Article II. On Irregularities from Delict

1031. • Irregularity from delict is incurred on five grounds, namely: 1. from the improper reception of Baptism and from its repetition; 2. from the improper reception and usurpation of Orders; 3. from violation of a censure; 4. from the perpetration of certain enormous crimes; 5. from homicide and mutilation.

These are presented in the following little verse:

Guilty at the font, in sacred things, by censure, by crime, by death.

1032. • Hence the following are irregular:

1. One who at an adult age received Baptism from a declared heretic outside a case of necessity, because he appears to communicate in his error.

2. One who publicly and solemnly rebaptizes; likewise one who knowingly is rebaptized; likewise a Cleric assisting at Baptism conferred a second time. Thus from several passages of Law. See St. Alphonsus, no. 356.

According to Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 7, chapter 6, one who culpably, or without just cause, rebaptizes even conditionally becomes irregular. But he himself held this as a private Doctor, against many others, and when he was in minor Orders. Now, certainty is required for contracting irregularity.

Questions. QUESTION 1. Does one who secretly rebaptizes become irregular?

Reply. It seems more probably to be denied, because in Canon Law the matter appears to concern only one who publicly rebaptizes. Thus Laymann, Sylvius, etc.

QUESTION 2. Is one who rebaptizes or is rebaptized because of fear irregular?

Reply. Negatively, at least probably, although fear does not remove voluntariness nor excuse from sin. Thus St. Alphonsus, no. 356, etc.

1033. • 1. Usurpation. Those who solemnly exercise an act of sacred Order which they do not possess are irregular. Probably, however, only Clerics are subject to this irregularity.

2. Illicit reception. Thus those incur irregularity who are ordained furtively, that is, who, not examined nor admitted, by deceit and without the Bishop's knowledge mingle themselves among those being ordained; those who arrange to be promoted by another Bishop without dimissorial letters; those who receive several sacred Orders on the same day; probably also those who are ordained per saltum; and finally, those who are ordained by a suspended, heretical, schismatic, or simoniacal Bishop. St. Alphonsus, no. 357 and following.

1034. • Those who, bound by the bond of some censure, solemnly exercise a sacred Order are irregular, as was already said above. Hence:

1. Not only would a Priest who celebrated Mass while under censure be irregular, but also a Deacon who chanted the Gospel with a stole, etc., and a Priest who compelled one under censure to celebrate.

2. One who, bound by two censures, exercises a sacred Order, incurs two irregularities; and these must be expressed in the petition for dispensation. The same must be said of one who celebrates several times while under the same censure. But it suffices that the petition be expressed in the plural number.

3. A Priest who, suspended from Order, absolves sacramentally is irregular, because absolving also is an act of the power of Order, and not an act of jurisdiction alone, such as would be, for example, an act of excommunicating, approving Confessors, assisting at matrimony, dispensing from vows, etc.

1035. • By this appellation are understood heresy and apostasy from the Faith. The supporters, receivers, and defenders of heretics and apostates, and even their sons, also incur this irregularity, chapter Statutum, On Heretics, in the Sixth. But these crimes, in order to induce irregularity, must be public; hence this irregularity falls back into irregularity from defect of reputation, as St. Alphonsus says, no. 362.

1036. Principle. - Irregularity is incurred from voluntary and gravely culpable homicide, even occult, whether willed directly or indirectly, and perpetrated by an action either physical or moral. The same must be said concerning mutilation.

Mutilation is understood to occur when some principal member is separated from the body, or a part of the body which has an office distinct of itself, for example, a foot, hand, eye, etc.

1037. Resolutions. - 1. Those who are the immediate cause of someone's death are irregular, even if they repent before the injured person dies. The reason is that a physical cause operates necessarily. Likewise those who mutilate others or themselves. If someone mortally wounds a man and another kills him, each is truly a homicide.

2. Those giving a command and those giving counsel are irregular if the effect followed from the counsel or command. Except if they revoked the command before its execution and the revocation became known to the mandatary. St. Alphonsus, no. 371.

3. Likewise those cooperating so that a homicide is committed more quickly, boldly, or securely. Thus the following become irregular: 1. those who mutually incite one another, although only one kills; 2. all fighting in an unjust war, if anyone perishes there; 3. those who furnish arms or money for a homicide; 4. all unjust accusers, judges, and witnesses.

4. Likewise those consenting, if the consent effectively influenced the homicide. Hence one who approves a homicide, even one committed in his name or gratuitously, is not irregular, because he did not influence it.

5. Those who apply themselves to a licit matter, sufficient diligence having been employed lest homicide occur, do not become irregular. Hence the following are not irregular: 1. those who commit accidental homicide, unless gravely culpable negligence intervenes; 2. those who in good faith furnish a sick person with some harmful food or drink, or who, by moving or turning him, are the cause of his death; 3. physicians who have given a deadly medicine to the sick, provided they are skilled or act in good faith. Except, however, Clerics in sacred Orders who perform an incision or cauterization outside a case of necessity. See St. Alphonsus, no. 384.

1038. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does one incur irregularity who, while applying himself to an illicit matter, kills someone, for example, if a Cleric while hunting accidentally kills a man?

Reply. More probably, negatively. The reason is that the homicide is voluntary neither in itself nor in its cause; for the work undertaken, although illicit of itself, is not of itself death-dealing. It would be otherwise if, by reason of the circumstances, a proximate danger of death were brought upon someone, for example, if someone set fire to a cannon where there was a crowd of people. St. Alphonsus, no. 387, etc.

QUESTION 2. Does one become irregular who kills another in defense of his own life or that of an innocent person?

Reply to the first. Negatively, unless he exceeds the moderation of blameless defense. The reason is that he is guilty of no fault. This is further confirmed from Canon Law. Consult St. Alphonsus, no. 388.

Reply to the second. Negatively likewise. The reason is that irregularity from private homicide is not incurred except with mortal sin, as is gathered from chapter Ex litteris, On Homicide. Thus St. Alphonsus, no. 388, etc.

1039. • QUESTION 3. Does one become irregular who kills another in defense of liberty, honor, or temporal goods, with the moderation of blameless defense?

Reply. Negatively, according to the more common opinion. This appears to be proved from Canon Law. Moreover, since no sin is present there, irregularity cannot be incurred except from defect of lenity; but irregularity from defect of lenity is not incurred except in cases expressed in law, and the present case is not found in law. Therefore, etc. St. Alphonsus, no. 389.

QUESTION 4. Is one to be regarded as irregular who doubts whether he committed a homicide or not?

Reply 1. Negatively, when it is not established that the homicide was committed, or if there is doubt concerning the homicide itself, whether it followed or not. The reason is that a penalty is not to be inflicted unless the delict itself is established. Thus commonly. St. Alphonsus, no. 347.

Reply 2. Affirmatively, however, if it is established that a homicide was committed and the only doubt is whether you were its cause by your action. The reason is that, although irregularity generally ought not to be incurred in doubt, nevertheless in the present case it is to be incurred by the provision of Canon Law, because of the special odium which homicide merits. This is evident from chapter Significasti and chapter Ad audientiam, etc. St. Alphonsus, no. 347.

1040. • QUESTION 5. Is one irregular who doubts whether he influenced the mutilation of another, the fact of the mutilation being established?

Reply. Negatively. The reason is that the law imposed irregularity for doubt concerning homicide alone. St. Alphonsus, no. 347.

QUESTION 6. Is one to be regarded as irregular who procured an abortion while doubting whether the fetus was animated or not?

Reply. Negatively. The reason is that then homicide is not properly established ¹. St. Alphonsus, ibid. See what was said in the Treatise on the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue, nos. 402 and 403.

¹ It was observed elsewhere, volume 1, no. 402, Note, page 382, that the hypothesis of an inanimate fetus is now scarcely, if indeed scarcely at all, admitted. Hence this question, as resting upon a hypothesis now already antiquated, becomes useless.

End of the Treatise on Irregularities.