Author Topic: Why cant illegitimate sons be priests? (Read 2956 times)

Alex117 · « **on:** October 22, 2012, 01:52:09 AM »

I was reading the article Do I Have a Vocation? by Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, and it states:

Quote

An illegitimate son cannot be a priest.

I don't understand this. I understand being excluded from the ranks of the priesthood for being handicapped, for having bodily defects, or for having sinful habits that one cannot correct, but being illegitimate? Why would that exclude someone?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2012, 02:02:21 AM »

The defect of birth, illegitimacy, is not that different from having bodily defects. The reason for not being able to be ordained according to Church law in the case of bodily defect is usually not the physical capability of performing the priestly function, but to avoid ridicule et alia, therefore staining the mysteries of the clerical state.

The same holds for illegitimate offsprings. At least in times past, they would certainly blemish the honour and dignity of the priesthood in the sight of men.

But, be assured, this defect can be cured in many ways, and I am absolutely sure nobody today would deny a dispensation.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2012, 02:09:46 AM »

This is no longer true, (if it ever truly was). One cannot,*still*, become a Cardinal, however.

The reason was, unfortunately, pragmatic.

The concern was clergy having children in unmarried unions, then placing these children into the priesthood or elevating their children within the hierarchy as a form of 'inheritance', or passing down one's clerical office to one's children as an end run around celibacy and thus of not having heirs. Since these children were nominally 'illegitimate' (since the priest was clearly not married) this rule was created/enforced.

This has long since been relaxed, even eliminated, except for the prohibition on becoming a cardinal.

Alex117 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2012, 02:20:30 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

The defect of birth, illegitimacy, is not that different from having bodily defects. The reason for not being able to be ordained according to Church law in the case of bodily defect is usually not the physical capability of performing the priestly function, but to avoid ridicule et alia, therefore staining the mysteries of the clerical state.

The same holds for illegitimate offsprings. At least in times past, they would certainly blemish the honour and dignity of the priesthood in the sight of men.

But, be assured, this defect can be cured in many ways, and I am absolutely sure nobody today would deny a dispensation.

That was very informative, Pyrrhos. Thank you.

Quote from: Iuvenalis

The concern was clergy having children in unmarried unions, then placing these children into the priesthood or elevating their children within the hierarchy as a form of 'inheritance', or passing down one's clerical office to one's children as an end run around celibacy and thus of not having heirs. Since these children were nominally 'illegitimate' (since the priest was clearly not married) this rule was created/enforced.

This has long since been relaxed, even eliminated, except for the prohibition on becoming a cardinal.

That was also very informative! Thank you for your answer, Iuvenalis. However, at the end of your post, you say that this practice has been relaxed or even eliminated. Are you sure of this? The article I was reading was written in 1967 and quotes extensively from both Pope Paul VI and from Vatican II. Additionally, the SSPX requires a candidate for the priesthood to submit proof of your parents marriage.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2012, 02:23:38 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

This is no longer true, (if it ever truly was). One cannot,*still*, become a Cardinal, however.

The reason was, unfortunately, pragmatic.

The concern was clergy having children in unmarried unions, then placing these children into the priesthood or elevating their children within the hierarchy as a form of 'inheritance', or passing down one's clerical office to one's children as an end run around celibacy and thus of not having heirs. Since these children were nominally 'illegitimate' (since the priest was clearly not married) this rule was created/enforced.

This has long since been relaxed, even eliminated, except for the prohibition on becoming a cardinal.

This is not completely correct. Sacrilegious illegitimates are different from the other forms of illegitimate sons, Pope Gregory's Decretals, the basis for this part of Canon Law, deal expressly with both.

Canon 984 of the 1917 CIC states illegitimacy as an impediment for Holy Orders, the New Code of Canon Law, 1983, does not know it as an impediment. I cannot see where the question of becoming a Cardinal is to be found.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:02:58 AM »

Pyrrhos,

I've read this somewhere. After looking around I see the banned from the cardinalate discussed here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02579b.htm

If I'm reading right, the footnote that corresponds to this is Schmalzgruber's Jus Eccl.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:06:47 AM »

IF the putative father was not the real father, that could have been an excuse in the past for getting illegitimate children of high clerics into high church office.

Such nepotism would be extremely damaging to the Church, and a grievous temptation for corrupt clerics.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:12:19 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Pyrrhos,

I've read this somewhere. After looking around I see the banned from the cardinalate discussed here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02579b.htm

If I'm reading right, the footnote that corresponds to this is Schmalzgruber's Jus Eccl.

Father Schmalzgrüber died in 1735, so this was long before the CIC. In the 1917 Code, no such thing seems to be included, but the impediment to Holy Orders is still there. (Note: The whole Catholic Encyclopedia was written before the 1917 Code of Canon Law!)

In the New Code, illegitimacy is no impediment at all.

Nadir · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2012, 03:51:18 PM »

Quote from: Alex117

I don't understand this. I understand being excluded from the ranks of the priesthood for being handicapped, for having bodily defects, or for having sinful habits that one cannot correct, but being illegitimate? Why would that exclude someone?

Just a quick by-the-way and so a bit off-topic, having "sinful habits that one cannot correct" is an oxymoron. What did you have in mind here, Alex? If one cannot correct them them they can't really be sins; if they are sins and one repents then Grace will be given, through the sacrament of penance and the practice of the Faith, to correct them.

Alex117 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2012, 04:53:04 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Just a quick by-the-way and so a bit off-topic, having "sinful habits that one cannot correct" is an oxymoron. What did you have in mind here, Alex? If one cannot correct them them they can't really be sins; if they are sins and one repents then Grace will be given, through the sacrament of penance and the practice of the Faith, to correct them.

I took that from the article itself. Here it is quoted:

Quote

In like manner, there are “counter-indicators” for a vocation. There are some from the natural law; others are imposed by Canon Law. For example: a young man who is the sole support of his poor family, a man who has debts or pending lawsuits, cannot enter the novitiate without having settled these questions. An illegitimate son cannot be a priest. Nor can those with certain sicknesses, certain bodily defects, certain public faults, at least for some vocations. Nor can a young man who has certain habits that he cannot correct.

I imagine Fr. Barrielle means by this sins that the candidate commits, repents of, but then quickly falls into again, in a cycle that the candidate is having trouble breaking. Until the candidate is able to break this cycle of sin, he is not ready to enter the seminary and follow the path to the priesthood.

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2012, 07:47:51 PM »

I personally know two priests, one a Latin rite Benedictine and the other a Byzantine rite priest, whose parents were not married at the time they were conceived. It is possible to be ordained in either rite in such a case. I am too lazy to look it up, but I doubt that the current Code of Canon Law even requires a dispensation.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2012, 10:05:08 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

I personally know two priests, one a Latin rite Benedictine and the other a Byzantine rite priest, whose parents were not married at the time they were conceived. It is possible to be ordained in either rite in such a case. I am too lazy to look it up, but I doubt that the current Code of Canon Law even requires a dispensation.

This is essentially what I said in my initial reply, that it's long since relaxed (I swear there's another source besides Schmalzgruber that says that ban on entering the cardinalate remains however)