Yes, actually. The Catholic Church won’t take anyone as a priest who has physical deformities, or so I was told in confirmation class. Of course the Pope doesn’t have to be a priest, but in practice he always is these days.
Father Damien, of leper colony fame, might disagree with that, being that he had leprosy himself. To be fair, he contracted it after becoming a priest, but I seriously doubt the RCC does not accept candidates for seminary if they are not in peak physical perfection.
They don’t have to be in peak physical shape, but they can’t have obvious deformities–like being legless.
I knew, quite a few years ago, a Jesuit priest who had only one arm – he’d lost the other in an accident years before he entered the seminary. So I’m pretty sure they’d take someone missing a leg. Or two.
So you’re saying I got the wrong information in confirmation class? Well, they wanted me to believe that Jesus and God were the same person even though one was the father of the other, too.
Lad I don’t know where you’ve been but I see you won first prize.
Does the Pope go commando?
I’m saying I knew a Jesuit priest with one arm. For all I know, the Jesuits were breaking the rules in ordaining him.
We don’t know when TSBG did his confirmation classes. The position may have changed since then.
The question is addressed in a couple of places in the Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1029: “Only those are to be promoted to orders who . . . have . . . the other physical and psychological qualities appropriate to the order to be received.”
So if you have a disability which pretty much prevents you from carrying out sacramental ministry, they won’t take you on. If you have no hands, for example, they would probably reckon that that prevents you from celebrating the eucharist and other sacraments, and they wouldn’t take you on.
Canon 1041: *“The following persons are irregular for the reception of orders:
-
One who suffers from any form of insanity, or from any other psychological infirmity, because of which he is . . . judged incapable of being able to fulfil the ministry . . .
-
one who has gravely and maliciously mutilated himself . . . “*
Item 1 there only addresses mental disablity. I believe at one time it may have covered physical disability too, but that ground is now felt to be adequately covered by canon 1029.
Item 5, I think, was originally aimed at excluding those who had castrated themselves.
Why is the Pope so dressed up? When is the last time a Pope rejected the fancy duds and just wore whatever were the normal clothes of the time?
Certainly, they can, right? Francis seems like the kind of guy to go for it, actually.
It was in 1982 or so. The explanation we were given is that a representatives of Jesus, they couldn’t be malformed, or something like that.
The tradition of the Pope wearing white was actually started by Pope Pius V, who wore his white dominican habit instead of the usual papal red. According to a priest, the color black is worn for two reasons. One is that black was an easier color to produce than most others, which is fitting because the religious are to embrace poverty. Another reason is that black vestments are worn for funerals and black represents the color of death.
If he doesn’t get there in time they’re poopy popey pants
Are you sure they were talking about CATHOLIC priests rather than a general historical overview of priesthood? Because there actually WERE such rules for the ancient Jewish priesthood back in Biblical times.
No. He doesn’t want to look down on the unemployed.
I occasionally still say “Is the Pope Polish?” in answer to some obviously true statement.
Obviously he wore pantz, then.