On Irregularity

What is irregularity? Irregularity is defined: a canonical impediment by which someone is directly and primarily interdicted from the reception of orders, and consequently from their use. Impediment, i.e., a certain incapacity, not invalidating but merely prohibiting, since it is only an incapacity for receiving and exercising orders with due honor and reverence. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 4, ad 2. Therefore irregularity is not a censure. Nor is it properly a penalty, but an impediment arising from a stain and mark against the dignity of divine ministry. And if at any time it is imposed also by way of penalty, it is not medicinal, but merely punitive. Chap. Quaerenti 20, de Verb. Sign.; L. 341. Canonical: for the impediments which prohibit someone from orders are some by natural law, as in the mute; some by divine law, as in women; and finally some by canonical law, as in illegitimate persons. Now irregularities properly consist not from the former, nor from the latter, but from these. Chap. Is qui 18, de Sent. exc. in 6. From the former there is rather impotence and incapacity, or even unworthiness, than merely an impediment. Canonical: therefore irregularity supposes a person capable by natural and divine law. Nevertheless irregularity is often taken more broadly also for unworthiness and for incapacity properly so called.

By which someone is directly and primarily interdicted from the reception of orders: hence irregularity is distinguished from excommunication, which directly deprives of the communion of the faithful; from interdict, which directly deprives of divine offices; from suspension, which directly deprives of the functions of order. Interdicted from the reception, i.e., only from the licit reception of orders; therefore those conferred are valid. Chap. Innotuit nobis 3, de Eo qui furt. Consequently it prohibits from their use, namely from the exercise of major orders.

Chap. Henricus 2, de Cleric. pugn.; chap. Quaesitum 17, de Temp. ordin. And indeed it would be absurd to exercise with impunity an order which someone is prohibited from receiving. Of major orders, because minor orders today are customarily exercised even by laymen. L. 342. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 1; Suarez, de Censur., disp. 40, sect. 1, n. 2.

You will resolve: Irregularity, in itself, bars from the clergy; and therefore, if it cannot effect this, it then bars from the exercise of clerical ministry, namely so that the irregular person is barred from the clergy at least insofar as he does not bear himself as a cleric.

As incapacitating laws do, so irregularity, as making one stained, renders one incapable by the law itself and before any sentence of a judge, although it may seem to be imposed by words of future time, e.g., he will be irregular. But if the words require the office of a judge, suspension rather than irregularity is understood. Hence as often as in Canon Law someone is only prohibited from the use and exercise of orders, suspension rather than irregularity is understood. Likewise irregularities are not laws which only remove from benefices and ecclesiastical dignities. Nor are irregularities those which bar even from the reception itself of orders, yet not on account of the reverence of divine ministry, but on account of any other cause, as for example that no one receive orders from someone other than his own Bishop. "It is certain that no irregularity is incurred unless it is expressed in Law. Chap. Is qui, de Sent. exc., in 6... But under the name of this Law come only Decrees of the Pontiff, or of a Council approved by the Pope, not of others, nor does custom come under it... Hence it is inferred that, for incurring irregularity, an argument from the similar, nor from the greater to the lesser, has force, as they commonly teach." L. 345. For irregularity properly is only that which is constituted from positive Law. That which is from natural law is rather a certain natural unworthiness and incapacity than irregularity. Nevertheless they are often used promiscuously by the doctors. Likewise there are not lacking irregularities which by the common opinion of the doctors are constituted without express law, perhaps confirmed by use and custom.

An irregular person, although illicitly, nevertheless validly absolves. Illicitly, because he exercises an order from which he is prohibited; validly, because to absolve is an act of jurisdiction, which irregularity in itself does not prohibit. "Irregularity in no way deprives of those actions which do not require the exercise of order, and which even laymen can exercise, such as receiving sacraments, singing offices, and likewise conferring benefices, because these pertain to the use of jurisdiction, not of order; likewise assisting at marriage, or furnishing permission to another to assist, dispensing in vows, absolving from censures, giving the faculty of hearing confessions." L. 342, 358. "He sins gravely who in irregularity exercises an act of order or receives orders, although the orders conferred on him are valid... And thus an irregular person receiving first tonsure also sins gravely." L. 342. For irregularity renders one incapable even for first tonsure. For he is prepared for orders in vain who is prohibited from orders.

Someone can be entangled by several irregularities, whether from diverse objects or from repeated acts. L. 353.

Of how many kinds is irregularity? Irregularity is twofold: one which proceeds from delict; another from some inculpable defect. Likewise one is total, which impedes every order to be received and every exercise of order already received, such as homicide and bigamy; another partial, which prohibits only from some ministry of order, or only from ascent to a higher order. Besides, one is for a time, which ceases of itself; another perpetual, which endures indefinitely of itself. Irregularity which is total and perpetual is irregularity properly. For irregularity in itself bars from the clergy. It follows the person everywhere, and is destroyed only by the authority and dispensation of the Church. But that which is partial, or for a time, is only improperly irregularity; for it does not simply bar from the clergy. It is rather a certain prohibition, as for example defect of knowledge or of age. Cf. 1214. L. 341, 1318.

Does irregularity also deprive of benefices? R. Negatively as regards a simple benefice, which imports no exercise of sacred order; for then no reason of deprivation is present. Affirmatively as regards a benefice to be obtained, to which an office is annexed which it is not lawful for an irregular person to discharge. For a benefice is given for the sake of the office; but an irregular person is incapable of the office, since he cannot exercise order. Therefore at least licitly he cannot receive the benefice. At least licitly: for if it has been conferred on him, it is probable that the conferral is valid, and therefore after the irregular person has begun possession of it, if he fulfills the burdens of the benefice through another, he makes the fruits his own, which not even Suarez himself and St.

Alphonsus, patrons of the contrary opinion as more probable, deny. The reason is that penalties are not to be imposed unless they are clearly expressed in Law, but nowhere is it expressed that irregularity renders a man incapable of a benefice. Others nevertheless press the place of Trent, sess. 22, chap. 4, de Ref., where it is said that provision made to those who lack due qualifications is invalid. L. 343. But as regards a benefice already obtained before irregularity, which requires the exercise of sacred order, if the irregularity proceeds from defect of infirmity, there is no doubt that the benefice can be retained, if the burdens are fulfilled through another. Chap. Ex parte, de Cler. aegr. But if it is from delict, the irregular person must be deprived of it by sentence of a judge; and although he is not deprived by that very fact, chap. Ex litteris, de Excess. praelat., nevertheless he is bound to seek dispensation.

But if he does not seek it, or cannot obtain it, he is bound to renounce the benefice. The reason is that if he cannot licitly satisfy the burdens of the benefice, neither can he licitly retain it. Nevertheless he will be able to defer this renunciation if he labors under great poverty and has already delegated another for fulfilling the burdens of the benefice. Thus they commonly interpret the law. Nevertheless, by that very fact a sentence of deposition from the benefice is had if it is a case excepted by name in law, such as homicide in chap. Pro humani 1, § 2, de Homic. in 6. L. 342, 343, 344; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 11.

What is to be established concerning one who doubts about irregularity incurred? He is bound under grave obligation first to investigate the matter, unless perhaps grave harm could follow from the delay of inquiring. For there is question of a grave law of the Church on account of the honor and reverence owed to the sacrament of order.

Due diligence having been applied, if the doubt still perseveres, generally speaking, he is not to be held as irregular, whether the doubt is negative or positive, whether it is of fact or of law. Chap. Is qui 18, de Sent. exc. in 6. The reason is that odious things are to be restricted; and no one in doubt is to be despoiled of his own right. Generally speaking, because, as St. Alphonsus with the common opinion affirms must more truly be held, doubt concerning homicide is excepted, not concerning mutilation; for such a case is expressly declared in Law. Yet understand this if someone is certain of the homicide having followed, and only doubts whether by his own action he was the cause of it, namely whether he or another killed. Indeed they observe that this is valid only for clerics; and according to several, only for priests, and only as regards celebration of Mass, because the Law speaks only of this: lest if perhaps afterwards he is certainly known as a homicide, he be found to have celebrated, with scandal of the people. Chaps. Ad audientiam 12, Significasti 16, 18, Petitio tua 24, de Hom.; L. 346, 347, 371.

How is irregularity removed? Irregularity can be removed in four ways: 1. by cessation of the cause, if the irregularity is less properly and perfectly such, from defect, e.g., of age, ignorance, etc.; 2. by baptism, if the irregularity is from delict. But baptism rather prevents irregularity than removes it. For an infidel is not irregular, since he is not subject to the law of the Church; 3. by dispensation. And this is the proper way of removing irregularity. For irregularity is constituted by canon law. Therefore its removal, since it is a grace, is verified only by dispensation; 4. by religious profession, which removes not every irregularity, but only one, which is from defect of birth, and not even in order to prelacies, although regular. But this privilege granted to religious profession is equivalent to dispensation.

Irregularity is removed by this or a similar form: I dispense with you concerning the irregularity, or irregularities if there are several, into which, on account of such a cause or such causes, expressing them, you have incurred, etc. Cf. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. poenit., etc. No dispensation needs a form of words; indeed it can be given without words by the thing itself and fact, e.g., if a Bishop knowingly and prudently grants to one irregular from occult delict dimissorial letters for orders, or ordains him.

A confessor can dispense in no irregularities unless he has a special faculty. Nevertheless he can dispense concerning an occult irregularity, when it occurs, in the cases comprehended in the Decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1886, namely in truly more urgent cases in which dispensation cannot be deferred without danger of grave harm, scandal, or infamy. Holy Office, September 6, 1909. A Bishop can, from Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, dispense in irregularities proceeding from occult delict, unless nevertheless it is voluntary homicide, or unless the irregularity has been brought into the contentious forum; not likewise, regularly, in irregularities from defect. A Bishop can also dispense in all doubtful irregularities. Regulars generally can, from various privileges, dispense in the same irregularities in which Bishops can dispense, whether with their own subjects or with seculars. Comp. Priv. S. I., v. Dispensatio, n. 164 ff. The Supreme Pontiff dispenses in every irregularity of ecclesiastical law. For the external forum recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation of the Council for irregularity from delict, to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments for irregularity from defect; and for the internal forum recourse must be had to the Sacred Penitentiary. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastor bonus, April 13, 1744. L. 352-355, 396, 400, 469; Sacred Consistorial Congregation, February 27, 1909; November 28, 1911.

What is required for incurring irregularity from delict? In order that irregularity from delict be incurred, i.e., from one's own delict, the human act must be: 1. external, for this irregularity is a penalty in the external forum; 2. mortally evil, because it is a grave penalty, to which light fault does not correspond; 3. fully consummated, for odious things are to be restricted. L. 348. But it is by no means required that the crime be public. Rather irregularity is incurred because of a crime even occult. Trent, sess. 24, chap. Liceat 6; L. 349. But is knowledge of the law of the Church prohibiting required? The most common and more probable opinion affirms; because this irregularity is a true penalty. Chap. Proposuisti, Dist. 82; L. 350. Is knowledge of the penalty, or of the irregularity, also required? It is controverted; and it must be affirmed with sufficient probability, because irregularity is as it were an extraordinary penalty. L. 351; book 6, n. 705. But as ignorance excuses from irregularity as from a penalty, so fear also excuses. Irregularity, however, is not had from any delict whatsoever, although enormous, but only from delicts constituted in Law, namely from the following:

From bad reception of baptism he is irregular who in adult age is baptized by a declared heretic without any necessity; for he seems to communicate in his error. Chap. Ventum est 18, causa 1, q. 1; chap. Qui in qualibet 10, causa 1, q. 7. This irregularity impedes the reception of all orders and consequently their exercise.

Besides, he is irregular who defers being baptized until the danger of death, for it is a sign of weak faith; hence it is rather an irregularity from defect, i.e., from defect of faith, as regards which otherwise the Bishop will judge. They were called clinici who deferred receiving baptism until the bed of death. Chap. Si quis un., Dist. 57; Suarez, disp. 43, sect. 3, n. 6.

From repetition of baptism, he becomes irregular who is rebaptized. Chap. Confirmandum 65, Dist. 50; the acolyte who ministers to one rebaptizing, chap. Ex litterarum 2, de Apost.; and therefore also he who rebaptizes, as the common opinion has it. L. 356. But there is need of baptism: 1. true and perfect; therefore it is not contracted if anything is lacking to it, whether matter or form, or the intention of the one receiving or conferring; and therefore not even if either one has appended the condition, if I am not, or if you are not, baptized, although he who applies the condition is not ignorant that baptism was in reality conferred and was duly conferred; because thus in reality he is not rebaptized. Yet others deny this, because the condition is appended in fraud of the law, and therefore is held as not appended. This also is held by the Roman Catechism, de Sacram. bapt., n. 57. 2. Notorious, each, given and repeated, and solemn, chap. Ex litterarum 2, de Apost.; for there it is said: "If what is proposed is public." Many interpret public as notorious, many as solemn. Therefore the matter is doubtful as long as each has not been present.

But this irregularity prohibits only from the reception of orders, not from the exercise of those already received. Others nevertheless extend it also to exercise. But culpable ignorance does not excuse from it, chap. Qui bis 107, de Consecr., Dist. 4; otherwise if it is inculpable. L. 356, book 6, n. 122; Benedict XIV, Inst. 84, n. 14 ff.

Because of exercise of order, a cleric becomes irregular who knowingly and solemnly exercises a sacred order which he does not have. Chap. Si quis 1, chap. Ex litteris 2, de Cler. non ord. min.

He who has exercised an order which he does not have is irregular as regards the reception of that order, and from the exercise of the principal order which he has he is suspended for two years or three years at the judgment of the Bishop, by whom he will be able to be dispensed in benefice. Cited chap. 2.

A cleric who is not a deacon incurs this irregularity by singing the Gospel with stole, or if one who is not a priest absolves sacramentally, etc. On the contrary, a layman exercising an act of order which he does not have does not incur irregularity. Nor does a simple priest incur irregularity by receiving Confessions, because here he truly exercises an act of order which he already has, although he lacks jurisdiction. Hence he indeed sins, but does not incur irregularity. For the same reason a deacon solemnly baptizing without the delegation of a priest outside the case of necessity indeed sins, but does not incur irregularity. L. 359; book 6, n. 116.

From bad reception of orders, several irregularities indeed are reviewed by theologians and canonists. Namely, the following are irregular: 1. he who is ordained by a Bishop excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, heretical, schismatic, simoniacal. L. 358. 2. He who receives order from a Bishop who has renounced the episcopate as regards place and as regards dignity. Navarrus, Man. conf. 241. 3. Those liable to censure who receive order. Cf. L., book 6, n. 799, par. Utrum. 4. He who, after marriage contracted and before consummation, receives sacred order against the will of his wife. L. 361. 5. He who is ordained by another's Bishop without the dimissorial letters of his Bishop. 6. He who is ordained furtively, namely while the Bishop does not know, does not approve, and he has not been examined by him. L. 361. 7. He who is ordained by leap, or before the legitimate age. Cf. L. 360. 8. He who receives major orders without title. 9. He who on one and the same day receives several orders, one of which is sacred. L. 361; book 6, nn. 796, 797; Navarrus, loc. cit. But here canonists and theologians mix irregularity with suspension. Insofar as suspension was constituted by the old law, it is not in force at present unless it is found renewed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis concerning censures. But as regards irregularity, since it is at least very doubtful, and as regards penalties, in obscure matters what is least must be held; as regards irregularities, they must be established by certain law, and certainly it is not to be affirmed. Cf. Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 1; disp. 42, sect. 3.

Among the penalties against those ordained simoniacally was formerly also incapacity or suspension from the hope of ascending to higher orders. Constitution of Sixtus V Sanctum et salutare, January 5, 1589, § 3. This suspension from the hope of ascending to higher orders does not seem to be a censure, but an irregularity; and from this irregularity, if the crime is occult, the Bishop cannot dispense by force of the Constitution Liceat of Trent, since Sixtus V derogated from this faculty as regards the crime of simony. But others also deny this irregularity. Certainly Sixtus V, loc. cit., says that those who, promoted simoniacally and thus suspended, presume to minister become irregular. Whence suspension rather than irregularity is understood. Suarez, de Simon., book 4, chap. 56, n. 20; D'Annibale, Commentary on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, 4th ed., n. 211, note 15. L., book 6, n. 799; book 7, nn. 160, 361.

Because of violation of censure, he becomes irregular who exercises the sacred order which he has while he is entangled by major excommunication, or interdict, or suspension, by which he is prohibited from the exercise of orders, provided nevertheless that he does this knowingly and seriously and solemnly. Chaps. 1, 18, 20, de Sent. exc. in 6. Exercises; not likewise he who receives. Interdict, special personal, not general, which is not a censure in the proper and strict meaning. Suspension; not one which is rather a privation or mere penalty.

A priest also incurs this irregularity who knowingly celebrates in a place interdicted by name. Chap. Is qui 18, de Sent. exc. in 6, § 1. Interdicted; not polluted. According to the common opinion a censured Bishop or priest compelling another to celebrate before himself also incurs this irregularity, from chap. Tanta 18, de Exc. prael. and from chap. Illud 5, de Cler. exc. min. L. 175, 358; Suarez, disp. 12, sect. 1, n. 5 ff. Others nevertheless deny this irregularity. Diana, part 4, tract. 2, res. 57; Suarez, disp. 34, sect. 4, n. 17. Approved confessors having the faculty-list of the Sacred Penitentiary can dispense from this irregularity. Cf. this faculty-list; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 10.

You will resolve: He does not incur this irregularity who exercises an act of major orders, but not solemnly, i.e., a deacon without stole, a subdeacon without maniple; nor he who exercises an act of minor orders, even from office and solemnly; nor he who preaches, or exercises an act of jurisdiction, as if a Bishop excommunicates and a pastor assists at marriage; otherwise, however, if he solemnly blessed the marriage; and likewise neither he who sings in choir, singing Dominus vobiscum. L. 358. Cf. Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter praeteritos.

From inflicted mutilation of a member irregularity is had if someone, namely by grave fault, mutilates either himself or another, or positively and efficaciously cooperates toward mutilation of this kind. Chaps. 3, 4, 5, de Corp. vit.; Clementina Si furiosus un., de Hom.; L. 365, 379, 388. Most commonly and more probably they say that by the name of member are understood only those parts of the body which have their own office, distinct from others, such as hand, foot, eye, tongue. But mutilation is understood here when the aforesaid member is separated from the body. L. 365, 379. In this irregularity because of mutilation Bishops can well dispense, if it is occult and from delict, from the faculty of Trent, sess. 24, chap. Liceat 6, where only irregularity on account of voluntary homicide is excepted. L. 381, de Priv. 51; Suarez, disp. 44, n. 2, n. 4.

You will resolve: He does not become irregular who in a quarrel cuts off another's ears, nose, finger, thumb, nail, teeth, beard, hair, because these are not properly members. Nor does he become irregular who has blinded a man by depriving him only of sight but not by drawing out the eye; nor he who only weakens a member and does not cut it off, because it is not mutilation. He who cuts off something from himself becomes irregular because of cruelty, even if he cuts off part of a member, e.g., a finger, indeed part of a finger.

Eunuchs also are irregular, namely those who culpably, by themselves or through others, have amputated for themselves the virile parts or testicles, even out of zeal for chastity. Chap. Si quis 4, 7; chap. Qui partem 6, Dist. 55; chap. Ex parte 3, chap. Significavit 4, chap. Ex parte 5, de Corp. vit. ord. vel non; L. 365, 378-382, 415-419.

In the occurring case of a cleric who laid hands upon himself and castrated himself, judging that in this way he would provide for the safety both of his body and of his soul, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, December 18, 1908, responded: It is not expedient that the petitioner be promoted to orders.

Irregularity is incurred from homicide. In this matter homicide can occur in three ways: justly, accidentally, unjustly. For just homicide no irregularity is incurred, since then no fault is had. L. 382, 388, 389. For merely accidental homicide no irregularity is also incurred, whether it happens while giving work to a lawful thing or to an unlawful thing. The reason is that such homicide then is not voluntary. But laws establishing irregularity from homicide intend to punish those truly delinquent by the fault of homicide. Clementina Si furiosus un., de Hom. But irregularity is incurred first, if the action is lawful, but the effect is foreseen, and sufficient diligence is not applied to prevent it, namely such diligence as would excuse from grave sin. L. 366, 377, 382, 383-386. Second, if the action is unlawful and commonly dangerous of death, although all diligence is applied lest the foreseen death follow, because since the work is of itself proximately dangerous, no diligence can make it not dangerous. L. 386, 387; book 3, n. 398. If the homicide is unjust, whether directly willed in itself or indirectly willed in a cause inseparably and proximately joined with homicide, irregularity is incurred. Chap. Si quis 1, de Hom.; Trent, sess. 14, chap. 7, de Ref.; L. 365; book 3, n. 628.

All those incur irregularity who by their own action kill a man. Chap. Si quis 1, de Hom.; Trent, sess. 14, chap. 7; L. 367, 368, 369. Likewise all those incur irregularity who command homicide, or counsel it, truly influencing the homicide, and others cooperating in any way efficaciously and positively. Chap. Si quis viduam 8, Dist. 50; chap. Significasti 18, de Hom.; chap. Sicut 6, same title; L. 370-376.

Irregularity contracted through homicide is removed by baptism; or rather, sin having been destroyed by baptism, irregularity is not had. Chap. Si quis, Dist. 50; and by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. L. 390. But Bishops, if the homicide was voluntary, can in no way dispense in the irregularity, even if it was occult. Trent, sess. 24, chap. Liceat 6; sess. 14, chap. 7; L. 391, 392. But if the homicide was accidental, it is very probable that the Bishop can dispense in the irregularity contracted from it when the crime was occult, since the Council in the said chap. Liceat denies to Bishops the faculty of dispensing only if the homicide was voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. L. 393. Besides, they most commonly teach that Bishops can dispense in irregularity from accidental homicide, even notorious, for receiving minor orders and simple benefices; because Bishops already could do this by the old law. But Trent reserved only irregularity from voluntary homicide, not public accidental homicide. L. 393, 394, 395, de Priv. 51, 52; book 3, n. 397. As regards regular prelates, cf. L. 396. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 64, art. 8; supplement, q. 39, art. 4; D'Annibale, part 1, n. 424, 3rd ed.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 8, 9, 11.

You will resolve: "It is certain that if someone wounds mortally, however much, if death does not follow, he does not incur irregularity, because none is assigned in Law because of an attempt at killing, but only because of homicide or mutilation." L. 368. One commanding or counseling, in doubt whether the command or counsel was or was not the efficacious cause of the homicide, does not incur irregularity, because irregularity is not incurred unless it is expressed in Law.

But the laws speak of those who certainly are the cause of homicide by commanding or counseling, or who doubtfully commit homicide, not of those who only doubtfully concur toward it. L. 371. "He who kills another in defense of himself with the moderation of blameless defense, it is certain that he is excused from irregularity, as is clear from chap. Significasti 18, § fin., de Hom. and from Clementina Si furiosus, same title...

He is also excused from irregularity who kills the unjust invader of another innocent person... because irregularity from private homicide is not incurred except with mortal sin." L. 388. Hence irregularity is not incurred if another is killed unjustly for the defense of liberty, honor, chastity, or temporal goods with the moderation of blameless defense. L. 389. Nor does a physician become irregular if by chance the sick person dies from the medicine furnished, without grave negligence of the physician. Chap. Ad aures, de Aet. et qual. ord.; L. 384. If homicide is committed by chance, or by repelling force with force, the matter is committed to the Ordinary of the place, who, after knowing the cause, can dispense for sacred orders, for the ministry of the altar, and for any benefices and dignities whatsoever, from Trent, sess. 14, chap. 7, de Ref. They become irregular: "all who excite themselves to homicide, although one alone kills; all who fight in an unjust war, if someone is killed in it, even if they do not intend this, for then at least they incur the irregularity of accidental homicide; all who furnish arms or money for perpetrating homicide or an unjust war; all who unjustly accuse, or testify, or judge, so that a man is killed; all who accompany the killer by increasing his courage." L. 374, 459. He becomes irregular who procures the abortion of a fetus animated with a rational soul; otherwise if it is not animated, or if it is doubtful whether the fetus is animated, since in this case irregularity is nowhere found expressed. Chap. Maiores 32, q. 2; L., book 3, nn. 395, 396; Benedict XIV, Inst. 101, n. 8.

What about irregularity from defect? Since irregularity of this kind is traced back not to delict but to defect, it makes no difference whether it arises from one's own fault or another's, committed voluntarily or from fear, before or after baptism, with knowledge or with positive ignorance of the law of the Church, or even is contracted short of every fault. But not any defect whatsoever, but only defects noted in Law, induce irregularity, irregularity properly such, as is defect of birth, liberty, reputation, sacrament, gentleness. But to this irregularity in the proper meaning there is counted as irregularity in a less proper meaning that which flows from some vice of soul or body. Now the aforesaid defects are the following.

From defect of birth, all illegitimate persons are irregular who are known to be illegitimate, because by reason of origin they are reputed base. Therefore exposed children are not irregular, nor illegitimate persons born in marriage, concerning whom illegitimacy is not established by law. L. 432; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 1, p. 252; chap. 1 and final, de Fil. presb.; Trent, sess. 25, chap. 15, de Ref.

But such persons are legitimated by common law first through a subsequent marriage between their parents, provided that these, at the time of conception, and very probably at the time of birth, could validly contract marriage; promotion to the episcopate or cardinalate nevertheless excepted. Chap. Tanta, qui fil. sint leg.; L. 420-423. Children born from a marriage invalid because of some occult impediment, yet judged valid at least by one of the spouses, are considered legitimate. Chap. Cum inter 2, Qui fil. sint leg.; chap. Ex tenore, same title. But otherwise, if both parents at the time of marriage were in bad faith. Chap. Cum inhibitio 3, § Si quis, de Cland. desp. Likewise illegitimate are children born before a marriage invalidly contracted, although both parents judged it valid, because by no law are they approved as legitimate. L. 425. Children also born from a null, clandestine marriage, i.e., entered into without denunciations and without permission of the Bishop, even though before the pastor and witnesses, are reputed illegitimate, even if the parents contracted in good faith, from the same § Si quis of said chap. 3. L. 425.

They are legitimated second through religious profession as regards orders only, not as regards prelacies. Chap. 1, de Fil. presb. But from other privileges regular prelates can dispense in irregularity with their illegitimate subjects. L. 354, 426. But the aforesaid prohibition of illegitimate persons, that they can by no means have prelacies, also has place in nuns. Illegitimate persons not duly legitimated cannot enter a religious Institute of simple vows, from the Norms of the Sacred Congregation, without dispensation of the Holy See. They are legitimated third through pontifical dispensation. But if there is question of minor orders and of benefices not having the care of souls annexed, the Bishop can by his own authority dispense with an illegitimate person. Chap. Is qui 1, de Fil. presb. in 6; L. 427-429, de Priv. 49; Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 13, chap. 24, n. 11 ff. If someone cannot reveal himself as illegitimate without infamy, he needs no dispensation. Laymann, n. 1. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 5, q. 68; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 7; book 6, dub. 2, nn. 4, 5.

From defect of liberty, slaves are irregular where slavery is still in force, unless their masters have consented to ordination. Chap. 1 ff., de Serv. non ordin.; chap. Nulli 2, chap. Si servus 20, Dist. 24. To this somehow pertain, although in reality they are not irregular, married men, unless their wives consent and vow chastity, cf. 899; curials, i.e., those bound to a secular court by an oath having been given, as judges, advocates, etc., as long as they have such offices; soldiers, as long as they are bound by oath; treasurers, public depositaries, and those who administer the Republic, until they have renounced the office and rendered accounts, or satisfied creditors. Since these are not properly irregular, although they are prohibited from receiving sacred orders, if nevertheless they have received them, they are prohibited by no law from exercising them. Chaps. 1, 2, 3, Dist. 51; chap. Magnus un., de Oblig. ad rat. ord.; L. 455, 456; book 3, n. 838. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 3; Pichler, book 1, tit. 17, n. 4 ff.; Schmalzgrueber, book 1, tit. 17, n. 2 ff.

From defect of body, irregularity is had either because it impedes the fitting exercise of order, or because it brings notable indecency or horror. This irregularity, if it brings an impediment, apart from positive law, is rather a certain incapacity by natural or divine law than irregularity. But if the impediment is had only from positive law, then it is true irregularity. Title de Corp. vit. ord. vel non; L. 403; St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 6.

You will resolve: Because of impediment of exercise, the following are irregular:

1. A blind man, who altogether lacks sight. Chap. ult., Dist. 55. But if someone is already a priest, and it is established that he cannot err, he will be able to obtain dispensation from the Supreme Pontiff; and several times dispensation has already been given in such a case. But then he must use the assistance of another priest. Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 12, 1822. If someone lacks the sight of the right eye, he is not irregular; otherwise if of the left, unless he can read the Canon with the right eye without great deformity. If someone is not altogether blind, but so weak-sighted that he cannot read in the missal, he also is irregular for receiving orders. Dispensation has also been given several times to the weak-sighted even as regards receiving orders. But as regards exercising them, "Lugo, Palao, etc., probably say that a priest licitly celebrates who, because of weakness of sight, recites the Mass from memory, provided he discerns the chalice and host as much as suffices for avoiding irreverence, and provided that, to escape notice, he has a missal on the altar, or another book in place of it." But he needs an Apostolic Indult to celebrate the votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin or of Requiem. L., book 6, n. 390. He is not irregular who is weak in sight so that he needs spectacles, or who looks obliquely. Therefore the cross-eyed are not irregular, unless the deformity is great. But he is irregular who has a spot in the eye. Chap. Cum de tua 2, de Corp. vit. ord.; L. 404; Navarrus, chap. 27, n. 199; Laymann, book 1, tract. 5, chap. 7, n. 2; Pirhing, book 1, tit. 20, n. 6.

2. A deaf man, who hears nothing at all from either ear, because such a priest, since he cannot hear the voice of the minister, cannot celebrate without indecency. If nevertheless deafness supervenes after priesthood has been received, celebration is not interdicted to the priest; for a defect supervening in one promoted is more easily tolerated than in one to be promoted, as was said of the weak-sighted. But one somewhat deaf, or hearing with difficulty, is by no means irregular. L. 405.

3. A mute, who cannot speak or pronounce entire words, so that he cannot pronounce any voice without omitting something, or except with great difficulty. But the lisping or stammering, or those lacking teeth, are not irregular, even if they pronounce words with some difficulty, unless they bring cause for laughter or contempt. L. 406.

4. A lame man, who cannot go to the altar without a staff, chap. Nullus episcopus 57, de Cons., Dist. 1, if he cannot be supported at the altar without a staff. A lame man who does not need a staff is by no means irregular, just as neither is he who has crooked legs; because such a defect can easily be covered by the cassock; otherwise if great deformity were present in this. But if someone is equipped with a wooden foot, he is irregular because to celebrate with a wooden foot has great indecency. But if the defect is moderate and in some way the indecency can be repaired, celebration can be permitted by the judgment of the Bishop. L. 407. Dispensation has already been given several times to infirm priests so that they could celebrate while sitting, when they could not while standing.

5. He who lacks a hand, or all fingers, or the thumb is irregular. Chap. ult., de Corp. vit. They say the same of him who lacks the index finger, or part of the thumb or index finger, or who has them so weak that he cannot elevate or break the host. Whence he is irregular whose right or left arm has become stiff. Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 7, pp. 81, 82. Otherwise, if someone lacks the nail of the thumb or index finger, as is said in the said final chapter. But if someone has already been ordained and has the thumb impeded, in a case of necessity he could probably minister the Eucharist with the later fingers. If someone lacks the three later fingers, he is also irregular. But if he lacks only one smaller finger, he is not irregular, and the same holds if he lacks two. Nor likewise is he irregular who has six fingers, provided the sixth finger does not impede the use of the others. L. 408. Dispensation has several times been given, both after priesthood had been received and before it, when the left arm, or even the right, had been amputated, or only part of it had been amputated, or the thumb or index finger had been amputated.

6. No disease induces irregularity unless it either impedes the exercise of order or brings notable indecency and scandal. Hence he is irregular who labors under paralysis or coughing in such a way that, because of trembling of the hands, there is danger of spilling the chalice or ejecting the Eucharist. Likewise he is irregular who is an abstainer, who cannot take wine except with danger of vomiting. L. 409. Cf. Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 7, p. 80 ff.

But by reason of deformity the following are irregular: 1. those to whom some member is lacking, namely those who lack a nose or have it too deformed; those whose eye has been plucked out, unless it can be repaired by a glass eye; those who lack ears, unless such defect can be hidden by hair. 2. Lepers, chap. Tua nos, de Cler. aegr., unless scandal is absent, e.g., if they celebrate in a private place; those who have corroded or cut lips, or a very spotted face. 3. Monstrous persons, namely those who have an enormous hump; pygmies or dwarfs, so short in stature that they move to laughter, or cannot extend their arms sufficiently for the ministry of the altar; giants, who by very great stature excite a certain terror; Ethiopians, who would beget horror if they exercised the ministry habitually among us; hermaphrodites, although the male sex predominates. But those are not irregular who are of dusky or reddish color. Chaps. 2-5, this title; L. 410-412, 416.

Note: When the defect ceases in any way, the irregularity ceases by that very fact, whatever it may be, and whether it was contracted before or after order had been received. If any of the aforesaid defects of body supervenes after orders have already been received, the priest is not impeded from acts of that order which he can exercise without incongruity and indecency, so that a blind or lame priest can well receive confessions, sing the Gospel, etc. Chap. 7, de Cler. aegrot. But if such a defect comes before orders, it absolutely induces irregularity, not only for that order whose exercise it impedes, but for all the others. The reason is that, since all orders regard priesthood, one excluded from priesthood is judged also repelled from all orders. L. 413. Others nevertheless think otherwise. And thus minor orders, indeed even subdiaconate and diaconate, could be conferred on one abstaining from wine, so that he could, e.g., obtain a benefice and relieve his own poverty. Navarrus, Manual, chap. 27, n. 204. But one must distinguish between that which brings impotence and that which brings deformity. The former bars only from the orders which someone cannot fittingly exercise; the latter prohibits from all. L. 343, 390, 408, 413; La Croix, book 7, n. 438.

In this irregularity proceeding from defect, only the Pope can dispense. Bishops can in doubt declare and judge whether a defect of body notably impedes the exercise of order, or whether it brings great indecency. Regular prelates can likewise judge concerning this; indeed "they can well also dispense in irregularity of this kind." L. 414. Nevertheless they can in no way dispense those who are naturally incapable, and those who are not customarily dispensed even by the Holy See itself. Cf. vol. 1, n. 278; chap. 2, this title.

From defect of age, irregularity for a time is customarily reviewed. But it, like many other prohibitions of this kind, is not properly irregularity; and without dispensation it ceases by that very fact. Cf. 1234. L. 434.

From defect of soul irregularity is had, namely from defect of use of reason, knowledge, and faith. From defect of use of reason the following are irregular: 1. The insane. Such a defect of soul either arises in a man after ordination or before. If after, when the defect has ceased for a long time, by judgment of the Ordinary, or of the Prelate if he is a regular, he will be able to exercise again the order received. If before, it must be seen whether the defect depends on a permanent and habitual cause, e.g., on a lesion of the organs; and then he will no longer be able to be promoted to orders, because those laboring thus easily relapse into the same disease. Chap. Maritum 2, Dist. 33. Or whether it depends on a transitory and accidental cause, e.g., on fever or wound; and then he will indeed be able to be promoted. L. 398. 2. Epileptics and demoniacs. If epilepsy precedes ordination, they are perpetually irregular; nevertheless, if someone was affected by this disease before puberty and afterwards is perfectly freed, a long trial having been added, he is not judged irregular. But if one laboring under such a disease has already been ordained, although he is not altogether free, provided that he suffers the access of the disease rarely, and is not accustomed to fall suddenly to the ground, to break out into great cries, and to vomit foam, he will be able to celebrate privately, with a fasting priest joined, who in the case of the access of the disease may complete the Mass. And if he is altogether free, he will then be able, by judgment of the Bishop, to return altogether to the exercise of order.

Chap. Communiter 3, chap. Clerici 4, Dist. 33; L. 399. Those possessed by a demon, when possession has fully ended, can probably be ordained; probably, for there are not lacking those who deny it. In this irregularity, while the defect lasts, not even the Pope can dispense, because those laboring under it are incapable by divine law. L. 400. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 2.

From defect of knowledge, the illiterate are altogether irregular. "Those who are so rude that they are ignorant even of the first rudiments of grammar, so that they do not know how to perform those things which pertain to the exercise of order, for which knowledge of the Latin language is indeed required, are altogether irregular, and sin gravely both by receiving orders and by exercising them... Chap. Illiteratos, Dist. 36... This irregularity, when the cause of ignorance has been removed, is removed of itself without dispensation." L., book 6, n. 791; Trent, sess. 23, chap. 4, de Ref.; chap. Illiteratos 1, Dist. 36.

From defect of faith, neophytes, or those recently converted to the faith in adult age, contract irregularity; they need Apostolic dispensation. But it is disputed by the doctors for how long one converted to the faith is called a neophyte, whether up to one year, to two, or to ten. Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 12, chap. 1, n. 6. "Toletus thinks," says St. Alphonsus, n. 402, "that after ten years a neophyte is no longer irregular, indeed before, if the Bishop judges that he has advanced well in morals." Busembaum agrees there. Neophytes are not, and therefore neither are irregular, those baptized in infancy; nor are the children of Jews and infidels irregular. Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 12, chap. 1, nn. 4-4. Heretics indeed are irregular; nevertheless if the heresy is occult, there is a question among the doctors. Lugo, de Fide, disp. 23, sect. 4, n. 124. But the sons of heretics are irregular up to the second degree through the paternal line, up to the first through the maternal. If nevertheless the parents have abjured heresy, the children are freed from irregularity. Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 13, chap. 24, n. 21; chaps. 2, 15, de Haer. in 6; Holy Office, December 4, 1890; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 25, p. 579; Collection of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, n. 1696. To this also pertain those who defer baptism until death. Cf. 1321. E.M.

Dispensation concerning irregularity from defect of birth on account of the heresy of parents once conceded for receiving tonsure and minor orders is valid also for receiving major orders. Holy Office, December 5, 1906.

From defect of sacrament, namely from bigamy, irregularity arises, as is clear from the whole title de Big. And this has been inferred from that saying of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 3: A Bishop must be the husband of one wife. From defect of sacrament, because he who has led two wives cannot aptly signify the union of Christ with the Church, his one spouse. L. 435, 436.

Bigamy is threefold: true, interpretative, and similitudinary. True bigamy is when someone has successively contracted and consummated true marriage with two virgins. Therefore each marriage must be valid and consummated. Chap. Debitum 5, de Big. non ord.; L. 435, 436.

Interpretative bigamy is had when someone by interpretation of Law, or by a certain fiction, is judged to have had two wives, although in reality he has not had them. This bigamy occurs in three ways. First, when someone marries and knows a widow already known by her prior husband, even if he marries invalidly. Chap. A nobis ult., de Big.; chap. Debitum, same title; L. 437. Likewise when someone marries and knows a woman corrupted by another. Chap. ult., Dist. 51; chap. Curandum, Dist. 34; and according to the more common opinion, although he contracts invalidly because of some diriment impediment. But otherwise if someone married a woman previously corrupted by himself. L. 438, 439, 440. Second, when someone knows his wife after she has committed adultery. Chap. Si cuius 11, chap. Si laici 12, Dist. 34; L. 441, 442, 443. Third, when someone contracts and consummates two marriages, one valid, the other invalid, from chap. Nuper 4, de Big.; likewise when someone contracts two marriages, both invalid, and consummates with marital affection. L. 444, 445, 446, 447.

Similitudinary bigamy is contracted from the attempt of marriage, although invalid, with a corrupted woman or a virgin after a solemn vow emitted in an approved Religion, or after the reception of sacred order. For those marrying in this way are similar to those contracting a double marriage, insofar as after the spiritual marriage entered into with Christ, departing from him, they attempt to contract marriage, provided that such marriage is consummated.

Now irregularity is certainly had in true bigamy; but doubtful from interpretative and similitudinary bigamy. For there are several authors who deny each, except in the case that someone, after a valid marriage contracted and consummated, receives sacred orders, and then attempts and consummates marriage with another woman, even a virgin; or after ordination in sacred orders marries a widow. But a layman who marries a professed nun is not irregular, because the Laws speak only of one contracting after his own vow. Chap. Nuper 4, chap. A nobis 7, de Big. non ord.; chaps. 24, 32, causa 27, q. 1; L. 448, 449. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 66; Suarez, disp. 49; Sanchez, de Matr., book 7, disp. 85; Schmalzgrueber, book 1, tit. 21, n. 1 ff.; D'Annibale, part 1, n. 416 ff., 3rd ed.; Authentic Collection IV, tit. 1, Novella XXII, chap. XLII.

True bigamy is not removed by baptism, nor by religious profession. Chap. Deinde 3, Dist. 26; chap. Si quis viduam 13, Dist. 24. The Supreme Pontiff can dispense in irregularity from true and interpretative bigamy. L. 455. A Bishop cannot dispense in true and interpretative bigamy for receiving sacred orders, nor for ministering in them, nor for receiving benefices annexed to them. L. 451. And, more truly, also not for receiving minor orders and simple benefices. L. 452. But in similitudinary bigamy from occult delict, and from a double marriage, one spiritual, the other carnal, Bishops can well dispense, even for receiving and ministering in sacred orders. Chap. 4, de Cler. coniug.; chap. Qui cler. vel vov.; L. 452, de Priv. 50.

"It has been handed down that prelates of regulars can dispense in interpretative bigamy from the privilege of Paul III." Thus D'Annibale, loc. cit., n. 420, who declares similitudinary and interpretative bigamy somewhat otherwise, departing from the common opinion of the doctors. From St. Alphonsus, Prelates of Regulars dispense their subjects in every bigamy. But it does not seem that the Supreme Pontiffs, by general concessions, wished also to grant the faculty of dispensing in those irregularities, e.g., from defect of soul, from infamy, from directly voluntary homicide, from true bigamy, in which they themselves either cannot dispense or dispense only very rarely, and from the gravest causes, according to Rule 81 of Law in 6. Cf. Compendium Privilegiorum Soc. Iesu, v. Dispensatio. L. 453; St. Thomas, Quodlibet 4, art. 13; supplement, q. 66, art. 4.

From defect of gentleness he is irregular: 1. who kills or mutilates in a just offensive war, but not if others kill; nor he who kills in a just defensive war; nor he who exhorts to killing, even if the war is offensive, provided it is just. Chap. Petitio tua, chap. Dilectus, chap. Significasti, de Homic.; Benedict XIV, Notification 191; L. 457-460; La-Croix 528. 2. In a just judgment those become irregular who cooperate toward death or mutilation actively, efficaciously, and proximately by an action of its nature ordered to this. Clementina Si furiosus, de Hom.; chap. Clericis, chap. Sententiam, Ne Cler. vel Mon.; chap. Ex litteris, de Exc. prael. Therefore judges become irregular, advocates or procurators acting against the accused, notaries, apparitors, lictors, executioners, voluntary witnesses, otherwise coerced witnesses, accusers or denouncers; otherwise nevertheless if they accuse the guilty person only so that they may prevent their own harm, or that it may be repaired for them, protestation being made that they do not will the penalty of blood, chap. Praelatis, de Hom. in 6, in their own cause or even that of relatives up to the fourth degree; or unless the cause is that of their own Church; or if harms are to be inflicted in the future on others, so that they cannot be impeded by another way. L. 461, 468. 3. Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or monks, practicing medicine with cutting and burning, are also irregular from defect of gentleness, chap. Sententiam 9, Ne Cler. vel Mon., if from such cutting or burning mutilation or death follows. If nevertheless another skilled person is absent, then a cleric or monk will well be able, without sin and consequently without danger of irregularity, to apply cutting or burning. L. 384, 385, 389. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 39, art. 4; D'Annibale, part 1, nn. 426, 427, 3rd ed.

Bishops cannot dispense from irregularity from defect of gentleness, but dispensation must be sought from the Supreme Pontiff, although the irregularity is occult. L. 469. "But regular prelates can well dispense with their subjects in this irregularity." L. 469.

From defect of good reputation all infamous persons are irregular, chap. Infames 17, causa 6, q. 1, whether the infamy is of fact or of law. Infamy of fact is had in two ways. It is had first through the confession of the accused in judgment, or through at least a declaratory sentence of a judge concerning a crime inferring infamy among honest and upright men, although no infamy is expressly noted in Law. Second, infamy of fact is merely of fact, or popular, and it is likewise from any public crime and from the condition or office of the person obscuring him and rendering him base in the common estimation of men, even without any judicial act. Infamy of law is also had in two ways. For it is had first through a sentence of a judge inflicting the mark of infamy. It is had second without sentence of a judge, by the Law itself, by which the mark of infamy is inflicted; namely, from crime or from the condition of the person it is noted in Law as staining and infaming. Infamy of fact properly renders one unworthy; infamy of law properly renders one irregular; and it is this which properly induces a canonical impediment.

Infamy by the law itself is had first through a qualified, evident, and public delict, or at least one so notorious that it cannot be hidden by any evasion, or when the sentence of a judge accedes, declaring or imposing the penalty of infamy. Qualified, i.e., to which infamy is annexed by Law, either by that very fact or after sentence of a judge. But the crimes to which infamy is annexed by law are the giving of gifts by regulars against the Constitution of Clement VIII Religiosae Congregationes, June 19, 1594; theft; homicide; sacrilegious homicide, chap. Petrus 17, de Homic.; perjury made in judgment; apostasy from the faith, heresy, chap. Excommunicamus 13, § 5, de Haeret.; simony; to practice sodomy, St. Pius V, Constitution Horrendum illud, August 30, 1568; the crime of lese-majesty, chap. Felicis 5, de Poenis in 6; adultery; incest, chap. Coniunctiones 2, q. 2, can. 35; bigamy, chap. Nuper 4, de Bigamis; betrayal; robbery; procuring; the exercise of usuries; Lateran Council II, can. 13; invasion of Cardinals, cited chap. Felicis, or of Bishops; abduction of women, or cooperation toward it, Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref.; duel, as regards duellists and their seconds, not others, Trent, sess. 25, chap. 19, de Ref.; preparation of arms against parents; the exercise of actors with shameful representations, so that it is not done without mortal sin; not likewise the trade of butcher, executioner, lictor, etc., since these offices can well be exercised without sin; and other things which induce infamy from Law. Cf. Suarez, de Simon., book 4, chap. 56, n. 21; La-Croix 562 ff.; Salm., chap. 8, n. 78 ff.; Pichler, book 1, tit. 11, n. 21; Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref. Matr., sess. 25, chap. 19, de Ref.; Can. 6, q. 1, chap. 17; chap. 4 and final, de Temp. ordin.

Second, irregularity can be incurred by the law itself because of another's infamy, as is incurred by the sons of those who have been condemned for the delict of lese-majesty, the sons born from a prostitute, the sons of heretics, and also grandchildren descending from them through the male line, provided nevertheless that it is notorious that the parents were heretics and died in heresy. Chap. 2, § 2, chap. 15, de haeret. in 6. But in order that all these incur irregularity, it is necessary that they were born after the delict. Sanchez, book 2, chap. 27, n. 14. Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 13, chap. 24, n. 21, reports the Constitution In quibusdam, de Poenis, in which the sons of a patron killing the rector of a Church, up to the fourth generation, become irregular beyond the loss of the right of patronage for all. The sons also and grandsons of those attacking or striking Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church are prohibited from receiving and exercising orders. Constitution Felicis 12, de Poenis. But this is valid only concerning sons born after the crime committed by the father. L., book 1, de His qui not. inf.; Lugo, de Fide, disp. 23, sect. 4; Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 12; Benedict XIV, Quaest. can., q. 449; Bizzarri, p. 470 ff.

Infamy merely of fact is removed either by baptism, or by notorious amendment, or even by change of place. Infamy of fact from a judge's sentence is removed either by dispensation or by another sentence by which his reputation is restored to the guilty person. Infamy of law, which properly is irregularity, is removed only by dispensation. And whether it is of law or of fact, if the guilty person has been condemned by sentence of a judge, dispensation can be made by the Roman Pontiff alone. Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref. A Bishop cannot dispense that one infamous by infamy of fact ascend to sacred orders; nevertheless he can dispense that he minister in orders received, if the crimes are less than adultery and the guilty person has done penance. Chap. Et si clerici 1, de Iudiciis, book 2, tit. 1.

Irregularity on account of the crime of parents, or on account of an infamous office, is removed by entrance into religion. Regulars can also, from privileges of Pius IV and St. Pius V, dispense with their subjects in this irregularity. L. 352, 362-364, 454; Suarez, disp. 48, H.; Sacred Congregation of the Council, August 9, 1890; Holy Office, July 11, 1884; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 23, p. 619 ff., 700.