Question on ordination and marriage

[Ed_Peters]

Hello Deacon. I am trying to avoid response to the ad hominems made in your remarks (that I am dissenter from Church teaching, that this is a huge pet peeve for me, and so on), but could I ask that you refrain from offering them? Thanks.

I am perplexed at what appears to be your umbrage that I am posting here. My writings were linked-to in some comments above, and I saw hits to my website coming from here; I wondered what was being discussed. Is there something wrong with that?

I have posted here before on other topics, but I could not recall what version of my name I used (I always post under my real name, but vary from E. to Ed to Edward and Dr or Prof, etc.) and so I simply re-registered as above. Again, I can’t imagine how this is relevant to my posts, but you seem concerned about it. In any case, I am quite well known in Catholic Answers circles.

I do not expect you to go back and study all of my writings on this topic. I do expect people, if they engage a matter, to discuss such important topics responsibly, and if they do not do so, to take correction from others who do. I understand that you do not agree with me. That’s fine, but every time you offer a “reason”, of sorts, for disagreeing with me, you make what I find to be a error.

Canon law touches, to one degree or another, virtually every aspect of Catholic life, so, most discussions of Catholic life touch canon law. Of course, most people do not realize that and generally are no worse off for it. But, I suggest, not here. In any case, to the degree your comments make, wittingly or otherwise, canonical assertions, I am qualified and free to offer replies to them.

Best, edp.

 

[Lapey]

Hello Deacon. I am trying to avoid response to the ad hominems made in your remarks (that I am dissenter from Church teaching, that this is a huge pet peeve for me, and so on), but could I ask that you refrain from offering them? Thanks.

I am perplexed at what appears to be your umbrage that I am posting here. My writings were linked-to in some comments above, and I saw hits to my website coming from here; I wondered what was being discussed. Is there something wrong with that?

I have posted here before on other topics, but I could not recall what version of my name I used (I always post under my real name, but vary from E. to Ed to Edward and Dr or Prof, etc.) and so I simply re-registered as above. Again, I can’t imagine how this is relevant to my posts, but you seem concerned about it. In any case, I am quite well known in Catholic Answers circles.

I do not expect you to go back and study all of my writings on this topic. I do expect people, if they engage a matter, to discuss such important topics responsibly, and if they do not do so, to take correction from others who do. I understand that you do not agree with me. That’s fine, but every time you offer a “reason”, of sorts, for disagreeing with me, you make what I find to be a error.

Canon law touches, to one degree or another, virtually every aspect of Catholic life, so, most discussions of Catholic life touch canon law. Of course, most people do not realize that and generally are no worse off for it. But, I suggest, not here. In any case, to the degree your comments make, wittingly or otherwise, canonical assertions, I am qualified and free to offer replies to them.

Best, edp.

Mr. Peters,

I have not made ad hominem attacks towards you, if it appeared that way I apologize. This is how the other conversation with one of your students went downhill. Every time I said I disagreed and explained my practical reasons for doing so, it was turned around to be because I didn’t research the issue enough and I made it personal and attacked him.

To understand my words and opinions, and this is all they are, you have to walk a day in my shoes, but you cannot do that anymore than I yours.

The statement about dissenting from the leadership of the Church, only and simply meant that you differ in opinion of the canons, nothing more. Furthermore I disagree with you and agree with the Magisterium, period. Sorry if I offended you. But is this false? You have been the one making this argument for years in opposition to the Magisterium’s responses, haven’t you? I’m not calling any one a heretic.

Also, I haven’t engaged in any discussions without being responsible about the subject, I stick to my expertise, application and magisterium’s direction. I didn’t mention you or your writings here, so how am I misrepresenting anything but a true portrayal of history. I wrote your name in response to a poster, and I listed the opinion of the people who I promised at ordination to be obedient to, the bishops.

Only reason I asked about how you got here, is my terrible memories of the arguments with one of your students, it wasn’t nice at all. I know he is still a member here although recently only in “lurker” mode. I don’t care to enter into a discussion with him anymore, as he is not a very cordial debater as you I’m sure are.

 

[Lapey]

Now, what would be fruitful for this discussion would be for you, Mr. Peters, to address the orriginal topic posed by the OP. From your professional view, canoncally and theologically.

Since married men CAN be ordained to Holy Orders, why is it impossible for such a man to marry again after ordination if his wife pre-deceases him?

Looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

 

[Ed_Peters]

It’s impossible because Canon 1087 imposes an impediment against marriage on those who receive holy Orders. As to why Canon 1087 imposes said impediment, well, consult all the usual sources. And they are many, of course. Best, edp.

 

[SMHW]

Now, what would be fruitful for this discussion would be for you, Mr. Peters, to address the orriginal topic posed by the OP. From your professional view, canoncally and theologically.

Since married men CAN be ordained to Holy Orders, why is it impossible for such a man to marry again after ordination if his wife pre-deceases him?

Looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

I am a woman and not any sort of expert on canon law or regulations. My interest in this matter is largely because I belong to a parish with a married (former Episcopalian) western priest and a fairly large number of married permanent deacons.

I too am interested in this matter as relates to the OP’s question. I am personally of the opinion that this question is best answered if it is addressed as to how it relates to (at least) three situations: that of Western Catholics, that of Eastern Catholics, and that of the Orthodox.

Mr. Peters, I am afraid I am not well versed in your writings so I will have to plead ignorance to much. But perhaps you can answer some questions in a way that someone (me) who is interested in theoretical mathematics could understand:

Is your proposition that married clergy are called to continence based primarily on canon law or is it based on something more fundamental?

If you believe canon law is the primary reason for your proposition, can you explain why you do not think recent writings excepting married clergy from adherence to canons calling for continence have the authority to override those canons?

In light of your answers to my first question, do you consider continence binding on Western clergy only, or on *all *validly ordained clergy (which would include Eastern Catholic clergy and Orthodox clergy)?

 

[Ed_Peters]

Hi SMHW.

“Is your proposition that married clergy are called to continence based primarily on canon law or is it based on something more fundamental?” Well, I write as a canonist, so strictly speaking my argument is canonical; but I believe the canons themselves represent values much deeper than mere positive prescriptions. Still I leave those arguments to others to develop. I need only show what the law requires today and I suggest that I have carefully done that. Others disagree.

“If you believe canon law is the primary reason for your proposition, can you explain why you do not think recent writings excepting married clergy from adherence to canons calling for continence have the authority to override those canons?” Because I do not believe, and have argued directly in the links above, that those few writings simply do not qualify as a canonical determinations under, among other things, ap. con. Pastor bonus (1988). You’ll understand my not making that argument anew here.

Best, edp.

 

[Vico]

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.

Celibacy means the unmarried state, not continence. It is not a contradiction to the matrimonial covenent when a husband and wife both agree to abstain from conjugal relations.