Church law technically requires all *clergy* to promise to remain continent, which is something that obviously affects both the wife and the husband. But it hasn't actually been applied to permanent deacons since Vatican 2, so far as I know. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
It appears that you're referring to Can. 277 §1., which says "Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity."
On the other hand, Can. 277 §3. says "The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation."
A canon lawyer would need to say more (as I'm no expert), but it seems that there are some cases where Can. 277 can be suspended (as in, for example, the ordination of married Anglican priests received into the Church). One could argue that Vatican II's Norms For The Formation Of Permanent Deacons do this, as it distinguishes between married and celibate deacons, but makes no mention of continence as a particular requirement of married deacons. At the very least, it seems that the Pope has the authority to suspend Canon 277 in certain cases, though whether any Pope or Council has in fact done so for married deacons is up for debate.
I have read a canonist arguing that it still applies (or ought to be applied) with considerably more material than I was willing to read to back it up. But my point was not that all deacons should commence continence (which the current permanent deacons haven't promised anyway) but that Erika S. might have gotten her idea of the marriage requirement for the wives from some sort of muddled transmission of the prior requirements for permanent deacons in the early Church.
Ah, then I misinterpreted your earlier comment—apologies. Yeah, at least as far as my cursory review of the Vatican II norms goes, the celibacy requirement only applies to widowed deacons, not their wives.
(And I think we read that same canonist, but it quickly went over my head, and even he acknowledged that the exact interpretation of that canon has not been formally settled.)
From what I've read about the early Church, I wouldn't be surprised if they had such a requirement and applied it to deacons' wives. Continence was considerably more highly regarded then, and second marriages by anyone and for any reason were often looked down at to some extent (something some Eastern Catholics and/or Orthodox retain). The early Church problem seemed more to be preventing pride on the part of the continent then getting people to consider it at all, or to live it afterwards.
I know he can’t remarry because of orders. But I thought it extended both ways for some reason.
Church law technically requires all *clergy* to promise to remain continent, which is something that obviously affects both the wife and the husband. But it hasn't actually been applied to permanent deacons since Vatican 2, so far as I know. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
It appears that you're referring to Can. 277 §1., which says "Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity."
On the other hand, Can. 277 §3. says "The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation."
A canon lawyer would need to say more (as I'm no expert), but it seems that there are some cases where Can. 277 can be suspended (as in, for example, the ordination of married Anglican priests received into the Church). One could argue that Vatican II's Norms For The Formation Of Permanent Deacons do this, as it distinguishes between married and celibate deacons, but makes no mention of continence as a particular requirement of married deacons. At the very least, it seems that the Pope has the authority to suspend Canon 277 in certain cases, though whether any Pope or Council has in fact done so for married deacons is up for debate.
I have read a canonist arguing that it still applies (or ought to be applied) with considerably more material than I was willing to read to back it up. But my point was not that all deacons should commence continence (which the current permanent deacons haven't promised anyway) but that Erika S. might have gotten her idea of the marriage requirement for the wives from some sort of muddled transmission of the prior requirements for permanent deacons in the early Church.
Ah, then I misinterpreted your earlier comment—apologies. Yeah, at least as far as my cursory review of the Vatican II norms goes, the celibacy requirement only applies to widowed deacons, not their wives.
(And I think we read that same canonist, but it quickly went over my head, and even he acknowledged that the exact interpretation of that canon has not been formally settled.)
From what I've read about the early Church, I wouldn't be surprised if they had such a requirement and applied it to deacons' wives. Continence was considerably more highly regarded then, and second marriages by anyone and for any reason were often looked down at to some extent (something some Eastern Catholics and/or Orthodox retain). The early Church problem seemed more to be preventing pride on the part of the continent then getting people to consider it at all, or to live it afterwards.