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…
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 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.