173. Homicide

1. Seius, a priest, conversing with Tiburtius, the enemy of Aurelius, willingly receives and even praises the plan of Tiburtius to kill Aurelius. Tiburtius in reality kills Aurelius. Hence Seius greatly doubts whether he himself by his manner of speaking commanded the homicide, and whether at least he counseled it. Wherefore he consequently doubts whether he is irregular.

R. Seius is not irregular. For although someone incurs irregularity on account of doubtful homicide, namely if it is established that a man was killed and it is only doubted whether he himself or another killed him, nevertheless irregularity is not had if it is doubted only whether someone was the cause of the homicide by his mandate or counsel. St. Alph., l. 7, n. 347, dub. 3, n. 371; D'Annib., ed. 3, p. 1, n. 424, 428; I. M. 1318, 1330.

2. Fulgentius, seized by hatred against his aged father, made him perish by hunger, daily diminishing food to him in order to kill him, and finally denying it. Doing sincere penance for the gravest sin, he entered a strict religious institute, in which he lived most observantly for several years; and since he is endowed with no common knowledge, his superiors desire that he ascend to the priesthood. Is Fulgentius irregular?

R. It is certain among all that if someone is bound only from charity to prevent a homicide, and does not prevent it, although from hatred, he does not incur irregularity. "The doubt is raised," says St. Alph., l. 7, n. 376, "whether he incurs it who is bound to prevent it from justice by reason of pact or office, namely if he is a physician hired by stipend, an advocate who is bound to defend the accused, a guardian of roads, a father, tutor, master, or husband who is bound to furnish support to a wife. The first opinion denies that he incurs it.... The reason is that he who positively flows into a homicide must be judged differently from him who does not prevent a homicide. But the second opinion affirms it.... The reason is that one omitting to defend, when he can, him whom by justice he is bound to defend, is judged a true murderer, since he himself, if not physically, nevertheless morally flows into the homicide. This opinion is indeed more common and probable, but the first seems to me no less probable; for since irregularity ought to be expressed in Law, Ronc. rightly says that from the sacred canons it is not sufficiently clear that those not preventing in this way, furnishing only a moral cause, incur irregularity, but only those killing, commanding, counseling, and all those positively flowing into homicide." From these things it could seem that Fulgentius, according to St. Alphonsus himself, did not incur irregularity. Nevertheless it must altogether be said that Fulgentius incurred irregularity by studiously procuring the death of his father, diminishing and denying food to him. And this is clear from the very opinion of St. Alphonsus, for he immediately adds: "But the same Cont., Tourn., and Escob. excuse from irregularity those who omit to prevent, not now studiously so that a man may be killed, but only from fear or negligence; and they rightly infer this from C. Quaesitum de Poen. et rem., where parents by whose fault children perish in the cradle are judged irregular if they studiously neglected to prevent suffocation, but not however if the children died from their carelessness." Cf. Reiffenst., l. 5, t. 12, n. 42 seqq.; I. M. 1329, 1330.