www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall CONTINENCE for Roman-rite Married Deacons

According to canon lawyer Ed Peters's reading of Canon 227, ALL clergy must be perfectly continent. Yes, this is Western canon law and hopefully will be clarified, but I think this reading has major consequences for Church unity.

http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com/2011/01/sad-days-in-one-corner-of-blogosphere.html

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/continence-and-married-deaconspriests/

I think the problem is in the use of words in the translation.

Celibacy is abstention from sexual intercourse, abstention by vow.

Continence is self-restraint, the ability to refrain from a bodily activity.

Continence doesn't necessarily mean or imply abstention on a permanent basis. Cf. Webster's dictionary, c. 1967. So continence for married deacons means they should be examples of what every Christian man ought to be doing in his life.

Bob

I believe you are correct, but the canon lawyer Peters has repeatedly stated the canon means no sexual activity for married deacons and the married priests from the Anglican Ordinate- it still isn't clear if he agrees with the canon or if he believes it needs to be changed/clarified

I don't find him controversial- just the responses that I believe are a barrier to unity

I don't know what the Canon says, but if it insists on celibacy for married deacons and priests it is an open insult to the Sacramental Mystery of Marriage.

The idea of continence is logical, and long held. For example, one fasts from food from midnight (typically and traditionally, bedtime) until Eucharist. Likewise, the liturgy books state that the priest "abstains from the evening before until his priestly service".

This was the objection of the Byzantine Church to the West's attempt to impose its discipline (mostly honored in the breach at the time), which resulted in the regulations for clerical marriage in the canons of the Council in Trullo. The current policy on deacons is a change from the ancient Latin discipline, which insisted on celibacy for all clerics from subdeacon on up. The current regulations also seem to have abandoned the ban on clerical remarriage.

Ed Peters, despite his appointment to a Vatican position, is one canon lawyer, expressing his opinion. Ask another, get another. I, for one, do not find him particularly persuasive on this or some other issues.

Many years,

Neil

sigh..again a Latin perspective that is just unfathomable for the Orthodox mind.

Clarification:
In this context, celibacy is defined as being in an unmarried state. Continence, in this context, is the abstention from sexual activity.
For the Christian, celibacy also implies continence.

Dn. Robert

If you want to read canon lawyer Edward Peters' article, it is available here [canonlaw.info] (19.46 MB, so it takes a while to download). Father John Boyle, a canon lawyer, explains Peters' argument step by step on his blog [caritasveritas.blogspot.com].

So far, the arguments that I have seen online against Peters' view have not been too convincing, with the exception of this reply [siouxcitydeacon.blogspot.com] from Deacon David Lopez of the Diocese of Sioux City.

Tamiian:

I still say--and I'm no canon lawyer--that the word is the problem. Continence is also used in the medical field to indicate someone who needs diapers. If one is INcontinent, one has no bladder control. So it seems that to stretch the word to mean more than "self-control" is just that--a stretch.

I agree with the Admin that if this were the case, it would be an open insult to marriage. In fact, this is one of the reasons I won't consider the diaconate, though I have discussed it with my spiritual father. My marriage is NOT a secondary way to sanctifying my life. It is as true and as holy a way as the celibate path.

Bob

I know four deacons personally. I have never asked them about their married life in that way as it would be rude. I have been taught by two of them in my studies, and I have never heard of any of them state that they are prohibited from marital relations with their wife.

I am no expert at all in canon law, so I have no idea about this. However, if this is a canon, I don't see Bishops enforcing it anywhere, nor do I see Rome cracking down on this.

Also, we have one Latin Rite priest in my diocese who came from the Lutheran Church as a minister there, who was ordained (I think in 2003) and as far as anything i've ever read about him, the prohibitions of marital relations has not been imposed upon him. However, as I said, I have no way of knowing with 100% certainty. You just don't go inquiring about such things.

FYI, the canon is 277, not 227.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

Ritual purity laws have no place in Christianity. And, unfortunately, that's what a lot of this is really about.

I am glad I am a member of the EOC. Roman celibacy, despite the current rhetoric about it, had everything to do with church property rights during the Middler Ages. Some Orthodox scholars of western canon law, privately, have told me that they believe Rome maintains it among western clergy (despite the pious theological platitudes on the matter from Rome)for strictly financial reasons.

Besides myself, I know of another deacon (latin) who has fathered/sired children with our wives subsequent to diaconal ordination. I have not been called into the bishop's office to discuss this... so without anyone's asking, anyone can rightly assume my wife and I have been intimate at least once after ordination. Our son is six years old, born on the feast of the Transfiguration, I was ordained in 2003...

I really do think it is silly that a canon lawyer has nothing better to do than discuss the intimate relations of married clerics. Revise the law to read "chastity" ILO of "continence" and be done with it.