tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post4984041870972641376..comments2023-12-16T16:17:43.886+00:00Comments on Fr Ray Blake's Blog: Clergy and SexFr Ray Blakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-80230968093094673042011-01-28T12:27:45.989+00:002011-01-28T12:27:45.989+00:00I think there is a misunderstanding of the Lateran...I think there is a misunderstanding of the Lateran II thing.<br /><br />It says "where bishops... professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives". These are people who have either contracted the 'impediment of holy orders' or taken a vow of celibacy. See in the next sentence "For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law."<br /><br />The idea here is not some impurity natural to marriage (which, yes, is not part of authentic Catholicism) -- the impurity in this decree comes from a "marriage" attempted *against a previous vow of celibacy* (or impediment).abiologistforlifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-69581746311117487352011-01-23T04:12:39.000+00:002011-01-23T04:12:39.000+00:00Richard, thank you -- I present the first part of ...Richard, thank you -- I present the first part of my dissertation next month in Leuven (http://www.law.kuleuven.be/canon_law/doctoral_research) and hope to finish later in the year. As far as I am concerned, Fr Cochini and Fr Heid have settled the debate, but it is difficult to get people to read either book. In the meantime I posted this:<br /><br />http://casasantalidia.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-clerical-continence.htmlMagdalen Rossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-69786414485722946742011-01-21T13:00:33.908+00:002011-01-21T13:00:33.908+00:00The canon implies that even the marital intercours...The canon implies that even the marital intercourse of clergy cannot propagate "that purity pleasing to God." It is therefore motivated not by a concept of sacrifice, but by one of avoiding impurity.<br /><br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-29168606330009338202011-01-21T11:52:51.940+00:002011-01-21T11:52:51.940+00:00@ +Wolsey,
"The motive, as can clearly be se...@ +Wolsey,<br /><br />"The motive, as can clearly be seen, is the implied assertion that marriage involved sexual impurity."<br /><br />Does it? Or does it imply detachment is a good thing and disobedience to the Church's canons is a bad thing.Gary Hardrakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-39120164010154922022011-01-21T11:28:50.529+00:002011-01-21T11:28:50.529+00:00Augustine,
You're certainly on the right trac...Augustine,<br /><br />You're certainly on the right track, except for one point.<br /><br />I can't find the relevant canon (no 7 of Lateran II) on the net in Latin, so here it is in English:<br /><br />"7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour."<br /><br />It is contextually clear that "continence" is being taken as "celibacy", otherwise there would be no talk of married clergy being separated from their wives. The motive, as can clearly be seen, is the implied assertion that marriage involved sexual impurity. Such an assertion, whether express or implied, is contrary to the faith.<br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-61220965500021284402011-01-21T02:27:19.410+00:002011-01-21T02:27:19.410+00:00What's at the root of this 'traditional...What's at the root of this 'traditional' rule?<br /><br />(1) Is it that sex is inherently unclean? No, that can't be true, it's not what Catholicism teaches.<br /><br />(2) Is it that under the Law, the priests of the Temple cult were not allowed to have sex? Well, Christians are not bound by that Law.<br /><br />(3) Is it that sex somehow inhibits a cleric's function as a pastor or sacramental minister? I don't see how that could be the case, unless you argue that sex inhibits ones function as a doctor, or a teacher, or a lawyer.<br /><br /><br /><br />Lex malla lex nulla. I can't see any good coming from banning married clergy from sleeping with their wives. I cannot see anything wrong with allowing them too.<br /><br />Our Church believes in Natural Law and Revealed dogma. Neither says that a cleric may not sleep with his wife.Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874922973165634505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-77949077988087897352011-01-20T23:24:10.935+00:002011-01-20T23:24:10.935+00:00It's worth mentioning that Cholij has recanted...It's worth mentioning that Cholij has recanted - and sought laicisation - and married!<br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-20778950134904965932011-01-20T21:57:45.390+00:002011-01-20T21:57:45.390+00:00Father G.B.,
It's a matter of the principle o...Father G.B.,<br /><br />It's a matter of the principle of contradiction. Cholij et alii cannot stand with Vogels - one side either accurately surveys the theological and canonical issues or the other does. I maintain Vogels accurately, but in a summary way, relates the true apostolic traditions.<br /><br />And actually, when St Hilary of Poitiers, married bishop and church father talks of his desire to sire many children, it's impossible to reconcile his position with an alleged apostolic law of clerical continence. (And it's been years since I've actually read the source - it could have been in Migne). St H. is not the only evidence (and yes, I know what St Jerome and Tertullian said on the topic - but they changed their mind, and their later position in favour of contience or even celibacy is not to be trusted - Tertullian become a notorious rigourist, as, it appears, under the influence of Popes Damasus and/or Siricius, did St Jerome).<br /><br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-63976698495569909992011-01-20T14:48:45.816+00:002011-01-20T14:48:45.816+00:00Wolsey - It's not legalistic positivism to sim...Wolsey - It's not legalistic positivism to simply state the law.<br /><br />Terry - doesn't matter - canon 33#1 says the law stays the law<br /><br />Augustine - it's deplorable it should have got this far - but it's never too late for all this to get resolved. Whichever way the Church decides to remedy this - it won't be any problem to those already ordained.<br /><br />Fr Ray - You're scaring me a little bit with your 'shoot the messenger' attitude. Legally continence only means one thing - we can't run away from it and hey? We're Catholics - we wouldn't want to run from it anyway - we'd never be able to sleep at night or look ourselves in the mirror again.<br /><br />So what? We screwed up: We fix it.<br /><br />But pretending it can't possibly be that way because it's awkward, difficult, complicated and embarrassing ?<br />That's not the Catholic way.On the side of the angelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558623489507006790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-59921155620523634832011-01-20T11:40:15.493+00:002011-01-20T11:40:15.493+00:00Fr Gabriel,
I am sure that is a reasonable interpr...Fr Gabriel,<br />I am sure that is a reasonable interpretation of Peters' intention.Fr Ray Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-64032777555920236092011-01-20T11:25:56.559+00:002011-01-20T11:25:56.559+00:00Fr Ray.
I dont think anyone is misleading anybody...Fr Ray. <br />I dont think anyone is misleading anybody. The way I look at this situation is this. It would appear that the intention of the Church was to ordain married men to the Diaconate and allow Married Anglican clegymen enter the Priesthood.It appears that the Church also allows conjugal rights to these men.<br />However if Dr Peters is correct that intention was not put into law.There is a difference between the law and the intention of the Church.Dr Peters should not be vilified for showing this but thank for pointing out a fault.<br />The fault should be corrected. It could be that the fault was caused by sloppy redactors. Or the Church may need to clarfy that Continence and celibacy are one and the same obligation.<br /><br />Deacon Augustine, <br />I could be wrong but you seem to imply I am negative towards the introduction of the P.D into Ireland. I am not, when Our Bishop first announced it I asked a simple question, What took you so long? I woul like to see all the ministries in Parishes.<br /><br />Wosley,<br />One can easily dismiss Vogel in the same manner you have dismissed Cholij and Conchini. The question of continence in Apostolic times is not as settled as you think. It has been debated by historians for a long time and will continue to be debated for a long time.<br />Richard <br />Magdalen Ross is AmericanFr. Gabriel Burke C.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16781282465881743182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-43630217085817807952011-01-20T08:48:04.639+00:002011-01-20T08:48:04.639+00:00Deacon Augustine,
My sympathies!
Yes, either the C...Deacon Augustine,<br />My sympathies!<br />Yes, either the Church: recent Popes, bishops etc have mislead married clergy or Dr Peters is doing so, my money is on the latter. I think it is wicked.<br /><br />In fact if he were right, which I am convinced he is not, there would surely be in the ordination of married clergy a case of "lack of due discretion" which in the case of marriage which would be good cause for annulment.Fr Ray Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05584140126211527252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-1703185535148625722011-01-20T07:40:17.440+00:002011-01-20T07:40:17.440+00:00On the side of the angels, you win the prize in le...On the side of the angels, you win the prize in legal positivism!<br /><br />Of course, the fundamental assumption common to you and so many others, that continence within clerical marriage is of apostolic origin lacks any basis in reality.<br /><br />Why not do some research in Migne??<br /><br />Or, if you lack time, get Vogels.<br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-49684817834609475462011-01-20T01:25:07.256+00:002011-01-20T01:25:07.256+00:00on the side of angels.
Yes it is me. I did surviv...on the side of angels. <br />Yes it is me. I did survive but it took ten years to be ordained. <br /><br />I have read the Dr Peters blog.Fr. Gabriel Burke C.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16781282465881743182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-90894895813554942522011-01-20T00:47:29.489+00:002011-01-20T00:47:29.489+00:00Fr. Ray, I think I would go further than using the...Fr. Ray, I think I would go further than using the term "dangerous" to describe Edward Peter's speculations on Canon 277 section 1. To put forward his theory in such a public forum as the internet is not only "dangerous" it is down right "cruel" and will inevitably provoke crises of conscience in those of us who actually do give a damn what the Church's law is. (Let us not mention, for the moment, those who find it hard to believe that the Magisterium, from the Pope down, can teach one thing - even issuing a Ratio fundamentalis, mentioning nothing about perpetual continence, signed by the Prefects of 4 Vatican Congregations - while the CIC apparently legislates the opposite).<br /><br />Peters may not have intended any cruelty, or indeed to impugn the credibility of Holy Mother Church and the tweedle-dum legislator who believed that words meant whatever he wanted them to mean, but we all know which road is paved with good intentions....?<br /><br />I became aware of Peters' paper some months ago and have sought canonical opinion on it and the best that I have been able to glean so far is that "...it's not likely to go anywhere." <br /><br />But the problem is that this is not just some academic discussion balanced on a scale of probabilities concerning a legislator's intent. For some of us the law here touches our lives most profoundly. It's all very well for Peters to glibly say that it would not affect those of us who were ordained in good faith (or under false pretenses, depending on one's sanguinity at any given moment), but once you know a thing you can't unknow it at will. A seed of doubt is sown; a perfectly happy Catholic marriage suddenly becomes an occasion of possible sacrilege; perhaps the miscarried child was the penalty for a sacrilegious conception.... All very irrational and untrue, I know, but its surprising what tricks your mind can play on you when you discover that what you thought was good was actually objectively evil (possibly).<br /><br />Now that Peters has opened Pandora's box so publicly, however, it behooves him to follow this through to resolution as a matter of justice towards all those whom this issue affects directly as well as their congregations. Paul Priest is right, this is an unholy mess and it should not be left hanging in the ether - especially as the advent of the Ordinariates will now bring the question under greater scrutiny.<br /><br />If perpetual continence is imposed on future ordinands then at least Fr. Burke need have no concerns about the permanent diaconate being established in Ireland. There won't be one. The refrain of "My wife won't let me!" will become the stumbling block of every vocations director. The same would go for convert clergy propping up the moribund vocations drives in the dioceses of England & Wales.<br /><br />Being of Evangelical origins I had been considering transferring my incardination to the Ordinariate anyway. It seems like there may be a very good canonical reason to do so as well. (N.B. Fr. Boyle it is a derogation from 277 #1 rather than a dispensation.)Deacon Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03549825303646357455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-70935478105841151692011-01-19T20:32:05.700+00:002011-01-19T20:32:05.700+00:00... yes because the entire Eastern Church is "...... yes because the entire Eastern Church is "distasteful".Mercuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15864822194727243615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-7137200174001644122011-01-19T19:44:03.887+00:002011-01-19T19:44:03.887+00:00There is a post on the Sioux City Deacon Formation...There is a post on the Sioux City Deacon Formation blog which I think gets straight to the point in answering Edward Peters: <a href="http://siouxcitydeacon.blogspot.com/2011/01/diaconal-continence-and-canon-277.html" rel="nofollow">Diaconal Continence and Canon 277 - An Inconsequential Response</a>.The Flying Dutchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10057552757013226176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-72188519015869995472011-01-19T19:10:29.430+00:002011-01-19T19:10:29.430+00:00Clergy and Sex
Distasteful to even think about.Clergy and Sex<br />Distasteful to even think about.Ma Tuckernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-23689616389437342142011-01-19T15:57:14.851+00:002011-01-19T15:57:14.851+00:00Fr Gabriel- are you my old sparring partner from M...Fr Gabriel- are you my old sparring partner from Mater Dei ['87-8] ? Sitting in the back row enduring the purgatory of NuChurch ; theologically eviscerating Dermot Lane's anti-Christology and Sister Bernard's 'symbol' and the culture of death travesties of 'Loman' [McCoy] Catholicism, laughing along at Eltin Griffin, incongruous at [+]Donal Murray's ramblings on spirituality? Wondering from what planet Julie Zeoli was dropped off from?<br /><br />Are you really a fellow survivor from the nadir of priestly training engulfed in seminary heterodoxy?<br /><br />If you read Dr Edward Peter's blog <br />it will provide all manner of resources and information to clarify the situation.<br />It's not good news!On the side of the angelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558623489507006790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-60901170278565923932011-01-19T14:06:32.161+00:002011-01-19T14:06:32.161+00:00Is the debate not merely an academic debate: wheth...Is the debate not merely an academic debate: whether the formal statements of Canon Law adequately describe what is licit or not licit for a married man who is a permanent deacon?<br /><br />In addition to the two statements of Pope John Paul II quoted above, it might be of interest to look at an address by J. Francis Cardinal Stafford, then President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity on February 19, 2000 <br /><br />It was entitled "The Ideal Family of the Permanent Deacon". It is on the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19022000_idf_en.html<br /><br />It makes it quite clear that there is no requirement of continence on the part of the married permanent deacon and his wife except that "deacons must observe conjugal chastity (Humanae Vitae,21-22)." The first section of the address is entitled "The Deacon as Ideal Husband" and is worth reading in full<br /><br />Leaving aside its relevance to the debate begun by Dr Peters it is well worth reading for its own sake as regards what is meant by Christian marriage.<br /><br />In Part 2 he also suggestes 11 rules for the Deacon`s Rule of Life which make it quite clear why the consent of the spouse is required for her husband to become a Deacon. The office of Deacon requires the commitment of his wife and children as well as their support in all aspects of their lives.terryhttp://www.idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-13087792743222271452011-01-19T13:26:52.973+00:002011-01-19T13:26:52.973+00:00Fr Ray ,
I write this as neither an American nor a...Fr Ray ,<br />I write this as neither an American nor an Englishman. As I Irishman I do not have an Anglo- Saxon mindset especially in the area of law.<br />As you maybe aware we in Ireland are only now introducing the Diaconate. It has been the topic in some clerical circles. One of the areas hotly disputed has been this very question as to whether a married man may enjoy conjugal rights after ordination.<br />The old Catholic Encyclopedia gives a definition which rules out any sexual acts even licit ones in Marriage. Stravinskas' new one gives a definition similar to yours.<br />However the code is expressed as "obsserving perfect and perpetual continence" perfect continence has always had the meaning of complete abstention.Until the new code sex by a cleric was a sacrilege even by a married man with his wife. Therefore the question has to be asked, have Deacons and former Anglican clergymen received a dispensation from perfect continence?<br />If they have been dispensed, Why this breach with tradition?Fr. Gabriel Burke C.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16781282465881743182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-27053060851472499622011-01-19T13:24:16.584+00:002011-01-19T13:24:16.584+00:00Anonymous.
Won't work I'm afraid [theolog...Anonymous.<br /><br />Won't work I'm afraid [theological recourse sets no precedent until it's permitted to]: The law states one thing:We're engaging in illegal activities and deeply scandalising the dignity of those involved.<br /><br />But it's happened - and someone's got to sort it - not pretend it doesn't exist.On the side of the angelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558623489507006790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-14495289166581579172011-01-19T08:41:30.810+00:002011-01-19T08:41:30.810+00:00There's more to it than canon law, there is al...There's more to it than canon law, there is also theology.<br /><br />Forget authors like Cholij and Conchini. Have a look at Heinz J. Vogels "Celibacy - Gift or Law?", and Dr A. Dragani's article: http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm.<br /><br />There is sufficient patristic evidence of the fact that married clerics were not required to abstain from sex, no matter what St Jerome and Tertullian thought when they revised their earlier position against clerical continence in marriage.<br /><br />Finally, the answer to Mercury's question is that so many of the saints in question, such as St Jerome, St Peter Damian - to name a mere couple - were heavily influenced by neo-platonism. Whenever there's an outbreak of that tendency, some clergy become rabidly anti-marriage. One tends to come across it in the traditionalist movement, which is no surprise, seeing that the last major infestation of neo-platonism began with the renaissance and intensified in the church at about the time of the counter-reformation, no doubt in reaction to protestantism.<br /><br />+ WolseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-61665496364625315052011-01-19T02:28:33.381+00:002011-01-19T02:28:33.381+00:00Dear Father Ray
Lots of references to check up in ...Dear Father Ray<br />Lots of references to check up in the comments and I'll try to do that. Peters addresses the case of those who have entered the diaconate and married priesthood in good faith: that they should be assured that they may continue to enjoy relations with their wives. Academic discourse must surely be permitted. Note that Peters' article was published way back in 2005. Cochini's book was published by Ignatius in 1990. This is not a new debate. And something, as you rightly say, the Church must resolve one way or the other. In the meantime, you and I and all are free to enquire responsibly what is, in fact, the Church's tradition. What is the basis for you and me being required to be continent? Why in the East are bishops required to be continent and, indeed, celibate? There is absolutely no itention of upsetting those who have been properly dispensed from the requirement of celibacy. Indeed, Anglicanorum coetibus refers to a dispensation from Canon 277 #1 which appears to include from the obligation to perpetual and permanent continence for those married men whom the Ordinary wishes to accept for training for the priesthood. As for submitting a dubium, I am told the chances of getting an answer are next to nil.Father John Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10581732723849634398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31069882.post-57736906393518754952011-01-19T01:19:46.279+00:002011-01-19T01:19:46.279+00:00I don't think that Dr. Peters puts people in b...I don't think that Dr. Peters puts people in bad faith: he acknowledges that many men have entered the permanent diaconate in ignorance -- through no fault of their own -- of the requirement of perpetual continence. But he makes the point that the effect this guiltless ignorance has on the status of particular individuals is unrelated to the law's objective requirements. As a civil lawyer (not a canon lawyer) I must say this sounds reasonable to me.<br /><br />I understand Dr. Peters to be saying that the law of the Church requires perpetual continence on the part of clerics, and that that law has not been abrogated. He does explicitly call for reasonable accommodations for men who received holy orders without being fully informed of the requirements of their state. He also points out that the change in the husband's state does not take away the wife's acquired right to conjugal relations within the marriage. But how the Church copes with these innocently ignorant individuals is a separate issue from how the Church should deal with future candidates for the permanent diaconate.Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.com