ARTICLE II: ON IRREGULARITIES FROM DELICT

1768. - Irregularity from delict is incurred under a fivefold head, namely: 1° from bad reception of Baptism, and from its repetition; 2° from bad reception and usurpation of Orders; 3° from violation of censure; 4° from the perpetration of certain enormous crimes; 5° from homicide and mutilation.

These are exhibited in the following verse:

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

1769. - Hence the following is irregular:

1° He who in adult age knowingly received Baptism from a declared heretic outside a case of necessity, because he seems to communicate in his error.

2° He who knowingly and solemnly rebaptizes; likewise he who is rebaptized in that manner; likewise a Cleric assisting at Baptism conferred a second time.²

According to Benedict XIV, one becomes irregular who rebaptizes even conditionally culpably, or without a just cause. But he holds this as a private Doctor, against St. Alph.⁴ and many others. Moreover, certainty is required for contracting irregularity.

Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether one becomes irregular who rebaptizes occultly and not solemnly?

Resp. It seems more probably to be denied; because in Canon Law there seems to be question only of one who rebaptizes publicly.⁵

Quaer. 2° Whether the one rebaptizing or rebaptized from grave fear, without intention, is irregular?

Resp. No, probably, although fear does not remove voluntariness, nor excuse from sin.¹

1770. - 1° Usurpation. Those are irregular who seriously, knowingly, and solemnly exercise an act of Sacred Order which they do not have, e.g., if one who is not a deacon sings the Gospel with a stole, or one who is not a subdeacon sings the Epistle with a maniple. More probably, however, Clerics alone are subject to this irregularity.

2° Illicit reception. Thus those incur irregularity who are ordained furtively, i.e., the Bishop not approving (as regards ascent to a higher Order); or those who receive several Orders, one of which is Sacred (but see n. 1523. q. 4°. § But gravely), on the same day. - Likewise those who are ordained by an excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, heretical, schismatic, or simoniacal Bishop.² Similar matters to these, see n. 1747.

1771. - Those are irregular who, bound by the bond of some censure, knowingly, without sufficient cause, and solemnly exercise Sacred Order, insofar as they are prohibited from exercising it through the censure, and that censure valid before God.

I said: 1° knowingly; for this irregularity is decreed by Law only on account of contempt of the censure.

I said: 2° without sufficient cause, i.e., unless he is excused by reason of grave evil, scandal, infamy, etc.; for human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience; or, if there is question of one tolerated, unless he was requested by others (n. 1673. Notandum 3°).

I said: 3° solemnly. See n. 1770. 1°.

I said: 4° insofar as he is prohibited from exercising it by censure, namely properly so called, not by suspension, whether orally (n. 1686), or for a time and by a particular sentence laid down on account of a delict altogether past. Thus the opinion absolutely more probable to St. Alphonsus. Except if a suspension laid down from informed conscience is violated, as S. C. C. decided. St. Alphonsus is silent concerning this exception.

I said: 5° and that valid before God. From the decrees of S. C. C., July 19, 1704, and September 11, 1717. Cf. n. 1664. q. 1°. § fin.

1772. Resolves. - 1° He who, bound by a twofold censure, exercises Sacred Order incurs a twofold irregularity; and these must be expressed in the petition for dispensation.

2° A priest who, suspended from Order, sacramentally absolves is irregular; because absolving also is an act of the power of Order, but not an act of jurisdiction alone, such as would be, e.g., the act of excommunicating, approving confessors, assisting at Matrimony (not blessing it), preaching, dispensing from vows, etc.¹

1773. - Under this appellation are understood heresy and apostasy from the Faith. This irregularity (in which, if it is occult, the Bishop dispenses²) is incurred also by the favorers, receivers, defenders of heretics and apostates, indeed even by their children. But if these crimes are public, this irregularity falls back into irregularity from defect of reputation, as St. Alph. says.³ Nevertheless in regions where heresies range about with impunity, heretics, and a fortiori their children, according to many, are not held irregular. But by our Bishops, by reason of the faculty alleged at p. LXX. n. 2, they can easily be dispensed for precaution.

1774. Principle. - Irregularity is incurred from voluntary and gravely culpable homicide, even occult, whether directly or indirectly willed, perpetrated by an action either physical or moral. The same must be said as regards mutilation.

Mutilation is understood when some principal member is separated from the body, or a part of the body which has an office distinct per se, e.g., foot, hand, eye, etc.⁴

1775. Resolves. - 1° Those are irregular who are the immediate cause of someone's death, even if they repent before the injured person dies. The reason is that a physical cause necessarily works. Likewise those who mutilate others or themselves. If someone lethally struck a man, and another killed him, both are truly homicides.

2° Those commanding, and those giving counsel, are irregular, the effect having followed from the counsel or command. Except if before execution they retracted the command or counsel, and the retraction became known to the mandatory.

3° Likewise those cooperating, so that homicide is done more quickly, more boldly, or more safely. Thus the following become irregular: 1) those who mutually stir each other up, although only one kills; 2) all those fighting in an unjust war, if someone perishes there; 3) those who furnish arms or monies for homicide; 4) all unjust accusers, judges, and witnesses.

4° Likewise those consenting, if consent has efficaciously influenced the homicide. Hence he is not irregular who approves a homicide, even one done in his name or for his sake, because he has not influenced it.

5° Those who apply themselves to a licit thing, sufficient diligence having been used lest homicide happen, do not become irregular. Hence the following are not irregular: 1) those who commit accidental homicide, unless gravely culpable negligence intervenes; 2) nor those who in good faith furnish to a sick person some harmful food or drink, or, if moving or turning him, are the cause why he dies; 3) nor physicians who gave to the sick a death-dealing drug, provided they are skilled, or act in good faith. Except, however, Clerics in Sacred Orders operating with cutting or burning outside a case of necessity.¹

1776. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether he incurs irregularity who, applying himself to an illicit thing, kills someone, e.g., if a Cleric by chance kills a man in illicit hunting?

Resp. No, more probably. The reason is that the homicide is voluntary neither in itself nor in its cause: for the work posited, although illicit of itself, is not death-dealing per se; but otherwise if, by reason of the circumstances, it induced a proximate danger of death to someone, as, e.g., if someone applied fire to a war cannon where there is a crowd of people.²

Quaer. 2° Whether he becomes irregular who kills another for defense of his own life or that of an innocent?

Resp. to the first. No, unless he exceeds the moderation of blameless defense. The reason is that he is guilty of no fault. Consult St. Alph.¹ Cf. n. 467. II.

Resp. to the second. No likewise. The reason is that irregularity from private homicide is not incurred except with mortal sin, as is elicited from Canon Law.² - Thus St. Alph.³

Quaer. 3° Whether he becomes irregular who kills another for defense of liberty, honor, or temporal goods, with the moderation of blameless defense?

Resp. No, according to the more common and more probable opinion. This seems to be proved from Canon Law, the places of which can be observed in St. Alph.⁴ Moreover, since there no sin is present, irregularity cannot be incurred except on account of defect of lenity: but irregularity from defect of lenity is not incurred except in cases expressed in Law; but the present case is not found in Law. Therefore.

Quaer. 4° Whether he is to be held as irregular who doubts whether he has perpetrated homicide or not?

Resp. See n. 1757. q. 3°. R. 2°.

Quaer. 5° Whether he is irregular who doubts whether he influenced the mutilation of another, the fact of mutilation being posited?

Resp. No. The reason is that the law imposed irregularity for doubt of homicide alone.⁵

Quaer. 6° Whether he is to be held as irregular who procured an abortion, doubting whether the fetus was animated or not?

Resp. No. The reason is that then there is no certainty properly concerning homicide. - Hence irregularity is not incurred unless the abortion was procured after the eightieth day from conception; for in her penal practice the Church, so long as the contrary is not established, must be judged to follow the opinion according to which males are animated on the fortieth day, females on the eightieth day from conception, and in the case the sex of the fetus will always be doubtful.⁶