R
runningdude
Guest
It is the Church’s choice to do it this way.
- Status
B
Burdensome1
Guest
1.of course, this injunction can just as easily be understood as an injunction against polygamy, since this was known among converts at the time.
2.if this is an injunction against a re-married man, then it becomes even more mysterious. A man need not be a virgin or even celibate, which there is established theology to investigate about, but just this mysterious prohibition against re-marriage.
3.BUT your final point I think is important, because it would be quite impossible to have a remarriage if it was unable to be consummated. That’s a pretty iron-clad to answer as to the ancient practice.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It was decided by the Fathers early on in the Church. St. Paul also said that we should stay the way we are when we are called. The married stay married, the unmarried stay unmarried. So that just extends to those who become widowers that they remain as is.
P
PJM
Guest
THE FIRST THING TO BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD IS THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH “CHURCH PRACTICES”; NOT DOGMA OR DOCTRINE.
PRACTICES CAN BE CHANGED; BUT DOCTINE AND DOGMA CANNOT BE CHANGED.
The cases of “married priest” in the Latin Rite nealrly alway’s stem form a married situtation that existed prior to Ordination to the RCC -priesthood, in every case I KNOW about. Normally there are from a Protestant [already married] situation; converting and doing what the Church claims is necessary to become a Catholic priest.
While “married priest” are still permitted in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches; such are NOT permitted as “THE NORM” within the Latin rite-RCC.
One must neither forget or put aside the Churches Magisterium teachings and pre-existent conditions for enrty into the RCC priesthood.
The Norms ARE:
One may not be married prior to Ordination
Once Ordained one MAY NOT get married
If married and “an EXCEPTION” was granted for Ordination; it is understood this exception is ONLY for the present marriage. And the Indult would not apply to death and remarriage.
THAT SAID: it is “POSSIBLE” that this could be changed;BUT IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE DONE.
The Magisterium has determined, and most priest would agree; that the present situation of an “unmarried” is warranted and justified on the basis of serving God and His Flock alone being of GREAT advantage; verses having to split the time, energy and talents with a family.
John 15:16 “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”
Grace is Offered by God depending on ones state of grace; one’s God given Mission and one’s need to accomplish it; ALL in accord with God’s Perfect Will.
This passage applies to BOTH genders:
1 Corinthians 7:34
And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband
So because an exception for marriage being grated once is NO guareentee that it would be given again. Indeed the likelyhood is nearly non-existent.
I think pretty much everyone understands this.
I think the reason this particular discipline of the Church is so confusing to people is that it is discipline that is is apparently common to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I think most people assume that what is uniform between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is doctrinal.
I do not know whether or not Orthodoxy ever allows for widowed priests and deacons to remarry so I don’t know if this is considered a discipline or a doctrinal issue by the Orthodox Churches.
In any case, it seems that the underlying reason for the discipline which prevents ordained men from marrying is rooted in the practices of the very early Church.
F
Falco
Guest
Celibacy was expected from more than priests in the old days - think of Abelard and the scandal caused with Eloise. University professors were also celibate in the past, as were household servants in grand houses, right up to the last century. Maids were not allowed to have ‘followers’, which meant they stayed single as they were never courted.
I was told, during RCIA, that one of the reasons for celibacy of priests was the problem of inheritance for the wives and families of married priests, plus their reluctance to move parishes when needed. Priests were trying to leave church property to their children.
I was told, during RCIA, that one of the reasons for celibacy of priests was the problem of inheritance for the wives and families of married priests, plus their reluctance to move parishes when needed. Priests were trying to leave church property to their children.
V
Vico
Guest
It can be taken that way but has not been so taken in the Catholic commentary. For example in Haydock we have:
Ver. 2. A bishop (the same name then comprehended priest) to be blameless, as to life and conversation, adorned, (says St. Chrysostom) with all virtues. See also St. Jerome in his letter to Oceanus. — The[1] husband of one wife. It does not signify, that to be a bishop or priest he must be a married man; nor that he must be a man who has but one wife at a time; but that he must be a man who has never been married but once, or to one wife: because to be married more than once, was looked upon as a mark of too great an inclination to sensual pleasures. It is true, at that time a man might be chosen to be a bishop or priest whose wife was living, but from that time he was to live with her as with a sister. This St. Jerome testifies as to the discipline of the Latin Church. (Witham) — The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife, (for St. Paul himself had none) but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once. (Challoner) — Sober.[2] The Greek rather signifies watchful. — Chaste.[3] There is nothing for this in the Greek text at present, unless in some few manuscripts. Perhaps the ancient Latin interpreter added it, as being signified and comprehended in the other words. — Teacher: a doctor, as the Greek signifies. (Witham)
[1] Ver. 2. Unius uxoris virum, i.e. non bigamum. See St. Chrysostom, p. 285.
[2] Ver. 2. Sobrium, nephalion. Vigilantem.
[3] Ver. 2. Pudicum: some Greek manuscripts, semnon.
B
Burdensome1
Guest
So, again, the injunction against remarriage for the ordained is within the context of a continent clergy.
Sounds like maybe the one only makes sense with the other.
G
Gorgias
Guest
At one point in time, this was the case. It isn’t the case now: married men who are ordained Latin Rite priests (e.g., the exceptional cases) are not expected to be continent.
You might be surprised, but one of the discussions at Vatican II – in the context of the renewal of the permanent diaconate – was the debate over continence. In the end, nothing about it was written into the documents. So, your comment doesn’t really hold up here (even though it isn’t immediately obvious that this is the case, perhaps…).
B
Burdensome1
Guest
I read the green commentary on the Code of Canon Law about it today. In 1981 the Code plenarium commission voted 38 to 13 to include in the Code specific permission to allow deacons to remarry. Didn’t make it into the 1983 code, though.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Do you have a page reference? (Yeah, I’m too lazy to search for it myself…
)
B
Burdensome1
Guest
It’s been scanned into Google! Cool.
books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=canon+law+on+remarriage+ordained&source=bl&ots=GJ6IRFxq4h&sig=mfp5Zpn6GExLHvlGTwoAi1KL8Ns&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjqkUNnXKon02wXG0IGAAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=canon%20law%20on%20remarriage%20ordained&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=canon+law+on+remarriage+ordained&source=bl&ots=GJ6IRFxq4h&sig=mfp5Zpn6GExLHvlGTwoAi1KL8Ns&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjqkUNnXKon02wXG0IGAAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=canon%20law%20on%20remarriage%20ordained&f=false
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Actually, there is some dispute on the obligations of married clerics, whether deacons or priests, in this area:
Summary of the clerical continence debate… by Edward J. Peters
At the core, I think you’re right. I think if the Church formally abandons any requirement of continence for its clergy, it would not be inappropriate to end the proscription of marriage for clerics.
Although there are also other reasons one can use to rationalize this rule, the chief one in my mind being that a cleric’s pastoral duties can more easily be compromised when spiritual comfort is mixed with romance. Even if we assume a cleric’s conduct is beyond reproach (which obviously will not always be true), the second-guessing by parishioners of the cleric’s motives can undermine his leadership and the respect due him.
V
Vico
Guest
From: MEETING WITH THE MEN ORDAINED TO THE PERMANENT DIACONATE,ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II, 1987
So intimate is their partnership and unity in the sacrament of marriage, that the Church fittingly requires the wife’s consent before her husband can be ordained a permanent deacon (Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1031 § 2). As the current guidelines for the permanent diaconate in the United States point out, the nurturing and deepening of mutual, sacrificial love between husband and wife constitute perhaps the most significant involvement of a deacon’s wife in her husband’s public ministry in the Church (Guidelines, NCCB, p. 110). Today especially, this is no small service.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870919_diaconi-permanenti-detroit_en.html
CIC
Can. 1031
§1 The priesthood may be conferred only upon those who have completed their twenty-fifth year of age, and possess a sufficient maturity; moreover, an interval of at least six months between the diaconate and the priesthood must have been observed. Those who are destined for the priesthood are to be admitted to the order of diaconate only when they have completed their twenty-third year.
§2 A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married may be admitted to the diaconate only when he has completed at least his twenty-fifth year; if he is married, not until he has completed at least his thirty-fifth year, and then with the consent of his wife.
§3 Episcopal Conferences may issue a regulation which requires a later age for the priesthood and for the permanent diaconate.
§4 A dispensation of more than a year from the age required by §§1 and 2 is reserved to the Apostolic See.
So intimate is their partnership and unity in the sacrament of marriage, that the Church fittingly requires the wife’s consent before her husband can be ordained a permanent deacon (Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1031 § 2). As the current guidelines for the permanent diaconate in the United States point out, the nurturing and deepening of mutual, sacrificial love between husband and wife constitute perhaps the most significant involvement of a deacon’s wife in her husband’s public ministry in the Church (Guidelines, NCCB, p. 110). Today especially, this is no small service.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870919_diaconi-permanenti-detroit_en.html
CIC
Can. 1031
§1 The priesthood may be conferred only upon those who have completed their twenty-fifth year of age, and possess a sufficient maturity; moreover, an interval of at least six months between the diaconate and the priesthood must have been observed. Those who are destined for the priesthood are to be admitted to the order of diaconate only when they have completed their twenty-third year.
§2 A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married may be admitted to the diaconate only when he has completed at least his twenty-fifth year; if he is married, not until he has completed at least his thirty-fifth year, and then with the consent of his wife.
§3 Episcopal Conferences may issue a regulation which requires a later age for the priesthood and for the permanent diaconate.
§4 A dispensation of more than a year from the age required by §§1 and 2 is reserved to the Apostolic See.
L
Lapey
Guest
Only a controversy to Mr. Peters and a few. There was a letter recently from the Vatican putting this to rest for everyone but him. I’d have to do some searching to find it. Put simply if a cleric is married he cannot be celibate. If he is not celibate he is nit held to the requirement of perfect and perpetual contenance.
This in reference to an earlier post. A person makes a vow at ordination as a member of a community or specific order. For secular, diocesan, cleric it is a promise to the bishop and his successors. Also there aren’t two different rituals for ordain a pd or td. Same ritual and same list of promises. Married ordinands just skip the promise of celibacy.
E
Ed_Peters
Guest
“Only a controversy to Mr. Peters and a few.” I grant that we are few; the truth of a position does not depend on the number of people who agree with it.
“There was a letter recently from the Vatican putting this to rest for everyone but him.” It was not put to rest, and I am not the only one who says so.
“I’d have to do some searching to find it.” Allow me.
The (second) letter is here, frvanhove.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/letter-of-cardinal-francesco-palmerio-to-cardinal-timothy-dolan-on-the-subject-of-canon-277-%C2%A7-1/
and my reply is here, canonlaw.info/PDF-Coccopalmerio%202.pdf
Cordially, edp.
“There was a letter recently from the Vatican putting this to rest for everyone but him.” It was not put to rest, and I am not the only one who says so.
“I’d have to do some searching to find it.” Allow me.
The (second) letter is here, frvanhove.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/letter-of-cardinal-francesco-palmerio-to-cardinal-timothy-dolan-on-the-subject-of-canon-277-%C2%A7-1/
and my reply is here, canonlaw.info/PDF-Coccopalmerio%202.pdf
Cordially, edp.
G
Gorgias
Guest
True; but in ecclesiastical matters, it often depends on who’s saying it.
L
Lapey
Guest
Mr. Peters,
I’m not sure what brought you to this thread; I suspect I know but to elaborate may bring the appearance of paranoia out in me. I’ve had some intense discussion with a young man here some time back which was not pleasurable; that flowed into some “discussions” on a blog or two between us. It got to a point that he threatened to go to my bishop to share with him how terrible I was; I’m sure Bishop Sam would have had a good laugh about that.
He was adamant that your opinions and findings were the law. I am not going to, nor did I attempt then to refute with canon law or any writings or commentaries your assertion of the canon 277 requirement of PPC. I am not a scholar of the law as you are, nor am I an expert of past practices of the Church. So to debate you on this or any canonical issue would, well, not bode well for me. I am not in your league of higher education in these matters; therefore I respectfully bow out of that type of debate.
With that said, I am in a better position than you to understand the practical application of the law; this is where I live, in the practical application.
Again I make no arguments with you directly in the law itself that is your job along with the Magisterium of Mother Church; my job in life is to live my life in the state of life I find myself in accordance with the disciplinary actions of the Church. I am a married permanent deacon who was taught with guidance of the Magisterium, by formatters, some who match your education level, to know that the first vocation I am bound to is marriage. I have become a PD after marriage. Now whether you agree with the exceptions for married clergy to celibacy and therefore not required to remain PPC or not, I cannot argue with you. All I have is my training, the practices of the Church and her leadership since the reinstatement of the PD and the acceptance of married ministers from outside the Catholic Church.
To put it simply, the practices in discipline and the letters from the authoritative bodies do not back you up. So in those two aspects of this discussion, I disagree with you and the “nice” young man in which I debated this in the past. Until there is any form of direction from the Magisterium that this is wrong, I shall follow my Church rather than a lay canonist, no disrespect intended here. You are an expert in your field and I fully respect that; but on this subject your views have been sufficiently rejected by the Church.
E
Ed_Peters
Guest
Hi Deacon. What brought me to this thread was the topic. I generally know when folks are publicly discussing Canon 277 etc and, time-permitting, I try to service that discussion.
One need not be a scholar to follow this matter (tho it helps), but one *does *need to read what’s out there in order to form grounded opinions on the matter. I disagree with little that you wrote, but you more than once slipped into making a *canonical *argument (unaware that you are doing so), which argument, in fact, is wrong. So, my notes above.
I do think if you read my main studies you would find my position–even if you disagree with it–much more balanced than some of those persuaded by it seem to paint it; but only if you read the articles with the same care with which I wrote them.
Best, edp.
One need not be a scholar to follow this matter (tho it helps), but one *does *need to read what’s out there in order to form grounded opinions on the matter. I disagree with little that you wrote, but you more than once slipped into making a *canonical *argument (unaware that you are doing so), which argument, in fact, is wrong. So, my notes above.
I do think if you read my main studies you would find my position–even if you disagree with it–much more balanced than some of those persuaded by it seem to paint it; but only if you read the articles with the same care with which I wrote them.
Best, edp.
L
Lapey
Guest
I’ve read much of your writings on this topic and I still don’t and cannot agree because of the practical application I have experienced in my own life; plus the documents which have come from the Magisterium.
Now, my role is to be husband, father and deacon; as you can tell from that list my plate is full. I do not intend to go back and research your writings or the writings of anyone else who has a dissenting opinion from the Church’s leadership. I will continue as I have before, admit inferiority in education to you and respectfully disagree with your opinions because of these two points. Those two allow me to feel great comfort in saying, in my opinion you are wrong. That’s good enough for me and my brother deacons.
I would have to ask though, why is this such a huge pet peeve of yours? And also, if you came to this thread because of the public discussion of the topic, how did you know about this particular discussion, within a thread not titled canon 277 of PPC? You were not a member before now.
- Status