Case XVI: Irregularity Arising from Rebaptizing

Applied correction from Woywod’s opening insert: Case XVI.—The irregularity incurred by re-baptizing has been abolished by the Code.

A non-Catholic mother, whose husband is a Catholic, gave birth to an infant that was thought to be dying, or even dead, when it was born. The attending physician also was a non-Catholic. There being no time to call a priest, the father of the child hurriedly baptized the child himself. The father is a man of ordinary education, fairly well-informed about his religion and about the requirements for a valid baptism. The physician succeeded in reviving the child and it lived and thrived. The father was never satisfied with the baptism he had administered and repeatedly requested his pastor to rebaptize the child. But the pastor refused to do so, He was afraid of incurring the irregularity ex iteratione baptismi. He admitted that the father’s anxiety about the baptism made him uneasy himself. He would rebaptize the child gladly were it not for the irregularity. Finally, he requested a visiting priest to rebaptize the child, which the visitor did. Was there danger or likelihood of incurring the irregularity ex iteratione baptismi for rebaptizing this child?

Answer—An irregularity in Canon Law is defined to be a canonical impediment which forbids the reception of orders and the exercise of those received. It is an inability created by the Canon Law, and may be removed by dispensation. Irregularity must not be confounded with suspension. Suspension is a censure, inflicted for crime, whose immediate purpose is the punishment of the delinquent. Irregularity is an impediment created by the Canon Law for the purpose of insuring reverence for the sacred ministry. Suspension applies only to clerics, while not only clerics but also laymen may become irregular. Irregularity does not take away jurisdiction, while suspension does. By violating an irregularity one does not incur a new irregularity, but by violating a suspension one becomes irregular. Suspension forbids the exercise either of orders or of jurisdiction; irregularity forbids, primarily, the giving or receiving of orders, secondly, also, the exercise of orders. The bishop may suspend, but he cannot make irregular. There is no irregularity unless it be expressed in the law. It cannot be inflicted by the sentence of a judge.

Irregularity is total or partial, according as it affects some or all exercise of orders, some or all ascent to higher orders.

Irregularity may arise from some defect of body or birth, etc., to which no moral guilt attaches, but which renders a person unfit for orders, irregularitas ex defectu; or the irregularity may arise from some crime, e. g., murder, violation of a censure, rebaptizing, etc., which renders a person unfit for the sacred ministry, irregularitas ex delicto. We repeat there is no irregularity, neither ex delicto nor ex defecto, unless it is expressly stated in the Canon Law. No matter how unfit any crime or any defect might render a man for the sacred ministry, it does not make him irregular unless it be so stated in the law.

Now, one of the irregularities that the above-mentioned parish priest was afraid of incurring was the irregularitas ex iteratione baptismi. He would gladly have rebaptized the child conditionally, could he have convinced himself that in so doing he would run no risk of incurring the irregularity. Yet the most superficial perusal of any manual of theology re irregularitatibus, ought to convince a priest that rebaptizing in the above circumstances he could not incur any irregularity. The iteration of the baptism must be sinful, to start with. If the repetition of the baptism is not mortally sinful, it does not induce the irregularity. No irregularity ex delicto is ever incurred unless the sin be a mortal sin. The repetition must be gravely culpable. But, in the case under consideration, it is difficult to see where there was room for a mortal sin.

But even though the iteration of the baptism be mortally sinful, that of itself is not sufficient to incur the irregularity. The baptism must be repeated unconditionally, iteratio absoluta. If the baptism be repeated sub conditione, no irregularity is ever incurred; for the law creating the irregularity is a lex poenalis, and, therefore, to be interpreted in its narrowest sense. To rebaptize conditionally, is really not to rebaptize at all, strictly speaking. To rebaptize, in a strict sense, the condition must be omitted. If, therefore, a priest were to rebaptize sub conditione, without any reason, or previous investigation, he might commit a mortal sin, but he would not incur any irregularity. The irregularity was first created in order to discountenance the error of the rebaptizers, those, namely, who believed and taught that converts from heresy and apostasy ought to be rebaptized on their reception into the Church (cf. Gasparri i, 329). But the addition of the condition, si non es baptizatus, excludes the heresy of the rebaptizers, and saves one from the irregularity.

Still a third condition is required in order that one incur this irregularity, namely, the baptism must be a public fact. It is not necessary, as some maintain, that the second baptism be solemn, but it is required that both the baptism and its repetition be publicly known. The law states expressly that the iteration of baptism must be a public fact. But this is impossible unless the first baptism be a public fact.

In order, therefore, to incur an irregularity for rebaptizing, the the repetition must be gravely culpable, unconditional, and public. Even in this case the irregularity incurred, according to the opinion of many grave theologians, is the prohibition to advance to higher orders, but not to exercise the orders already received. (Lehmkuhl ii, 1006; St. Alph. 1, 6, 356, etc.)

Not only the priest who rebaptizes, but also those who ex officio assist him, that is, clerics, incur the irregularity. But the parents of the person rebaptized do not incur any irregularity, neither do the godparents, even though they connive at the baptism.

The person rebaptized becomes irregular, provided he knows that he is being rebaptized against the prohibition of the Church. ' Rebaptized infants, therefore, never incur the irregularity because they are incapable of sin.

From what has been said it will appear how groundless were the fears of the priest in this case. He could not possibly incur irregularity because the rebaptism, in this case, could scarcely have been a mortal sin. And even though it were, by adding the condition, si non es baptisatus, all possibility of incurring the irregularity was removed.