Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Can A Priest Have Prosthetic Hands?


Aloysius

Recommended Posts

I thought I recalled reading something about men not being able to be ordained if they had lost one of their hands; however, when I went to search for where I got that idea from I couldn't find it, and found examples of priests who had lost one hand and remained priests, such as Cardinal Jaworski. So then I began to think, was the thing I read about priests with prosthetics simply about not having both hands be prosthetic? I can't find any information either way, so I thought I'd ask the experts here if there is any foundation to my questions in Canon Law, either 1983 or 1917? Perhaps this used to be a prohibition but is not any more? Also, and you don't have to answer this, could a priest with one prosthetic hand truly follow the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (and I mean more important rubrics than genuflecting fully down to the floor which I understand priests not doing fully if they have bad knees)?

and since CatherineM is now a scholar, I wonder if she might have anything to weigh in on this, because in trying to find where I got this idea from I noticed this post:
[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536098' date='May 21 2008, 12:25 PM']I represented a priest before the tribunal (yes they do more than annulments) who had lost his left arm in a traffic accident. Even with a prosthetic arm and a lot of practice elevating the elements, they were hesitant to let him resume his public ministry. We finally worked out an arrangement with the archbishop to let him chaplain at the nursing home, senior center.[/quote]

so, what is canonically relevant in discussion of priests and prosthetic hands? moreover, what is relevant to the validity of the sacrament? I imagine there has to at least be one true flesh and blood hand to consecrate the Eucharist, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't enter seminary if you have a serious disability. Canon # 1029 says, "Only those are to be promoted to orders who, in the prudent judgment of the proper Bishop or the competent major Superior, all things considered, have sound faith, are motivated by the right intention, are endowed with the requisite knowledge, enjoy a good reputation, and have moral probity, proven virtue and the other physical and psychological qualities appropriate to the order to be received." Once you are ordained, then stuff can happen. In the case I mentioned, it was a middle aged priest who had been in a car wreck.

In our discussions with the Archbishop, he mentioned several times that he didn't want this priest to become an "object of fascination" for children. When elevating the consecrated host, people should be looking at the host, and not the priest's hand. As to allowing those with disabilities into seminary, my husband has some experiences with that. His application was appealed all the way to Rome before being turned down. It didn't matter how long he had been stable on his medication, they didn't want someone with schizophrenia to be a priest. The church's loss was my gain, I guess. Two of his closest friends came down with schizophrenia while in seminary, one in minor seminary, and one in major for the Ukrainian Catholic rite. It's not about being discriminatory in the way that we think of the word now, but about being discriminating as to who can withstand the rigors of the ordained life. It is a hard life under the best of circumstances. Starting out with a disability would make it just that much harder.

Once you are a priest, then they kind of have to take you as you are. I knew a priest who needed a kidney transplant. They made him a hospital chaplain so that he could be close to dialysis, and to lessen the stress in his life to make his prognosis better. Another priest had a hip replacement. They put him in a parish next to a junior college that had a pool he could swim in every day, and he stopped genuflecting behind the altar and only bowed. No one made a fuss about that, most hardly noticed. I've known two priests who had to take sabbaticals because they had developed chemical dependence. One was very public about his trouble, one hid it. He went so far as to attend AA meetings at a gay only group, thinking that no one would see him there that would "tell." What happened, is that he started being rumored to be gay instead of an alcoholic.

See, that's the thing. Priests are human too. They have to deal with illness and infirmity, and issues of aging, basically in the spot light. It takes a strong man in good health at the beginning because they will need that reserve later. I was talking at lunch a few months ago with a newly minted transitional deacon at school. We are in the process of building a new seminary, and they are required by provincial law to have 4 handicap accessible rooms in the dorm side. We were discussing what they would use them for since no seminarians would need them, and came to the conclusion that they would probably be used by aging/retired priests who might be there to teach, or to recuperate. I guess maybe also for a seminarian who breaks his leg skiing and needs it temporarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

For what it's worth, there are exceptions. There are several well-known blind priests in the US and Canada. Also, St. Isaac Jogues lost his fingers to an Indian attack (they thought he was doing some sort of magic during the elevation of the host) and that made him unable to say Mass under the old canons. He went to Rome to gain an indult and the pope responded that it is only fitting that he who shed his blood for the faith should be able to offer Christ's blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Raphael' post='1826512' date='Apr 6 2009, 04:16 PM']For what it's worth, there are exceptions. There are several well-known blind priests in the US and Canada. Also, St. Isaac Jogues lost his fingers to an Indian attack (they thought he was doing some sort of magic during the elevation of the host) and that made him unable to say Mass under the old canons. He went to Rome to gain an indult and the pope responded that it is only fitting that he who shed his blood for the faith should be able to offer Christ's blood.[/quote]

Do you know if the blind priests were blind before becoming priests? I know that orders in the old days used to be a place families could place their disabled children. Not as priests, but brothers. I can't tell you how many arguments I've had with disability advocates about not allowing the disabled to enter seminary, or a paraplegic having issues in getting married. It's one of those issues where our enemies like to say we are discriminatory. My dad once said that priests need to be as fit as paratroopers because we never know when the church will have to go underground again. Bottom line though, if the big guy in Rome says you can be a priest, that's all it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1826586' date='Apr 6 2009, 06:14 PM']Do you know if the blind priests were blind before becoming priests? I know that orders in the old days used to be a place families could place their disabled children. Not as priests, but brothers. I can't tell you how many arguments I've had with disability advocates about not allowing the disabled to enter seminary, or a paraplegic having issues in getting married. It's one of those issues where our enemies like to say we are discriminatory. My dad once said that priests need to be as fit as paratroopers because we never know when the church will have to go underground again. Bottom line though, if the big guy in Rome says you can be a priest, that's all it takes.[/quote]
They were blind before becoming priests. One of them spoke to my class at FUS (I'm afraid his name fails me, but he is Canadian and has been on Life on the Rock on EWTN) and said that the Vatican had given permission for quite a few blind priests lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know, I shouldn't be able to respond here... just ONE question (I do appreciate the answers provided so far):

what of the validity of a Eucharist in which no human flesh was touching the host? ie both hands are prosthetic (yes, extremely rare, not sure if the case has ever even come up, but I'm very interested)... am I just being superstitious about a priest's hand needing to touch the host in the consecration for it to be valid? is there anything that answers this question; are there any recorded cases of priests loosing both hands? I'm interested more for the implications to what occurs in the sacrament itself; as Jesus took the bread in His hands and the alter Christus I feel must have it in at least one hand when saying the consecration.. though obviously the other hosts are equally consecrated without being touched...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...