give up marriage to be ordained to the diaconate.

One who is married cannot be celibate, therefore the requirement of PPC is not there; 277.1 is not a standalone canon. There is only one canon which is in a sense “standalone”, Canon #1. If it does not apply to a person, none of them do, it #1 does apply, all of them do in context of the entire code of canon law.
 
Lapey said:
I’ll take this guy’s word over Dr. Peters…

…
Click to expand...
Hello,

That’s fine and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. As a canon lawyer, I find Dr. Peters’ canonical argumentation to be more convincing than “this guy’s word.”

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

That’s fine and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. As a canon lawyer, I find Dr. Peters’ canonical argumentation to be more convincing than “this guy’s word.”

Dan
Click to expand...
Peters has absolutely no authority in the matter. His voice is opinion only.

The only authority to have spoken on this matter is Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio.
 
As one of those in formation to the permanent diaconate two things come to mind on the issue:

cannon 277 paragraph 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.”

during the ordination of permanent deacons, the bishop asks the married men for a vow of obedience while asking the single men for vows of obedience and celibacy.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

That’s fine and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. As a canon lawyer, I find Dr. Peters’ canonical argumentation to be more convincing than “this guy’s word.”

Dan
Click to expand...
Did you not notice who this guy is and who he represents??? Dr. Peters represents his opinion and this Cardinal represents the authority of the Church. I think you should check into this guy a little more before simply discarding his statement refuting directly Dr. Peters.
 
Hello Dcn. Gary. I commented on the two PCLT letters here. canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm#letters_ You are either unaware of this, and should read it, or you disagree with me (and won’t explain why) or are simply ignoring it, which is your right. None of those responses advances the discussion. Best, edp.
 
Ed_Peters said:
Hello Dcn. Gary. I commented on the two PCLT letters here. canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm#letters_ You are either unaware of this, and should read it, or you disagree with me (and won’t explain why) or are simply ignoring it, which is your right. None of those responses advances the discussion. Best, edp.
Click to expand...
Dr. Peters, I am not trying to avoid or advance the discussion. In the world that I live in the discussion is over because the authority of the Church has spoken on your specific opinions. The Magisterium is in direct opposition with your opinion. I will follow the Magisterium and no offense to you, but frankly I will not follow nor concern myself with your opinion where it is in disagreement with the authority.

Again, I have no beef with you, nor do I intend disrespect; but it’s time to concede the argument to the authority which has spoken most clearly.

No matter what I read of your writings it will no change what I believe, nor will it change the way I live out my vocations. My allegiance is with Mother Church, She has spoken.

I’m waiting…why don’t you email me. I’ll PM my email adress to you.
 
Hello Dcn. Gary

I feel a bit like the man who is wrongly accused of being negative. When he replies “No I am not” his accuser gloats “Ah ha!” I understand you think ecclesiastical authority has spoken. I have pointed you to evidence from that authority itself that it did no such thing. You accuse me of again resisting ecclesiastical authority. Okay, I get it.

Our exchange, though offering no prospect of changing the other’s views (I have not remotely suggested you change your ‘practice’—indeed, I have no idea who you are or what you do) might be educational for some following this matter. Permit to suggest, though, that, therein, our contributions differ markedly. My views are expressed, I suggest, with evidence and argument. Yours are expressed with emotion and ipse dixit. I am content to let others decide for themselves what, if anything, they find useful in my work. That’s not my call.

Best, edp.
 
I wish I understood the motivation behind this continuing controversy: Is the idea that married deacons who do not practice continence are in a state of sin, and therefore not worthy to serve at the altar? Or that the married diaconate is in fact a “lesser” ordination and in some sense there are 2 “orders” of deacons? Or that married deacons are - as often expressed when Paul VI revived the permanent diaconate - merely glorified altar boys? Or that married deacons are in fact really laymen, occupying some kind of clerical “twilight zone” - not really clerical, but something more than 100% lay? Or that Paul VI made a big mistake, and the “experiment” of a permanent married diaconate ought to be put out of its misery?

I just wish the “end game” was clearer.
 
Ed_Peters said:
Hello Dcn. Gary

I feel a bit like the man who is wrongly accused of being negative. When he replies “No I am not” his accuser gloats “Ah ha!” I understand you think ecclesiastical authority has spoken. I have pointed you to evidence from that authority itself that it did no such thing. You accuse me of again resisting ecclesiastical authority. Okay, I get it.

Our exchange, though offering no prospect of changing the other’s views (I have not remotely suggested you change your ‘practice’—indeed, I have no idea who you are or what you do) might be educational for some following this matter. Permit to suggest, though, that, therein, our contributions differ markedly. My views are expressed, I suggest, with evidence and argument. Yours are expressed with emotion and ipse dixit. I am content to let others decide for themselves what, if anything, they find useful in my work. That’s not my call.

Best, edp.
Click to expand...
How are my responses merely emotional? You can dismiss me much easier than the good Cardinal and his letters to the USCCB, that is your call.

I do not claim to be anything more than a simple man living out his calling to multiple vocations. Remember that when you get offended by my responses.

Another poster asked you som e simple and direct questions, please answer those questions.
 
Dcn: I took your words here: “Oh boy, I get to talk about me and my wife haveing sex again”, and here: "For whatever reason you have decided to continue to bring this dead topic up; please know, every time you do I will be there to correct you and hold you to task. Why, because you are going against the hierarchy of the Church and trying to bring others with you. There is but one truth and that is Jesus; who is the Head of the Church you are working against. Now, as Jesus told Peter, “get behind Me………” as emotional reactions. Perhaps I was mistaken.

As for my answering simple questions, no one has answered more questions on this topic than I have. They are all on my main page. I do not have to retype my answers every time someone asks them anew. People can research a bit for themselves, especially as I put them all on one page: canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm.

Best, edp
 
Dcn, G., I see I misquoted your first phrasing above. Your actual words were: "Oh boy, we get to talk about my wife and I haveing sex again…I’m so excited [emoticon]”. Sorry, edp.
 
Ed_Peters said:
Dcn: I took your words here: “Oh boy, I get to talk about me and my wife haveing sex again”, and here: "For whatever reason you have decided to continue to bring this dead topic up; please know, every time you do I will be there to correct you and hold you to task. Why, because you are going against the hierarchy of the Church and trying to bring others with you. There is but one truth and that is Jesus; who is the Head of the Church you are working against. Now, as Jesus told Peter, “get behind Me………” as emotional reactions. Perhaps I was mistaken.

As for my answering simple questions, no one has answered more questions on this topic than I have. They are all on my main page. I do not have to retype my answers every time someone asks them anew. People can research a bit for themselves, especially as I put them all on one page: canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm.

Best, edp
Click to expand...
Sorry you can’t recognise sarcasm when you see it. I’ve read much of what you have written and others. It doesn’t change what the Church has decided and what She practices.

But one thing is true, this is my life your opinions are about and yes I do have issue with you continuing this crusade. It takes all that I have not get emotional every time this topic comes up. Then you come in and join only when it suits your agenda.

To 99% of the Church this is settled.
 
Lapey said:
Sorry you can’t recognise sarcasm when you see it. I’ve read much of what you have written and others. It doesn’t change what the Church has decided and what She practices.

But one thing is true, this is my life your opinions are about and yes I do have issue with you continuing this crusade. It takes all that I have not get emotional every time this topic comes up. Then you come in and join only when it suits your agenda.

To 99.99% of the Church this is settled.
Click to expand...
fixed:cool:
 
Lapey said:
Did you not notice who this guy is and who he represents??? Dr. Peters represents his opinion and this Cardinal represents the authority of the Church. I think you should check into this guy a little more before simply discarding his statement refuting directly Dr. Peters.
Click to expand...
Hello,

I am well aware of who “this guy” is. I didn’t discard the statement. I found it to be less convincing, logically and canonically, than what Dr. Peters has said. Of course, it was much more brief than the essays of Dr. Peters but…I can’t do anything about that.

To Triumphguy–yes, Dr. Peters is just a layman like me, with no hierarchical authority or power of governance. But, his opinion itself carries authority because of its cogency and scholarship.

To Dr. Peters–thanks for your service to the Church.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

I am well aware of who “this guy” is. I didn’t discard the statement. I found it to be less convincing, logically and canonically, than what Dr. Peters has said. Of course, it was much more brief than the essays of Dr. Peters but…I can’t do anything about that.

To Triumphguy–yes, Dr. Peters is just a layman like me, with no hierarchical authority or power of governance. But, his opinion itself carries authority because of its cogency and scholarship.

To Dr. Peters–thanks for your service to the Church.

Dan
Click to expand...
Less convincing?

He is THE authority on interpreting Church Law! His “opinion” couldn’t be more convincing.

I think what you mean is that you agree with Dr. Peters and you don’t agree with the Cardinal.

I agree with you in that respect: I always find people who agree with me to be more convincing;)
 
Dcn. Gary “It takes all that I have not get emotional every time this topic comes up.” Okay, then I think I should not engage your comments in future. Sorry if my words were a bother to you personally.

Dan, thx for your kind words. I can write for an ‘amateur’ audience, but it has to be canonically cogent, too, lest i argue in vain. You seem to find my canonical arguments, well, plausible at least.

Triumphguy (I’m guessing you mean the bike, not the 1960s catholic journal!) I have credentials equivalent to yours in the common law tradition and, unless you’re being shy, rather more than you in canon law. That just means I can spot the important differences in how canon law works (beyond what a quick read of canon 16 might suggest) more quickly than my common law confreres can. I think my read is quite sound, canonically. Perhaps I am wrong.
 
Ed_Peters said:
Dcn. Gary “It takes all that I have not get emotional every time this topic comes up.” Okay, then I think I should not engage your comments in future. Sorry if my words were a bother to you personally.

Dan, thx for your kind words. I can write for an ‘amateur’ audience, but it has to be canonically cogent, too, lest i argue in vain. You seem to find my canonical arguments, well, plausible at least.

Triumphguy (I’m guessing you mean the bike, not the 1960s catholic journal!) I have credentials equivalent to yours in the common law tradition and, unless you’re being shy, rather more than you in canon law. That just means I can spot the important differences in how canon law works (beyond what a quick read of canon 16 might suggest) more quickly than my common law confreres can. I think my read is quite sound, canonically. Perhaps I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are not privy to conversations in the curia. Perhaps you don’t have the whole story.:hmmm:

Perhaps this thread is a waste of time.

Perhaps it’s giving me a headache too.

Perhaps that’s the flu. Who knows:shrug:

Time to sign out of this thread too.

👋
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top