§ 2. On Irregularity From Delict

These Irregularities are contracted: 1. on account of Baptism badly received or repeated; 2. on account of violation of censure; 3. on account of usurpation of sacred Order; 4. on account of bad reception of Orders; 5. on account of the crime of heresy or apostasy; 6. on account of homicide and unjust mutilation.

1941. I. On account of BAD RECEPTION, or ITERATION OF BAPTISM, the following is irregular: 1. He who, in adult age, knowingly receives Baptism from a declared heretic, outside the case of necessity; for he seems to communicate in his error; - 2. He who defers it until the danger of death; for such delay is a sign of weak faith; - 3. An adult who knowingly and solemnly is rebaptized; - 4. He who publicly and solemnly rebaptizes; likewise a cleric who assists at rebaptization.⁶

"One rebaptizing or rebaptized from fear, without intention, or under condition (although it is done rashly and culpably), probably does not become irregular. - Nevertheless, culpable ignorance does not excuse these."⁷

1942. II. On account of VIOLATION OF CENSURE, every cleric in Sacred Orders is irregular, who, bound by a censure properly so called and valid before God, knowingly, rashly, and solemnly exercises sacred Order.⁸

We said 1. bound by a censure properly so called, i.e., excommunication, suspension, or interdict, insofar as they are medicinal penalties, as is commonly taught; and valid before God, as is established from the decision of the S. C. of the Council, July 19, 1704, and September 11, 1717⁹ (cf. n. 1272, fin.). Nevertheless, cases are not lacking in which the S. C. C. declared that someone had become irregular from violation of a merely penal suspension,¹⁰ or one inflicted from informed conscience (cf. nn. 1301 and 1304, fin.).

We said 2. exercises KNOWINGLY, namely as if he contemned the censure; RASHLY, i.e., without being excused by reason of grave evil, scandal, infamy, etc.; for human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience;... and SOLEMNLY, i.e., with the insignia of his proper Order: for example if a deacon sings the Gospel with stole, a subdeacon the Epistle with maniple, or if a Canon, discharging the office of hebdomadary, sings Dominus vobiscum in choir.

We said 3. sacred Order; for otherwise, if he exercises a minor Order, although solemnly and from office.

Hence, he is IRREGULAR: 1. A Priest who, entangled by censure, celebrates Mass, absolves penitents, or administers other Sacraments; likewise, he who celebrates in an interdicted place, because he violates the interdict; 2. A censured Bishop or priest who compels another to celebrate before him, as is established from cap. Illud, de cler. excomm.

He does not become irregular who exercises acts of jurisdiction; e.g., who excommunicates, approves confessors, confers benefices, assists at marriage without solemn blessing, dispenses from vows, preaches, etc.; nor he who celebrates only in a polluted church, and not an interdicted one.¹¹

1943. III. On account of USURPATION OF AN ACT OF SACRED ORDER a cleric is irregular, as to receiving higher Orders, who seriously and knowingly exercises a sacred Order which he does not have.¹² Whether a layman also incurs this irregularity is indeed disputed, but the more probable opinion denies.¹³

Hence the following is IRREGULAR: 1. A Presbyter who presumes solemnly to exercise Pontificals, namely sacred functions and blessings exclusively reserved to the Bishop, e.g., consecration of a Church, of a chalice, etc. 2. A Deacon who absolves sacramentally, or who confers solemn Baptism, even in a case of necessity, short of delegation (cf. n. 1462). - 3. A Subdeacon who solemnly carries the pyx containing the Most Holy Eucharist, or who sings the Gospel with stole, etc.¹⁴

But a simple priest, in hearing confessions, does not incur irregularity because he exercises an act of the Order which he has, although he lacks jurisdiction. Whence he sins and absolves invalidly, but he does not become irregular.¹⁵

1944. IV. On account of ILLICIT RECEPTION OF ORDERS, the following becomes irregular: 1. he who is ordained in a furtive manner, without the approval of the Bishop, e.g., by falsely assuming the name of another who was examined; 2. he who, without dispensation of the Bishop, receives on the same day several Orders, of which one is sacred (unless a contrary custom should be in force somewhere); 3. he who receives sacred Order after ratified marriage, the wife resisting.¹⁶

But he who is ordained by an excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, heretical, schismatic, or simoniacal Bishop does not indeed incur irregularity from delict; nevertheless he must be dispensed by the Bishop, that he may be able to exercise the Order thus received (cf. n. 1366). - Nor does he become irregular who uses fraud to dissemble the defects which he has, or who, with dimissorial Letters fabricated deliberately, deceives the Bishop; because he is not judged furtively ordained.¹⁷ Nevertheless he sins gravely.¹⁸ - Nor finally is he irregular who, being excommunicated or suspended, or by leap, or before age, or by a Bishop not his own, receives Orders; provided that one so ordained does not exercise the Order¹⁹ (cf. n. 1372, Qu.).

1945. V. On account of the notorious crime of HERESY, or APOSTASY FROM THE FAITH, not only heretics themselves or apostates are irregular, but also their notorious receivers, defenders, and favorers (cf. n. 442, q. 2). But whether, on account of OCCULT heresy, irregularity is incurred, the matter is doubtful. In this case the Bishop dispenses, at least for caution.²⁰ - Besides, from the declaration of the S. PENITENTIARY of April 1, 1829, if it is a question of a schismatic or heretic of a region where heresies rage, one converted to the Catholic faith needs no dispensation.²¹

1946. VI. On account of the crime of HOMICIDE or MUTILATION, whether public or occult, whether committed on one's own or another's body, anyone gravely culpable as author of the aforesaid crime contracts irregularity, the effect having followed.²² But if his crime is notorious, he will also be irregular from defect of fame (cf. n. 1938, Quaer.). - HOMICIDE (in which is comprehended the abortion of a certainly animated fetus²³) can be VOLUNTARY either DIRECTLY, or INDIRECTLY through a physical or moral action, or even through an imputable accident in the cause.

1. Therefore by reason of VOLUNTARY homicide through a physical action the following are irregular: 1) All who by their own action kill a man, even if they repent before the injured one dies, as the truer opinion holds.²⁴ - 2) All who by common counsel attack a man, although only one strikes. Likewise, if several have lethally wounded someone without mutual conspiracy, and it is not discerned who brought death, all are to be held irregular.²⁵

2. By reason of VOLUNTARY homicide through moral action all are irregular who efficaciously concur in homicide, cooperating so that it may be perpetrated more quickly, more boldly, or more safely.²⁶ In their number are: 1) One commanding, unless he has revoked the mandate, and the revocation has become known to the mandatary before the killing. 2) One counseling, who efficaciously influences the crime by counsel (cf. nn. 978, 980, 981). - 3) All who efficaciously and proximately cooperate in the killing, by carrying a vote, furnishing arms, money; by unjustly accusing, testifying, judging, so that the man may be killed; likewise, he who by his presence renders the killer more bold, or the one to be killed more timid. For all these are judged to be one moral cause, and therefore all incur irregularity.

But he who approves homicide done for his sake is not judged irregular, as the common opinion holds; nor probably, he who does not impede homicide, even if he can impede it, indeed even if he ought from justice to impede it. The reason for each is that neither positively influences the crime.²⁷

3. By reason of ACCIDENTAL homicide, he alone incurs irregularity who, knowing or doubting that a danger of killing a man is present in some action of his, neglects to guard against it with grave fault. We say with grave fault; for if the homicide is merely accidental, so that it happens without any fault, it does not induce irregularity.²⁸

Hence, he is subject to irregularity: 1. He who applies himself to a thing illicit and at the same time so dangerous that death frequently follows from it (as would be to set fire to a cannon where there is a crowd of people, or to fight in war), although he applies every diligence, for this truly does not remove the danger of homicide.²⁹ 2. He who commands an unjust beating, if the mandatary accidentally kills; because such a one is expressly declared irregular in Law.³⁰

But indeed he is not subject to irregularity: 1) He who applies himself to a licit thing, e.g., a skilled physician caring for a sick person, a teacher moderately striking a disciple, a worker repairing a roof, if he kills someone by an unexpected and altogether involuntary event; (otherwise in the case in which, the circumstances being weighed, he could be reproached for grave and lethal negligence).³¹ - 2) He who applies himself to a thing indeed illicit, but of itself not proximately dangerous, from which the death of a neighbor follows as from a simple occasion. And hence it is why the S. C. of the Council judged that a cleric was not irregular, on account of whose adultery the husband had killed his adulterous wife.

4. By reason of MUTILATION he becomes irregular who culpably cuts off from himself or another some principal member, i.e., some part of the body which has its proper office divided from others, whether an amputation of this sort is made by physical action, or by moral action, namely by mandate, or counsel, or any unjust, yet certain and efficacious cooperation. - Therefore he is irregular who castrates himself; likewise, he who, outside the case of infirmity or necessity, from a depraved will, as is had expressly in law,³² amputates a finger or part of a finger; likewise he who castrates another, by cutting off both testicles; likewise, he who cuts off one breast from a woman.

Nor indeed does he become irregular who cuts off one or two fingers from another; nor who amputates one testicle only: nor who blinds a man by depriving him of sight alone, without extracting the eyes: nor who only weakens a member. - The reason is because amputation is not properly mutilation.³³

1947. IT IS ASKED. Whether he incurs irregularity who, in DEFENSE of himself, or of an innocent person, or of his own goods, kills another?

Resp. Negatively, unless with grave fault he exceeds the moderation of inculpable defense. It is established from what was said in the Fifth Precept, n. 734 and following. - But very probably he incurs irregularity who, for defense of himself, kills an aggressor whom he had before provoked by words, or by deed, foreseeing that he would very easily be attacked. - And the same must be said of the adulterer who, foreseeing proximate danger of assault on the part of the husband, kills him in order to defend himself when caught in adultery; because adultery, no otherwise than provocation, is reputed an act including in itself the proximate danger of homicide.³⁴

Note. Bishops, and Regular confessors, can dispense in irregularities from mutilation, from accidental homicide, or from exceeding the moderation of inculpable defense, when the crime is occult.³⁵