Sir you didn’t answer my question. Thanks for your editorial comment.Men know full and well that when they become permanent deacons, they cannot remarry if their wife dies. It should come as no surprise that getting a dispensation to remarry anyway would be extremely difficult.
I have been told that this can’t be done today yet I know of a couple of permanent deacons who were given dispensation to remarry back in the late 90s. Has the Church changed its position and if so does anybody know why?I know of a permanent deacon who wanted to remarry after the death of his wife. He was refused.
Why do you ask?
Thank you for sharing that information. I can always use it to further cement what I know personally when talking with other prospective deacon candidates and/or even other deacons who may be contemplating on going for a dispensation. It is always good to have a little bit more verifiable information to share when asked rather than just a blank, fatigued stare of feigned incredulity.What I’ve always heard is that a dispensation would be given only if the deacon had young children who needed a mother. I have no idea whether some dioceses at some times have given dispensations more freely.
Thank you for your response; it’s enlightening. The one hurdle that I can’t seem to find a way around is the reasoning behind the denial of a dispensation, or to put it more succinctly, the need for a dispensation at all. A person who was married at the time of his ordination into the permanent diaconate, upon being widowed, ought to be allowed to remarry without any need for contrived impediments and/or man-made encumbrances. It is clear to me that the church would want to make sure that the “new” spouse is open to the ministry of the diaconate - even a subscriber to the order - so that this act of marrying does not take away from the widowed deacon’s effectiveness in his ministries. Fine. But to not allow this widower to get remarried without due dispensation, to me, is against what John Paul II preached about the importance of the family construct. Would the Church prefer that this deacon widower engage in some sort of clandestine activities, hiding his need for companionship, or live a single life and existence that is foreign and alien to him after enjoying the bliss of married life for some time? Somewhere in this equation is the need for a reconciliation - I think.Here in “liberal” New England, the only such dispensation of which I’m aware involved a widowed deacon who developed Parkinson’s, and he was allowed to remarry, to a lady willing to take care of him.
Several dioceses I know skew much older on screening aspirants for the diaconate – such that they won’t even consider men whose children are younger than high school at the time of their application – thus avoiding the “children who need a mother” issue. And yes, it’s my impression that things are much “tighter” on this now than in the 90’s.
That is pretty sage advice - not holding one’s breath I mean. Canon Law seems etched in stone - a sentiment that served the Pharisees well in enforcing their man made laws that they adroitly promulgated in addition to the Decalogue. I believe Pharisees still walk among us today… resplendently robed in their purple phylacteries and insisting upon sitting at the head of tables.It would require a change in canon law. I suppose that can be done but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The praxis has become more rigorous again. You can pm if desired.I have been told that this can’t be done today yet I know of a couple of permanent deacons who were given dispensation to remarry back in the late 90s. Has the Church changed its position and if so does anybody know why?
There are deacons there in the Philippines though perhaps not incardinated there. I heard that there are currently 12 prospective deacons in the Davao (Mindanao) area. Not sure though if this is bankable information.There is a problem with marriage after Holy Orders. We have married priests that were married before they converted and became Catholic. But, they are also not allowed to re-marry, if their spouse preceeds them in death. Once the marriage vows are broken by death, the vows to Orders remain. Tradition has always held that marriage after Holy Orders was not allowed.Noticed that you are in the Philippines. Recently met a priest from there that told me there were no permanent deacons there as yet. Is this true?
God bless
I am happy for you. You are one among the few who can accept and understand this canon. Reminds me of that story where some folks tried to trip up Jesus with their presentation of several marriages to brothers for this one woman. Their question in the end was, which brother would the woman be married to in the afterlife… to which Jesus said that in the afterlife there will be no more marriages as we know it.My question remains the same. “Vows to orders” or whatever it is labeled as, it is not a very good reason to not allow a previously married - widowed, not divorced cleric to remarry.
It makes perfect sense.
This is the rule in Eastern Catholic and other Eastern Churches. Otherwise, you have a TWICE married man in orders, and the Bible says they are to be married just once (if at all).
I firmly believe in the serious nature of vows. There are differences in vows. But “vows” here is not the focal point of the question. I don’t believe I am questioning vows. What I am questioning is the rigidness with which the Church looks at the idea that if a married person ordained into the permanent diaconate becomes widowed, he can’t remarry without having to get a special dispensation. He was married before and for certain exemplified the graces of married life to the lay community wherein he participated as a bonafide member. A Deacon is not a priest or a bishop who cannot be ordained if married. A Deacon cannot hear confession, cannot confect the Eucharist, cannot give last rites, cannot say Mass. A Deacon is the “bridge to the lay community” because of the three offices (bishop, priest, deacon) he can be a married man and is a servant first and an ordained minister second. I am not trying to be contrarian - neither am I seeking an answer to some arbitrary rhetorical question. I am only truly seeking enlightenment as to WHY the Church clings so immovably to this rule as it pertains to widowed permanent deacons wanting to remarry.This is a serious question, and I am not trying to be coy…but if Vows are not a very good reason etc…as you previously stated, then what good are vows in the first place? Why even use them or take them?
Because Holy Orders are, and have always been an impediment to marriage, but not the other way around. A Deacon, though not a priest, is ordained.I am only truly seeking enlightenment as to WHY the Church clings so immovably to this rule as it pertains to widowed permanent deacons wanting to remarry.