Author Topic: Married Deacons (Read 1874 times)

Capt McQuigg · « **on:** July 10, 2012, 07:00:51 PM »

I personally think the very concept of a married man being a Deacon in the Catholic Church is a contradiction that can only end in ruin for the individual man. However, I think married deacons is a backdoor way for the novus ordo to allow priests to marry (the novus ordites dream of this but I don't think it would actually come to pass). A married man physically belongs to his wife and in her arms he will end up on a regular basis. But in the Traditional Catholic Church it's at the Subdeacon level that men make a vowel of celibacy (so, two levels later when they are ordained to the Holy Priesthood they have been celibate for a while). Everyone here knows this, but there may be one of two who don't.

However, my principal question is this:

Would a married deacon incur excommunication? Would he be in a state of mortal sin?

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2012, 09:52:47 PM »

First of all you must know it is a sin. In the New Order what was a sin is no longer a sin. Eating meat on Friday was mortal sin. If you remain traditional, it is a mortal sin. Traditional have no married deacons.

Sigismund · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:32:07 PM »

The Eastern Churches have married deacons and priests aplenty, so I assume your are talking about married Latin rite priests. The real question here, I think, is this: Is the NO Church actually the Church? If it is (as I believe) then no one could be excommunicated for doing what the Church permits. If it is not, then there really isn't anyone around with jurisdiction to impose excommunication for anything. I suppose that if the 1917 Code says that if a married man is ordained a deacon he incurs excommunication, a trad case could be built for that, but I doubt that the 1917 Code addresses the question at all.

And before anyone asks, no, i do not think the discipline of celibacy for Latin rite priests should be changed.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2012, 10:15:04 AM »

Just to clear it up - I'm not asking about myself. The concept of a married deacon, as I see it, disgusts me!

Sigismund, what are these Eastern Churches you refer to and what percentage of the Catholic world do they make up? I ask this because I've never come across a Byzantine Catholic Church - although I'm sure Cleveland, OH has some - with all it's old ethnic neighborhoods.

Sigismund says that if the church is no longer the church then excommunications can no longer be handed out. Let's not take this in that direction because I don't want this particular thread to become a sedevacantist vs. SSPX OK Corral.

Let's clarify this to only this:

Would a married Deacon in the novus ordo church be in a state of mortal sin?

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2012, 04:01:47 PM »

There is no authority to ordain married men in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is, of course, a disciplinary issue that the Church could change for good reason. The only prohibition the Catholic Church has ever had in regards to marriage and Holy Orders is that no man who has been married more than once can be ordained. There are numerious references to this in Scripture. N.B., when Saint Paul says that a priest must be a man with only one wife, he was not talking about polygamy, he was talking about men who married a second woman after the death of a wife. In fact, one reason Saint Thomas More married quickly after his first wife died was to forever shut out the possibility of the priesthood because he was convinced that he would not be a good priest.

There is no tradition in either the East or West for the ordination of bishops who have been married at all after the Apostles (or possibly one or two generations of bishops). Thus, a man who has ever been married is not valid material for the episcopacy.

The East has always allowed for a married clergy.

The West established clerical celebacy extremely early in history. The minor orders and the lower major orders have not always been necessarily steps towards the priesthood, though this has been true since early in the West's history, possibly soon after celebacy was mandated.

In any event, the Catholic Church, both East and West, has never allowed a man who has been ordained (after a certain point) to marry. Thus, a candidate for the priesthood in the Eastern Church must be married before he is ordained and once ordained, he cannot marry. Nor can any priest whose wife dies marry a second woman. This is the immemorial tradition of the Catholic Church--it is divine law.

The Conciliar church does not have authority over the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Chruch. Since the divine law cannot be "loosed" even by the Pope, the current attitude of the Conciliar church towards the married permanent deacon is but one more proof that the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

The Conciliar church allows married men to be ordained deacons who will never become priests. Note that the Catholic Church could do this. The Conciliar church, however, allows a permanent deacon to marry and a permanent deacon who divorces his wife and is granted an annulment, to marry. Note that this is highly questionable. The Conciliar church allows a permanent deacon whose wife dies to remarry. This is, on its face, a violation of the divine law.

The concept of a married deacon is not, necessarily, disgusting, Captain, but the concept of the married deacon as practiced by Conciliarism is indeed disgusting.

Sigismund · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2012, 09:47:29 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Just to clear it up - I'm not asking about myself. The concept of a married deacon, as I see it, disgusts me!

Sigismund, what are these Eastern Churches you refer to and what percentage of the Catholic world do they make up? I ask this because I've never come across a Byzantine Catholic Church - although I'm sure Cleveland, OH has some - with all it's old ethnic neighborhoods.

Sigismund says that if the church is no longer the church then excommunications can no longer be handed out. Let's not take this in that direction because I don't want this particular thread to become a sedevacantist vs. SSPX OK Corral.

Let's clarify this to only this:

Would a married Deacon in the novus ordo church be in a state of mortal sin?

By far, most of the Catholic Church is Latin rite, to be sure. I am not sure what the actual percentage is, but that is an interesting question. I will try to find out.

Married clergy are not absolutely universal in the Eastern Churches. Byzantine Rite priests had celibacy imposed upon them by the Latin rite hierarchy in the US, something we Byzantines generally feel they had no right to do and that we need not pay much attention to. Married Byzantine rite men cannot be ordained in the US, but they can go to Europe, be ordained, come back here and minster as Byzantine priests. I am told that about half of the Romanian Byzantine rite priests are married. Very few of the Ruthenian rite priests are. I don't know about the Melkites, or much about the non-Byzantine eastern rites like the Coptic, Chaldean, or Ethiopian. Maronite priests can marry, but a lot of them, perhaps most, are celibate.

I recognize and accept the proper right of eastern rite clergy to marry. However, I actually think it is much more fitting for priests to be celibate. Not only does this make them more like Our Lord, it makes total dedication to the priesthood much more achievable. No matter how much a married priest loves the Lord and the Church and works for them, his efforts will still be limited by his responsibilities to his family. My son, who is a Byzantine rite priest, says that he cannot imagine doing what he does as a married man, and says that he would have been celibate as a priest even if he could have easily married and been ordained without having to jump through the hoops of going to Europe.

There are lots of Byzantine Churches in Cleveland, of several different jurisdictions. The city I live in (I'm sorry, but I don't want to get specific) has even more. I am able to attend a Byzantine or Maronite rite Matins, Divine Liturgy, and Vespers every day if I am willing to drive, at most 45 minutes. I am also fortunate to have the TLM available as well. There are of course many places, especially outside of east coast and Pennsylvania big cities, where there are no Byzantine Churches at all.

To respond to your other question, no a NO married deacon is not in a state of sin because of his status as a married deacon. I have no real problem with married deacons of either rite. Deacons, although they exercise a holy and important ministry, do not stand in the place of Christ the way a priest does. Also, they don't usually have full time clerical responsibilities in either the Latin or Eastern rites or, for what it's worth, in Eastern Orthodoxy.

I love the Byzantine rite and its liturgy, culture, and spiritual tradition. Married clergy is one of those traditions. However, I am more inclined to think that the Latin rite has this right, and that celibacy is, as it has been called by more than one pope, the Jєωel of the priesthood.

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2012, 09:49:30 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

There is no authority to ordain married men in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is, of course, a disciplinary issue that the Church could change for good reason. The only prohibition the Catholic Church has ever had in regards to marriage and Holy Orders is that no man who has been married more than once can be ordained. There are numerious references to this in Scripture. N.B., when Saint Paul says that a priest must be a man with only one wife, he was not talking about polygamy, he was talking about men who married a second woman after the death of a wife. In fact, one reason Saint Thomas More married quickly after his first wife died was to forever shut out the possibility of the priesthood because he was convinced that he would not be a good priest.

There is no tradition in either the East or West for the ordination of bishops who have been married at all after the Apostles (or possibly one or two generations of bishops). Thus, a man who has ever been married is not valid material for the episcopacy.

The East has always allowed for a married clergy.

The West established clerical celebacy extremely early in history. The minor orders and the lower major orders have not always been necessarily steps towards the priesthood, though this has been true since early in the West's history, possibly soon after celebacy was mandated.

In any event, the Catholic Church, both East and West, has never allowed a man who has been ordained (after a certain point) to marry. Thus, a candidate for the priesthood in the Eastern Church must be married before he is ordained and once ordained, he cannot marry. Nor can any priest whose wife dies marry a second woman. This is the immemorial tradition of the Catholic Church--it is divine law.

The Conciliar church does not have authority over the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Chruch. Since the divine law cannot be "loosed" even by the Pope, the current attitude of the Conciliar church towards the married permanent deacon is but one more proof that the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

The Conciliar church allows married men to be ordained deacons who will never become priests. Note that the Catholic Church could do this. The Conciliar church, however, allows a permanent deacon to marry and a permanent deacon who divorces his wife and is granted an annulment, to marry. Note that this is highly questionable. The Conciliar church allows a permanent deacon whose wife dies to remarry. This is, on its face, a violation of the divine law.

The concept of a married deacon is not, necessarily, disgusting, Captain, but the concept of the married deacon as practiced by Conciliarism is indeed disgusting.

This is an excellent post, and I agree with ital except for the last few sentences.
St Francis was a permanent deacon,although he was of course a celibate one.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2012, 10:47:08 PM »

I don't know if it's me, but I'm noticing something strange.

More often than not, I keep seeing deacons presiding during the N.O. ceremonies instead of the priests. Even N.O. "Masses"! Now that is a mere Communion service, even if you believe the N.O. rites to be valid.

I have a huge extended family, most of whom keep dying, so I attend their funerals (so I can pray the Holy Rosary for them). It is usually a deacon who presides over the funerary functions.

There have been several baptisms amongst my cousins, and it has been a deacon who has administered the Sacrament, after "blessing" the baptismal water, and then "blessing" religious articles after the ceremony.

This just substantiates the observations several people have brought to my attention:

1) The institutionalization of "permanent" deacons is a reaction to an embarrassing and dangerous decline in sacerdotal vocations in the N.O. The deacons can "fill in" for the priest who is overextended and therefore too busy, or tired, or absent, or maybe even non-existent &c.

2) The institutionalization of "permanent" and "married" deacons was contrived as a precedent to serve as an argument for the legalization of marriage for the priests in the N.O., especially now that the sex abuse scandals are being explained away by leftists as the consequence of "forced clerical celibacy."

3) The institutionalization of "permanent" deacons further marginalizes in the eyes if the N.O.-ers the already-forgotten notion of the Catholic Priesthood, which is being displaced more openly by a "Lay Priesthood" and soon other positions will be installed so that the laity can have a "wider" sphere of activity in an institution whose clergy are either dying off, or defecting, or being arrested for this or that crime. Women will eventually be given an official status of some sort or another.

4) The institutionalization of "permanent" deacons in the N.O. does not promote sacerdotal vocations, but actually stifles them. It is for this reason, amongst others, that leftist revisionists cannot cite precedents in ecclesiastical history to justify such a policy.

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2012, 12:02:59 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

The Eastern Churches have married deacons and priests aplenty, so I assume your are talking about married Latin rite priests. The real question here, I think, is this: Is the NO Church actually the Church? If it is (as I believe) then no one could be excommunicated for doing what the Church permits. If it is not, then there really isn't anyone around with jurisdiction to impose excommunication for anything. I suppose that if the 1917 Code says that if a married man is ordained a deacon he incurs excommunication, a trad case could be built for that, but I doubt that the 1917 Code addresses the question at all.

And before anyone asks, no, i do not think the discipline of celibacy for Latin rite priests should be changed.

I do not have time to read the entire thread so sorry if it has been mentioned already, but the Pio-Benedictine Code does have a section forbidding anyone in higher orders from marrying. It does in fact have serious penalties, anyone in minor orders marrying ipso facto loses their state as Clergy.

Quote

108. Clerics in major orders are, under pain of nullity,
forbidden to marry and they have the obligation of observing
chastity, so that sins against this virtue are also a sacrilege.
If a cleric received major orders through grave fear or force,
and did not ratify his ordination by accepting willingly the
duties of the clerical state of major order men, he may bring
his case before the bishop and if he can prove his case, he
must be pronounced free from the obligations of the major
orders.
Clerics in minor orders may indeed get married but,
unless the marriage was invalid on account of their being
forced to such a marriage by grave fear or violence, they
cease to be clerics ipso facto.
A married man who in good faith receives major orders
without a dispensation from the Holy See is forbidden to
exercise such orders. (Canon 132.)
109. The clergy shall take care not to have in their
houses, nor to visit, women that may give reason for suspi
cion. They are allowed to have in their houses only such
women concerning whom there can be no suspicion either
on account of the natural bond, as mother, sister, aunt, or
about whom on account of their character and more ad
vanced age all suspicion is removed. It is left to the judg
ment of the bishop whether in any case a woman is to be
removed from the priest s house, or the priest to be for
bidden to visit a woman. If the priest has been admonished
repeatedly and yet continues to be obstinate, he is presumed
guilty of concubinage. (Canon 133.)

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2012, 07:46:22 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

This is an excellent post, and I agree with it all except for the last few sentences.
St Francis was a permanent deacon, although he was of course a celibate one.

I stand corrected on this point and I actually should have known this. In fact, I did know it but had forgotten this when I wrote the first post.

Other than this factual error, what is it in the "last few sentences" with which you disagree?

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2012, 07:19:46 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Sigismund
The Eastern Churches have married deacons and priests aplenty, so I assume your are talking about married Latin rite priests. The real question here, I think, is this: Is the NO Church actually the Church? If it is (as I believe) then no one could be excommunicated for doing what the Church permits. If it is not, then there really isn't anyone around with jurisdiction to impose excommunication for anything. I suppose that if the 1917 Code says that if a married man is ordained a deacon he incurs excommunication, a trad case could be built for that, but I doubt that the 1917 Code addresses the question at all.

And before anyone asks, no, i do not think the discipline of celibacy for Latin rite priests should be changed.

I do not have time to read the entire thread so sorry if it has been mentioned already, but the Pio-Benedictine Code does have a section forbidding anyone in higher orders from marrying. It does in fact have serious penalties, anyone in minor orders marrying ipso facto loses their state as Clergy.

Quote
108. Clerics in major orders are, under pain of nullity,
forbidden to marry and they have the obligation of observing
chastity, so that sins against this virtue are also a sacrilege.
If a cleric received major orders through grave fear or force,
and did not ratify his ordination by accepting willingly the
duties of the clerical state of major order men, he may bring
his case before the bishop and if he can prove his case, he
must be pronounced free from the obligations of the major
orders.
Clerics in minor orders may indeed get married but,
unless the marriage was invalid on account of their being
forced to such a marriage by grave fear or violence, they
cease to be clerics ipso facto.
A married man who in good faith receives major orders
without a dispensation from the Holy See is forbidden to
exercise such orders. (Canon 132.)
109. The clergy shall take care not to have in their
houses, nor to visit, women that may give reason for suspi
cion. They are allowed to have in their houses only such
women concerning whom there can be no suspicion either
on account of the natural bond, as mother, sister, aunt, or
about whom on account of their character and more ad
vanced age all suspicion is removed. It is left to the judg
ment of the bishop whether in any case a woman is to be
removed from the priest s house, or the priest to be for
bidden to visit a woman. If the priest has been admonished
repeatedly and yet continues to be obstinate, he is presumed
guilty of concubinage. (Canon 133.)

Yes, once you are ordained in any rite, you can't marry. A married Latin rite deacon whose wife dies cannot marry again. AN eastern priest whose wife dies cannot marry again. A bishop has to be celibate in every rite. In the Orthodox Church bishops have to be monks. An unmarried secular Orthodox priest has to take monastic vows before he can be ordained. I don't think this is true in the eastern Catholic Churches, but I will ask my son to be sure.

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2012, 07:36:06 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Sigismund
This is an excellent post, and I agree with it all except for the last few sentences.
St Francis was a permanent deacon, although he was of course a celibate one.

I stand corrected on this point and I actually should have known this. In fact, I did know it but had forgotten this when I wrote the first post.

Other than this factual error, what is it in the "last few sentences" with which you disagree?

I disagree with the following statements. I will type my reasons after each statement in bold type to make it easier to tell who said what.

The Conciliar church does not have authority over the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Chruch. Since the divine law cannot be "loosed" even by the Pope, the current attitude of the Conciliar church towards the married permanent deacon is but one more proof that the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

Well, I think the "Conciliar Church" is the Church, and has full authority over disciplinary laws. The Church can allow married Latin rite priests if she wishes, and has done so for a limited number of converting Anglican clergymen. (I don't mind this too much, although I am not entirely comfortable with it. I would have been appalled if the Church has established some sort of Anglican rite in which priests ordained in the future would not have to be celibate. This would not have violated divine law, but I think it would have been a terrible mistake.) We will not agree about this, and I agree with the Captain that this thread should not become an argument about sedevacantism. There is no divine law at issue here.

The Conciliar church allows married men to be ordained deacons who will never become priests. Note that the Catholic Church could do this. The Conciliar church, however, allows a permanent deacon to marry and a permanent deacon who divorces his wife and is granted an annulment, to marry. Note that this is highly questionable. The Conciliar church allows a permanent deacon whose wife dies to remarry. This is, on its face, a violation of the divine law.

A permanent deacon whose wife dies cannot remarry unless he is laicized. This is true of priests as well. This may be a mistake, but I don't see how it violates divine law. I am not aware that divine law prohibits even an ordained person from remarrying. I beleive this is a discipline as well. I may be wrong about this, though, and I admit I have no proof of my position to offer. This would not be the first time this week I was wrong about what is and is not divine law, so if you can offer proof of this I will happily concede the point.

The concept of a married deacon is not, necessarily, disgusting, Captain, but the concept of the married deacon as practiced by Conciliarism is indeed disgusting.

While I agree that NO deacons do a lot of things that deacons would not have done in bygone years, I am not aware that they are doing anything prohibited to them by divine law. Pre-conciliar deacons pretty much existed only in seminaries. The did not have active ministries in parishes. This is part of why permanent deacons do things like baptize. The shortage of priests is also a big part of it of course, perhaps the bigger part.

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2012, 07:13:57 AM »

Thank you for your reply. Clearly we disagree concerning the nature of the Church.

The Conciliar church is not "one": It claims that it merely "subsists" in the Church of Christ and that the Church is actually bigger than itself.

The Conciliar church is not "holy": It's official doctrines and laws promote ecuмenism, religious liberty, objectively sinful acts (such as giving the Blessed Sacrament to heretics), etc.

The Conciliar church is not "catholic": It is very, very different from diocese to diocese and parish to parish. The doctrine of collegiality has made the Conciliar church more congregationalist than catholics.

The Conciliar church is not "apostolic": The changes in the rites of ordination of priests and bishops has rendered those sacraments at least doubtful, thus, there has been an absolute break in succession from the apostles.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2012, 10:45:13 PM »

TKGS,

You are absolutely right about our disagreement, and I up-thumbed your post above because you expressed it so succinctly.

I am not sure how familiar you are with my posts. I am what most here would call a semi-trad, or a conservative NO type. (Although this last one is not really accurate anymore since I rarely attend the NO now since I have the opportunity to attend the Byzantine Liturgy daily.) I have no problem with the NO if it is celebrated correctly. I know this puts me at odds with everyone else here except Santo Subito. As I recall, you are a sedevacantist, so our disagreements are even deeper in that area.