The bolded part is the part that I have not seen in about 25 years. That would give you an indication of the marital status. There were several ways of wording it if the parents were not married at the time of baptism, the most common was “natural son of”.
Probably for the same reason we celebrate birthdays, not conception. I doubt if there is a single national constitution which mentions conception, only mentions birth, if that much. But I do agree with you. Life does begin at conception and there’s nothing stopping you from reporting how long you have truly lived or in what country you were conceived. In fact, it would be more accurate in terms of physical longevity.
It’s a point of philosophy. I’m talking about real philsophy, not a point of view. A child can be conceived outside of marriage; the parents marry AND the marriage is valid, the child is legitimaized, because he or she is the child of validly married parents. You go by what the child is, not by what was at the time of conception or birth, because you’re making a determination today. Therefore, you use the reality of the situation today.
By the same reasoning, if the parents marry validly one month after the birth of the child, the same could be said, that the child is a child of validly married parents. Would this be acceptable?
It is according to the 1983 Code, not sure what the situation was in the 1917 Code.
I’m not a Canon Lawyer. I had two-years of Canon Law in the seminary, not enough to make me an expert. But if I apply the process that Canon Lawyers use, it would be reasonable to assume that the child in the case that you describe would be legitimized. I’m assuming that you mean that the the parents marry each other, not two other people.
The sticking point is that the Code of 1983 does not go into the issue of legitimacy. It’s really looked at as a moral issue. Should non married people be making babies?
Our word legitimate is from the Latin legitimus “lawful,” originally “in line with the law,” from *lex *(genitive legis) “law.”
So does the 1983 code which says that the child is legitimized when his parents get married. The pertinent canons are in the “effects of marriage” section.I’m not a Canon Lawyer. I had two-years of Canon Law in the seminary, not enough to make me an expert. But if I apply the process that Canon Lawyers use, it would be reasonable to assume that the child in the case that you describe would be legitimized. I’m assuming that you mean that the the parents marry each other, not two other people.
The sticking point is that the Code of 1983 does not go into the issue of legitimacy. It’s really looked at as a moral issue. Should non married people be making babies?
The Code of 1917 did allow for legitimization. F
However, I believe that according the 1917 Code of Canon Law (the one that we use now was codified in 1983), an illegitimate son could become a priest if he obtained permission from the Holy See. However, being ordained a bishop was out of the question. I do not know what the case would be for a nun. Even if a lady could obtain permission from the Pope to enter religious life, a particular community could have been ignorant about this possibility.
That is how it often was in the Middle Ages and Renaissance- Popes succeeding their fathers and the illegitimate sons of kings becoming cardinals, bishops, or abbots. To a lot of people in those days, entering the Church was more about gaining power and wealth than helping people or living a virtuous life, and becoming a bishop or cardinal often had a political component (do not forget about the great investiture controversy and that men like Richelieu were made cardinals). While such things rarely occurred after the 17th or 18th century (especially with monarchies collapsing or becoming nominal and Catholic theocracies vanishing), it was evidently forbidden in the 1917 code.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that.OK, I’m confused. I just said that there is nothing one way or another. Therefore, if I remember my Canon Law classes in the seminary, if it’s not mentioned as an impediment by Canon Law, it can still be an impediment under Ordinary Law. Who makes up Ordinary Law
Constitutions of secular societies of non-consecrated life: The SSPX comes under this umbrella. They are a Society of secular priests with their own Ordinary Law.
Constitutions of religious congregations. These are religious communities of consecrated life that make simple vows.
Rules and constitutions of religious orders. These are religious communities of consecrated men in
At the diocesan level, the Diocesan Bishop can establish his own impediments.
Any bishop, secular institute, religious congregation or religious order can establish rules for ordination or vows as long as those rules are not in conflict with Canon Law. In this case, since the Law does not say that you may not exclude someone because of their birth, the legitimate authority can do so without a conflict.
Do I agree with such a policy? No. Can it be done? Yes, as long as the Ordinary Law is approved by the Holy See. The constitutions of the SSPX have to be approved by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, because they are a clerical institute. Therefore, they come under the Congregation for the Clergy. But they are also a Society of Apostolic Life w/out consecration, they must meet the approval of that Sacred Congregation.
I’m a little confused where we differ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Religious and bishops can not “ignore canon law and make up their own rules” in any way. They can add to the rules though.
I really thought I’d seen something earlier than Richelieu for laws about this. Here is new advent the old catholic encyclopedia
Ok, wait a minute. Let’s not get confused here. If you go back to my post or to that of Br. David, we’re saying the same thing. No institute can contradict or disobey canon law.
The bold is mine. In the Church there are what are called exempt religious orders. These are orders of men who have obligations and privileges that other religious do not have. That’s what Pope Urban was speaking about. If a man is a Carmelite, the bishop does not have the authority to decide that he should be ordained. The only person who has that authority is the Provincial Prior and his council. If they decide to ordain one of their friars, even if he were illegitimate, they simply had to find a bishop to do the ordination. The bishop cannot refuse to ordain him on the grounds that he is ellegitimate, because the Major Superior already approved it and the bishop does not trump the Major Superior of a religiuos order on matters such as these. That’s what the popes were saying. Each has his own area of authority. The bishop can say that he does not want this particular friar in his diocese. In that case the Major Superior cannot assign himm to that diocese. You see how the division of authority goes?I really thought I’d seen something earlier than Richelieu for laws about this. Here is new advent the old catholic encyclopedia
Pope Urban II (1088-99) prohibited the ordination of the illegitimate offspring of clerics, **unless they became members of approved religious orders. The **Council of Poitiers, under Paschal II (1099-1118), extended this prohibition to all persons of illegitimate birth. These regulations were later approved by other popes and councils. The law as laid down in the Decretals of Gregory IX (I, X) mentions only the offspring of clerics and those begotten in fornication. But in the sixth book of the Decretals all persons of illegitimate birth are expressly included.
Obviously, such laws must not have been followed, or were always dispensed or something. Something must explain the phenomena you mention. Maybe it was the ability to go through a religious order that people used to get round it.
So when Young Thinker mentioned popes who succeeded their fathers, that was possible in some cases because the particular son who became pope was a religious priest, either that or that it was a time period where rules about illegitimacy didn’t hold? I see what you are saying, that within an order, the major superior has the say about what happens. And within a diocese, the bishop can say who does what.The bold is mine. In the Church there are what are called exempt religious orders. These are orders of men who have obligations and privileges that other religious do not have. That’s what Pope Urban was speaking about. If a man is a Carmelite, the bishop does not have the authority to decide that he should be ordained. The only person who has that authority is the Provincial Prior and his council. If they decide to ordain one of their friars, even if he were illegitimate, they simply had to find a bishop to do the ordination. The bishop cannot refuse to ordain him on the grounds that he is ellegitimate, because the Major Superior already approved it and the bishop does not trump the Major Superior of a religiuos order on matters such as these. That’s what the popes were saying. Each has his own area of authority. The bishop can say that he does not want this particular friar in his diocese. In that case the Major Superior cannot assign himm to that diocese. You see how the division of authority goes?
The red is mine, just to keep it separate from the black. These were disciplines and are still so. Therefore, the popes could change them on a whim, if they chose to do so. That’s why we saw so many changes throughout history.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I really thought I’d seen something earlier than Richelieu for laws about this. Here is new advent the old catholic encyclopedia
Pope Urban II (1088-99) prohibited the ordination of the illegitimate offspring of clerics, unless they became members of approved religious orders. The Council of Poitiers, under Paschal II (1099-1118), extended this prohibition to all persons of illegitimate birth. These regulations were later approved by other popes and councils. The law as laid down in the Decretals of Gregory IX (I, X) mentions only the offspring of clerics and those begotten in fornication. But in the sixth book of the Decretals all persons of illegitimate birth are expressly included.
Obviously, such laws must not have been followed, or were always dispensed or something. Something must explain the phenomena you mention. Maybe it was the ability to go through a religious order that people used to get round it.
The bold is mine. I cannot speak to that, because I’m not an expert in papal history. I really do not know if we ever had such a case. We have had popes who were related to each other. Honorius III was the uncle of Gregory IX. We have had popes who were fathers, some legitimately and others illegitimately. We know that Peter had a daughter.
Thanks for the answer.The bold is mine. I cannot speak to that, because I’m not an expert in papal history. I really do not know if we ever had such a case. We have had popes who were related to each other. Honorius III was the uncle of Gregory IX. We have had popes who were fathers, some legitimately and others illegitimately. We know that Peter had a daughter.
Could a religious order accept the son of a pope? In theory, yes. Did they have to ordain him? Not unless the order is a clerical order.
Most orders at the time that this ruling was made were fraternal orders. This ruling came out in the 11th century. Almost all religious orders were monastic. There were always priests in monasteries, but one did not enter the monastery to be a priest. One entered the monastery to be a monk, as we say today, to live the consecrated life.
It would be a tough to prove that a son of a pope would enter a monastery in order to be a future pope. There was no guarantee that he would be ordained. That was up to the Abbot. But it is possible. God works in mysterious ways and through the most unlikely people.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I wasn’t thinking about that most were monastic orders and not clerical. Sometimes I need help to see how things back then were the same, and not as different as they appear to the first glance.