P
pnewton
Guest
I think it would be prudent for me to interject here that these titles are applied by CAF and signify nothing but longevity and prolific involvement.
- Status
R
Robertanthony
Guest
1ke, my statement does make sense, I’m obviously not denying that fornication=out of wedlock, but calling any child, created in the likeness of God, “illegitimate” I find very offensive.
T
thistle
Guest
SSPX, like all Catholics are bound by Canon Law and illegitimacy is not an impediment to becoming a priest.
ARTICLE 3: IRREGULARITIES AND OTHER IMPEDIMENTS
Can. 1040 Those bound by an impediment are to be barred from the reception of orders. An impediment may be simple; or it may be perpetual, in which case it is called an irregularity. No impediment is contracted which is not contained in the following canons.
Can. 1041 The following persons are irregular for the reception of orders:
1° one who suffers from any form of insanity, or from any other psychological infirmity, because of which he is, after experts have been consulted, judged incapable of being able to fulfil the ministry;
2° one who has committed the offence of apostasy, heresy or schism;
3° one who has attempted marriage, even a civil marriage, either while himself prevented from entering marriage whether by an existing marriage bond or by a sacred order or by a public and perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman who is validly married or is obliged by the same vow;
4° one who has committed wilful homicide, or one who has actually procured an abortion, and all who have positively cooperated;
5° one who has gravely and maliciously mutilated himself or another, or who has attempted suicide;
6° one who has carried out an act of order which is reserved to those in the order of the episcopate or priesthood, while himself either not possessing that order or being barred from its exercise by some canonical penalty, declared or imposed.
Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;
2° one who exercises an office or administration forbidden to clerics, in accordance with cann. 285 and 286, of which he must render an account; the impediment binds until such time as, having relinquished the office and administration and rendered the account, he has been freed;
3° a neophyte, unless, in the judgement of the Ordinary, he has been sufficiently tested.
Can. 1043 Christ’s faithful are bound to reveal, before ordination, to the Ordinary or to the parish priest, such impediments to sacred orders as they may know about.
Can. 1044 §1 The following are irregular for the exercise of orders already received:
1° one who, while bound by an irregularity for the reception of orders, unlawfully received orders;
2° one who committed the offence mentioned in can. 1041, n. 2, if the offence is public
3° one who committed any of the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3, 4,5,6.
§2 The following are impeded from the exercise of orders:
1° one who, while bound by an impediment to the reception of orders, unlawfully received orders;
2° one who suffers from insanity or from some other psychological infirmity mentioned in can. 1041, n. 1, until such time as the Ordinary, having consulted an expert, has allowed the exercise of the order in question.
Can. 1045 Ignorance of irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.
Can. 1046 Irregularities and impediments are multiplied if they arise from different causes, not however from the repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of the irregularity arising from the commission of wilful homicide or from having actually procured an abortion.
Can. 1047 §1 If the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum, dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone.
§2 Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:
1° irregularities arising from the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3, if they are public;
2° an irregularity arising from the offence, whether public or occult, mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4;
3° the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.
§3 To the Apostolic See is also reserved the dispensation from the irregularities for the exercise of an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n.3 but only in public cases, and in n. 4 of the same canon even in occult cases.
§4 The Ordinary can dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.
Can. 1048 In the more urgent occult cases, if the Ordinary or, in the case of the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3 and 4, the Penitentiary cannot be approached, and if there is imminent danger of serious harm or loss of reputation, the person who is irregular for the exercise of an order may exercise it. There remains, however, the obligation of his having recourse as soon as possible to the Ordinary or the Penitentiary, without revealing his name, and through a confessor.
Can. 1049 §1 In a petition to obtain a dispensation from irregularities or impediments, all irregularities and impediments are to be mentioned. However, a general dispensation is valid also for those omitted in good faith, with the exception of the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4, or of others which have been brought to the judicial forum; it is not, however, valid for those concealed in bad faith.
§2 If it is question of an irregularity arising from wilful homicide or from a procured abortion, for the validity of the dispensation even the number of offences must be stated.
§3 A general dispensation from irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders is valid for all orders.
ARTICLE 3: IRREGULARITIES AND OTHER IMPEDIMENTS
Can. 1040 Those bound by an impediment are to be barred from the reception of orders. An impediment may be simple; or it may be perpetual, in which case it is called an irregularity. No impediment is contracted which is not contained in the following canons.
Can. 1041 The following persons are irregular for the reception of orders:
1° one who suffers from any form of insanity, or from any other psychological infirmity, because of which he is, after experts have been consulted, judged incapable of being able to fulfil the ministry;
2° one who has committed the offence of apostasy, heresy or schism;
3° one who has attempted marriage, even a civil marriage, either while himself prevented from entering marriage whether by an existing marriage bond or by a sacred order or by a public and perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman who is validly married or is obliged by the same vow;
4° one who has committed wilful homicide, or one who has actually procured an abortion, and all who have positively cooperated;
5° one who has gravely and maliciously mutilated himself or another, or who has attempted suicide;
6° one who has carried out an act of order which is reserved to those in the order of the episcopate or priesthood, while himself either not possessing that order or being barred from its exercise by some canonical penalty, declared or imposed.
Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;
2° one who exercises an office or administration forbidden to clerics, in accordance with cann. 285 and 286, of which he must render an account; the impediment binds until such time as, having relinquished the office and administration and rendered the account, he has been freed;
3° a neophyte, unless, in the judgement of the Ordinary, he has been sufficiently tested.
Can. 1043 Christ’s faithful are bound to reveal, before ordination, to the Ordinary or to the parish priest, such impediments to sacred orders as they may know about.
Can. 1044 §1 The following are irregular for the exercise of orders already received:
1° one who, while bound by an irregularity for the reception of orders, unlawfully received orders;
2° one who committed the offence mentioned in can. 1041, n. 2, if the offence is public
3° one who committed any of the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3, 4,5,6.
§2 The following are impeded from the exercise of orders:
1° one who, while bound by an impediment to the reception of orders, unlawfully received orders;
2° one who suffers from insanity or from some other psychological infirmity mentioned in can. 1041, n. 1, until such time as the Ordinary, having consulted an expert, has allowed the exercise of the order in question.
Can. 1045 Ignorance of irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.
Can. 1046 Irregularities and impediments are multiplied if they arise from different causes, not however from the repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of the irregularity arising from the commission of wilful homicide or from having actually procured an abortion.
Can. 1047 §1 If the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum, dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone.
§2 Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:
1° irregularities arising from the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3, if they are public;
2° an irregularity arising from the offence, whether public or occult, mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4;
3° the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.
§3 To the Apostolic See is also reserved the dispensation from the irregularities for the exercise of an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n.3 but only in public cases, and in n. 4 of the same canon even in occult cases.
§4 The Ordinary can dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.
Can. 1048 In the more urgent occult cases, if the Ordinary or, in the case of the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3 and 4, the Penitentiary cannot be approached, and if there is imminent danger of serious harm or loss of reputation, the person who is irregular for the exercise of an order may exercise it. There remains, however, the obligation of his having recourse as soon as possible to the Ordinary or the Penitentiary, without revealing his name, and through a confessor.
Can. 1049 §1 In a petition to obtain a dispensation from irregularities or impediments, all irregularities and impediments are to be mentioned. However, a general dispensation is valid also for those omitted in good faith, with the exception of the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4, or of others which have been brought to the judicial forum; it is not, however, valid for those concealed in bad faith.
§2 If it is question of an irregularity arising from wilful homicide or from a procured abortion, for the validity of the dispensation even the number of offences must be stated.
§3 A general dispensation from irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders is valid for all orders.
P
Phemie
Guest
You’ll have to take it up with the Church which still sets out the parameters for legitimacy in the Code of Canon Law.
While these canons have no impact on most of the world, the Church has to define legitimacy for those countries for whom the Church is the arbiter of these things in matters relating to inheritance or succession rights.
R
Robertanthony
Guest
So what you’re essentially saying is that it’s an archaic legal term that’s used to settle private matters in Third World Countries where sexual mutilation of girls is a societal norm. I choose to believe that the term is archaic and carries a very negative connotation and that canon laws where it’s mentioned will likely be abrogated in the future.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I was willing to listen to your argument but then you had to bring up the bolded portion above. Which has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
It is a tactic to demonize those who use the term “illegitimate” by saying that they support this atrocity that you list.
You have just lost the argument and the right to continue to argue it. You have also won a space on my ignore list.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Yes, curious it is how they disparage the 1983 Code of Canon Law and then appeal to its canons and statutes when it can be used to their advantage.
M
maurin
Guest
Even curioser that one would think necessity is a novelty in the new code. Been there for a looooooooooooong time.
J
JReducation
Guest
We have all heard the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Well this is what is going on here. There are many angels dancing on the head of the same pin.
This law did exist in the past. However, Canon Law no longer excludes those whose parents were not validly married from either Holy Orders or religious life. Additionally, there are some things that we are forgetting.
First: no one has the right to be ordained or to make religious vows. These are privileges for a few, not the right of the masses.
Second: there is no law that says that a person who is born outside of marriage must be admitted to either Holy Orders or vows.
Third: the SSPX a clerical institute of apostolic life. It is not a community of consecrated men. They are secular priests. However, they are not diocesan priests. They belong to a society.
Fourth: Societies, religious congregations, and religious orders can make any laws they want regarding who is admitted to ordination, as long as those laws are not contrary to Canon Law or to justice.
There is nothing in Canon Law for or against the ordination of men who are born of an invalid union. One could say that because the child is not guilty of the sins of the parents, the child should not be penalized. This is true. To penalize such a child is a grave injustice.
However, because no one has the right to be ordained: deacon, priest or bishop and no one has the right to be a brother, sister or nun, justice is not violated when the person is denied because of the circumstances of their birth.
Is such a rule useful today? I would have to disagree. I know many men who have born in invalid relationships and they make excellent deacons, priests, bishops, brothers, friars and monks.
I believe that times have changed. In the past, there was the whole question of scandal. People were scandalized if a clergyman or a religious was born outside of a valid marriage. That is no longer the case. Some people don’t care, which is not the proper attitude . . . but other people do care while they have a great capacity for compassion. This latter group does not hold the sins of the parent against the child. It is MY opinion, that such a rule is outdated. Someone would have to show me the harm done to the Church, the institute, to the ministry or a legislation in some other document outside of Canon Law…
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
This law did exist in the past. However, Canon Law no longer excludes those whose parents were not validly married from either Holy Orders or religious life. Additionally, there are some things that we are forgetting.
First: no one has the right to be ordained or to make religious vows. These are privileges for a few, not the right of the masses.
Second: there is no law that says that a person who is born outside of marriage must be admitted to either Holy Orders or vows.
Third: the SSPX a clerical institute of apostolic life. It is not a community of consecrated men. They are secular priests. However, they are not diocesan priests. They belong to a society.
Fourth: Societies, religious congregations, and religious orders can make any laws they want regarding who is admitted to ordination, as long as those laws are not contrary to Canon Law or to justice.
There is nothing in Canon Law for or against the ordination of men who are born of an invalid union. One could say that because the child is not guilty of the sins of the parents, the child should not be penalized. This is true. To penalize such a child is a grave injustice.
However, because no one has the right to be ordained: deacon, priest or bishop and no one has the right to be a brother, sister or nun, justice is not violated when the person is denied because of the circumstances of their birth.
Is such a rule useful today? I would have to disagree. I know many men who have born in invalid relationships and they make excellent deacons, priests, bishops, brothers, friars and monks.
I believe that times have changed. In the past, there was the whole question of scandal. People were scandalized if a clergyman or a religious was born outside of a valid marriage. That is no longer the case. Some people don’t care, which is not the proper attitude . . . but other people do care while they have a great capacity for compassion. This latter group does not hold the sins of the parent against the child. It is MY opinion, that such a rule is outdated. Someone would have to show me the harm done to the Church, the institute, to the ministry or a legislation in some other document outside of Canon Law…
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
At the beginning of this forum there is a sticky called **Please Read Before Posting. **
Go to the section on Clergy and Religious.
I will not allow anyone to post disrespectfully against any member of the clergy, any religious or any diocese or any institute be it the SSPX, Benedictines, Carmelites, Jesuits, Dominicans, and others.
The consecrated and the ordained are to be spoken about and spoken to with respect. Their status is not a justification for a lack of respect. Respect for the consecrated and the ordained is also a part of our Catholic tradition.
You may express agreement or disagreement. That is valid discourse. There is no need for name calling or condescension.
If this cannot be observed, the thread will be closed.
Go to the section on Clergy and Religious.
I will not allow anyone to post disrespectfully against any member of the clergy, any religious or any diocese or any institute be it the SSPX, Benedictines, Carmelites, Jesuits, Dominicans, and others.
The consecrated and the ordained are to be spoken about and spoken to with respect. Their status is not a justification for a lack of respect. Respect for the consecrated and the ordained is also a part of our Catholic tradition.
You may express agreement or disagreement. That is valid discourse. There is no need for name calling or condescension.
If this cannot be observed, the thread will be closed.
T
thistle
Guest
The part I bolded above I disagree with. All impediments are stated. If something is not stated then it is not an impediment. Nothing is left open. If you see Can 1040 below it states “No impediment is contracted which is not contained in the following canons”.We have all heard the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Well this is what is going on here. There are many angels dancing on the head of the same pin.
This law did exist in the past. However, Canon Law no longer excludes those whose parents were not validly married from either Holy Orders or religious life. Additionally, there are some things that we are forgetting.
First: no one has the right to be ordained or to make religious vows. These are privileges for a few, not the right of the masses.
Second: there is no law that says that a person who is born outside of marriage must be admitted to either Holy Orders or vows.
Third: the SSPX a clerical institute of apostolic life. It is not a community of consecrated men. They are secular priests. However, they are not diocesan priests. They belong to a society.
Fourth: Societies, religious congregations, and religious orders can make any laws they want regarding who is admitted to ordination, as long as those laws are not contrary to Canon Law or to justice.
There is nothing in Canon Law for or against the ordination of men who are born of an invalid union. One could say that because the child is not guilty of the sins of the parents, the child should not be penalized. This is true. To penalize such a child is a grave injustice.
However, because no one has the right to be ordained: deacon, priest or bishop and no one has the right to be a brother, sister or nun, justice is not violated when the person is denied because of the circumstances of their birth.
Is such a rule useful today? I would have to disagree. I know many men who have born in invalid relationships and they make excellent deacons, priests, bishops, brothers, friars and monks.
I believe that times have changed. In the past, there was the whole question of scandal. People were scandalized if a clergyman or a religious was born outside of a valid marriage. That is no longer the case. Some people don’t care, which is not the proper attitude . . . but other people do care while they have a great capacity for compassion. This latter group does not hold the sins of the parent against the child. It is MY opinion, that such a rule is outdated. Someone would have to show me the harm done to the Church, the institute, to the ministry or a legislation in some other document outside of Canon Law…
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
That means if an impediment is not specifically mentioned in the canons then it is not an impediment. Being an “Illegitimate” son is not stated as an impediment, therefore nobody can decide outside Canon Law that it is an impediment to ordination.
Can. 1040 Those bound by an impediment are to be barred from the reception of orders. An impediment may be simple; or it may be perpetual, in which case it is called an irregularity. No impediment is contracted which is not contained in the following canons.
P
PKinsale
Guest
I did just that and this was the first sentence in the first section: “Before the present crisis in the Catholic Church brought about by Vatican II, a young man who desired to enter the Holy Priesthood after receiving an authentic Catholic formation had a wide choice of fields in which he might exercise his priestly apostolate.”
What does this have to do with pork? What is disagreeable here?
J
JReducation
Guest
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
J
JReducation
Guest
I did find one problem with this site. It misrepresents Maximilian Kolbe and the brothers. There is an article on the brothers page. It tries do draw a parallel between the Franciscan brothers at the house where Maximilian was the Guardian and the SSPX brothers. But the prallel does not work.
The SSPX brothers are Lay Brothers. A Lay Brother is a consecrated religious who is part of a clerical community. His life is that of a contemplative. He is a man of prayer and penance. However, his apostolate is to take care of the needs of the preists.
On the other hand, all Franciscans are properly called Brother. Some brothers are ordained and others are not. But every brother has the same rights and the same duties. The non-ordained brother can be parish administrators, retreat masters, theologians, professors, cooks, mechanics, carpenters, but so can the ordained brothers. When I was a postulant we had four ordained brothers in the house. Two were theology professors, one was the gardener, the other was the maintenance man. They celebrated mass in the morning, heard confessions on Saturday and did their respective apostoaltes during the week. Being a maintenance man was as important as being a theology professor.
We also had four non-ordained brothers. One was a cook, one was a tailor, one was a theologian and the superior of the house and the other was an itinerant preacher.
Maximilian himself was a Master of Theology, Doctor of Physics, a journalist, printer and a linguist. The one thing that he never did in his life was serve in a parish. He always taught, did journalism (Immaculata Magazine), served as an engineer, and twice as the Guardian of the hosue, once in Japan and in Poland before his death.
Maybe the person who wrote the article did not understand the use of the term “Brother” in the Franciscan context; therefore, did not understand the difference between the SSPX lay brother who is really a contemplative and the Franciscan Brother who is an active contemplative (ordained or not). We are never separated from each other, as are the SSPX. We go through the entire formation program as one fraternity, whether you’re going to be ordained or not. We all spend a minimum of 7-years in formation and a max of 10-years. It’s up to the superior to decide when you can make solemn vows. Also, the SSPX brothers are not allowed to make solemn vows. Only nuns, friars, monks, hermits and Jesuits have the privilege of solemn vows.
We have to be careful that the links we post are correclty written.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
There seems to be another problem involved. What if it’s only discovered later that the SSPX priest had been illegitimate (adopted, etc.) or born of adultery? It’s possible the truth is never known or hidden. Is he a valid priest and are his Masses valid? Are his orders invalidated by the newly disclosed truth?
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
I’m not sure about the vocations process, but if they require a birth certificate, a baptism certificate, and a confirmation certificate, wouldn’t this reveal the irregular situation?
I don’t agree with the use of the term illegitimate–it’s from secular law and has to do with inheritance rights–an obsolete legal concept in the legal environment of recent decades, in the DNA age.
God don’t make no junk.
It’s OT works of the law, too, condemned by Paul in Romans. Mamzers couldn’t be priests.
I don’t agree with the use of the term illegitimate–it’s from secular law and has to do with inheritance rights–an obsolete legal concept in the legal environment of recent decades, in the DNA age.
God don’t make no junk.
It’s OT works of the law, too, condemned by Paul in Romans. Mamzers couldn’t be priests.
J
JReducation
Guest
It’s a very good question. AND THE ANSWER IS . . . … .
The ordination is valid, but illicit.
If you belong to a community, wether it’s religious or secular, you must comply with its requirements. When the superior gives permission for you to be ordained or for you to make vows, it is under the assumption that you meet all the requirements of the community and the Church.
There are situations where the ordination may be invalid, if it does not meet the requirements of Ordinary Law (the constitutions), but those are very rare. That would take us off topic. I rather not get into trouble tonight.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Birth certificates don’t always list the real fathers or if the mother and father are married at the time, do they?
I didn’t know they had them for confirmation. But they should be doing some other background checking, I would think.
J
JReducation
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, it’s been about 25-years since the format for Baptism and Confrimation certificates were changed. They are not longer allowed to state the marital status of your parents. The mother is listed with her maiden name and the marital status is no longer included.
The confirmation is recorded in two places, the church where you were confirmed issues a Confirmation certificate and the church where you were baptized gets a notice. They then enter the date of the Confirmation into the Baptismal registry. The Baptism certificate serves two functions. 1) Proof that you were baptized and 2) it’s used to send the information back to the parish where you were baptized, if you were baptized in a Catholic church.
But I have not seen a register that asks for marital status in over 25 years. When I did parish work, I remember asking, but never recording it. What was required was a commitment on the part of at least one parent to raise the child in the faith. There are many single parents. You don’t want to put preasure on the parents to marry, because they have a child. That can constitute a forced marriage, which would be invalid. Also, the Church wants single parents to bring their children to be baptized. Many would not do so, if they believe that they are going to be embarrassed.
You really have to trust the person who applies to enter your seminary or your house of formation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The confirmation is recorded in two places, the church where you were confirmed issues a Confirmation certificate and the church where you were baptized gets a notice. They then enter the date of the Confirmation into the Baptismal registry. The Baptism certificate serves two functions. 1) Proof that you were baptized and 2) it’s used to send the information back to the parish where you were baptized, if you were baptized in a Catholic church.
But I have not seen a register that asks for marital status in over 25 years. When I did parish work, I remember asking, but never recording it. What was required was a commitment on the part of at least one parent to raise the child in the faith. There are many single parents. You don’t want to put preasure on the parents to marry, because they have a child. That can constitute a forced marriage, which would be invalid. Also, the Church wants single parents to bring their children to be baptized. Many would not do so, if they believe that they are going to be embarrassed.
You really have to trust the person who applies to enter your seminary or your house of formation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Phemie
Guest
When you say a place for marital status, are you talking about the ‘notation’ section at the end of the entry? That’s the only place where I’ve ever come across a reference to the parents’ marital status and that was the notation of “illegitimate” entered by the priest, and that as recently as 1999.
I know that in registers where the priest wrote the entire entry out, the status was included thus:
"I, the undersigned, have this day baptized Matthew Mark, legitimate son of Luke John Black and Mary Martha White, born February 5, 1949, at Hope Island, Maine. Godparents are Isaac Abraham and Sarah Abraham.
Signed: Jacob Benjamin, priest.
February 10, 1949
- Status