question regarding illegitimate children, priesthood and annulment

[BAFRIEND]

here is a quick question i am finding it hard to find an answer too

i was on the website for an sspx seminary and it stated that candidates could only be the product of a valid marriage, in otherwords they could not be illegitimate

now that really caught my attention and i tried to research to discover if this is a qualification for the rcc also but cannot find an answer- certainly in recent history it had to of been if it is part of the traditional sector

this of course would mean that if parents got an annulment- then the children who were illegitimatized would be unable to become catholic priests

last year we debated and discovered that the catholic church does indeed view the children of annulments to be illegitimate if both parents knowingly entered into the sacrament knowing it was deceptive

i just want an answer to the question if a person was conceived outside of marriage if the priesthood is out

 

[benedictaoo]

then the children who were illegitimatized would be unable to become catholic priests

illegitimate children is literally a non existent thing in the church now.

it does not exist.

 

[BAFRIEND]

illegitimate children is literally a non existent thing in the church now.

it does not exist.

can you give me an authoritative source on this please ? because the authoritative source i used in our previous debate disagreed with this

also, here is the link and quote from the seminary:

In like manner, there are “counter-indicators” for a vocation. There are some from the natural law; others are imposed by Canon Law. For example: a young man who is the sole support of his poor family, a man who has debts or pending lawsuits, cannot enter the novitiate without having settled these questions. An illegitimate son cannot be a priest. Nor can those with certain sicknesses, certain bodily defects, certain public faults, at least for some vocations. Nor can a young man who has certain habits that he cannot correct.

link: Do I have a vocation?

 

[benedictaoo]

we already did, not going to do it again.

your question now needs to be reevaluated since no such animal as a illegitimate child other then just a stigma that, that doesn't even exist anymore, no body cares if a kid was born out of wed lock anymore.

The is no consequence anymore for it.

towards the child. The parents sin is sex and no marriage but that's it- no sin visits the child anymore.

 

[BAFRIEND]

we already did, not going to do it again.

your question now needs to be reevaluated since no such animal as a illegitimate child other then just a stigma that, that doesn't even exist anymore, no body cares if a kid was born out of wed lock anymore.

The is no consequence anymore for it.

towards the child. The parents sin is sex and no marriage but that's it- no sin visits the child anymore.

i asked the question if the rcc prohibits illegitimate sons to enter the priesthood- the rcc does under some circumstances view children of annulment to be illegitimate and that is fact regardless of societal subjectivity

it seems to me that the sspx uses the same theology regarding illigetimate males as the catholicism holds towards females

that is, that women cannot become priests because it is impossible, hence illegitimate males cannot become priests simply because it is not possible

from that i ask if this is the holding of the Catholic Church

can an illegitimate child become a priest

 

[benedictaoo]

Yes, an illegitimate child can become a priest .. since it is no longer recognized in the Church or in life anymore.

The concept of illegitimate children is a foreign concept now.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Yes, an illegitimate child can become a priest .. since it is no longer recognized in the Church or in life anymore.

The concept of illegitimate children is a foreign concept now.

do you have a source one can become a priest or is this just your opinion

as much against sspx i am- they hold onto traditional teaching and theology so without evidence to support your view i am inclined to the notion that the comment made on the website is the policy of the rcc

and the concept of ligetimacy is not foreign to everyone, the Catholic Church, Jesus, or our legal system in my opinion, like i stated before; i have a friend whose father refused to do an annulment because he did not want his children to be deemed illegitimate

depending on ones moral and religious beliefs or standards the issue has meaning

 

[benedictaoo]

Sigh...

 

[benedictaoo]

1983 code of cannon law... have you seen it? We should it to you last time.

Can an Illegitimate Man Become a Priest?
March 13th, 2010 · No Comments
by Therese Ivers, JCL

Now and then a man discerning the priesthood will wonder if the old rules about legitimacy apply if he’s considering the priesthood. Sometimes even diocesan websites state that the Catholic marriage certificate of the candidate’s parents must be submitted with the application. The reality is that prior to 1983, illegitimacy was an impediment to the priesthood and receiving Holy Orders. With the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, this is no longer the case. Since illegitimacy does not pose an impediment to Holy Orders, a man is not required by universal law to submit his parent’s marriage certificate to a diocese, and he might do well to point this out to the diocesan vocations director in a charitable fashion. Further, if a person’s application is rejected solely on account of his being born illegitimately, he should speak to a canon lawyer.

(c) 2010 by Therese Ivers, JCL

 

[BAFRIEND]

i refute the above source using the canon because Church law specifically states that if the 1983 canon does not specifically adress an issue- then the issue is decided by the previous canon

so, a direct source from the canon explicitly refuting the policy will answer my question- not therese ivers opinion offered without even a citation from the canon

 

[benedictaoo]

okaaaay. Why this even matters to you is beyond me but call the local seminary in your area and just ask them and get the source they use.

 

[BAFRIEND]

okaaaay. Why this even matters to you is beyond me but call the local seminary in your area and just ask them and get the source they use.

sorry but, the Church specifically stated when the 1983 was released that any issue not adressed in the canon falls under the authority of the previous canon

ivers answer is suspicious because she says that the person should confront the vocation director and get a canon lawyer

if the 1983 canon refutiated the holding an illegitimate person, the product of an unholy relationship that offends God, cannot become a priest then why even have to offer such advice

i am sorry, but i believe in what the Church teaches, not an ambigious opinion

 

[benedictaoo]

ask the diocese in which you live... they ought to be able to answer this once and for all. call up and say, hey- I want to be a priest but my momma and daddy were never married, can I still be a priest?

see what they say.

 

[BAFRIEND]

ask the diocese in which you live... they ought to be able to answer this once and for all. call up and say, hey- I want to be a priest but my momma and daddy were never married, can I still be a priest?

see what they say.

lie ?

anyway i am still fuming over ivers answer- if there is no direct refutation in the 1983; then the policy is still in effect

 

[Davidnic]

When I went to the seminary it had to provide a marriage certificate for my parents. I asked if that was a common problem and they said there is no such thing as canonical illegitimacy anymore as an impediment and that the process was part of ascertaining if the seminarian had grown up with a proper view of marriage. Which was also addressed in the pre-interviews and the psych exam.

And canon law does not have to repeal it directly. It abrogates it because it is not listed as a sacramental impediment to Orders in the 1983 code and the 83 code introduces a comprehensive list of impediments.

Basically if it is not mentioned in canon(s) 1041 and 1042 as an impediment (be it irregular or simple) to priestly ordination it is not an impediment. I'll highlight in red the part that can be said to directly remove the previous canon law.

Canon 1040 – Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or a simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.

Canon 1041 – The following are irregular for receiving orders:

1. A person who labors under some form of amentia or other physic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted,He is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

2. A person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism;

3. A person who has attempted marriage, even only civil, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or by the same type of vow;

4. A person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

5. A person who has seriously and maliciously mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

6. A person who has performed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

Canon 1042 – The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1. A man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined for the permanent dioconate;

2. A person who exercises an office or administration forbidden to clerics according to the norm of canons 285 and 286 for which he must render an account, until he becomes free by having relinquished the office or administration and rendered an account;

3. A neophyte, unless he has been proven sufficiently in the judgment of the ordinary.​

 

[Davidnic]

And also canon 1045 lists what irregularities (from 1041 and 1042) can be dispensed by the Holy See or Apostolic See. 1041-42 deal with impediments to receiving orders and 1044 to existing orders. 1043 reminds that anyone who knows of an impediment must disclose it.

 

[BAFRIEND]

And canon law does not have to repeal it directly. It abrogates it because it is not listed as a sacramental impediment to Orders in the 1983 code.

if you look at canon 2 in the 1983 code it states that if the issue is not directly addressed by the new canon- then the authority is the 1917 canon which covers this area as well as the issue of female altar servers (forbidden by Church law)

this is not my own formed opinion. i take that from the writing of Rev Peter Stravinskas p 126 The Catholic Answer Book vol 1

the absence of a practice in the 1983 simply enforces the 1917 doctrine of the Church

 

[BAFRIEND]

And also canon 1045 lists what irregularities (from 1041 and 1042) can be dispensed by the Holy See or Apostolic See. 1041-42 deal with impediments to receiving orders and 1044 to existing orders. 1043 reminds that anyone who knows of an impediment must disclose it.

but, if you noticed above i suspected the sspx viewpoint was that the Church could simply not ordain an illegitimate son anymore than it could ordain a woman- because it is impossible

and it was the last pope and the view of the current pope that a woman cannot be ordained because it is impossible to do so

the pope could not waive the irregularity of being female so perhaps he could ot waive the irregularity of being illegitimate ?

that is the question ?

 

[Davidnic]

if you look at canon 2 in the 1983 code it states that if the issue is not directly addressed by the new canon- then the authority is the 1917 canon which covers this area as well as the issue of female altar servers (forbidden by Church law)

this is not my own formed opinion. i take that from the writing of Rev Peter Stravinskas p 126 The Catholic Answer Book vol 1

the absence of a practice in the 1983 simply enforces the 1917 doctrine of the Church

Yes, but if it lists a procedure and that procedure is comprehensive and lists all impediments and does not list one of the old ones...it does not need to specifically remove it.

In the specific case of impediments to ordination canon 1040 states that if it is not in the canons that follow it is not an impediment.

That is a direct abrogation of all impediments previously listed and replacing them with the list from the 83 code.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Yes, but if it lists a procedure and that procedure is comprehensive and lists all impediments and does not list one of the old ones...it does not need to specifically remove it.

In the specific case of impediments to ordination canon 1040 states that if it is not in the canons that follow it is not an impediment.

That is a direct abrogation of all impediments previously listed and replacing them with the list from the 83 code.

but i would then ask if the impediments include the one of being female, if not it leaves open the interpretation of the author of the impediments

i used the example of altar girls as fr stravinskas was pointing out that an argument was made for female altar servers based on the fact of what was not in the 1983- stravinskas pointed out female lectors are allowed because they are serving the community but female altar servers not allowed because they directly assist the priest in the consecration