|
Objection 1: It would seem that boys and those who lack the use of
reason cannot receive Orders. For, as stated in the text (Sent.
iv, D, 25), the sacred canons have appointed a certain fixed age
in those who receive Orders. But this would not be if boys could
receive the sacrament of Orders. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, the sacrament of Orders ranks above the
sacrament of matrimony. Now children and those who lack the use of
reason cannot contract matrimony. Neither therefore can they receive
Orders.
Objection 3: Further, act and power are in the same subject,
according to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vigil. i). Now the
act of Orders requires the use of reason. Therefore the power of
Orders does also.
On the contrary, one who is raised to Orders before the age of
discretion is sometimes allowed to exercise them without being
reordained, as appears from Extra., De Cler. per salt. prom.
But this would not be the case if he had not received Orders.
Therefore a boy can receive Orders.
Further, boys can receive other sacraments in which a character is
imprinted, namely Baptism and Confirmation. Therefore in like
manner they can receive Orders.
I answer that, Boyhood and other defects which remove the use of
reason occasion an impediment to act. Wherefore the like are unfit to
receive all those sacraments which require an act on the part of the
recipient of the sacrament, such as Penance, Matrimony, and so
forth. But since infused powers like natural powers precede
acts---although acquired powers follow acts---and the removal of
that which comes after does not entail the removal of what comes first,
it follows that children and those who lack the use of reason can
receive all the sacraments in which an act on the part of the recipient
is not required for the validity of the sacrament, but some spiritual
power is conferred from above; with this difference, however, that in
the minor orders the age of discretion is required out of respect for
the dignity of the sacrament, but not for its lawfulness, nor for its
validity. Hence some can without sin be raised to the minor orders
before the years of discretion, if there be an urgent reason for it and
hope of their proficiency. and they are validly ordained; for although
at the time they are not qualified for the offices entrusted to them,
they will become qualified by being habituated thereto. For the higher
Orders, however, the use of reason is required both out of respect
for, and for the lawfulness of the sacrament, not only on account of
the vow of continency annexed thereto, but also because the handling of
the sacraments is entrusted to them. But for the episcopate whereby a
man receives power also over the mystical body, the act of accepting
the pastoral care of souls is required; wherefore the use of reason is
necessary for the validity of episcopal consecration. Some, however,
maintain that the use of reason is necessary for the validity of the
sacrament in all the Orders. but this statement is not confirmed
either by authority or by reason.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated in the Article, not all that is
necessary for the lawfulness of a sacrament is required for its
validity.
Reply to Objection 2: The cause of matrimony is consent, which
cannot be without the use of reason. Whereas in the reception of
Orders no act is required on the part of the recipients since no act on
their part is expressed in their consecration. Hence there is no
comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: Act and power are in the same subject; yet
sometimes a power, such as the free-will, precedes its act; and thus
it is in the case in point.
|
|