Fox6It was a traditional ordination at St. Jerome Parish Saturday for a man with a non-traditional path to priesthood. Deacon Russell Arnett, now Father Arnett, was first ordained in the Episcopal Church where priests are allowed to marry. Now Arnett is the first priest to enter the Archdiocese of Milwaukee through what is called the "Pastoral Provision."
The Continence of Scipio
It is a Vatican rule started in 1980 that makes it easier for Anglican clergy to convert to Catholicism. Father Arnett is a reflection of about 100 married priests in the country who have all converted from other christian faiths.
Father Arnett's wife has also converted to the Catholic Church and is very supportive of her husband. She says it can be strange when she first tells people her husband is a priest but says people are generally receptive to the idea of a married priest. [probably a misconstruing by the reporter]
Even CNN picked this story up.
Ahem, from the good Ed Peters:
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.The Catholic Encyclopedia defines “continence”:
Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, though Aristotle did not accord it this high character since it involved a conflict with wrong desires–an element, in the mind of the philosopher, foreign to the content of a virtue in the strict sense. Continence, it is seen, has a more restricted significance than chastity, since the latter finds place in the condition of marriage. The abstinence we are discussing, then, belongs to the state of celibacy, though clearly the notion of this latter does not necessarily involve that of continence.Also of interest; “Why Canon 277 § 3 does not allow bishops to exempt clerics from the obligation of continence”
I'm just sayin. Different traditions exist in the East, but he did become a Latin Rite priest...
6 comments:
WOW. What a can of worms you opened with THAT one. Deacons are ALSO clerics. If a married priest would be held to that, so would a deacon. It's a very interesting canonical issue.
Actually Dr. Ed Peters opened it, I just brought a fork... ewww.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=13162
I really enjoy reading Ed Peters' blog (and yours, too of course). I had him as a professor for Canon Law and Liturgy and Sacraments through the IPT and I learned SO MUCH. My husband groans when I want to discuss the canonical issue of continent deacons. ;-) At last I've found a spot on line that is willing to chat about such 'can's of worms'.
You IPT folks are everywhere! What surprises me is how people completely ignorant of Canon Law go wagging their fingers at Dr Peters who is an expert on the subject. Wouldn't you think they'd want to look into the matter before running their mouths?
As someone who has read the esteemed Dr. Peters' 2005 Studia paper, read the relevant sections of Canon Law, studied the origins of the diaconate, and consulted with several other prominent Canon Lawyers and theologians, I strongly urge people not to give Dr. Peters' diaconal continence arguments more weight than they deserve. He has an argument but not the definitive argument. What his work does underscore is that the Code sorely needs to be updated in this area. Cardinal Burke recently spoke about some areas that need to be revised; I pray this issue is one that will be addressed soon, especially in light of the Anglican ordinariate. However, the silence of all authorities on the subject of continence for permanent married deacons speaks volumes. Whenever the Church chooses to speak on this matter, I will accept Her wisdom as definitive. Until then, the debate continues.
Pax Christi!
Joel, I agree that his opposition isn't the final word. Really I only call those who advocate for married clergy(whether converts or all clergy) and deacons to recall the Latin Church's long held tradition of continence. Even if the Latin Church took an approach similar to Eastern Churches in this regard, those worthy of the sacrament should at least be informed of the standing tradition whether it is enforced by law or not.
St Juan Diego, who was no cleric, lived his marriage in the state of continence as a sacrifice pleasing to God.
Post a Comment