Addressing questions on clerical continence requires attention to Holy Orders as well as to Matrimony

Another observation from the fray.

Most of the (substantive) comments offered against my thesis concerning clerical continence focus on various aspects of Marriage. That’s understandable, in that we are talking, after all, about married deacons and priests. Now, after 25 years of marriage, and 10 years in tribunal work, and 10 more years of teaching and writing about, inter alia, Christian marriage and marriage canon law, I see how much more I still have to learn the Great Mystery that is Matrimony! I appreciate the kind efforts of some to make sure that I understand what marriage is all about.

But this exclusive discussion of marriage in regard to married deacons and priests misses the fact that we are, obviously, talking about married deacons and priests, in other words, that one must consider the doctrine, theology, and canon law of holy Orders in order to understand this issue, and not just continue to ruminate on Marriage. Virtually no one (besides me, and in places Dcn. Ditewig) seems to be talking at any length about the demands that holy Orders makes upon men (and, if they are married, upon their wives). But folks, I gotta say, that's rather like trying to win the Tour de France on a unicycle. One might be moving, but one is not going to get very far.

Again I say, read the article. I discuss canonical issues related to holy Orders at length.