Pope Benedict denounces 'absurd' speculations about his resignation [CWN]

[Lapey]

Well, from another post on celebacy on CAF it says, “Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination.” Am I wrong in understanding that this says, they “were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination?”

Yes, you are wrong. Please reference this response to Cardinal Dolan.

*Letter of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio to Cardinal Timothy Dolan on the subject of Canon 277 § 1
Posted on September 18, 2012
December 17,2011

PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS

Proto 13095 / 2011

Your Excellency:

I refer to your letter of April 8, 2011 in which Your Excellency has requested this Pontifical Council to clarify whether married permanent deacons, so long as their marriage lasts, are bound to observe the perfect and perpetual continence indicated by can. 277 § 1 CIC. The question was raised because some have expressed the opinion that permanent deacons are also bound to the obligation which the said canon imposes on clerics in general.

It should be noted that often the canonical discipline on a given topic is not inferred from the wording of a single legal precept, but rather from the whole set of existing regulation on the matter in the law of the Church, always in harmony with what has been stated by the Church’s Magisterium. This is what can. 17 CIC prescribes.

With regard specifically to the question above, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and having made the necessary studies, this Pontifical Council offers the following observations.

1. In can. 277, § 1 CIC, the requirement of perfect and perpetual continence is inseparably linked to the obligation of celibacy to which all clerics, in principle, are bound.

Also, can. 1037 CIC requires that unmarried candidates for the permanent diaconate must assume the obligation of celibacy prior to ordination. Furthermore, can. 1087 CIC establishes an impediment to marriage for those in sacred orders. For this reason, permanent deacons who are widowers cannot marry, unless being dispensed, and therefore are bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence.

The particular discipline of these two last canons, 1037 and 1087 CIC, applicable to certain situations of permanent deacons, explains on the one hand why can. 288 CIC did not exempt in a general way “all” permanent deacons from the obligation of continence established by the can. 277 § 1 CIC; and on the other hand how it is evident from all these norms that the canon wanted to exempt married permanent deacons from such obligation of continence so long as their marriage lasts.

1. Indeed, can. 1031 § 2 CIC admits married men to the clerical state in the particular case of permanent deacons, but states nothing about a hypothetical obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as the Legislator would indicate if such an obligation were to be established.

Ultimately, the fact that in order for a married man to be admitted to the Order of the diaconate, the consent of his wife is required (cfr. can. 1031, § 2 CIC) implies that an explicit consent would have been required for reasons of justice if the condition of permanent deacon had entailed the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence (cfr. Can. 1055 CIC).

1. Naturally, this canonical discipline does not state anything apart from what the Church’s Magisterium has already affirmed in this regard. In fact, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 29 (§ 2), and other successive normative documents of the Holy See, appear to take for granted that married permanent deacons live their marriage in the ordinary way (cfr., above all, CONGREGATIO DE INSTITUTIONE CATHOLICA Ratio fundamentalis institutionis diaconorum permanentium, Institutio diaconorum of February 22, 1998 (nn. 36-38, 62-63, 68); CONGREGATIO PRO CLERICIS, Directorium pro ministerio et vita diaconorum permanentium, Diaconatus originem of February 22, 1998 (nn. 7, 27, 33, 45, 50, 59-62, and particularly n. 61).

In conclusion, the current canonical discipline does not require married permanent deacons, as long as their marriage lasts, to observe the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence established by can. 277, § 1 CIC for clerics in general.

I hope that these clarifications, briefly presented in this letter, may be helpful to Your Excellency in indicating what the content of the canonical discipline is at this point.

While remaining at your disposal for any further clarifications, I take this opportunity to extend to you and the members of your Conference my sentiments of personal esteem and prayerful best wishes for a Blessed Christmas and a fruitful New Year.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

• Francesco Coccopalmerio
  President
• Juan Ignacio Arrieta
  Secretary

Most Reverend TIMOTHY M.DOLAN, D.D.
Archbishop of New York
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth Street NE Washington, DC 20017-1194
U.S.A.*

 

[RPRPsych]

RPRPsych- That was interesting about Peter leaving everything, even his wife. Maybe, but, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles, including Peter, who were accompanied by believing wives.

If I recall correctly, the Greek in 1 Corinthians 9: 5 simple says gune (= “woman”; from which we have modern terms like “gynecology”). The reference, therefore, may be to women who assisted the Apostles, as the women mentioned in Luke 8: 1 did for Our Lord. The translation of gune as “wife” appears in Protestant Bibles from about the time Luther challenged priestly celibacy

Paul was very likely married at one time, because he voted to stone Stephen, and to do so he would have had to have been a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married.

Paul may have worked for them, but I doubt he was a full member - otherwise, the trial scene at Jerusalem would have gone quite differently. Moreover, he describes himself as celibate in 1 Corinthians 7 and 9. (One way of explaining this is to assume he was a widower, but there is no reliable tradition attesting to that.)

One question no one answered that I’d like to know. Were priests ever allowed to marry in the Catholic Church’s history? If so, when did it stop?

The practice was permitted, if I recall correctly, up to the 9th or 10th century A.D. until it was abolished by reform-minded Popes. However, earlier than that, the Church Father St. Jerome had written about the advantages of consecrated celibacy / virginity.

 

[fencebldr]

I’ve begun to read Jesus of Nazareth and am beginning to realize what true gift from God this man is!

 

[RPRPsych]

I’ve begun to read Jesus of Nazareth and am beginning to realize what true gift from God this man is!

Right you are!

 

[Sarcelle]

Saying that PBS is using Nazi propaganda techniques is a bit of a stretch for me. All the while Catholic World News(CWN)(the Original Post) is unbiased. I do appreciate your honesty that you admit that it happend, and I hope it IS in the past…time will tell. I thought it was interesting that homosexual priests focus on post pubescent boys, while heterosexual priests focus on pre pubescent girls. I live in a small town and the town next to me had a priest that took pictures of pre pubescent girls and is now in jail. Many of us wonder, why doesn’t the Catholic Church end celebacy for priests. Priests were allowed to marry at one time, correct? Why not go back to that? Peter was married. Let priests decide for themselves. Plus, you’d get all the people that quote that scripture about “in the last days they will forbid men to marry” off your back!

Oh here we go again with the celibacy equals.pedophilia. If that were the case might as well arrest all single people over a certain age. We all know they will become pedophiles sooner or later.