Illigitamate Priests and ordination

[notsmart]

Was ordination of a priest denied if they were born out of wedlock?

This is so odd. Even the pope is not required to be impeccable, so why the lowly priest would be a possible detriment to his pastoral ability for this reason, and why would it “look bad”?

Considering he is such a low man on the totem pole, and the pope being the Vicar of Christ, how on earth did anyone find this logical? I am glad its been RECENTLY abandoned, but it certainly sends my hairs up on end to know that it was a impediment to the priesthood!

Thanks for any help understanding this if you can.

 

[Cristiano]

The priesthood is a vocation (calling) not a right. There are a lot of other impediments that may stop a man from being ordained. That does not imply any fault on any side.

I know that I am opening a can of worms here but ordination of women is a typical case. There is nothing faulty with women; however they do not fit the fundamental requirements for priesthood.

It is not matter of bad vs. good!

 

[Phemie]

Was ordination of a priest denied if they were born out of wedlock?

This is so odd. Even the pope is not required to be impeccable, so why the lowly priest would be a possible detriment to his pastoral ability for this reason, and why would it “look bad”?

Considering he is such a low man on the totem pole, and the pope being the Vicar of Christ, how on earth did anyone find this logical? I am glad its been RECENTLY abandoned, but it certainly sends my hairs up on end to know that it was a impediment to the priesthood!

Thanks for any help understanding this if you can.

Mystery novel author, and laicized Catholic priest, William X. Kienzle had that as a premise for one of his murder mysteries.

 

[notsmart]

The priesthood is a vocation (calling) not a right. There are a lot of other impediments that may stop a man from being ordained. That does not imply any fault on any side.

I know that I am opening a can of worms here but ordination of women is a typical case. There is nothing faulty with women; however they do not fit the fundamental requirements for priesthood.

It is not matter of bad vs. good!

I understand why a woman wont do.

I am failing to understand the basis for rejection over how one was born. And, the sudden lifting of this restriction.

 

[Cristiano]

I understand why a woman wont do.

I am failing to understand the basis for rejection over how one was born. And, the sudden lifting of this restriction.

I think that we also need to look at history and the environment where illegitimate children grew up. Most of the time because of the social constraints, these kids grew up with a lot of personal issues especially because of the way they were treated since birth. Another thing would have been an almost guaranteed lack of education, especially religious one. At the time the Church did not perform psychological testing on the candidates as She does today, and so they used this kind of background history to assess the fitness of a candidate.

 

[notsmart]

I think that we also need to look at history and the environment where illegitimate children grew up. Most of the time because of the social constraints, these kids grew up with a lot of personal issues especially because of the way they were treated since birth. Another thing would have been an almost guaranteed lack of education, especially religious one. At the time the Church did not perform psychological testing on the candidates as She does today, and so they used this kind of background history to assess the fitness of a candidate.

Many uneducated priests got their education in seminary!

What were the reasons the church decided it was not important the pope be impeccable then? I agree with it, but thought that would hold across the clerical spectrum!

 

[Cristiano]

Many uneducated priests got their education in seminary!

What were the reasons the church decided it was not important the pope be impeccable then? I agree with it, but thought that would hold across the clerical spectrum!

I think that you are not comfortable with it because you look at things with the lenses of the USA society in the last 30 years. If you were to go back a couple of hundred years in the European society you could probably appreciate the difference.

It is not matter of impeccability. I already said that was not based on faults. I would call it social profiling. At the time the upper social levels where expected to show better behaviors and their kids were taught that. The lower classes were treated as dumb. This is not usually true anymore. Times change and the Church changes the disciplines as deemed appropriate.

 

[notsmart]

I think that you are not comfortable with it because you look at things with the lenses of the USA society in the last 30 years. If you were to go back a couple of hundred years in the European society you could probably appreciate the difference.

It is not matter of impeccability. I already said that was not based on faults. I would call it social profiling. At the time the upper social levels where expected to show better behaviors and their kids were taught that. The lower classes were treated as dumb. This is not usually true anymore. Times change and the Church changes the disciplines as deemed appropriate.

I see. And, so then the only clergy was the elite who were super wealthy to have an education back then, because a single book could cost years of income, if not a decade of income. And, the church had teachers to teach the willing men, who because they were poor, were out. A caste system.

 

[Cristiano]

I see. And, so then the only clergy was the elite who were super wealthy to have an education back then, because a single book could cost years of income, if not a decade of income…

No that is a wrong generalization. It was not the super wealthy (the lords) probably the merchant families, and depending of the historical period a lot of priests were still illiterate (no Latin but Vulgate)

…And, the church had teachers to teach the willing men, who because they were poor, were out. A caste system.

Yes it was a caste system mainly out of practicality. The first born of the rich would inherit the property, the second would become a priest, the third would serve under a lord etc. In the case of low classes everybody had to work to support the family structure (aging family members).

 

[Phemie]

No that is a wrong generalization. It was not the super wealthy (the lords) probably the merchant families, and depending of the historical period a lot of priests were still illiterate (no Latin but Vulgate)

Yes it was a caste system mainly out of practicality. The first born of the rich would inherit the property, the second would become a priest, the third would serve under a lord etc. In the case of low classes everybody had to work to support the family structure (aging family members).

Wait a minute – this was happening in the 40s and 50s and also excluded men who had been adopted into reasonably comfortable families. Not all priests in those days came from wealthy homes or some of the priests who served my parish would have never become priests – their parents were lowly farmers in small communities. I know that in my family if my brother had really wanted to become a priest (and my family certainly couldn’t support that education as dad made very little and it all went for shelter, food and clothes) there were a few priests willing to sponsor him at the Redemptorist college.

As for the OP’s question, illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination but a dispensation could be obtained. It was up to the bishop whether he was willing to grant such just as it is still up to his bishop whether a man is ordained today.

 

[Digitonomy]

This is so odd. Even the pope is not required to be impeccable, so why the lowly priest would be a possible detriment to his pastoral ability for this reason, and why would it “look bad”?

Considering he is such a low man on the totem pole, and the pope being the Vicar of Christ, how on earth did anyone find this logical?

You seem to have a false impression that the pope could be illegitimate, but not a priest. Since popes are pretty much always priests first, I don’t see how you can claim that priests were being held to a higher standard than popes.

 

[bilop]

Was ordination of a priest denied if they were born out of wedlock?

This is so odd. Even the pope is not required to be impeccable, so why the lowly priest would be a possible detriment to his pastoral ability for this reason, and why would it “look bad”?

Considering he is such a low man on the totem pole, and the pope being the Vicar of Christ, how on earth did anyone find this logical? I am glad its been RECENTLY abandoned, but it certainly sends my hairs up on end to know that it was a impediment to the priesthood!

Thanks for any help understanding this if you can.

Your premise is incorrect. Although illegitimacy was an impediment to the priesthood in times past, it could be dispensed by the Pope, and was widely dispensed.

It is similar to first cousins marrying today; against Canon Law, but fairly easily dispensed.

It was a source of concern, so the Church wanted to investigate each case before giving approval.

God Bless

 

[mercygate]

I understand why a woman wont do.

I am failing to understand the basis for rejection over how one was born. And, the sudden lifting of this restriction.

Before the new canons were published, a man whose parents were divorced could not be ordained. There were physical impediments also. Peter Abelard could not be ordained after his unfortunate incident with Heloise’s relatives because a man had to be “intact” – as we say in the dog world. I think amputees were not admitted either. People could be missing teeth, though. Go figure. Dispensations were allowed on a case by case basis. Some were more easily given than others.

The point was that the priest had to be an “unblemished lamb.” I rather like that symbolism and think it was a mistake to abandon it. But I’m so far off politically correct that I’m an embarrassment.

 

[Cristiano]

Wait a minute – this was happening in the 40s and 50s and also excluded men who had been adopted into reasonably comfortable families. Not all priests in those days came from wealthy homes or some of the priests who served my parish would have never become priests – their parents were lowly farmers in small communities. I know that in my family if my brother had really wanted to become a priest (and my family certainly couldn’t support that education as dad made very little and it all went for shelter, food and clothes) there were a few priests willing to sponsor him at the Redemptorist college.

As for the OP’s question, illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination but a dispensation could be obtained. It was up to the bishop whether he was willing to grant such just as it is still up to his bishop whether a man is ordained today.

What you are saying is correct. I was just making the point that it started long time ago and then recently the Church decided to change the discipline.

 

[Methodi]

I personally knew two men who were accepted into a catholic seminary, both were born out of wedlock. If this is true, why would the seminary even accept them.

 

[mercygate]

I personally knew two men who were accepted into a catholic seminary, both were born out of wedlock. If this is true, why would the seminary even accept them.

When? I believe that restriction has been off the books for 25 years.

 

[bilop]

I personally knew two men who were accepted into a catholic seminary, both were born out of wedlock. If this is true, why would the seminary even accept them.

It is no longer true. At one time, if a man was illegitimate, he required a dispensation from Rome to be ordained, but the dispensation was common.

God Bless

 

[notsmart]

Before the new canons were published, a man whose parents were divorced could not be ordained. There were physical impediments also. Peter Abelard could not be ordained after his unfortunate incident with Heloise’s relatives because a man had to be “intact” – as we say in the dog world. I think amputees were not admitted either. People could be missing teeth, though. Go figure. Dispensations were allowed on a case by case basis. Some were more easily given than others.

The point was that the priest had to be an “unblemished lamb.” I rather like that symbolism and think it was a mistake to abandon it. But I’m so far off politically correct that I’m an embarrassment.

Yes, like the Jewish priests had to be “intact”

I like the symbolism also, but I can’t see being born in this way, being an impediment, because it is not the child’s choosing how he comes into this world. Many likely thought Jesus to be illigitamate when Mary was pregnant. It certainly did not stop people from following him.

 

[notsmart]

Before the new canons were published, a man whose parents were divorced could not be ordained. There were physical impediments also. Peter Abelard could not be ordained after his unfortunate incident with Heloise’s relatives because a man had to be “intact” – as we say in the dog world. I think amputees were not admitted either. People could be missing teeth, though. Go figure. Dispensations were allowed on a case by case basis. Some were more easily given than others.

The point was that the priest had to be an “unblemished lamb.” I rather like that symbolism and think it was a mistake to abandon it. But I’m so far off politically correct that I’m an embarrassment.

Yes, like the Jewish priests had to be “intact”

I like the symbolism also, but I can’t see being born in this way, being an impediment, because it is not the child’s choosing how he comes into this world. Many likely thought Jesus to be illigitamate when Mary was pregnant. It certainly did not stop people from following him.

 

[bilop]

Before the new canons were published, a man whose parents were divorced could not be ordained. There were physical impediments also. Peter Abelard could not be ordained after his unfortunate incident with Heloise’s relatives because a man had to be “intact” – as we say in the dog world. I think amputees were not admitted either. People could be missing teeth, though. Go figure. Dispensations were allowed on a case by case basis. Some were more easily given than others.

The point was that the priest had to be an “unblemished lamb.” I rather like that symbolism and think it was a mistake to abandon it. But I’m so far off politically correct that I’m an embarrassment.

The intact thing even applied somewhat to ordained priests.

One of the Jesuits martyrs of North American (St. Isaac Jogues)lost most of his fingers to torture by the Iroquois. When he returned to France, he was now allowed to say Mass because of the state of his hands. He received a special permission from the Pope to touch the Eucharist.

He later went back to North America and was martyred.

God Bless