|
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of homicide. Because our Orders
originated with the office of the Levites, as stated in the previous
Distinction (Sent. iv, D, 24). But the Levites consecrated
their hands by shedding the blood of their brethren (Ex.
32:29). Therefore neither should anyone in the New Testament
be debarred from receiving Orders on account of the shedding of blood.
Objection 2: Further, no one should be debarred from a sacrament on
account of an act of virtue. Now blood is sometimes shed for justice'
sake, for instance by a judge; and he who has the office would sin if
he did not shed it. Therefore he is not hindered on that account from
receiving Orders.
Objection 3: Further, punishment is not due save for a fault. Now
sometimes a person commits homicide without fault, for instance by
defending himself, or again by mishap. Therefore he ought not to
incur the punishment of irregularity.
On the contrary, Against this there are many canonical statutes
[Cap. Miror; cap. Clericum; cap. De his Cler., dist. 1;
cap. Continebatur, De homic. volunt.], as also the custom of the
Church.
I answer that, All the Orders bear a relation to the sacrament of
the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the peace vouchsafed to us by
the shedding of Christ's blood. And since homicide is most opposed
to peace, and those who slay are conformed to Christ's slayers rather
than to Christ slain, to whom all the ministers of the aforesaid
sacrament ought to be conformed, it follows that it is unlawful,
although not invalid, for homicides to be raised to Orders.
Reply to Objection 1: The Old Law inflicted the punishment of
blood, whereas the New Law does not. Hence the comparison fails
between the ministers of the Old Testament and those of the New,
which is a sweet yoke and a light burden (Mt. 11:30).
Reply to Objection 2: Irregularity is incurred not only on account
of sin, but chiefly on account of a person being unfit to administer
the sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence the judge and all who take part
with him in a cause of blood, are irregular, because the shedding of
blood is unbecoming to the ministers of that sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: No one does a thing without being the cause
thereof, and in man this is something voluntary. Hence he who by
mishap slays a man without knowing that it is a man, is not called a
homicide, nor does he incur irregularity (unless he was occupying
himself in some unlawful manner, or failed to take sufficient care,
since in this case the slaying becomes somewhat voluntary). But this
is not because he is not in fault, since irregularity is incurred even
without fault. Wherefore even he who in a particular case slays a man
in self-defense without committing a sin, is none the less irregular.
|
|