Now, I think most would presume that this is surely a private matter between Fr Cornelius and Mrs Cornelius. But not necessarily so, says the canonist Prof Edward Peters. Prof Peters has written extensively on the subject over the past number of years (see here for his resource page on the subject and here for his 2005 article in the journal Studio canonica). Obviously, it would take more time than someone in my situation has available to go through all the material he provides. But if I understand him correctly, his argument is that married clergy are still bound by the requirements of Canon Law in relation to clerical continence.
One might imagine that the obligation to continence (refraining from all sexual activity) was abrogated along with the requirement for celibacy (not marrying). But Prof Peters is able to muster a considerable weight of evidence to underpin his contention that on those occasions when the Church ordains a married man, the derogation applies only to his celibacy, not his continence. He specifically notes that Canon 288, which releases permanent deacons from various canonical obligations on the clergy, specifically does not exempt the c277§1 obligation to continence.
Rome has been silent on this topic. And I think Prof Peters accepts that the common understanding is that when the Church ordains married men, who are for the most part former Anglican clergy, that the requirement for continence disappeared along with their dispensation from celibacy.
My own presumption is that the intent was to lift the requirement for continence along with that of celibacy and any canonical irregularity about this situation was inadvertent (of course, in law it is not the intent but what the text actually says that matters). And I have no sense that this is a topic of worry for these former Anglican clergy or their current bishops. Certainly none of the blogs I dip into are throbbing with angst over this issue. But if any one should be concerned, in the absence of a definitive declaration from Rome on this, I wonder would c277§3 provide any comfort? It states:
That seems to give competence to the ordinary of a diocese to pronounce authoritatively within his jurisdiction as to whether clergy who have been dispensed from celibacy are also dispensed from continence - but not being a canonist, I could be very wrong about this! But if it is the case, while it would not provide universal certainty, but it would allow bishops to give local relief for those who are worried.