26/04/02
The Editor,
The Tablet.
Sir,
Whilst fully endorsing Rowanne Pasco's letter (Tablet, 6 April), it should be pointed out that the ministry of married priests need not be confined to cases of emergency but can be extended to other cases of pastoral need.
It is true that canon law refers to "danger of death" when it allows any priest (including, therefore, married priests) to hear confessions (canon 976) and even administer confirmation (c. 883). But "danger of death" does not mean that death has to be imminent. Any priest can administer these sacraments to the seriously ill in hospital or at home, or even to those who have become weak through advanced age. Also to anyone about to undergo major surgery due to serious illness. Obviously no married priest should be so tactless as to press his services when the parish priest or hospital chaplain could himself easily minister and is able and willing to do so.
Again, any priest is allowed to take holy communion to the sick as viaticum either in a case of necessity or at least when permission to do so can reasonably be presumed (c. 911). This could be, for example, if someone were taken ill and the parish priest could not be contacted, or could not arrive soon enough. Even outside the danger of death, any priest is allowed to anoint the sick if there is some adequate reason (c. 1003).
And any priest is able to give blessings. (c. 1169).
When there is some necessity, or even just genuine spiritual advantage, the faithful are allowed to receive the sacraments of reconciliation, anointing and the Eucharist even from a non-catholic minister (provided his orders are valid) whenever it is physically or morally impossibe for them to approach a catholic priest (c. 844). It would be surprising, therefore, if a catholic married priest felt unable in conscience to administer these sacraments in the same circumstances if asked for them. For example, a group of people who meet together for prayer, bible study or for days of recollection could ask a married priest to celebrate the Eucharist for them in private if there is no other priest able to do so.
Finally, there is another canon (c. 1335) dealing with the case of a priest who for some reason incurs an automatic censure and is therefore suspended from administering the sacraments. Nevertheless he is still allowed to do so for any just reason if he is asked for them. A married priest who has been dispensed and under no censure could well consider himself justified in responding to any such request.
All this is in conformity with the supreme law of the Church, viz. the salvation of souls (c. 1752) and with the duty (c. 843) of any sacred minister not to refuse the sacraments to those who have an adequate reason to request them and are suitably disposed. In fact, they have a right to them (c. 213).
But how can lay people avail themselves of the services which married priests can provide unless they know who such priests are? In every parish in which there is a married priest living (and there must now be very many such parishes) his name and telephone number should be clearly displayed in the church porch. Otherwise the Church in its own law is offering the laity spiritual services whilst at the same time denying them the possibility of using them!
The laity should be made aware of all the above so as to enable them to enjoy a more plentiful service from all their priests including married priests, as they are able to do in several other countries where the ministry of married priests is more widely known. They may well, of course, then come to think that if married priests are allowed to minister to them in these various ways, why not officially lift all restrictions on them? This may well be why these canons are not made better known! The experience of married priests is that lay people are perfectly happy to receive the sacraments from them when they have come to know and respect them as priests, and many take a dim view of the Church's non-use of them officially. It might help to produce some change in this matter if lay people were to make mor e emplatic use of canon 212 which gives them the right to make known their views to the hierarchy. After all, the Holy Spirit works through them, the majority, as well as through the clergy, the minority. Even in doctrinal matters the sensus fidelium has its place, but the use or non-use of married priests is a merely disciplinary matter about which lay people could suitably become more out-spoken - especially when threatened with becoming members of a priestless parish.
John de A'Echevarria,
43 Greenways,
Over-Kellet,
Carnforth.
The Editor,
The Tablet.
Sir,
Whilst fully endorsing Rowanne Pasco's letter (Tablet, 6 April), it should be pointed out that the ministry of married priests need not be confined to cases of emergency but can be extended to other cases of pastoral need.
It is true that canon law refers to "danger of death" when it allows any priest (including, therefore, married priests) to hear confessions (canon 976) and even administer confirmation (c. 883). But "danger of death" does not mean that death has to be imminent. Any priest can administer these sacraments to the seriously ill in hospital or at home, or even to those who have become weak through advanced age. Also to anyone about to undergo major surgery due to serious illness. Obviously no married priest should be so tactless as to press his services when the parish priest or hospital chaplain could himself easily minister and is able and willing to do so.
Again, any priest is allowed to take holy communion to the sick as viaticum either in a case of necessity or at least when permission to do so can reasonably be presumed (c. 911). This could be, for example, if someone were taken ill and the parish priest could not be contacted, or could not arrive soon enough. Even outside the danger of death, any priest is allowed to anoint the sick if there is some adequate reason (c. 1003).
And any priest is able to give blessings. (c. 1169).
When there is some necessity, or even just genuine spiritual advantage, the faithful are allowed to receive the sacraments of reconciliation, anointing and the Eucharist even from a non-catholic minister (provided his orders are valid) whenever it is physically or morally impossibe for them to approach a catholic priest (c. 844). It would be surprising, therefore, if a catholic married priest felt unable in conscience to administer these sacraments in the same circumstances if asked for them. For example, a group of people who meet together for prayer, bible study or for days of recollection could ask a married priest to celebrate the Eucharist for them in private if there is no other priest able to do so.
Finally, there is another canon (c. 1335) dealing with the case of a priest who for some reason incurs an automatic censure and is therefore suspended from administering the sacraments. Nevertheless he is still allowed to do so for any just reason if he is asked for them. A married priest who has been dispensed and under no censure could well consider himself justified in responding to any such request.
All this is in conformity with the supreme law of the Church, viz. the salvation of souls (c. 1752) and with the duty (c. 843) of any sacred minister not to refuse the sacraments to those who have an adequate reason to request them and are suitably disposed. In fact, they have a right to them (c. 213).
But how can lay people avail themselves of the services which married priests can provide unless they know who such priests are? In every parish in which there is a married priest living (and there must now be very many such parishes) his name and telephone number should be clearly displayed in the church porch. Otherwise the Church in its own law is offering the laity spiritual services whilst at the same time denying them the possibility of using them!
The laity should be made aware of all the above so as to enable them to enjoy a more plentiful service from all their priests including married priests, as they are able to do in several other countries where the ministry of married priests is more widely known. They may well, of course, then come to think that if married priests are allowed to minister to them in these various ways, why not officially lift all restrictions on them? This may well be why these canons are not made better known! The experience of married priests is that lay people are perfectly happy to receive the sacraments from them when they have come to know and respect them as priests, and many take a dim view of the Church's non-use of them officially. It might help to produce some change in this matter if lay people were to make mor e emplatic use of canon 212 which gives them the right to make known their views to the hierarchy. After all, the Holy Spirit works through them, the majority, as well as through the clergy, the minority. Even in doctrinal matters the sensus fidelium has its place, but the use or non-use of married priests is a merely disciplinary matter about which lay people could suitably become more out-spoken - especially when threatened with becoming members of a priestless parish.
John de A'Echevarria,
43 Greenways,
Over-Kellet,
Carnforth.