The enemy yet again wants to convince us that who we are is not good enough and encourages us to cast off what we are gifted in search of something else. Lies.
But the whole topic and subject is just exhausting. The church has repeatedly said “no” to women deacons. I don’t understand what she was hoping for in applying for deacon training.. to be trained and never ordained because it’s not possible? That sounds like a waste of time & resources.
From permanent deacons at my childhood suburban parish, it’s my understanding that a man admitted to the permanent Diaconate would impact his wife too. I vaguely recall that the wife can’t remarry if she survives her permanent deacon husband. (I could be mistaken however.) But regardless, his commitment to the church would impact his family too, so the wife attending things makes sense.
Re remarriage, I believe it is the opposite- the deacon, if he is widowed, cannot remarry, as those in holy orders cannot marry. I don’t believe it goes the other way. However, this still does really affect the wife in her/the couple’s decision making, especially if there are young children involved- if the man cannot remarry if he is widowed, what is the plan for the family?
I think you’re right that the practicals you mention are the reasons most permanent deacons are older with no children at home. But I know of some exceptions and I don’t believe it’s a rule!
We have a man in diaconate formation in my parish who has a young family (the oldest of his 3 children is probably 12ish). And he's a full-time orthodontist. But, he's not the norm for candidates.
I know of one who had a young child, although she's older now. You'd expect that sort of thing to happen occasionally even with deacons in their 50s who are not continent and who abide by Church teaching regarding openness to children. Late pregnancies happen.
Oh, I didn't think you sounded critical at all! I was actually just thinking that while part of the motive for continent deacons was the high regard the Church placed on it, part of it could easily also have been that that is the only moral way to ensure you have no more children, even once you're older. The population skew makes good practical sense for most people.
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.
If a man is ordained a Deacon he may not remarry. End of story. The wife's of permanent deacons make no such commitment and can remarry if their husband dies.
"I don’t understand what she was hoping for in applying for deacon training.. to be trained and never ordained because it’s not possible? That sounds like a waste of time & resources."
Why? I think this training would be very valuable for people not seeking ordination, particularly the wives of prospective deacons. Just has many lay people have benefited from an M.Div. education.
Possibly. The court wasn't ruling against the bishop refusing to *ordain* the woman, only against him refusing to allow her into the classes for deacons and deacons' wives. Clearly the purpose of the class was not something the court considered relevant.
The fact that the wives of candidates typically attend classes probably muddles this a bit, but are there single sex schools in Belgium, including post-secondary? I would be surprised if there weren't.
(I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything if a court is already prejudiced, but I did wonder.)
The part that is a bit unclear to me. Does she just want to do the Deacon formation training like a wife would with the understanding that she can not be a ordained a Deacon? Or she wants into the deacon formation to become an ordained Deacon? Because parts of the article read like the former rather than the ladder.
> “Women in the Church are still not fully appreciated and do not get the chance to take their rightful place,” she wrote.
I don't know what people imagine my rightful place is (I am a white middle class woman so perhaps it is the same as in the Flannery O'Connor story with the very clean hogs on a concrete pad), but what it primarily reminds me of is: What were you talking about along the way?
If you like Flannery O’Conner and bluegrass music, check out The Hillbilly Thomists if you haven’t already. A group of Dominican friars who make excellent, faith-filled, Flannery-citing, theologically on-point Americana tunes. So good.
Sort of like those Catholics who refused to condemn Capt. Dreyfus didn't consider that their efforts would be applauded by people who want to break from the Church.
--> This does not compute. Maybe I'm simply not understanding it, but how could the court decide that Dusauchoit should have been admitted as a suitable candidate if the court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide?
As I understand it, the court ruled that the Church was wrong to deny Dusauchoit's application on the basis that she was a woman, but it wouldn't rule on the general question of whether a candidate was suitable to be admitted to the course. I don't if that makes sense...
Thanks for trying to re-explain it to me. But, I'm still not getting it. The court doesn't make sense. It's saying that the court cannot rule on the question of suitability for candidacy. When the Church says that women are not suitable candidates because women cannot be ordained, then the court says, No, that's not a sufficient reason for suitability. Ergo, the court is actually ruling about suitability.
I willing to admit that I might be too dense to understand this one, but I don't think there is a way to make it make sense. But, thanks for trying anyway.
Maybe an analogous situation: a US court might say "We can't say 'Harvard must admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie', but we can say 'Harvard isn't allowed to admit or not admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie because of his race'
I understand your analogy. It makes sense. But, that's not how this Belgian situation reads to me. However, I'll just chalk it up to one more of life's mysteries that will be revealed to me at the end of time (the Lord knows there are a lot of them).
Yes, in Belgium, Catholic priests and other recognized religious ministers, including those from Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities, are paid by the state. This arrangement is part of a broader framework in which the Belgian government provides financial support to recognized religions. This support includes salaries for clergy members and funding for religious activities and buildings. The system is rooted in the Belgian constitution, which ensures freedom of religion and provides for state support of recognized religious groups.
I think you are assuming the program in the United States exactly matches the Belgian program. Though even if that were true, many US programs include the wives of deacon candidates.
If the program receives public support from the State as an educational program, the case doesn't seem too far fetched.
Interesting. The Court (at least in this translation --> English) uses the term, "training course" while I suspect the truth is closer to Mr. Coppen's term, "diaconal formation program." The former could refer to course work (something like a Master's degree) while the latter (formation) is much more than just "training" or course work. Seems like an important distinction that I think is getting lost in the larger discussion happening out there.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that if this is a taxpayer funded program, that Catholics who would benefit from the program but not be ordained should be allowed to receive this education.
I read elsewhere that the Belgian government pays clergy’s salaries. So this might be a case of the state trying to bring the Church under its thumb.
Aha. If that's true, the Church is under the government's thumb by mutual consent. Not good.
The enemy yet again wants to convince us that who we are is not good enough and encourages us to cast off what we are gifted in search of something else. Lies.
This was a very well written article.
But the whole topic and subject is just exhausting. The church has repeatedly said “no” to women deacons. I don’t understand what she was hoping for in applying for deacon training.. to be trained and never ordained because it’s not possible? That sounds like a waste of time & resources.
From permanent deacons at my childhood suburban parish, it’s my understanding that a man admitted to the permanent Diaconate would impact his wife too. I vaguely recall that the wife can’t remarry if she survives her permanent deacon husband. (I could be mistaken however.) But regardless, his commitment to the church would impact his family too, so the wife attending things makes sense.
Re remarriage, I believe it is the opposite- the deacon, if he is widowed, cannot remarry, as those in holy orders cannot marry. I don’t believe it goes the other way. However, this still does really affect the wife in her/the couple’s decision making, especially if there are young children involved- if the man cannot remarry if he is widowed, what is the plan for the family?
I think you’re right that the practicals you mention are the reasons most permanent deacons are older with no children at home. But I know of some exceptions and I don’t believe it’s a rule!
We have a man in diaconate formation in my parish who has a young family (the oldest of his 3 children is probably 12ish). And he's a full-time orthodontist. But, he's not the norm for candidates.
I know of one who had a young child, although she's older now. You'd expect that sort of thing to happen occasionally even with deacons in their 50s who are not continent and who abide by Church teaching regarding openness to children. Late pregnancies happen.
Oh, I didn't think you sounded critical at all! I was actually just thinking that while part of the motive for continent deacons was the high regard the Church placed on it, part of it could easily also have been that that is the only moral way to ensure you have no more children, even once you're older. The population skew makes good practical sense for most people.
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.
If a man is ordained a Deacon he may not remarry. End of story. The wife's of permanent deacons make no such commitment and can remarry if their husband dies.
Well, he can get permission from his Bishop to remarry, but he can no longer act as a deacon. It happened here.
"I don’t understand what she was hoping for in applying for deacon training.. to be trained and never ordained because it’s not possible? That sounds like a waste of time & resources."
Why? I think this training would be very valuable for people not seeking ordination, particularly the wives of prospective deacons. Just has many lay people have benefited from an M.Div. education.
Sometimes one thinks that the vast emptiness of European exChristendom is just God clearing the way for His people to take possession of.
I wonder if the same ruling applies to other religions?
Possibly. The court wasn't ruling against the bishop refusing to *ordain* the woman, only against him refusing to allow her into the classes for deacons and deacons' wives. Clearly the purpose of the class was not something the court considered relevant.
The fact that the wives of candidates typically attend classes probably muddles this a bit, but are there single sex schools in Belgium, including post-secondary? I would be surprised if there weren't.
(I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything if a court is already prejudiced, but I did wonder.)
The part that is a bit unclear to me. Does she just want to do the Deacon formation training like a wife would with the understanding that she can not be a ordained a Deacon? Or she wants into the deacon formation to become an ordained Deacon? Because parts of the article read like the former rather than the ladder.
From what I've read, I think she wants to do the training but would not expect to be ordained as a deacon at the end of it.
By the same logic, she should be admitted to seminary.
I believe in Belgium there are people not seeking ordination in the theological schools.
> “Women in the Church are still not fully appreciated and do not get the chance to take their rightful place,” she wrote.
I don't know what people imagine my rightful place is (I am a white middle class woman so perhaps it is the same as in the Flannery O'Connor story with the very clean hogs on a concrete pad), but what it primarily reminds me of is: What were you talking about along the way?
If you like Flannery O’Conner and bluegrass music, check out The Hillbilly Thomists if you haven’t already. A group of Dominican friars who make excellent, faith-filled, Flannery-citing, theologically on-point Americana tunes. So good.
--> So, the corollary would be that women cannot be excluded from seminary classes for priestly formation either, I guess.
"...from the determination not to break with the Church, I decided to enroll in the deacon training program.”
--> Not to break with the Church, she says; but, did she consider that her efforts might be applauded by people who want break the Church?
// did she consider that her efforts might be applauded by people who want break the Church? //
It sounds as though that would not likely cause her to lose sleep. Collateral damage.
Sort of like those Catholics who refused to condemn Capt. Dreyfus didn't consider that their efforts would be applauded by people who want to break from the Church.
"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮. '𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴,' 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. '𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨.'"
--> This does not compute. Maybe I'm simply not understanding it, but how could the court decide that Dusauchoit should have been admitted as a suitable candidate if the court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide?
As I understand it, the court ruled that the Church was wrong to deny Dusauchoit's application on the basis that she was a woman, but it wouldn't rule on the general question of whether a candidate was suitable to be admitted to the course. I don't if that makes sense...
Thanks for trying to re-explain it to me. But, I'm still not getting it. The court doesn't make sense. It's saying that the court cannot rule on the question of suitability for candidacy. When the Church says that women are not suitable candidates because women cannot be ordained, then the court says, No, that's not a sufficient reason for suitability. Ergo, the court is actually ruling about suitability.
I willing to admit that I might be too dense to understand this one, but I don't think there is a way to make it make sense. But, thanks for trying anyway.
Maybe an analogous situation: a US court might say "We can't say 'Harvard must admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie', but we can say 'Harvard isn't allowed to admit or not admit John Doe from Poughkeepsie because of his race'
I understand your analogy. It makes sense. But, that's not how this Belgian situation reads to me. However, I'll just chalk it up to one more of life's mysteries that will be revealed to me at the end of time (the Lord knows there are a lot of them).
This (from ChatGPT) may help explain things:
Yes, in Belgium, Catholic priests and other recognized religious ministers, including those from Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, and Muslim communities, are paid by the state. This arrangement is part of a broader framework in which the Belgian government provides financial support to recognized religions. This support includes salaries for clergy members and funding for religious activities and buildings. The system is rooted in the Belgian constitution, which ensures freedom of religion and provides for state support of recognized religious groups.
// I don't if that makes sense... //
It must make sense to them. Therefore, since they're law experts certified to decide what their law means, they're right. Logic is easy.
She is not a candidate for ordination, she is a student.
I get that. However, there are no students, in general; the people admitted to the program are admitted because they are candidates for ordination.
So, it starts like this:
1. Is this person a candidate for ordination to the diaconate?
2. If yes, then this person needs to be a student in these formation classes. If no, then this person cannot be a student.
So the whole business of being a student *depends* on being a candidate in the first place. Not the other way around.
I think you are assuming the program in the United States exactly matches the Belgian program. Though even if that were true, many US programs include the wives of deacon candidates.
If the program receives public support from the State as an educational program, the case doesn't seem too far fetched.
Interesting. The Court (at least in this translation --> English) uses the term, "training course" while I suspect the truth is closer to Mr. Coppen's term, "diaconal formation program." The former could refer to course work (something like a Master's degree) while the latter (formation) is much more than just "training" or course work. Seems like an important distinction that I think is getting lost in the larger discussion happening out there.
Can I sue because they wouldn't allow me (a married man) to go to seminary??
If you're Belgian, go for it.
Catholic Theological schools in Belgium already have married men as students
Expect much more of this in the near future. In the secular, near-secular, and egalitarian mind, Catholics are *so* wrong in *so* many ways.
I've not read this, but it's very much on topic:
https://wherepeteris.com/francis-and-benedicts-thoughts-on-a-smaller-purer-church/#:~:text=Pope%20Benedict%20was%20a%20prophet,Church%20of%20the%20little%20ones.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that if this is a taxpayer funded program, that Catholics who would benefit from the program but not be ordained should be allowed to receive this education.