https://siouxcitydeacon.blogspot.com/2011/01/diaconal-continence-and-canon-277.html
Dr. Peters's argument about Canon 277 hinges on whether "continence" and "celibacy" are two separate obligations on the clergy, or two aspects of one single obligation. If they are two separate obligations, then I can't refute his conclusion that only the obligation of celibacy is removed for married clergy. (Someone else more versed in canonical argumentation that I might still do so, but to my knowledge, no one has.) But if they are together one single obligation, then permitting a married man to receive Holy Orders as priest or deacon removes together both parts of the one obligation.
Dr. Peters is offering a theory about the meaning of Canon 277. He's a canonist, and a good one; it's part of his job to offer it. Because he's a good one, he's careful to offer a coherent, thorough, and well thought-out theory. But his argument, however good it is, is only a theory, unless the Magisterium affirms it as the proper interpretation of the law. That hasn't happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment