Physical Disabilities and Impediments to the Priesthood According to Orthodox Canon Law, with a Case Study of the Romanian Orthodox Church

Abstract

This study examines, within the broader context of historical and cultural influences from Byzantine and Western canonical traditions, the canonical and theological treatment of physical disabilities as impediments to the priesthood within modern Orthodox Canon Law. It shows how traditional Orthodox Canon Law, particularly influenced by medieval Roman Catholic canonical understanding, has historically emphasised physical integrity as a requirement for ordination. The study critically examines historical and contemporary canonical attitudes towards candidates with hearing, speech, or visual impairments or with locomotor disability through the analysis of Apostolic canons, Canons of Ecumenical Councils, and later canonical sources. The methods include a critical canonical and historical analysis of primary sources such as the Canons, patristic writings, and synodal legislation, with particular reference to the initiatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the modern cultural and pastoral context. The study observes that, although such impairments continue to be recognised as canonical impediments according to traditional Orthodox law, contemporary ecclesial practice increasingly reflects a pastoral sensitivity that allows, in certain contexts, for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in ordained ministry. This is typically achieved through adaptations that preserve the integrity of liturgical function, such as assistance from co-ministers or specialised training. These developments, while not amounting to a formal canonical revision, signal a broader pastoral and ecclesiological openness toward the integration of persons with disabilities within the life of the Church.

1. Introduction

With regard to the Orthodox theological approach to the issue of physical disabilities, a growing body of scholarly literature has emerged addressing both disability and bodily impairment within the context of Orthodox theological anthropology and ecclesial life (Chryssavgis 1999, pp. 169–80; Buda 2019, pp. 100–11; Maican 2022, pp. 535–47; 2024, pp. 285–303). In recent years, the theological treatment of disability has also been the subject of discussion at several Orthodox theological conferences and addressed in synodal documents of canonical authority (Maican 2020, pp. 502–9). Among the most significant ecclesiastical statements on this topic are the document entitled The Basic Teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights (Maican 2020, pp. 496–509), promulgated on 26 June 2008, and the statement Disability and Communion, issued on 25 June 2009 by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) (Ibrahim 2023, pp. 62–109). Both documents reflect an evolving canonical and theological awareness regarding the pastoral and ecclesiological integration of persons with disabilities within the life of the Orthodox Church. The second document translates the theological and anthropological principles of Orthodox tradition into the pastoral life of the Church by emphasizing the necessity of inclusive formation. It specifically recommends that seminaries incorporate training and education on disability inclusion for future clergy. Addressing disability is presented as a response to the broader challenge of human vulnerability. The text further asserts that adopting an inclusive model of ministry is essential for dismantling misconceptions and stereotypes about disability, while also ensuring that all aspects of parish life become accessible and welcoming to persons with disabilities (Ibrahim 2023, pp. 105–8).

Nonetheless, as the Romanian theologian Petre Maican has demonstrated in a recent theological analysis (Maican 2024, pp. 285–303), the theological engagement with the issue of physical disability within Orthodox theology remains notably underdeveloped, as has been evidenced by other academic research (Kinard 2019; Maican 2021, pp. 1–14; Dellassoudas 2000, pp. 597–627; Plumbee 1979, pp. 109–13). More critically, canonical analyses addressing this subject are either virtually absent or remain largely confined to the nineteenth-century canonical framework, heavily influenced by the legacy of Roman Catholic Canon Law and its earlier normative formulations. Although the two documents mentioned above both affirm the theological principle that all human beings are created in the image of God (“imago Dei”), they notably refrain from addressing the central pastoral and canonical question of whether individuals with physical disabilities can be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. This silence is particularly significant given the documents’ broader affirmations of human dignity.

The relationship between physical disabilities and canonical eligibility for ordination within Orthodox Canon Law remains a relatively underexamined domain in contemporary canonical and theological scholarship. As historical sources indicate, the Byzantine canonical tradition conceptualised disability primarily in terms of physical impairments or externally visible bodily defects. Other forms of impairment, such as mental or psychological disorders, were regulated under distinct canonical categories and were not generally incorporated into the narrower Byzantine understanding of bodily disability (Trenchard-Smith 2010, pp. 39–55; Makris 1995, pp. 363–404). As noted by Efthymiadis (2016, p. 389), the Byzantine canonists maintained a clear differentiation between visible physical defects and psychological infirmities in their normative and disciplinary frameworks.

Evidence from both the New Testament and the writings of post-Apostolic Fathers indicate the existence of specific requirements for those seeking to ascend within the ecclesiastical hierarchy (Ferguson 1968, pp. 225–48). The canons of the Orthodox Church similarly articulate general conditions for the ordination of deacons, presbyters, and bishops. However, it is important to note that these are not systematic regulations; rather, they refer to individual cases dealt with by the Fathers of the Church (Patsavos 2008, pp. 23–51). The canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church places significant emphasis on the positive qualities that a candidate for the priesthood must possess, while impediments to ordination or negative qualities are addressed only in a marginal capacity. Consequently, a comprehensive and systematised categorization of the stipulations for ordination and the impediments to ordination is conspicuously absent from the canons of the Orthodox Church (Afanas’ev 1997, pp. 78–79). This phenomenon emerged within the Western Church during the age of Canon Law systematisation, a period characterised by a heightened emphasis on negative requirements or impediments when assessing candidates for ordination, thereby overshadowing the consideration of positive qualities or qualifications (Weinberger 2011; Ostinelli 2015, p. 3).

Orthodox canonical norms—shaped by the Byzantine canonical corpus and significantly influenced by the medieval Western canon law tradition—established criteria for candidates to the Priesthood, frequently interpreting major bodily impairments as canonical impediments to the exercise of ecclesiastical office (Patsavos 2008, pp. 273–82, Afanas’ev 1997, pp. 78–79). However, recent developments in Orthodox theological reflection and canonical praxis reveal a discernible movement toward a more pastorally sensitive and inclusive interpretation, re-evaluating the weight historically assigned to physical integrity in the context of ordination (Buda 2019, pp. 100–11).

The present work aims to investigate the canonical evolution regarding bodily disabilities as impediments to priesthood to highlight the influences of pre-modern and modern Western canonical models on Orthodox tradition and to explore how contemporary Orthodox Churches—specifically the Romanian Orthodox Church—have adapted their canonical praxis to a more inclusive, pastoral model. In doing so, the study seeks not only to document canonical developments but also to contribute to broader theological discussions regarding ecclesial inclusivity, human dignity, and the dynamic interplay between canonical fidelity and pastoral innovation.

Ultimately, it argues that the Orthodox Church, while faithful to its patristic and canonical heritage, is called today to articulate a theology of vocation and ordination that prioritizes spiritual integrity and ecclesial service over physical condition, thus offering a fuller embodiment of the mission of the Orthodox Church in the world.

2. Materials and Methods

Within a historical–theological framework, this study adopts a qualitative research approach, using documentary analysis, archival research and comparative canonical analysis. The primary source material for the present study consists of the Collection of Canons of the Orthodox Church, comprising approximately 770 canons (Wagschal 2015, pp. 60–61), which continue to be regarded as normative for ecclesiastical life and church discipline across all autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Non-canonical texts and documents originating from collections not formally recognised within the Eastern Orthodox Corpus Canonum were excluded from the analysis (Troianos 2012, pp. 115–24), given their limited local application and their non-binding canonical status (Perșa 2023). Primary sources analysed include also canonical commentaries by major Byzantine canonists such as Theodore Balsamon and Joannes Zonaras (Perșa 2024). Particular attention is paid to canonical manuscripts and critical editions, including references to the Codex Vaticanus gr. 827 and the Codex Barberini gr. 336, and elements of archival work are highlighted. In order to interpret the canonical norms within their broader theological, socio-cultural and pastoral contexts, a historical-critical method has been applied throughout.

Secondary material consists of canonical studies of both Orthodox and Roman Catholic Canon Law, with particular emphasis on the influence of the Decretum Gratiani, the 1917 Code, and the 1983 Code on Orthodox canonical thought.

Recent theological studies such (Afanas’ev 1997; Patsavos 2008; Maican 2024), provide critical contemporary perspectives. In order to trace the theological and canonical development of physical disabilities and their classification as impediments to ordination in both Orthodox and Catholic traditions, a comparative canonical and legal analysis has been undertaken.

The study also adopts a case study methodology, focusing on the ordination of candidates with hearing, speech and visual impairments in the Romanian Orthodox Church as concrete illustrations of evolving pastoral and canonical practice.

The research thus integrates qualitative textual analysis, comparative Canon Law, and case study evaluation to assess the contemporary relevance and application of Orthodox canonical norms regarding physical disabilities and ordination.

3. The Systematic Classification of Impediments to the Priesthood in Contemporary Orthodox Canon Law

Since the emergence of the Decretum Gratiani, also referred to as the Concordia discordantium canonum or Concordantia discordantium canonum, there has been a prevailing requirement for candidates seeking ordination to the priesthood to demonstrate not only moral virtue but also physical integrity and the absence of physical defects (Ostinelli 2015, pp. 4–8). According to Catholic Canon Law prior to the promulgation of the Codex Iuris Canonici in 1917, deficiencies, known as “incapacities (Inkapazitäten)” (Phillips 1855, pp. 444–80) and “irregularities (Irregularitäten)” (Gillmann 1911, pp. 49–86), were reasons for refusing ordination (Gerlach 1885, p. 316).1 Irregularities were categorised into two classifications. The first classification comprised irregularities which were considered to be the consequence of crime. These were termed “irregularities ex defectu”. The second comprised irregularities which were considered to be the result of a defect and were termed “irregularities ex delicto” (Metzler 2016, p. 461).2

In accordance with the principles set out in the Catholic Canon Law prior to the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, the category of “irregularities ex defectu” comprises the following: 1. lack of canonical age (defectus aetatis); 2. deficiency in physical aptitude (defectus corporis); 3. lack of freedom (defectus libertatis); 4. lack of legitimate birth (defectus natalium legitimorum); 5. defect in the sacramental state in the case of bigamists (defectus sacramenti), this referring to irregularity due to multiple valid marriages, impacting the integrity of the sacrament; 6. impairment of the use of reason (defectus rationis); 7. deficiency of sufficient knowledge (defectus scientiae); 8. deficiency of firm faith (defectus fidei); deficiency in mildness of character (defectus lenitatis) (Phillips 1855, pp. 455–560; Gerlach 1885, pp. 316–23; Ney 1895, p. 38; Hinschius 1869, pp. 11–38).

The group of irregularities classified as “irregularitas ex delicto” comprises a range of offenses that constitute canonical impediments to sacred ordination. These include the criminal acts of mutilation (mutilatio) and homicide (homicidium) as well as the offense of procuring an abortion (procuratio abortus). Also included are offenses committed against the sacrament of Baptism (abusus baptismi), against the sacrament of ordination (abusus ordinis), and the illicit reception of Orders (abusus ordinationis). Further impediments arise from violations of the obligation of clerical celibacy as well as from serious offenses against the Christian religion and the faith, notably apostasy (apostasia a fide), heresy (haeresis), and schism (schisma) (Kaslyn 2002, pp. 165–72). Additionally, the category includes the so-called simulated bigamy (bigamia similitudinaria), in which an individual simulates a marital union while bound by a prior one or contrary to canonical form (Gerlach 1885, pp. 324–27; Hinschius 1869, pp. 39–54; Phillips 1855, pp. 561–604). These categories of “irregularitas ex delicto” were received and systematically codified by the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 in canons 983 to 991, thereby integrating traditional canonical norms into a unified legal framework (Jone 1952, pp. 202–17).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church sets forth a series of requirements for candidates for sacred ordination. These requirements are organised into several distinct categories: the requirements for candidates for ordination (canons 1026–1032); the prerequisites for the valid and licit ordination (canons 1033–1039); the irregularities and other impediments (irregularitates aliaeque impedimenta) that may hinder ordination (canons 1040–1049); and the required documents and the process of investigation (scrutinium) prior to ordination (canons 1050–1052). The impediments to the reception of the sacrament of priesthood are classified in the actual Codex Iuris Canonici into two principal categories: first, perpetual impediments, referred to as irregularities (irregularitates), and second, simple impediments (impedimenta simplicia), which may not be permanent and may admit dispensation under certain canonical conditions (Weinberger 2011; Christen 2020, pp. 260–63; Lederhilger 2001, pp. 285–304; Bitterli 2010).

In close connection with the Catholic canonical perspective, nineteenth-century Orthodox Canon law proposed a twofold classification of requirements for admission to the clergy. These comprised fundamental requirements or incapacities (incapacitas), the absence of which renders ordination invalid; and special requirements or irregularities (irregularitas), which pertain to specific conditions expected of candidates for the priesthood (Σακελλαρόπουλος 1898, p. 78; Milaš 1905, p. 258). The fundamental requirements or incapacities that must be fulfilled for admission (Цыпин 2009, pp. 285–86) include baptism and male gender (Milaš 1905, p. 258). The classifications established by Orthodox Canonists of the 20th century, along with their canonical implications, are to a significant extent rooted in the Roman Catholic Canon Law (cf. Phillips 1855, pp. 444–80 vs. Milaš 1905, pp. 258–68).

The first category, namely the fundamental requirements, assumes the ineligibility for dispensation. Accordingly, the failure to meet any of these essential conditions leads to the invalidity of the ordination. In relation to the second category of canonical requirements, Orthodox canonists assert that admission to the priesthood necessitates the fulfilment of several principal types of personal and canonical qualifications. Specifically, four essential domains are to be taken into account: (1) physical integrity and bodily suitability; (2) psychological stability and disposition; (3) intellectual competence and moral character; and (4) social standing and relational aptitude (Ευταξίας 1872; Σακελλαρόπουλος 1898; Milaš 1905, pp. 260–68; Floca 1990a, p. 51; Afanas’ev 1997, p. 81; Patsavos 2008, pp. 272–301; Цыпин 2009, p. 286).3

Although Orthodox canonists prescribe specific positive and negative conditions for access to the priesthood, ordination (χειροτονία) is, in principle, open to all members of the Church who, through their personal conduct, moral integrity, and appropriate preparation, demonstrate a genuine vocation to the priesthood. Ecclesiastical discernment regarding suitability for the priesthood presupposes not merely the fulfilment of canonical prerequisites and the absence of impediments necessary for the valid reception of ordination but also a manner of life that reflects alignment with the spiritual and ascetical commitments inherent to the clerical vocation (Anapliotis 2020, pp. 271–82) and the true meaning of the Holy Liturgy (Turcan 2021).

One of the most balanced perspectives within Orthodox Canon Law is articulated by the canonist Sergei Viktorovich Troitsky. He rejects the division of impediments into incompatibilities and incapacities, a categorization borrowed by Orthodox canonists from the Catholic canonical tradition. Likewise, he opposes the classification of conditions for admission to the priesthood into positive and negative requirements, as well as the distinction between irregularitates ex defectu and irregularitates ex delicto. Troitsky contends that

“In our view, the prerequisites for ordination should be divided into two primary categories: personal requirements, which pertain to the candidate himself, and social requirements, which concern the individual’s status within society. The personal requirements should further encompass factors related to the candidate’s physical constitution and health, as well as his faith and moral conduct. The social requirements, by contrast, should be understood as those relating to the individual’s family, civil status, and societal position.”

(Трoицки 2011, pp. 333–34)4

As evidenced by the analysis above, Orthodox Canon Law was not only influenced by the Roman Catholic canonical tradition—particularly up to the period of the Second Vatican Council—in its conceptualization of impediments to ordination, but also adopted the categorical distinction of impediments, despite the fact that such a division does not organically arise from the Orthodox canonical tradition. Among the various impediments to priesthood thus received, particular significance was ascribed to the impediment concerning bodily integrity, that is, the absence of physical disability—a matter to which we shall now turn in greater detail.

4. Physical Disabilities According to Contemporary Orthodox Canon Law

According to Leviticus 21:17–21, the Jewish sacerdotal tradition categorically prohibited the elevation of individuals with bodily defects to the priesthood (Belser and Lehmhaus 2016, pp. 434–48). The interpretation of this Old Testament passage is predicated on the assumption that bodily integrity serves as the outward expression of holiness, wherein perfection and moral blamelessness are symbolically reflected through the physical condition of the individual. Within this paradigm, the concept of physical wholeness served as a symbol of the sanctity of the Temple, and, by extension, the holiness of God (Hartley et al. 1992, pp. 349–50). In accordance with the prescriptions set out in Leviticus, individuals afflicted with physical impairments were excluded from priestly service (Wenham 1979, p. 292; Milgrom 2000, pp. 1823–25).

Within the canonical literature, the issue of bodily integrity arises in two distinct contexts. The first concerns candidates for ordination who exhibit certain physical impairments, raising the question of whether such conditions constitute relative or absolute impediments to the reception of the ordination. The second pertains to clerics who, as a result of accidents or significant life events, have acquired disabilities or physical limitations that may hinder or render impossible the proper exercise of their priestly ministry.

In his Handbook of Canon Law, Bishop Nikodemus Milash offers a nuanced account of the canonical requirements concerning the bodily integrity of candidates for the priesthood, emphasising the physical disabilities that constitute impediments to ordination according to Orthodox Canon Law. He writes that

“Among the physical qualities are included: (1) a sound bodily constitution. In particular, the individual in question should be neither deaf nor blind. However, certain minor physical defects do not constitute an obstacle to the reception of cheirotonia (ordination), provided that the candidate otherwise appears worthy. The canons addressing this matter reflect the principle that ‘it is not a bodily defect that harms a person, but a psychological flaw (ein psychischer Makel)’; therefore, the Church takes into account only those physical deficiencies to which it must necessarily give consideration. However, since in such cases the primary concern lies in ensuring that ecclesiastical affairs are not impeded (der kirchlichen Angelegenheiten nicht hindernd sind), the Church does not concern itself with physical defects that do not hinder the regular performance of ecclesiastical duties. On the other hand, particular attention is required when there is a risk that some physical infirmity might disturb the orderly conduct of ecclesiastical matters—for example, if someone suffers from epilepsy, is crippled, and so on (an der Epilepsie leidet, krüppelhaft ist u.s.w). Moreover, care must be taken that certain physically conspicuous and scandalous defects are not present, such as pronounced limping, etc.; for even in such cases, the preservation of the moral and aesthetic dignity of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (ästhetischen Ansehens der kirchlichen Hierarchie) must be upheld as a guiding principle.”

(Milaš 1905, p. 260)

Following this canonical line of reasoning, several Orthodox canonists aligned with Bishop Milash have subsequently identified the following physical conditions as impediments to ordination: epilepsy, limb deformities, amputations involving fingers, hands, or legs, blindness, deafness, and other comparable bodily disabilities (Κύριλλος Κωστόπουλος 2010, pp. 70–71; Popovici 1925, p. 118; Χριστοφιλόπουλος 1952, p. 33). The Romanian canonist Ioan Floca echoes this perspective, stating that

“Bodily integrity does not imply the absence of every physical imperfection, but rather the absence of such visible defects as would impair the exercise of priestly ministry. For this reason, the canons stipulate that an ecclesiastical officeholder must not be blind, lame, or otherwise visibly deformed.”

(Floca 1990b, p. 53)

Nicholas Afanasiev argues that, unlike in the Old Testament—where physical defects were seen as ritual impurities that disqualified individuals from priestly service—the Orthodox Church does not view bodily disabilities as spiritual defilement or grounds for exclusion (Afanas’ev 1997, p. 84). Since all believers are part of a “royal priesthood,” no one can be denied ecclesial service solely based on physical condition. Drawing from early Church practice and the Apostolic Canons, Afanasiev emphasizes that physical disabilities are not obstacles unless they directly prevent the fulfilment of specific ministerial duties or cause scandal within the community. While later church regulations identified certain impairments that could hinder ordination, the guiding principle remained that spiritual worthiness, not physical perfection, determines fitness for ministry (Afanas’ev 1997, p. 85).

In his study of the preconditions for priesthood during the first five centuries, Lewis Patsavos argues that, according to Orthodox canonical law, physical disabilities that constitute impediments to ordination are those that impair a cleric’s ability to perform his liturgical functions. However, he does not offer a detailed enumeration of these specific impairments (Patsavos 2008, p. 282).

Sergei Troitsky argues that physical impairments do not inherently disqualify a person from ordination, provided they do not prevent the proper fulfilment of ecclesiastical duties. Drawing on the Apostolic Canons, he emphasises that physical defects such as lameness or visual impairment do not defile a candidate morally and should not be considered an impediment if they are capable of fulfilling liturgical and pastoral responsibilities (Трoицки 2011, p. 335). However, conditions such as deafness or blindness are considered impediments solely because they interfere with the practical demands of church service. Troitsky distinguishes this New Testament perspective from the more rigid approach of the Old Testament, which treated physical blemishes as intrinsically disqualifying. He also notes that, according to canonists such as Zonaras and Balsamon, physical disabilities acquired after ordination do not require removal from clerical office. Furthermore, he argues in favour of recognising such ordinations as valid. In addition to functional limitations, Troitsky acknowledges that certain physical conditions, even when they do not impair liturgical duties, may be grounds for exclusion if they cause public scandal, for example, visible deformities. He also maintains that mutilation is an impediment only when it results from voluntary castration motivated by misguided ascetic beliefs; involuntary or medically necessary procedures do not disqualify a candidate. Overall, his position is that physical and mental conditions must be assessed in relation to their impact on ecclesiastical service, canonical validity and the Church’s public witness, rather than in abstract terms (Трoицки 2011, p. 336).

Orthodox canonists generally agree that physical disabilities such as blindness, deafness, epilepsy, and visible deformities may constitute impediments to ordination, especially if they hinder liturgical service or undermine the aesthetic and moral integrity of ecclesiastical office. However, there is a nuanced distinction between intrinsic disqualification and pragmatic exclusion, with increasing emphasis—especially in modern scholarship—on spiritual worthiness and functional capacity over bodily perfection. The majority of Orthodox canonists discussed in the present study approach physical disabilities not as fundamental or ontological impediments to ordination but rather as functional ones. That is, physical conditions are considered impediments only insofar as they hinder the candidate’s ability to perform essential liturgical and pastoral duties or risk causing public scandal. This functional interpretation reflects a departure from Old Testament ritual purity frameworks and underscores a canonical and pastoral concern for ecclesiastical efficacy rather than physical perfection.

This raises a complex canonical question: Should a candidate with a visible physical defect—which does not hinder the fulfilment of priestly duties—nonetheless be excluded from ordination? Are such visible conditions understood within the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church as impediments to ordination or do they merely reflect divergent interpretations and opinions among Orthodox canonists (Afanas’ev 1997, p. 84)?5 Furthermore, is there a substantive difference between Orthodox and Catholic Canon Law with respect to bodily integrity as an impediment to Holy Orders? In order to address these questions, the following section will examine the relevant canonical provisions of Catholic Canon Law, which have exerted a considerable influence upon the development of Orthodox canonical thought in this area, especially during the 20th century.

As previously noted, in medieval and early modern Catholic Canon Law, physical disabilities were classified under defectus corporis, falling within the broader category of irregularitas ex defectu (Phillips 1855, pp. 455–560; Gerlach 1885, pp. 316–23; Ney 1895, p. 38; Hinschius 1869, pp. 11–38). According to this view, physical impairments that rendered individuals unsuitable for ecclesiastical office, or that were perceived as diminishing their spiritual efficacy, were primarily those likely to provoke shock or public scandal (Hinschius 1869, p. 15). This evaluative criterion—distinguishing between offensive and non-offensive physical defects—was introduced into Latin canonical jurisprudence in the thirteenth century (Ostinelli 2015, p. 9). Among the canonical impediments to ordination were conditions such as blindness, partial blindness, deafness, mutism, lameness, epilepsy, and leprosy, as well as the absence or dysfunction of limbs—especially of the arm, hand, thumb, or index finger—to the extent that such impairments prevented the proper celebration of the Holy Liturgy. The extent to which a physical condition was considered an impediment to spiritual ministry often depended upon local ecclesial customs and historical circumstances. In cases of uncertainty, it was the responsibility of the bishop to render a judgment (Gerlach 1885, pp. 319–20). As a general canonical principle, any visible defect that could obstruct liturgical functions, cause scandal, or generate public offense was regarded as an irregularitas and thus as a canonical impediment to ordination.

A distinction was therefore drawn between deformities of non-visible bodily members (membra occulta) and those of visibly exposed members (membra evidentia) (Ostinelli 2015, p. 10). In the canonical assessment of bodily defects as potential impediments to ordination, three primary considerations were to be taken into account: the unimpeded exercise of priestly ministry, the preservation of clerical dignity and reputation, and the reverent character of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Canon 984 §1 of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici stipulates that individuals with physical disabilities are impeded from receiving sacred ordination if, due to weakness or deformity, they are unable to carry out the service at the altar either reliably or with dignity. Physical impairments that occur after the lawful reception of Orders do not in themselves constitute a prohibition against the exercise of ministry, unless the condition is of a serious nature. Even in such cases, the cleric remains permitted to perform those functions which can still be executed properly and reverently (Jone 1952, pp. 202–4).6

Since the promulgation of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici, physical defects are no longer explicitly listed among the impediments to ordination (cf. canons 1040–1049). The revised Code also omits the traditional classification of irregularities into ex defectu and ex delicto, placing greater emphasis on the spiritual and moral integrity of candidates for sacred orders, rather than on their bodily integrity (Perry 2017, pp. 131–44). Consequently, physical disability in itself no longer constitutes a sufficient basis for exclusion from the sacrament of ordination. However, the candidate must demonstrably possess the necessary spiritual, physical, human, moral, intellectual, emotional, and psychological qualities required for the effective and dignified exercise of the ministerial office. Canon 1029 affirms that candidates for ordination must exhibit the requisite physical and mental qualities, though it does not specify whether the absence of certain physical capacities constitutes a canonical impediment (Aymans 1983, p. 457). This ambiguity reflects a shift in canonical jurisprudence toward a more pastorally nuanced discernment, prioritizing the overall fitness of the candidate for ecclesial ministry over formal physical criteria (Aymans 1983, p. 467).7

Since the promulgation of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici, a notable shift has occurred within Catholic theology and canon law concerning the understanding of impediments to ordination. In this revised canonical framework, bodily defects and disabilities are no longer classified as irregularities or impediments to the reception of sacred orders. This development raises a significant ecclesiological and canonical question: How do contemporary Orthodox theologians and canonists position themselves in relation to this revised approach? Do they continue to adhere to the canonical perspective shaped by medieval Catholic canon law and later systematised in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici—a framework that, in the 19th and 20th centuries, exercised considerable influence over Orthodox canonical thought?

5. The Understanding of Physical Disabilities in the Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church

As evidenced by historical sources, the Byzantine canonical tradition defined disability almost exclusively in terms of physical or externally visible impairments. Other forms of impairment, such as mental or psychological disorders, were classified under distinct canonical categories (Trenchard-Smith 2010, pp. 39–55; Makris 1995, pp. 363–404) and not typically subsumed under the definition of bodily disability in the narrower Byzantine sense (Efthymiadis 2016, p. 389).

According to the interpretation of Orthodox canonists, impediments to ordination arising from bodily impairments are derived primarily from the way in which Apostolic Canons 77 and 78 have been historically understood and applied (Patsavos 2008, pp. 273–82).

Apostolic Canon 57 categorically prohibits clerics from mocking or exhibiting condescension toward persons with bodily impairments, under penalty of excommunication (ἀφορισμός). The same canonical sanction is likewise extended to laypersons who engage in such behaviour:

“νζʹ. Εἴ τις κληρικὸς κωφὸν ἢ χωλὸν ἢ τυφλὸν ἢ τὰς βάσεις πεπηρωμένον χλευάσῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω· ὡσαύτως καὶ λαϊκός.”

(Metzger 1987, p. 296; Anapliotis 2009, p. 57)

“If any of the clergy mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind, or him who is infirm in his legs, let him be excommunicated. In like manner any of the laity”.

(Percival 1900, p. 597)

This canon encapsulates the patristic ethic of compassion, grounded in the Church’s theological affirmation of human dignity as bearing the image of God (Maican 2024, p. 290; Ibrahim 2023, pp. 74–78; Stan 2011, pp. 120–43; Harrison 2008, pp. 78–92). It underscores the canonical principle that any expression of contempt, derision, or discriminatory treatment toward individuals with physical disabilities is fundamentally incompatible with the ethos of ecclesiastical office and the vocation of Christian life (Cummings 1957, p. 99).

Apostolic Canon 77 states that

“οζʹ. Ἐάν τις ἀνάπηρος ᾖ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἢ τὸ σκέλος πεπληγμένος, ἄξιος δὲ ᾖ εἰς ἐπισκοπήν, γινέσθω· οὐ γὰρ λώβη σώματος αὐτὸν μιαίνει, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς μολυσμός. οηʹ. Κωφὸς δὲ ὢν καὶ τυφλὸς μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος, οὐχ ὡς μεμιαμμένος, ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ παρεμποδίζοιτο.”

“If anyone be deprived of an eye, or lame of a leg, but in other respects be worthy of a bishopric, he may be ordained, for the defect of the body does not defile a man, but the pollution of the soul.”

This canon addresses two specific situations concerning episcopal candidates: the first refers to an individual who has a mutilated or missing eye (Ἐάν τις ἀνάπηρος ᾖ τὸν ὀφθαλμόν), and the second pertains to a candidate who suffers from a mobility impairment affecting the leg (τὸ σκέλος πεπληγμένος) (Joannou 1962, p. 47; Παπαθωμάς 2013, p. 199; Metzger 1987, p. 304; Anapliotis 2009, p. 69; Percival 1900, p. 599).8

The term ἀνάπηρος, as employed in this canon and in the Byzantine canonical literature, denotes a bodily disability or physical impairment (Efthymiadis 2016, p. 391). The canon also articulates a fundamental principle of Orthodox canonical anthropology, namely “the defect of the body does not defile a man, but the pollution of the soul” (Percival 1900, p. 599). This principle reflects the patristic consensus that bodily impairments, in and of themselves, do not constitute canonical or spiritual disqualifications for episcopal ordination, whereas moral transgressions and spiritual corruption are regarded as impediments to the assumption of ecclesiastical office (Afanas’ev 1997, p. 85).

Apostolic Canon 78 states the following:

“οη. Κωφὸς δὲ ὤν, καὶ τυφλός, μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος· οὐχ ὡς μεμιασμένος, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα μὴ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ παρεμποδίζοιτο. But if a man be deaf or blind, he may not be made a bishop, not indeed as if he were thus defiled, but that the affairs of the Church may not be hindered.”

(Metzger 1987, p. 304; Percival 1900, p. 599; Anapliotis 2009, pp. 68–69)

In order to determine the authentic text of this canon, both internal and external textual criticism must be applied. This involves, first, establishing the earliest attested reading preserved in Greek manuscript traditions, as well as in Latin and other ancient versions (Perșa 2021a, pp. 430–36). With respect to Apostolic Canon 78, it is possible to identify at least two distinct textual variants, which merit further analysis in light of their transmission history, canonical authority, and theological implications.

The first textual variant, reading “Κωφὸς δὲ ὤν, καὶ τυφλός, μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος” (“But if one is mute and blind, he shall not be appointed bishop”), is attested in the majority of Greek manuscripts (Metzger 1985, pp. 65–76) and critical editions (Metzger 1987, p. 304; Beneševič 1974, p. 79; Funk 1905, p. 588; Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1852, p. 100). As an external witness, this version is preserved in the Canonarium or Typicon of Saint Nikon of the Black Mountain, an ecclesiastical author of the 11th and 12th centuries (Hannick 2014, p. 198).

The second variant appears in a number of manuscripts and editions as “Κωφὸς ἤ τυφλός, μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος” (“A mute or a blind person shall not be appointed bishop/Un sourd ou un aveugle ne peut devenir évêque”) (Joannou 1962, p. 47). This reading is based on the textual tradition found in the Codex Barberini Graecus 336, an 8th-century manuscript, and is also attested in several other Greek codices (Codex Barb. gr. 336 780 AD, f. 267v; Codex Vat. gr. 0827 1200 AD, f. 19v; Codex Vallicellianus F10 900 AD, f. 36). An external witness to this reading is found in the Synagoga L titulorum of John Scholasticus, a prominent 6th-century canonist and patriarch of Constantinople (Beneševič 1937, p. 49).

The determination of the correct textual form bears significant implications for the canonical interpretation of Apostolic Canon 78. If the canon contains the copulative conjunction καὶ (“and”), it indicates that only those simultaneously afflicted with both muteness and blindness are impeded from episcopal ordination. Conversely, if the canon employs the disjunctive conjunction ἤ (“or”), the implication is that either condition—deafness or blindness—is independently sufficient to constitute a canonical impediment to holding ecclesiastical office.

In assessing the interpretative tradition surrounding Apostolic Canon 78, one might consider consulting the Latin translations in order to understand how the Western Church—within the context of the Latin-speaking portion of the Roman Empire—received this canon (L’Huillier 1996, pp. 31–32). However, the available Latin versions encompass only the first fifty Apostolic Canons, thereby excluding Canon 78 from the principal Latin corpus of canons (Schwartz 1910, p. 15). Nonetheless, two notable Latin renderings of Canon 78 do exist. In his edition, Jean-Baptiste Pitra provides the following translation: “LXXVIII. Surdus autem aut coecus episcopus non fiat, non ut pollutus, sed ne ecclesiastica munera impediantur (Pitra 1864, p. 32)”. Similarly, in his critical edition, Franz Xaver Funk offers a variant rendering: “LXXVIII. Qui vero vel mutus et caecus est, ne fiat episcopus, non quod pollutus sit, sed ne impediatur ecclesiastica. (Funk 1905, p. 589)”9

The first Greek textual variant (“Κωφὸς δὲ ὤν, καὶ τυφλός”—“one who is mute and blind”) is reflected in several classical translations, including the Syriac translation (Vööbus 1975a, p. 70; 1975b, p. 82), the Armenian translation (Shirinian et al. 2010, pp. 71–89), Ethiopic translation (Schodde 1885, p. 71), and Old Church Slavonic versions (Beneševič 1974, p. 79).

In contrast, the second variant (“Κωφὸς ἤ τυφλός”—“one who is mute or blind”) is found in the Coptic translations (Tattam 1848, p. 205). These linguistic traditions provide valuable external textual witnesses for the ongoing discussion regarding the canonical and exegetical implications of this canon within the broader Orthodox canonical corpus.

In his commentary on Canon 74 of the Council in Trullo, Joannes Zonaras notes that, within the broader context of Greek literary and juridical traditions, copulative and disjunctive conjunctions are frequently employed interchangeably (Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1852, pp. 476–77; Perșa 2024, p. 448). This grammatical observation serves as the basis for his interpretation of the canon’s phrasing and its canonical implications in Apostolic Canon 78 (Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1852, p. 100; Perșa 2024, p. 174). However, this position is explicitly rejected by Balsamon, who in his commentary on Canon 74 of Trullo, contests Zonaras’s grammatical permissiveness and insists on a more rigorous hermeneutical approach (Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1852, pp. 477–78; Perșa 2024, p. 449). In contrast to both preceding positions, Saint Nikon of the Black Mountain articulates a significantly divergent perspective. He explicitly repudiates the rigorist stance that excludes individuals with physical disabilities, bodily deformities, or those who are castrated from admission to the Priesthood, characterizing such a position as a Judaizing interpretation inconsistent with the spirit of the New Testament. He states that

“And yet, as the divine Fathers teach us, the defect and mutilation of the body and the prohibition from the priesthood on account of such bodily impairments were practices observed among the Jews under the Old [Testament], but not under the New [Testament]. The New [Testament] seeks instead the purification of the soul, as the Word has already demonstrated—and shall again demonstrate even more clearly.” (Καὶ ὅμως, καθὼς οἱ θεῖοι πατέρες ἡμᾶς διδάσκουσι, ὁ μῶμος καὶ ἡ λώβη τοῦ σώματος καὶ τὸ κωλύεσθαι διὰ τῶν τοιούτων σωματικῶν ἐλλείψεων τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐν τῇ Παλαιᾷ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἐπολιτεύετο καὶ οὐχὶ ἐν τῇ Νέᾳ. Ἡ Νέᾳ δὲ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς κάθαρσιν ἐπιζητεῖ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν, καὶ πάλιν ὧδε ἀποδείξει σαφέστερον).

(Hannick 2014, p. 198)

From this perspective, Apostolic Canon 78 refers to a condition of severe physical impairment—namely muteness accompanied by blindness—which constitutes a functional incompatibility with the exercise of priestly ministry.

This raises important questions concerning the socio-cultural status of such individuals in Byzantine society, as well as whether there exist instances within the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church in which blind or deaf candidates were nonetheless admitted to the clerical state.

As previously noted, the Greek terms κωφός and τυφλός, as they appear in Apostolic Canon 78, have been rendered differently across classical and modern translations. In the Latin tradition, κωφός is variously translated as surdus (“deaf”) (Pitra 1864, p. 32) or mutus (“mute” or “speechless”) (Funk 1905, p. 589). In English translations, the standard rendering of κωφός is most often “deaf” (Hammond 1844, p. 201; Percival 1900, p. 599; Cummings 1957, p. 138), whereas in French, translators have employed either “sourd” (Joannou 1962, p. 47; Παπαθωμάς 2013, p. 199) or “sourd-muet” (Metzger 1987, p. 305), reflecting a semantic ambiguity in both ancient and modern usage. In the German language, the Greek term κωφός is conventionally rendered as „taub” (“deaf”) (Anapliotis 2009, p. 69). Such translational variability invites further philological and canonical investigation, particularly regarding how disability has been understood and legislated within Orthodox ecclesiastical law across historical and linguistic contexts.

In Greco-Roman society, the causes of deafness and muteness were diverse, ranging from physical illness to traumatic experiences of war. Among the more severe punitive measures was the excision of the tongue, which was occasionally employed as a penalty for specific crimes (Laes 2013, pp. 147–48). Nevertheless, within Roman law, deafness and muteness were more frequently classified under the categories of mental deficiency (vitium animi) or illness (morbus), rather than as strictly bodily defects (vitium corporis) (Laes 2011, p. 466; Adams 2019, pp. 85–87). In Greek usage, deafness was commonly denoted by the term κωφός (mutus) (Laes 2011, pp. 460–61; Adams 2019, p. 87; Singer 2020, p. 84). The phrase οἱ κωφοὶ ἐκ τῆς γενεῆς (“the congenitally deaf”) typically referred to individuals who were understood to be both deaf (κωφός) and mute (ἐνεός), i.e., suffering from both impairments simultaneously.

Classical Greek literature thus distinguished between individuals with a hearing impairment (κωφοί) and those who were mute (ἐνεοί)—the latter being capable of communicating through gesture or sign language. A similar semantic distinction is found in Latin usage, where mutus referred to persons with speech impairment, and surdus to those with hearing impairment (Laes 2011, p. 462).

In the Apostolic Constitutions, both terms are employed with contextual specificity. The term “ἐνεός” is used in Book VI, Chapter 18 in reference to muteness (Metzger 1986, p. 352), while “κωφός” appears in Apostolic Canons 57 and 78, where it denotes deafness. These usages reflect a nuanced understanding of disability in early Christian canonical and theological discourse. However, in the Lexicon of the Ecumenical Patriarch Photius, the term κωφός is defined comprehensively as: “κωφός—ὁ οὔτε λαλῶν οὔτε ἀκούων” (κωφός—one who neither speaks nor hears)” (Theodoridis 1998, p. 476).

Under the provisions of the Codex of Emperor Justinian (Book VI, 22), individuals who were congenitally deaf or mute were considered legally incapacitated to make a valid testament. In contrast, those who acquired deafness or muteness after birth, due to accident or illness, retained the legal capacity to compose a written and valid will (Frier et al. 2016, p. 1501). Within these same Justinianic legal provisions, a clear juridical distinction is articulated between a deaf person (surdus) and a mute person (mutus), indicating a refined classification of impairments within Byzantine legal thought. More broadly, the Byzantine legal tradition imposed further civil limitations on individuals with auditory and speech disabilities, with particular severity in cases involving congenital impairments, where communication was deemed especially compromised (Adams 2019, pp. 90–91). Individuals affected by deafness or muteness were frequently perceived in Greco-Roman society as possessing intellectual or mental deficiencies and were often subjected to social marginalization or derision. While forms of gestural communication did exist in antiquity, such as rudimentary sign language, persons who were deaf-mute encountered considerable challenges in achieving effective communication (Laes 2011, pp. 467–70). A structured and codified sign language would not emerge until the modern period (Adams 2019, pp. 97–98).

In ancient literature, the Greek term “τυφλός” and the Latin “caecus” typically denoted total and permanent blindness, specifically the complete loss of vision in both eyes, rather than encompassing the various degrees of visual impairment. Indeed, nearly two hundred distinct terms can be found in Greek and Latin medical and literary sources to describe gradations of partial sight or visual deficiency (Van Den Abeele 2020, p. 69). Blindness—particularly congenital blindness—was frequently interpreted as a form of divine punishment (Morris 1995, pp. 424–25; Keener 2003, pp. 777–78).10 In Byzantine society, blindness—in addition to arising from natural causes or accidental injury—was often perceived as a punitive measure for grave offenses, a practice inherited from Greco-Roman legal culture (Dalewski 2008, p. 139). Although such punishments were formally abolished by Emperor Constantine the Great (Lascaratos and Marketos 1992, p. 133; Ransohoff 2023, pp. 71–92), they were later reintroduced into the Byzantine penal system by Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetos (the Slit-Nosed) in the year 705, primarily as a political instrument intended to prevent eligibility for imperial succession (Kazhdan 1991, p. 297). Remarkably, the only Byzantine emperor to ascend the throne despite being visually impaired was Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who reigned jointly with his son Alexios IV from 1203 to 1204 (Lascaratos and Marketos 1992, p. 134; Ransohoff 2023, p. 76). Comparable negative attitudes toward visual disability were also prevalent in medieval Western Europe, where blindness was frequently equated with incapacity and moral disqualification, further reinforcing exclusion from ecclesiastical offices (Wheatley 2020, pp. 67–69).

The second canonical problem addressed in Apostolic Canons 77 and 78 pertains to clerics who, during the exercise of their priesthood, experience an accidental injury leading to walking impairment, limb loss, or the development of a physical disability, including conditions such as mutism or blindness. This raises critical canonical questions: Are such individuals to be excluded from the exercise of priestly functions? Does the presence of a physical impairment constitute an inherent impediment with priesthood?

In his canonical commentary, Theodor Balsamon affirms a pastorally tempered interpretation of Apostolic Canons 77 and 78, distinguishing between pre-existing physical impairments and those acquired after ordination. Balsamon explicitly rejects the notion that a cleric who becomes mute, blind, or otherwise physically impaired after ordination should be removed from office solely on the basis of that condition. He insists that such a judgment would be contrary to apostolic mercy and an expression of uncharitable rigorism. Thus, Balsamon upholds a canonical principle of pastoral leniency and ecclesial dignity, asserting that bodily impairment alone does not constitute grounds for dismissal from holy orders when the incapacity arises after ordination (Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1852, pp. 100–1; Perșa 2024, pp. 174–75). In Question 25, Patriarch Mark of Alexandria addresses the same canonical issue raised by Theodor Balsamon, affirming a convergent position regarding clerics who incur bodily impairments after ordination (Ράλλης and Ποτλής 1854, pp. 447–96; Viscuso 2014, pp. 94–95; Grumel 1939, pp. 321–33).

Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his commentary on Apostolic Canon 77, adopts a pastoral and discerning stance concerning physical impairments and their relation to ordination. He argues that bodily defects—such as the loss of one eye, strabismus, short-sightedness, lameness, or similar physical conditions—do not in themselves constitute impediments to ecclesiastical office, provided they do not hinder the performance of liturgical and sacramental functions. According to Nicodemus, physical impairments are not to be equated with moral or spiritual unworthiness. Rather, it is the “pollution of the soul through sin,” not bodily imperfection, that disqualifies a candidate from the priesthood. Thus, if a person is otherwise worthy in character and capable in function, physical limitations alone do not preclude ordination (Cummings 1957, p. 137). Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his interpretation of Apostolic Canon 78, clarifies that individuals who are completely blind or deaf should not be elevated to the episcopate—not due to any moral or spiritual deficiency, but because such impairments inhibit the practical fulfillment of liturgical and pastoral responsibilities. He emphasizes that the inability to see or hear obstructs essential functions at the altar, such as handling sacred elements, reading liturgical texts, or responding to the spoken needs of the faithful. Nonetheless, he distinguishes between congenital or pre-existing conditions and those acquired after ordination (Cummings 1957, p. 138). The same opinion is shared by modern Orthodox Canonists (Milaș 1930, pp. 302–4; Floca 2005, pp. 50–51).

An analysis of Apostolic Canons 57, 77, and 78 reveals that the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church identifies as true impediments to ordination the presence of spiritual or moral defilement in the candidate, rather than physical impairments, such as visual deficiencies or locomotor disabilities. Apostolic Canon 78 reaffirms this principle by emphasizing the primacy of inner integrity; however, it simultaneously introduces the notion that certain congenital conditions may render the exercise of episcopal functions incompatible, due to their impact on the effective administration of ecclesiastical duties. In connection with the broader Byzantine societal attitude toward deafness, muteness, and blindness, it becomes clear why Canon 78 regards such impairments as functional impediments, not as ritual or moral deficiencies, and accordingly excludes individuals affected by them from the episcopate.

Another complex issue arising from the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church concerns the matter of amputation, castration or emasculation, whether voluntary or involuntary—a phenomenon attested in various forms across numerous societies since antiquity (Tougher 2008, pp. 7–9; Messis 2014, pp. 13–29). The issue of the legitimacy of a man’s castration and the Church’s stance—particularly regarding voluntary castration—is already raised in the biblical passage of Matthew 19:12 (Tine 2018, pp. 399–418; Wada 2006, pp. 5–19). The responses and positions of the Church Fathers on this matter were diverse, especially in the post-apostolic period (Caner 1997, pp. 396–97; Hanson 1965, pp. 81–82) and during the Byzantine era (Guilland 1943, p. 201). In this context, castration became increasingly widespread during the fourth century.

Canon 1 of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea explicitly recognised the seriousness of this issue and affirmed that it required a definitive ecclesiastical resolution (Weckwerth 2021, p. 162; Wohlmuth et al. 1998, p. 6). The canon draws a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary castration. Involuntary castration includes cases such as medically necessitated procedures, castration inflicted by barbarian aggressors, or acts imposed by slaveholders. These instances do not imply a denigration of the human body, nor do they reflect a dualistic theological anthropology in the assessment of the individual concerned. In such cases, involuntary castration does not constitute a canonical impediment to ordination, nor does it serve as a legitimate basis for the removal of a cleric from ecclesiastical office (L’Huillier 1996, p. 32).

As in the First Canon of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Apostolic Canon 21 also distinguishes between the three categories of eunuchs (Anapliotis 2009, p. 37). None of these categories constitutes a canonical impediment to episcopal ordination, unless the individual in question became a eunuch voluntarily. The three categories of eunuchs indicate not only the means by which these individuals came to experience reproductive incapacity, but also the degree of responsibility they bore in relation to the act of castration, whether it was undertaken voluntarily or involuntarily (Messis 2014, pp. 40–45).

Although the First Ecumenical Council officially prohibited voluntary castration, the practice did not vanish. This is evidenced by the alarming number of castrations recorded among clergy and monks. A notable example of the disregard for the first canon of the Council of Nicaea is the case of the priest Leontius of Antioch. He lived with a woman named Eustolia, refused to separate from her, and ultimately chose to be castrated. As a result, Bishop Eustathius of Antioch removed him from ecclesiastical office. Nonetheless, in 344, Emperor Constantius II appointed him bishop of Antioch on the grounds that he had embraced Arianism (Wada 2006, p. 7; L’Huillier 1996, p. 32). Gregory of Nazianzus also addressed the issue of voluntary castration in Oratio 37.21, portraying eunuchs who had undergone the procedure in a notably positive light (Nazianzenus 1985, pp. 314–15). In contrast, Basil the Great presented medical arguments against castration, emphasizing that it should not be equated with chastity. According to contemporary medical understanding, castrated individuals could still be sexually active (Caner 1997, pp. 412–13). Consequently, Basil the Great vehemently condemned both the practice of castration and eunuchs in his writings (Messis 2014, pp. 86–87). In 377, Epiphanius of Salamis claimed that many monks in Egypt had become eunuchs through castration and referred to a sect known as the Valesians, which mandated the castration of all its members (Constantiensis 2013, p. 2). Similarly, John Chrysostom noted the prevalence of self-castrated individuals in Antioch, identifying them as Manichaeans (Chrysostomus 1936, pp. 128–29).

Apostolic Canon 22, unlike the First Canon of Nicaea, further elaborates the theological rationale for the condemnation of voluntary castration and its incompatibility with the clerical state and office (Tougher 2021, p. 104). The canon denounces such individuals as “self-murderers” (αὐτοφονευτὴς γὰρ ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ) and “enemies of the creation of God” (τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργίας ἐχθρός). These two accusations articulate two profound moral transgressions: first, voluntary castration or amputation is equated with an act of partial suicide (Nilaș 1930, p. 221), particularly given that such procedures could result in death; second, it constitutes a rejection of the divine act of creation, whereby God endowed human beings with their bodily integrity, including the sexual organs, without thereby implying any moral corruption of the human body. Apostolic Canon 23 similarly affirms the incompatibility between voluntary mutilation and the exercise of clerical ministry. Apostolic Canon 24 extends this condemnation to laypersons, prescribing three years of excommunication (ἀφορισμός) from the communion of the faithful for any layman who voluntarily mutilates himself (Anapliotis 2009, pp. 36–37).

From this perspective, castration or amputation, according to Orthodox Canon Law, is not classified as an impediment ex defectu but is rather condemned as a theological and moral offense against the creation of God.

6. The Canonical Position of the Romanian Orthodox Church Regarding Candidates for Ordination with Physical Disabilities

Although modern Orthodox Canon Law, shaped in part by the influence of medieval Catholic canonical formulations, imposed certain impediments for candidates to the Priesthood, contemporary Orthodox canonical interpretation increasingly emphasizes pastoral condescension in assessing such candidates. In this renewed perspective, hearing, speech, or visual impairments are no longer treated as canonical impediments to ordination.

In the 1925 Law and Statute for the Organization and Functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Article 35 stipulated that candidates for ordination as priests or deacons were required to be of legal age, Romanian citizens, to fulfill canonical requirements, and to hold a diploma in higher theological education (Popovici 1925, p. 292). However, the Statute did not explicitly define whether physical impairments constituted a canonical impediment to ordination. A more explicit approach to physical limitations appeared in Law no. 166/1947, promulgated by King Mihai I and adopted by the Assembly of Deputies on 29 May 1947 (Perșa 2021b, pp. 62–63). This law, addressing the retirement of clergy across all religious denominations, mandated retirement at the age of 70 for clergy of the Romanian Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches. Article 3 provided for the ex officio retirement at age 60 of various high-ranking clerics, with potential extensions of service based on diocesan recommendation and approval by the Ministry of Cults (Monitorul Oficial 1947, pp. 4324–25). Crucially, Article 4 introduced physical incapacity as a legal ground for compulsory retirement, indicating that clergymen who could no longer fulfill liturgical duties “due to physical or other disabilities” were to be retired. This provision was further reinforced in Article 7, which allowed for the retirement of bishops on the same grounds, contingent upon a formal request from the Ministry of Cults and approval by the Retirement Commission (Velicu 2004, pp. 177–79). These stipulations echoed earlier proposals from the 1942 regulations concerning the rights of the Patriarch and the function of the Holy Synod (Brusanowski 2011, p. 376). Despite these legislative clarifications, subsequent ecclesiastical statutes remained vague. The 1949 Statute reaffirmed in Article 121 that deacons and priests had to be of legal age, Romanian citizens, and meet “canonical conditions,” while enjoying full civil and political rights—yet it still omitted any specification of what those canonical conditions entailed, including potential physical impediments (Marina 1953, p. 33). This omission persisted in the 2020 Statute of Organization, where Article 123, paragraph 1, focuses primarily on academic and professional qualifications for clergy, again without reference to physical eligibility (Statutul 2022, p. 203). Thus, while civil legislation progressively addressed the impact of physical disability on clerical function, ecclesiastical statutes largely refrained from detailing the physical prerequisites for ordination, leaving the canonical interpretation of such conditions undefined.

This shift is exemplified in the inclusive canonical and pastoral praxis of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which reflects a broader movement within Orthodoxy to prioritize spiritual capacity and ministerial functionality over physical perfection. In 1999, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, through the Synodal Decision no. 515/1999 (Onu 2017, pp. 9–10), approved a religious assistance program for the hearing and speech impaired persons, requesting that the issue of ordaining hearing and speech impaired deacons be examined by a specialised liturgical-canonical commission (Onu 2003, pp. 113–14; Petrescu 2021, pp. 147–48). This program outlined concrete institutional and pastoral measures, including the establishment of a National Center for Orthodox Education, Catechesis, and Mission for the hearing and speech impaired persons in the Diocese of Argeș and Muscel; the creation of parishes for the hearing and speech impaired orthodox believers within the Romanian Patriarchate; the inclusion of sign language instruction in the curriculum of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Pitești, within its departments of Social Work and Pastoral Theology; the organization of conferences to develop a liturgical sign language dictionary (Onu 2008); and the establishment of Orthodox foundations and associations to support religious education and mission among hearing and speech impaired persons (Onu 2003, p. 113). The implementation of this program led to the institutionalization of theological training for clergy who would serve in hearing and speech impaired communities.

A specialization entitled “Communication and Ministry through Sign Language” was launched at the Faculty of Theology in Pitești (Barbu 2010, p. 9). The Saint Gregory Palamas Foundation for hearing and speech impaired persons (Petrescu 2021, p. 133) established a preparatory class for hearing-impaired students at the Neagoe Vodă Seminary in Curtea de Argeș in the 2000–2001 academic year. Additionally, the “Effata” Choir, composed of hearing and speech impaired persons, began performing liturgical music in sign language (Onu 2003, p. 119). A master’s program entitled “Mission and Ministry through Sign Language” was introduced in 2017–2018. In 2008, the Publishing House of the Orthodox Bible and Mission Institute issued an Orthodox Hieratikon in Romanian liturgical sign language to support sacramental participation by the hearing-impaired believers (Liturghierul Tradus în Limbajul Mimico-Gestual Liturgic Românesc 2008; Onu 2010, pp. 133–45; Petroaia 2022, pp. 178–79; Onu 2017, pp. 17–22).

In 2014, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church evaluated the mission to hearing and speech impaired communities with the aim of structuring, expanding, and standardizing this pastoral ministry. Following Synodal Decisions nos. 4357/2014 and 8557/2014, Romanian Orthodox eparchies were asked to report on the organization of religious services for the hearing and speech-impaired and to propose measures for enhancement. On 10 December 2014, the Social-Philanthropic Department of the Patriarchal Administration, together with the Chancellery of the Holy Synod, organised a national meeting at the “Dumitru Stăniloae” Center for Continuing Education in Bucharest, bringing together priests responsible for deaf communities across the 18 dioceses engaged in religious and missionary activities for hearing and speech-impaired orthodox parishes. The conclusions of this meeting were submitted to the Standing Committee of the National Church Council, which approved them through Decision no. 14.498/2014, stating that “[t]he Chancellery of the Holy Synod and the Department for Liturgical Books of the Publishing House of the Orthodox Bible and Mission Institute are tasked with analyzing, from a canonical perspective, the ordination of hearing-impaired persons to the diaconate and priesthood, and with presenting to the Holy Synod the conclusions they reach, as well as any liturgical deviations from current practice in the ministry to deaf communities.” (Synodal Decision no. 14.498 2014, pp. 1–3)

The religious and pastoral care of persons with hearing and speech impairments was, by 2014, entrusted to 30 priests, 2 deacons, and 30 cantors, in accordance with Synodal Decision no. 8557 of 19 August 2014 (Synodal Decision no. 8557 2014, pp. 1–3). These clergy members were either graduates of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Pitești (with a specialization in Communication and Ministry through Sign Language) or were ordained ministers holding a state-recognised certification as sign language interpreters issued by the Ministry of Education and Research. Many of the priests serving these parishes were also actively engaged in catechetical instruction within kindergartens, general education schools, and specialised institutions for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. According to Decision no. 258 of 10 February 2015 of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the document presents an overview of the missionary and pastoral activities undertaken by the Romanian Patriarchate between 1999 and 2014.

Moreover, the same Synodal decision mandated a thorough analysis of the canonical grounds for the ordination of deaf and speech-impaired persons to the diaconate and priesthood, specifically in view of their service within these specialised ecclesial communities (Synodal Decision no. 258 2015, pp. 1–3). As a result of the initiatives undertaken to enable hearing- and speech-impaired believers to pursue the study of Orthodox theology, the publication of liturgical books in sign language, and the establishment of undergraduate and master’s degree programs to prepare clergy for ministry within these communities, a significant shift occurred in the canonical praxis of the Orthodox Church regarding the eligibility of ordination candidates with hearing, speech, or visual impairments. Consequently, the Romanian Orthodox Church made the decision to permit the ordination of deacons and priests drawn from among persons with hearing and speech disabilities.

The first hearing-impaired candidate, Constantin Toma, was ordained deacon on 1 September 1997 and subsequently priest on 6 September 1997 by the Bishop Calinic of Argeș and Muscel (Onu 2003, p. 112). Following him, Florea Barbu—a hearing-impaired professor at the University of Pitești and president of the National Association of the Deaf in Romania—was ordained deacon on 27 January 1999 (Barbu 2010, p. 10). In 2004, Raul Gabriel Popescu, a young man with speech and hearing impairments, was ordained to the priesthood in the Archdiocese of Râmnic (Petrescu 2021, p. 134; Petroaia 2022, p. 79), contributing particularly to the translation and dissemination of the Divine Liturgy in sign language, published in 2008. Similarly, Ștefan Gavriliuc, a person with speech and hearing disabilities and a teacher at the Special School for the Deaf and Mute in Bivolărie, Suceava County, was ordained a priest in 2009 (Preot Pentru Elevii 2009). In 2010, Radu Bîrsă, a hearing-impaired graduate of the Faculty of Theology in Pitești, was ordained to the priesthood in Focșani (adevarul.ro 2010), and Laurențiu Raul Grădinariu, a hearing-impaired theologian also a graduate of the same institution, was ordained in the Archdiocese of Suceava.

These ordinations exemplify the adaptive capacity of Orthodox canonical practice in responding to pastoral realities, demonstrating that physical impairments—specifically in the areas of hearing and speech—no longer constitute canonical impediments to the reception of Holy Orders. These priests represent only a portion of the clergy ordained from among the hearing- and speech-impaired faithful, who now serve as priests within the specialised Romanian Orthodox parishes dedicated to the pastoral care of these communities. The pastoral and canonical practice of the Romanian Orthodox Church thus demonstrates that the traditional functional impediment to ordination for candidates with hearing or speech disabilities can be effectively overcome through theological formation programs tailored to their specific needs and through their dedicated ministry within the communities they are called to serve.

With regard to the ordination of persons with total visual impairment or blindness, several noteworthy examples can be identified within the Romanian Orthodox Church. Father Teofil Părăian (1929–2009) is recognised as one of the most eminent spiritual and monastic authorities in the contemporary history of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Despite being blind from birth, he was ordained to the diaconate on 15 August 1960, serving for twenty-three years as a deacon at the Sâmbăta de Sus Monastery. On 13 May 1983, he was ordained to the priesthood, thereafter ministering for an additional twenty-six years as a priest of the monastery (Buda 2019, pp. 107–10).

Another noteworthy example is Father Sofian Costea from Constanța, a distinguished hieromonk who holds degrees from three faculties—Law, Psychology, and Theology—as well as three master’s degrees in the respective fields and a doctorate in Theology. Likewise, Father George Radu, who serves as the coordinator of the “Didymus the Blind” Information Center for Persons with Visual Impairments in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, exemplifies the continued commitment of the Romanian Orthodox Church to the full integration of visually impaired clergy into its pastoral and missionary structures.

We can find illustrative case from the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the ordination of a candidate with a physical disability. An example of a community for the deaf and hard of hearing is the Deaf-Mute Parish of the Simonov Monastery in Moscow. The parish priest, Valentin Terekhov (Валентин Терехoв), who became deaf at the age of 18, graduated from the St. Tikhon Orthodox University of Humanities in 2003. He was ordained as a deacon in 2004 and as a priest in 2005, becoming the first deaf priest within the Moscow Patriarchate (Связь не утеряна 2009). However, this remains an isolated instance and does not reflect an established institutional framework. By contrast, in the Romanian Orthodox Church, there is a more structured and systematic approach: candidates to the priesthood with congenital or early-acquired hearing, visual, or speech impairments are able to pursue both undergraduate and graduate theological programs, specifically designed to accommodate their needs.

These examples further demonstrate that visual impairment does not constitute an insurmountable canonical impediment to priesthood, when candidates otherwise fulfill the spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral requirements established by Orthodox Canon Law. Through comprehensive academic and spiritual formation, candidates for the priesthood who experience congenital or early-onset impairments in hearing, vision, or speech, as well as those with various motor disabilities, can be prepared for ordination and effectively serve in a range of ecclesial ministries. These include pastoral and missionary roles within communities composed of individuals with similar disabilities, as well as within monastic settings, which have demonstrated a greater capacity for inclusion, as evidenced by documented cases. Consequently, such physical impairments should not be regarded as intrinsic obstacles to ordination or fundamental impediment to priesthood. Moreover, they do not constitute functional impediments when mitigated through appropriate training—such as in sign language or gesture-based communication—or when liturgical responsibilities are supported by co-ministers capable of fulfilling the principal functions of the Divine Liturgy.

7. Conclusions

From the earliest centuries of ecclesial history, the Orthodox canonical tradition clearly articulated a fundamental distinction between moral impurity and bodily impairment. This canonical and theological differentiation is attested in the Apostolic Canons—specifically Canons 57, 77, and 78—which continue to hold normative authority in the canonical corpus of the Orthodox Church. Apostolic Canon 57 explicitly excommunicates any act of ridicule or contempt by clergy or laity toward persons with bodily defects, affirming the inherent dignity of those bearing such impairments. Canon 77 provides that persons with physical infirmities may be admitted even to the episcopacy, provided they are otherwise worthy. This canonical tradition underscores a central principle of Orthodox ecclesiology: it is the spiritual and moral worthiness of the candidate—rather than corporeal wholeness—that determines fitness for the grace of ordination (χειροτονία).

Byzantine canonical authorities, notably Theodore Balsamon and Nikon of the Black Mountain, reaffirmed the patristic and canonical principle that bodily impairments acquired post-ordination do not constitute exclusion from clerical office. Both canonists emphasised the application of pastoral condescension and οἰκονομία (economy) in addressing such cases, thereby ensuring a merciful and context-sensitive application of Orthodox Canon law.

The Roman Catholic Church, through the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, had once formalised physical impairments as “irregularities ex defectu,” excluding many disabled candidates from ordination. However, the 1983 revision of the Code abandoned this categorical exclusion, favouring case-by-case discernment. This shift aligned Catholic canon law with a theological emphasis on interior disposition and effective pastoral function.

The Romanian Orthodox Church offers a compelling case study in the realm of canonical adaptation and pastoral discernment. Since the 1990s, it has undertaken structured efforts to facilitate the integration of persons with hearing, speech and visual impairments into clerical occupations. The ordination of numerous deaf and blind theologians has been supported by theological education that is tailored for such candidates and by synodal decisions.

The Romanian Church’s experience reveals a significant shift in both canonical praxis and theological anthropology: physical disability is no longer viewed as an absolute impediment to priesthood, but rather as a condition that, with due discernment and accommodation, can coexist with the priestly vocation. This trajectory of inclusion can be considered as embodying the commitment on the part of the Church to the principles of divine compassion and fidelity to the spirit of the ancient canons. It may also be regarded as offering a potential model for other Orthodox jurisdictions facing similar questions in the present context.