[quote="Lapey, post:7, topic:234137"]
The thread where this was discussed was a few weeks ago and I participated in it, I guess I kind of derailed it or participated in its demise. It was based on an article written by a guy, can't remember his name, stating that Canon Law states that to enter Holy Orders a vow of "perfect continence" must be taken by the candidate, whether it is the diaconate or priesthood. This would in fact mean that the married candidate would have to vow a life of abstinence to enter Holy Orders as a deacon, even though he has been married for years.
This would be and is contrary to Church teaching because of what you stated earlier. A married man becomes a deacon after he is a married man. The Church does not remove the sacrament of matrimony when she ordains a married man to the diaconate; he is still married. The married state of life involves the marital embrace, sex.:)
I hate to get back into it with Deacon Gary, but here goes:
First, it was written by Dr. Edward Peters, a very respected Canon Lawyer who is a consultant to the Vatican. And the arguments he raised were never responded to substantially; rather, it was just a series of red herrings. You can see this if you go to the two articles on Deacon Bill Ditewig's blog in which Dr. Peters and I debated it. It got to the point where people just stopped responding - including Deacon Ditewig, after failing to respond to the substance of the points we were making. Mostly, they were red herrings, and when they ran out of them, they stopped arguing.
Second, tell us, Deacon, how can it be contrary to the teaching of the Church when for centuries, the only married men who were allowed to be ordained in the Church were required to abstain perpetually from sex with their wives? Remember, no red herrings, please.