Do married Catholic priests have to remain continent?

[acanonlawyer]

However, there is a well-known canon lawyer who believes married clergy should be continent.

I think a more fair representation of his position is that he thinks the Code of Canon law (in c. 277) says all clergy (married or not, deacons and priests) are to be continent. I suppose he might also, personally, think they “should” be … but that’s not part of his argument/reading of the law (which I find to be pretty solid).

That being said, there are papal exceptions to c. 277 (for example, as stated in the document/norms of Anglicanorum coetibus). As for married deacons, the position of the previous president of Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts (among others in the hierarchy) is that the continence requirement of c. 277 doesn’t apply. Practically, that is clearly true.

Dan

 

[phil3]

What the church’s definition of a word and common accept definition of a word can and often are different. Everyone knew what the OP was asking.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

True. But things get confusing when the same word is used differently in the same conversation and even worse when two words (celibate and chaste) are used differently.

Actually, nevermind conversations; I recall many misunderstandings because of church language being used and secular sources not understanding that. The word lust, for example; if one doesn’t know how the RCC uses the word people are agast thinking the church doesn’t allow couples to desire one another.

This issue could be avoided if people reporting on religion did their homework and explained the meaning of the church. Since articles often read the exact same way, they are using the same original source; if it could just be accurate in the first place it would sow less confusion and error.

 

[Genesis315]

If you think about it, it is only fair to the wives of both permanent deacons and convert clergy, not to demand continence from them - they didn’t sign up to marriage to be continent.

If it were required of married clergy, as it was in the past, the wife would have to consent before the man could be ordained and take on that promise. Even today without the requirement of continence, a wife has to consent to her husband being ordained–or even exploring that possibility. Here’s a template letter of consent one diocese uses for a man to begin discerning the diaconate:

https://dioceseofcheyenne.org/Vocations/pdfs/Wife’s%20Permission%20Letter%20Template.pdf

 

[neophyte]

What the church’s definition of a word and common accept definition of a word can and often are different. Everyone knew what the OP was asking

All I know is what he actually did ask.

 

[TomH1]

The closest I ever heard to this was a ruling (CofE, if I remember correctly, but I may be wrong) that homosexual clergy involved in a relationship may be allowed on the provision that the relationship was abstinent. I’m not sure they haven’t backtracked since, as it was probably two or three years ago.

That is certainly true but I think it is also a whole different subject for discussion. The CofE does not, yet, consider a civil marriage between two men or two women to be a marriage. Personally, I think they fudge on this issue. They still accept that two people of the same sex can be a couple.

ETA : Sorry, @TomH1, I meant to reply to the thread, not to you specifically

No, problem. Do not worry about it.

 

[OddBird]

Personally, I think they fudge on this issue. They still accept that two people of the same sex can be a couple.

Yes, I completely agree.

 

[phil3]

Yes, the OP asked if a married priest needed to remain celibate?

Not long ago I was told something I did not realise about the Anglican church. I don’t know if this also applies to other protestant denominations, but in the Anglican church, even though a priest can be married (in a heterosexual marriage only), he/she must remain celibate once they are a priest. In other words, if he or she has children, he/she needs to have ‘created’ those children before being ordained as a priest.

We know a priest who converts to Catholicism from protestantism and already has their own family, can stay married. I wanted to double check if the celibacy rule would also apply here. I would assume so, because it is a general vow you need to take as a Catholic priest, and even in the rare exceptions of having your own family, that vow would surely remain in place, but I just wanted to double check it.

Since the question said,

even though a priest can be married (in a heterosexual marriage only), he/she must remain celibate once they are a priest.

Why did someone have to say that

Celibacy is the state of not being married.
Continent is the state if being married, but controlling one’s sexual desire.

This has nothing to do with the question.

BTW, when I was 40 I looked into becoming a deacon and was told by the person that was the “guidance counselor” for entering the decon program that yes, my wife and I would have to no longer be sexually active.

It wasn’t the major reason I didn’t enter, but it played a part.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

was told by the person that was the “guidance counselor” for entering the decon program that yes, my wife and I would have to no longer be sexually active.

Really? I have never heard that married permanent deacons have to abstain from normal marital relations.

 

[Maximian]

Since this thread is full of comments about definitions, can I just point out that the term “church” refers to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The Anglicans are a denomination, not a church.

 

[phil3]

Yes, they were, but the fact is misinformation is out there.

 

[neophyte]

Since the question said,

even though a priest can be married (in a heterosexual marriage only), he/she must remain celibate once they are a priest.

Someone had to say it because, by definition, it is not possible to be simultaneously married and celibate. Celibate means “not married”.

 

[neophyte]

This person was incorrect.

I don’t think so. At least, the canon lawyers I’ve heard discuss the question seem to agree that the law as written says that clerics, including married deacons, are bound to permanent and perfect continence.

Whether or not that is enforced or dispensed with is another matter, and I certainly would never be so crude as to ask the married deacons that I know.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Cecilia_Dympna:

This person was incorrect.

I don’t think so. At least, the canon lawyers I’ve heard discuss the question seem to agree that the law as written says that clerics, including married deacons, are bound to permanent and perfect continence.

Whether or not that is enforced or dispensed with is another matter, and I certainly would never be so crude as to ask the married deacons that I know.

Canon Law does in fact say that. However, as correctly noted in the post above from “acanonlawyer,” the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts has issued a formal written letter on the matter stating that said canon is not being applied to married permanent deacons, at least now. Part of their reasoning is that the requirement of continence was not and is not being brought up during the application and formation process, so that there was no ability by the candidate to maturely consider that issue - and to enforce it post facto would do violence to the marital bond and deprive the spouse from marital rights without deliberation or consent.

I know a number of deacons, and there’s no question about their marital intimacy continuing.

 

[neophyte]

Canon Law does in fact say that. However, as correctly noted in the post above from “acanonlawyer,” the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts has issued a formal written letter on the matter.

Dr. Ed Peters discusses that here and here. It appears that that letter (assuming that we are talking about the same one) carries a personal opinion, does not claim to be an authentic interpretation, and carries limited canonical weight.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

can I just point out that the term “church” refers to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The Anglicans are a denomination, not a church.

The term “Church” is also legitimately used by Catholics to describe the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church(es) of the East, and some Old Catholic Churches. As for denying the title “Church” to the Church of England and other Anglican Churches, this is indeed the letter of the law in terms of Catholic teaching, but as a matter of courtesy it is not only permissible, but also desirable, to use the word “Church” in a less technical sense to describe an organization that identifies itself as such. What would you have us call the Church of Sweden, for example? The Ecclesial Community of Sweden? The Denomination of Sweden? The Catholic Church itself routinely describes Protestant Churches using the word “Church”.

 

[babochka]

What the church’s definition of a word and common accept definition of a word can and often are different. Everyone knew what the OP was asking.

It is important to define terms when having this sort of discussion. To do otherwise leads to confusion and unclear communication. The church has a clear definition of celibacy, continence, and chastity and when speaking of these in the context of Church teaching or practice, we ought to use the Church’s definition.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Thank you…wrong word choice on my part. Continant, not chaste. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Bernoulli]

Part of their reasoning is that the requirement of continence was not and is not being brought up during the application and formation process

Why was the issue not brought up? If every vocation director did the same thing, it does not seem like they were simply incompetent.

 

[InThePew]

As the old saying goes if you’ve asked one Anglican you’ve asked one Anglican! However, I believe I right in saying that Orthodox priests are required to abstain from sexual relations with their wives prior for something like 24 hours before celebrating the eucharist. I’m not sure what the situation is with Easter Rite (Catholic) priests but was aware of the opinions around Permanent Deacons in the Latin Rite. In my entirely amateur opinion, I think that @Pitcairn17 is right - nobody ever seems to have brought this up with their wives! As best I recall, when I signed by commitment to celibacy prior to ordination it referred to “understanding completely the law of celibacy” and an intention to keep it. In other words, what was required was made very clear (borne, not doubt, out of past experiences). So, if complete continence was required of permanent deacons I would expect to see something very clear to this effect in what they sign and also (more importantly) in what their wives sign too; it’s just way too much of a biggie to be included only by implication.