C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
If the Church prohibits married men from becoming priests, why do they allow married men to become deacons?
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
Because it does.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The Church only has the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Church; and theoretically, that could change in the future, just as it sometimes was in the past. Today, there are married priests in the Eastern Rite. Although I cannot articulate explicitly why the traditions moved that way, suffice it to say that in the spirituality of the west, there appears to be a special emphasis on Christ’s teaching to let those who can accept celibacy to accept it (cf. Matt. 19:12) and Paul’s teaching that the unmarried man is well-equipped to be concerned with things of God (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32).
Also, as I understand, married priests among the many Anglican converts a couple years ago that were received into the Catholic Church retain their marital status.
But with regard to deacons, obviously, the tradition has not demanded the unmarried attention of deacons whose vocation lends more to an assistive role. Perhaps since priests are able to perform the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is indeed Christ’s consummation with his bride, the Church, then the sign of a priest not in a natural marriage may be more communicative of that reality. Whereas a deacon functions in the person of Christ (as I understand) in other ways.
And please know that I am offering theological suppositions on the question. Off-hand, I don’t know of a magisterial document or ECF writing or something like that specifically addressing the “why” the tradition has developed as it has regarding deacons and priests (other than we trust the Spirit has so led us
).
Also, as I understand, married priests among the many Anglican converts a couple years ago that were received into the Catholic Church retain their marital status.
But with regard to deacons, obviously, the tradition has not demanded the unmarried attention of deacons whose vocation lends more to an assistive role. Perhaps since priests are able to perform the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is indeed Christ’s consummation with his bride, the Church, then the sign of a priest not in a natural marriage may be more communicative of that reality. Whereas a deacon functions in the person of Christ (as I understand) in other ways.
And please know that I am offering theological suppositions on the question. Off-hand, I don’t know of a magisterial document or ECF writing or something like that specifically addressing the “why” the tradition has developed as it has regarding deacons and priests (other than we trust the Spirit has so led us
).
I
InThePew
Guest
Most probably because the time commitment required from a Permanent deacon (many of whom have “day jobs”) is frequently less than that expected of a priest.
D
drfye
Guest
perhaps this will help:
catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon
catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
catholic.com/node/5330/3466
catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=2923
not sure if I am correct here but to my understanding a priest is suppose to represent the office of Jesus while a deacon is someone who assists the office of Jesus, I’m not sure if this played a part in the decision to make one celibate and the other not but I suppose your best bet would be to consult the catechism.
catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon
catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
catholic.com/node/5330/3466
catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=2923
not sure if I am correct here but to my understanding a priest is suppose to represent the office of Jesus while a deacon is someone who assists the office of Jesus, I’m not sure if this played a part in the decision to make one celibate and the other not but I suppose your best bet would be to consult the catechism.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
This seems to make sense to me, although as I understand it deacons aren’t actually said to act in the person of Christ at all. Which seems to strengthen your point.The Church only has the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Church; and theoretically, that could change in the future, just as it sometimes was in the past. Today, there are married priests in the Eastern Rite. Although I cannot articulate explicitly why the traditions moved that way, suffice it to say that in the spirituality of the west, there appears to be a special emphasis on Christ’s teaching to let those who can accept celibacy to accept it (cf. Matt. 19:12) and Paul’s teaching that the unmarried man is well-equipped to be concerned with things of God (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32).
Also, as I understand, married priests among the many Anglican converts a couple years ago that were received into the Catholic Church retain their marital status.
But with regard to deacons, obviously, the tradition has not demanded the unmarried attention of deacons whose vocation lends more to an assistive role. Perhaps since priests are able to perform the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is indeed Christ’s consummation with his bride, the Church, then the sign of a priest not in a natural marriage may be more communicative of that reality. Whereas a deacon functions in the person of Christ (as I understand) in other ways.
And please know that I am offering theological suppositions on the question. Off-hand, I don’t know of a magisterial document or ECF writing or something like that specifically addressing the “why” the tradition has developed as it has regarding deacons and priests (other than we trust the Spirit has so led us
Wikipedia:
That said, while married men can be ordained to the permanent diaconate, deacons do not (ordinarily) remarry.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Thank you - good find - here is the full citation from Ominum in Mentum:*new text of the third paragraph is to be worded so that can. 1009 § 3 will read:
“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”.*
T
triumphguy
Guest
The Deacon is configured in the person of Christ the Servant
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Yes, St. Peter was married, but as we said, it is a discipline. It wouldn’t be a sin for a priest to be married. In fact, there are married priests. Moreso in the Eastern rites of the Church, but in the Roman rite as well.
In short, the discipline was chosen so the priests would better exemplify the life the Christ lived, and to put forth more attention to the Church. That isn’t necessarily to say that a celibate priest does a better job than a married one, but he at least doesn’t have to worry about a lot of worldly problems the come with the marriage territory.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
No evidence that Peter’s wife was still alive by the time he was in Rome
D
drfye
Guest
if a priest did get married wouldn’t he have to rely on the congregation to financially support his family?
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
I’m pretty sure the Apostles did not abandon families. We know that Peter was married because we hear about him taking care of his mother in law. Which means that we know that he didn’t abandon his mother in law. There is no actual mention of Peter’s wife that I’m aware of, but many people seem to think she was dead by the time he was called.
Some might have left families in the sense that a deployed soldier leaves his family for a time, but I’ve never heard evidence that they abandoned them to fend for themselves.
But in any case, as has been mentioned, priestly celibacy is a discipline. It does not matter that it was not always in force, or may not always be in force, it makes sense to the West at this time and so it is done.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
It looks like there is a distinction in terms I didn’t know about then. Would it then be correct that the standing in for Christ such as is done in the Eucharist and when absolving sins is acting “in the person of Christ the Head?” And that deacons don’t do that sort of standing in for Christ at all?
Or possibly do you know of anywhere that describes what “in the person of Christ the Servant” means so that I can unconfuse myself?
T
triumphguy
Guest
The priest is acting in the person of Christ the High Priest, the Bishop acts as successor to the Apostles and the Deacon, as I have noted, in the person of Christ the Servant (which is why on Maundy Thursday the priest adjusts his stole to that of the Deacon (over the shoulder) as he washes the feet).
I’ll post some links later - of to take kids to school now:thumbsup:
T
triumphguy
Guest
Yes my wife called “Supper’s ready” just as I was about to post - hence it’s brevity. It is however, accurate 
Thank God!
Thank God!
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I assume you weren’t having Dr. Peters over for supper…Yes my wife called “Supper’s ready” just as I was about to post - hence it’s brevity. It is however, accurate
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Just to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion…
it should be noted that if a man who is in formation to become a priest and is ordained a “transitional” deacon (meaning one is is planning on becoming a priest), and is ordained a deacon, he promises celibacy. If he then chooses not to be ordained a priest, he is still bound by the promise of celibacy.
I should also add, that if an unmarried man seeks ordination under the permanent deaconate, he too, will make a promise of celibacy.
it should be noted that if a man who is in formation to become a priest and is ordained a “transitional” deacon (meaning one is is planning on becoming a priest), and is ordained a deacon, he promises celibacy. If he then chooses not to be ordained a priest, he is still bound by the promise of celibacy.
I should also add, that if an unmarried man seeks ordination under the permanent deaconate, he too, will make a promise of celibacy.
E
einna
Guest
Is there anyone who thinks the Roman Catholic Church will start allowing long time deacons to become priest on a regular basis anytime soon?
I spoke with a long time Jesuit priest who said if the church needs to look for more priest that those long time deacons who have grown children and have served the church well might be the best place to start. I know of several I would be very comfortable with becoming priest, especially if they served with children and families as they might have more personal understanding. I don’t know how the celibacy part would work.
I spoke with a long time Jesuit priest who said if the church needs to look for more priest that those long time deacons who have grown children and have served the church well might be the best place to start. I know of several I would be very comfortable with becoming priest, especially if they served with children and families as they might have more personal understanding. I don’t know how the celibacy part would work.
C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
Well who can argue with that logic?
C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
It seems as if some of you guys were taking what I was saying out of context. I do NOT support Dr. Peters, nor am I against the discipline of allowing married men to become deacons. I was just curious as to why the Church permits married men to become deacons but not priests or bishops. That’s all. If the Holy See says it’s okay, then it’s okay with me. 
- Status