Content area
Full text
RESUMÉ - Cet article est une réponse à un article du même titre écrit par Brian Dunn dans ce journal en 2004. Bien que la réponse remet en question la présentation faite par Dunn de l'enseignement moral sur la vasectomie contraceptive, cette critique se concentre surtout sur le sens canonique de la mutilation dans les Codes de 1983 et de 1 9 1 7. La réponse conclut que l'évidence présentée par Dunn ne soutient pas sa conclusion canonique : qu'une vasectomie soit une mutilation dans le sens de l'irrégularité pour les Ordres du canon 1041, 5 °.
Introduction
This is a response to the article written by Brian Dunn, "Does a Vasectomy Constitute an Irregularity to the Sacrament of Orders?" published in this journal in 2004. ' While the article is admirable for its ecclesial perspective and pastoral balance, the author's conclusion, an affirmative answer to the title question, is not persuasive, and should not be considered the last word on the issue. The matter is, at best, doubtful law, and, more probably, the question deserves a negative answer.
Dunn began by placing his study in this context:
With the restoration of the permanent diaconate at the Second Vatican Council, a new context for these irregularities [to the sacrament of orders] has arisen, namely the fact that married men are now permitted to be ordained as permanent deacons. With marriage comes the issue of family planning and the reality that many men have had vasectomies. This context has implications for one specific irregularity, namely, that of mutilation in c. 1041 , 5°.2 This article will investigate whether or not a man who has had a vasectomy incurs the irregularity of c. 1041, 5° (p. 482).
Among the several related questions Dunn posed, this response will address only the first two:
Does a vasectomy fit into the meaning of mutilation in c. 1 04 1 ,5"? Does the candidate incur the irregularity for the reception of ordination to the permanent diaconate? (p. 483)
A thorough response to these questions would entail a careful historical study of the canonical tradition on self-mutilation which stems from the Council of Nicea in the year 325. 3 Dunn did not attempt such a study, nor will the present author.