|
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of a lack of members. For one who is
afflicted should not receive additional affliction. Therefore a man
ought not to be deprived of the degree of Orders on account of his
suffering a bodily defect.
Objection 2: Further, integrity of discretion is more necessary for
the act of orders than integrity of body. But some can be ordained
before the years of discretion. Therefore they can also be ordained
though deficient in body.
On the contrary, The like were debarred from the ministry of the Old
Law (Lev. 21:18, seqq.). Much more therefore should they
be debarred in the New Law.
We shall speak of bigamy in the treatise on Matrimony (Question
66).
I answer that, As appears from what we have said above (Articles
3,4,5), a man is disqualified from receiving Orders, either on
account of an impediment to the act, or on account of an impediment
affecting his personal comeliness. Hence he who suffers from a lack of
members is debarred from receiving Orders, if the defect be such as to
cause a notable blemish, whereby a man's comeliness is bedimmed (for
instance if his nose be cut off) or the exercise of his Order
imperilled; otherwise he is not debarred. This integrity, however,
is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the
sacrament.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
|
|