Perfect and Perpetual Continence for Married Deacons

[dans0622]

Canon Law Code 277 seems to make allowance for this exception when it says in 3 that …“The Diocesan Bishop is competent to…pass judgement in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.”

If the Diocesan Bishop is competent then certainly the Pope is competent and as far as I’ve heard there has never been any rule of Continence for married Deacons.

The Church can’t very well impose that after the fact, if Deacons weren’t told before they became Deacons, that Continence is a requirement, especially since it doesn’t just affect the Deacon but also their wives. …

I’m a stickler for the law too but there are cases where you have to use common sense and I think this is one of them.

Hello AuroraB,

The provision of c. 277.3 does not allow the diocesan bishop to do away with the obligations of paragraph 1 all together. If it did, there would be no reason for the deacon to need to permission of the Holy See to re-marry should his wife die. What the bishop can do, and should do, is provide guidance as to how paragraph one should be obeyed in the concrete circumstances of the particular Church. But, yes, the Pope certainly is competent to establish rules for clerics. He has done so in the Code of Canon Law.

It seems to me that common sense tells us that the law clearly says one thing but the practice of the Church is something else. That’s why I think something needs to be done to bring these two things into harmony. “Interpreting” the law to mean what the text and context does not say is not helpful.

Dan

 

[mrose1]

Hello AuroraB,

The provision of c. 277.3 does not allow the diocesan bishop to do away with the obligations of paragraph 1 all together.

This is the key point with respect to article 3 of canon 277. Of course the Bishop may establish more specific norms; however, as Canonist Peters tries to get at, these norms may in no way be in opposition to the canon itself; that is a logically impossibility. A Bishop, it would appear, in light of Canon 277, cannot simply decide for his diocese that this Canon is insignificant for married diaconal candidates.

Another important point, and a hugely relevant one: I don’t think anyone should seriously say that this obligation is equally binding in reverse upon those ordained to Holy Orders, whether just Deacon or Deacon and Priest who were not informed of the obligations of Canon 277. Clearly, that is a delicate situation and one far far beyond the reach of a CAF board’s dealings. However, at the very least due to rampant practice that seems to contradict Canon 277, we need Vatican clarification and we need the Bishops to come in line with the Law and the Vatican.

 

[whm]

However, at the very least due to rampant practice that seems to contradict Canon 277, we need Vatican clarification and we need the Bishops to come in line with the Law and the Vatican.

Are you saying that Cardinal Burke is/was out of line?

The implication of all of this, based on traditional catholic thinking, is that married men should not become deacons. If they do, they should abandon their wives. The alternative is that married deacons and priests are held to higher standard of morality than bishops non-married priests, single people and non-ordained married lay folk. They are to sleep in the same bed as their bride, but have no relations with them, no thoughts of relations with them. Completely illogical. There are very few people for which this would not be a problem.

Why not let priests have attractive young ladies live in the rectory with them? Why cloister brothers and nuns, let them live together, would save a lot of money? If deacons can handle living with attractive females, a priest surely could too. There are several reasons for why this is not allowed, one of which is temptation! Another is scandal. What if somebody witnessed a married deacon and his wife rent a single hotel room???

Why should married deacons be continent? The canon states to be undivided and more devoted to the Gods work etc. Continence does not do such for the married deacon since all the time consuming duties of married/family life still exist.

Your take seems to be that it should be enforced according to your interpretation. What do you think about clarifying the canon to explicitly exempt married clergy from perpetual continence?

 

[whm]

The provision of c. 277.3 does not allow the diocesan bishop to do away with the obligations of paragraph 1 all together. If it did, there would be no reason for the deacon to need to permission of the Holy See to re-marry should his wife die.

Why not just hire the widower deacon a maid? Seriously who would marry a man and never consummate the marriage? If a deacon allowed by the Pope to remarry and not be bound by continence, why do they get a special deal over non widower married deacons?

It seems to me that common sense tells us that the law clearly says one thing but the practice of the Church is something else. That’s why I think something needs to be done to bring these two things into harmony. “Interpreting” the law to mean what the text and context does not say is not helpful.

I don’t think there is agreement that the canon clearly contradicts practice. If the legal phrase, “notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, all 3 levels of clerics are bond to continence” it would be clearly in conflict.

Here is an analogy, many interstates have a minimum speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Does that mean if a child is standing in the middle of the lane that you must run over them at a speed of at least 40 mph? Of course not, there are other laws that are more important that override the minimum speed law. Perhaps the unchangeable moral law that spouses have the right to the body (marriage debt) under (potential) penalty of mortal sin, trumps the changeable discipline of clerical continence.

 

[dans0622]

…Seriously who would marry a man and never consummate the marriage? If a deacon allowed by the Pope to remarry and not be bound by continence, why do they get a special deal over non widower married deacons?

I don’t think there is agreement that the canon clearly contradicts practice. If the legal phrase, “notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, all 3 levels of clerics are bond to continence” it would be clearly in conflict.

Here is an analogy, …

Hello whm,

Who would do that? The Blessed Virgin, for starters, and quite a number of people I have heard about who want to “marry” an obviously/admittedly impotent person. The dispensed, re-married deacon would not have any special deal.

A law that says “Clerics are bound by…” should not then need to basically say “‘Clerics’ means ‘clerics.’” You could go on like that forever. The law specifically exempts married deacons from other clerical obligations, but not continence.

The aforementioned editing of the canon by John Paul II also comes to mind. Up until he made his own revisions, there was a paragraph in this canon that specifically exempted married deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy. ("§ 2. Praescripto § 1 non tenentur viri qui, in matrimonio viventes, ad diaconatum permanentem promoti sunt.")

I don’t see how your analogy applies. It seems a better analogy would be to have the law say “minimum speed: 40 mph” but, in practice, anyone in a collector car is allowed to go as slow as he wants. Or, “speed limit: 65” but anyone on a motorcycle is free to go any speed.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[whm]

Hello whm,

Who would do that? The Blessed Virgin, for starters, and quite a number of people I have heard about who want to “marry” an obviously/admittedly impotent person. The dispensed, re-married deacon would not have any special deal.

Impotent men can not marry.

 

[dans0622]

If a permanent deacon who has received the Sacrament of Matrimony, is currently married and is required to be continent; what would the penalty be for a married deacon who has conjugal relations with his wife? There are none because a married man ordained a permanent deacon does not give up obligations, responsibilities, and rights within the Sacrament of Matrimony.

…

That is an interesting point. It was discussed during the process of revising the Code of Canon Law and c. 277: "Dicatur quod violatio perfectae continentiae de qua in § 1 secumfert peccatum sacrilegii (aliquis Pater).

R. Hoc verum est, sed pertinet ad theologiam moralem.

Let it be stated that the violation of the perfect continence directed by § 1 entails the sin of sacrilege (some Father).

Response. This is true, but it is a matter for moral theology." (This is taken from Dr. Peters website).

It is also interesting to note: what is the penalty for a priest who has consensual, conjugal relations with a woman? Nothing, if it is not publicly known and is not a relationship that is “concubinage.” (cf. c. 1395)

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Impotent men can not marry.

I know. That’s why I said “marry.” Yet, woman want to do it, think it is their right to “marry” an impotent man, and who is the Church to say it can’t be done? That’s their thought process, not mine.

Dan

 

[whm]

I don’t see how your analogy applies. It seems a better analogy would be to have the law say “minimum speed: 40 mph” but, in practice, anyone in a collector car is allowed to go as slow as he wants. Or, “speed limit: 65” but anyone on a motorcycle is free to go any speed.

The analogy is that “thou shall not kill” trumps the traffic law. The argument I want to see is how the marital vows and the right to the body can be negated by a changeable canon.

 

[whm]

I know. That’s why I said “marry.” Yet, woman want to do it, think it is their right to “marry” an impotent man, and who is the Church to say it can’t be done? That’s their thought process, not mine.

Dan

But they are seeking a valid marriage, their thinking is in error.

As for the Blessed Virgin, she has special graces and if I am correct does not suffer from any consequences of original sin, and therefore would not have to guard against temptation in the same way any other man or woman would, who do suffer from concupiscence.

Dan my concern is more about the appearance of a contradiction in Church teaching and authority. I don’t like see stuff implying that the “Church really screwed this up”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

My take on it, and my bishop’s take in it is this. Canon 227 talks about continence and celibacy as a single, unified obligation. Celibacy also requires continence, in other words, an unmarried priest cannot have sexual relations. However, since a married deacon is by definition not celibate, then the requirement for continence doesn’t apply. There is an old tradition in the Church that allowed for married priests to become bishops. In this particular case, if the priest accepted the potential role as bishop, then he and his wife were required to separate (but not divorce) for the specific reason of maintaining perpetual and perfect continence. To have a husband cohabitate with his wife, without release from the marital debt, creates a condition that could constitute a grave temptation to sin (to violate a disciplinary law is a grave sin, take the Sunday obligation for example, or the requirement to abstain during Lent).

I’ve heard some things about having a cleric having conjugal relations with his wife being considered scandalous. How can this be so? One of the deacon’s trifold responsibilities is proclamation of the Gospel. Well, living in submissive, conjugal love with your sacramental spouse can hardly be considered scandalous, and in fact proclaims the Gospel in its very fact. By living a normal marriage with his wife, with all of its duties, rights, and obligations, including conjugal love, promotes the Gospel and the purity of the marital covenant. Disallowing this part of the marriage frustrates the ends and means of the marriage itself and can give rise to scandal. The deacon exists to serve as an example of love and service to the Church. The married deacon sets this example by living his ordain AND married life in their fullest contexts.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Married Deacons have been having marital relations since the '83 Code was issued. Everyone knows it and no one (until Dr. Peters) cared. So the relevant canon would be:

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

And of course there’s:

*Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. *

So, unless something is issued, in 2013 diaconal marital relations will obtain the force of law.

 

[dans0622]

The analogy is that “thou shall not kill” trumps the traffic law. The argument I want to see is how the marital vows and the right to the body can be negated by a changeable canon.

I see. Yes. Well, the right would have to be surrendered by the parties. It can’t be taken away by any human law. As is clear, the right hasn’t been surrendered. The idea of doing so hasn’t even been floated.

Dan