Mental Illness and Physical incapacity Impediments to Ordination

[x1980x]

According to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment

“Mental illness that prevents fulfillment of the duties of the priesthood” is an irregularity that is “permanent unless removed by the competent authority”, alongside such things as “Attempted marriage” and “Attempt to perform an act proper to the priesthood or episcopate”.

Does this actually mean that a man who has EVER in his life had a mental illness that would have prevented fulfillment of the duties of the priesthood had he been ordained at that time is forever a bar to ordination in the future (unless he gets a dispensation), regardless of how transitory said “mental illness” was or to what extent he is cured?

This also applies to “Physical incapacity to perform the rites of the Church”. If a man at one time was medically diagnosed with a wheat intolerance but has recovered and is now able to tolerate wheat, is he forever impeded from the priesthood?

e.g.:

Bishop: “Have you ever had any trouble with wheat or wine?”
Seminarian: “When I was 8, I got very sick and my parents took me to the doctor and the doctor told me that I couldn’t handle wheat. But later at age 16, I accidentally consumed wheat bread and nothing happened. My doctor figures now that the intolerance was a childhood thing and that I’m fine now. I consume wheat regularly now and don’t have any difficulty.”
Bishop: "Hmm. You are subject to an impediment for ordination. Fill out this form to apply for a dispensation. .
Seminarian: “Uhh, thanks.”

I do understand that Wikipedia is not the best source.

The fact that these are NOT listed under “Simple impediments to ordination” (“which may pass with time without action of an ecclesiastical authority”) leads me to ask whether or not these are actually permanent as hypothesized above.

I’m not Catholic, and even if I do become Catholic, I’m not planning to seek the Priesthood so this question is asked out of curiosity.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m not a vocations director or anything like that, but it seems to me only current disabilities or illnesses affect a person’s ability to perform the duties of any given state of life, not past ones. The only way I could see a past problem being a concern is if it is seen as an indication of a condition that may still exist under the surface and may lead to problems in the future. For example, if the person has a history of mental breakdowns, it could be legitimate to worry he may suffer more in the future.

 

[thistle]

Canon Law:

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.

 

[TrueLight]

Hi Thistle,

Is there Canon law regarding admission to the Religious life? I mean Brothers, monks etc. Is that considered “Orders” as well?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Hi Thistle,

Is there Canon law regarding admission to the Religious life? I mean Brothers, monks etc. Is that considered “Orders” as well?

“Orders”, in the sense as quoted in Canon Law means, ‘Holy Orders’-
meaning a Priest or Deacon, anyone who is ordained.

As far as rules for entering Religious life, I believe that it all depends on what order. Every order has it’s own set of rules that are followed. And just because someone does join a religious order, it does not mean that they will automatically receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders- not all brothers/monks are or need to be priests.

Maybe Br. JR, a Franciscan, or Br. David, a Carmelite, can chime in with some info!

 

[dans0622]

…
Does this actually mean that a man who has EVER in his life had a mental illness that would have prevented fulfillment of the duties of the priesthood had he been ordained at that time is forever a bar to ordination in the future (unless he gets a dispensation), regardless of how transitory said “mental illness” was or to what extent he is cured?

This also applies to “Physical incapacity to perform the rites of the Church”. If a man at one time was medically diagnosed with a wheat intolerance but has recovered and is now able to tolerate wheat, is he forever impeded from the priesthood?
…
The fact that these are NOT listed under “Simple impediments to ordination” (“which may pass with time without action of an ecclesiastical authority”) leads me to ask whether or not these are actually permanent as hypothesized above. …

Hello x1980x,

These are good questions. The applicable law has been quoted above so perhaps you noticed that the “amentia” of c. 1041.1 is something the person “suffers from”–it’s in the present tense. All candidates are subjected to a wide variety of psychological tests these days. If the man goes through these and no illness is indicated, there is no amentia. There is no irregularity. It is also important to remember that a doubtful irregularity does not bind. So, if there is true doubt about the presence of amentia, there is no irregularity.
On the other hand, if a man has a permanent/incurable mental illness that would render him unqualified for ministry, he is irregular.

Regarding wheat intolerance, that is not an impediment/irregularity, strictly speaking. However, the CDF has said: “Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of a priest, one must proceed with great caution before admitting to Holy Orders those candidates unable to ingest gluten or alcohol without serious harm.” adoremus.org/CDF_Lowgluten-mustum2003.html

If there is no current issue with gluten, there is no problem.

In general, it is good to remember that even though these canons use the words “permanent” and “irregular” and “dispensation,” this is not like marriage where a dispensation is needed for a valid marriage. If a man is irregular for ordination but, for whatever reason, is ordained anyway, he is presumed to be a validly ordained priest.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Hi Thistle,

Is there Canon law regarding admission to the Religious life? I mean Brothers, monks etc. Is that considered “Orders” as well?

Hello TrueLight,

“Oneofthewomen” is correct. For further information, see cc. 643, 656, and 658 for the universal law regarding this topic. You can start at this link and work your way forward:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P24.HTM

Dan

 

[Stylites]

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;

There goes my priestly vocation out the proverbial door. Seriously, I am not insane, but what I can say could give worldly experts an inclination to award me an easy misdiagnosis.