Article 5 — Whether those of illegitimate birth should be debarred from receiving holy orders?

Objection 1: It would seem that those who are of illegitimate birth should not be debarred from receiving holy orders. For the son should not bear the iniquity of the father (Ezek 18:20); and yet he would if this were an impediment to his receiving holy orders. Therefore, etc.

Obj. 2: Further, one’s own fault is a greater impediment than the fault of another. Now unlawful intercourse does not always debar a man from receiving holy orders. Therefore, neither should he be debarred by the unlawful intercourse of his father.

On the contrary, It is written: a bastard, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the Church of the Lord until the tenth generation (Deut 23:2). Much less, therefore, should he be ordained.

I answer that, Those who are ordained are placed in a position of dignity over others. Hence by a kind of propriety, it is requisite that they should be without reproach, not for the validity but for the lawfulness of the sacrament, namely, that they should be of good repute, bedecked with a virtuous life, and not publicly penitent. And since a man’s good name is bedimmed by a sinful origin, therefore those also who are born of an illegitimate union are debarred from receiving orders unless they receive a dispensation; and this is the more difficult to obtain according as their origin is more discreditable.

Reply Obj. 1: Irregularity is not a punishment due for sin. Hence it is clear that those who are of illegitimate birth do not bear the iniquity of their father through being irregular.

Reply Obj. 2: What a man does by his own act can be removed by repentance and by a contrary act; not so the things which are from nature. Hence the comparison fails between sinful act and sinful origin.