[jrny]

I think you, along with everyone here, understands what I mean by orthodoxy. In fact, orthodoxy is an objective term, and that is what I imply by my statement. You are lucky that the deacons you know are better fit to serve. Some of use are not that fortunate.

In case you didn't understand the first time...I said "in my experience". I cannot speak for others in this regard, but you seem to assume I did.

[Dominick]

I think you, along with everyone here, understands what I mean by orthodoxy.

In objective reality orthodoxy means withing Church norms and canon law. Within integrist circles thats not exactly what it means. To them. it implies something else, and if a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon is outside Church Law or Dogma, then you have a case to present objectively. To Catholic Traditionalists, orthodox means actually in union with Rome, and acting as such, to the Integrist, it can mean anything under the sun.

A Deacon is a person who has received Holy Orders, by a Bishop, and must be respected as such, even if you have a problem with the man. In other words, always respect the Cloth, and sometimes the man.

I doubt you meant the former, by your language, you meant the latter. Out of charity, lets assume you meant the latter. If you see come abuse, you should and in my experience I would act. Saying that Deacons act outside Church law as a normal practice is a problem, because you should then appeal to competent authorities, rather than post about it here.

I cannot speak for others in this regard, but you seem to assume I did.

Nothing in my previous posts should be construed as a personal attack. I point out the latter part of my definition of the term orthodoxy, is undefined. If you mean they act outside Church law, I put it to you, by not filing a case, you do the orthodox and lawful Deacons a disservice.