Can an illegitimate son be a priest in the SSPX?

[Young_Thinker]

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.

Cardinal de Richelieu was born legitimately; I was just using his elevation (first to bishop at the age of 21 and then later to cardinal) as an example of the political and often nepotistic nature of clerical appointments in centuries past. Any laws forbidding illegitimate sons from entering Holy Orders seem to often having been dispensed with or ignored entirely. Strangely enough, abbacies could be given to someone who had never been a monk. However, I doubt that these abbots were too concerned with the everyday operations of their abbies, instead they mostly just derived revenue from them.

 

[Young_Thinker]

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

How are you, Br. J.R.? Forgive me if I have exaggerated this occurrence (i.e. the Papacy being occupied by fathers and sons). The only examples of this that I could find are that of Pope John XI (reigned from 931-935), who appears to have the natural son of Sergius III (reigned from 904-911) and Marozia, and St. Silverius (536-537), who was the lawfully begotted son of St. Hormisdas (514-523). The reigns of Sergius III and John XI were a part of the saeculum obscurum, the so-called dark age of 10th century Rome and were obviously before the Gregorian Reforms, which included the creation of the College of Cardinals. Pope Clement VII, on the other hand, was born to unwed parents but was considered to be legitimate because they had been betrothed (his father, Giuliano de’ Medici had been murdered prior to his son’s birth). As for illegitimate sons (whether of clergy, nobility, or royalty) taking Holy Orders, it likely was able to happen because of dispensations from any law forbidding such ordination (and it seems that a child could be legitimized without his parents marrying, thus enabling him to inherit property). I read about one case in the 16th century where a man (James Hamilton, a son of the 1st Earl of Arran), was nominated by the Scottish Crown to be Archbishop of Glasgow, but Pope Paul III refused to appoint Hamilton to that position because of his illegitimacy. However, Hamilton became Bishop of Argyll 5 years later (in 1553) after Julius III granted him a dispensation (that being said, according to Wikipedia, it is not clear as to whether or not Hamilton was ever ordained to the bishopric; he became a Protestant several years later yet was apparently never removed from his see). In addition, while saying that a number of cardinals were of natural birth (e.g. Cesare Borgia, who later resigned his cardinalate, thank God!), we should note that, until the 20th century, becoming a cardinal did not necessitate taking on Holy Orders. As for illegitimate sons entering religious orders, I doubt that this was the norm, since their main goal was often to attain power. While being an abbot may have been envied, I doubt that there were too many Franciscan Borgias or Farneses!

 

[JReducation]

How are you, Br. J.R.? Forgive me if I have exaggerated this occurrence (i.e. the Papacy being occupied by fathers and sons). The only examples of this that I could find are that of Pope John XI (reigned from 931-935), who appears to have the natural son of Sergius III (reigned from 904-911) and Marozia, and St. Silverius (536-537), who was the lawfully begotted son of St. Hormisdas (514-523). The reigns of Sergius III and John XI were a part of the saeculum obscurum, the so-called dark age of 10th century Rome and were obviously before the Gregorian Reforms, which included the creation of the College of Cardinals. Pope Clement VII, on the other hand, was born to unwed parents but was considered to be legitimate because they had been betrothed (his father, Giuliano de’ Medici had been murdered prior to his son’s birth). As for illegitimate sons (whether of clergy, nobility, or royalty) taking Holy Orders, it likely was able to happen because of dispensations from any law forbidding such ordination (and it seems that a child could be legitimized without his parents marrying, thus enabling him to inherit property). I read about one case in the 16th century where a man (James Hamilton, a son of the 1st Earl of Arran), was nominated by the Scottish Crown to be Archbishop of Glasgow, but Pope Paul III refused to appoint Hamilton to that position because of his illegitimacy. However, Hamilton became Bishop of Argyll 5 years later (in 1553) after Julius III granted him a dispensation (that being said, according to Wikipedia, it is not clear as to whether or not Hamilton was ever ordained to the bishopric; he became a Protestant several years later yet was apparently never removed from his see). In addition, while saying that a number of cardinals were of natural birth (e.g. Cesare Borgia, who later resigned his cardinalate, thank God!), we should note that, until the 20th century, becoming a cardinal did not necessitate taking on Holy Orders. As for illegitimate sons entering religious orders, I doubt that this was the norm, since their main goal was often to attain power. While being an abbot may have been envied, I doubt that there were too many Franciscan Borgias or Farneses!

Bold is mine



None of the Borgias or Farneses ever became Franciscans, probably for two reasons.

1. Franciscans were too poor.
2. Franciscan superiors have very little power.

We do not have abbots or priors. We have Guardians at the local level and Ministers at the Provincial and General levels. All of them are replaced every few years, unlike an abbot. Also, a Franciscan superior can only command whatever is in the rule written by St. Francis or whatever his brothers allow him to command through the constitutions. The rule is written by Francis, but the constitutions are written by the membership. The superior is bound to both. The membership can limit or extend the power of the superior as long as it does not conflict with the mind of Francis or Canon Law. It’s actually a very democratic system. I highly doubt that the Borgias or Farneses were very democratic. The whole idea of being equal must have been very disagreeable to them. The rule of Francis says that no friars may be given special privileges, even if they are priests. They must be treated as brothers and work as any other brother. That’s why Bonaventure held four posts at the same time.

1. Minister General of the Order
2. Cardinal Bishop of Ostia
3. Professor theology at Paris
4. Kitchen help in the friar where he was assigned. Yes I did say assigned. The Superior General takes orders as well.

Not in a million years would the Borgias have accepted such a fate.

That being said, we do have a history of ordaining brothers whose parents were not validly married. That was one of the exemptions granted to the great orders of the middle ages… The superior could dispense with the legitimacy requirement. I doubt that we ordained thousands. Most men who enter religious life come from Catholic homes. Besides that, the Major Superior and his council have the right to deny an ordination, but bind you to your vows until death. You remain a friar. This actually helps to minimize the application by those who would seek the prestige of the clerical state. Franciscan clerics have very little prestige among their brothers. They are loved and respected, but that’s where it ends. No special meals or a better bed, etc.
.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

Bold is mine

None of the Borgias or Farneses ever became Franciscans, probably for two reasons.

1. Franciscans were too poor.
2. Franciscan superiors have very little power…

Exactly! Thank you for describing the situation of the Franciscans. Since the Domicans were also a mendicant order, maybe that is why St. Thomas Aquinas’s family were so adamantly opposed to him joining them and would have preferred that he become a Benedictine. As a Dominican, he would never have the chance to become a rich, powerful abbot for the rest of his life. Also, do you remember the story about the Virgin appearing to Aquinas and telling him (to his joy) that he would never be a bishop?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Exactly! Thank you for describing the situation of the Franciscans. Since the Domicans were also a mendicant order, maybe that is why St. Thomas Aquinas’s family were so adamantly opposed to him joining them and would have preferred that he become a Benedictine. As a Dominican, he would never have the chance to become a rich, powerful abbot for the rest of his life. Also, do you remember the story about the Virgin appearing to Aquinas and telling him (to his joy) that he would never be a bishop?

That should read as are not were.

 

[Young_Thinker]

That should read as are not were.

Hello, Br. David. Thank you for correcting me.