Irregularities

¹ From the new Code there are two genera of impediments to receiving ordination: irregularities and impediments which it itself calls simple. Irregularities are perpetual impediments, which always endure unless they are removed by dispensation; simple impediments are temporary, which cease of themselves when certain circumstances cease. Some irregularities are from defect, others from delict. Therefore the order to be followed is: a. concerning irregularities in general; b. concerning irregularities from defect; c. concerning irregularities from delict; d. concerning simple impediments.

¹ Leitner, Handbuch des kath. Kirchenrechtes, Irregularitaten und Weihehindernisse, p. 146 ff.; Haring, Das Ordinationsrecht nach dem neuen kirchlichen Gesetzbuch, Linz. Quartalschr. 1918.

SOME men are incapable of performing the duties attached to Orders, or, if not altogether incapable, they cannot perform them with that decency and edification which their sacred character and the Church require. A blind man cannot administer the sacraments, and one who has been guilty of great and notorious crimes is not a suitable person to exercise such holy offices and guide others in the way of virtue. Certain defects, then, and crimes, partly from the nature of things, partly because the Church has so ordained, constitute a bar to the reception of Orders. These are called irregularities, and an irregularity is commonly defined to be a canonical impediment which primarily prevents the reception of Orders, and, secondarily, the lawful exercise of the duties and rights annexed to them. It is an impediment constituted by law, though it has its foundation in the nature of things, and so there can be no irregularity unless it is expressly sanctioned by law (Can. 983). It does not make the reception of Orders or their exercise invalid; it only makes these acts gravely sinful in one who is under irregularity, and forbids under pain of grave sin the admission of such a one to the clerical state or the conferring of Orders on him. When Orders have been already received, an irregularity can only produce its secondary effect and hinder their lawful exercise (Can. 968, sec. 2). Even this effect has place only in respect of sacred Orders, for, according to present discipline, laymen may lawfully exercise the functions of the minor Orders, with the exception of those of the exorcist.

Irregularities are said to be from defect when they arise from an incapability of exercising the functions of Orders or from the indecency there would be in exercising them. They are said to be from crime when the Church has expressly laid down that the commission of such a crime shall entail irregularity in the delinquent.

Irregularity is perpetual and lasts for life unless it is removed by dispensation, and no dispensation can be granted for some irregularities arising from defect (Can. 983).

Irregularity which prevents the reception of Orders, and consequently the exercise of them, is said to be total; that which supervenes on the reception of Orders and only prevents their lawful exercise is partial.

As only males and those who are baptized can be validly ordained, the same two conditions are required in order to be subject to irregularity. There is nothing to prevent the same person from being subject to several different irregularities arising from different defects or crimes, nor from being subject to several irregularities of the same species arising from several crimes committed against different people, as from several homicides; but otherwise only one irregularity is contracted from one and the same cause though several times repeated, and so a priest who while under suspension celebrates Mass several times only incurs one irregularity (Can. 989).

Whenever there is a doubt either of law or of fact as to whether an irregularity has been incurred, almost all authorities agree that in practice it must be held not to have been incurred.

Irregularities are incurred even by those who are ignorant of them (Can. 988).

Besides irregularities which of themselves are perpetual impediments to the reception of Orders, the Code enumerates certain simple impediments which cease to exist on certain conditions. They are: (1) The sons of non-Catholics as long as their parents remain in error; (2) husbands who have wives; (3) those who hold an office forbidden to clerics; (4) slaves; (5) those bound to military service; (6) neophytes; (7) those who labour under infamy of fact (Can. 987).

THE illegitimate are irregular from defect of birth (Can. 984).

Defect of birth arises from illegitimacy, when the parents are either not married at all, or their marriage in the eyes of the Church is null and void on account of some diriment impediment known to both parties. If the impediment was unknown to at least one of the parents, the marriage is called putative, and the offspring is legitimate. When there is a doubt concerning legitimacy, as in the case of foundlings, legitimacy may be presumed until the contrary is proved.

This irregularity ceases by legitimation, dispensation, and solemn religious profession. If the parents at the time of conception or birth of the child could have been married, the child is by ecclesiastical law legitimized by subsequent marriage (Can. 1116); otherwise it can only be legitimized by the rescript of the Pope. A dispensation from this irregularity may be granted by the Pope, and by delegated authority by bishops, regular prelates, and others. Solemn religious profession takes away the irregularity as far as it is a bar to the reception of Orders, but not so as to enable the party to accept prelacies in the Order without dispensation.

Any bodily defect which makes it impossible to say Mass and fulfil the other functions of Orders, or prevents the person afflicted from exercising the sacred ministry with decency and edification, constitutes an irregularity. Thus the blind, deaf, mute, lame, crippled or maimed in limb or even necessary fingers, notably deformed, and those who cannot drink wine, are irregular.

In case of doubt the bishop may decide as to whether a person is irregular, and in such a case he may dispense as far as is necessary. If the irregularity is certain, only the Pope or his delegate can dispense. A dispensation from this impediment is more easily granted after ordination than before, to enable a priest to exercise his functions,

Marriage as a sacrament symbolizes the union of Christ with his Church, but to represent that union perfectly it should be a marriage of one man with one woman. In a second marriage the representation is less perfect, and such a bigamous marriage gives rise to the irregularity from defect of the sacrament.

A man becomes irregular from bigamy when he has contracted two or more valid marriages in succession.

Defect of lenity may cause irregularity in two ways: (1) In the case of a judge who has passed sentence of death.

(2) In those who have undertaken the office of executioners of a death sentence and their voluntary and immediate assistants.

Loss of reputation, or infamy, is a cause of irregularity. Those who are guilty of certain grave crimes are declared by canon law to be ipso facto infamous, and become irregular.

Those who are or who have been epileptics, insane, or possessed by the devil are irregular; if they became such after being ordained and are now certainly free, the Ordinary can permit his subjects to exercise again the Orders which they have received.

ACCORDING to Canon 985, the following are irregular from crime. These crimes, however, do not cause irregularity unless they were grave, external sins, whether public or occult, and committed after Baptism, except in the case of receiving Baptism from non-Catholics (Can. 986).

(1) Apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics.

(2) Those who have allowed themselves to be baptized by non-Catholics in any way except in case of extreme necessity.

(3) Those who have dared to attempt marriage or to go through the form of a civil marriage, when either they themselves are bound by the bond of marriage or of a sacred Order or religious vows though only simple and temporary, or with a woman bound by the same vows or united in a valid marriage.

(4) Those who have committed voluntary homicide, or procured with effect the abortion of a human foetus, and all who co-operate in these crimes.

(5) Those who have mutilated themselves or others or have attempted to take away their own life, (6) Clerics who practise medicine or surgery forbidden to them, if death follows therefrom.

(7) Those who exercise an act of Orders reserved to clerics constituted in a sacred Order, when either they do not possess that Order, or have been forbidden its exercise by a canonical penalty, whether personal or local, medicinal or vindictive.

As a general rule irregularities cease only by dispensation granted by the Holy See through the Sacred Congregation on . the Discipline of the Sacraments for the external forum, and through the Sacred Penitentiary for the internal forum.

Ordinaries personally or through another have power to dispense their subjects from all irregularities arising from occult crimes, except from voluntary homicide or the procuring of abortion with effect, and others brought before their judicial forum.

All confessors have the same power in more urgent occult cases in which not even the Ordinary can be approached, and there is danger of serious harm or loss of reputation, but only to enable a penitent to exercise lawfully the Orders which he has already received (Can. 990).

When there is a doubt of fact about an irregularity an Ordinary can dispense if the Holy See is accustomed to dispense in such cases (Can. 15).

The simple impediments cease on the total cessation of the cause or fact from which they arise, and by dispensation.

In the petition for a dispensation from irregularities and simple impediments all the irregularities and impediments in the case should be mentioned. A general dispensation will not avail for those not mentioned in bad faith.

If there is question of a dispensation from voluntary homicide, the number of crimes must be mentioned under pain of invalidity of the dispensation (Can. 991).

(St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VII, c. 5; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 19, c. 3.)

We shall speak first about irregularities and impediments in general, then about irregularities and impediments in particular, and finally about the cessation of irregularities and impediments.

I. Notion. An irregularity is a canonical impediment of itself perpetual, which prohibits the reception and exercise of Orders (cf. canons 968 and 983). It is called an impediment:

1. Canonical, that is, established by ecclesiastical law.

2. Of itself perpetual, that is, one which is not removed except by dispensation; and by this reason it differs from a simple impediment.

3. Of the reception and exercise of Orders. But by the name Orders here first tonsure also comes (canon 950). The reception and exercise of Orders are prohibited, but not the exercise or acts of jurisdiction alone, such as to dispense, to absolve from a censure, to give the faculty of absolving from sins (St. Alphonsus, VII, 342). Finally, the functions of the Acolytate are no longer prohibited, since today they are permitted even to laymen.

4. It prohibits; but it does not render the reception and exercise of Orders invalid. The prohibition, however, is grave, as is drawn both from the nature of the thing and from the grave penalties to be imposed on a transgressor (canon 2374).

A simple impediment is a canonical impediment of itself temporary, which prohibits the reception and exercise of Orders (cf. canons 968 and 987). It is called of itself temporary, that is, one which can cease without dispensation or by the fact itself.

Note. Irregularities and impediments have been established so that provision may be made for the reverence due to Orders, but not by way of penalty, except perhaps secondarily if it is a question of an irregularity from delict (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 17, n. 73).

II. The origin of irregularities is ecclesiastical law (canon 983); the same holds for simple impediments. Moreover, the cited canon sufficiently signifies that irregularity is introduced by written law alone, not by custom.

III. Interpretation; concerning it observe:

1. Laws which constitute an irregularity or impediment, as restricting rights, are subject to strict interpretation (cf. canon 19).

2. Only the baptized are bound by the said laws; this, however, does not prevent a fact which had place before baptism from being able to induce irregularity after baptism, as if someone had been insane before baptism. The impubes are not exempt from the law.

3. In doubt of law - that is, in doubt whether the law has been passed or extends itself to some case - the law does not urge. In doubt of fact - that is, in doubt whether the fact which carries an irregularity or impediment with it took place, or was such as is supposed by the law - the law likewise does not urge; for it is a question of doubt of a fact founding a prohibiting law (St. Alphonsus, VII, 422, 432; t. I, n. 228);¹ moreover, in the latter doubt the Bishop can dispense for precaution (cf. canon 15).

4. Ignorance of irregularities, whether from delict or from defect, and of impediments, does not excuse from them (canon 988).

¹ Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 27, 1857 (A.S.S. I, p. 350).

IV. Multiplication. Irregularities and impediments are multiplied from their different causes, but not from the repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of irregularity from voluntary homicide (canon 989). It is said:

1. From their different causes; as if someone is illegitimate and perpetrates homicide. Yet note that formally different causes suffice, and that several formally different causes can be contained in one and the same physical act; as if someone by the same blow were to kill another and attempt to take his own life.

2. Unless it is a question of irregularity from voluntary homicide. Procurement of abortion does not come under the name of homicide; for canon 985, 4° distinguishes this from homicide, and the law is of strict interpretation. But craniotomy and similar cruel killings of an infant are comprehended under that name.

Of irregularities, some are from defect, others from delict.

By force of canon 984 the following are irregular from defect:

I. From defect of birth: "Illegitimates, whether the illegitimacy is public or occult, unless they have been legitimated or have professed solemn vows" (cited canon, n. 1). Now:

1. Who are illegitimate, see in the treatise on matrimony.

2. Irregularity from defect of birth is removed: 1° by legitimation, about which later; 2° by dispensation (n. 644); 3° by solemn religious profession. This removes the irregularity, but does not legitimate; hence an illegitimate person solemnly professed cannot be constituted major Superior in his Religion (canon 504).

Note. Illegitimates cannot be admitted into the Seminary (canon 1363, § 1); nevertheless legitimation by the subsequent marriage of the parents suffices.¹

¹ Pontifical Commission, July 13, 1930 (A.A.S. 1930, p. 365).

II. From defect of body: "Those defective in body who cannot safely by reason of weakness, or decently by reason of deformity, perform the ministry of the altar. Yet to impede the exercise of an Order legitimately received, a graver defect is required; nor because of this defect are acts prohibited which can rightly be placed" (cited canon, n. 2°). Therefore the following are irregular:

1. Those who by reason of weakness cannot safely perform the ministry of the altar. To this class belong: 1° those lacking the index finger or thumb, that is, the customary fingers with which the host is broken; likewise those who have hands so trembling that there is danger of spilling the Blood; likewise those lacking either arm or either hand; 2° the deaf who cannot hear the responding minister; but deafness supervening upon the priesthood does not stand in the way of the celebration of Mass; 3° the mute, likewise those stammering so much that they cannot pronounce whole words, or cannot except with great difficulty, so that they provoke laughter; 4° the blind, likewise the partially blind, who cannot read except very large characters; but not one who lacks only one eye, provided it is not the left eye, or the eye of the Canon, and provided the deformity is removed by a glass eye.¹ But if the eye of the Canon is lacking, a dispensation can be given if the other eye is sufficiently fit for reading the Canon without deformity (St. Alphonsus, VII, 404-409).

2. Those who by reason of deformity cannot decently perform the ministry of the altar. To this class belong: 1° those deprived of a conspicuous member, unless the deformity is removed by an artificial member. Those who lack the three rear fingers are irregular for receiving Orders, but not for exercising them; 2° those having a conspicuous member very deformed, whether the deformity arises from nature or from disease, for example from leprosy. Deformity of the legs can ordinarily be sufficiently covered by a cassock; 3° the monstrous, such as pygmies, the very hunchbacked, and hermaphrodites; yet the latter defect does not induce irregularity if it is occult and the male sex prevails. Likewise those notably limping are irregular (St. Alphonsus, VII, 410-412).

Note 1. Since all Orders, even first tonsure, are ordered to the priesthood, one excluded from the priesthood must also be regarded as excluded from the other Orders.

Note 2. To impede the exercise of an Order legitimately received a graver defect is required than to impede the reception of an Order (canon 984, 2°). Moreover, one who by reason of some defect is impeded from some exercise of an Order received is not therefore impeded from acts which can rightly be placed (canon 984, 2°); so that, for example, a blind priest can well hear confessions.

Note 3. In doubt whether some defect stands in the way of the reception or exercise of an Order, the Ordinary should be consulted (St. Alphonsus, VII, 414).

¹ With respect to partially blind priests, the Sacred Congregation of Rites established the following on January 12, 1921:

1. A partially blind priest, or one laboring under such weakness of visual power, whether accidentally or habitually, that he can read only very large type, can obtain from the Supreme Pontiff or the Sacred Congregation of Rites, unless the Bishop has been furnished with an apostolic faculty, a dispensation to celebrate either the votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Mass which they call the daily Mass of the Dead.

2. The conditions added in the instrument of a privilege of this kind are not mere matters of rituality and style, but obligatory in conscience.

3. If in the privilege it is said: Provided the petitioner is not entirely blind, and meanwhile he becomes blind, then he must abstain from celebrating Mass until he has obtained a new indult; and once this has been obtained, he is bound under grave obligation to use the assistance of another priest, although perhaps this obligation was not expressly added in the indult. After these things noted by the Sacred Congregation, the rules to be followed in celebration follow (A.A.S. 1921, p. 154-156).

III. From defect of mind: "Those who are or have been epileptic, insane, or possessed by a demon; but if after receiving Orders they have become such and it is certainly established that they are now free, the Ordinary can again permit his subjects the exercise of the Orders received" (canon 984, 3°).

1. Epilepsy must be taken in the strict sense, so that it does not comprehend a certain disease of the stomach which carries with it certain signs of epilepsy. Furthermore, if the disease supervenes upon the priesthood and recurs rarely, for example only once in a month, without emission of sounds, foaming, and notable contraction of the body, the priest will be able to celebrate privately, with a fasting priest joined to him who may complete the Mass when the disease comes on (St. Alphonsus, VIII, 399). There are also those who judge that one who had been freed from epilepsy before puberty is not irregular. But this opinion is with difficulty composed with the words of the law, which states absolutely: "Those who are or have been epileptic."

2. Insanity is understood which flows from a permanent cause; but an insane person is irregular even if he has lucid intervals.

3. Possession by a demon; concerning which, see t. I, n. 700.

4. Just as those healed cannot receive Orders without the permission of the Holy See, so neither can they receive a higher Order without the same permission.

5. Under the name of Ordinary, of which the cited canon speaks, come both the Ordinary of the place and the major Superior in an exempt clerical religion (canon 198, § 1).

IV. From defect of sacrament: "Bigamists, namely those who have successively contracted two or more valid marriages" (canon 984, 4°). "It is said: from defect of sacrament, because he who has married two wives cannot aptly signify the union of Christ with the Church, His one spouse" (St. Alphonsus, VII, 436). This irregularity, at least with respect to some major Orders, is of apostolic origin, according to these words of St. Paul: "Therefore a Bishop must be irreproachable, the husband of one wife... Let deacons be husbands of one wife."¹

For irregularity it suffices that several marriages have been validly contracted; it is not required, however, that they have been consummated.

Note. One who before Baptism successively contracted several valid marriages seems, after Baptism has been received, to become irregular.

¹ 1 Tim. 3:2, 12.

V. From defect of reputation: "Those who are marked by infamy of law" (canon 984, 5°). It is called an irregularity from defect, because the infamy itself which induces irregularity is not a delict. What infamy of law is and who contract it, see in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties.

VI. From defect of mildness: "The judge who has pronounced sentence of death" (canon 984, 6°). If a capital sentence has been established collegially, those judges are irregular who agreed to the capital penalty, not the others who cast a contrary vote. Furthermore this irregularity is not to be extended to a region where sentence of death, although pronounced, is nevertheless no longer carried into execution; nor to the case in which a leader in war orders someone to be killed without any military council having been held, because he does not proceed as judge. Nor are jurors irregular, since they pronounce sentence only about the truth of the fact, but do not establish the penalty.

Moreover, from defect of mildness the following is irregular: "Those who have undertaken the office of executioner and their voluntary and immediate ministers in the execution of a capital sentence" (canon 984, 7°). Among these are not counted: 1° soldiers who kill the enemy in battle, or by command of the leader or of a military council kill a guilty person, because they are not said to have undertaken the office of executioner; 2° those who, for example, erect the scaffold or lead the one condemned to death to the place of punishment, because they are not immediate ministers of the executioner; but indeed those who, for example, place the head of the condemned man under the machine, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VII, 461-468).

Preliminary points. In order that a delict may produce irregularity, it is required that it be a grave sin, perpetrated after baptism, except the case of which under II, and external (canon 986). It is said sin:

1. Grave; hence whatever excuses from mortal sin also excuses from irregularity. Of this kind is ignorance of the very law prohibiting the act. Grave fear, even only relatively such, necessity, indeed even grave inconvenience, generally excuse from observing a merely ecclesiastical law, and therefore bring it about that one is immune from irregularity who, from grave fear, necessity, or by reason of grave inconvenience, places an act forbidden by ecclesiastical law alone (cf. canon 2205, § 2).

2. Perpetrated after baptism; since it is not fitting that account be taken of a sin which is judged to have been entirely destroyed by baptism.

Now by force of canon 985, the following are irregular from delict:

The following are simply impeded:

I. Children of non-Catholics, so long as the parents remain in their error (canon 987, 1°).

1. By the name children are understood only descendants in the first degree; and this now also holds if the father is non-Catholic.¹

2. Under the name of non-Catholics come heretics and schismatics; most authors exclude unbelievers.

3. It suffices that either parent be non-Catholic, even if the mixed marriage was contracted with dispensation.²

4. The impediment ceases by the conversion of the parents. It is disputed whether it ceases by the death of the parents; but it seems to be denied, because that had no place in the old law, from which in doubt there must be no departure.

¹ Pontifical Commission, July 14, 1922 (A.A.S. 1922, p. 528).

² Pontifical Commission, October 16, 1919 (A.A.S. 1919, p. 478).

II. Men having a wife (canon 987, 2°). Without dispensation these cannot receive even a minor Order or tonsure itself, even if they are perpetually separated. But a married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major Orders, although in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those Orders (canon 132, § 3). Now:

1. A dispensation is not granted to a married man unless the wife consents and is prepared to enter religion or to emit a vow of chastity, at least for the time of the life of her consort, or unless the wife has perpetually lost the right to the conjugal debt.¹

2. A spouse who has received sacred Order is prohibited from the use of marriage (canon 1114).

¹ Ecclesiastical law, c. 4-6 X, 3, 32; Decree of Gratian, C. 27, q. 2, c. 19-26.

III. Those who hold an office or administration forbidden to clerics and for which they must render accounts, until, after the office and administration have been laid aside and the accounts rendered, they have become free (canon 987, 3°). Such an office is discharged, for example, by treasurers and depositaries of public money, notaries, tutors, curators (St. Alphonsus, III, 838). After an Order has been received, offices of this kind can be accepted only with the permission of the Ordinary (cf. canon 139, § 3).

IV. Slaves in slavery properly so called, before liberty has been accepted (canon 987, 4°).

V. Those who are bound by civil law to ordinary military service, before they have completed it (canon 987, 5°).

1. Those who by the law itself are called to care for the sick are not said to be bound to military service.

2. Annual exercises to which citizens are bound after ordinary service has been completed do not pertain to ordinary military service.¹

3. Those are also judged still bound by law to military service who perhaps will be called to military service, but are not yet called, either because they are unequal in age, or because they have been declared temporarily unfit.²

¹ Sacred Congregation of Religious, January 1, 1911 (A.A.S. 1911, p. 37).

² Pontifical Commission, June 2-3, 1918 (A.A.S. 1918, p. 344-345).

VI. Neophytes until, in the judgment of the Ordinary, they have been sufficiently proved (canon 987, 6°). Those are called neophytes who were converted to the faith in adult age and recently baptized; but not heretics recently converted to the faith who had at least probably been validly baptized. The establishment of this impediment corresponds to these words of St. Paul: "Therefore a Bishop must be... not a neophyte, lest, being lifted up into pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil."¹

¹ 1 Tim. 3:2-6.

VII. Those who labor under infamy of fact, while it endures, in the judgment of the Ordinary (canon 987, 7°). When infamy of fact is contracted, see in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties (cf. canon 2293, § 3).

I. Power of dispensing. 1. Ordinaries can by themselves or through another dispense their subjects from all irregularities arising from occult delict, excepting that which arises from voluntary homicide or abortion, or another brought to the judicial forum (canon 990, § 1). Now under the name of Ordinaries come both Ordinaries of places and major Superiors of an exempt clerical religion (canon 488, 8°). An irregularity is brought to the judicial forum when the party is either summoned to court or cited, or spontaneously presents himself before the judge (canon 1711).

2. Any confessor can dispense from irregularities arising from delict in more urgent occult cases - excepting, however, voluntary homicide or abortion and others brought to the judicial forum - in which the Ordinary cannot be approached and danger of grave harm or infamy threatens, but only for this purpose, that the penitent may licitly be able to exercise Orders already received (canon 990, § 2). Under the name of confessor comes everyone who enjoys sacramental jurisdiction. But he can dispense those to whom his jurisdiction extends, and this, as is now commonly admitted, even outside confession.

3. By common privilege: 1° Regular Prelates, with respect to their subjects, enjoy the same faculty which belongs to Bishops by common law, according to what was said under 1.¹ 2° Regular confessors possess a similar faculty with respect to seculars (St. Alphonsus, VI, 355; De privilegiis, n. 104).

4. By proper or communicated privilege, Regular Ordinaries can dispense all their own from every irregularity. This power, which is sometimes reserved to the Superior General, is valid only for the internal forum alone, if the irregularity has arisen from voluntary homicide.² Indeed every year, on Monday after the first Sunday of Lent, local Superiors of Regulars, by themselves or through confessors to whom they have committed this, can dispense their subjects, even novices, living within the cloister under obedience, in every irregularity contracted on any occasion or from any cause.³ So Vermeersch-Creusen.⁴

Yet note that, if it is a question of enormous excess or defect, recourse must be had to the Holy See, according to the norm of the ancient law stating: In a general grant there do not "come those things which someone would not likely grant in particular."⁵

Note. The Sacred Consistorial Congregation, in the Decree Redeuntibus, established these things:

"1° To all Ordinaries of places and of religious there is granted the faculty of dispensing from irregularity from defect of body with their priests returning from military service, as often as from the written testimony of the master of ceremonies who has subjected the priest to examination it is plainly established that he can, without another's help, observe with decorum all the necessary rites prescribed in the celebration of Mass; the conscience of the same Ordinaries being burdened concerning this. But in graver or doubtful cases, and as often as it is a question of those not promoted to the priesthood, recourse must be had to the Holy See.

"2° Likewise to all Ordinaries there is granted the faculty of dispensing, at least for precaution, from the irregularity which formerly was called by canonists from defect of mildness, as often as priests, clerics, and students of seminaries or religious institutes have fallen into it not from their own act but from necessity, namely compelled to take up arms and perhaps to inflict death or mutilation. But as often as it is a question of clerics in sacred Orders who, not compelled by necessity of the laws, have offered themselves of their own accord to take up arms, or have taken them up, recourse must be had to the Holy See for dispensation, with the prescription of canon 188, n. 6° remaining firm."⁶

Finally the same Sacred Congregation responded affirmatively to the doubt: "Whether clerics in sacred Orders assigned to the assistance of wounded or sick soldiers, who from this ministry preferred of their own accord to pass over to fighting military service, yet without inflicting death or mutilation, are bound, according to the mind of the Decree Redeuntibus, to obtain a dispensation from the Holy See in order to be restored to the exercise of sacred ministry."⁷

Since it is not clear that a true irregularity is had in the foregoing, a dispensation is not required except for precaution; or, too, the word dispensation can be taken in a broader sense, namely for permission; and this permission is prescribed so that someone who perhaps became unworthy in war may not exercise ecclesiastical functions.

¹ Sixtus IV, Constitution Regimini universalis, August 31, 1474, n. 14; Julius II, Constitution Virtute conspicuos, July 28, 1506, n. 27; Paul III, Constitution Licet debitum, October 18, 1549, n. 27; Gregory XIV, Constitution Illius qui, September 21, 1591, n. 27; Leo XII, Constitution Plura inter, July 11, 1826, n. 2.

² Cf. Pius V, Constitution Dum ad Congregationem, June 13, 1571.

³ Cf. Paul III, Brief Exponi nobis super, March 12, 1545.

⁴ Epitome Iuris Canonici, II, 261.

⁵ Rule 81 in VI; cf. Clement IV, Constitution Virtute conspicuos, July 21, 1265, n. 11.

⁶ October 25, 1918 (A.A.S. 1918, p. 481).

⁷ March 28, 1919 (A.A.S. 1919, p. 177).

Canonical Requirements for Ordination.—(a) Positive requirements are: proper age (that is, the twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-fourth years completed are necessary for subdeaconship, deaconship, priesthood, respectively); Confirmation should have been received before Ordination, for it is suitable that those who are to strengthen others in the faith should have the character of soldier of Christ; promotion from Order to Order should be from lower to higher in proper succession, that fitness may be shown in lesser offices before the greater are received; an interval must elapse between certain Orders, which will give to clerics the opportunity to exercise the powers they have received (e.g., between acolythate and subdiaconate a year, between subdiaconate and diaconate three months); the candidate for sacred ordination must have a title or some canonical means of support (i.e., for secular clergy the title of benefice, or patrimony or ministerial service; for religious the title of profession, common life, etc.). The law allows certain dispensations from some of these requirements (Canons 974 sqq.).

(b) Negative requirements are freedom from certain disabilities introduced by the Church for the sake of the honor and dignity of the sacred ministry. Some of these disqualifications are of their nature permanent, and they are removed only by dispensation or by disposition of the law (e.g., in certain cases by cessation of the cause, or by baptism, or by religious profession), and these are known as irregularities; other disqualifications, which are of their nature temporary and cease with lapse of time or changes in circumstances, are known as simple impediments. The effect of disqualification is to make it unlawful to receive an Order, or to exercise an Order already received. Irregularities are produced either by deficiency or by delinquency, but the cause in either case must be certain; and, in case of delinquency, it must be a personal sin committed after Baptism, which is mortal, external, and consummated in act. The irregularities from defect are: illegitimate birth; mental imperfection (such as epilepsy, insanity, possession); bodily imperfection that makes one unsuited for the service of the altar, on account of mutilation (e.g., those who have lost hand or foot, or thumb or index finger), or of unsoundness (e.g., the blind, the deaf, the dumb, cripples, paralytics), or of very noticeable deformity that excites ridicule or horror (e.g., dwarfs, giants, noseless persons, those who are hunchbacked); successive bigamy, that is, the fact that one has been twice validly married, for St. Paul ruled that a cleric should be a man of not more than one wife (I Tim., iii. 2, 12; Tit., i. 5, 6); infamy of law, that is, the commission of certain crimes which the law declares infamous ipso facto or after sentence (such as profanation of the Eucharist or of graves, violence done to the Pope or a Cardinal, duelling, simultaneous bigamy, and certain sexual sins); participation in capital punishment by pronouncing (i.e., as judge or juryman) or executing the sentence of death. The irregularities from delinquency are: apostasy, heresy, schism; reception of Baptism from a non-Catholic; attempt at adulterous or sacrilegious marriage; voluntary homicide, cooperation in an abortion, mutilation of self or of another, attempt to commit suicide; unlawful exercise of medicine or surgery by a cleric with fatal results; unlawful exercise of the powers of Major Orders by a cleric or layman. The simple impediments are found in the following: in those who may be weak in faith, namely, persons whose parents are non-Catholics, or who are themselves converts (I Tim., iii. 6); in those who are prevented by other occupations, namely, persons held by marriage, business forbidden to clerics, slavery, military service (II Tim., ii. 4); in those who are actually in bad repute before the community on account of misconduct (I Tim., iii. 7). See Canons 983-991.

As regards censures and irregularities. - Bishops can, by themselves or by another specially deputed, absolve subjects from hidden papal cases, except those which are reserved in a special way to the Supreme Pontiff. From the Declaration of S. O., 17 June 1866 and 4 Apr. 1871, there is also excepted the case of a person of whatever sex falsely denouncing a priest concerning the crime of solicitation in confession. They can likewise absolve those who strike a cleric lightly; and, if these are living collegially, although the striking was grave, but not if it was enormous. From the same censure they can also absolve those who are impeded from going to Rome. Cf. vol. 2, n. 1182. Various cases, however, are reserved to them by the law itself. C. Apost. Sedis; Decr. S. C. C. concerning the trafficking of Masses, etc. Cf. vol. 2, de Censuris.

They can besides dispense in all irregularities, and absolve from all suspensions incurred on account of hidden delict, except voluntary homicide, and other matters brought to the contentious forum. Trent, s. 24, c. Liceat. Probably they can dispense also in doubtful irregularities from defect. Moreover they can dispense in non-hidden irregularities from defect of birth for minor orders and simple benefices. As regards inabilities enjoined by Pontiffs as penalty, whether they can dispense is disputed, and the matter is very doubtful. Concerning homicide, "the common opinion is that the Bishop can dispense when danger of soul is imminent; or another most grave cause, and it would be difficult to have recourse to the Pontiff, etc." L. 51, 29, 35, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53; l. 3, n. 397; l. 6, n. 593, 705; l. 7, n. 353, 392, 394; E. M.

As regards irregularity. - "Regulars can dispense with their subjects in all hidden irregularities in which Ordinaries can dispense with their diocesans. And they can do the same with seculars." L. 104. "They can besides dispense with subjects in any irregularity, either on account of delict or on account of defect," namely those which are usually regularly dispensed. L. 105; Frassinetti, Comp., 6th ed., vol. 2, n. 681. In the cited place the Holy Doctor soon descends to particular cases, concluding: "Finally regulars can dispense with their subjects in all inabilities and penalties contracted by reason of delict... even if those are reserved to the Pontiff." Cf. L. l. 7, n. 355, 358, 364, 396; Lehmkuhl, 11th ed., vol. 2, n. 834.

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.

Paulus, believing himself bound by excommunication on account of reading a book prohibited in the Index, done without permission, absolved a penitent who was his accomplice in a shameful sin. When afterward he had occasion of reading the book of a certain heretic championing heresy, he again absolved the accomplice. Is Paulus irregular?

R. Although Paulus believed himself excommunicated by reading a book listed in the Index, in reality he was not excommunicated; and therefore, by absolving the accomplice the first time, he did not incur irregularity, because he does not truly violate a censure. Paulus certainly incurred excommunication by reading the heretical book; wherefore then certainly, when he again absolved the accomplice, he incurred irregularity from violated censure. But Paulus had already before, on another occasion, absolved the accomplice, and because of this also was excommunicated. Wherefore when the second time he absolved the accomplice, he was bound by a double excommunication. Nevertheless he incurs only one irregularity, because all censures forbid the exercise of order with regard to one virtue of religion, on account of reverence for the sacred ministry. But since this irregularity is equivalent to several, "in the petition for dispensation he ought to express this." St. Alph., l. 7, n. 359; I. M. 1325.

1. Seius, a priest, conversing with Tiburtius, the enemy of Aurelius, willingly receives and even praises the plan of Tiburtius to kill Aurelius. Tiburtius in reality kills Aurelius. Hence Seius greatly doubts whether he himself by his manner of speaking commanded the homicide, and whether at least he counseled it. Wherefore he consequently doubts whether he is irregular.

R. Seius is not irregular. For although someone incurs irregularity on account of doubtful homicide, namely if it is established that a man was killed and it is only doubted whether he himself or another killed him, nevertheless irregularity is not had if it is doubted only whether someone was the cause of the homicide by his mandate or counsel. St. Alph., l. 7, n. 347, dub. 3, n. 371; D'Annib., ed. 3, p. 1, n. 424, 428; I. M. 1318, 1330.

2. Fulgentius, seized by hatred against his aged father, made him perish by hunger, daily diminishing food to him in order to kill him, and finally denying it. Doing sincere penance for the gravest sin, he entered a strict religious institute, in which he lived most observantly for several years; and since he is endowed with no common knowledge, his superiors desire that he ascend to the priesthood. Is Fulgentius irregular?

R. It is certain among all that if someone is bound only from charity to prevent a homicide, and does not prevent it, although from hatred, he does not incur irregularity. "The doubt is raised," says St. Alph., l. 7, n. 376, "whether he incurs it who is bound to prevent it from justice by reason of pact or office, namely if he is a physician hired by stipend, an advocate who is bound to defend the accused, a guardian of roads, a father, tutor, master, or husband who is bound to furnish support to a wife. The first opinion denies that he incurs it.... The reason is that he who positively flows into a homicide must be judged differently from him who does not prevent a homicide. But the second opinion affirms it.... The reason is that one omitting to defend, when he can, him whom by justice he is bound to defend, is judged a true murderer, since he himself, if not physically, nevertheless morally flows into the homicide. This opinion is indeed more common and probable, but the first seems to me no less probable; for since irregularity ought to be expressed in Law, Ronc. rightly says that from the sacred canons it is not sufficiently clear that those not preventing in this way, furnishing only a moral cause, incur irregularity, but only those killing, commanding, counseling, and all those positively flowing into homicide." From these things it could seem that Fulgentius, according to St. Alphonsus himself, did not incur irregularity. Nevertheless it must altogether be said that Fulgentius incurred irregularity by studiously procuring the death of his father, diminishing and denying food to him. And this is clear from the very opinion of St. Alphonsus, for he immediately adds: "But the same Cont., Tourn., and Escob. excuse from irregularity those who omit to prevent, not now studiously so that a man may be killed, but only from fear or negligence; and they rightly infer this from C. Quaesitum de Poen. et rem., where parents by whose fault children perish in the cradle are judged irregular if they studiously neglected to prevent suffocation, but not however if the children died from their carelessness." Cf. Reiffenst., l. 5, t. 12, n. 42 seqq.; I. M. 1329, 1330.

1. Caius, a priest, opened a vein for a pregnant woman so that abortion would follow; and since it was not established that there had been an abortion, he gave her counsel of immersing her feet in hot water for half an hour; nor nevertheless, even this time, could it be established that there had been an abortion. Is Caius irregular?

R. "Diana says with Nav. etc. that if a physician opened a vein for a pregnant woman so that abortion would follow, but afterward it is not established that an abortion followed, he is not to be judged irregular... because proceedings are not taken against someone for penalties unless the body of the crime is established. But otherwise it must be said if the means applied for abortion were so efficacious that from them the effect commonly follows, because then presumption is made from things commonly occurring." St. Alph., l. 7, n. 347, dub. 3. But since even that washing of the feet is not a remedy altogether efficacious for procuring abortion, it does not seem that Caius incurred irregularity. But a fortiori he is to be excused from irregularity if it is not established that the fetus was animated, and still much more if the pregnancy itself is not established. St. Alph., l. 3, n. 395, 396; I. M. 1330.

2. Sempronius, a priest, doubts whether by his counsel he procured an abortion that in fact followed. Is Sempronius irregular?

R. Negatively. St. Alph., l. 3, n. 396, says: "What must be said if there were doubt whether someone by his counsel or work cooperated in the certain death of a fetus now certainly animated? See what is to be said, l. 7, n. 371." Now in that place the Holy Doctor raises the general question whether one commanding or counseling homicide is irregular in doubt whether the mandate or counsel was or was not the efficacious cause of the homicide. And then he brings forward two opinions, one more common, affirming, the other, which does not seem to have to be called improbable, denying. Wherefore Sempronius, in the Case, can probably be excused from irregularity. I. M. 1318.

3. Fuscus, a priest, so that he might sin more freely with a certain woman without danger of infamy, persuaded her to procure for herself the perfect excision of each ovary by a surgical operation, so that she would thus be made sterile or impotent with no danger of generation. That woman did this, and thus both continued in sin for several years. On the occasion of the Holy Year Fuscus is converted to good fruit, and asks whether he ought to be dispensed from irregularity.

R. Irregularity here would be first by reason of mutilation. St. Alph., l. 7, n. 380, raises the question: "Whether he is irregular who cuts off the testicles of another." And he responds: "Bon. etc. deny it, because, as they say, those are not a member, but part of a member. But Roncaglia etc. more probably affirm it, because the testicles now have their proper operation." Now the same seems to have to be said concerning the ovaries. Moreover, not only he who mutilates another incurs irregularity, but also he who proximately cooperates in that mutilation, as in homicide, because mutilation is equated to homicide. "Hence," says Reiffenst., l. 5, t. 12, n. 57, "by the same reason the doctors commonly hold that in those cases in which he contracts irregularity who counsels, commands, cooperates toward an unjust homicide, or does not prevent it, or ratifies it, in the same cases one counseling, commanding, etc. mutilation also contracts the same irregularity." Therefore Fuscus, as one commanding or at least counseling mutilation, contracts irregularity in the Case.

But Fuscus would have to be punished with still graver penalties. For "Sixtus V in the year 1588 issued a Bull which begins Effraenatam, in which he subjected all knowingly procuring abortion of a fetus, whether animated or inanimate, and in any way consenting in this or furnishing to women poisons of sterility, to all penalties which are owed to homicides by civil and canon law, such as privation of every clerical privilege, dignity, or ecclesiastical benefice, and also inability to obtain them in the future, etc." St. Alph., l. 3, n. 395. Fuscus indeed did not procure abortion, nor did he furnish poisons of sterility for killing a fetus. But did he not furnish more than poisons of sterility, by commanding or counseling that excision for impeding generation?

1. Eulogius, a minorist, in good faith gave medicine to a sick man for his remedy and relief, who nevertheless died from it. Does Eulogius incur irregularity?

R. Negatively. For in the Case none incur irregularity except 1.º clerics constituted in sacred orders and monks; 2.º except by cutting or burning; and 3.º if the sick person dies from the incision or burning. But Eulogius is a minorist and applied no incision or burning in the Case. Therefore he incurs no irregularity, although he is beneficed. St. Alph., l. 7, n. 384, 385; I. M. 1345.

2. Clemens, a soldier, in a defensive war indeed discharged his weapon several times against enemies, of whom many were killed and mutilated. But since he always had to discharge it together with many other fellow soldiers of his, he doubts whether he himself truly killed or mutilated anyone. But now wishing to ascend to sacred orders, he asks whether he himself is irregular.

R. Negatively. "If someone fought in a just war in which some were killed, and doubts whether he himself by himself killed someone, Bon., Leand., and others think that he can judge himself not to be irregular, because when the law says that one doubting about homicide ought to be judged irregular, it speaks of unjust homicide. Therefore in doubt concerning just homicide the condition of the possessor is better." La Croix, l. 7, n. 453. Nevertheless a dispensation can be sought as a precaution.

1. Philiarchus, after he committed fornication with two women, wishing to ascend to the priesthood, received first tonsure and minor orders. But, inconstant in soul, he entered marriage with a certain widow woman, who afterward was known to be his kinswoman in the fourth degree. Since therefore a marriage of this sort was void, he again intends to ascend to the priesthood; but he doubts whether he is irregular.

R. That Philiarchus first fornicated with two women gives rise to no bigamy from that, and therefore no impediment of bigamy, since there is no true, similitudinary, or interpretative marriage. I. M. 1343. But that, in an invalid marriage, already an acolyte, he married a widow, according to the more common opinion, is interpretative bigamy because of the affection of the intention, as if the husband of a widow, C. ult. de Big., and therefore irregularity is present. The less common opinion denies it, because in the aforesaid C. ult. there is question only of one ordained in sacred orders, and not of an acolyte nor of a layman; and in odious matters extension is not made from case to case, and thus Navarrus affirms that it was concluded in the Sacred Penitentiary. And D'Annib. says that he follows this opinion, ed. 3, p. 1, n. 419.

2. Titius married Caia invalidly because of an occult impediment of affinity. Caia having died, he married Sempronia, but also invalidly because of another occult impediment of affinity. The invalidity of each marriage having become known, Titius, wishing to receive sacred orders, thinks that he is bound by no impediment from this. Is this rightly thought?

R. Titius, according to the most common opinion of the doctors, is irregular from interpretative bigamy, namely if each marriage, as is supposed, was consummated. I. M. 1343.

The reason is that here not the thing itself, but the thought of the soul and the affection of the intention is attended to. C. 4, de Bigam. If this reason is valid when someone, his wife having died, receives sacred order, and then marries another wife and consummates the marriage, which second marriage is in reality null, the same reason consequently is valid when someone, although initiated in no sacred order, contracts and consummates a double marriage, although invalid. Whence it is also clear that although this irregularity, like others, is not expressed in the law, nevertheless it is most commonly affirmed. And D'Annibale, who calls the same irregularity doubtful, nevertheless, because it is most commonly affirmed, "does not dare to recede from this opinion, although received against all rules of law." Ed. 3, p. 1, n. 418.

"1. Whether being born in heresy, or having parents, uncles, brothers, or cousins who are heretics or married to heretics, is by the common law an impediment which excludes one from religious profession?

"2. Whether it is correct to say that, by reason of another's heresy, only those who have either a heretical grandfather, father, or mother incur irregularity?

"3. Whether the doctrine of those who teach that such irregularity is not incurred in Germany can be followed, because there relatives labor under no infamy; and whether such doctrine can be extended to all those regions where the dominant religion is heterodox or Protestant?

"4. Whether those legitimately dispensed from irregularity with respect to Sacred Ordination can, by reason of religious profession, be promoted to the prelacies of the Order; or whether they can be authorized for this by their superiors when these superiors possess, by an ancient direct grant subsequent to the Council of Trent, the power 'by Apostolic authority, in the forum of conscience only, to absolve those incurring irregularity from any head or cause whatsoever, except voluntary homicide, bigamy, and mutilation of members, and also to dispense with them, even with rehabilitation and the removal of the stain of incapacity and infamy'?

"Response. To 1. Negative, saving the proper Constitutions of each religious family.

"To 2 and 3. Let the decree of Wednesday, 4 December 1890, be given; that is: "Heretics converted to the Catholic faith, and children of heretics who persist in heresy or have died in it, to the first and second degree through the paternal line, but through the maternal line to the first degree only, are irregular even in Germany and in the other places concerning which the petition is made; and therefore they need a dispensation in order to be promoted to tonsure and orders.

"To 4. As set forth, negative." Holy Office, 3 February 1898.

1015. Definition. - Irregularity strictly taken is a canonical impediment prohibiting someone from being enrolled among the Clergy, ascending to a higher Order, or exercising the functions of an Order received.

Hence irregularity differs from censures, and especially from deposition and degradation, principally in this respect: deposition and degradation always presuppose fault and have the character of a penalty; but irregularity does not always presuppose fault, and if it is sometimes imposed by way of penalty, this is done only secondarily, not for punishing the guilty person, but for guarding against unbecomingness in the sacred ministry.

1176. Candidates can be barred from orders both on account of censures³ and on account of irregularities, concerning which one must now treat.

³ Codex, cc. 2260, 2175, 2279, § 2, n. 5.

I. On Irregularities In General.

1177. 1° Notion. (a) In the Codex irregularities properly so called, which of themselves are perpetual, are distinguished from simple impediments which are not perpetual and do not bar from orders except as long as they endure.

(b) Irregularity properly so called is an impediment of itself perpetual, or an incapacity prohibiting someone from receiving or exercising orders⁴, established by canonical law on account of reverence for the divine ministry.

⁴ Codex, c. 968.

1178. 2° Species. (a) By reason of the cause, irregularity is either from defect or from delict: the former arises from some natural vice by which someone is incapable of receiving or exercising orders; the latter arises from personal fault, which is unbecoming to the priestly ministry. Hence the former is not a penalty, nor does it suppose a proper delict, and therefore it is incurred even by the unknowing; the latter, although it is not a penalty, is contracted after the manner of a penalty, and supposes fault.

(b) By reason of effects, irregularity is total, when it excludes from every order and office of order; partial, when it prohibits only from some order or from some function of the sacred ministry: thus a priest who without fault lacks a thumb is excluded from the celebration of Mass, but not from hearing confessions.

1179. 3° On the subject of irregularity and impediment. (A) All those males who are subject to ecclesiastical law can contract irregularity or impediment. Hence those not yet baptized, and boys before the completed seventh year¹, are not the subject of irregularity, because they are not bound by the laws of the Church.

¹ Codex, c. 986.

(B) Irregularities and impediments can be multiplied "from diverse causes of the same, but not from repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of irregularity from voluntary homicide."² When dispensation is sought, each is to be indicated³.

² Codex, c. 989.

³ Codex, c. 991.

(C) That irregularities and impediments be contracted, certain conditions are required: (a) that they be certain; for if there is grave and prudent doubt concerning their existence, strictly speaking they are not incurred, whether it is a question of a doubt of law or of a doubt of fact; for odious things are to be restricted. - Yet in practice it is better to seek a dispensation for caution.

(b) That the action on account of which they are contracted be external and consummated in its species; and besides gravely culpable, if it arises from delict: for although they are not penalties, they are incurred after the manner of a penalty latae sententiae.

1180. (D) It is asked whether ignorance excuses from irregularity and impediment? "Ignorance of irregularities, whether from delict or from defect, and of impediments, does not excuse from the same."⁴

⁴ Codex, c. 988.

II. On Irregularities From Defect.

— Irregularity is a canonical impediment, of itself perpetual, which of itself primarily prohibits the reception of orders, and secondarily the exercise of the same (cc. 968, 983).

It is not therefore a penalty, but is directly established because of the reason of the common good, that is, the decorum or respectability of the clerical state. And from the new law, the traditional definition becomes strict and certain. For from irregularity there are properly distinguished defects of condition or quality commonly required in those to be ordained, for example, of age (c. 974), and impediments which, when adjuncts have changed, can cease without dispensation, for example, the conjugal state, infamy of fact.

But only those irregularities are in force which are contained in written law, all those which are not contained in the Code having been suppressed (c. 983).

In the present law there are distinguished only irregularities from defect and irregularities from delict. The latter, although they can be held after the manner of a grave penalty, are nevertheless primarily impediments, and, contrary to the opinion hitherto common, just as other irregularities and simple impediments, they are incurred even by those ignorant of them (c. 988). But without delict, and therefore without mortal fault, there will not be an irregularity from delict.

— Those irregular from defect are numbered in c. 984.

1. From defect of birth: "Illegitimate persons, whether the illegitimacy is public or occult, unless they have been legitimated, or have professed solemn vows."

Concerning legitimacy, the book of baptisms makes full faith, which only manifest proof to the contrary can destroy.

2. From defect of body: "Those defective in body who cannot safely, because of weakness, or decently, because of deformity, discharge the ministry of the altar. Yet to impede the exercise of an order legitimately received, a graver defect is required, nor because of this defect are acts prohibited which can be duly placed."

Observe that by this irregularity the reception of any order and of first tonsure itself is prohibited, although the defect would impede only the exercise of a major order, for example the presbyterate. In estimating deformity, account must also be had of its cause, which, if it is noble and most honorable, such as war or hostile persecution, will effect this: that the use of the order by those mutilated in this way may rather conciliate greater reverence and consideration for the Church and the altar. Therefore the Holy See has granted ordination and celebration with liberal hand to several who in the recent war had to be called not lightly defective in body.

From the present head, irregular because of impotence are: those cut off in thumb or index finger, so that they cannot break the host with the customary fingers; much more the blind, the mute, those so deaf that they cannot hear the server responding, and those who tremble so much in the hands that they cannot celebrate without danger of spilling the Blood. Because of the decorum and dignity of the sacred function, those who, by a deficient or stained body, would generate horror or ridicule in spectators are irregular: those enormously hunchbacked, notably limping, stammering so much that they move laughter, indeed a man from whom the three posterior fingers have been taken away. Yet he, already a priest, is not bound to abstain from the sacred rite.

Certain men judged him irregular who lacked visual power of the left eye, the canonical eye, for reading the Missal through the Canon. But that opinion, destitute of foundation, can safely be abandoned. And since today a glass eye well fitted removes external deformity, not even from this head is a scruple to be introduced (cf. Noldin, IV, 665). He adds that judgment belongs to the Ordinary, either of the place or proper to an exempt religious, by which judgment, however, the ordaining bishop is not bound to stand. In doubt, the Ordinary can dispense.

A priest with failing sight, that is, one who cannot read except very large type, can obtain a dispensation for celebrating the votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the daily Mass of the dead, according to the norms recently promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 13, 1921 (A. A. S., XIII [1921], p. 154 ff.). Concerning these, note that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin must be read on all days on which Masses of the dead are not permitted; in that Mass the Gloria and Credo are to be said whenever they are to be said in the Mass of the occurring day; the Gospel at the end is always that of St. John. In the same instruction the Sacred Congregation of Rites admonishes that the conditions placed in the document of privilege oblige conscience. If in the privilege the clause is placed, "provided that the petitioner is not altogether blind," the man with failing sight who becomes blind must abstain from celebration until he has obtained a new indult; and when this has been obtained, "under grave obligation he is bound to use the assistance of another priest, although perhaps this obligation was not expressly placed in the indult" (cf. Epitome, II, n. 256).

— 3. From defect of mind: "Those who are or have been epileptic, insane, or possessed by a demon; but if after orders have been received they have become such and it is certainly established that they are now free, the Ordinary can again permit his subjects the exercise of the orders received."

Each part of the canon has been made more severe, insofar as it takes no account of healing before orders received; after orders received, it does not simply permit to those healed the exercise of orders, but establishes that the matter must be defined by the proper Ordinary, whether religious or local. Therefore whether perfect healing occurred before ordination, or, later than ordination, there was only imperfect healing, yet sufficient so that for fifteen days or a month or more it gives complete security, recourse will have to be made to the Holy See, whether for ordination or for use of the order. Remedies are also available today which remove all dangerous crises even from those not perfectly healed. Yet Noldin, III, 666, thinks that he is not judged irregular who before puberty has perfectly recovered from epilepsy, which, as he says, frequently happens. This irregularity is said to arise from defect of mind. Rightly indeed when it is a question of insanity; but why the epileptic are called deficient not in body but in mind seems to be attributed to the opinion once common which held epileptics as possessed, or demoniacs. The insane are irregular, even if they have lucid intervals. And those perfectly healed are forbidden to ascend to superior orders without faculty of the Holy See.

— 4. From defect of sacrament: "A bigamist, namely one who has contracted two or more valid marriages successively." The irregularity is of apostolic origin, at least as regards bishops, "let him be the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2 and 12), and is founded in this: that a bigamist, who has divided his flesh among several wives, can no longer perfectly represent the union of Christ with the Church.

Before the Code, a presumed marriage was said to suffice for this irregularity; and besides true bigamy, interpretative bigamy was recognized, which he contracted who had consummated a second marriage even invalid, or had led and known a widow not a virgin, or his own wife previously corrupted by another; and similitudinary bigamy, of him who, after a solemn vow of chastity, contracted and consummated a marriage, even invalid. These have happily been suppressed. Noldin, III, 667, with most, thinks that he is affected by irregularity who before baptism had led two wives, or one or the other: the reason of irregularity because of division of the flesh is had even then. The ancient interpretation also favors this opinion.

— 5. From defect of fame: "Those who are marked by infamy of law." Infamy of law, or legal infamy, is incurred by authority of law because of a delict, and is distinguished from infamy of fact, which supposes divulgation of a shameful crime. The canons themselves define the delicts which carry infamy of law with them. Infamy of law arises either from the fact itself, or from a sentence of law decreeing infamy. Infamy of fact does not effect irregularity but an impediment (cf. below, n. 719).

The following are marked with infamy of law by the fact itself: a) one who has given his name to a non-Catholic sect or has publicly adhered to it (c. 2314, §1, 3), which now according to the norm of the declaration of October 16, 1919, concerning candidates of religions (cf. Epitome iuris canonici, I, n. 527), can be restricted to those who have defected from the Catholic faith; b) one who has thrown away the consecrated species or taken them away or retained them for an evil end (c. 2320); c) one who has violated the corpses or sepulchers of the dead for theft or another evil end (c. 2328); d) one who has laid violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff, or of a Cardinal or Legate of the Supreme Pontiff (cc. 267 and 2343); e) duelists and their seconds (c. 2351); f) simultaneous bigamists, who, despite the conjugal bond, have attempted another marriage, even merely civil (c. 2356); g) laics legitimately condemned for delicts against the sixth commandment committed with minors under the age of sixteen years, or for rape, sodomy, incest, procuring (c. 2357, §1).

By sentence of a judge, clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who have admitted a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with minors under the age of sixteen years, or are guilty of adultery, rape, bestiality, sodomy, procuring, incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, are to be declared infamous (c. 2359, §2).

Today already, contrary to what was before, no one because of an alien delict, or the delict of one closely joined to him, becomes infamous (c. 2293, §4). Yet from the fact of family members or blood-relatives with whom he lives, a pastor can lose good estimation and for that reason be removed (c. 2147, §2, 3).

— 6. From defect of mildness: a) "the judge who has borne a sentence of death," if death has truly followed. Jurors, since they do not bear sentence, are immune from this irregularity. If the sentence was collegial, those judges alone are irregular who efficaciously induced it.

b) "those who have undertaken the office of executioner and their voluntary and immediate ministers in the execution of capital sentence." Such are not soldiers who, compelled, kill the guilty man: they have undertaken no office of executioner; nor their commander: he also, while he commands the killing, pronounces no sentence of death as judge; nor those who erect the scaffold: they are not immediate cooperators.

Therefore defect of mildness is restricted to few cases. Nor do soldiers who have fought in battle and killed enemies become irregular from this head.

Observe, however, that Christian mildness is understood, so that one who bore a sentence of death before baptism, etc., does not thereby become irregular (cf. Noldin, III, 670).

— Those irregular from delict are numbered in c. 985. Irregularity supposes: a) that the delict committed be a grave and external sin, public or occult; b) and this after baptism, if you except the delict of baptism received from a non-Catholic outside necessity.

— 1. Apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics.

An apostate is one who, after baptism, has totally withdrawn from the Catholic faith; a heretic, one who, preserving the name Christian, denies some one of the truths to be believed by divine and Catholic faith, or exteriorly affirms that it is doubtful, whether he has given his name to a sect or not; a schismatic, one who refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, and thus withdraws himself from Catholic communion.

Those who in good faith have been ascribed to a heretical sect are not irregular, but because of the presumption of the external forum they will have to be dispensed at least for caution before ordination, unless after conversion they have been baptized.

— 2. "Those who, except in the case of extreme necessity, have permitted baptism to be conferred on themselves by non-Catholics, in whatever manner."

By this new irregularity, the Code marks those who with grave sin of their own have asked or tolerated that non-Catholics, that is, heretics or schismatics, should minister baptism to them: in whatever manner baptism is ministered, that is, whether with the rites of the sect used, or without any special rite. Infidels do not strictly come under the name of non-Catholics; and when the Code uses the broader sense, it says "any non-Catholics whatsoever," for example in c. 1099, 2.

— 3. "Those who have dared to attempt marriage or to place only the civil act, either themselves bound by the matrimonial bond or by sacred order or by religious vows, even simple and temporary, or with a woman bound by the same vows or joined in marriage."

Those attempt marriage who, dissimulating an impediment, present themselves to the minister of the Church; those place the civil act who contract what they call civil marriage.

The words have dared, which excuse from penalty those laboring under non-affected ignorance (c. 2229, §§2, 3), here have no efficacy, since, from c. 988, ignorance does not excuse from irregularity. Yet not all delinquents of this kind become irregular, but only those who, bound by the bond of marriage or of some religious profession, even only temporary, or with a woman bound in either way, commit that delict. Therefore it can happen that the marriage by which irregularity is induced is validly celebrated. For temporary vows, and of themselves simple vows, do not dirim marriage. The excommunication laid down against a similar delict is less extensive than this irregularity, by which from that part the irregularity of similitudinary bigamy, now suppressed, is compensated. The irregularity is new insofar as it touches the attempt of marriage infected with adultery.

— 4. "Those who have perpetrated voluntary homicide or procured abortion of a human fetus, the effect having followed, and all cooperating."

Since we are engaged in a matter of restrictive interpretation, understand homicide as directly voluntary, and therefore with casual homicide excluded, and also homicide only indirectly voluntary, or badly permitted.

Soldiers who, in a probably just war, kill enemies become irregular neither from delict nor from defect of lenity. Wherefore clerics compelled to military service seem to contract no irregularity on account of legitimate acts of war. It must be said otherwise concerning those who voluntarily, and therefore illicitly, fought in the battle-line.

Therefore from the root cease the anxieties of those clerics who, in caring for a sick person, from imprudent handling, feared irregularity for themselves.

Both from the place where they are placed and from the interpretation of the old law, which we are commanded to follow in doubt, the words "the effect having followed and all cooperators" are to be referred to each case, of homicide and of abortion.

Yet positive cooperators are included only: by mandate, efficacious counsel, consent; but not negative cooperators, who did not impede the delict, although perhaps from justice itself they ought to have impeded it. For negative cooperation is cooperation less strictly so called; and negative cooperators already before the Code were said to be immune from this irregularity.

While it speaks of a human fetus, the canon sends off to merely historical disputes the distinction between male and female which they formerly urged in texts of law in which there was question of an animated fetus: for once they judged that the male fetus after forty days, but the female after eighty, was endowed with a rational soul.

— 5. "Those who have mutilated themselves or others, or have attempted to take life from themselves." Mutilation means the cutting off of a member; but member is understood as a part of the body endowed with a proper function: hand, not fingers; foot, eyes, tongue, testicles. For voluntary castration is especially touched.

What of one who from paired senses removes one or the other? According as they are commonly apprehended separately or only conjointly, the individual parts will be a member or only part of a member. Thus both nostrils constitute one nose. One who has rendered an eye useless is not guilty of mutilation, unless he also tears it out.

Mutilation can also induce deformity, and thence irregularity from defect.

— 6. "Clerics exercising the medical or surgical art forbidden to them, if death follows from it."

Therefore there are three conditions of this irregularity: it is necessary that the agent be a cleric, that he exercise medical or surgical art gravely sinful for himself, and that from this as from a cause, and not by occasion alone, death follow.

— 7. "Those who place an act of order reserved to clerics constituted in sacred order, either lacking that order, or prohibited from its exercise by canonical penalty, whether personal, medicinal or vindicative, or local."

The cause of the irregularity is usurpation of sacred order or of its exercise, committed by him who does not have that order, whether he was a layman or cleric, or by him who indeed has the order but is prohibited from its exercise because of a penalty. This penalty can be local: interdict; or personal, which is divided into medicinal, this is censure, and vindicative, this is borne for a definite time or in perpetuity, nor is it removed when contumacy ceases. While, before the Code, not a few theologians, contrary to most canonists, thought that irregularity was incurred only by violation of censure, c. 985, 7, connects irregularity with the violation of any penalty.

Yet it is permitted, not indeed that the proper parts of subdeacons be fulfilled by an inferior cleric, but that an inferior cleric, therefore at least tonsured, be seen to supply for a lacking subdeacon in solemn Mass. But this cleric can neither put on the maniple, nor at the offertory himself mix water with wine, nor after the consecration uncover the chalice, nor after Communion wipe the interior of the chalice. Yet we judge that those alone are marked by irregularity who with grave fault "would discharge every office of the subdiaconate," as Cerato says (Censurae, n. 161), "in solemn Mass with the vestments of a subdeacon," so that we think equally immune from irregularity those who illicitly have taken the maniple but have abstained from mixing water, etc., and those who have indeed done these things but without the maniple. Nor is he judged irregular who, without a stole, merely sings the Gospel. In the chant of the Lord's Passion it is also tolerated that, when a deacon is lacking, the third singer, acting the parts of the synagogue, not be a deacon.

They seem to us to speak less coherently who therefore excuse the cleric who without a maniple fulfills the parts of a subdeacon, because, since it is not a question of acts which are done invalidly by inferiors, only solemn ministration induces irregularity; but solemn ministration is not had without the maniple. For the same men pronounce irregular the subdeacon himself who without a stole acted as deacon in Mass.

Therefore, so that we may speak more briefly and more coherently, neither the office of subdeacon nor the office of deacon can be exercised by those who lack the order. Yet because of necessity a certain partial ministration of a subdeacon in Mass is tolerated.

But not only he who is not in sacred orders becomes irregular, but also a minister in sacred orders who exercises an order not his own. Therefore a subdeacon would become irregular who solemnly baptizes, or solemnly sings the Gospel with a stole; a deacon, who attempts sacramentally to absolve, but not a deacon who without due commission solemnly baptizes or distributes Communion, because these things in some way pertain to his order; a priest who solemnly exercises a pontifical function, but not one who, not approved, hears confessions, since he usurps merely jurisdiction, not order.

Observe also that irregularity is incurred only by violation of a penal prohibition. Thus, as Fr. Ferreres excellently notes, II, 1301 and 1306, one who in good faith was ordained by one excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted after declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or by a notorious apostate or non-Catholic, lacks the exercise of order until he is dispensed; one who after perpetual vows, even legitimately, departs from religion, is prohibited from exercising sacred orders until he has found a receiving bishop: these prohibitions can be violated without irregularity, although not without sin.

— 8. After the Code had been promulgated, the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, by the decree Redeuntibus, October 25, 1918, gave Ordinaries the faculty of dispensing, at least for caution, from the irregularity which was called from defect of mildness, priests or clerics who, compelled by law, had performed military service; but it ordered those who of their own accord had offered themselves for taking up arms to have recourse to the Holy See for dispensation.

As we said in Periodica, IX, p. 129, since irregularity from defect of mildness has been removed by the Code, excepting the few cases recited above, the former do not strictly need dispensation; yet the faculty given will not be useless, if perhaps by some extensive interpretation that irregularity is restored. The latter violated a grave obligation of their state and are affected by certain or only probable irregularity from delict, according as they have certainly or only probably killed. Their irregularity is reserved to the Holy See.

The same Sacred Congregation, by the decree Magni semper, December 30, 1918, concerning clerics migrating into certain regions, suspended ipso facto from divine things priests who without due license and dismissorial letters migrated rashly and arrogantly. When this suspension is contemned, they become irregular. This suspension and irregularity are reserved simply to the Holy See by the same decree (cf. Periodica, X, p. 38).

— From irregularities are distinguished simple impediments, which have a cause temporary by its nature.

"C. 987. The following are simply impeded:

1. "Children of non-Catholics, as long as the parents remain in their error." From the declaration of October 16, 1919, he is impeded of whom even only one parent is a non-Catholic. Nor do we think the impediment ceases by death, since the interpretation of the old law answers so severely. Formerly, at least from the paternal line, even grandchildren were said to be irregular. But today it stops in the first degree, as the Commission for interpreting the Code itself answered on July 14, 1922, to IX (cf. Periodica, XI, 124).

Contrary, however, to what Noldin seems to hold, III, 679, here again we understand non-Catholics strictly as baptized heretics or schismatics ascribed to some sect, or, as it is said, to a separated church. Under the previous law itself, writers treated only of descendants of heretics and schismatics. And the opinion of St. Alphonsus, VI, 363, remains probable, who exempted children born before the apostasy of parents who defected from the Catholic faith so as to adhere to a sect.

— 2. "Men having a wife." When the marriage has been dissolved, the impediment ceases. Otherwise, even after perpetual separation, a dispensation of the Holy See is needed so that a man can legitimately be ordained, even now to a minor order, or receive first tonsure. (In the national Council of the Armenians, held at Rome in 1911, they abstained from a formal prohibition. Cf. art. 737 of the Council, and Appendix XIV, n. IX.)

— 3. "Those who hold an office or administration forbidden to clerics, of which they must render an account, until, having laid down the office and administration, and having rendered accounts, they have become free."

Therefore not every administration, but only that which is forbidden to clerics according to what was said in n. 19 (from c. 139), induces this impediment.

It remains, however, even after the office has been resigned, until accounts have been rendered.

— 4. "Slaves by slavery properly so called, before liberty has been received."

— 5. "Those who are bound by civil law to ordinary military service, before they have completed it."

Ordinary military service, from the very description of the decree Inter reliquas, January 1, 1911 (Periodica, V, 280), is that service which those first called to military service must perform for one or several years. Therefore under this name are not included the annual exercises to which all are bound after the period of first service has been completed, or "after active service"; nor the extraordinary military services which they must perform in time of war. But, from the authentic declaration of June 2-3, 1918 (Periodica, IX, 149), those are impeded who perhaps will be called to perform military service but have not yet been called, whether because they are not of age, or because, after examination has been completed, they have been declared temporarily unfit.

Nor do they seem to us to undergo ordinary military service who, by the law itself, are compelled to undertake only the care of the sick (cf. Epitome, II, 259; Gen., II, 640).

— 6. "Neophytes until, in the judgment of the Ordinary, they have been sufficiently tested."

By neophytes are understood those who, converted to the faith in adult age, have recently been baptized; therefore not recently converted heretics whose baptism was probably valid. The impediment is founded in 1 Tim. 3:2-6: "It behooves therefore a bishop... to be... not a neophyte, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil."

— 7. "Those who labor under infamy of fact, as long as it endures, in the judgment of the Ordinary."

You should observe that it happens that even innocent persons are marked by infamy of fact. Therefore this infamy can be removed both by amendment of life and by demonstration of innocence. The proper Ordinary will be judge, yet in such a way that the ordaining bishop need not stand by that judgment.

— On multiple irregularity. "Irregularities and impediments are multiplied from their diverse causes, but not from the repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of irregularity from voluntary homicide" (c. 989).

Therefore he is not affected by multiple irregularity who has usurped an order not his own a hundred times; but he must be dispensed from multiple irregularity who has killed several men.

It is likely that abortion of a human fetus must be reckoned as homicide, since abortion is not said except of a living fetus. Yet because in c. 985, 4, abortion and homicide are numbered distinctly, and since it is not so certain concerning the moment of the infusion of the rational soul, the matter can be disputed. But that direct feticide comes under the name of homicide is not doubtful.

— On the faculty of dispensing. 1. The fullest faculty of dispensing from irregularities and impediments is in the hands of the Holy See. In occult cases all can have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. In public cases, recourse is made by seculars to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, by religious to the Sacred Congregation of Religious. The Congregations themselves, for graver cases, must approach the Supreme Pontiff. Very rarely is dispensation granted from irregularity from true bigamy; and (outside war) from irregularity from voluntary homicide which can be proved in court; and from irregularity from a very notable and apparent defect of body.

The petition must indicate the plurality of irregularities and impediments, if there were several; add the causes for dispensing; and bear the commendation of the proper Ordinary.

2. To no one is granted ordinary power of dispensing from certain irregularities from defect or from impediments. But in doubtful irregularities, when there is a doubt of fact, Ordinaries can dispense from c. 15, if it is a question of irregularities in which the Holy See is accustomed to dispense. And the same can provide for more urgent cases from c. 81.

3. Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates (Faculties n. 5) can dispense those already ordained from every irregularity arising both from delict and from defect, "provided that scandal does not arise therefrom nor an impediment be caused to divine things, with those always excepted of which in c. 985, n. 4 (voluntary homicide and abortion, with the effect having followed), and with previous abjuration in the hands of the absolver when it is a question of the crime of heresy or schism."

Ordinaries, by themselves or through another, can dispense their subjects from all irregularities arising from occult delict, except that which arises from voluntary homicide or abortion, or another brought to the judicial forum.

From the decree of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, Redeuntibus, October 25, 1918 (Periodica, IX, p. 214), local Ordinaries and religious Ordinaries can dispense their priests returning from military service if, in the judgment of the Master of Rubrics, they can perform with decorum the rites necessary in the sacred rite. If, however, rites of some moment must be omitted, or if there is need of an assisting priest, the Holy See must be approached, as for those who are not priests.

4. Their privileges remain to regulars, even those acquired by communication.

5. To all confessors is confirmed the faculty of dispensing in all irregularities arising from delict "in more urgent occult cases, in which the Ordinary cannot be approached and danger of grave harm or infamy is imminent, but only to this end, that the penitent may be able licitly to exercise orders already received" (c. 990. Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, September 6, 1909: A. A. S., I, 677). Voluntary homicide or abortion is excepted.

A confessor is a priest approved for hearing confessions; he can exercise the faculty even outside the act of confession, but only by himself, as it seems, although the words "the same faculty" admit a broader interpretation. Finally, after a dispensation has been given for exercising orders, no recourse to the Holy See or to the Superior is imposed.

Danger of infamy will often excuse from observing an irregularity from occult homicide or abortion; yet recourse must be had as soon as possible to the competent Superior, since the faculty given either to Ordinaries or to confessors does not extend to that irregularity.

No special formula of dispensation is required, so that a clear manifestation of the will suffices.

6. A general dispensation is invalid:

a) for irregularities or impediments concealed in bad faith;

b) for an irregularity from voluntary homicide or abortion concealed even in good faith, or for the number of these delicts.

A general dispensation to orders is valid also for major orders, and for non-consistorial benefices; but one thus dispensed cannot be nominated a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, bishop, abbot or Prelate nullius, or major Superior in an exempt clerical religion (c. 991).

"A dispensation conceded in the internal non-sacramental forum is to be committed to writing; and it must be recorded in the secret book of the Curia" (c. 991, §4): understand the curia of the proper Ordinary.

— I. Vocation to the priesthood is not universal, but by divine Providence those are called in such number as may suffice for the necessities of the Church. No one becomes a priest by his own will alone.

By the will of God consequent upon the ordination itself, as many are called as have duly been assumed by the Church. But by the antecedent will of the divine good pleasure, as many are called as, being suitable, seek that state with a sincere intention. To suitability belongs holiness of life already present; to sincerity, a will sufficiently spontaneous, or voluntary.

II. Any baptized person of the masculine sex can be validly ordained who, if adult, at least habitually wills it. One compelled by grave fear, unless, when the fear has been removed, he has expressly or tacitly ratified the ordination, and one who has been ordained as an infant, do not contract the obligations of the state.

III. Licit ordination requires a subject: a) in the state of grace, under grave obligation for orders which are sacraments; - b) immune from censure or impediment; - c) confirmed, yet not under grave obligation; - d) who has the intention of serving God through the order received, indeed, though this is not under grave obligation, through the priesthood; - e) who has the canonical age of 21 completed years for the subdiaconate, 22 completed years for the diaconate, 24 completed years for the presbyterate; - f) endowed with due knowledge. This is regularly to be acquired after two years given to philosophy, in schools instituted for that purpose; and four years are to be spent on theological studies.

First tonsure requires the theological course to have been begun; subdiaconate, the third year coming to an end; diaconate, the fourth year begun; presbyterate, the middle of the fourth year.

Concerning the very order to be received, all those to be ordained; those who are to be promoted to sacred orders must undergo an examination on the theological treatises themselves according to the judgment of the bishop to whom the ordination pertains.

The interstices also are to be observed; from these, however, for a just cause of public reason, the bishop can dispense even with religious. Yet unless centenary custom permits conjunction, first tonsure is to be given separately; nor can all minor orders be conferred together. But that minor orders be conferred with subdiaconate, or two sacred orders on one and the same day, an apostolic indult is required.

Those to be advanced to major orders must be provided with a canonical title, that is, a security, canonically admitted, concerning fitting and of itself perpetual support. The canonical title, for secular clerics, is a benefice, and, failing this, patrimony, or a pension. The title can be supplied by the title of service of the diocese, and, in places subject to the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, by the title of mission, provided that the one to be ordained, with an oath interposed, devotes himself perpetually to the service of the diocese or mission under the authority of the local Ordinary for the time being. For regulars there is the title of poverty; for religious of perpetual simple vows, the title of the common table, of the Congregation, or another similar title, according to the norm of the Constitutions.

IV. Irregularities. 1. Irregularity is a canonical impediment, of itself perpetual, which of itself primarily prohibits the reception of orders, and secondarily the exercise of the same (cc. 968, 983). Only those irregularities are in force which are expressed in the Code: some are from defect, others from delict; the latter affect even those ignorant of them, provided, however, that mortal delict has been committed.

2. Irregular from defect are: illegitimate persons, unless they have been legitimated or solemnly professed; those defective in body who cannot safely because of weakness, or decently because of deformity, discharge the ministry of the altar. (This irregularity is limited to acts upon which the reason falls, and a graver defect is required to impede exercise than to receive an order); those who are or have been epileptic or insane or possessed by a demon: if, however, after ordination they have become such and have certainly been freed, they can be admitted by the Ordinary to exercising orders; bigamists: those who have successively celebrated two or more valid marriages; those marked by infamy of law: the Code defines the delicts with which infamy of law is conjoined either by the fact itself or by sentence of a judge; a judge who has borne a sentence of death, if it has been completed by execution; those who have undertaken the office of executioner or have been his voluntary and immediate ministers in the execution of a capital sentence.

3. Irregular from delict are: apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics, those who outside extreme necessity have permitted baptism to be conferred on themselves by non-Catholics; those married or bound by sacred order or religious vows, even temporary, who have dared to attempt marriage or place the civil act, or those who have contracted with such persons; those guilty of voluntary homicide or abortion, the effect having followed, and all positive cooperators; those who have mutilated themselves or others or have attempted to take life from themselves; clerics exercising the medical or surgical art forbidden to them, if death has followed from it; those who usurp sacred order or its exercise, whether they have not received that order, or are prohibited from its exercise because of a penalty. To a tonsured cleric, on account of necessity, a partial ministration of a subdeacon in Mass is permitted.

V. Impediments. These by their nature have a temporary cause; when this has been removed, they will cease without dispensation.

Impeded are: children of non-Catholic parents, as long as they remain in their error; married men, while the marriage endures; those holding an office or administration forbidden to clerics, until, after the office or administration has been resigned, accounts have been rendered; slaves, before liberty has been received; those bound by civil law to ordinary military service, before they have completed it; neophytes, until, in the judgment of the Ordinary, they have been sufficiently tested; those laboring under infamy of fact, as long as, with the Ordinary as judge, the infamy perseveres.

Irregularities and impediments are multiplied from their diverse causes, but not from repetition of the same cause, unless it is an irregularity from voluntary homicide.

VI. Dispensation. 1. Interpretation. A general dispensation is not valid for irregularities and impediments concealed in bad faith, nor for voluntary homicide or abortion concealed even in good faith, or for the number of homicides, or another delict brought to the judicial forum.

A general dispensation to orders is valid also for major orders and for non-consistorial benefices. Yet the one dispensed cannot become a major Superior in an exempt clerical religion.

Conceded in the internal non-sacramental forum, it is to be committed to writing, and it must be recorded in the secret book of the Curia.

2. Faculty of dispensing: a) the Supreme Pontiff uses his full faculty through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, and, if it is a question of religious, through the Sacred Congregation of Religious. In occult cases all can have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary; b) Ordinaries can dispense in doubtful irregularities, when there is doubt of fact, in which the Holy See is accustomed to dispense; they can also provide for more urgent cases; c) from every irregularity, except voluntary homicide and abortion, with the effect having followed, those already ordained can be dispensed by a Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate. Ordinaries can by themselves or through another dispense from irregularities arising from occult delict, except homicide, voluntary abortion with the effect having followed, and a case brought to the judicial forum; and they can dispense their priests returning from military service, even from irregularity from defect; d) excepting homicide and voluntary abortion, all confessors, where there is danger of grave harm or infamy, can, if the Ordinary cannot be approached, dispense in more urgent occult cases so that the penitent may licitly exercise orders already received.

We shall treat 1. of irregularities in general, and then of irregularities in particular, namely, 2. of irregularities from defect, 3. of irregularities from delict. Certain things concerning impediments to ordination are added.

Here it comes to be said: 1. On Irregularities in general; 2. On the diverse Irregularities.

Four things are to be weighed: 1. what irregularity is, and of how many kinds; 2. what its effects are; 3. how it is incurred; 4. how it ceases.

1927. DEFINITION. Irregularity is a canonical impediment prohibiting the reception of sacred Orders and the use of Orders received.²⁸

It is called an impediment or a certain incapacity, but not a censure, because the latter always supposes fault and has the nature of a medicinal penalty; but irregularity does not always suppose fault; and if sometimes it is imposed by way of penalty, this is done primarily for preventing indecency in the sacred ministry, but secondarily for punishing the guilty one. Thus commonly.

DIVISION. There are various irregularities:

1. Irregularity is called from defect or from delict, according as it is imposed by law, either on account of defects alone bringing indecency to the sacred ministry, or on account of certain delicts, because of which the reception or exercise of Order is prohibited. But since irregularity from delict has been instituted principally for the decorum of the clerical state, it is resolved in a certain way into irregularity from defect; for one ensnared by it is destitute of that quality which the Apostle requires of those to be ordained, namely that they be without crime.

2. Irregularity is total or partial. - The former excludes from the reception of every Order and from every exercise of an Order received; the latter impedes some ministry of Order, or ascent to a higher Order.

3. Irregularity is perpetual or temporal. - Perpetual of itself always lasts, unless it is removed by dispensation. - Temporal lasts only to some time, which having elapsed, it ceases of itself: as irregularity from defect of age, which, when the time required for Orders has been completed, vanishes.²⁹

1928. The EFFECTS of irregularity are the following:

1. Incapacity for LICITLY RECEIVING Orders, even first Tonsure; for he prepares himself in vain for Orders, who is prohibited from Orders. - Hence both the irregular himself, who receives an Order, and the Bishop, who confers on him an Order or even tonsure alone, sin gravely.³⁰

2. Incapacity for EXERCISING sacred Orders; whence, an irregular validly indeed, but illicitly, confects or administers the Sacraments. Nor indeed is he deprived "of those actions which do not require the exercise of Order, and which laymen also can exercise, for example to receive the Sacraments, and to sing the Offices, as also to confer Benefices; because these things pertain to the exercise of jurisdiction, not of Order; likewise to assist at Marriage, or to furnish another the license of assisting, to dispense in vows, to absolve from censures, to give the faculty of hearing confessions.³¹

3. Incapacity for receiving Benefices; for a Benefice is given on account of some office; but an irregular is incapable for the office; therefore also for Benefices, which require that office. - Trent agrees (sess. 22, cap. 4, de ref.). Except, if the Benefice had been received in good faith: in which case it would be licit, after dispensation has been obtained, to retain it. Hence "as to benefices obtained before irregularity, it is certain among all that an irregular is not deprived of them; nor is he to be deprived by a judge, if the irregularity supervened on him from the defect of infirmity. But if it is from delict, he must be deprived by sentence of the judge."³² Indeed, meanwhile he must now resign, or obtain dispensation, because no one can retain a benefice whose burdens he cannot licitly exercise³³ (cf. n. 2239, 6).

You will ask. Whether the conferral of a benefice made to an irregular is null by the law itself?

Resp. It is controverted. Some, from the more common and therefore more probable interpretation of the Council of Trent (sess. 14, de ref., cap. 7, and sess. 22, cap. 4), affirm. - But others deny with sufficient probability, saying that the conferral is indeed illicit and to be invalidated by a judge, but not invalid.

Hence it follows: 1. An irregular man and one incapable of the duties of a benefice cannot put himself into possession of it; for no one can with a probable (or little more probable) opinion begin possession of another's thing. - 2. If nevertheless he received the benefice in good faith, and satisfied the burdens through others, he is not bound (on account of the contrary probability) to restitution of the fruits received.¹

1929. Principles. I. No irregularity is incurred unless it is EXPRESSED IN LAW, that is, in a decree of the Supreme Pontiff, or in a general Council. This is clearly established from cap. Is qui, 18, de sent. excom., in 6.²

Hence: 1. Irregularity is incurred by the law itself or by the fact itself, before the sentence of a judge; and also, according to the truer opinion, on account of an occult defect, or occult crime.³ 2. In this matter, an argument from similar to similar does not avail, nor from the greater to the lesser. "But IN DOUBT whether some irregularity is or is not expressed in law, one must stand by the common sense of the Doctors and by custom."⁴

II. Irregularity FROM DEFECT is always incurred, while the defect expressed in law stands. The reason is, because an irregularity of this sort does not have the nature of a penalty, but only of an impediment; and therefore ignorance and inculpability do not excuse from incurring it.⁵

III. Irregularity FROM DELICT is incurred only through grave, external, and consummated fault. - The reason is, both because a grave penalty requires grave fault; and because the Church does not punish merely internal acts, but only external ones, and these consummated, unless it is expressed otherwise in law. - Hence, if the act on account of some circumstance is excused from mortal sin, it is likewise excused from irregularity.⁶ - Recall what was said in nn. 1263 and 1769.

1930. Questions. Q. 1. Whether, for incurring irregularity FROM DELICT, KNOWLEDGE OF THE ecclesiastical LAW prohibiting is required?

Resp. "The more probable and very common opinion affirms:... because such an irregularity has the nature of a penalty; and since it is a penalty, knowledge at least of the prohibiting law is required. And this is proved from can. Proposuisti, dist. 82, where Innocent I decreed that certain incontinent Clerics were not to be deposed, because they were ignorant of the Constitution of Pope Siricius."⁷ - Yet crass or supine ignorance does not excuse, as all admit (cf. nn. 219-220).

Q. 2. Whether knowledge OF THE PENALTY, or of the irregularity itself, is also required?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion. The first, very probable, denies; because irregularity is not a medicinal penalty, but is an incapacity, or a merely punitive penalty: wherefore, it suffices that such a penalty has been imposed by law on that forbidden act, which the guilty one now commits knowingly and culpably, although he is ignorant of the penalty. - The second, sufficiently probable, affirms; and the reason is, because irregularity from delict is a true penalty, and indeed extraordinary, which cannot be foreseen even confusedly, and therefore it is not judged to be incurred by one ignorant.⁸ (Cf. n. 220.)

Hence however,

Q. 3. What is to be done IN DOUBT concerning contracted irregularity?

Resp. 1. If a positive doubt arises, or one resting on grave reasons, the doubter must apply prudent diligence to investigate the truth; and meanwhile conduct himself as if he were irregular, namely lest he expose himself to the danger of violating irregularity. - Except with the Salmanticenses,⁹ "if grave necessity urges, namely if an occasion occurs of receiving Orders, or a Benefice."¹⁰

Resp. 2. If a negative doubt is given; or if, after sufficient diligence has been applied, a positive doubt on each side, or truly suspensive doubt, remains: then, whether the doubt is of law, namely if it is doubted whether an irregularity is or is not assigned by law for such a case; or of fact, that is, if it is doubted whether the crime designated in law was truly committed: from the common and truer opinion, no one ought to hold himself as irregular; both because odious things are to be restricted, and because in doubt no one is to be despoiled of his right.¹¹

Except, if someone doubts whether he has perpetrated HOMICIDE; for this case is expressly declared in law,¹² where it is read: "Since it is more advisable in a doubt of this sort to abstain, than to celebrate rashly." But it must be noted 1) that this runs when someone is certain concerning the homicide, e.g., concerning the abortion of a certainly animated fetus (cf. n. 744, q. 4), and only doubts whether he himself by his action (of itself deadly) was its cause. But if he doubts concerning the homicide itself, whether it followed or not: in that case, according to a very probable opinion, he is not to be judged irregular.¹³ - It must be noted 2) that this irregularity, which binds clerics alone, is not to be extended to all effects, but to the sole incapacity of celebrating, and to the obligation of seeking dispensation.¹⁴

1931. Irregularity is removed in four ways:

1. By CESSATION OF THE CAUSE, if it comes, e.g., from defect of age, knowledge, good fame, etc. - Concerning irregularity from defect of good fame it must be noted, that if the infamy is popular, it is removed by amendment; provided this, universally speaking, has lasted for at least three years. If it is of fact, it is removed by change of place; but if it is of law, or contracted through the sentence of a judge, dispensation is altogether required for removing it¹⁵ (cf. n. 1199).

2. By BAPTISM, if the irregularity is from delict, although the delict were homicide; otherwise, if it is from defect, e.g., if it comes from bigamy. But also irregularity from defect of fame is removed by Baptism, namely if it is infamy of fact. But if the infamy is of law, dispensation is required, as was said; although Bonacina holds that this also is removed by Baptism, and the Salmanticenses hold this not improbable.¹⁶

3. By RELIGIOUS PROFESSION, if the irregularity is from defect of birth. But it is removed only to the effect that sacred Orders can be received, not however that prelacies can be obtained, unless dispensation intervenes¹⁷ (cf. n. 2150, q. 2).

4. By DISPENSATION, which can be given by: - 1) THE SUPREME PONTIFF, in every irregularity induced by human law. To obtain a dispensation of this sort, recourse must be had, for the external forum, to the Datary, if the irregularity is public; and for the internal forum, to the S. Penitentiary, if it is occult. 2) THE BISHOP, either by himself, or through his Vicar specially deputed to this, in every irregularity coming from an occult delict, and not brought to the contentious forum; with the exception, however, of directly voluntary homicide. Thus from Trent, cap. Liceat (cf. n. 1280, 2). - Nor can the Bishop dispense in irregularity from defect, except with illegitimates, for minor Orders, or for a simple Benefice, to which sacred Order is not annexed;¹⁸ or with bigamists, in merely similitudinary bigamy, for Orders whether minor or major;¹⁹ or finally if some defect is doubtful. If the Bishop can do anything else, he has it either from special privilege (e.g., from the quinquennial Faculties, in App. I, § I, n. 13); or from ancient custom, only in a case of urgent necessity, according to what was said n. 234, 2. 3) A REGULAR PRELATE, from the privilege of Martin V and Benedict XIII, can dispense, in many cases, with his subjects, as we shall see in the Treatise on the Religious State (n. 2187, 3).

1932. Concerning these things LET IT BE NOTED: 1. In seeking dispensation, all things must be declared which the rules established by the Holy See for this purpose require (cf. n. 236).

2. He who is compelled to seek dispensation of several irregularities must recount them all and individually in his supplicatory libellus. - "If nevertheless someone has contracted several irregularities of the same species, for example if he has ministered several times with a censure, it then suffices for obtaining dispensation, if he says that he has fallen into them several times; indeed (several Authors) teach that it suffices if he says only that he is irregular on account of such fault."²⁰

3. In granting dispensation, no special FORMULA is prescribed; hence, indiscriminately, the following or any other can be used: "I dispense with you in the irregularity which (or in the irregularities which), on account of this or that cause, you have incurred."²¹

4. Absolution from censures and sins can be received, without a dispensation from irregularities being received at the same time; and conversely a dispensation from irregularities can be granted without absolution from censures and sins. But an irregular can never be absolved who with a pertinacious mind wishes to pursue the reception of Orders or the exercise of those already received, before he has obtained the dispensation which the law requires.²²

See more among the Canonists.²³

Fourteen irregularities are recounted: of these, eight come from defect, and six from delict.

1933. These come from defect 1. of soul, 2. of body, 3. of birth, 4. of age, 5. of Sacrament, 6. of good fame, 7. of liberty, 8. of mildness.

I. From defect of SOUL the following are irregular:

1. Those who at times lack the use of reason: as the demented, lunatics, the insane, epileptics, and energumens; although they have lucid intervals. Nevertheless, the exercise of Orders already received is more easily permitted than the reception of new ones. Thus, e.g., a priest who rarely, say once in a month, is seized by epilepsy, can celebrate privately and with a fasting priest joined to him, provided he is not accustomed suddenly to fall to the ground, nor to foam, nor to cry out. And this same thing must be said concerning energumens and lunatics.¹

2. Those who lack necessary knowledge, either actually, because they are illiterate and lacking that erudition which the Order to be received requires; or radically, on account of weakness of mind, which prevents them from being imbued with sufficient doctrine. - This irregularity is not only of human law, but also of divine law, which evidently teaches that the office is to be denied to those by whom it cannot be sustained² (see n. 1914).

3. Those who lack sufficiently proved faith, that is, neophytes or those recently baptized in adult age. For those who have scarcely been made disciples would incongruously be constituted masters of the faith, as the Apostle intimates (1 Tim. 3:6). Therefore they remain irregular, until they are judged suitable by the Bishop. Toletus thinks that after ten years from conversion they are no longer irregular.³

1934. II. From defect of BODY those are held irregular who, on account of a bodily vice, either are incapable for the exercise of Order, or bear before themselves notable indecency and bring horror upon others.

1. FROM THE FIRST head the following are irregular: 1) The blind, totally lacking sight: likewise, those lacking the canonical eye, i.e., the left eye, unless with the right eye, without deformity, they can read the Canon: which is to be subjected to the judgment of the Bishop. But the blind, already initiated in the priesthood, can be dispensed by the Pontiff for celebrating, if it is established that they do not err in celebration, and if they also have an assisting priest.⁴ 2) The deaf, who do not hear at all. If nevertheless deafness supervenes on a priest, celebration of Mass is permitted to him, since defects are more easily tolerated in one already promoted. - 3) The mute, who cannot speak, or only with great difficulty. But those who stammer, or lack teeth, are not irregular, unless they move the laughter or contempt of those standing by: which rarely happens.⁵ - 4) The lame, who cannot stand without a staff, or who use a wooden foot. But the lame who do not need a staff, or who have only distorted legs, are not irregular, and can be ordained, unless there is in them great deformity, which cannot be covered. - And after Ordination, if the defect is slight, and in some way the indecency can be repaired, celebration can be permitted by the judgment of the Bishop.⁶ - 5) Those lacking a hand, or all fingers, or the three posterior fingers, or the thumb.⁷ One lacking the index finger can obtain dispensation.⁸ 6) All who habitually labor under such a disease that they cannot celebrate without proximate danger of fainting, or of notably erring: of this sort are those who have hands so tremulous that there is danger of spilling the Blood; likewise, those who suffer so great a cough that danger is present in receiving Communion; likewise, abstainers who so abhor wine that, although they take little, they incur the danger of vomiting. With these, not even the Pope can dispense.⁹

2. FROM THE SECOND head the following are irregular: 1) Those lacking a nose, or some bodily member, so that they move laughter or horror. 2) Lepers, or those who have the face deformly marked by disease. (If they have already been ordained, scandal being removed, they can celebrate privately.) 3) Monstrous persons: such as the enormously or deformly hunchbacked are commonly held to be; pygmies and giants, of whom the former move laughter, the latter a certain terror; Ethiopians, who in our regions would excite a certain horror if they habitually exercised the ministry; hermaphrodites, i.e., individuals who are of doubtful sex; and, although the male sex prevails in them, if their defect is known.¹⁰

Concerning defects of body it must be NOTED: 1. In doubt whether a defect induces irregularity, the matter is to be remitted to the Bishop, who can pronounce; and, if the vice seems slight, he can also dispense from custom. 2. If the defect supervenes before the reception of Order, it induces irregularity absolutely, not only for that Order whose exercise it impedes, but also for all other Orders. For since all refer themselves to the Priesthood, it follows that one excluded from the Priesthood is also excluded from the other Orders. - 3. But if the defect supervenes when Orders have already been received, a priest is not impeded from the acts of that Order which he can exercise without indecency: e.g., a blind or lame priest can hear confessions, sing the Gospel, etc.¹¹

1935. III. From defect of BIRTH all illegitimate sons are irregular, even occult ones. And this has been established by the Church, both on account of danger of incontinence from paternal imitation, and on account of hatred of the paternal crime, and so that the memory of paternal incontinence may be kept very far away from places consecrated to God.¹² Moreover, here illegitimates are reputed to be not only those who were born from fornication, incest, or adultery, but also those born from a marriage which, the proclamations having been omitted without dispensation, was celebrated with a diriment impediment, although unknown to the spouses.¹³

Nor indeed are irregular: 1. Those illegitimately born from a public marriage, but one invalid on account of an occult impediment, unknown at least to one party.¹⁴ - 2. Those born from infidels, whose marriage was valid according to nature, although invalid according to canon law.¹⁵ - 3. Exposed children, concerning whose parents there is no certainty.¹⁶

In doubt concerning the legitimacy of birth, no one is judged irregular. - Hence the S. C. of the Council, June 27, 1857, responded that a certain man did not need dispensation, who appeared to have arisen from a legitimate marriage both from the parish books and from the civil state, although a grave doubt concerning his legitimacy was pressing, because public fame, and his parents themselves, affirmed that he was adulterine, that is, born from a free father and a married mother.¹⁷

Irregularity from defect of birth IS REMOVED: 1. By legitimation, which is made either through a Rescript of the Pontiff, in every case and as to all effects of legitimation for the forum of the Church; or through the subsequent marriage of the parents, provided at the time of conception (or at least of birth, according to a very probable opinion) they could validly have contracted, and it is not a question of elevation to the Cardinalate. 2. By religious profession; and 3. by legitimate dispensation, namely of the Pontiff for sacred Orders and Dignities; of the Bishop for minor Orders and a simple Benefice; as was said n. 1931, 3 and 4.¹⁸

1936. IV. From defect of AGE, those are held irregular who have not reached the canonical age for the individual Orders (cf. n. 1918). Those who knowingly receive an Order before the canonical age sin gravely; but today, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, they no longer incur suspension, and therefore, if they exercise the Order, they do not incur another irregularity.¹⁹

1937. V. From defect of SACRAMENT, or from BIGAMY, irregularity arises, as is established from the title De bigamis, and is inferred from the words of the Apostle (1 Tim. 3:2): "A Bishop ought to be the husband of one wife." They assign as reason, that he who has married two wives cannot aptly signify the union of Christ with the Church, His one spouse.²⁰ - A threefold bigamy is DISTINGUISHED: true, similitudinary, and interpretative.

1. TRUE bigamy exists in him who has contracted valid marriage with two successively, and in each case has consummated it (cf. n. 2027).

2. SIMILITUDINARY bigamy exists in him who, after the emission of a solemn vow, whether of Religion or of sacred Order, has contracted and consummated marriage (although null, or even only civil). The reason is, because such a one, by the fiction of law, is judged to have contracted two marriages, one spiritual, the other carnal. But this irregularity seems to be from delict, and it matters nothing whether he contracted with a corrupted woman or with a virgin (cf. n. 1348).

3. INTERPRETATIVE bigamy exists in him who, by a certain interpretation of law, is judged to have had two wives, although in reality he has not had them.²¹ This happens in four ways: 1) when someone has married and known a widow already known by her former husband, even if he married invalidly; - 2) when he has married and known a woman corrupted by another or a fornicator, even if he believed her to be a virgin, and although he contracted invalidly; - 3) when he has known his own wife after her adultery, although occult, or extorted, or unknown, because then he is judged as if he had married a corrupted woman; - 4) when he has contracted and consummated two invalid marriages, or one valid and another invalid: for then there is present an affection toward two marriages, at least outwardly entered. - Nor in all these things does good faith exempt from the law; for the present irregularity, according to the more common opinion, does not come from delict, but from defect of the signification of the Sacrament.²²

St. Alphonsus denies that one is irregular who has married a woman previously corrupted by himself.²³ - But neither is the layman irregular who has entered marriage with a nun, even solemnly professed; and the reason is, because the laws speak only of one contracting after his own vow.²⁴ Nor similarly do betrothals with several induce irregularity, even if copulation followed; nor fornication, nor adultery, nor ratified marriage with several. - See more among the Canonists.²⁵

1938. VI. From defect of GOOD FAME irregularity is contracted, according to that saying of the law: "Let not the gates of dignities lie open to the infamous." Likewise from can. Infames, caus. 6, q. 1. - A twofold infamy is distinguished, namely of law and of fact.

Infamy of law is contracted in two ways: 1. from juridical confession of an enormous crime, which either ecclesiastical law or civil law has marked with infamy; 2. from a judge's sentence, whether declaratory of the crime or condemning to infamous penalties, e.g., to the galleys, although the sentence issued had rested on false testimonies. And this irregularity indeed impedes both the reception and the exercise of Order, until dispensation is granted in it, or until fame is restored to the guilty one through another sentence.

Infamy of fact is contracted before every sentence: 1. From the notoriety of some enormous crime, which has become known to the greater part of the neighborhood or college (where there are at least ten), so that it can now be concealed by no evasion; 2. from certain notorious and enormous crimes of parents. - This irregularity altogether impedes the reception of sacred Order; but as to the exercise of Order, the Bishop can dispense in it, if the crimes are less than adultery, and the guilty one has done penance. It is also removed through Baptism and through notorious amendment, e.g., of three years (cf. n. 1931).²⁶

IT IS ASKED. What are the CRIMES to which infamy is annexed by law?

Resp. They are the following: "Homicide, perjury made in judgment, heresy, simony, the crime of lese-majesty, sodomy, adultery, pandering (base gain from the adultery of one's wife), treason, robbery, the exercise of usury, invasion of Cardinals or Bishops. Likewise, abduction of women, or cooperation in it, duel, preparation of arms against parents, etc. Likewise, the exercise of an actor with base representations;"²⁷ and other notorious crimes which, the circumstances being attended to, render a man of vile and abject estimation among the pious and prudent.²⁸ But the crimes of parents, whose infamy redounds upon children born after the delict, are the crime of lese-majesty, the prostitution of the mother, and notorious heresy, concerning which see nn. 1945 and 442.

1939. VII. From defect of LIBERTY, the following are declared irregular in various chapters of Law:

1. Slaves properly so called, or bondsmen, until they obtain full liberty.²⁹

2. Married men, on account of the bond of marriage. Nevertheless, a man can be ordained: 1) if on account of the wife's adultery a juridical divorce has been made; for in this case, he has been withdrawn from her right in perpetuity; 2) if the wife expressly and freely consents, and at the same time vows perpetual chastity. Indeed, the wife is altogether bound to enter Religion: 1) if the husband is assumed to the Episcopate; 2) if he becomes a Religious, and she is young.³⁰

3. Courtiers, or those who by obligation of oath or stipend serve the Courts of Princes: such as Judges, Advocates, soldiers, etc., as long as they discharge such office. - Except, if they have obtained at least tacit license from the Pontiff or from custom: as are certain clerics, occupied in the courts of princes in civil causes, not however criminal causes.³¹

4. Those bound to render accounts; as public treasurers, depositaries, magistrates, etc.: all of whom cannot be ordained unless their accounts have been rendered and their office laid down. - Nevertheless, administrators of pious places are not to be numbered among these, as is established from canon law.³²

1940. VIII. From defect of MILDNESS those are irregular who, after Baptism, voluntarily, actively, efficaciously, and proximately concur in the death or mutilation of someone, although justly and from public authority, through an action ordered by its nature to this. "This the Church has therefore established, because the priest bears the person of Christ, who, as most mild, never injured anyone."³³ If such concurrence were unjust, there would be irregularity from delict (cf. n. 1946).

This irregularity is contracted both in JUDGMENT, and in WAR, and in the exercise of the MEDICAL art.

1. In JUDGMENT they become irregular, the effect having followed: Judges pronouncing a sentence, although just, of death or mutilation (unless they have a privilege, as Inquisitors of the faith, and their Officials); Counselors and assessors, who cooperate by their counsel or vote; accusers or denouncers seeking vindication of a capital crime, although they protest that they do not wish the penalty of death, since the protestation is contrary to the fact; voluntary witnesses, although they preface the same or a similar protestation; voluntary advocates and procurators against the accused; notaries writing, subscribing, or dictating the sentence; executioners, lictors, and all ministers executing the same sentence of death or mutilation.³⁴ Whether jurors, e.g., in France, in Italy, become irregular is controverted; it is more probable that they are to be assimilated to compelled witnesses.³⁵

2. IN AN UNJUST WAR (if nevertheless the injustice is established) all soldiers become irregular, even if only one man is killed; but that irregularity is from delict (see n. 1946). In a just merely defensive war no one becomes irregular, just as neither is he to be called irregular who mutilates or kills an aggressor in inculpable defense of life, chastity, or even of neighbor.³⁶ In a just offensive war all those become irregular who mutilate or kill by their own hand; likewise, clerics in Sacred Orders, or beneficiaries, who of their own accord have given their name to military service (in which they sin gravely), and at some time have used a gun in some conflict, although they should swear that no one was injured by themselves.³⁷

Nor indeed do the following contract irregularity: the legislator establishing a capital law; a cleric exhorting men to fight bravely in a just war, to punish the guilty, etc.; a theologian resolving speculatively a case of war; a confessor exhorting the guilty one to ascend the ladder of punishment, or to submit his head to the blow; a cleric, assisting from curiosity at the punishment of the guilty one, although he sins venially, at least if he is in Sacred Orders; a compelled witness; an accuser civilly seeking compensation for damage to himself or to his relatives up to the fourth degree, even in a criminal cause, provided he protests, at least externally, that he wishes neither vindication nor death.¹

3. In the exercise of the MEDICAL ART, clerics in Sacred Orders incur irregularity, as also monks, who heal (outside the case of true necessity) with burning or incision, if death is notably accelerated from this or mutilation follows; although they are skilled in the art and apply every diligence.²

Nevertheless, more truly, clerics constituted in minor Orders do not contract this irregularity, although they are beneficiaries; for penalties are not to be extended to cases not expressed in law.³ - Nor do these things regard lay physicians or surgeons, if they operate according to the rules of their art, as Benedict XIV says.⁴ Nevertheless, the usage is that, for caution, even as to these, dispensation is sought, if perchance they at some time had culpably offended in their art.⁵ - See other things n. 1946.

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

1754. Definition. - Irregularity, strictly taken, is a canonical impediment prohibiting someone from being enrolled in the Clergy, or ascending to a higher Order, or exercising the functions of an Order received.

It is said: 1° an impediment. Hence irregularity differs from censures, from deposition, and from degradation especially under this head, because censures, deposition, and degradation always suppose fault and have the character of a penalty; but irregularity does not always suppose fault, and, if sometimes it is imposed by way of penalty, this is done only secondarily, and not for punishing the guilty party, but for guarding against indecency in the Sacred Ministry.

It is said: 2° canonical. See n. 1756.

It is said: 3° prohibiting; for irregularities, as constituted by the authority of the Church alone, do not impede the reception or exercise of Orders as regards validity. Hence an irregular priest, although illicitly, nevertheless validly absolves, etc.¹

It is said: 4° from being enrolled in the Clergy, although only through Tonsure.²

It is said: 5° or the functions of an Order received. Wherefore those things are not forbidden which can be done by laymen or without Order, as to sing in Church; to receive the Sacraments, if you except Order; to confer benefices; to assist at Matrimony; to dispense in vows; to absolve from censures, etc.³

1755. Division. - Irregularity is distinguished in many ways:

1° Irregularity from defect or from delict, according as it arises from certain defects expressed in Law, or is contracted from certain delicts determined in Law.

2° Total or partial irregularity, according as it excludes from every Order (even from Tonsure), and from the use of the Order, and - indirectly and consequently - from every ecclesiastical benefice, or only bars from some one of these.

3° Perpetual or temporary irregularity, according as of itself it always lasts unless it is removed by dispensation, or by other modes to be determined below; or it lasts only to some time, and afterward ceases without any dispensation. Thus irregularity from defect of age vanishes when the time required for Orders has been completed.

1756. Principles. - I. No irregularity is ever incurred, unless it has been expressed in Canon Law, i.e., in a decree of the Pope or of a Council approved by the Pope.¹ Hence: 1° irregularity ab homine is not admitted; 2° irregularity is incurred ipso facto before every sentence of a judge, and even on account of an occult defect or crime;² 3° arguments from parity, or even a fortiori, do not avail in this matter;³ 4° custom cannot introduce it; custom, however, as the best interpreter of laws, can confirm it in doubt whether it is expressed in Law, provided the common sense of the Doctors is added.⁴

II. Irregularity from defect is always incurred while the defect remains; because it does not have the character of a penalty, but the character of a mere impediment. But irregularity from delict is not incurred without fault, and indeed grave fault, because, although the end of irregularity is not to punish or correct the guilty, nevertheless it is not contracted except by reason of a properly voluntary and truly grave delict. Besides, the fact to which an irregularity from delict is annexed must be external and consummated in its own kind; likewise committed after the seventh year of age.¹

1757. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether for incurring irregularity from delict, besides knowledge of the divine law, knowledge of the ecclesiastical law prohibiting it is required?

Resp. It is more probable and very common that it is. The reason is that this irregularity has the character of a penalty.² Nevertheless except homicide, on account of the particular indecency which it induces.³

Quaer. 2° Whether knowledge of the penalty, or of the irregularity, is also required, if there is question of delict?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

The first, very probable, denies, because irregularity is not a medicinal penalty, but an inability, or a merely punitive penalty.

The second, sufficiently probable, affirms. The reason is that irregularity from delict is judged a true penalty, and indeed an extraordinary one, imposed in vindication of a crime, although its primary effect is to constitute an inability. Moreover, where so great a penalty is inflicted, the Church is not judged to proceed with such rigor that it is incurred by him who is ignorant of it.⁴

Quaer. 3° Whether you are judged irregular in doubt whether you have incurred irregularity?

Resp. 1° No, in doubt of law, or in doubt whether such a case is subject to a law establishing irregularity. Thus almost all Theologians. The reason is that, where doubt is present, this irregularity is not certainly expressed in Law. Therefore, etc. Besides, odious things are to be restricted.⁵

Resp. 2° In doubt of fact, distinguish: either there is doubt concerning homicide, or concerning another delict. If the former, more truly you have incurred irregularity, on account of the special indecency which is found in homicide, as is gathered from Law. Yet this does not hold concerning doubt whether homicide followed (e.g., abortion), but concerning doubt whether, when it truly followed, it followed from a cause certainly posited and of itself death-dealing; for then from things commonly occurring it must be presumed that death followed from such a cause, and not from another. Moreover, an irregularity of this kind produces only two effects, namely the obligation of abstaining from celebration and of seeking dispensation, and therefore it holds Clerics only, not laymen. - If the latter, more truly you have not incurred it, because in doubt no one is to be condemned.¹

Quaer. 4° Whether irregularity is incurred on account of a crime that is indeed external and consummated, but altogether occult?

Resp. More truly yes, says St. Alph.² The reason is that the Church, by reserving crimes, reserves even the most occult, provided they are subject to her jurisdiction, namely provided they are external, just as she imposed excommunication on entirely occult heresy, etc. It is proved further from cap. Liceat,³ where a faculty is furnished to Bishops of absolving from occult irregularities and censures.

Quaer. 5° How is irregularity removed?

Resp. It is removed in the following modes:

1° By dispensation: 1) of the Pope in every case, provided there is not present an impediment of natural law, or one which renders the exercise of Sacred Order impossible; 2) of Bishops and Regulars, if the irregularity comes from an occult delict, except directly voluntary homicide,⁴ but heresy is not excepted.⁵ But occult here comes in the same sense in which it is taken in impediments of Matrimony⁶ (n. 1564). Bishops, however, can use this faculty only toward their own subjects; nevertheless it does not matter whether these or even they are present in the diocese.⁷ For the other faculties of Bishops concerning irregularities, see n. 1144. I. 2° and 8°; 3) of any delegate according to the character of the faculty received. Faculties delegated to our Bishops, see p. LXX. n. 2, and p. LXXII. n. 3; but for Regular Prelates, as regards their own subjects, n. 1195. C). 5°.

2° Ordinarily by the cessation of the cause, e.g., when the required age arrives, if the irregularity comes from defect of age; likewise by change of domicile or of place, or by amendment, if it arises from infamy. Yet for infamy of law dispensation is required.¹ - I said: ordinarily; for in this way irregularity from delict does not cease, nor any whatever from defect, as for example from defect of lenity, of Sacrament, etc.²

3° Through the reception of Baptism irregularity from delict and from infamy of fact ceases.³ Whether also from infamy of law? See n. 1767. q. 2°.

4° Through religious Profession irregularity from defect of birth ceases, but only for receiving Orders, not, however, as regards dignities and prelacies.⁴

Quaer. 6° How is dispensation from irregularity made?

Resp. No form is found prescribed in Law; hence no determinate form must necessarily be employed. But it can be made by the following brief formula, or another equivalent one: "I dispense with you concerning the irregularity which you have incurred on account of ..." (such a cause), "in the name of the Father," etc., or "by the authority granted to me by the Holy Father," or "by the Bishop, I dispense with you," etc., "and I render and restore you able" for the execution of Orders, and of your offices, in the name of the Father," etc.; or, if he has no Order: "I render you able to receive all Orders." - Cf. Rit. Rom. de Sacr. Pen. tit. ult.

1° On irregularities from defect; 2° from delict.

Eight species of these are enumerated, namely from defect: 1° of mind; 2° of body; 3° of birth; 4° of age; 5° of liberty; 6° of Sacrament; 7° of lenity; 8° of reputation.

These defects, or rather the qualities opposed to them, are expressed by these verses:

Birth, mind, liberty, body and age,
Let him not be twice-married, let him be lenient, nor let evil fame mark him.

1758. - A threefold defect of mind is assigned, namely of reason, of knowledge, and of confirmed Faith.

1° Of reason. Hence the perpetually insane, lunatics, the furious, epileptics, and the possessed are irregular, even if they have lucid intervals. Nevertheless the exercise of Orders already received is permitted to them less with difficulty than the reception of new ones. This irregularity by law remains even when the illness has ceased and must be removed by dispensation of the Pontiff, unless the insanity, etc. came from a rather accidental cause, e.g., fever. S. C. C.¹ also defined that a Cleric who was once affected by mild epilepsy and then for many years gave no signs any more of the said illness is not irregular and can be promoted. But the exercise of Orders already received can be permitted by a Superior, if either sufficient time has already elapsed, so that the cessation of the illness can prudently be presumed (which we think must especially be decided from the judgment of a religious and pious physician), or the illness rushes in rarely and less violently. Hence they say that to an epileptic, who e.g. falls only once in a month without cry and foam, the celebration of Mass can be permitted, privately however and with a fasting priest joined to him, who, when the illness comes on, may complete the Mass.²

2° Of knowledge. Those are irregular who do not have the knowledge necessary for the individual Orders, whether in fact they do not know, or are incapable of learning. See n. 1523. q. 1°.

3° Of confirmed Faith. Neophytes baptized recently in adult age are irregular until they are judged worthy by the Bishop.³

1759. - This irregularity is incurred under a twofold head: 1° if someone is unfit for the exercise of the Order; 2° if he brings notable horror to others, or presents indecency. These things in doubt will have to be determined by the prudent estimation of the Bishop.⁴ - But S. C. C. shows itself more difficult in granting dispensations of this kind with an orator to be promoted to Orders than with one already promoted.¹

Hence the following are held as irregular:

1° The mutilated, those carrying a wooden leg, those lacking a hand, the three rear fingers, a thumb or index finger, or part of the thumb or index finger, or having these so weak that they cannot elevate or break the Host. Cf. however n. 1293. q. 1°.

2° The blind, or those so failing in sight that they cannot read in the Missal. Those already marked with the priesthood are dispensed by the Pontiff, under precautions.²

3° The deaf, who hear nothing, so that they cannot at all hear the voice of the responding minister, but not the hard of hearing. Deafness supervening on a priest does not impede celebration, since a defect is more easily tolerated in one promoted than in one to be promoted.³

4° The mute or stammering, who cannot pronounce whole words, or cannot except with great difficulty, so that they move the laughter or contempt of those standing by.

5° The lame, who cannot be supported at the altar without a staff.⁴ Cf. n. 1333. q. 2°.

6° Those lacking a nose, or having one enormously distorted, lowered, or prolonged.

7° The monstrous, e.g., those having an enormous hump, which induces great deformity, etc.

8° Black persons, "not however among their own, but among strangers," i.e., among men of white color, "where the disparity is a mockery," as Busembaum says in St. Alph., although, as the same Holy Doctor adds, others deny this. "But a swarthy" color (mulattoes), he says, "or red" (copper-colored, Indians) "does not injure the altar."⁵ (P) p. 412.

1760. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether one who lacks one eye is irregular?

Resp. 1° No, if he lacks only the right eye, because it is less necessary for the celebration of Mass, provided notable deformity does not arise from this.

Resp. 2° Yes, if he lacks the left eye, which is called the Eye of the Canon, because it is necessary for reading the Canon of the Mass. Except unless he can read the Canon with the right eye without deformity. But this must be subjected to the judgment of the Bishop.⁶

Quaer. 2° Whether he who, already promoted to the Priesthood, has an impeded thumb or index finger can celebrate and administer the Eucharist?

Resp. 1° No, as regards the celebration of Mass, according to the common opinion.¹

Resp. 2° No also of itself as regards the administration of the Eucharist, except in cases of gravest necessity, in which he can use other fingers. See n. 1293. q. 1°.

1761. - Defect of birth induces irregularity. It is established from Canon Law.² Hence:

1° Illegitimate persons, even occult ones, or all those who have been born from fornication, adultery, or incest, are irregular.

2° Those who have been born from a Matrimony which, the proclamations having been omitted without dispensation, was celebrated with a diriment impediment, even though unknown to the spouses.³

3° But the following are not irregular:

a) Those illegitimate at the time of their conception whose parents at that time (or, according to the opinion very probable to St. Alphonsus,⁴ only at the time of birth) were capable of contracting Matrimony, and afterward contracted, because by subsequent Matrimony they have been legitimated.⁵

b) Those illegitimately born from a public Matrimony, but one invalid because of an occult impediment unknown to at least one.⁶

c) Children born from infidels, whose Matrimony was valid according to nature (and, in the more common opinion, of which at n. 1574. q. 1°, according to their civil laws), although invalid according to Canon Law.

d) Foundlings, concerning whose parents there is no certainty.⁷

Quaer. How is irregularity from defect of birth removed?

Resp. It is removed: 1° by the legitimate subsequent Matrimony of the parents, as was just said; 2° by religious Profession for the effect declared at n. 1757. q. 5°. R. 4°; 3° by legitimate dispensation either of the Holy See, or, for the effects designated at n. 1144. I. 8°, of the Bishop.

1762. - 1° Those who have not reached the canonical age are held irregular.

2° Those who knowingly receive Orders before the canonical age sin gravely.

What age is required for the individual Orders, see n. 1523. q. 2°.

1763. - Defect of liberty arises from a threefold bond, namely from the bond of servitude, of Matrimony, and of office. Hence the following are irregular:

1° All slaves properly so called, until they obtain full liberty.

2° Married men, who cannot receive Orders except with the consent of the wife vowing chastity and entering Religion, at least if she is young, or unless, on account of the wife's adultery, a juridically made divorce has taken place. See n. 1521. 10°.

3° Those who from stipend or oath are implicated in secular affairs, as judges, magistrates, etc., as long as their office lasts, unless they have a special dispensation of the Pope,¹ or unless custom permits it.²

1764. - By defect of Sacrament in the present case is understood the Sacrament of Matrimony received more than once, or bigamy. It is clear from Canon Law that bigamists are irregular.³ But the reason of fittingness is that in bigamy the perfect signification of the union of Christ with the Church is lacking, which union is altogether simple and not multiple. But that was inferred from the Apostle:⁴ It behooves ... a Bishop ... to be the husband of one wife.

Bigamy by Canon Law is of three kinds, namely true, interpretative, and similitudinary bigamy.

1° True is had when someone validly marries several wives successively, and consummates Matrimony with each in the manner which was stated at n. 1589. 114.

2° Interpretative is that by which someone from the interpretation of law is held as a bigamist, although he has married only one wife. Such is: 1) one who married, even invalidly, and knew a widow who had been known by her prior husband; 2) one who married (according to St. Alph., even invalidly) and knew any woman corrupted by another, even if in good faith he thought her a virgin; 3) one who knows his own wife after adultery committed by her, even if unknown to him (as the common and truer opinion teaches), or even occult (according to the opinion which is more pleasing to St. Alph.¹); 4) one who contracts and consummates two Matrimonies, one valid, and the other invalid, although in good faith. Indeed, even if both Matrimonies were invalid, he who consummated both would become irregular. It is proved from various places of Canon Law.

3° Similitudinary, when someone attempts and consummates Matrimony after the solemn vow of Religion, or after Sacred Order received, although the Matrimony is null. The reason is that he is deservedly judged to have contracted two Matrimonies, the first spiritual with Christ, the second carnal with a woman.

1765. - All those contract irregularity from defect of lenity who voluntarily, actively, efficaciously (i.e., the effect having followed), and proximately concur in the death or mutilation of someone, although justly, through an action ordered by its nature to this.²

Resolves. - 1° Executioners, judges, and all who cooperate in a judgment of this kind either juridically, or (in which case irregularity from delict is incurred) unjustly and with sin, are irregular. Except: 1° coerced witnesses and, as indeed seems to me because of the same reason of coercion, jurors (n. 1056); 2° accusers asking compensation for their damages. - Therefore Clerics who assist at capital punishment without a sufficient cause, e.g., from curiosity, do not become irregular, provided they do not efficaciously influence the penalty; nevertheless, those constituted in Major Orders sin venially.

2° Physicians and surgeons are not irregular, even though they cut off members or hasten death by remedies given in good faith, unless grave negligence intervenes, in which case irregularity from delict arises.

3° Nor Clerics exercising medicine or surgery short of cutting and burning. Indeed, not even if in a case of necessity they employ cutting or burning; for necessity is governed by no law. Indeed, not even outside necessity, if the Clerics are not constituted in Sacred Orders, provided death or mutilation does not follow from grave fault.

4° Those who kill an aggressor in just defense are not irregular, because it is not judged a defect of lenity to defend one's own life, the moderation of blameless defense being observed, even with the death of an unjust aggressor.

5° Soldiers do not become irregular in a just defensive war, nor in a just offensive war, unless by their own hand they have killed or mutilated; but in an unjust war the whole army becomes irregular, even if only one man perishes.¹

1766. - Infamy is: 1° of fact, which is contracted before every sentence from an enormous and notorious crime, or one which is so evident to the greater part of the neighborhood or college (where there are at least ten), that it cannot be hidden by any tergiversation; 2° of law, which is contracted a) from the juridical confession of a crime infaming by force of ecclesiastical law or even civil law (which nevertheless can be admitted by the Church); b) from a judge's sentence declaratory of an infaming crime, or condemning to an infaming penalty.

1767. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What are the principal crimes to which infamy is annexed by law?

Resp. They are the following (provided they are notorious by fact or by law): homicide, perjury made in judgment, simony, sodomy, lenocinium, betrayal, adultery, exercise of usuries, invasion of Cardinals or Bishops, abduction of women, duel, preparation of arms against parents, etc.² Who are infamous from the crime of parents, see St. Alph.³

Quaer. 2° Whether the innocent are irregular who were condemned from false testimonies to infaming penalties?

Resp. Yes, until the sentence has been revoked, or they have obtained legitimate dispensation; the reason is that in fact they are infamous.

Irregularity from infamy of fact ceases both through Baptism and through notorious amendment persevering at least for three years, without dispensation; otherwise if there is question of infamy of law. The Salmanticenses, however, think it not improbable that this also is removed through Baptism.⁴

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

745. From receiving and exercising order the following are simply impeded, from can. 987:

1. "Sons of non-Catholics, as long as the parents remain in their error"; namely, descendants in the first degree (comm. int., July 14, 1922), from non-Catholic parents, namely, heretics or schismatics, even if only one is non-Catholic and although the marriage was contracted with dispensation (comm. int., Oct. 16, 1919). They dispute whether after the death of the non-Catholic parent the impediment remains.

2. "Men having a wife," although separated from her.

3. "Those who hold an office or administration forbidden to clerics (from can. 139) for which they must render accounts, until, the office and administration having been laid down and the accounts rendered, they have become free."

4. "Slaves by servitude properly so called, before accepted liberty."

5. "Those who by civil law are bound to ordinary military service, before they have completed it."

Ordinary military service probably is not that special service to which clerics are sometimes bound exclusively for caring for the sick and wounded, but military service in the proper sense of armed service: not indeed that which is required extraordinarily, perhaps when war has arisen, but that which those first called to military service must render for one or more years, although perhaps they will be called to it but in fact have not yet been called, either because they are unequal in age, or because, after an examination rightly completed, they have been declared temporarily unfit (comm. int., June 2, 1918).

6. "Neophytes until, in the judgment of the Ordinary, they have been sufficiently tested," as the Apostle already warns, I Tim. III, 6: neophytes are those who, converted to the faith in adult age, have recently received Baptism.

7. "Those who labor under infamy of fact, while it endures, in the judgment of the Ordinary," although they are innocent.

They are simply impeded:

1°. Children of acatholics, as long as the parents remain in their error;¹

2°. Men having a wife;

3°. Those who hold an office or administration forbidden to clerics, of which they ought to render accounts, until, the office and administration having been laid down and accounts rendered, they have been made free;

4°. Slaves, with slavery properly so called, before liberty has been received;

5°. Those who by civil law are bound to ordinary military service before they have completed it;

6°. Neophytes, until, by the judgment of the Ordinary, they have been sufficiently proved;

7°. Those who labor under infamy of fact, while it endures, by the judgment of the Ordinary (Can. 987).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1093, n. 26; p. 1106, n. 48.

These impediments are not perpetual; and when the causes have been removed, the obstacle to receiving ordination is removed in the various cases. In the first case a great change has been introduced; namely the impediment holds the children of acatholics as long as the parents remain in their error; it is no longer an irregularity, nor does the impediment proceed beyond the first degree. In the second case married men are impeded from ascending to Orders. In the third there is treatment of those who exercise functions prohibited to clerics, of which they ought to render accounts; but if the office is laid down and accounts are rendered, they become free and are no longer detained by the impediment; see the canon where some such functions are designated. - Cf. C. un., X. 1, 19. In the fourth are understood bondmen, slaves strictly so called, as long as they remain slaves. In the fifth there is treatment of a matter difficult in our days, of military service imposed by civil law; the impediment remains until the law is fulfilled.

Notes. - Pontifical Commission for Authentically Interpreting the Canons of the Code. Doubts resolved in the plenary meetings of the days 2-3 June 1918. On irregularities and other impediments. 1. Whether, according to the sense of canon 987, n. 5, those are impeded who perhaps will be called to military service, but in fact have not yet been called, either because they are unequal in age, or because, the examination having been rightly performed, they have been declared unfit for a time (Can. 987, n. 5). And insofar as negatively: 2. Whether the aforesaid can licitly be promoted not only to first tonsure and minor Orders, but also to major Orders, nevertheless observing, as long as this war shall endure, the Decree Ut jus certum.

Resp. To the 1st Affirmatively. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first. (A. A. S. An. X, n. 8 - 1 August 1918).

In the sixth are understood neophytes, namely those who in adult age have been converted to the faith.

Hardly do disciples with difficulty become teachers, such as priests ought to be. The judgment of sufficient probation belongs to the Ordinary. Finally in the seventh there is treatment of infamy of fact, which is contracted when someone, on account of a perpetrated delict or on account of depraved morals, has lost good estimation among upright and grave faithful, concerning which the judgment belongs to the Ordinary.

Ignorance of irregularities, whether from delict or from defect, and of impediments, does not excuse from the same (Can. 988).

In this matter also the new Code removed ambiguity. And indeed since a stain from some defect or delict is present, whether the subject in whom it is present knows or does not know the law concerning irregularity, the unworthiness of the ministry exercised by this man branded with such a stain is clearer than midday light. Wherefore ignorance of impediments or irregularities does not excuse from incurring them.

Irregularities and impediments are multiplied from diverse causes of the same, but not from repetition of the same cause, unless there is question of irregularity from voluntary homicide (Can. 989).

Titius, a judge, bore a sentence of death, procured abortion with the effect having followed, is the son of a heretic father still dwelling on the earth. There are two irregularities and one impediment. Namely there are diverse causes.

§ 1. It is permitted to Ordinaries, by themselves or through another, to dispense their subjects from all irregularities proceeding from occult delict, except that of which in can. 985, n. 4, or another brought to the judicial forum.

§ 2. The same faculty belongs to any confessor in more urgent occult cases in which the Ordinary cannot be approached and danger threatens of grave damage or infamy, but only for this, that the penitent may licitly be able to exercise orders already received (Can. 990).

Under the name of Ordinaries here come those who are designated in the law, Can. 198, § 1. The faculty itself of dispensing is conceded, not from irregularities from defect, but from all those arisen from occult delict, except the irregularity from voluntary homicide and procurement of abortion with the effect having followed, and an irregularity brought to the judicial forum. In an irregularity from defect, in an irregularity from public delict, in an irregularity from homicide and procurement of abortion with the effect having followed, the Ordinary can do nothing. He can also do nothing in an irregularity brought to the judicial forum. The same faculty belongs to any confessor under certain conditions: the case must be occult and more urgent; recourse to the Ordinary cannot be made; there is danger of infamy or of grave damage. Finally the penitent is dispensed only for the exercise of orders received.

§ 1. In petitions for dispensation from irregularities and impediments, all irregularities and impediments must be indicated; otherwise a general dispensation will indeed be valid also for those withheld in good faith, except those which are excepted in can. 990, § 1, but not for those withheld in bad faith.

§ 2. If there is question of irregularity from voluntary homicide, even the number of delicts must be expressed under penalty of nullity of the dispensation to be conceded.

§ 3. A general dispensation for orders is valid also for major orders; and the dispensed person can obtain non-consistorial benefices, even with cure, but cannot be announced as a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Bishop, Abbot or Prelate nullius, major Superior in an exempt clerical religion.

§ 4. A dispensation conceded in the internal non-sacramental forum is to be committed to writing; and it ought to be established concerning it in the secret book of the curia (Can. 991).

Whether marriages of this sort are held illicit for all, and because of their special malice those who have contracted them are prohibited from the clergy, or whether such men are kept from it only because of the propriety of the clerical order, just as bigamists are kept away, is not evident of itself from this canon. Yet if you consider other canons either of the same or of a very near age, you will easily understand to what this one tends. Cf. Canon LXI of Elvira below.

Canon I. It has seemed good that after this synod no one ... from among bigamists or husbands of women whose marriage has been interrupted (that is, of widows) can be ordained a cleric. Nor must it be asked whether, initiated in the divine sacraments or Gentiles, they have stained themselves with this necessity of an unhappy lot, since the form of the divine precept is chaste.

Decree VIII. He reproves bigamists advanced to the diaconate and Priesthood.

Canon I. It pleased the council concerning bigamists or husbands of women whose marriage has been interrupted that, although the statutes of the fathers have decreed otherwise, those who have been ordained up to this time, compassion having been had, retain only the name of the presbyterate or diaconate; but such deacons are not to presume the office of a presbyter in consecrating and ministering.

Chapter I. We command bigamous presbyters and deacons, and husbands of widows or repudiated women, to be separated, and, after penance has been completed, to return to their order. And those who are unwilling to dismiss illicit marriages ought to be degraded according to the institutes of the canon. But we command the separated women to be returned to their parents; and because they were not legitimate, if they wish, let it be lawful for them to be married.

Since the women are said not to be legitimate, it is clear that the discourse is about those who were accepted after orders had been received. Therefore, calling them bigamous, the Fathers are dealing with those presbyters and deacons who entered marriage twice and establish that at least the second marriage after ordination is no marriage; but concerning the first they decree something economically in chapter III. Cf. what we shall say under chapter III.

I. QUESTION I. What is irregularity, and what are its effects? ANSWER. It is a canonical impediment by which a baptized man is directly interdicted from the reception of Orders, and secondarily from their use. It is an impediment and not a penalty, that it may be distinguished from a censure, which supposes a fault. Canonical signifies that this impediment has been brought in by ecclesiastical right. A baptized man betrays that neither an unbeliever nor a woman lies subject to irregularity. The last particles again distinguish irregularity from censures.

II. There are three effects of irregularity: 1. It hinders the reception of Orders and of the first tonsure; 2. It deprives one of the use of all Orders if it be total, but of certain ones if it be partial; 3. It renders one unfit for receiving any benefice whatsoever if it be total: for if it be partial, very many contend that by it the reception of a benefice is not hindered whose duties the irregular man can perform. Irregularity supervening upon a benefice already obtained does not induce the privation of the same, but those who possess it can only be deprived by a judge's sentence.

III. QUESTION II. Of how many kinds is irregularity? ANSWER. There are two kinds of irregularities. One from defect, the other from delict. From defect nine are numbered: 1. From defect of soul; 2. From defect of body; 3. From defect of birth; 4. From defect of age; 5. From defect of liberty; 6. From defect of obligation; 7. From defect of sacrament; 8. From defect of good repute; 9. From defect of lenity.

IV. Irregularity from delict is eightfold: 1. From voluntary and unjust homicide; 2. From unjust and voluntary mutilation; 3. From casual homicide or mutilation; 4. From the iteration of Baptism; 5. From the violation of censures; 6. From the unworthy reception or administration of Orders; 7. From apostasy from the faith, or from external heresy; 8. From a delict to which infamy is annexed. It is divided also into total and partial. The former deprives one of every Order to be received and of the exercise of an Order received, as is that which is contracted from homicide. The latter deprives one of some exercise of an Order only, as if a priest's thumb be cut off, he cannot celebrate, but he can hear confessions. Similarly a deacon deprived of a thumb is unfit for the priesthood, but fit for the office of deacon.

V. A delict inducing irregularity must be an external mortal sin, since a most grave penalty cannot be contracted save for a grave delict. Nor does it matter that it be occult. There are excepted nevertheless delicts to which infamy and notoriety are annexed, which if they were occult do not induce irregularity. But other delicts — as voluntary homicide, heresy, the iteration of Baptism, the violation of a censure by the exercise of an Order — beget irregularity even when occult. Concerning occult homicide there is no dispute.

VI. QUESTION III. What things excuse from contracting irregularity from delict? ANSWER. All those things which excuse from mortal sin, as ignorance, inadvertence, grave fear, and so forth. Doubt does not excuse, as is had in chapter Ad audientiam, title on homicide: Since in doubtful matters we ought always to choose the safer part, it befits us to enjoin upon the aforesaid presbyter that he minister not in sacred Orders. Here there is no distinction of a doubt of right or of fact.

VII. QUESTION IV. Whether irregularity from delict be taken away by Baptism, by religious profession, or by dispensation? ANSWER. Irregularity from delict ceases through Baptism. That it ceases also through religious profession the common opinion affirms. Lastly that it ceases through dispensation all confess. The Supreme Pontiff for a just cause can dispense from any irregularity whatsoever. He who is entangled in several irregularities of diverse species ought in seeking a dispensation to express them all; if they be of the same species, he ought to manifest that he has contracted these irregularities several times.

VIII. Besides the Supreme Pontiff, bishops with their own subjects, and regular Prelates with their own, can dispense from irregularities from an occult delict which has not been brought to the contentious forum, homicide excepted, as the common opinion teaches.

IX. QUESTION V. What is required that a man contract irregularity from voluntary homicide? ANSWER. That homicide is called directly voluntary which is perpetrated with a direct will of killing, whence death necessarily follows, as if a deadly wound be inflicted, if poison be given, and so forth. He who directly posits like causes is called a voluntary homicide. Hence it follows that he who kills an assailant in defending himself with the moderation of a blameless defence does not incur the irregularity of directly voluntary homicide. But it is required that death follow, that the said irregularity be contracted. Wherefore even if a mortal wound be inflicted, or poison be given, if death do not follow, irregularity is not incurred. The Salmanticenses, chapter 8, no. 4, add that he who after a mortal wound or the giving of poison should repent of the delict does not incur irregularity in the forum of conscience. But this opinion to me is false.

X. The Salmanticenses with others also deny, no. 6, that he who kills a man in a sudden brawl incurs the irregularity reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. But the more probable opinion affirms it. And this irregularity is incurred also by those commanding, counselling, and so forth, as has already been said above.

XI. That the Supreme Pontiff can dispense from this irregularity all confess, yet from a most grave and most singular cause, on account of the highest unseemliness which such a delict bears. That bishops cannot absolve from this irregularity Trent established. That regular Prelates can dispense from this irregularity, if the homicide be occult, the Salmanticenses teach, no. 17, pontifical privileges being adduced; but these privileges are to me suspect.

XII. This irregularity is contracted also by the mutilation of some member of the body, as if a man should pluck out an eye, cut off an ear, a foot, or any part whatsoever which has a distinct office in the body. He who out of anger should cut off his own finger, or another part lacking an office, or should basely deform himself, would become irregular; otherwise if he did this in another, as is had in chapter Quidam, and so forth. He who should so weaken some member that it remained dead — it is the more probable that he would incur irregularity. From this irregularity, when occult and not brought to the contentious forum, bishops can dispense.

XIII. QUESTION VI. When is irregularity contracted from casual homicide or mutilation? ANSWER. That homicide is casual which happens beyond the intention of the slayer, both direct and indirect; and then, just as the slayer is immune from fault, so he is from irregularity: and the same is of mutilation. But he who posits a cause whence he foresees, or is bound to foresee, homicide or mutilation, becomes irregular. He who does a lawful work, and employs all diligence lest homicide or mutilation follow, would not then become irregular, even if homicide or mutilation happen. But if that action in some way flowed into the homicide or mutilation, it would not now be good and lawful; and if the actor were negligent in guarding against the effect, he would become irregular, unless the negligence were light. Hence if a master should strike a disciple, or a father a son, only lightly, he would not become irregular, even if death or mutilation supervened beyond his intention. The same is to be said of him who should ride a fierce horse, if the killing of a boy should happen; or of one ringing bells, if the clapper should fall and kill a man; or of a keeper of a wild beast breaking its bonds and killing a man. Nor does a physician become irregular if a sick man die without his grave negligence.

XIV. He who gives his labour to an unlawful thing, whence death comes about, becomes irregular; but if the thing be unlawful and brings by its own nature no danger of death, he would not become irregular, provided there were no negligence in guarding against the effect. He who is bound by office to hinder a killing or a mutilation, if he omit it by a mortal fault against justice, becomes according to the more probable opinion irregular: because he who omits to defend him whom out of justice he was bound to defend is a true homicide, for he morally concurs to such a death; otherwise he who is bound only out of charity.

XV. QUESTION VII. When is irregularity contracted from homicide or mutilation by cause of defence against an unjust assailant? ANSWER. He who kills an unjust assailant, exceeding mortally the mode of a blameless defence, becomes irregular. On the contrary those who observe the moderation are immune from irregularity, just as from fault. Similarly defenders of this kind do not contract irregularity if they observe the moderation for the avoiding of a grave wound; otherwise if the wound which is feared were light. But then a defender is seen to observe the moderation of a blameless defence when the one assailed can by no other way — neither by entreaties, nor by flight, nor by clamour — decline death or a grave wound. For if by these ways he could decline death or a grave wound, he would not observe the necessary moderation.

XVI. He who steals, or perpetrates adultery, being caught in the delict and assailed by the master or the husband, if to defend himself he kill the husband or the master, incurs irregularity, because he gives his labour to an unlawful thing, and the homicide is voluntary in its cause. So affirms the more probable and true opinion.

XVII. From the iteration of Baptism, but not of Confirmation, irregularity is incurred. This irregularity is incurred by the one rebaptized, by the one rebaptizing, by one ministering to the one rebaptizing, and by him who outside necessity permits himself to be baptized by a heretic. This irregularity hinders ascent to other Orders, but not ministering in those received, as the common opinion teaches. Very many nevertheless require for the contracting of this irregularity a solemn rebaptism, and say that a private one does not suffice.

XVIII. Those entangled in the greater excommunication, those suspended, those interdicted personally or in an interdicted place, who exercise an act of a major Order, become irregular. But he who is suspended from one Order, and exercises the office of another Order from which he is not suspended, does not become irregular. From the said irregularity when occult a bishop can dispense, and similarly regular Prelates can absolve their own subjects.

XIX. Those who receive sacred Orders by stealth — for instance without examination and approbation; those who on the same day receive several Orders, of which one is sacred, without a dispensation; those who after matrimony contracted, even before consummation, receive a sacred Order, the wife resisting — incur irregularity. Similarly clerics become irregular who usurp a sacred Order which they have not, and knowingly minister in it with the solemn rite.

XX. Irregularity is also contracted from a delict to which infamy is annexed, as are in clerics perjury with false testimony in judgment, sodomy, and simony: which crimes, if they be notorious, induce irregularity.

XXI. From an office likewise irregularity is contracted, as from the profession of a stage-player: for stage-players are infamous, as is had from chapter Definimus, cause 4, question 1, and from laws 1 and 2 on those who are noted with infamy. Very many teach that the offices of executioners, of lictors, and of butchers also have infamy annexed; and in fact in the common estimation of men those offices labour under infamy.

XXII. Infamy which arises from a personal delict is taken away by an amendment which is as notorious as the deed which begot the infamy. But infamy of right is not taken away by amendment, but by dispensation. The Supreme Pontiff for a just cause can dispense from this irregularity. But infamy which has been induced by a judge's decree can be taken away by his dispensation or by a superior's. That regular Prelates can dispense from this irregularity, whether before or after entrance into Religion, authors commonly teach.

XXIII. QUESTION VIII. What are the irregularities from defect of soul? ANSWER. Three, namely defect of reason, of knowledge, and of faith. Boys before the use of reason, the demented, the possessed, the furious, lunatics, epileptics, and those who are seized by the falling sickness unexpectedly, are excluded from sacred Orders. Defect of knowledge is an impediment to receiving sacred Orders, from which not even the Supreme Pontiff can dispense. By industry and study alone can it be taken away. Irregular from defect of faith are the sons of heretics whose parents are irregular from delict.

XXIV. QUESTION IX. What are the defects of body which beget irregularity? ANSWER. Those who lack an arm or a hand; a presbyter who lacks two fingers with half the palm, if the fingers be the thumb and index; likewise those who lack the light of the left eye, and those who lack all hearing, are reputed irregular. If nevertheless privation of hearing supervene, it is not reputed an impediment. If the light of the right eye can supply the defect of the left, it is not reputed an impediment. Defects which beget a notable deformity induce irregularity, as the privation of an eye, of the nose, of a foot; or those having eyes too deformed, labouring under excessive weakness of body, a hump, leprosy, or the French disease, are held irregular. But here all things are permitted to the judgment of the bishop. Eunuchs and hermaphrodites, even occult ones, are irregular. All the illegitimate, whether bastards, or spurious, or incestuous, or sacrilegious, are irregular. Those nevertheless born of a matrimony contracted in good faith in the face of the Church, but void on account of some occult impediment, are not held irregular, as is gathered from chapter Cum inter, and so forth. It is to be said otherwise if the matrimony were contracted in bad faith.

XXV. This irregularity ceases: 1. Through a subsequent matrimony; 2. Through absolute legitimation; 3. Through a dispensation which the Supreme Pontiff alone can impart.

XXVI. QUESTION X. Who are called irregular from defect of liberty, of age, and of obligation? ANSWER. Bondmen or slaves are irregular so long as they dwell in the state of servitude. If a slave, with his master knowing and not contradicting, receive Orders or even the first tonsure, he becomes free; but if he do it with his master contradicting or unknowing, he sins mortally, and remains a slave. If a bishop conscious of the servitude confer major Orders, he is bound to satisfy the master. Of defect of age it has been said above. Defect of obligation is when a man is bound to render accounts, or is found implicated in …

… secular businesses by office, as courtiers, soldiers, and so forth, until they free themselves from such an obligation.

XXVII. QUESTION XI. What is irregularity from defect of sacrament? ANSWER. It is that which arises from bigamy, or from matrimony contracted several times. A threefold bigamy is distinguished: true, interpretative, and similitudinary. True is when a man has had several lawful wives successively. Another species of bigamy is called interpretative, which, although it be not true, is so named from a fiction of law, and is contracted in four ways: 1. When a man contracts two marriages, one valid, the other void; 2. When a man contracts two marriages in fact void; 3. When a man has married a widow, or one corrupted by another; 4. When a man has married a virgin who after the nuptials committed adultery, and nevertheless after the adultery he knew her. He who married a corrupt woman thinking her in good faith to be a virgin becomes, according to the more probable opinion, irregular. The third species of bigamy is called similitudinary, which a man contracts when after solemn profession, or after a sacred Order received, he contracts matrimony, whether with a virgin or with a corrupt woman.

XXVIII. Bigamy is called a defect of sacrament, because it does not represent the union of Christ with the Church. Bigamists are reputed irregular both on account of incontinence, and on account of the division of affection which they transfer from a deceased wife to another, and on account of the defect of sacrament. From this impediment the Supreme Pontiff can dispense, but not bishops.

XXIX. QUESTION XII. How is irregularity contracted from defect of lenity? ANSWER. A baptized man, but not an unbeliever, becomes irregular if he voluntarily and proximately concurs to the death or mutilation of his neighbour, from defect of lenity. Hence irregular are judges passing sentence, assessors of judges, fiscal promoters, procurators, officers, apprehenders, accusers, advocates, denouncers, and necessary and voluntary witnesses, when by force of such actions the accused is killed; but not those who testify in favour of the accused. Temporal and ecclesiastical lords do not become irregular when, having jurisdiction, they commit causes of blood to others, and admonish that their ministers be vigilant against malefactors and punish them according to the laws. Ecclesiastical judges delivering the degraded to the secular arm, entreating that they treat them kindly, do not become irregular; nor clerics consulted by a judge, if they answer that such a delict is to be struck by the laws with the penalty of death. The same is to be said of confessors, who can deny absolution to a judge unwilling to punish malefactors according to the laws.

XXX. Those who fight in a just war by public authority against enemies, if with their own hands they kill or mutilate, become irregular. But the rest of the soldiers in such a just war assisting at the battle, who kill or mutilate no one with their own hands, do not become irregular, as all commonly confess. If the war be unjust, and someone be killed or mutilated, all become irregular, because all concur to the unjust slaying. That a soldier defending himself in a just war with the moderation of a blameless defence does not become irregular very many teach, because this defence is to him just. Physicians and surgeons who according to the rules of their own art amputate a member do not become irregular. Clerics and monks exercising the art of medicine and surgery become irregular from defect of lenity if they amputate some member, because these arts are forbidden them, with cutting and cauterizing. They can nevertheless open a vein for the diminishing of blood without becoming irregular. The Church deservedly removes men from sacred Orders on account of defect of lenity, because meekness and lenity is a prerogative and character of the Priesthood of Christ, who as a meek lamb came into the world sent by the Father. Bishops cannot dispense from irregularity from defect of lenity, even if it be occult, as the more probable opinion defends. He who desires more, let him read the canonists and moralists, who have compiled thick and great volumes upon this argument.

I repeat what I have indicated elsewhere, namely that all desire that superiors would recall to a mature examination the multitude of excommunications and censures, and would restrict them to that small number which their wisdom should judge more consonant. This is certain to all the wise, that a multitude of precepts is by no means fit for coercing the malice of men. St. Augustine adverts, epistle 118 to Januarius, that our Lord Jesus Christ, as he himself speaks in the Gospel, has subjected us to a light yoke and a light burden; whence with sacraments very few in number, most excellent in signification, he has bound together the society of the new people. More fully in epistle 119 to the same Januarius he suggests that the precepts of the Church are to be cut back, in these words: Without any doubt I reckon that they are to be cut away. For although neither could this be found how they are against the faith, yet they press down with servile burdens Religion itself, which the mercy of God willed to be free with most few and most manifest celebrations of sacraments, so that the condition of the Jews is more tolerable, who, even if they have not acknowledged the time of liberty, are nevertheless subjected to legal burdens, not to human presumptions. But the Church of God, constituted amid much chaff and much cockle, tolerates many things; and yet those things which are against the faith or against a good life she does not approve, nor keep silence about, nor foster.

Caius, a physician, renounced the vanities of the world in order to enter a religious Order. Having become a priest, when he is called to the sick he does not hesitate to prescribe remedies suited to bodily diseases, so that not rarely he heals both the souls and the bodies of sick parishioners. Given the opportunity he also does the same for members of the household; indeed, once, in someone’s sudden danger, he amputated an arm. Nevertheless, a doubt occurs to other religious of the same Order whether all these things are lawful for priests. Hence it is asked:

1. Whether and to what extent are the medical and surgical arts prohibited to clerics?

2. Whether and how could a priest exercising those arts incur irregularity?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are clerics forbidden to practise medicine and surgery, and how far?

According to the common opinion clerics are forbidden to practise medicine and surgery without an indult of the Holy See. Some, however, restrict the prohibition to studying medicine and surgery, and practising surgery.

1 Génicot, vol. ii, n. 36.

2. If a priest practised medicine and surgery could he become irregular and how?

He would become irregular if death followed from his performing a surgical operation which he is forbidden to do.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, lib. vii, 384.

3. The case. Caius had better restrict himself as a general rule to looking after the souls of his parishioners, and leaving the practice of medicine to lay doctors. Some religious Orders have a privilege of allowing their members who have studied medicine to prescribe for the sick where there are not suitable lay doctors. In the supposition that the case was one of necessity Caius was justified in amputating the arm, and as he did not commit sin by doing this, neither did he incur irregularity.²

2 Ibid., viii, n. 384.

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.

On August 14, 1893, the Chancery of Venice submitted the following case to Rome: Among the alumni who are to receive ordination as subdeacons there is one Antonio Saccordo, born 1872, who has distinguished himself in an especial manner by talent, piety, and proficiency in studies. However, he has suffered since early youth from nervous attacks which, according to season and other conditions, make their appearance with longer or shorter intervals. When seized by such an attack the patient suddenly halts for about a minute and in silence, restrained by an affliction of the nerves, without however falling to the floor; he feels the approach of attacks, and then quickly endeavors to take firm hold of a person or other support; he rapidly rallies of his own accord, and can then, without the aid of drugs or refreshments, proceed with his usual occupation.

These attacks are not accompanied by grinding of teeth, foaming, groaning or screaming, though there is at times slight trembling. As there seemed to be no serious affliction, the young man had been given the Ordines minores; but before bestowing subdeacon’s orders, the ordinary desired the instructions of the Sacred Congregation. The advice of competent persons had been obtained, but their opinions varied. It is mentioned that the sufferer has for many years used a cold-water cure, but, apparently, without improvement. To this statement of facts was adduced the statement of a prominent physician, who stated it as his professional opinion that this alumnus may, without apprehension, be admitted to Holy Orders.

The S. C. answered Pro nunc non expedire. After two years, in 1895, the newly appointed Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Sarto (now Pius X.) again applied to Rome, proposing that ad cautelam an assistant be given the Alumnus for holy Mass. Rome ordered that a new medical examination be made. It resulted favorably, and under date of September 12, 1896, the S. C. granted Pro gratia, arbitrio et prudentia Emi Patriarchae, adhibitis cautelis sibi benevisis, facto verbo cum SSmo.

This case shows how carefully, even rigidly, Rome proceeds in regard to irregularity.

A similar case occurred in the year 1866, under almost identical circumstances. An alumnus suffering from epilepsy had attacks every four or five months, either at night or about an hour after rising. According to physicians’ opinion these attacks were not likely to occur during the day; moreover, they were not due to an organic trouble, but entirely the result of the unrest of mind from which the alumnus suffered at that time. Nevertheless, the S. C. replied to the first petition: Pro nunc non expedire. The following year the alumnus, endorsed by bishop and physician, appealed again to Rome and was again refused, with the instruction: Let it be deferred, and let him have recourse again after six months, when a report has also been furnished by another physician to be appointed by the bishop. The subsequent medical opinion was equally favorable, and, finally, under date of January 11, 1868, the answer came: Pro gratia dispensationis et habilitationis, facto verbo cum SSmo.

Father Alexius, an order priest, had the misfortune, on the first Sunday of Lent, to injure the index finger of his right hand so badly that the nail was entirely torn off. It was a matter of weeks, even months, before a new nail would form, and until then the finger had to remain bandaged. Father Alexius was about to resign himself to the sad necessity of abstaining from saying Mass, when the thought occurred to him: Is it really forbidden to use, in case of necessity, the middle finger in place of the index finger, in saying Mass? After some thought and recourse to manuals of Moral Theology, Father Alexius, with the approval of his local superior, continued to celebrate his daily Mass, the middle finger, not without difficulty, doing service in place of the index finger.

True, the rubrics explicitly require the priest, at holy Mass as well as in distributing holy Communion, to hold the form of bread invariably with thumb and index finger—pollice et indice. Nevertheless, the fact that this, as the convenient and natural way of handling, is prescribed, does not mean that holy Mass should be omitted rather than employ another finger. The rubrics prescribe many other motions in an exact manner; nevertheless, if on account of some hindrance on a particular occasion a certain motion could not be made in the exact way, one would without hesitation do the best one could.

Or, is there a particular significance in the use of the index finger, such as, for instance, in the fast before holy Communion, or a ratio mystica, as in mixing the wine with water? What particular significance could there be?

If it be objected that thumb and forefinger have been specially anointed for this purpose at ordination, it should be remembered that the whole palm of the hand is anointed together with the other fingers. The anointing of these two fingers is performed not as if they alone were anointed, but upon the thumb is begun the one and upon the index finger the other arm of the cross to be made upon the palm of the hand. Hence, it is hard to understand why St. Alphonsus and some others, who have in mind this supposedly special office of these two fingers, will not permit distribution of holy Communion with other fingers except in cases of extreme necessity.

Take the case of a deacon, for instance, none of his fingers are anointed, and yet on occasion of even slight need he may distribute holy Communion. Ballerini (Opus theol. morale, tom. IV., p. 640) says on this subject: On other occasions indeed they permit a layman (in necessity) to carry it or lift it from the ground; they permit the Eucharist to be sought for a reasonable cause from an excommunicated person or a sinner; and now they dispute about a finger!

To the objection whatever prevents the reception of an order prevents the exercise of that order. But he who has those fingers disabled is prevented from receiving the order, the same author replies: Reply. (1) I deny the antecedent; for many things befall a priest which do not prevent exercise, but which would nevertheless have prevented reception.

(2) One must judge differently concerning an antecedent and perpetual impediment, when the honor of divine worship requires that perfect and unblemished men be chosen; differently concerning an accidental impediment that occurs afterward.

(3) It is falsely supposed that whatever is prescribed has the same gravity; for the necessity of all the things required is not the same. Therefore a lesser, sometimes a very slight, cause excuses from some of them.

These answers cover partly the objection of irregularity. In our case it is irregularity in the general sense, the prohibition to execute the ordo which one can either not perform at all, or not with propriety. Even St. Alphonsus here advises: Continuat. And Tournely observes: If anyone lacks an index finger, he will be able to obtain a dispensation. And Palmieri holds (Op. mor. tom. VII., p. 375): Nor does there appear to be any difficulty in granting it, since the middle finger can perform just as much as the index finger in the sacred action. Yes, more: What reason could there be for doubting whether such a person is truly irregular? Nor is there any certain canon.

In fact, c. 7, de corpore vitiatis, refers to some one who lacks the thumb-nail, much needed for breaking the Host, and yet permits his promotio ad sacerdotium, provided the thumb is otherwise strong.

According to all this a dispensation, or special permission, to celebrate with the middle instead of the index finger is not even required. Even though only the Pope can dispense from the rubrics of the Mass, the principle that may be applied here is: Lex positiva non obligat cum incommodo proportionate gravi (here also mediocri).

To this view a Roman decision seems to be opposed which Gardellini-Mühlbauer quotes under the head Sacerdos digitis laborans. A priest of the diocese of Treves injured his index finger so badly that it became forever useless for celebrating Mass. His bishop appealed to Rome for dispensation with an array of important reasons, such as the priest’s worthiness, the prevailing lack of priests, etc., whereupon the Congregation granted: It rescripted in favor of the dispensation and habilitation according to the Bishop’s recommendation, after the matter had been discussed with His Holiness (26 Jan., 1861). That in this case the index finger was forever, and in our case only temporarily, unavailable, is for our question unimportant, the question before us, namely, whether while the impediment of the index finger remains it be allowed to celebrate with the middle finger, without formal dispensation. That a dispensation has on some occasions been granted does not prove that such dispensation is required, nor the need of applying for it, since in numerous instances Rome is unnecessarily petitioned without always eliciting the familiar Et amplius (ne proponatur). And the fact that a permission is given by high authority does not mean that this permission could not have been granted by a lesser authority. Concerning Father Alexius, he found, moreover, to his entire satisfaction, that through the communication of privileges in his Order the local superior is fer. II., post I. Dominicam Quadragesimae authorized to grant dispensation from any irregularities in his subjects, The superior had given his consent that Sunday evening, without giving thought to this particular faculty; his intention continued virtute on Monday, and should a dispensation be required this would suffice completely, according to quantum possum et tu indiges, which intention, without doubt, prevailed here. Joseph Schellauf, S.J.

George, a Catholic student, Ritus latini, joined the schismatical Greek Church with the intention of receiving Holy Orders in it. The schismatical pope, who admitted him to this church, regarded the Latin baptism as invalid, being per infusionem and not per immersionem. Consequently George was rebaptized according to the Greek ritual and at the same time received the Sacrament of confirmation, the Chrismatio frontis, which generally accompanies baptism in the Eastern Churches.

Some time afterwards George repented of his errors and sought to be reconciled with the Catholic Church. He was in retreat for several days and then, having made his professio orthodoxae fidei, a priest possessing the requisite faculties gave him absolution and released him ab excommunicatione. George now wishes to become a priest. Is this possible? He has been guilty of

1. The delictum of joining the Greek schism.

2. The delictum of absolute repetition of baptism.

3. The delictum of repetition of confirmation.

1. Joining any schismatical body involves apostasia a fide, at least if the primatus jurisdictionis of the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the chief of the apostles, be denied. Although a schisma purum not connected with any heresy does not involve this irregularity, it is involved by schism connected with heresy. Is the Greek schism a schisma purum? By no means, for it includes various heresies;—denial of the primatus jurisdictionis Romani Pontificis totius Ecclesiae, which was defined in opposition to the schismatical Greeks at the second Council of Lyons in 1274, and at Florence in 1439. Moreover, since the time of Photius the Orientals have rejected the procession of the Holy Ghost ex Patre Filioque, which was expressly defined at the Council of Florence in the decree " Laetentur coeli." The Council added: "We define, furthermore, that the explanation Filioque was lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed for the sake of declaring the truth and because necessity was then pressing."

The same Council defined the existence of Purgatory and declared that the suffrages of holy Church benefit the poor souls detained there; the schismatic Greeks deny in theory the existence of any place of purification, although in practise they offer works of satisfaction, Masses and prayers for the dead, showing in this respect great inconsistency. We cannot therefore acquit them of heresy, and George is irregular ex apostasiae delicto ad schisma mixtum.

2. He is irregular also ex abusu iterati baptismi absolute recepti. On the occasion of the final schism, due to the action of Michael Caerularius in 1053, the Cardinal legate Humbert complained that persons who had received Catholic baptism were rebaptized by the heretics, who acted like the Arians with regard to those already baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity. (Hergenrother, Photius III., pp. 749, 758.) The Greeks have continued this practise down to the present time, because Latin baptism is per infusionem and not per immersionem.

Therefore George consented to an abusus iterationis baptismi, in injuriam prioris baptismi et fidei factus. An absoluta iteratio baptismi certo valide collati causes a decided irregularity in the rebaptized person. Moreover, this unconditional rebaptism was administered by a minister schismatico-haereticus (c. 10, C. 1, qu. 7; c. 118, D. IV. de consecr.). These rules are still in force according to the present discipline of the Church—and a rebaptism of this kind presupposes heresy.

N. B. The members of the Eastern Churches seem now to take a more favorable view of the validity of Latin baptism, as in 1883 a Didache (Doctrina) was issued containing (cap. VII.) the words: "Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you do not have living water, baptize in other water; if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

3. The schismatical pope who rebaptized George also confirmed him by anointing him with chrism on his forehead and saying: " The seal of the + gift of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Confirmation is generally administered immediately after baptism among the Greeks, and since the Fifth or Sixth Century both Sacraments have been administered by priests, who receive the necessary authorization from their Bishop, as well as the consecrated chrism (μύρον). The Greek Euchologium (Ritual) appends to the order of baptism the short formula: σφραγὶς δωρεᾶς + πνεύματος ἁγίου.