Insight with Bishop Osei-Bonsu : The truth about celibacy, impotence and priestly formation

Questions by Augustine Alirinbey Amangwon, Christ the King Parish, Sandema:

My Lord Bishop, I would like to seek your pastoral and theological guidance on a few questions concerning seminary formation, the admission of candidates to the priesthood, and the appropriate way of addressing seminarians who have not yet received Holy Orders.

1. Medical Examination and Admission to the Seminary

Is it true that candidates seeking admission to the seminary undergo medical examinations to determine whether they are sexually potent or impotent? Or is this merely a common assumption with no basis in the Church’s actual requirements for admission to the seminary?

2. The Relevance of Sexual Potency to Priestly Formation

If such medical examinations are in fact conducted, what would be the reason for assessing a candidate’s sexual potency as part of the admission process? Since the priesthood requires a commitment to celibacy and chastity, one might wonder why sexual potency or impotence would be considered relevant to a candidate’s suitability for priestly formation.

3. Physical Conditions and Eligibility for Priestly Formation

Suppose a candidate has a natural physical condition over which he has no control. Could such a condition legitimately constitute a reason for excluding him from seminary formation or from consideration for the priesthood? More broadly, how does the Church approach such situations in light of her teaching on human dignity, the discernment of a vocation, and the recognition that certain physical conditions are natural circumstances beyond an individual’s control? What criteria does the Church apply in distinguishing between a genuine impediment to priestly ministry and a physical condition that should not prevent a man from pursuing his vocation?

4. The Proper Title and Form of Address for Seminarians

Finally, what is the proper ecclesiastical title or form of address for a seminarian who has not yet received Holy Orders? I raise this question because seminarians, including those in the propaedeutic or spiritual year, are sometimes addressed by parishioners and other members of the Church as “Reverend.” Is it ecclesiastically and theologically appropriate to address a seminarian who has not yet been ordained as “Reverend”? If not, what would be the proper and respectful form of address for a seminarian at the different stages of formation? I would be most grateful for your guidance on these matters.

Answer by Most Rev. Joseph Osei-Bonsu:

Dear Augustine, thank you for these thoughtful questions, which touch on recurring points of confusion in seminary formation. I am glad to take each in turn.

1. Medical Examination and Admission to the Seminary

It is true that candidates are required to undergo a medical examination before admission to the seminary. However, the claim that this examination is intended to determine whether a man is sexually “potent” or “impotent” has no basis in the Church’s law or practice. Canon 241 §1 requires the diocesan bishop to admit only those who possess the human, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and physical qualities necessary for priestly formation and ministry.

This requirement is further explained in the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016), the Holy See’s universal document governing priestly formation. The Ratio emphasises the integral formation of future priests, recognising that candidates must demonstrate sufficient physical health, psychological maturity, emotional balance, and affective stability to undertake the demands of seminary life and the lifelong commitment of priestly ministry.

It therefore encourages a prudent assessment of a candidate’s overall health and psychological suitability, including, where appropriate, a psychological evaluation that may explore aspects of psychosexual maturity as part of the person’s overall human development.

In practice, this process ordinarily includes a routine medical examination, covering medical history, chronic illnesses, general physical health, and basic laboratory investigations, together with a psychological assessment when deemed necessary.

It is not concerned with, nor does it involve, any examination or test to determine a candidate’s sexual potency or reproductive capacity. Such an examination would have no legitimate place in Catholic seminary admissions and would be contrary to respect for the candidate’s dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity.

That interview assesses the man’s affective maturity, that is, his capacity to understand, regulate, and appropriately express his emotions, to form healthy and stable relationships, and to exercise responsible self-control. It also considers whether he is free from compulsive or addictive patterns and whether he has a mature and well-integrated understanding of his sexuality, consistent with his vocation and commitments.

It is not concerned with, and would never involve, any physical examination or test of a candidate’s sexual capacity or reproductive function. Such an examination would violate the man’s dignity, privacy, and personal boundaries, and has no legitimate place in Catholic practice.

The rumour most likely persists because people confuse it with something else entirely: canon law’s treatment of impotence as an impediment to marriage, under canon 1084, since marriage requires the ius in corpus, the right to the conjugal act.

That impediment has never had anything to do with ordination. Indeed, when the Code was revised in 1983, the older 1917 list of bodily defects that could bar a man from Orders was deliberately dropped, and impotence was never carried over into the current list of impediments in canons 1040 to 1042. This is not, therefore, a hidden requirement; it is a misconception.

2. The Relevance of Sexual Potency to Priestly Formation

The reason potency should not matter, and does not, is that celibacy is not a physical condition but a freely chosen act sustained by grace, what the tradition calls “continence”. St Thomas Aquinas and later moral theologians already recognised that an impotent man could be validly and licitly ordained, precisely because what the Church asks of a priest is the will to abstain, not the biological capacity to do otherwise. There is a theological point worth drawing out here as well.

As Pope St John Paul II explains in Pastores Dabo Vobis, celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is valuable because it is a renunciation of something genuinely good: a man capable of marriage and fatherhood offering that capacity to Christ and his people.

If a man simply could not have children or could not engage in the marital act, his continence would not truly be a renunciation at all, which is exactly why the Church has never made potency a condition for entering formation. Canonically, impotence remains tied only to the impediment of marriage under canon 1084; what canon 1029 actually asks of a candidate is suitability in faith, morals, piety, and human maturity. What formators legitimately assess throughout seminary, then, is psychosexual maturity, not physical function.

3. Physical Conditions and Eligibility for Priestly Formation

The Church does not determine a man’s suitability for the priesthood simply by the presence or absence of a physical disability. The decisive question is whether he possesses the qualities necessary to exercise the priestly ministry faithfully and effectively.

Canon 1029 of the Code of Canon Law states that candidates are to be ordained only when, after considering all the circumstances, they possess sound faith, right intention, adequate knowledge, good reputation, sound morals, proven virtues, and the physical and psychological qualities appropriate to the Order they are to receive.  Canon 1041 sets out the specific irregularities that render a person incapable of receiving Sacred Orders. Among these is a psychic illness which, after appropriate consultation with experts, is judged to make the person incapable of properly fulfilling the ministry. Blindness, however, is not listed among the irregularities or impediments in either canon 1041 or canon 1042. The Code, therefore, does not treat blindness as a disqualification from Holy Orders in itself.

The Church consequently distinguishes between a disability itself and its practical consequences for ministry. A physical condition becomes relevant not merely because it exists, but because of what effect, if any, it has on a candidate’s actual capacity to fulfil the responsibilities of the priesthood.

Blindness is not, in itself, a canonical impediment to priestly ordination. A blind candidate may be fully capable of preaching, teaching, celebrating the sacraments, hearing confessions, offering spiritual direction, exercising pastoral leadership, and carrying out other essential aspects of priestly ministry. Blindness, therefore, cannot rightly be used as a blanket reason for excluding a man from priestly formation or ordination.

The same principle applies to other physical conditions. Blindness, limited mobility, infertility, a well-controlled chronic illness, or a healed physical injury does not, by itself, constitute a canonical impediment. What must be considered is whether, with appropriate assistance or reasonable adaptation where necessary, the candidate is genuinely capable of fulfilling the essential obligations and functions of the priestly ministry.

Canon 1051 reinforces this individual and practical approach by requiring an investigation into the candidate’s doctrine, piety, morals, aptitude for ministry, and physical and psychological health. The bishop, therefore, has a genuine responsibility to determine whether a particular candidate is suitable for ordination. Such a judgement, however, must be based on an objective assessment of the man’s actual capacity for ministry, and not on discomfort, social prejudice, fear, or inherited assumptions about disability.

There is, of course, an important distinction between blindness and a condition that genuinely prevents a person from carrying out an essential function of priestly ministry. The Church does not disregard physical capacity altogether. Where a condition leaves a candidate incapable of fulfilling the essential responsibilities of the priesthood, even with appropriate assistance or adaptation, his suitability for ordination must be carefully examined. The assessment is, therefore, functional and individual rather than based on a blanket exclusion of persons with disabilities.

This approach is consistent with the Church’s broader understanding of human dignity. Dignitas Infinita (Infinite Dignity), a Declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued in 2024, reaffirms that every human person possesses an inherent and inalienable dignity simply by virtue of being human.

This dignity does not depend on physical ability, health, social status, intellectual capacity, or personal circumstances. In its treatment of persons with disabilities, the document stresses that disability must never become a reason for exclusion, discrimination, or the denial of a person’s full participation in society and in the life of the Church. A man’s physical limitation, therefore, does not diminish his dignity, his value before God, or his fundamental rights and responsibilities as a human being.

The fundamental question, therefore, is not simply “Is this man blind?” but rather “Can this particular candidate, with whatever assistance or adaptations may reasonably be required, faithfully and competently fulfil the essential responsibilities of the priestly ministry?” If the answer is yes, blindness in itself constitutes no canonical impediment to his ordination.

The Church’s approach should, thus, be one of prudent discernment rather than automatic exclusion. Physical disability and ministerial incapacity are not synonymous. What matters is the candidate’s overall suitability: his physical and psychological capacity for the ministry, his moral and spiritual maturity, and his ability to exercise the priesthood faithfully and effectively.

4. The Proper Title and Form of Address for Seminarians

It is not correct, theologically or pastorally, to address an unordained seminarian as “Reverend.” A seminarian, even one well into theology studies or serving as a lector or acolyte, remains a layman until he is ordained a deacon. Since Pope Paul VI’s Ministeria Quaedam suppressed the minor orders and the subdiaconate in 1972, the ministries seminarians now receive along the way are lay ministries, not steps into the clerical state.

Canon 266, no. 1, is clear that a man becomes a cleric, with everything that follows from that, including clerical titles, only at diaconal ordination. Until then, whatever year of formation he is in, he remains one of the lay faithful, and the fitting ways to address him reflect that: “Mr” in anything formal, “Seminarian” followed by his name in ecclesial settings, “Brother” if he belongs to a religious community under vows or where that is the customary local practice, as is often the case in Ghana, or, most simply, just his Christian name.

“Reverend” becomes appropriate only once he is ordained deacon, and “Father” only after priestly ordination. Calling a seminarian “Reverend” beforehand blurs a distinction that matters. It can encourage a kind of premature clericalism and, practically speaking, it can leave people confused about what he is and is not authorised to do, such as hearing confessions or anointing the sick. Where you come across the habit, a gentle word usually settles it: he has not yet been ordained, so “Mr” will do for now.