A number of people asked me to keep them informed of my writings in this area; an email list that I developed to do to just that was lost in June, however, and I have recovered only some of the addresses. If you would like your name added to the new update list, please drop me a note!

Recent Miscellanea

Four Options

regarding continence and married clergy

 in the West

updated 1 feb 2011

Edward Peters,

“Diaconal categories and clerical celibacy”,

Chicago Studies

49 (2010) 110-116.

Some other posts

Some thoughts

occasioned by Dcn. Ditewig's latest post

26 Jan 2011

My article “Diaconal Categories and Clerical Celibacy” is now

available on-line

25 Jan 2011

Why "Anglicanorum coetibus" does not control one's reading of Canon 277

25 Jan 2011

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

19 Jan 2011

Debating complex points

of law is hard enough;

having to repudiate false quotations is too much

18 Jan 2011

Let's avoid

“consequence-driven analysis”

18 Jan 2011

The difference between personal status and the objective requirements

of law

18 Jan 2011

Some thoughts on Dcn. Ditewig's comments on diaconal continence

17 Jan 2011

Lawler, A canonical bombshell, 17 Jan 2011

Why Canon 277 § 3 does not allow bishops to exempt clerics from the obligation

of continence

17 Jan 2011

Deacon Keith Fournier

17 Jan 2011

Canon 277 and clerical continence in the

Roman Church

15 Jan 2011

Some blogs wherein

I have posted comments

(alphabetical by blog)

American Papist I (2)

American Papist II (-)

Anchoress (3)

Deacon's Bench I (-)

Deacon's Bench II (7)

Deacon's Bench III (2)

Deacon's Bench IV (3)

Deacon's Bench V (4)

Deacons Today I (6)

Deacons Today II (18)

Nat. Cath. Reporter (1)

Sioux City Deacon (4)

St. Louis Catholic (4*)

   * My four reply posts are no longer visible at St. Louis Catholic. In fact, all that remains there last I checked is the original "logical fallacy" claim made against me, allegedly penned by a canon lawyer who would not admit publicly to his/her remarks. Pity. I am actually getting questions from people who wonder whether I've seen the SLC post and whether I plan to reply! In any case, as I had pointed out at SLC, I responded to the "logical fallacy" argument on-line more than two years ago and in other threads more recently. Might I suggest trying the thread at Deacons Today II where inconvenient replies from those whose views are publicly challenged don't seem to disappear.

Vox Nova (12)

WDTPRS (3)

Other

Fr. John Boyle agrees with my reading of Canon 277 and adds some good observations of his own.

RomeReports.com

8 March 2010

Conference News

(watch for some

journalistic imprecisions

and translation anomalies, but good report overall)

My brief reply to comments on Catholic Answers Forum, no. 69, 23 Feb 2009.

Extended responses to

Dcn. Pilger's comments & brief follow-up, 19 Feb 2009

My brief reply to posts

on The Deacon's Bench, dated 16 Feb 2009.

Canon Law Articles & Reviews

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   I first posted reference to my Studia Canonica (2005) article on Canon 277 and clerical continence after it was brought up in a debate in Homiletic and Pastoral Review. Since that time I have received many requests for copies of the Studia article, to which requests I replied as best I could. Now, with the kind permission of the editors at Studia, I can make a searchable PDF version of the article available, above.

   A few points should be made.

   1. The thesis of my Studia article (namely, that all clerics in the West, even those married, are canonically obligated to observe perfect and perpetual continence) has, for obvious reasons, provoked commentary, some of it public, some of it private, some of it by professionals, some of it by amateurs. I cannot monitor, let alone respond to, all discussions of this topic, and must therefore let the arguments made in Studia stand or fall on their own merits. But I will say this much: I believe that my interpretation of the clerical obligation of continence as set out chiefly in Canon 277 § 1 is persuasive; nothing I have seen over the last five years has caused me to think otherwise.

   2. In the Studia article I expressed no position in regard to the impact of Canon 277 on married priests in the Roman Church (see fn. 1 thereof). I will say now, however, that I think (and frankly, have always thought) that the arguments on clerical continence offered regarding deacons apply a fortiori to priests in the West.

   3. As a middle-aged scholar of the early 21^st century, I am old enough to remember, and to respect, the practice of proposing controversial theses in peer-reviewed professional journals where persons with relevant academic credentials and good access to important resources can competently evaluate, support, modify, or reject one’s conclusions . That is why I brought my examination of Canon 277 to an established canonical publication for consideration, and why I let it percolate there for five years. My thesis has already occasioned one doctoral dissertation (see below) and I understand that other qualified scholars are examining it now.

   At the same time, however, advances in communications technology have greatly sped up the pace of life, even in the Church, making it difficult to restrict discussions of important doctrinal and disciplinary matters to the realm of academe; some of my arguments on Canon 277 have been discussed on the internet, as indicated above, and, besides their potential impact on the permanent diaconate, they have recently become more pressing with, for example, the sudden and unlooked-for developments in regard to the Anglican communion. Offering the original Studia article here is sure to expand the pool of persons with access to it (as opposed to having only summaries of it) and requires, I think, a few extra words of caution.

   First, I wrote, obviously, for professional canonists and theologians. While I believe my writing to be understandable by any intelligent reader with a background in Catholic thought, I caution non-professionals from assuming what professionals would correctly dismiss, and from missing what professionals would take for granted. Second, the internet is a haven for people who would rather post than read, and consequently too many discuss issues without having studied them. Many of the comments and questions (whether real or rhetorical) posted about my article are expressly answered in the article (!), proof, I think, that the posters either did not understand the article, or did not even read it. Either way, I urge people to make their own study of my article and not to rely on summaries or snippets.

   Finally, the more one brings to this discussion the more one can follow and contribute to it. I suggest reading the following works (listed in reverse chronological order):

• Edward Peters, "A note on some misapplications of Presbyterorum ordinis 16", Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly 34/2 (Summer 2011) 33-35, on-line here.

• Edward Peters, "Diaconal categories and clerical celibacy", Chicago Studies 49 (2010) 110-116, on-line here.

• Anthony McLaughlin, The Obligation of Perfect and Perpetual Continence and Married Deacons in the Latin Church, Canon Law Studies no. 573 (Catholic University of America, 2010), on-line here.

• Brendan Daly, "Priestly Celibacy: the obligations of celibacy and continence for priests", Compass 43/4 (2009) 20-33, on-line here.

• Ray Ryland, "The Gift: a married priest looks at celibacy", Crisis (October 2006); Letters to the editor, with responses by Fr. Ryland, appeared in the December 2006 issue of Crisis.

• Edward Peters, “Canonical considerations on diaconal continence”,  Studia Canonica 39 (2005)147-180, available in PDF above.

• Thomas McGovern, Priestly Celibacy Today (Scepter/Four Courts/Midwest Theo. Forum, 1998) 248 pp.

• Stefan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: the beginnings of a discipline of obligatory continence for clerics in East and West, trans. M. Miller (Ignatius Press, 2000) 376 pp., from his Zölibat in der frühen Kirche: Die Anfänge einer Enthaltsamkeitsplicht für Kleriker in Ost und West (1997).

• Donald Keefe, “The Continence Required of the Restored Permanent Diaconate”, an unpublished paper in 15,000 words, 1998, (coming).

• Alfons Maria Cdl. Stickler (Austrian prelate, 1910-2007), The Case for Clerical Celibacy, trans. B. Ferme, (Ignatius Press, 1995) 106 pp., from his Seine Entwicklungsgeshichte und seine theologischen Grundlagen (1993). Excerpts from Cdl. Sticker's Case for Clerical Celibacy

• Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Gracewing, 1989) 226 pp., partially on-line here. See also, Roman Cholij, “Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church” (undated), on-line here.

• Christian Cochini, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, trans. N. Marans (Ignatius Press, 1990) 469 pp., from his Origens apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal (1981).

• J. Coppens, ed., Sacerdoce et Célibat: Études Historiques et Théologiques (Gembloux/Peeters, 1971) 752 pp., English edition, Priesthood and Celibacy (Ancora, 1972) 1023 pp.

• Filippo Liotta, La Continenza dei Chierici nel Pensiero Canonistico Classico: da Graziano a Gregorio IX (Quaderni de Studi Senesi, 1971) 401 pp. Reviews: C. Munier, Revue d’ Histoire Ecclésiastique 67 (1972) 485-489 (French); J. Brundage, Speculum 48 (1973) 376-377 (English).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Abstractus articuli: Edward Peters, “Canonical considerations on diaconal continence”, Studia Canonica 39 (2005) 147-180. Anglice. Scrutatio can. 277 demonstrat quod duae obligationes et distinctae imponuntur in clericos in Ecclesia latina: continentiam sexualem et coelibatum. Continentia sexualis autem offertur tamquam norma fundamentalis. Etsi obligatio coelibatus mitigatur pro diaconis permanentibus in Codice 1983, praesens auctor tamen non invenit pro illis relaxationem obligationis fundamentalis continentiae in canonibus. Ad hanc conclusionem tentandam, auctor examinat provisiones Codicis Pii-Benedicti in re coelibatus et continentiae clericalis, normas demanantes post Concilii finem quibus diaconatus (permanens) in occidente restituitur, et historiam legislativam 1983 Codicis dispositionum hac in re. Quas normas sustinere obligationem continentiae pro diaconis permantibus etiam uxoratis praesenti auctori persuasum est. Magna cum diligentia examinat auctor argumenta doctorum qui defendunt exercitium iurium conjugalium a diaconis permanentibus (praecipue argumenta ex can. 4) et concludat quod, non obstantibus argumentis fortasse propositis pro illis qui ordines sacros accepiunt inscientes normas legis in re continentiae obligationis, non esse satis in se statuere modificationem obligationis continentiae vindicatae in can. 277. Postremo, invitat praesens auctor ecclesiasticam auctoritatem competentem demonstrare modis canonice cogentibus obligationem continentiae ad instituendos diaconos permanendos uxoratos non applicari, vel, instruere ut Rationes studiorum in quibuslibet regionibus ad diaconos permanentes uxoratos instituendos conforment ad normas continentiae clericalis, ita ut candidati ad ordines necnon uxores suae possint iudicium bene informatum facere.

     Abstract – Analysis of c. 277 indicates that two distinct obligations are imposed on clerics in the Latin Church: sexual continence and celibacy. Continence is presented as the fundamental norm. Although the obligation of celibacy is mitigated for permament deacons, Peters finds no relaxation of the law regarding the fundamental obligation of continence for them in canon law. Testing this conclusion, Peters examines Pio-Benedictine dispositions on celibacy and continence for clerics, post-conciliar norms by which the (permanent) diaconate was restored in the West, and the legislative history of 1983 Code dispositions on the subject. He suggests that these norms maintain the obligation of continence for married permament deacons. Peters then examines various arguments by scholars that support the exercise of conjugal rights by permanent deacons (principally arguments based on c. 4) and concludes that, while these might be potentially applicable to those who received sacred orders without awareness of the requirements of law in this area, they are insufficient in themselves to establish a modification of the traditional canonical obligation of continence reasserted in c. 277. Peters invites the competent ecclesiastical authority to articulate in canonically compelling terms why the obligation of continence should not be applied to married permanent deacons, or to take the steps necessary to assure that formation programs for married permanent deacons conform to the requirement of clerical continence so that candidates for ordination and their spouses can make an informed decision. [enp trans]

     Résumé – (Anglais). Une analyse du c. 277 indique que deux obligations distinctes sont imposées aux clercs dans l’Église latine: la continence sexuelle et le célibat. La continence est présentée comme la norme fondamentale. Alors que l’obligation du célibat est mitigée pour les diacres permanents, Peters ne trouve aucun relâchement de la loi pour l’obligation fondamentale de la continence pour eux en droit canonique. Vérifiant cette conclusion, Peters examine les dispositions pio-bénédictines concernant le célibat des clercs et la continence, les normes post-conciliaires par lesquelles le diaconat (permanent) fut restauré en Occident et l’histoire législative des dispositions du Code de 1983 à ce sujet. Il suggère que ces normes maintiennent l’obligation de continence pour les diacres permanents mariés. Peters examine ensuite les quelques arguments de la part d’érudits en faveur du maintien de l’exercise des droits conjugaux par les diacres permanents (principalement des arguments fondés sur le c. 4) et conclut que, bien qu’ils soient potentiellement applicables à ceux ayant reçu les ordres sacrés sans connaître les exigencies du droit en la matière, ils sont insuffisants en soi pour entraîner une modification de l’obligation canonique traditionnelle de la continence répétée au c. 277. Peters invite l’autorité ecclésiastique compétente à articuler en des termes canoniques solides en soi pourquoi l’obligation de la continence ne devrait pas s’appliquer aux diacres permanents mariés ou prendre les moyens nécessaires pour que les programmes de formation des diacres permanents mariés soient conformes à l’exigence de continence cléricale afin que les candidats à l’ordination et leurs épouses puissent prendre une décision éclairée.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other items of interest

One piece of the picture:

The textual development of Canon 277 § 1; see Peters, "Considerations" 167-171.

adapted from E. Peters, Incrementa in Progressu 255

Summary:

S. de Populo Dei 135 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on Western clerics.

S. de Populo Dei 135 § 2. Exempts married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy, unless their wives die, whereupon they are bound to observe celibacy and continence.

1980 S. Cod. 250 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on Western clerics.

1980 S. Cod. 250 § 2. Exempts married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy even if their wives die.

1982 S. Cod. 279 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on all Western clerics, but articulates that celibacy is also a gift in its own right.

1982 S. Cod. 279 § 2. Exempts married permanent deacons from the obligations of continence and celibacy even if their wives die.

1983 CIC 277 § 1. Imposes continence and therefore (ideoque) celibacy on all Western clerics, but articulates that celibacy is a valuable gift in its own right and, just before promulgation of the Code, Pope John Paul II orders removal of what had been § 2. (The "new" § 2 of Canon 277 is derived from a different source and treats a different aspect of this issue.)

See also Brief memorandum regarding the exemption from clerical continence (c. 277) that had been proposed for married deacons. Searchable PDF scan of Communicationes 16: 174-178.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An exchange regarding what became 1983 CIC 277 § 1, from Communicationes 14 (1982) 170.

   Dicatur quod violatio perfectae continentiae de qua in § 1 secumfert peccatum sacrilegii (aliquis Pater).

   R. Hoc verum est, sed pertinet ad theologiam moralem.

   Let it be stated that the violation of the perfect continence directed by § 1 entails the sin of sacrilege (some Father).

   Response. This is true, but it is a matter for moral theology (emphasis added).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent Miscellanea

Posted from time to time, as convenience and utility suggest.

     1. Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Non latet (1858).

     “Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence” (my emphasis). Quoted by Roman Cholij, “Priesthood and celibacy according to recent Church teaching”, in Congregation for the Clergy, Priesthood: a Greater Love, a Symposium on the Thirtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Conciliar decree Prebysterorum ordinis (Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 1997) originally titled Sacerdozio: Un Amore Più Grande (1997), at 249-256, at 251, fn. 8. The original text that Cholij is translating/quoting is: Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628; also in  P. Gasparri & J. Serédi, eds., Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, in 9 vols., (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1923-1949) doc. n. 4844, VII: 372-376, at 373, as follows: "Qui germanam tradtionem de coelibatu ac continentia cleri sedulo expenderit inveniet profecto vel a primis Ecclesiae catholicae saeculis, si non generali et explicita lege, moribus saltem ac conseutudine fuisse firmatum, ut nedum Episcopi et presbyteri, sed ut clerici in sacris constituti virginitatem, vel perpetuam continentiam inviolate servarent."

     2. The Rite of Ordination of Deacons (1989) does not require married candidates to promise celibacy or continence; therefore, according to some, married deacons are not bound by celibacy or continence.

   At least three responses may be offered:

   a) The obligations of clerical continence and celibacy are canonical in nature, not liturgical, so one must look to canonical sources (such as the Code of Canon Law), and not liturgical (such as the Roman Pontifical), for their scope and application. The canonical obligation of clerical continence is set out in Canon 277 § 1 and is nowhere lifted for deacons or priests. The canonical obligation of clerical celibacy is set out in Canon 277 § 1 and is lifted for deacons in Canons 1031 § 2, 1042 n. 1, and 1050 n. 3, while that for priests can be dispensed by Rome.

   b) A formal promise of celibacy is not required from ordinands in order that the matrimonial impediment of holy Orders apply to single men upon ordination (and to married men upon the death of their wives), in accord with Canon 1087; so too, a formal promise of continence is not required from ordinands for the obligation of continence to apply to clerics upon ordination, in accord with Canons 266 § 1 and 277 § 1.

   c) The obligations of the clerical state are very many; that only a fewof of them are emphasized during the rite of ordination in no way implies that those others which are not expressly declared during the rite are somehow less binding, let alone do they become non-binding.

     3. Brief memorandum regarding the meaning of the exemption from clerical continence (c. 277) that had been proposed for married deacons. Searchable PDF scan of Communicationes 16: 174-178.

     4. Summary of my practical opinions regarding the clerical obligation of continence

     A) Regarding married men already ordained and their wives

A-1. The Roman Church has always expected clergy, even those married, to observe perfect and perpetual continence. Different theories as to the basis of this obligation have been put forward over the centuries, and different degrees of advertence to and enforcement of the obligation have occurred in the Western Church, but in the end, Rome has always held for perfect and perpetual continence among its clergy. See the historical studies listed above.

A-2. The 1983 Code of Canon Law obliges all clerics, even those married, to perfect and perpetual continence. See Canon 277 and the arguments I offer in Studia Canonica.

A-3. Precisely insofar as it is a canonical obligation, however, the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence by married clerics and their wives can only be imposed in accord with law. This means, among other things, that married clerics and their wives must have (a) been told of the obligation, (b) been formed to accept it, and (c) given adequate consent to it, in order for it to be binding on them.

A-4. Any married cleric and his wife who was not alerted about the obligation of continence (which, I venture to say, is virtually all of them) are not, at present, bound to conduct themselves in accord with it.

A-5. The Church might, as she has done periodically throughout her history when practice diverged from principle in this area, choose to renew the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence. The specific terms of such renewal, perhaps undertaken as part of a wider reform of the diaconate, could vary, and so would need to be examined before advising ordained married men and their wives as to their specific options in such a case.

     B) Regarding married men not yet ordained and their wives

B-1. Points A-1 and A-2 pertain here.

B-2. Men considering ordination, and their wives, should study the Western tradition of perfect and perpetual clerical continence and the arguments concerning the current obligation, and then assess for themselves the chances that the Roman Church will (a) reassert—as she has always done—the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence for all clerics, (b) change her tradition to exempt married deacons from the obligation of continence, but hold married priests to it, (c) change her tradition to adopt the Eastern practice of temporary continence for married clerics, or (d) abandon any expectation of continence for married clerics.  See generally http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons4.htm.

     5. In 1998, the Congregation for Catholic Education issued “Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons”. In the course of those Norms, the Congregation recalled its circular letter of 1969 wherein guidelines for the education of deacons were presented. See Congregation for Catholic Education, circ. let. “Come è a conoscenza” [Formation of candidates for the permanent diaconate] (16 July 1969), Enchiridion Vaticanum III, nn. 1408-1412, at 834-837. I have read that circular letter, and it makes no comments for or against clerical continence.

     6. Brief Memorandum on the 1998 dicasterial use of the phrase “a certain continence”

     7. A note on a misleading translation and use of Presbyterorum ordinis 16.

Excerpt:

   In discussing the Western clerical obligation of perfect and perpetual continence (1983 CIC 277), some critics of continence for married clergy assert that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council held for the "equality" of the sacraments of matrimony and holy orders among married priests and, based on this alleged conciliar recognition of sacramental "equality," go on to argue that continence cannot be required of clerics who were married at the time of their ordination. These critics point to (among other texts) Article 16 of the conciliar decree "On the Life and Ministry of Priests," which states in part: "This holy synod . . . exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation." Article 16 of Presbyterorum ordinis is cited as a source for Canon 277 § 1 and therefore warrants proper appreciation when interpreting the law; it does, I think, seem to lend some support to the claim that marriage and holy orders are "equally" important for married priests.

   Several objections militate, however, against one's accepting the claim that the Second Vatican Council was holding in Presbyterorum ordinis 16 for the equality of marriage and holy orders among Western married clerics and, based on this alleged equality, did away with the obligation of continence for married clerics. I will discuss these objections below…

     8. I largely agree with Rev. Brian Mullady’s answers to a reader’s inquiries in “The reason for priestly celibacy” (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, February 2010), but I would like to suggest three emendations to Mullady’s comments on continence.

   First, the obligation of clerical continence (c. 277) does not forbid married clerics from “consummating” their marriages, for consummation is a singular act (c. 1061 § 1) that would have been performed by married men long before they took holy orders. Rather, clerical continence requires married clergy to cease exercising their right to sexual relations with their wives after ordination (a consequence reflected by the twice iterated requirement—cc. 1031 and 1050—that wives consent to the ordination of their husbands, lest wives be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their conjugal rights within marriage without consent). Clerical marriages, in any event, despite the observance of continence after ordination, remain “consummated”.

   Second, I would assert less firmly the idea that clerical continence has its “origin” in the Levitical observances of the Old Testament. I think it better to say that clerical continence finds prefigurement in Levitical (or temporary) continence, certainly, but that the ‘origins’ or foundations of clerical continence today are rooted in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, as Mullady suggests in the rest of his answer.

   Third, it is not so much, I think, “celibacy” that the Latin Church does not impose on Eastern Churches in union with Rome (indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, there is a growing question as to how much Rome, her rhetoric notwithstanding, imposes celibacy on Western clergy these days) but rather, that Rome has not for many, many centuries expected continence of married Eastern clerics, despite unquestionably requiring it of her own, relatively few, married clerics. The more pressing issue for the Roman Church, therefore, is: to what extent will the near-total, post-Conciliar disregard for the hitherto undoubted obligation of perfect and perpetual continence for Western clergy, including those men married, continue to be ignored? Or, is the obligation simply to be abandoned? 14 September 2011.

    9. Memorandum regarding Dcn. Duderstadt's remarks on Canon 277 and clerical continence

Excerpt:

   Deacon Peery Duderstadt's essay in the current Chicago Studies, "A Modest Proposal", attempts to reply to an article I wrote last year for Chicago Studies, "Diaconal Categories and Clerical Celibacy". Duderstadt's work is poorly conceived and very poorly executed. While it would be tedious to discuss all of the flaws in his essay—let alone to ask Chicago Studies to publish my reactions—I feel that some response to him is in order. My criticism of Duderstadt's essay must, I fear, be blunt. I have no desire to embarrass anyone, of course, but it might be instructive for others to see, from time to time, just what kind of ineptitude is wont to present itself, even in respected venues, as informed refutation of my (and others') interpretation of the law.

  10. Memorandum on Abp. Francesco Coccopalmerio's letter of 4 March 2011

Excerpt:

   On March 4, 2011, Abp. Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, issued a short response to a letter faxed him just two weeks earlier. In his brief reply, the archbishop purports to offer—in a single, parenthetical remark—a clarification of what is, in fact, a complex and controversial canonical issue, namely, the scope of clerical continence under Canon 277. The designation of his letter as only a "clarification" indicates that no formal interpretation of Canon 277 was intended, but because the letter comes from the President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, some will take his remark as settling a controverted canonical point.

   I will show that, in light of the proper procedures for settling disputed questions of canon law, a parenthetical remark, even by one who holds high dicasterial office, carries no canonical weight and remains merely a personal opinion. Given, moreover, that the prelate's remark is informal, it is not surprising that he deals with none of the substantial objections to his position; if he did wish his opinion to have persuasive value, it would have needed to address a number of weighty objections. Finally, and unfortunately, when addressing a related canonical issue, the archbishop's letter fails to take into account an important updating of the law.

  11. Memorandum on Rev. William Woestman's advisory opinion on Canon 277

Excerpt:

   Rev. Woestman's advisory opinion on Canon 277 § 1 did not directly respond to my writings on this topic, but for convenience I will comment on his remarks as if my position on Canon 277 had been discussed. Woestman is well qualified to make arguments against my interpretation of the law and he sets out his views reasonably. May my responses to him occasion insights for others into this matter.  ...

   As noted above, Woestman did not pen his advisory opinion in reply to my articles, and so I have reacted herein primarily to his observations. I think I have answered them reasonably completely in the confines of a memorandum, but I would be happy to expand on my remarks as others might find useful.

   At some point, however, I believe it incumbent upon those who disagree with my position on Canon 277 to deal directly with the extensive arguments that I and others have offered regarding the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence for clerics in the Western Church. To date, no one has taken on those arguments in any systematic way, and only a very few, such as Woestman, have even offered different arguments

Top || Home || Canon Law || Liturgy & Sacraments || Catholic Issues || Personal