Current status of old irregularities impeding ordination

[Digitonomy]

I was reading through the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and I was fascinated by some of the irregularities which would prevent a licit or valid ordination. As there have been a couple of Codes of Canon Law promulgated since the article was published, I’m curious about the meaning of these old rules, and whether some of them are still in effect.

The absence of an eye, even the left eye, may not constitute an impediment if the person can read the Mass without deformity. In case of doubt the bishop is judge, and, when the defect exists, he makes his declaration to Rome, but in practice the Sacred Congregation generally inclines to the severer view.

• Is the absence of an eye still an irregularity to ordination?* Is there something special about the left eye vs the right?

Thus, the absence of the left eye would not prevent one from ministering as a deacon, but he could not receive the priesthood

• Why the distinction here between priest and deacon?
• If there are deformities that qualify as irregularities for ordination to the priesthood but not the diaconate, were(and are) there also deformities that rendered one irregular for the episcopate but not the priesthood, or which were irregular only for the diaconate but not the subdiaconate?

Defect of Mildness…Canonists hold generally that in an unjust war all those soldiers who take part in it fall under this impediment if any of the enemy be killed or mutilated.

• So an Iraqi soldier in a supply unit during the invasion of Kuwait would be ineligible for ordination? * Is this still in effect?

Children are held irregular if born after their parents have fallen into heresy, and if the parents die in heresy.

• So a son of Lutheran parents was irregular, even if he became Catholic?
• Is this still in effect?

Mutilation, in the canonical sense, is the separation from the body of one of its principal members or of some part of the body having a distinct office, as a hand or a foot or an eye. He, therefore, who cuts off a finger is not a mutilator, unless it be the index finger or thumb, which, for a priest, are accounted principal members.

Does this remain the canonical sense of mutilation – chopping off pinkies doesn’t qualify?

It is called true bigamy when a man has contracted a second marriage after the death of his first wife. Such a person is considered irregular for Sacred orders, because according to Innocent III a second marriage does not signify the union of Christ with His Church in the same manner as does a first marriage.

• Is it still true that a man who has married a second time is irregular for ordination?

Bigamy is called interpretative, when, by fiction of law, a person is accounted as having had two wives, when in reality he had but one. This is the condition of a man who marries a widow or one corrupted by another.

• Marriage to a widow was not considered a true marriage?
• What exactly is the author referring to by “corrupted by another” - loss of virginity?

 

[AJV]

The impediment for the eye was because the missal was placed on the left of the priest. The same applied for the index finger and thumb (the ‘canonicals’) - these were used to hold the Host thus it required a dispensation to be ordained (or if ordained to celebrate Mass) if missing these.

 

[AJV]

The impediment for the eye was because the missal was placed on the left of the priest. The same applied for the index finger and thumb (the ‘canonicals’) - these were used to hold the Host thus it required a dispensation to be ordained (or if ordained to celebrate Mass) if missing these. That is why it did not apply to a deacon - he did not have to read from a missal.

The canon that used to be interpreted for the “unjust war” was that against “voluntary murder” (i.e. if you volunteer for an unjust war. The post-1917 interpretation was slightly more lax than the previous interpretation which indicted all soldiers). The same canon is there in the 1983 Code, but I’m not qualified to say how it is interpreted. One of the canonists of the forum will probably tell you.

The canon stating the impediment for children of non-Catholics is not in the 1983 Code. The 1917 Code had reduced it from the second degree (paternal) to the first degree.The reason for the impediment was that it was felt that family ties and affection might cause the person to apostasize.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

Hi,

I would really look for more recent documents. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good general information source, but many articles have not been updated since the early early in the 20th century.

I know many restrictions have changed.

Perhaps contact a seminary, or look for the vatican or bishops website.

Lux

 

[puzzleannie]

another good source would be current canon law on who is and is not an eligible candidate for the priesthood, rather than trying to track the history of each of these former prohibitions

 

[cameron_lansing]

. . , I’m curious about . . . whether some of them are still in effect.

That’s simple enough. See canons 1040-1049 and compare them.

The Holy See has also addressed the admission of those with homosexual tendency (see Persons with Homosexual Tendencies).

It has also considered the situation of those who are gluten intolerant or suffer from alcoholism.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement prohibiting such candidates back in 1994, “Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders.” You might be able to find it on the internet. But a newer statement in 2003 simply urged caution in those matters.

(To the side topic, under the 1917 code, as I recall, a widowed woman needed a dispensation to remarry but it was more virtuous that she not. That might have been connected to your main topic in some way.)